Pettit v. City of Springfield et al
Filing
19
OPINION BY SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge: The Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II (d/e 13 ) filed by Defendants Kenny Winslow, Christopher Mueller, and Gregory Williamson is GRANTED. Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED W ITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson, who are dismissed as defendants in this case because there remain no claims pending against them. Plaintiff's sole remaining claim in this case is his race discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against Defendant City of Springfield, Illinois. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered on 7/21/2017. (MJC, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 24 July, 2017 10:34:46 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LOREN D. PETTIT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, )
a municipal corporation, KENNY )
WINSLOW, Chief of the
)
Springfield Police Department,
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity, LIEUTENANT
)
CHRISTOPHER MUELLER,
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity, and LIEUTENANT
)
GREGORY WILLIAMSON,
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 16-cv-03075
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Now before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment on
Count II (d/e 13) filed by Defendants Kenny Winslow, Christopher
Mueller, and Gregory Williamson. The motion is GRANTED. The
undisputed material facts regarding Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendants Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson brought pursuant to
Page 1 of 8
42 U.S.C. § 1983 establish that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a three-count Complaint
against Defendants. Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint—the focus of
the motion for summary judgment—asserts claims brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, presumably based on an unauthorized search of
Plaintiff’s residence in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments. On February 22, 2017, the Court
entered an Order dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s § 1983
claim against Defendant City of Springfield, Illinois. Defendants
Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson now move for summary judgment
on Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations because
the search on which Plaintiff bases the claims took place on
November 14, 2013, more than two years before Plaintiff filed his
Complaint.
II. FACTS
Despite having received a requested extension from the Court
to respond to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has not,
Page 2 of 8
as of this date, filed a response to the motion. Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to the motion for summary judgment is deemed an
admission of the motion. CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(2); see also Smith v.
Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (“We have consistently
held that a failure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by
the local rules results in an admission.”). Accordingly, the only
factual allegations from Plaintiff’s Complaint that the Court will
analyze in ruling on the motion for summary judgment are those
adopted by Defendants Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson in the
motion. Further, the Court sets forth only those facts relevant to its
determination as to whether a genuine dispute of material fact
exists with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants
Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson.
On November 14, 2013, Monica Johnson filed a domestic
battery charge against Plaintiff. Mueller Aff. (d/e 13-1), ¶¶ 3-4. On
that same date, Defendant Winslow, the Chief of Police for the
Springfield Police Department, informed Plaintiff, an officer with the
Springfield Police Department, that Plaintiff was being temporarily
suspended and placed on administrative assignment pending the
Page 3 of 8
completion of an internal affairs investigation. Complaint (d/e 1),
¶¶ 9-10.
As part of the internal affairs investigation, Defendant Mueller,
then an investigator with the Internal Affairs division of the
Springfield Police Department, searched1 Plaintiff’s residence in
Springfield, Illinois, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.
Complaint, ¶ 11; Mueller Aff., ¶¶ 3, 6, 9-10. Defendant Winslow
authorized the search of Plaintiff’s residence, a search for which no
warrant had been issued. Complaint, ¶ 11. The actions of
Defendants Winslow and Mueller were taken within the scope of
their employment with the Springfield Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 45, 7. Defendant Williamson, another investigator with the Internal
Affairs division of the Springfield Police Department, was not
present for the search of Plaintiff’s residence on November 14,
2013, and at no time subsequent to that date did Defendant
The motion for summary judgment contains contradictory facts regarding
whether Defendant Mueller actually searched Plaintiff’s residence. Compare
Mueller Aff. ¶¶ 10-11, with Mot. for Summ. Judg. (d/e 13), p. 2 ¶¶ 6-9. Due to
these contradictory facts, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion, while
construed as an admission of the motion, see CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(2), does not
require the Court to accept that no search of Plaintiff’s residence occurred. See
Perez v. Thorntons, Inc., 731 F.3d 699, 706 (7th Cir. 2013).
1
Page 4 of 8
Williamson search Plaintiff’s residence. Williamson Aff. (d/e 13-2),
¶¶ 3, 5-6.
III. JURISDICTION
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s §
1983 claims because they are based on federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”). Venue is proper in this district because the events
giving rise to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims occurred here. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2) (stating that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred”).
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that no
genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of
the basis for the motion and identifying the evidence the movant
believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A genuine
Page 5 of 8
dispute of material fact exists if a reasonable trier of fact could find
in favor of the nonmoving party. Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561,
564 (7th Cir. 2012). When ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, the Court must construe facts in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in the
nonmoving party’s favor. Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545, 550
(7th Cir. 2008). A party opposing a summary judgment motion may
not rely solely upon the allegations in his pleading, but must “set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., 772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014).
V. ANALYSIS
The Court notes briefly that Plaintiff’s admission of the facts
set forth in the motion for summary judgment does not necessarily
make a grant of summary judgment appropriate. Indeed, the Court
must still find that Defendants Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Wienco, Inc. v.
Katahn Assocs., Inc., 965 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1992). Because
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are time-barred, Defendants Winslow,
Mueller, and Williamson are indeed entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on those claims.
Page 6 of 8
The statute of limitations applicable to claims brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arising out of conduct in Illinois
is two years. Rosado v. Gonzalez, 832 F.3d 714, 716 (7th Cir. 2016)
(citing 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202; Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.
384, 387 (2007)). A Fourth Amendment claim brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 “accrues at the time of the search or seizure.”
Neita v. City of Chicago, 830 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 2016).
The search of Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant Mueller took
place on November 14, 2013. Therefore, Plaintiff had until
November 14, 2015, to assert his § 1983 claims based on the
search. However, Plaintiff did not file his Complaint until March
16, 2016, more than four months after the statute of limitations
had run. And there are no facts before the Court indicating that
the statute of limitations was tolled for any length of time.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants Winslow,
Mueller, and Williamson are untimely, making summary judgment
in favor of Defendants Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson on these
claims appropriate. Further, regardless of whether Plaintiff’s §
1983 claim against Defendant Williamson was timely, Defendant
Williamson would still be entitled to summary judgment, as the
Page 7 of 8
undisputed material facts of this case indicate that he had no
involvement with the search of Plaintiff’s residence on November 14,
2013.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Motion for Summary Judgment on
Count II (d/e 13) filed by Defendants Kenny Winslow, Christopher
Mueller, and Gregory Williamson is GRANTED. Count II of
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to
Defendants Winslow, Mueller, and Williamson, who are dismissed
as defendants in this case because there remain no claims pending
against them. Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim in this case is his
race discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against Defendant
City of Springfield, Illinois.
ENTER: July 21, 2017.
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?