Williams v. Frerichs et al
Filing
18
OPINION: The Motion to Dismiss (d/e 11 ) filed by Defendants Illinois State Police and Brendan F. Kelly is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (d/e 1 ) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/13/2020. (GL, ilcd)
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 1 of 12
E-FILED
Tuesday, 13 October, 2020 01:53:47 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
HELENE TONIQUE WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE and
BRENDAN J. KELLY
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 19-cv-03164
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss
(d/e 11) filed by Defendants. For the reasons stated below, the
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed a similar action in the Central District of Illinois
on May 29, 2019, case no. 19-cv-03141, against Toni Preckwinkle,
Chicago Police Department 7th District, and the County of Cook1.
Thereafter, she filed the instant action against Michael Frerichs, the
The case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. However, the
case was dismissed because Ms. Williams is a restricted filer in the Northern
District of Illinois.
1
Page 1 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 2 of 12
Illinois State Police, the Executive Committee of the Northern
District/Eastern Division Clerk’s Office, and Toni Preckwinkle.
Upon the Court’s review, the Court dismissed Michael Frerichs, the
Executive Committee of the Northern District/Eastern Division
Clerk’s Office, and Toni Preckwinkle and added Brendan F. Kelly,
Director of the Illinois State Police, as a defendant for identifying
purposes. See Court’s Opinion, d/e 7.
The only remaining Defendants, Illinois State Police and
Brendan F. Kelly, move for dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court construes the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations
as true and construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.
Id.; Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 320 F.3d 698, 701
(7th Cir. 2003). However, the complaint must set forth facts that
plausibly demonstrate a claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A plausible claim is one that
Page 2 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 3 of 12
alleges factual content from which the Court can reasonably infer
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Merely reciting the elements of a
cause of action or supporting claims with conclusory statements is
insufficient to state a cause of action. Id.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the jurisdictional
requirements have been met. Ctr. For Dermatology & Skin Cancer
Ltd. v. Burwell, 770 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2014). “The court may
look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view
whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine
whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists. AliceaHernandez, 320 F.3d at 701.
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint. Christensen v. Cty. Of Boone, Ill., 483 F.3d 454, 458
(7th Cir. 2007). To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff need only
provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing she is
entitled to relief and giving the defendant fair notice of the claims.
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
Page 3 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 4 of 12
III. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Factual allegations from the complaint are accepted as true at
the motion to dismiss stage. Olson v. Champaign Cty., Ill., 784
F.3d 1093, 1095 (7th Cir. 2015); Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1081.
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013) (quoted cite omitted). The following facts come from the
Complaint.
Ms. Williams alleges that on June 7, 2019, the Illinois State
Police revoked Ms. Williams’ Illinois FOID card for a wrongful
indictment of unlawful use of a weapon without a FOID card in
violation of her civil rights. See d/e 1, p. 6. She alleges that she
has not been convicted for the wrongful charges pending against
her and her FOID card should not have been revoked without being
convicted of the pending charges. Id. Moreover, she contends that
the charging officer lacked probable cause for the charges brought
against her. Id. at p. 5-6. Plaintiff alleges that the revocation of her
FOID card was a violation of her Second Amendment rights. Id. at
p. 6. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Illinois State Police failed to
Page 4 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 5 of 12
intervene to protect her from violation of her civil rights by one or
more other defendants. Id. Plaintiff fears that the revocation puts
her at risk of being arrested and/or imprisonment for wrongful
indictment. Id.
Ms. Williams seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and
punitive damages. See d/e 1, p. 7. The Complaint form itself
invokes jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3),
and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at p. 1. No other causes of actions
were identified. See id.
After a review of the Complaint, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s
claim of procedural due process violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 to proceed against Illinois State Police. See d/e 7, p. 6. The
Court added as a defendant the Director of Illinois State Police,
Brendan F. Kelly, in his official capacity for identification purposes.
Id. No other individual defendants were sued by Plaintiff, and no
allegations of personal involvement of any individual have been
pled. See d/e 1.
IV. ANALYSIS
Defendants Illinois State Police and Defendant Kelly filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Page 5 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 6 of 12
12(b)(1) arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this case due to sovereign immunity afforded to the State of
Illinois under the Eleventh Amendment. Defendants also filed the
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the Illinois
State Police and Defendant Kelly in His Official Capacity.
Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case as the State of Illinois enjoys
sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. The
Eleventh Amendment provides, “The judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
state.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. In short, the Eleventh Amendment
limits a federal court’s jurisdiction over suits against a state by a
foreign state, citizens of another state, and the state’s own citizens.
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 222 F.3d
323, 336 (7th Cir. 2000). As such, “an unconsenting State is
Page 6 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 7 of 12
immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as
well as by citizens of another State.” Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wis.
Sys. V. Phx. Int’l Software, Inc., 653 F.3d 448, 457 (7th Cir. 2011).
The immunity “also bars federal jurisdiction over suits against state
officials acting in their official capacities when the state is the real
party in interest.” MCI Telecommunications, 222 F.3d at 337.
However, the immunity is not without exception. See id. (“Congress
may exercise its power under the Fourteenth Amendment and
thereby authorize private suits against unconsenting states. A state
also may waive its immunity from suit. Additionally, the Ex parte
Young doctrine allows private parties to sue individual state officials
for prospective relief to enjoin ongoing violations of federal
law.”)(internal citations omitted).
Defendants argue that Illinois State Police is a part of the
State of Illinois’ executive branch. See 20 ILCS 5/5-15 (“The
Departments of State government are created as follows . . . The
Department of State Police.”). Moreover, Defendant Kelly is the
director of that state department. As such, Defendants contend
that a citizen of the State of Illinois has brought suit against a state
department and state official without the consent of the state
Page 7 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 8 of 12
department and state official. Plaintiff argues that the Eleventh
Amendment does not apply because she is a citizen of Illinois. See
d/e 15, p. 5. Plaintiff also believes that the Eleventh Amendment is
frivolous to her lawsuit. Id., at p. 6.
The Court added Defendant Kelly in his official capacity, not in
his individual capacity. Plaintiff has not pled any allegations
against Defendant Kelly in his individual capacity. Additionally, as
Defendants note in their memorandum, the jurisdictional
limitations of the Eleventh Amendment apply regardless of the relief
sought, whether it be monetary, injunctive, or punitive. Pennhurst
State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
The Court finds that Eleventh Amendment does apply without
any exception in this case as the Illinois State Police is a
department of Illinois’ executive branch and Defendant Kelly is the
director of the state department. As the Illinois State Police and
Defendant Kelly have not consented to this lawsuit, both
Defendants are afforded sovereign immunity over Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
matter.
Page 8 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 9 of 12
B. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against Illinois State Police and Defendant Kelly in His
Individual Capacity.
The Court previously ruled that Plaintiff is allowed to proceed
only on her claim for violation of her procedural due process rights.
The Due Process Clause guarantees the right of fair procedure.
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990) (“In procedural due
process claims, the deprivation by state action of a constitutionally
protected interest in life, liberty, or property is not in itself
unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is the deprivation of
such an interest without due process of law.”). To prove a
procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a
cognizable liberty or property interest; (2) the deprivation of that
interest by some form of state action; and (3) the failure to employ
constitutionally adequate procedures.” Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827
F.3d 622, 627 (7th Cir. 2016). “Once it is determined that due
process applies, the question remains what process is due.” Id.
In determining the proper party who may be held liable for a
procedural due process claim, “the crucial issue is personal (or
departmental) responsibility.” Hoffman v. Knoebel, 894 F.3d 836,
841 (7th Cir. 2018). Liability may be imposed only when an official
Page 9 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 10 of 12
causes the deprivation of liberty. Id. (citing Kuhn v. Goodlow, 678
F.3d 552, 555–56 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that “§ 1983 liability is
premised on the wrongdoer’s personal responsibility”)). In sum,
“the official’s act must both be the cause-in-fact of the injury and
its proximate cause.” Id.
In this case, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not pled any
facts that Defendant Kelly or any other individual was personally
involved in revoking her FOID card. In response, Plaintiff states
that Defendant Kelly is responsible for all actions of the Illinois
State Police. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts
that Defendant Kelly was personally involved in violating any of
Plaintiff’s rights.
Defendants also contend that Illinois State Police had the right
to deprive Plaintiff of her FOID card, gun, or both, under state and
federal law. In this case, Plaintiff filed along with her Complaint the
Cook County, Illinois, indictment that is against Plaintiff for
aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, which is a class 4 felony and
carries a potential sentence of no less than one year. See d/e 1-1,
pp. 11, 13-14; 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 (explaining the offense of
aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and that it is a Class 4 felony).
Page 10 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 11 of 12
Plaintiff argues that the indictment was a mistake and she has
not been found guilty of the charge. Defendants contend that
Plaintiff must prove more than a mistake. Instead, Plaintiff should
have availed herself of remedies provided by state or allege that the
remedies are inadequate. See Doherty v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d
318, 323 (7th Cit. 1996). Based on the exhibits filed with the
Complaint, Plaintiff filed an appeal to her FOID card being revoked.
However, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts as to how the appeal
process was inadequate. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim for procedural due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff fails to state any other cause of action against Illinois
State Police and Defendant Kelly that would subject Defendants to
liability.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Motion to Dismiss (d/e 11) filed by
Defendants Illinois State Police and Brendan F. Kelly is hereby
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (d/e 1) is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim.
Page 11 of 12
3:19-cv-03164-SEM-TSH # 18
Page 12 of 12
ENTERED: October 13, 2020
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough___
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 12 of 12
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?