Favela v. Boyd et al
Filing
85
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 82 , Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. See full written Order. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 8/28/2018. (RT, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 28 August, 2018 10:38:53 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
ANDREA FAVELA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 4:15-cv-04028-JES-JEH
JEFFREY BOYD, GERALD BUSTOS, in
his official capacity as SHERIFF OF ROCK
ISLAND COUNTY, and ROCK ISLAND
COUNTY,
Defendants.
ORDER
Now before the Court is the Defendants’, Gerald Bustos in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Rock Island County and Rock Island County, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim. (D. 82). 1 The Plaintiff, Andrea Favela, filed a Response. (D. 84). For the reasons set
forth below, the Defendants’ Motion (D. 82) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
BACKGROUND
This is the third round of Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants in this case and it is in
response to the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (D. 22); (D. 69); (D. 71); (D. 82); (D.
77). The parties and the Court are well versed in the factual background. The Plaintiff filed her
first Complaint against Jeffrey Boyd—a former Sheriff of Rock Island County, the Rock Island
Sheriff’s Department, and Rock Island County (“the County”). (D. 1). The Sheriff of Rock
Island County (“the Sheriff”) and the current sheriff—Gerald Bustos—in his official capacity,
have since been named as proper parties in the suit. (D. 77).
1
Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”
1
The Plaintiff alleges in Counts I and II damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”)
for violations of her rights to substantive due process and equal protection. Id. at pp. 6-7. She
has additional state law claims for: willful and wanton conduct (Count III); intentional infliction
of emotional distress (Count IV); respondeat superior (Count V); and indemnification (Count
VI). Id. at pp. 7-9.
In summary, the Plaintiff states that she met Boyd at a gym and he developed a romantic
interest in her, which she did not reciprocate. She says, inter alia, that Boyd insinuated he had a
traffic ticket to issue her, utilized his position as Sheriff to obtain her home address, and
generally, threatened, intimidated, and harassed her. She specifically claims Boyd threatened to
put her in jail for driving without a valid driver’s license and told the Illinois State Police that he
believed she was involved in illegal narcotic distribution. Id. at pp. 2-5.
Boyd moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s original Complaint, arguing in part, that she failed
to plead an individual capacity claim against him since the allegations all pertained to times
when he was serving as the Rock Island County Sheriff. (D. 22). The Court granted Boyd’s
motion in part and denied it in part, noting that the Plaintiff’s Complaint was “a classic example
of an individual capacity claim.” (D. 31 at pg. 5).
The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (D. 68). Her expressed intention in
amending it was “[t]o correct any legal requirement that the Sheriff be named in his official
capacity to trigger the Sheriff’s liability and the County’s indemnification[.]” (D. 50 at pg. 3).
The Sheriff and the County moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, alleging,
in relevant part, that the Plaintiff failed to state an official capacity claim against the Sheriff. (D.
69); (D. 60-1 at pp. 3-4); (D. 71). The Court agreed with the Defendants, but denied their
2
Motions and gave the Plaintiff leave to file another amended complaint. (D. 76). The Court
emphasized:
in order to allege a § 1983 claim against a municipality, the Plaintiff must allege
(1) an express policy that caused the constitutional deprivation; (2) a widespread
practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy,
is well settled and permanent; or (3) that the constitutional injury was caused by a
person with final policymaking authority. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645,
656 (7th Cir. 2007).
(D. 76 at pg. 5).
In response, the Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. (D. 77). She alleged
that the Sheriff “was the employer and principal of” Boyd “and the final policy-maker for the
office of the Sheriff.” Id. at pg. 1. She further asserted that “Boyd was the person with final
policy-making authority for the Sheriff’s office[,]” he committed the relevant allegations “while
cloaked with his authority as Sheriff” and, while acting as Sheriff, all to serve the office of the
Sheriff. Id. at pg. 5. In her view, “Boyd’s acts were committed by the Sheriff of Rock Island
County, in his official capacity, as well as in Boyd’s individual capacity.” Id. The factual
content of her complaint otherwise remained the same.
The Sheriff and the County now move to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D. 82). They argue the
Plaintiff: (1) fails to state an official capacity claim against the Sheriff (D. 82-1 at pp. 5-9); (2)
cannot sustain a respondeat superior claim against the Sheriff for Boyd’s actions (Id. at pp. 910); (3) fails to state a personal capacity claim for which the Sheriff and the County can
indemnify Boyd (Id. at pp. 10-11); and (4) the Sheriff and the County cannot indemnify Boyd for
actions that were outside the scope of his duties/employment (Id. at pp. 11-12).
3
LEGAL STANDARD
In reviewing the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Allegations stated in the form of legal conclusions, however, are
insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 694 F.3d
873, 885 (7th Cir. 2012). A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the plaintiff’s
claim, sufficient to show entitlement to relief and to notify the defendants of the allegations against
them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). This
standard is met if the plaintiff describes in sufficient factual detail enough to suggest a right to
relief beyond a speculative level. Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); EEOC v.
Concentra Health Srvs., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007).
More specifically, a complaint must go beyond “mere labels and conclusions” to contain
“enough to raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” G&S Holdings, LLC v. Cont’l
Cas. Co., 697 F.3d 534, 537-38 (7th Cir. 2012). In short, “the plaintiff must give enough details
about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together. In other words, the
court will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen.” Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
ANALYSIS
First, the Defendants argue the Plaintiff fails to state an official capacity claim against the
Sheriff. (D. 82-1 at pp. 5-9). Citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) and
Auriemma v. Rice, 957 F. 2d 397 (7th Cir. 1992), they claim the Plaintiff’s mere accusation that
Boyd was the Sheriff and final policymaker is insufficient. Id. at pp. 5-7. The Defendants claim
she is required to further assert that his relevant actions were the actual policy of the office of the
4
Sheriff or a final decision he made toward executing the duties of the office. Id. at pg. 6. The
Defendants also claim that in order for the actions of a final policymaker to be considered policy,
thereby triggering municipal liability, the actions must specifically be within the actor’s authority
as final policymaker. (D. 82-1 at pp. 7-8). The Plaintiff asserts that she has properly alleged
claims against the Sheriff in his official capacity. (D. 84 at pp. 7-10). In her view, alleging that
Boyd violated her rights, while serving as Sheriff and final policymaker, is sufficient. Id. at 7.
Municipalities are not automatically liable for their employees’ actions merely because
they are their employer. Monell v. Dept. of Social Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The conduct of
individuals with final policymaking authority for a municipality, however, represents official
municipal policy and can trigger liability. Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 469, 482-83. The Plaintiff now
alleges that Boyd, as the Sheriff and final policymaking authority, caused her injuries. This is
one way to sufficiently plead an official capacity claim—i.e. “that the constitutional injury was
caused by a person with final policymaking authority.” Lewis, 496 F.3d at 656. The actions of
ultimate policymakers “are policy even if patently unconstitutional.” Adamson v. Volkmer, 680
F. Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D. Ill. 1987). Accepting the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, she
has stated an official capacity claim against the Sheriff capable of triggering municipal liability.
Both parties cite Pembaur, which specifies that not all decisions made by municipal
officers subject their municipality to § 1983 liability because it “attaches only where the
decisionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action
ordered.” 475 U.S. at 481. In other words, municipal liability only attaches under § 1983 where
“a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the
official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in
question.” Id. The Seventh Circuit in Auriemma later clarified that actions which are
5
unauthorized and explicitly against municipal policy only trigger personal liability. 957 F. 2d at
400-01.
Unlike the defendants in Auriemma, here, the Defendants have not established that Boyd
violated rather than implemented the Sheriff’s policies, procedures, or customs. 957 F. 2d at
401. Therefore, the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded an official capacity claim against the
Sheriff. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiff fails to state an
official capacity claim against the Sheriff is DENIED. As a result, the County is now an
indispensable party. Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, Ill., 324 F.3d 947, 948 (7th Cir. 2003)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 787 N.E.2d 127 (Ill. 2003)).
The County will remain a party in this litigation regardless of the remaining direct claims against
it.
Next, the Defendants argue the Plaintiff cannot sustain a respondeat superior claim
against the Sheriff for Boyd’s actions. (D. 82-1 at pp. 9-10). They reason that as elected
officials, sheriffs only answer to their electorate and do not have the requisite principal-agent
relationship to apply the doctrine. Id. The Plaintiff maintains that she has sufficiently alleged a
respondeat superior claim against the Sheriff. (D. 84 at pp. 14-15). She brings her respondeat
superior claim under state law. (D. 77 at pg. 8).
Under Illinois law, a county cannot be held liable for claims against a sheriff on the basis
of respondeat superior. Askew v. Sheriff of Cook County, Ill., 568 F. 3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2009)
(citing Moy v. County of Cook, 640 N.E. 2d 926, 930 (Ill. 1994)); Franklin v. Zaruba, 150 F. 3d
682, 685 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Moy, 640 N.E. 2d at 931). Likewise, “county boards cannot be
held liable for their actions under respondeat superior.” Franklin, 150 F. 3d 685 (citing Moy,
640 N.E. 2d at 931). To the extent that the Plaintiff is attempting to hold the Sheriff liable for
6
Boyd’s actions, 55 ILCS 5/3-6016 also bars vicarious liability of a sheriff for the intentional torts
of their employees. Harris v. Sheahan, 1998 WL 831822 (N.D. Ill.) (citing Chaney v. City of
Chicago, 901 F. Supp. 266, 268 (N.D. Ill. 1995) and J.P. Miller Artesian Well Company v.
County of Cook, 352 N.E. 2d 372, 373 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)). As will be addressed in further
detail below, the Plaintiff explicitly alleges all of Boyd’s actions were willful and wanton. (D.
77 at pp. 6-8). Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s respondeat
superior claims is GRANTED.
The Defendants further argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a personal capacity claim for
which the Sheriff and the County can indemnify Boyd. (D. 82-1 at pp. 10-11). They maintain
that as pleaded, the indemnification of her personal capacity claim suit is forbidden by 55 ILCS
5/5-1002. The Plaintiff asserts that this statute is inapplicable and that the Tort Immunity Act,
745 ILCS 10/9-102, allows for indemnification of the Sheriff in his individual and official
capacities. (D. 84 at pp. 1-7).
The Court has already determined that the Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a personal
capacity claim against Boyd and an official capacity claim against the Sheriff. Section 5-1002
directly addresses the indemnity of sheriffs and provides that:
If any injury to the person or property of another is caused by a sheriff or any deputy
sheriff, while the sheriff or deputy is engaged in the performance of his or her duties
as such… the county shall indemnify the sheriff or deputy, as the case may be, for
any judgment recovered against him or her as the result of that injury, except where
the injury results from the willful misconduct of the sheriff or deputy[.]
55 ILCS 5/5-1002.
The Plaintiff generally alleges that “Boyd acted willfully and wantonly, maliciously, and
with a conscious disregard and deliberate indifference to [her] rights.” (D. 77 at pg. 6). This
specific language is incorporated into the first four counts of her Second Amended Complaint
and nearly identical language is used in the remaining two. Id. at pp. 6-8. The Plaintiff even
7
brings a separate state law claim titled willful and wanton conduct. Id. at pg. 7. The Court is
required to accept her assertions as true. Therefore, pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/5-1002, the County
will not be required to indemnify Boyd (or the Sheriff) for any judgment recovered against either
of them in their personal capacities. Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, Ill., 243 F. 3d 379, 384
(7th Cir. 2001). The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s personal capacity
indemnification claims pursuant to Section 5-1002 is GRANTED.
Lastly, the Defendants assert that the Sheriff and the County cannot indemnify Boyd for
actions he took which were outside the scope of his employment. (D. 82-1 at pp. 11-12). The
Plaintiff brings her state law indemnification count pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, the Tort
Immunity Act. Id. at pg. 8. The Tort Immunity Act requires counties to pay a judgment entered
against a sheriff’s office in an official capacity. Carver, 324 F.3d at 947-48 (affirming the
Illinois Supreme Court’s finding in Carver, 787 N.E.2d at 141). Thus, as previously stated, the
County remains an indispensable party in this matter. Id.
As noted by the Defendants, under Illinois law, the Tort Immunity Act also requires that
municipal employees’ acts be within the scope of their employment for them to be indemnified.
(D. 82-1 at pg. 11) (citing Wright v. City of Danville, 675 N.E. 2d 110, 117-118 (Ill. 1996)). The
Plaintiff claims that Boyd: (1) tracked down her address and cell phone number; (2) attempted to
selectively enforce traffic laws against her; (3) directed a deputy to issue her a traffic citation;
and (4) provided another law enforcement agency with false intelligence regarding possible
criminal activity. Id. at pp. 2-5. The Plaintiff further claims that he did so in order to serve the
office of the Sheriff, within the scope of his employment. Id. at pg. 5,8.
The parties dispute whether these activities were within the scope of Boyd’s employment.
(D. 82-1 at pp. 11-12); (D. 84 at pp. 10-14). For now, however, the Court must accept the
8
Plaintiff’s allegation that Boyd’s actions were within the scope of his employment as true. Here,
a fact finder could reasonably conclude as such. The Court does not have definitive proof that
Boyd’s actions were performed purely for his own interest or that he departed from the scope of
his employment. Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s indemnification
claim pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act is DENIED.
In summary, Counts I and II against Boyd and the Sheriff in their official capacities are
sufficiently pleaded; Counts III and IV against Boyd were unchallenged; Count V, the Plaintiff’s
respondeat superior claim against the Sheriff for Boyd’s actions is DISMISSED; and Count VI,
her indemnification claim against the Sheriff for Boyd’s actions, pursuant to the Tort Immunity
Act, remains.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion (D. 82) is DENIED in part and
GRANTED in part.
It is so ordered.
Entered on August 28, 2018
s/James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge
9
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?