Banks v. Bieble et al

Filing 331

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Gary Feinerman on 7/17/2012: Plaintiff's motion for Rule 60 relief from judgment 321 and motion to compel the court reporter to turn over deposition transcripts 322 are denied. Plaintiff is reminded that his response to Defendants' summary judgment motion is due 8/15/2012. (For further details see text below.) Mailed notice. (psm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

GARY FEINERMAN

CASE NUMBER

07 C 0784

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

7-17-2012

DATE
Larry Maurice Banks vs. Paul Bieble, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 60 relief from judgment [321] and motion to compel the court reporter to turn over
deposition transcripts [322] are denied. Plaintiff is reminded that his response to Defendants’ summary judgment
motion is due 8/15/2012.
O

Docketing to mail notices.

[For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Larry Maurice Banks, a detainee in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections,
brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants, two Chicago
police officers, violated his constitutional rights by pulling him over for a traffic stop even though they knew that
he had committed no moving violation. This matter is before the Court for ruling on pending motions.
Plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 321) is denied. Although the court has not
entered judgment in this case, certain claims were dismissed by the 12/16/2011 order. Plaintiff asserts that his
false arrest claim was improperly dismissed because, as a “sovereign city” or “sovereign citizen,” he should not
have been arrested for driving without a license. The argument is without merit. The Seventh Circuit has
“repeatedly rejected ... theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.” United
States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). Moreover, because Plaintiff conceded in
his fourth amended complaint that he was not carrying his license when the police stopped him, he has no viable
claim for false arrest. “Probable cause is an absolute bar to a § 1983 claim for false arrest.” Sow v. Fortville
Police Dept., 636 F.3d 293, 301-02 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting McBride v. Grice, 576 F.3d 703, 707 (7th Cir.
2009)). Courts routinely uphold arrests for violation of the statute requiring drivers to have their license in their
possession. See Covington v. Smith, 259 Fed. Appx. 871, 875 (7th Cir. 2008) (because the plaintiff admitted that
he was observed driving without a license, the officers had probable cause to arrest him, “an absolute bar to any
wrongful arrest claim”); United States v. Bradford, 78 F.3d 1216, 1222 n.9 (7th Cir. 1996) (same); Corbett v.
White, No. 00 C 4661, 2001 WL 1098054, *3 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 17, 2001) (Gottschall, J.) (“Illinois law is perfectly

Page 1 of 2

clear that an officer has probable cause to make a custodial arrest when a driver fails to produce a valid driver’s
license at the scene of a lawful stop of the automobile”) (citations omitted). As the court remains satisfied that
it properly dismissed Plaintiff’s false arrest claim, his motion for reconsideration is denied.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel the court reporter to turn over deposition transcripts is likewise denied.
There is no provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for a party to obtain a free copy of a deposition. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(c). Furthermore, Plaintiff should not need a transcript of what he said to opposing counsel; in opposing
Defendants’ summary judgment motion, he may simply draft an affidavit reiterating his statements. In any
event, Defendants provided a copy of Plaintiff’s deposition with their summary judgment papers. Doc. 325-5.

Page 2 of 2