McCormick v. Loftus et al

Filing 111

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 8/20/2012. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 101 is granted. Because Plaintiff's statelaw claims against Defendants Loftus and Shebish are barred by a one-year statute of limitations, the court dismisses Count IV in its entirety. The court also dismisses Count V against Loftus and Shebish insofar as it alleges a civil conspiracy to violate state law. [For further detail see written opinion.] Mailed notice (lw, ).

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Joan B. Gottschall

CASE NUMBER

07 C 3547

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

8/20/2012

McCormick vs. Loftus, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [101] is granted. Because Plaintiff’s statelaw claims against Defendants Loftus and Shebish are barred by a one-year statute of limitations, the court
dismisses Count IV in its entirety. The court also dismisses Count V against Loftus and Shebish insofar as it
alleges a civil conspiracy to violate state law.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Donald McCormick, an Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) inmate, filed a pro se
complaint on June 25, 2007, against the City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department Detectives Patrick Loftus
and Thomas Shebish, and IDOC Correctional Officers John Lanher and Jobert Pedroza. On January 4, 2012,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the assistance of appointed counsel.
Plaintiff brings claims under both the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Illinois state
law. He claims he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure by Loftus and Shebish, in violation of
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (Count I); that Lanher and Pedroza failed to
intervene and protect him from this unlawful conduct, in violation of the U.S. Constitution (Count II); that Lanher
and Pedroza violated the Illinois Habeas Corpus Act, 735 Ill Comp. Stat. 5/10-131, by transferring him to custody
without legal process (Count III); that Loftus and Shebish subjected him to intentional infliction of emotional
distress, in violation of Illinois tort law (Count IV); and that the four individual defendants conspired to violate
his rights under both the U.S. Constitution and state law (Count V). Count VI seeks indemnification from the
City of Chicago for any monetary liability of Loftus and Shebish.
Now before the court is the motion by the City of Chicago, Loftus, and Shebish (the “City Defendants”)
to dismiss the state tort-law and state civil conspiracy claims against them (Counts IV and V), on the grounds that
the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The City Defendants argue that, under 745 Ill. Comp. Stat.
10/8-101(a), civil actions against a municipality or its employees must be brought within one year of the date the
injury occurs.
The court agrees that a one-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiff’s state-law intentional infliction
of emotional distress and civil conspiracy claims. The statute provides: “No civil action . . . may be commenced
in any court against a local entity or any of its employees for any injury unless it is commenced within one year
07C3547 McCormick vs. Loftus

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
from the date that the injury was received or the cause of action accrued.” 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/8-101(a). For
purposes of the statute, “the term ‘civil action’ includes any action . . . based upon the common law or statutes
or Constitution” of Illinois. Id. 10/8-101(c). Counts IV and V of the First Amended Complaint are civil actions
against a local entity and its employees, to which the statute of limitations applies. See Evans v. City of Chi., 434
F.3d 916, 934 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The limitations period for tort claims, such as intentional infliction of emotional
distress, against governmental entities and their employees . . . is only one year.”).
The acts and injuries alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint all occurred on August 10, 2005.
The complaint alleges that Lanher and Pedroza were assigned to transport McCormick to a hearing on August
10, 2005, as authorized by a writ. When they arrived at the Cook County Criminal Court Building, Lanher and
Pedroza conferred privately with Loftus and Shebus. Lanher and Pedroza were requested by Loftus and Shebish
to transport McCormick to a Chicago Police station for a lineup. Acceding to the request, Lanher and Pedroza
falsely told McCormick during the drive to the station that the prison warden had instructed them that McCormick
should cooperate. While at the police station, McCormick alleges that he was handcuffed to a wall, stripped
naked, and placed in a cold holding cell until he agreed to be fingerprinted and photographed. McCormick alleges
that he was thus taken into custody without his consent and absent any lawful warrant or legal process.
All of the actions allegedly taken by the City Defendants occurred on a single day: August 10, 2005. This
was well over one year before Plaintiff filed his original complaint on June 25, 2007. Plaintiff argues that his last
injury related to the City Defendants’ conduct “may” have “occurred subsequent to August 2005.” He contends
that he is not required to allege every detail that supports his claim in his complaint. But the court finds that
Plaintiff has not alleged in his complaint any acts that occurred within the statute of limitations period. Nothing
in the complaint plausibly supports an inference that related acts occurred after June 25, 2006, one year before
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint. Plaintiff has thus provided the court with no basis to “conclude that acts
giving rise to his claim continued for a substantial amount of time following the incidents in [2005].” Evans, 434
F.3d at 934.
Because Plaintiff’s state-law claims against the City Defendants are barred by a one-year statute of
limitations, the court dismisses Count IV of the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The court also dismisses
Count V against Loftus and Shebish insofar as it alleges a civil conspiracy to violate state law. The remaining
counts of the Amended Complaint stand, including Plaintiff’s claim in Count V that the City Defendants
conspired to violate the U.S. Constitution.

07C3547 McCormick vs. Loftus

Page 2 of 2