Carter et al v. Dolan et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed on 6/25/2009.Mailed notice(drw, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT N O R T H E R N DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS E A S T E R N DIVISION LA'TANYA TIERRA CARTER, P l a i n t i f f, v. J O H N P. DOLAN, CRAIG A. D U N D E R D A LE , KEITH E. K A R C Z E W S K I, VERNON MITCHELL, J R ., SCOTT M. WOLFF, MATTHEW P. C LIN E , DANIEL J. DE LOPEZ, EDDIE M. Y O S H IM U R A , and JOSEPH F. GORMAN, D e fe n d a n t s . M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER I . Background P la in tiff La'Tanya Tierra Carter has filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against nine Defendant C h i c a go Police Officers, alleging Defendants deprived her of her rights under the Fourth and F o u rte e n th Amendments to the United States Constitution. This case arises out of the execution o f the same search warrant that is the subject of the case Graham, et al. v. Dolan, et al., 08 C 8 8 9 , currently pending before another Judge of this court. In this case, Defendants previously fi le d a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff's initial pleading failed to provide them with n o tic e of the allegations asserted against them. At a subsequent hearing, I instructed the parties to work together to determine a procedure which would allow Plaintiff to make some kind of id e n tific a tio n to fill the gaping hole in her complaint. I further noted that "the source of her d a m a g e s is not something for which it is at all likely that nine officers are responsible, even if it w a s wrong." N o . 08 C 7464 J u d ge James B. Zagel

O n March 5, 2009 counsel for Defendants wrote a letter to counsel for Plaintiff offering to a rra n g e for a photo array of the Defendant officers at 3511 South Michigan Avenue so that P l a in t iff could "point out the officers that she claims wronged her and specify how they interacted w i th her." The letter further listed several dates and times at which an agent would be available t o conduct the array. Plaintiff made no effort to participate in a photo array or other comparable p r o c e d u r e . Instead, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 7, 2009. Defendants filed a n o th e r motion to dismiss, arguing that despite my instruction for Plaintiff to provide sufficient a ll e ga ti o n s with regard to the constitutional violations alleged, Plaintiff has still failed to satisfy t h e federal notice pleading standard. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is denied in p a r t and granted in part. I I . Standard of Review A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) c h a lle n ge s the sufficiency of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be gra n te d . In ruling on such a motion, I accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the c o m p la in t and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. Dixon v. P a g e , 291 F.3d 485, 486 (7th Cir. 2002). To state a claim, the complaint need only contain a " s h o rt and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. C i v . P. 8(a)(2). That said, the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the d e fe n d a n t "fair notice of what . . . the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic C o r p . v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted). The "allegations m u s t plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a `s p e c u la tiv e level.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (q u o tin g Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

2

I I I . Factual Allegations P l a in t iff's amended complaint sets forth the following facts underlying her allegations: 6 . According to police reports and sworn defendant testimony in a re la te d civil rights case, on February 9, 2007, defendants, JOHN P. D O LA N , CRAIG A. DUNDERDALE, KEITH E. KARCZEWSKI, V E R N O N MITCHELL, JR., SCOTT M. WOLFF, MATTHEW P. C LIN E , DANIEL J. DE LOPEZ, EDDIE M. YOSHIMURA, and J O S E P H F. GORMAN, were all part of a police intelligence team th a t was assigned to execute a search warrant for the first floor and b a s e m e n t of 1136 N. Monticello in Chicago, Illinois. 7 . Defendant JOSEPH F. GORMAN was the supervising lie u te n a n t. Defendant MATTHEW P. CLINE was the sergeant who w a s the search team supervisor. Defendant EDDIE M. Y O S H IM U R A was a sergeant who assisted MATTHEW P. CLINE in the supervision of the search. Defendant JOHN P. DOLAN was th e affiant on the search warrant and, as such, had most of the c o n ta c t with a confidential informant, petitioned the court for is s u a n c e of the warrant, and organized and directed the search te a m . Defendant KEITH E. KARCZEWSKI was the breech officer in charge of breaking down the doors. CRAIG A. DUNDERDALE, V E R N O N MITCHELL, JR., SCOTT M. WOLFF, and DANIEL J. D E LOPEZ were police intelligence team members whose a s s ign m e n t it was to assist in entering and searching the premises. 8 . On February 9, 2007, at approximately 10:00 PM, all defendant p o lic e officers, that is, JOHN P. DOLAN, CRAIG A. D U N D E R D A LE , KEITH E. KARCZEWSKI, VERNON M IT C H E LL, JR., SCOTT M. WOLFF, MATTHEW P. CLINE, D A N IE L J. DE LOPEZ, EDDIE M. YOSHIMURA, and JOSEPH F . GORMAN, entered and raided the apartments at 1136 N. M o n tic e llo , in Chicago, Illinois. 9 . On that date and at that time, plaintiff, LA'TANYA TIERRA C A R T E R , was a guest in the second floor apartment of 1136 N. M o n tic e llo , Chicago, Illinois, and was present at the time of the ra id . 1 0 . Defendants did not have a warrant for the second floor a p a r tm e n t at 1136 N. Monticello. However, all defendant police o ffic e rs , that is, JOHN P. DOLAN, CRAIG A. DUNDERDALE, K E IT H E. KARCZEWSKI, VERNON MITCHELL, JR., SCOTT M . WOLFF, MATTHEW P. CLINE, DANIEL J. DE LOPEZ,

3

E D D IE M. YOSHIMURA, and JOSEPH F. GORMAN, either e n te re d the second floor apartment or facilitated the entry into the s e c o n d floor apartment. 1 1 . Approximately six to ten search team members physically e n te re d the second floor apartment. Three defendants, JOHN P. D O LA N , CRAIG A. DUNDERDALE, and KEITH E. K A R C Z E W S K I, have admitted entering the apartment, however, a re defendants [sic] 1 2 . Despite the fact that plaintiff, LA'TANYA TIERRA CARTER, m a d e no attempt to leave and did nothing to resist or interfere with th e illegal actions of the police, defendant police officers pulled th e ir guns and pointed them at plaintiff and other residents and o c c u p a n ts of said premises, and seized, searched, and handcuffed p l a in t iff and others. 1 3 . Plaintiff, LA'TANYA TIERRA CARTER, was taken against h e r will down to the first floor apartment, and detained, searched, a n d held under arrest by the police intelligence search team for a n u m b e r of hours during the wrongful search of the second floor ap artm en t. 1 4 . Defendant police officers proceeded to search the second floor a p a rtm e n t at 1136 N. Monticello without a warrant, without p e r m is s io n , and without legal cause. 1 5 . The above acts were committed with the knowledge of d e fe n d a n ts JOHN P. DOLAN, CRAIG A. DUNDERDALE, KEITH E . KARCZEWSKI, VERNON MITCHELL, JR., SCOTT M. W O LF F , MATTHEW P. CLINE, DANIEL J. DE LOPEZ, EDDIE M . YOSHIMURA, and JOSEPH F. GORMAN and by agreement o f those defendants to act in concert to violate the constitutional righ ts of plaintiff, LA'TANYA TIERRA CARTER. P la in tiff additionally alleges that as a result of the above-listed acts and omissions she s u s ta in e d injuries, humiliation, and indignities, and suffered mental and emotional pain and s u ffe rin g. She alleges that the "acts of the defendant police officers were willful, wanton, m a lic io u s , oppressive, and done with reckless indifference to and/or callous disregard for p la in tiff's rights." Based on these facts, Plaintiff asserts the following claims pursuant to 42

4

U .S .C . § 1983: Count I, false arrest/illegal detention; Count II, unconstitutional search and s e iz u re ; Count III, failure to intervene; and Count IV, conspiracy. I V . Discussion T o sustain a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was personally re s p o n s ib le for the deprivation of a constitutional right. Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 583 (7 th Cir. 2006). While it is true that Plaintiff need not allege all the facts necessary to succeed on h e r claims, she must provide sufficient allegations to, at the very least, put Defendants on notice o f her claims against them. Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 6 6 3 , 667 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[t]aking Erikson and Twombly together, [the Court] understands the [U .S . Supreme Court] to be saying only that at some point the factual detail in a complaint may b e so sketchy that the complaint does not provide the type of notice of the claim to which the d e fe n d a n t is entitled under Rule 8"). T h e amended complaint alleges that all Defendants were members of a police team that c o n s p ire d to enter the multiple unit residence at 1136 N. Monticello, Chicago, Illinois, on F e b ru a r y 9, 2007, and search all units, despite the fact that they only had a warrant for the first flo o r apartment. According to the amended complaint, all Defendants participated in detaining a ll occupants of the first and second floor apartments, including Plaintiff Carter, while they s e a r c h e d the entire building. Paragraph eleven of the amended complaint alleges that Defendants D o l a n , Dunderdale, and Karczewski "have admitted entering the apartment" (presumably P l a in t iff's unit), but that paragraph also alleges that "[a]pproximately six to ten search team m e m b e rs physically entered the second floor apartment." A complaint that refers to multiple police officer defendants collectively as "defendant o ffic e rs " in each of the factual allegations does not provide each defendant officer with sufficient

5

n o tic e of the wrongdoings alleged. This is especially true where nine Defendant officers are lis te d on the face of the complaint. The amended complaint here substitutes the collective id e n tifie r "defendant officers" with the actual names of all nine Defendants. This is a distinction w i th o u t a difference. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to identify the individual conduct of e a c h Defendant officer and failed to do so. In addition, Plaintiff's factually unsupported a lle ga tio n of conspiracy is a legal conclusion that does not satisfy Rule 8 and is not entitled to the a s s u m p tio n of truth. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (May 18, 2009). T h e sole portion of Plaintiff's amended complaint that arguably alleges certain D e fe n d a n t s were personally responsible for the deprivation of one or more of Plaintiff's c o n s titu tio n a l rights is paragraph eleven. That paragraph alleges that Defendants Dolan, D u n d e r d a l e , and Karczewski entered Plaintiff's apartment. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to d is m i s s Counts I, II, and III is denied with respect to Defendants Dolan, Dunderdale, and K a rc z e w s k i . Because the facts alleged in Plaintiff's amended complaint do not provide the other D e fe n d a n t s with enough information to answer the complaint or defend themselves, Defendants' m o t io n to dismiss is granted with respect to Defendants Mitchell, Wolff, Cline, Lopez, Y o s h im u ra , and Gorman. Count IV is dismissed in its entirety.

ENTER:

J a m e s B. Zagel U n ite d States District Judge D A T E : June 25, 2009

6