Cooney v. Casady et al

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 1/21/2010:Mailed notice(mpj, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) RHONDA CASADY, ANDREW SOSNOWSKI, and ) ) LESLEY MAGNABOSCO, ) ) Defendants. ) DEBORAH ORLANDO COONEY,

No. 09 C 1920

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has brought suit against two attorneys, defendants Casady and Sosnowski, who represented the Department plaintiff's relating to of Children and Family of Services state and ("DCFS") court a during

administrative custody of

appeal

proceedings reporter,

her

children,

court

defendant Magnabosco, who plaintiff claims was responsible for alterations in the official transcripts of those proceedings. On

September 11, 2009, I denied defendants' motions to dismiss. Cooney v. Casady, 652 F. Supp. 2d 948, 950 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Defendants have moved for reconsideration, arguing that I should alter my opinion based on a recent Seventh Circuit opinion, Cooney v. Rossiter, et al., 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons

that follow, defendants' motion to reconsider is denied. In my September 11, 2009 opinion, I concluded, among other things, that plaintiff stated a claim for civil conspiracy under 28

U.S.C. § 1983. that plaintiff

In so holding, I rejected defendants' assertion must plead a "meeting of the minds" under

controlling Seventh Circuit caselaw. 958.

Casady, 652 F. Supp. 2d at

Further, I concluded that plaintiff met applicable pleading

requirements by indicating "`the parties, general purpose, and approximate date, so that the defendant has notice of what he is charged with.'" Id. (quoting Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761,

764 (7th Cir. 2003)). In their motions to reconsider, defendants point to the recent Cooney opinion in an effort to convince me to alter my original conclusion. Cooney is a case involving the same plaintiff as in

this case, and springs, generally speaking, from the same custody battle. judge in In Cooney, plaintiff brought a § 1983 action against the the child custody proceedings, the court-appointed

representative of the children, her ex-husband's attorney, the court-appointed psychiatrist for the children, and the therapist for the children, alleging a conspiracy to deprive her of her constitutional rights. 583 F.3d at 969. The district court

granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Id. at 969, 972. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit

concluded that the complaint, while "otherwise detailed," was "bereft of any suggestion, beyond a bare conclusion" that the nonstate actors conspired with the state actors. Id. at 971. The

only fact establishing a conspiracy among the defendants was 2

plaintiff's statement that "Bischoff and Dr. Lyle Rossiter, with the aid of Judge Nordquist, Dan Cain, and Brian Klaung continued the ongoing rights." Id. violations of Plaintiff, Deborah's Constitutional

This, in light of the heightened pleading standards

for conspiracy claims in the Seventh Circuit, was "too vague" to withstand defendants' motion to dismiss. Id.

Having reviewed the Cooney complaint, as well as the Seventh Circuit's opinion, I do not conclude that my original conclusion needs to be amended. While plaintiff's Cooney complaint (at fortyfive single spaced pages) was extremely detailed, plaintiff's only attempt to plead the facts surrounding the conspiracy involved a single conclusory sentence in which she claimed that the defendants "continued the ongoing violations" of plaintiff's constitutional rights. In this case, she has done more. After concluding that

defendants Casady and Sosnowski conspired to deprive her of her constitutional rights, she provides more detailed and descriptive facts which serve to put the defendants on notice of the claim against them. For example, she states that defendant Magnabosco,

a DCFS court reporter, "joined the conspiracy by acting in concert with Casady and Sosnowski to change, misrepresent and omit witness testimony and counsel's representations, statements, and arguments so that the DCFS's official record would reflect more unfavorably upon [plaintiff]." Compl. ¶ 1. Reading the complaint liberally in light of plaintiff's pro se status, see, e.g., Pearle Vision, Inc.

3

v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008), plaintiff further alleges that Sosnowski conspired with Casady by continuing the efforts undertaken by Casady to allegedly cover-up the "falsity of Rossiter's evaluation and of Coffey's one-sided, incomplete and improper investigation," and delay plaintiff's appeal. Compl.

¶ 19. These facts are sufficient to meet the pleading requirements for a conspiracy claim in the Seventh Circuit. Hoskins, 320 F.3d

at 764 (stating that a plaintiff alleging a § 1983 conspiracy need only indicate "the parties, general purpose, and approximate date, so that the defendant has notice of what he is charged with"). In light of the above, defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied.

ENTER ORDER:

____________________________ Elaine E. Bucklo United States District Judge Dated: January 21, 2010

4