Rodriguez v. City of Chicago, a municipal corporation et al

Filing 99

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 10/9/2012: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion to reconsider 95 is denied. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

09 C 04436

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/9/2012

Rodriguez vs. City of Chicago

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider [95] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
On July 25, 2008, Plaintiff tried to get Defendant officers’ attention by flashing a laser pointer on a sign near their
car. That did get the officers’ attention, but it also resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest for violations of 720 ILCS 5/24.620(a) (aiming a laser pointer at a peace officer) and 720 ILCS 5/12(a)(6) (aggravated assault against a police
officer). The Assistant State’s Attorney assigned to the case moved to strike all charges against Plaintiff with
leave to reinstate. The charges have not been reinstated.
Based on the events of July 25, 2008, Plaintiff sued the City of Chicago, Chicago Police Officers Morales and
Kolodziejski, and other unknown officers for violations of federal and state law. Plaintiff’s five-count complaint
asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure (Count I) and excessive force (Count II);
state law claims for false imprisonment (Count IV) and malicious prosecution (Count V); and a Monell claim
against the City of Chicago (Count III).
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the unknown officers based on the statute of limitations and
granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts I, III, IV, and V. Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force
claim is still pending (Count II). Plaintiff has asked the Court to reconsider its grant of Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
Because Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration before the Court has finished with his case, the motion is
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b):
any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims
or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims
and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, under Rule 54(b), the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider
its interlocutory orders. See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) (“every
order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge”); Sims v. EGA Prods.,
Inc., 475 F.3d 865, 870 (7th Cir. 2007) (“nonfinal orders are generally modifiable”).
It is well established, however, that “[m]otions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Conditioned Ocular Enhancement, Inc. v.
09C04436 Rodriquez vs. City of Chicago

Page 1 of 3

STATEMENT
Bonaventura, 458 F. Supp. 2d 704, 707 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (quoting Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI
Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996)). In regard to the “manifest error” prong, the Seventh Circuit has
explained that a motion to reconsider is proper only when “the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has
made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of
reasoning but of apprehension.” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th
Cir. 1990); see also Wiegel v. Stork Craft Mfg., Inc., 2012 WL 2130910, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2012)
(“Reconsideration is not appropriate where a party seeks to raise arguments that could have been raised in the
original briefing.”); Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (“A ‘manifest error’ is
not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party,” instead it “is the ‘wholesale disregard,
misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.’”); Bilek v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, 2010
WL 3306912, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010). And with respect to the second prong, the court of appeals has
explained that a motion to reconsider may be appropriate if there has been “a controlling or significant change
in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Bank of Waunakee, 906 F.2d at 1191.
In this case, Plaintiff believes that the Court “manifestly” erred by concluding that probable cause barred his
claims for false imprisonment (Count IV) and malicious prosecution (Count V). Plaintiff’s argument is as
follows: at the time that the charging document was filed, Defendants knew that the laser pointer was just a
pointer (not attached to a gun) and that they were never in danger. They knew, in other words, that Plaintiff was
only a Good Samaritan trying to help a man he saw lying in the road. Therefore, Plaintiff reasons, Defendants did
not have probable cause to file charges even if they had probable cause to arrest. See, e.g., Holland v. City of
Chicago, 643 F.3d 248, 254 (7th Cir. 2011) (“For purposes of a malicious prosecution claim the probable cause
determination is the time when the charging document is filed, rather than the time of the arrest.”).
Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. As the Court concluded on summary judgment, Defendants had probable
cause to arrest Plaintiff for assault and laser pointing. No discoveries subsequent to Plaintiff’s arrest changed (or
could change) that Plaintiff shined a laser pointer toward Defendants and that Defendants were placed in
“reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.” 720 ILCS 5/12-2(a)(6). Plaintiff was lawfully arrested and
charged for exactly that. Cf. Holmes v. Villiage of Hoffman Estates, 511 F.3d 673, 682 (7th Cir. 2007) (“probable
cause to believe an individual committed one crime * * * does not foreclose a malicious prosecution claim for
additionally prosecuting the individual on a separate charge” (emphasis added)).
The General Assembly chose to criminalize aiming a laser pointer at a peace officer without regard to whether
the laser was attached to a gun or indeed whether the officer was even in danger. One might wonder whether
Plaintiff could have chosen a different method of getting the officers’ attention — a horn, flashing headlights —
and one might question whether the officers overacted by charging Plaintiff once the absence of danger was clear.
But the officers’ subjective intent is irrelevant in assessing probable cause. See, e.g., Whren v. United States, 517
U.S. 806, 813 (1996); Tebbens v. Mushol, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 3734334, at *5 (7th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012).
Having been charged for the precise conduct that gave the officers probable cause to arrest him, Plaintiff’s claims
for false imprisonment (Count IV) and malicious prosecution (Count V) are barred. See Jones v. Webb, 45 F.3d
178, 1783 (7th Cir. 1995); see also Lappin v. Costello, 598 N.E. 2d 311, 317 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1992) (“If
probable cause existed for the arrest, an action for false arrest cannot lie”); Martel Enterprises v. City of Chicago,
584 N.E. 2d 157, 161 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1991) (probable cause is an absolute bar to a claim of false
imprisonment); Ross v. Mauro Chevrolet, 861 N.E. 2d 313, 319 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2006) (citing Johnson v.
Target Stores, Inc., 791 N.E. 2d 1206, 1219 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2001) (probable cause is fatal to a malicious
prosecution claim).
Plaintiff’s other arguments were addressed in the Court’s summary judgment opinion and there is no reason to
discuss them again here.

09C04436 Rodriquez vs. City of Chicago

Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider [95] is denied.

09C04436 Rodriquez vs. City of Chicago

Page 3 of 3