Pinedo v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 68

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint 54 is granted. WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable George W. Lindberg on 4/29/2011: Signed by the Honorable George W. Lindberg on 4/29/2011:Mailed notice(pm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

George W. Lindberg

CASE NUMBER

10 C 6370

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

4/29/2011

Pinedo vs. City of Chicago, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint [54] is granted.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s class-of-one equal protection claim on the basis that its
conclusory allegations did not give defendants sufficient notice. Plaintiff now moves to amend his complaint
to replead his class-of-one equal protection claim.
Defendants object to the amendment as futile because the proposed amended complaint fails to
adequately allege that plaintiff was similarly situated to the individuals he contends were treated more
favorably. For example, defendants argue that the proposed amended complaint is inadequate because it fails
to allege the reasons the other individuals were stopped, the circumstances of those stops, the citations
resulting from the stops, and the discussions that occurred during the stops.
A class-of-one equal protection claim “asserts that an individual has been ‘irrationally singled out,’
without regard for any group affiliation, for discriminatory treatment.” U.S. v. Moore, 543 F.3d 891, 896 (7th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601 (2008)). To state a class-of-one equal
protection claim, a plaintiff must allege that he “has been intentionally treated differently from others
similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” LaBella Winnetka, Inc.
v. Village of Winnetka, 628 F.3d 937, 942 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.
562, 564 (2000)). “To be considered ‘similarly situated,’ a plaintiff and his comparators must be identical or
directly comparable in all material respects.” Id. The question of whether a comparator is similarly situated
is usually a question for the fact-finder, unless the plaintiff fails “to allege facts tending to show that it was
similarly situated to any of the comparators.” See id.
The proposed amended complaint alleges that defendants treated plaintiff differently than other
individuals who were pulled over and/or arrested for driving under the influence and related traffic offenses,
and that they did so with no rational basis or with the intent to harm plaintiff. The proposed amended
10C6370 Pinedo vs. City of Chicago, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
complaint also alleges that one of defendants’ motivations for treating plaintiff differently was that plaintiff
had observed defendants engaged in misconduct, and defendants sought to cover up that misconduct by
fabricating documents.
The proposed amended complaint further alleges that on over twenty occasions within the five years
prior to plaintiff’s arrest, defendants pulled over a car, spoke to the driver, asked the driver to provide a
drivers license, gave the driver a traffic ticket, documented in the ticket the conduct the officer believed to be
illegal, signed the ticket under penalty of perjury, and appeared in traffic court on the ticket. In addition, the
proposed amended complaint alleges that on at least fifty occasions, defendant Fiorito drafted police reports
for offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol, signed the reports under oath, administered field
sobriety tests to the drivers, and appeared in court on the cases.
The Court finds that plaintiff has adequately alleged a class-of-one equal protection claim at this early
stage of litigation. See Ivy v. Powers, No. 08 C 3826, 2009 WL 230542, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2009)
(denying motion to dismiss class-of-one equal protection claim where complaint alleged that by falsifying
police reports and charging documents, defendant police officers treated the plaintiff differently than other
individuals arrested by defendants); Craft v. Flagg, No. 06 C 1451, 2008 WL 1883337, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr.
24, 2008) (acknowledging that the complaint was “short on factual allegations,” but denying motion to
dismiss class-of-one equal protection claim, where complaint alleged that by planting evidence on the
plaintiff, the defendant police officers treated him differently than other arrestees). Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a first amended complaint is granted.

10C6370 Pinedo vs. City of Chicago, et al.

Page 2 of 2