Prewitt v. United States Government et al

Filing 49

WRITTEN Opinion signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 1/23/2012: The United States' motion (Doc 43 ) for clarification is granted and the Court clarifies that Prewitt's claims are limited to claims for: (1) spoliation of evidence a nd (2) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress limited to Parikh's act of shouting at Prewitt. United States' motion (Doc 47 ) for leave to file reply is moot. Hearing on said motion, set for 1/24/2012, is stricken. (For further details see minute order.)Mailed notice(sct, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Charles P. Kocoras

CASE NUMBER

11 C 3136

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

January 23, 2012

Prewitt vs. US

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The United States’ motion (Doc [43]) for clarification is granted and the Court clarifies that Prewitt’s claims are
limited to claims for: (1) spoilation of evidence and (2) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress
limited to Parikh’s act of shouting at Prewitt. United States’ motion (Doc [47]) for leave to file reply is moot.
Hearing on said motion, set for 1/24/2012, is stricken.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Defendant United States of America’s (“United States”) motion for
clarification of the Court’s December 15, 2011 Memorandum Opinion. For the reasons stated below, the motion
is granted.
This dispute arose on January 7, 2008, when Plaintiff Lacey Prewitt (“Prewitt”) visited an office of the
Social Security Administration (the “SSA Office”) in Elgin, Illinois. At the SSA Office, Anuj Parikh (“Parikh”),
a federal employee, allegedly shouted at Prewitt and contacted a security guard, Ervin Gartner (“Gartner”), to
escort Prewitt off of the premises. In the process of detaining Prewitt, Gartner tackled her, pinned her to the
ground, yanked her right arm to handcuff her and, once she was handcuffed, sat on top of her until the Elgin
police arrived.
The United States now moves for an order clarifying that Prewitt’s claims are limited to claims for: (1)
spoilation of evidence and (2) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress limited to Parikh’s act of
shouting at Prewitt. In ruling on the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, on December 15, 2011,
this Court held that Prewitt’s emotional distress claims could not be premised on Gartner’s conduct. However,
the Court left open the possibility that it could consider Parikh’s role in directing or condoning Gartner’s alleged
assault and battery. After further consideration, the Court could have ruled on this issue and does so now to avoid
additional confusion.
11C3136 Prewitt vs. US

Page 1 of 2

ORDER
The parties’ sole dispute is whether the emotional distress claims are limited to the single act of Parikh
shouting at Prewitt or whether the claims may derive from Parikh directing or condoning the assault and battery.
Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act prohibits tort suits against the United States for “[a]ny claim
arising out of” an assault or battery. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). To the extent Prewitt’s emotional distress claims are
based on Parikh directing or condoning the assault and battery, the assault and battery are necessary components
of the claims. Under this theory, the emotional distress claims arise out of an assault and battery and such claims
are prohibited by Section 2680(h). Accordingly, the United States’ motion is granted and the Court clarifies that
Prewitt’s claims are limited to claims for: (1) spoilation of evidence and (2) intentional and negligent infliction
of emotional distress limited to Parikh’s act of shouting at Prewitt.

Date: January 23, 2012
CHARLES P. KOCORAS
U.S. District Judge

11C3136 Prewitt vs. US

Page 2 of 2