Handy v. Evans et al
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Opinion signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 12/11/2014: For the reasons stated in the accompanying decision, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt. no. 32] as to Count 4 of the amended complaint but denies the motion as to Count 3. (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DANTE HANDY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL EVENS, DEREK
JABUREK, KENNETH NUSHARDT,
and LANEL PALMER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13 C 8795
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dante Handy has filed an amended complaint against Stateville
correctional officers Michael Evans, Derek Jaburek, Kenneth Nushardt, and Sergeant
Lanel Palmer, in both their individual and official capacities. The amended complaint
includes four claims. Defendants have moved to dismiss counts 3 and 4 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, asserting a defense of sovereign immunity. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court grants the motion with respect to count 4 and denies it with
respect to count 3.
Background
Handy is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections who was previously
incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center. The events that give rise to Handy's
complaint allegedly occurred at Stateville on May 26, 2013. Handy alleges that he was
taken to a "movement office" and was strip-searched, beat, punched, kicked, and
stomped on by Evans, Jaburek and Nushardt while Palmer watched, encouraged,
condoned and failed to prevent the attack. Handy says he suffered a brief loss of
consciousness, swelling to his face and body, a bloody mouth, black eye, and scrapes
on his knees and elbows. He alleges that he continues to suffer from severe physical
pain, especially headaches, as well as severe anxiety, panic attacks, and other
psychological disorders.
Handy asserts four claims against the defendants. Counts 1 and 2 are claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The defendants have answered these claims. Count 3 is a state law claim against
Evans, Nushardt, and Jaburek for assault and battery. Count 4 is a state law claim
against Palmer for negligent failure to prevent the assault and battery.
Defendants have moved to dismiss counts 3 and 4 for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. They argue that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars these claims
because they are based on duties imposed upon the defendants as a result of their
employment by the State. Defendants assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
counts 3 and 4 because the State of Illinois cannot be sued in federal court for a statelaw tort claim.
Handy does not oppose dismissal of count 4. He argues, however, that count 3
is not barred by sovereign immunity. Specifically, he contends that the duty underlying
a claim for assault and battery does not arise as a result of employment by the State but
rather is a general duty imposed upon all.
Discussion
The defendants say that their motion seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter
2
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Court disagrees.
As Handy argues, sovereign immunity is "nonjurisdictional" and "does not diminish a
court's subject-matter jurisdiction." Blagojevich v. Gates, 519 F.3d 370, 371 (7th Cir.
2008). The distinction does not matter in this instance, however, because if (as in this
case) a motion to dismiss "contends that the allegations of jurisdiction are facially
insufficient to show jurisdiction, then the 12(b)(1) standard of review mirrors the
standard applied for 12(b)(6) motions." Royal Towing, Inc. v. City of Harvey, 350 F.
Supp. 2d 750, 752 (N.D. Ill. 2004). For this reason, in addressing defendants' motion,
the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draws reasonable
inferences in favor of Hardy. Wilson v. Price, 624 F.3d 389, 391 (7th Cir.2010).
Counts 3 and 4 are brought against State employees and allege violations of
state tort law. Defendants assert a defense of sovereign immunity. When presented
with a state law claim against a State employee, a federal court applies state sovereign
immunity law in the same way a state court would. See Turner v. Miller, 301 F.3d 599,
602 (7th Cir. 2002).
The Illinois Court of Claims is conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to hear
"[a]ll claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort." 705ILCS 505/8.
Though Handy did not sue the State of Illinois by name, "[w]hether an action is in fact
one against the State, and hence one that must be brought in the Court of Claims,
depends not on the formal identification of the parties but rather on the issues involved
and the relief sought." Healy v. Vaupel, 133 Ill. 2d 295, 308, 549 N.E.2d 1240, 1247
(1990). A claim that is brought against a State employee is actually a claim against the
State when "'there are (1) no allegations that an agent or employee of the State acted
3
beyond the scope of his authority through wrongful acts; (2) the duty alleged to have
been breached was not owed to the public generally independent of the fact of State
employment; and (3) where the complained-of actions involve matters ordinarily within
that employee's normal and official functions of the State.'" Id. (quoting Robb v. Sutton,
147 Ill. App. 3d 710, 715, 498 N.E.2d 267, 272 (1986)).
Count 3 does not meet any of the three parts of this test. "Battery is the
unauthorized touching of another person." Luss v. Vill. of Forest Park, 377 Ill. App. 3d
318, 333, 878 N.E.2d 1193, 1206 (2007). "An assault is a reasonable apprehension of
an imminent battery." Rosenberg v. Packerland Packing Co., 55 Ill. App. 3d 959, 963,
370 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (1977). Commission of the intentional torts of assault and
battery clearly exceeds the scope of authority given to a correctional officer. No State
employee has the authority to commit a legal wrong. Accepting the complaint's
allegations as true, defendants are not claimed to have "intended to perform some
function within the scope of [their] authority when committing the legal wrong." Jackson
v. Alverez, 358 Ill. App. 3d 555, 560, 831 N.E.2d 1159, 1164 (2005).
Furthermore, the duty not to commit assault and battery is a general duty
imposed upon all persons; it does not arise simply by virtue of the defendants' State
employment. See Cruz v. Cross, No. 08–cv–4873, 2010 WL 3655992, at *4 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 10, 2010); Edmonds v. Carter, No. 97 C 7488, 2000 WL 88839, at *4 n. 5 (N.D. Ill.
Jan.21, 2000). When the "duty alleged to have been breached was not owed to the
public generally independent of the fact of State employment," the action is not barred
by sovereign immunity. Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 308, 549 N.E.2d at 1247.
Finally, it is not within a correctional officer's normal functions to beat, kick, and
4
punch a prisoner without cause. If Hardy's allegations are true, there is no basis to say
that defendants used force appropriately. For these reasons, the Court concludes that
count 3 is not barred by sovereign immunity.
Count 4 meets all three parts outlined in Healy for ascertaining whether a claim is
actually one against the State. Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 308, 549 N.E.2d at 1247. Handy
does not allege that Palmer acted outside the scope of his authority. Rather, Handy
alleges that Palmer failed to exercise the authority that he had through his employment.
In addition, whatever duty Palmer had to stop fellow officers from committing an assault
and battery against a prisoner arises solely by virtue of his State employment; there is
no general duty imposed upon a member of the public to prevent harm to another adult.
Finally, the claim against Palmer involves matters within his normal and official functions
as a sergeant in a correctional facility. For these reasons, the Court concludes that
count 4 is an action against the State, as Handy concedes.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt.
no. 32] as to Count 4 of the amended complaint but denies the motion as to Count 3.
________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge
Date: December 11, 2014
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?