Vueluas v. City Of Harvey et al

Filing 86

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 1/28/2018: For the reasons stated in the accompanying order, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's federal a nd state claims for false arrest but otherwise denies defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 77]. The case is set for a status hearing on February 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to set a schedule for further proceedings. (mk)(Kennelly, Matthew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL VUELUAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF HARVEY, JULIO
ESPARZA, RASHEED ASKEW,
GREG THOMAS, and
JEFFREY CROCKER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 58

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Daniel Vueluas was arrested in front of his home in the City of Harvey on
September 15, 2014. He says that Harvey police detective Julio Esparza pulled up in
front of his house, got out of his police car, and forcibly took him into custody without a
warrant or probable cause. He says that Esparza used excessive force that caused
dislocation of his shoulder. At the police station, Vueluas says, he repeatedly requested
medical attention from detectives Rasheed Askew, Greg Thomas, and Jeffrey Crocker,
who questioned him over an extended period, but they ignored or refused his requests.
Vueluas contends he was in extreme pain during this entire period. Vueluas was not
taken before a judge until September 18, 2014. At that point he was booked into the
Cook County Jail and thereafter received medical treatment.
Vueluas has sued the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest,
excessive force, and improperly extended detention without judicial review, and under
state law for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court
thanks appointed counsel Thomas Geselbracht and Joseph Carey of DLA Piper for their

through and diligent service as counsel for Vueluas.
The defendants have moved for summary judgment. The Court orally denied the
motion with respect to the federal excessive force and the state assault and battery
claims, concluding there are genuine disputes of fact that a jury must decide. In this
order, the Court considers defendants' motion with regard to the remaining claims.
Vueluas's federal and state false arrest claims depend on whether there was
probable cause to arrest him, in other words whether "the facts and circumstances
within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they [had] reasonably trustworthy
information [were] sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that [Vueluas] had
committed an offense." Huff v. Reichert, 744 F.3d 999, 1007 (7th Cir. 2014); Meerbrey
v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455, 474, 564 N.E.2d 1222, 1231 (1990). On the
federal claim, defendants also assert the defense of qualified immunity.
Detective Askew was investigating a shooting that took place in Harvey on
September 7, 2014. He was able to get video recordings taken from surveillance
cameras at nearby businesses that showed events surrounding the shooting.
Detectives Askew and Crocker showed a still photo taken from one of the videos to the
owner of one of the businesses. She identified the person depicted as Vueluas.
Detective Askew also asked detective Esparza to look at the surveillance footage,
because he was familiar with the Hispanic community in Harvey and also worked on a
police unit that dealt with the Latin Kings street gang in the area. Esparza, who had
multiple prior interactions with Vueluas, identified Vueluas from the video. Based on
these identifications from the video footage, the defendants arrested Vueluas.
Defendants have not provided any of the videos to the Court in connection with

2

their summary judgment motion. There is evidence that the videos (which are blackand-white) are grainy. Askew has testified that he could not make out any facial
features from looking at the videos, and Esparza has testified that he could not make
out the race of any of the persons depicted in them. Vueluas contends, and a
reasonable jury could find, that Esparza had some degree of bias against Vueluas
based on their prior interactions.
Though the question is close, the Court concludes that defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on the federal and state false arrest claims. Probable cause can be
based on a single uncoerced, unmanipulated identification by a credible eyewitness, at
least if the witness has no apparent bias against the person identified. See Hart v.
Mannina, 798 F.3d 578, 587-88 (7th Cir. 2015); Phillips v. Allen, 668 F.3d 912, 915 (7th
Cir. 2012). Even if one discounts detective Esparza's identification on the basis that he
had an arguable preexisting bias against Vueluas, the officers still had the identification
that the business owner made from the video surveillance. To be sure, she was not an
"eyewitness" as such, but that is an immaterial distinction. Bailey v. City of Chicago,
779 F.3d 689, 694 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding probable cause based on identifications made
from videos). She saw a photograph taken from a video recording that depicted the
offenders, and she identified Vueluas. Vueluas has offered no evidence suggesting that
her identification was coerced or manipulated in any way or that she had any sort of
bias against him. The Court therefore grants summary judgment in favor of defendants
on Vueluas's federal and state false arrest claims.
Vueluas also asserts a claim for unreasonable detention based on defendants'
failure to take him before a judge within 48 hours of his arrest. Defendant was arrested

3

on Monday, September 15, 2014 about 4:00 p.m. He was not taken to court until
September 18. Because he did not get a judicial probable cause determination within
48 hours of his arrest, his detention is presumed to be unreasonable. See City of
Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57 (1991). Defendants say that this was not their
fault and that it was up to Cook County to ensure that Vueluas was taken to court. But
defendants evidently did not even have Vueluas fingerprinted or his background check
conducted until after 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, a little over 46 hours
after the arrest, and there is evidence that this (as well as other factors within
defendants' control) contributed to the delay in taking him to court. Defendants have not
explained this delay in a way that would entitle them to summary judgment. In sum, a
reasonable jury could find that defendants caused unreasonably excessive detention.
They are not entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
Next is Vueluas's claim for denial of medical care for the injury he says he
suffered due to the use of excessive force in arresting him. This claim requires Vueluas
to prove that he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition that required
treatment and that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to this. See, e.g.,
Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2008). Vueluas says that his shoulder
was dislocated, causing great pain—and indeed, once he was booked into the Cook
County Jail, a physician diagnosed him as having a dislocated shoulder. This caused
Vueluas problems for a period of months, and he eventually had to have surgery, which
took place during his custody at the Jail. Defendants' argument for summary judgment
appears to be that they had no reason to believe Vueluas was in pain. But he has
testified that he repeatedly told the defendants about the pain in his shoulder and asked

4

for treatment, and detectives Askew and Thomas both confirmed that he complained of
pain and requested medication. A reasonable jury could find that defendants were
aware of a serious medical condition requiring treatment but deliberately failed to do
make sure he got treatment. Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this
claim.
The same is true with regard to Vueluas's state-law claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress. A reasonable jury could find in his favor on this claim based on
evidence permitting a finding that Esparza deliberately or at least knowingly caused
Vueluas physical harm and that he and the other defendants then deliberately or at
least knowingly refused to provide him with treatment.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of
defendants on plaintiff's federal and state claims for false arrest but otherwise denies
defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 77]. The case is set for a status
hearing on February 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to set a schedule for further proceedings.
Date: January 28, 2018
________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge

5