Battle v. Boliker et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr on 3/9/2016. Mailed notice (cc, )

G^/
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS BATTLE (#2014-08I s286)"
Plaintiff.
Case

No:

15 C 0552

V.

Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

TOM DART, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Thomas Battle ("Battle") filed a complaint under the Civil Rights Act Section
1983 against defendants, Assistant State Attorney Jeanne Kolasa

("ASA Kolasa"), Judge Shaina

Boliker, and Sheriff Tom Dartr, alleging that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment
rights by not providing him a probable cause hearing with in forty-eight hours of his arrest.
Counsel for ASA Kolasa filed a motion to dismiss Battle's complaint for failure to state a claim

for which relief can be granted, arguing that Battle received a probable cause determination on
the same day he was taken into custody. For the reasons stated below ASA Kolasa's motion to
dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND
The following are factual allegations taken from the complaint and are accepted as true

for the purposes of ruling on the instant motion. Battle was arrested on August 14, 2014, and
held in Cook County Jail. Dkt.

l, 4. Battle states that he did not receive a "preliminary hearing"

until September 4, 2014, at which time he went before Judge Shauna Boliker and ASA Kolasa.

Id.
I

Additionally, Baule states that he has suffered impairment of the relationships with his

During the court's initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ l9l5,A, defendant Sheriff Thomas J. Dart was dismissed
in regards to Plaintiff s individual claims, but remains in the case as a nominal defendant in an effort to assist in
identifuing the parties responsible for violating Plaintiff s right to a prompt probable cause hearing.

family, his college education has been intemrpted, and his income source impaired.

Id.

Battle

believes that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because after he was arrested he was
held for more than forty-eight hours without a probable cause or bond hearing. Id.

Battle filed his complaint with the court on March 2, 2015, alleging that his Fourth
Amendment rights were violated by not receiving "determination

of probable cause

before

significant pretrial restraint." Dkt. 1, 4. Currently before this court is ASA Kolasa's motion to
dismiss Battle's complaint for a failure to state a claim.

LEGAL STANDARI)
In order to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(bX6), the allegations in the
complaint must contain sufficient factual material that, when accepted as true, state a claim that
is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009). This standard is met when
the facts pled allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant may be liable for

the misconduct alleged.

Id.

This plausibility standard does

not require detailed factual

allegations, but the "plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to
present a story that holds together." Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir.
2010).

When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations, and

will

determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.

Ashcroft,556 U.S. at 679. We must however construe pro se complaints liberally and hold them

to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658
F.3d742,751 (7th Cir. 201l).

DISCUSSION
On only the facts pled in Battle's complaint it would appear that Battle did not receive a
prompt probable cause hearing as required by Gerstein v Pugh. 420 U.S. 103 (1976). Probable
cause

is a required standard of any arrest. Gerstein,420 U.S. at 111. Probable

cause is

determined by "facts and circumstances 'suffrcient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the
(suspect) had committed or was committing an offense."' 1d (quoting Beck v. Ohio,379 U.S.

89,

9l (1964)). A State "must

provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a

condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by
a

judicial officer either before or promptly after arrest." Id at 124. The Supreme Court defined

o'promptly" inCounty of Countryside v. Mclaughlin. 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The Court held, when
a

judicial determination of probable cause is made within forty-eight hours of arrest, that will

satisfu the prompt requirement of Gerstein. Id. at 56.

Battle's argument that he did not receive a probable cause hearing within the forty-eight-

hour timeline

is incorrect. According to a Certified

Statement

of

ConvictiorVDisposition

attached to ASA Kolasa's motion to dismiss as Exhibit A, Battle went before Judge Laura M.

Sullivan on August 15,2014. Dkt. 13-1,

2.

Typically a court may not consider exhibits

presented with a motion to dismiss, without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment. Williams v. City of Chicago,803 F.

Supp.2d86l,864 (N.D. Ill.201l)

(Dow, J.) (citing R.J.R. Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 895 F.2d 279, 281 (7th Cir.
1988). However, when the exhibit presented is considered a matter of public record, "a court
may take judicial notice of them for purposes of deciding the motion to dismiss without
converting the l2(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment." Id. (citing Palay

v.

United States,349 F.3d 418,425 (7th Cir. 2003). A certified docket sheet is considered a part

of

the public record.

Id.

ASA Kolasa attached a certified docket sheet, which is a part of public

record, to her motion to dismiss and therefore, the court can take judicial notice of the exhibit.

According to ASA Kolasa's exhibit, Battle was in custody August 15,2014, and on that
same day Battle went before Judge Laura

detain. Dkt. 13-1,

M. Sullivan for a determination of probable cause to

2. At that time, Battle's bail was set at $50,000. Id. A continuance

set for September 4,2014 in response to Battle's demand for a

date was

trial. Id. Battle was

seen by

Judge Shauna L. Boliker on September 4, 2014, and a second determination of probable cause
was made in response to Battle's demand for

atrial. Id. Therefore, the September 4,2014

date

Battle referenced in his complaint refers to the the second probable cause hearing that Battle
received in response to his demand for trial.

Battle filed a response to ASA Kolasa's motion to dismiss with a short statement asking

the court not to dismiss his complaint. DkL

27.

Battle did not dispute the validity of the

Certified Statement of Conviction/Disposition submitted by ASA Kolasa. Therefore, taking
judicial notice of the facts presented in the Certified Statement of Conviction/Disposition, it is
clear that Battle received probable cause hearing within forty-eight hours of his arrest.

ASA Kolasa also argues in her motion to dismiss that Battle's complaint should also
dismissed based on prosecutorial immunity.
case regarding a violation

be

It is unclear if immunity would be provided in a

of Fourth Amendment rights for a failure to have a probable

cause

hearing within forty-eight hours. ASA Kolasa relies on Imbler v. Pachtmara, which states that

"in initiating

a prosecution and

in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from

civil suit for damages under $ 1983." 420 U.S. 409,430 (1976). However, because the court

a

has

determined that there was no due process violation in Plaintifls underlying State criminal action,
the court need not consider this argument.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, ASA Kolasa's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim [#13] is granted. This case is closed on the Court's docket.

Dated:

?-?-/

Charles R. Norgle,
United States District Judge