Lewis v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 58

Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated in this Opinion and Order, the motion of the defendants for a stay of this case 51 is denied. Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 6/7/2019:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Maurice Lewis
Plaintiff
No. 16 C 7592

City of Chicago, et al
Defendants

OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court on the motion of the defendants to stay this
case pursuant to the doctrine stated in Colorado River Water Conservation
District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818-20 (1976). A stay is sought pending
the disposition of a later filed case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois charging the defendants with malicious prosecution in violation of Illinois
law. That case is based essentially on the same facts as charged in this case.
Plaintiff Maurice Lewis was arrested for unlawfully possessing a firearm.
He spent over two years in pretrial detention. The charges against him were
dropped. This case is an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the City of Chicago
and six police officers seeking damages based on police reports allegedly falsely
-1-

stating that he possessed a firearm. Lewis alleged that he was held based on
falsified evidence violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. He also raised a claim in this action
under Illinois law for malicious prosecution.
This court granted defendants motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule
12(b)(6), finding the constitutional claims time-barred under the two-year statute
of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims in Illinois. The court relinquished
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law malicious prosecution claim,
dismissing it without prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal and also filed a malicious prosecution
action in the state court. Plaintiff states that the state court action was filed
because of the action of this court dismissing his state law claim and to avoid any
state law time limitation
After Lewis appealed the Supreme Court decided Manuel v.City of Joliet,
137 S. Ct. 911, 920 (2017) holding that detention without probable cause violates
the Fourth Amendment when it precedes, but also when it follows, the start of
legal process in a criminal case. It also held that the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process clause is not implicated. Later, in Manuel v. City of Joliet, 903 F. 3d 667,
670

(7th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals held that the claim for wrongful
-2-

pretrial detention accrues on the date that the detention ends. The effect of the
rulings is that Lewis pleaded a viable Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful
pretrial detention and that the claim was timely because filed within two years of
his release from detention. The judgment of this court dismissing the Fourth
Amendment and malicious prosecution claims was reversed and remanded for
trial. Maurice Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F. 3d 472 (2019).
In order to decide the pending motion the court must first decide whether
the concurrent state and federal actions are parallel. The relevant question is
whether there is a substantial likelihood that the state case will dispose of all
claims presented in the federal case. Defendants contend that the federal claim
should now await the trial of the state law claim even though the parties agree that
the legal issues and standards are different in each case. In the pending case
absence of probable cause to detain can be based on proof that false evidence was
presented to the state court. Illinois Law of malicious prosecution, however,
requires a showing that the state court action was resolved in Lewis’ favor and
proof of malice which are not an elements of the constitutional claim. Simmons v.
Pryor, 26 F. 3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 1993). Fourth Amendment claims are evaluated
for objective reasonableness. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 207 (2001).
Any doubt about the parallel nature of the actions must be resolved in
-3-

favor of denying a stay. The actions are not parallel. The resolution of the pending
state case is unlikely to resolve this case. It is unnecessary to weigh other
equitable considerations that must be considered if the actions are found to be
parallel.
Plaintiff states that the Illinois case is close to trial, that no discovery has
been taken in this action and that discovery will not be duplicated. The trial of
this case can be managed to avoid overlap and still consider any effects of first
findings in either jurisdiction. A stay is not required to avoid overlap.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
The motion of the defendants for a stay of this case is denied.

Dated: June 7, 2019

United States District Judge.

-4-