Sanders v. Splittorf et al

Filing 91

JUDGMENT. Approved by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/19/2024. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ARYION SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-864-JPG

JOE SPLITTORFF, MICHAEL O’NEILL, CITY OF
ALTON, and CITY OF ALTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court, the issues having been heard, and the Court
having rendered a decision,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following claims of plaintiff
Aryion Sanders are dismissed with prejudice:
•

All claims against the City of Alton Police Department;

•

All claims for municipal liability under Monell against defendants Joe Splittorff and
Michael O’Neill in their individual capacities;

•

Count 1 of the Second Amended Complaint against Joe Splittorff and Michael O’Neill
for denying plaintiff Aryion Sanders access to an attorney and for refusing to stop
questioning Sanders after he asked to cease the interrogations in violation of the Fifth
Amendment;

•

Count 1 of the Second Amended Complaint against Splittorff and Michael O’Neill for
violations of the Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment;

•

Count 4 of the Second Amended Complaint against Joe Splittorff and Michael O’Neill
for battery in violation of Illinois law; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following claims of plaintiff
Aryion Sanders are dismissed without prejudice:
•

Count 3 of the Third Amended Complaint against defendants Joe Splittorff and Michael
O’Neill for intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Illinois law; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered as follows:

•

in favor of defendants Joe Splittorff and Michael O’Neill on Count 1 of the Third
Amended Complaint for using conscience-shocking interrogation tactics in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment; and

•

in favor of defendant City of Alton on Count 2 of the Third Amended Complaint for
having a policy and widespread practice of directing officers to use inappropriate
interrogation techniques in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
and that those claims are dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: July 19, 2024

MONICA A. STUMP, Clerk of Court
s/Tina Gray, Deputy Clerk

Approved:

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2