Cornelius v. Marion, Illinois et al

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING 47 Defendants' Motion to Stay 31 Scheduling Order. Plaintiff may continue to prosecute this case, but may do so only with respect to the three claims approved in the Court's January 9, 2024 preliminary review order (Doc. 16 ). (Status Report due by 2/3/2025). Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 1/6/2025. (dkb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ESLEY D. CORNELIUS, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:23-CV-01165-NJR

CHARLES WEIGE, JESSIE
THOMPSON, and WILLIAM
LANNOM,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Esley D. Cornelius, III, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Cornelius alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection
with a traffic stop, search, and arrest.
On January 9, 2024, this Court issued a preliminary review order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A allowing Plaintiff to advance the following three claims:

x

Count 1: Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants for the unlawful
stop, search, seizure of Cornelius’s vehicle, arrest without probable cause,
and the seizure of Cornelius’s stimulus funds.

x

Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against
Defendants for racially profiling Cornelius before and during the traffic
stop.

Page 1 of 5

x

Count 3: Illinois state law claim for false arrest and imprisonment against
Defendants for Cornelius’s arrest on May 8, 2021.

(Doc. 16) (hereinafter “Merits Review Order”). On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion
for leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. 37). The Court granted this unopposed motion
on August 20, 2024 (Doc. 39), and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 28,
2024. (Doc. 41). 1
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now up for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief
must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Merits Review Order provided an overview of Plaintiff’s factual allegations
concerning the stop, arrest, and search that forms the basis of this action. See (Doc. 16).
The Court will not repeat this narrative in detail here. It is enough to note that Plaintiff
alleges he was the subject of racially discriminatory stop, arrest, and search by
Defendants (officers of the Marion Police Department). Defendants allegedly pulled him
over based on an impermissible “hunch” of illegal activity, instructed him to get out of
the car, found several thousands of dollars in cash on his person, and then found that the
person riding in the passenger seat, Ashley N. Turner, was in possession of

1 The Court granted this motion as unopposed even though it was untimely under the scheduling order

entered on March 13, 2024. See (Doc. 31).

Page 2 of 5

methamphetamine.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint offers very little—if any—additional support for his
claims. Indeed, the amended complaint appears to simply repeat the factual allegations
concerning the stop, search, and arrest. Plaintiff apparently summarizes his legal theories
as follows: “(1) unlawful arrest imprison[ment]; (2) equal protection violation; (3) civil
conspiracy; (4) illegal search and seizure from illicit stop; (5) unlawful pretrial detention;
(6) false arrest/imprisonment; and (7) malicious prosecution.” But the amended
complaint does not match Plaintiffs’ allegations to these legal theories, nor does it provide
any reason to expand the number of claims that were previously approved in the Merits
Review Order. Moreover, as far as the Court can tell, these purported claims are all based
on Plaintiff’s arrest and the prosecution that followed. These allegations were addressed
in the Merits Review Order, and the Court clearly explained which claims survived
preliminary review. Thus, the Court declines to expand the number of legal claims on
which Plaintiff may proceed.
One issue warrants further discussion: Plaintiff’s claim of “defamation” against
Defendants. The amended complaint asserts that Defendants “made false statements to
prosecutors and local news reports . . . about Plaintiff’s reputation as a drug trafficker
and made humiliating and false accusations.” (Doc. 41 at 7). It goes on to allege that
Defendant Officer Weige “said in his false report” that Plaintiff was “convicted of child
endangerment and unlawful use of weapon” and that “the local newspaper and social
media website for Williamson Co. and Marion Police Dept. posted the arrest report,”
causing Plaintiff to be humiliated.
Page 3 of 5

In Illinois, defamation claims against police officers and other public officials are
subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a). Plaintiff was arrested
on May 8, 2021, and charged with possession of methamphetamine that same day.
(Doc. 41 at 1). He filed this lawsuit on April 6, 2023. His defamation claims are based on
the publication of information contained in the police reports that were drafted shortly
after his arrest. Although Plaintiff does not reveal a specific date on which the
allegedly

defamatory

statements

were

made,

his

claim

is

untimely unless

Defendants waited almost a full year before publicizing the contents of their reports.
The amended complaint does not warrant such an inference; nor would it be supported
by common sense. See Stobinske-Sawyer v. Village of Alsip, 188 F. Supp. 2d 915 (N.D.
Ill. 2002) (defamation claim against police officer untimely where claim was filed one
year and three months after arrest and defamatory statement was made “shortly after”
arrest); Grzanecki v. Cook Cnty. Sheriffs Police Dep’t., No. 10 C 07345, 2011 WL
3610087, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2011) (same when complaint was filed more than one
year after arrest and no other facts supported timeliness of claim). Thus, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s claim for defamation is time-barred under 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a).
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court declines to modify the Merits Review Order. Plaintiff
may continue to prosecute this lawsuit but may do so only with respect to the
claims approved in the Merits Review Order. Defendants motion to stay the
scheduling order pending a preliminary review of the amended complaint (Doc. 47) is
DENIED as moot.

Page 4 of 5

NEXT STEPS
The Court acknowledges that discovery closed on December 2, 2024, and that two
motions to compel discovery (Docs. 36 & 38) are currently pending. Defendants and
Plaintiff are thus DIRECTED to each file a status report (Defendants shall file their report
jointly and Plaintiff shall file his own) updating the Court on the status of the case. These
reports shall be filed on or before February 3, 2025. If more time is needed to complete
discovery, the parties shall say so in their status reports and propose a modified
scheduling order to allow the case to proceed to resolution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 6, 2025
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 5 of 5