Quint v. Village of Deerfield, 022610 FED7, 09-2508

Docket Nº:09-2508
Party Name:HILLARD JAY QUINT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
Case Date:February 26, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

HILLARD JAY QUINT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-2508

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

February 26, 2010

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Submitted January 21, 2010 [*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 07 C 5413, George W. Lindberg, Judge.

Before JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Hillard Quint has sued the Village of Deerfield, Illinois, and two of its police officers individually. As relevant here, he claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the officers violated his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest as they entered and searched his home without consent or without a warrant, and seized personal property from the residence; these actions, Quint maintains, were the policy of the Deerfield Police Department. Quint's amended complaint, filed by counsel, also includes state-law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The district court dismissed Quint's illegal search claim on the basis of a qualified-immunity defense raised by the individual defendants and the court dismissed all other federal claims for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court also concluded that all of the state-law claims, other than the defamation claim, were time-barred, but as to that claim the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because all claims based in federal law had been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Schor v. City of Chicago, 576 F.3d 775, 779 (7th Cir. 2009). Quint appeals. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

Because the district court dismissed Quint's complaint at the pleading stage, we accept the facts in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to Quint. See Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008); Christensen v. County of Boone, 483 F.3d 454, 457 (7th Cir. 2007). In February 2007 the individual defendants, both detectives from the Village of Deerfield, arrested Quint on the street outside his apartment in Chicago, Illinois. The detectives, Juan Mazariegos and Vince Nichols, informed Quint they were acting on an arrest warrant issued in Georgia three years earlier for writing a bad check. They told Quint they were going to hold him until Chicago police arrived to take him into custody. While they were waiting, the detectives frisked Quint and searched his car. They did not find any contraband, but in a pants pocket they did find his house keys, which they then used to enter and search his apartment without consent or a warrant. The items seized by Mazariegos and Nichols included financial documents, tax records, a computer, and photographs; Quint was never charged with a crime in the detectives' jurisdiction, and the items taken from his home were never used in any prosecution. Instead, the detectives turned some of the items they confiscated over to various media sources, as well as accusations that Quint was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP