Thompson v. Ruddy, 041415 FED7, 14-1857

Docket Nº:14-1857
Party Name:BEVERLY THOMPSON and ROBERT ROCK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREGORY P. RUDDY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Case Date:April 14, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

BEVERLY THOMPSON and ROBERT ROCK, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

GREGORY P. RUDDY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-1857

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

April 14, 2015

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Submitted April 14, 2015 [*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 11 C 4425 Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.

Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Beverly Thompson and Robert Rock, successive owners of a property in the City of Joliet, sued the City and two of the City's employees over alleged civil-rights violations in connection with a suit by the City to enforce its ordinances. The City and its employees prevailed in this federal action, in part on the pleadings and in part at summary judgment. Thompson and Rock contend in this appeal only that they were not afforded an adequate opportunity during discovery to pursue their claims. We affirm the judgment.

According to the complaint Gregory Ruddy, a civil engineer with the City, accused Thompson of placing fill on her property without the necessary permits. That ordinance violation was prosecuted, ultimately unsuccessfully, by Mary Kucharz, a lawyer for the City. Thompson and Rock responded to the ordinance-enforcement proceeding by filing this federal lawsuit, in which they sought relief against Ruddy and Kucharz under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), asserting they conspired to deprive the plaintiffs of equal protection due to their economic class, and the City of Joliet under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), asserting that the City failed to supervise Ruddy and Kucharz. They also brought a supplemental malicious-prosecution claim against all defendants.

The district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on their malicious-prosecution and Monell claims, and only against Ruddy and the City. (Kucharz was dismissed from the suit on grounds of absolute prosecutorial immunity.) The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim under § 1985 because they alleged only a conspiracy to discriminate against them based on socioeconomic status, which is not an actionable basis for a claim under § 1985. Several months later, in June 2012, the court, on the defendants'...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP