Bolden v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 28 October 2022
• Docket Number: 17 CV 00417
• Parties: EDDIE L. BOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et. al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

EDDIE L. BOLDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et. al., Defendants.

No. 17 CV 00417

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 28, 2022

Brian J. Stefanich Special Assistant Corporation Counsel One of the Attorneys for Defendant Officers

DEFENDANTS' JOINT RULE 50(b) RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

HONORABLE STEVEN C. SEEGER J.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................. …………………………………….i

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... .1

STANDARD .................................................................................................................................. .2

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3

I. Defendants Are Entitled To Judgement As a Matter of Law on Bolden's Fourteenth Amended Due Process Claim....………………………...…………………………3

A. Bolden's Due Process Claim Fails Because Violating The Prophylactic Rule Against Suggestive Identification Procedures Does not Create § 1983 Liability…………………………………………….……………………. 3

B. Even If An Unduly Suggestive Identification Claim Exists, Defendants Are Entitled To Judgment As A Matter of Law Because Bolden Had A Fair Opportunity To Litigate The Issue During His Criminal Proceedings…….………….........................................................................8

II. Defendants Are Entitled To Judgement As a Matter of Law on Bolden's Fourth Amendment and Malicious Prosecution Claims Because No Reasonable Jury Could Conclude Defendants Lacked Probable Cause ………...………………………….9

A. Bolden Failed to Rebut the Prima Facie Evidence of Probable Cause Based on the Indictment…………………………….………………………….. 10

B. Clifford's Lineup Identification, Corroborated by the Other Evidence, Established Probable Cause………………………………………………12

C. Probable Cause Existed Even Without Clifford's Lineup Identification of Bolden……………………………………………………………………13

III. Defendants Have Qualified Immunity for Bolden's Federal Claims.………………………………………………………………………….. 19

IV. Defendants Are Entitled to Judgement as a Matter of Law on Bolden's Failure to Intervene and Conspiracy Claims……………………...…………………………22

V. Bolden's IIED Claim Fails Because the Defendants are Entitled to Immunity………………………………………………………………...……….23

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alexander v. City of South Bend, 433 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006)………………………………6, 19

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)……………………………………………………21

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)………………………………………………………..…….22

Bell v. Weis, 2015 WL 4972467 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2015) …..…………………………………..6

Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 2021 IL 125617……….…………………………………………….…..9

Brown v. Wilson, 1991 WL 274922 (N.D. Ill.Dec. 17, 1991)….………………………………..6

Burrell v. Village of Sauk Village, 2017 IL App (1st) 163392…………………………………..11

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)……………………………………………………………23

Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2017)……………………...………........10, 12

Coleman v. City of Peoria, Ill. 925 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2019)……………………..………..3, 4, 10

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)………….……….23

District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577 (2018)……………….………………………….21

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) …………………………………………………..….10

Hampton v. City of Chicago, 2017 WL 2985743 (N.D. Ill. 2017)…………………………..20, 21

Henderson v. Rangel, 2022 WL 3716263 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2022)………….…...……………11

Hensley v. Carey, 818 F.2d 646 (7th Cir. 1987)………..……………………………………. 3, 19

Holland v. City of Chicago, 643 F.3d 248 (7th Cir. 2011).…………...…….…….....13, 14, 18, 22

Holloway v. City of Milwaukee, 43 F.4th 760 (7th Cir. 2022)…………………………….5, 6, 19

Hudson v. Brierton, 699 F.2d 917 (7th Cir. 1983)……………………………………………….20

Gamenos v. Jewel Cos., 797 F.2d 432, 440 (7th Cir. 1986))…………………………………….22

Israel v. Odom, 521 F.2d 1370, 1372 (7th Cir. 1975)……………………………………………20

3

Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 476 (7th Cir. 2019)………………….………………….9

Logan, 891 F.Supp.2d at 904………………………………………………………….…………………..12

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977)………………………………………………...3, 7, 20

Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S.Ct. 911, 918-19 (2017)………………….…………………..9

Messino v. City of Elmhurst, 2021 WL 4318082, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2021)………………23

Mitchell v. Doherty, 37 F.4th 1277, 1283 (7th Cir. 2022)…………………………………..…9,10

Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)………………..…………23

Mwangangi v. Nielsen, 48 F.4th 816, 834 (7th Cir. 2022)………………………………………………...22

Mustafa v. City of Chicago, 442 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2006)…………………………………..9

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972)……………………………………………………3

Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2001)……………………………………..………21

Passananti v. Cook Cnty., 689 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2012)……………………….……………2

People v. Buss, 187 Ill.2d 144, 204 (1999)……………………………………………………...10

People v. Gocmen, 2018 IL 122388……………………………………………………………..10

Phillips v. Allen, 668 F.3d 912, 915 (7th Cir. 2012)……………………………………4, 7, 13, 22

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490-91 (1973)………………………………………………5

Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 369 (2012)…………………………………………………….11

Reyes v. Nurse, 38 F.4th 636, 644 (7th Cir. 2022)…………………………………….………..5, 6

Rivera v. Guevara, 319 F.Supp.3d 1004, 1055 (N.D. Ill. 2018)…………………….………….12

Sattler v. Hernandez, 2011 WL 3839658, *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2011)……………………….6, 7

Sang Ken Kim v. City of Chicago, 368 Ill.App.3d 648, 654, 655 (2006)………………………10

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1977)……………………………………………20

Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 617 (7th Cir. 2008)……………………………………………..22

Spiegel v. Cortese, 196 F.3d 717, 724-25 (7th Cir. 1999)……………………………………….18

4

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 2017 IL App (2d) 160381, ¶ 46.…….….11

Swannigan v. City of Chicago, 2016 WL 561891, *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2016)………………….6

Tart v. Illinois Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 2004)……………………………………3

Thomas v. Drochner, 1994 WL 803263, *13 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 1994)……………….…………..6

Thompson v. Clark, 142 S.Ct. 1332, 1337-38 (2022)…………………………………………….9

Turner v. City of Chicago, 2015 WL 7568373, *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2015)…………..……….10

United States v. Jeffrey Earl Johnson, 859, F.2d 1289, 1295 (7th Cir. 1988)…………………...20

United States ex rel. Kirby v. Sturges, 510 F.2d 397, 406 (7th Cir. 1975)………………………19

United States v. Medina, 552 F.2d 181, 190 (7th Cir. 1977)…………………………………….20

United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 247, 253 (7th Cir. 2010)…………………………………...10

Vaughn v. Chapman, 662 Fed.Appx. 464, 467 (7th Cir. 2016)…………………………………….9

Vega v. Tekoh, 142 S.Ct. 2095 2103, 2105-06, 2107-08 (2022)……...……….....1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Walden v. City of Chicago, 755 F.Supp.2d 942, 965 (N.D. Ill. 2010)…………….………………6

Washington v. City of Chicago, 2022 WL 2905669, *8 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2022)….…………….9

Washington, 2022 WL 2905669, at *12…………………………………………………………10

Williams v. Hutchens, 870 F.Supp. 857, 863 (N.D. Ill. 1994)…………………………………….6

Young v. City of Chicago, 987 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2021)…………………………….....10, 18

The United States Code

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ...............................................................1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 22

Statutes

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2)….………………………………………………………………………... 2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)…….………………………………………………………………………... 2

5

Defendants, Angelo Pesavento, James Oliver, the Estate of George Karl, and the Estate of Edward Siwek (collectively, Defendants), for their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), state:

INTRODUCTION

Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Bolden's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim based on alleged unduly suggestive identification procedures, Fourth Amendment pretrial detention claim, malicious prosecution claim under Illinois law, failure to intervene and conspiracy claims, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. First, a violation of a prophylactic rule designed to protect a constitutional right cannot be a basis for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Vega v. Tekoh, 142 S.Ct. 2095 (2022). The judicially created rule against unduly suggestive identification procedures is a prophylactic rule, not a constitutional right, and the remedy is the suppression of the identification after consideration of the totality of the circumstances rather than money damages under § 1983. As set forth below, Defendants were subject to liability for a claim that does not exist and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Even if this Court is able to reconcile Vega with Bolden's claim in this case, the claim is only cognizable if Bolden was prevented from litigating the suggestive identification issue at his criminal trial. No reasonable jury could find that Bolden was so prevented. Bolden knew of and had all of the evidence regarding Clifford Frazier's (“Clifford”) identification of him and utilized it in a pretrial motion and at the criminal trial. As further discussed below, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Bolden's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim.

Second, no reasonable jury could find that Defendants lacked probable cause for the charges placed against Bolden. The presumption of probable cause based on the grand jury indictment was not rebutted and the evidence Bolden presented centered on establishing whether

6

there was sufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rather than whether Defendants lacked an honest and sound suspicion that Bolden (a/k/a “Lynier”) shot and killed Derrick Frazier and Ledell...