Grayson v. City of Aurora, 13 C 1705

• Decision Date: 17 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. 13 C 1705,13 C 1705
• Citation: 157 F.Supp.3d 725
• Parties: Jonathan Grayson, Plaintiff, v. City of Aurora, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

157 F.Supp.3d 725

Jonathan Grayson, Plaintiff,

v.City of Aurora, et al., Defendants.

No. 13 C 1705

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

Signed January 17, 2016

Jonathan I. Loevy, Arthur R. Loevy, Elliot Robert Slosar, Julie Marie Goodwin, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

John B. Murphey, Matthew David Rose, Yancey Lewis Pinkston, Jr., Rosenthal, Murphey, Coblentz & Donahue, Andrew M. Hale, Avi T. Kamionski, Shneur Z. Nathan, Amy A. Hijjawi, Hale Law LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Virginia M. Kendall

, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Jonathan Grayson¹ was wrongfully convicted of murder on November 7, 2002 in Kane County, Illinois. He proceeded to serve more than eleven years in prison for a crime he did not commit. After new evidence prompted a reinvestigation of Grayson's case, the Kane County State's Attorney's Office moved to vacate Grayson's conviction. On March 6, 2012, the State of Illinois agreed and exonerated Grayson from the murder conviction. After his exoneration, Grayson filed suit against the City of Aurora and Aurora Police employees T. Kearbey, Robb Wallers, Alvin Soto, Thomas Kinney, Rick Robertson, Dan West, John Thompson, and Michael Gumz, alleging a number of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and state law.² Specifically, Grayson alleges that the Defendants denied him a fair trial in violation of his Due Process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating evidence and crafting false and misleading reports, using unduly suggestive identification procedures, and coercing him into giving a false confession. Grayson also asserts constitutional claims for supervisory liability, failure to intervene, conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and conspiracy to deny access to courts. Grayson additionally brings state law claims for malicious prosecution, negligent supervision, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, indemnification, and spoliation.

The remaining defendants (the City of Aurora, Wallers, Robertson, and West) now move for summary judgment on all of Grayson's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

, arguing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no issue of material fact concerning whether they had probable cause to investigate, prosecute, and ultimately aid in the conviction of Grayson. Grayson does not dispute summary judgment on his supervisory liability claim (Count II), negligent supervision claims (Count VI), or his Monell claim, styled as respondeat superior (Count IX). Those three counts are accordingly dismissed. Additionally, the Court grants summary judgment to the Defendants on Grayson's conspiracy claims (Counts IV & VIII), intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (Count VIII), and spoliation claim (Count XI). However, for the reasons that follow, the remainder of the Defendants' motion is denied. The Court therefore grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 159 & 177) in part and denies it in part.³

BACKGROUND

The Court takes the following facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and exhibits. The facts are undisputed unless expressly noted.

A. The Underlying Incident

Just before 6 a.m. on August 24, 2000, Aurora Police Officers Lawrence Suttle, Brian Pierce, and Jeff Schoeberlen received and responded to a report of gunshots near the Lincoln Laundromat at 15 S. Lincoln Avenuew in Aurora, Illinois. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 3.) The officers encountered Shaun Miller, Leroy Starks, and Marilou Alvorado once they arrived on scene. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 4.) Miller was nonresponsive⁴ , but Starks was conscious despite having been shot in his leg and chest. (Id. ; Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 5.) Alvorado was unharmed. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 4.) Later, Starks testified that he did not remember speaking to the police either on scene or in the ambulance, but Aurora officers may have asked him if he knew who shot him. (Def. 56.1 St.¶ 5; Pl. Resp. ¶ 5.) Starks did not tell any officer that he knew the shooter. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 5.) While in the ambulance, Starks called his brother and currently claims that he told his brother an individual named Flip shot him, but he did not pass this information along to the police. (Id. ) The paramedics on scene did not recall Starks talking about the incident while in the ambulance, but stated that if they had, they would have documented the communication. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 6; Pl. Resp. ¶ 6.)

After ambulances and emergency vehicles arrived on scene, Alvorado left and later returned. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 10.) The reason for her departure is disputed: at Grayson's criminal trial, Alvorado testified that the police took her to the station in handcuffs because she was not cooperative, while in her 2014 deposition, she stated she was never forced to speak. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 10; 2014 Alvorado Dep. at 337-38.) Alvorado returned to the scene with Maurice and Melissa Matthews. Pierce documented in a report that Maurice yelled that Alvorado had told him that Flip was the shooter. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 11.) Grayson has used the nickname Flip since he was a child. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 12.)

B. The Investigation

1. Leroy Starks

Officer Marshall Gauer spoke with Starks in the hospital the morning of the shooting. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 22.) Starks gave a physical description of the shooter but did not name Grayson as the shooter. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 22.) Starks additionally told Gauer that Eric Greene, known as Peanut, was driving around the block near the Lincoln Laundromat before the shooting. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 23.)

On August 25, 2000, Aurora police interview Starks at the hospital again. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 41.) Starks told Wallers that the shooter was about 5'9‘, had big eyes and a big nose, and was wearing a white striped shirt and purple shorts, which was different than Alvorado's account. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 41.) Starks did not tell Wallers that he knew who the shooter was or that it was someone he knew as Flip, but eventually selected Grayson's photo from a lineup. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 41; Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 42.) Grayson contends that in the lineup Wallers showed Starks, he had the biggest eyes.

Starks's identification of Grayson without telling officers his name raises factual issues. Starks testified that he told his brother that Flip shot him while he was in the ambulance, yet he neglected to tell police officers either of the first two times he was interviewed. Moreover, Starks stated that he had met Grayson once, while Grayson testified that he knew Starks before the shooting and had interacted with him multiple times. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 45; Pl. Resp. ¶ 45.) Alvorado's description of their relationship fell much closer to Grayson's interpretation.

2. Marilou Alvorado

Just after the incident on August 24, 2000, Alvorado spoke to Suttle and told him that she had been with Miller and Starks. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 7.) The parties heavily dispute whether Alvorado was present for the shooting. Alvorado stated she was, but Starks maintained that Alvorado was not in the vicinity during the actual shooting because she left to make a phone call. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 93.) Suttle's police report stated that Alvorado described the shooter as a 5'8 ‘ Black male wearing tan pants, a flannel shirt, and black headwear. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 7.) Alvorado also told Suttle that she recognized the shooter but did not know his name. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 7.) Suttle's report indicated that there were no other witnesses directly on scene when he took Alvorado's statement. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 7.) Alvorado later testified that she was afraid to name Grayson as the shooter because she believed the police would not be able to take him into custody right away.⁵ (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 8; Def. Ex. 7, 2014 Alvorado Dep. at 12; Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 24.) However, Alvorado told multiple people, including her friend, Melissa, and police that the shooter was not Flip, but that the shooter “looked like Flip, but taller.” (Pl. Resp. ¶ 8.) A report written by Wallers documented that Alvorado flatly denied telling anyone that Flip was the shooter. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 11.) Melissa told law enforcement that she was “pretty sure if [Alvorado] knew who [the shooter] was...she would say it.” (Pl. Resp. ¶ 8.) Alvorado testified in 2014 that she would have been willing to identify Flip as the shooter even if she had not made arrangements to leave the state. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 8.)

At the hospital, Gauer wrote a report stating that Melissa told him to look for Peanut and Flip. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 25.) However, in this same conversation, Alvorado told Gauer that “it wasn't Flip because he wasn't tall enough.” (Gauer Dep. at 81.) Alvorado proceeded to meet with police at least three times concerning the incident. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 27.) In her first interview on August 24, 2000, she claimed she was present at the scene of the shooting but she did not identify Grayson as the shooter. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 28.) At some point, Wallers ran the name Flip through the Aurora Police Department's records system at 7:35 a.m. on August 24, 2000. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 30.) The parties dispute whether this search took place before or after Wallers's first interview with Alvorado. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 30; Pl. Resp. ¶ 30.)

On August 26, 2000, Alvorado contacted Wallers and told him she had been approached by Greene, who told her that Grayson had called him from jail and informed him that Alvorado had implicated the two of them in the shooting. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 56.) Alvorado went to the police station to look at some photo lineups after telling officers she could identify the shooter if she saw him. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 57.) Alvorado did not identify Grayson as the shooter either in a photo lineup or a more general “Gang Book,” but when Wallers asked her if she saw Flip (Grayson) in the Gang Book, she pointed him out. (Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 57.) Alvorado did, however, positively identify Greene in another photo lineup, despite the fact that he was not in custody and had in fact...