Horton v. City of Rockford

• Decision Date: 06 August 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 18 C 6829
• Parties: JOHN HORTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

JOHN HORTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 18 C 6829

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

August 6, 2019

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John Horton brings this suit against the City of Rockford and various past and current Rockford police officers. Horton alleges that Rockford police officers abused him and violated his rights while he was in custody, which led to Horton falsely confessing to, and being wrongly convicted of, armed robbery and murder. Defendants move to dismiss Horton's Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 101) is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 19, 1993, a masked gunman entered a McDonald's restaurant in Rockford, Illinois. The man shot and killed a customer in the restaurant before demanding that the manager on duty turn over the contents of the restaurant's safe. Within several days of the shooting, Horton heard that Rockford police officers were looking into him as a suspect. (Am. Compl. ¶ 39, Dkt. No. 88.) At the time, Horton was 17 years old and a student in the 11th grade. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 40.) On his own accord, Horton went to the Winnebago County Public Safety Building in an attempt to clarify the situation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 39.)

According to the Amended Complaint, Rockford police officers detained and interrogated Horton for approximately ten hours even though they knew he was a minor. (Am. Compl. ¶ 41.) These officers used various improper tactics such as manipulating, physically threatening, and isolating Horton, and denying him proper nutrition and sleep, in order to coerce Horton into signing a false confession. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41, 46, 51.) These officers then went on to fabricate evidence, lie in their police reports regarding Horton's confession, and conceal a great deal of exculpatory evidence from the prosecutors and Horton's defense attorneys, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 70-76, 83.)

In 1995, Horton was tried for the McDonald's murder and armed robbery. (Am. Compl. ¶ 85.) His false confession was the primary evidence introduced against him at trial. (Am. Compl. ¶ 86.) A jury convicted Horton, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. (Am. Compl. ¶ 88.) Soon after Horton's conviction, another man named Clifton English contacted Horton's attorneys andconfessed that English committed the crimes for which Horton had been convicted. (Am. Compl. ¶ 89.) Over the next 18 years, English attempted several times to bring his confession to the attention of the appropriate authority who might be able to exonerate Horton. (Am. Compl. ¶ 93.) Ultimately, in October 2016, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed Horton's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. (Am. Compl. ¶ 96.) By the time Horton's conviction was reversed, he had spent more than 23 years of his life in prison. (Am. Compl. ¶ 117.) The special prosecutor appointed to review the case eventually decided to drop all charges against Horton. (Am. Compl. ¶ 97.)

Plaintiff brought suit against the City of Rockford and the following past and current Rockford police officers: Paul Ardunio, James Barton, the Estate of Howard Forrester, Rich Gambini, Daniel Gray, Greg Hanson, Dominic Iasparro, Steve Johnson, Clint Kellett, the Estate of Gregory Lindmark, Charles McDonald, Russell Nelson, Steven Olson, Anthony Piccirilli, Steve Pirages, Sam Pobjecky, John Pozzi, Robert Redmond, Mark Schmidt, Bruce Scott, Dan Scott, and Paul Triolo. To adopt the nomenclature Plaintiff uses in his Amended Complaint, the Court will refer to the individual Defendants collectively as the "Defendant Officers." Horton alleges 11 counts in his Amended Complaint:

Count I: coercion of a false confession in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;Count II: deprivation of liberty without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;

Count III: deprivation of due process and right to a fair trial in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

Count IV: failure to intervene in ongoing violations of Horton's constitutional rights;

Count V: conspiracy to deprive Horton of his constitutional rights;

Count VI: Monnell policy and practice claim against the City of Rockford;

Count VII: intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois State law;

Count IX [sic]: civil conspiracy to frame Horton for a crime he did not commit, under Illinois State law;

Count X: indemnification claim against the City of Rockford; and

Count XI: respondeat superior claim against the City of Rockford.

All Defendants other than Bruce Scott, Robert Redmond, and the Estate of Howard Forrester, now move to dismiss Horton's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. STANDARD

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper when "the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claimof entitlement to relief." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must contain allegations that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" or it is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief "above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a plaintiff's claim, the court must construe all of the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 2011). However, legal conclusions and conclusory allegations merely reciting the elements of the claim are not entitled to this presumption. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Statute of Limitations

As an initial matter, Defendants argue, and Plaintiff concedes, that the state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy (Counts VII and IX) are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In Illinois, intentional infliction of emotional distress and state law conspiracy claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a). A plaintiff cannot bring a civil suit for damages stemming from a wrongful conviction until that conviction has been reversed on appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalidby a state court, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Thus, Horton had until one year after his conviction was vacated in October of 2016 to bring these state claims. Horton filed this suit two years later, in October of 2018; accordingly, Counts VII and IX are dismissed against all Defendants with prejudice.

B. Sufficiency of Group Pleading

Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the federal pleading requirements because it contains "no allegations of wrongdoing" against most of the Defendant Officers. Defendants contend that the Amended Complaint over-relies on group pleading in violation of Rule 8(a)(2), which requires a pleading to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Horton organized his Amended Complaint by naming all 22 of the individual Defendant Officers, explaining that at all times relevant to the Complaint they were police officers in the Rockford Police Department, and stating that they would be referred to collectively as "Defendant Officers." (Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) Thereafter, when Horton did not know the individual officers responsible for the conduct he complained of, he would refer to the "Defendant Officers" rather than naming a specific individual.(See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51, 66, 74 ("The Defendant Officers also threatened [Horton] with physical abuse"; "After hours of interrogation by the Defendant Officers, [Horton] succumbed to the Defendants' manipulation and coercion . . ."; "Defendant Officers also made false statements in their reports.").) Horton was able to attribute certain conduct to individual officers—primarily Scott, Redmond, and Forrester—and as a result, those three officers have not moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Thus, Defendants argue that Horton's pleading is not sufficiently specific to bring a case against 19 of the 22 named Defendant Officers.

Under the notice pleading standard, specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). There "is no 'group pleading' doctrine, per se, that either permits or forbids allegations against defendants collectively." Robles v. City of Chicago, 354 F. Supp. 3d 873, 875 (N.D. Ill. 2019). "Group pleading" does not violate Rule 8 so long as the complaint "provides sufficient detail to put the defendants on notice of the claims." Id. (citing Lattimore v. Vill. of Streamwood, No. 17 C 8683, 2018 WL 2183991, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2018)). With respect to the notice required to a particular defendant, there is no bright line rule; the Seventh Circuit has simply cautioned that "at some point thefactual detail in a complaint may be so sketchy that the complaint does not provide the type of notice of the claim to which the defendant is entitled under Rule 8." Id. (quoting Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2007)). The Seventh Circuit has held that an allegation directed at multiple defendants can adequately plead personal involvement or responsibility in the context of an alleged constitutional deprivation in certain circumstances. See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 582 (7th Cir. 2009).

Read as a whole, the Amended Complaint contains enough factual detail to put the Defendant Officers on notice of Horton's claims. Group pleading that refers to "Defendants" collectively is sufficient under...