Johnson v. Root

• Decision Date: 01 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11 C 154.,11 C 154.
• Citation: 812 F.Supp.2d 914
• Parties: Danny L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Thomas ROOT, Adult Probation Officer, in his individual and official capacity, and County of Cook, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

812 F.Supp.2d 914

Danny L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,

v.Thomas ROOT, Adult Probation Officer, in his individual and official capacity, and County of Cook, Defendants.

No. 11 C 154.

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

Sept. 1, 2011.

Elliot R. Zinger, Law Offices of Elliot R. Zinger, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Aaron Richard Bond, James Charles Pullos, Cook County State's Attorney's, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RUBEN CASTILLO, District Judge.

Danny L. Johnson brings this action against a former officer of the Cook County Adult Probation Office, Thomas Root, alleging violations of state and federal law. (R. 1, Compl.) Presently before the Court is Root's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). (R. 15, Root's Mot.) For the reasons stated below, Root's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

RELEVANT FACTS

On July 3, 1995, Johnson entered guilty pleas in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division, to various criminal charges. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 1.) He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 months probation, with six months to be served in jail. ( Id.) In November 1995, at the conclusion of his jail term, an extradition officer took Johnson to Tennessee, where he was ordered to serve a term of three years in a Tennessee prison. ( Id. ¶ 14.) Johnson ultimately served 21 months of this sentence. ( Id.) From July 3, 1995, through at least February 16, 1996, Johnson was incarcerated without interruption. ( Id. ¶ 15.)

On January 24, 1996, while Johnson was incarcerated in Tennessee, Cook County Adult Probation Officer Michael Bruns mailed a notice to Johnson's home address. ( Id. ¶ 6.) This notice stated that Johnson was required to appear at a hearing on February 16, 1996, to answer allegations in the attached “petition for violation of probation and warrant.” ( Id.) This petition, which was prepared by Bruns, alleged that Johnson had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report to probation on July 3, 1995, the day he was sentenced. ( Id. ¶ 7.) The petition requested the court to issue a warrant for Johnson to appear and answer the allegations at a hearing to determine whether his probation should be revoked or modified. ( Id.)

A few weeks later, on February 16, 1996, Root, another Cook County Adult Probation Officer, filed and presented the “petition for violation of probation and warrant.” ( Id. ¶ 8.) When Johnson did not appear, the court issued a “no-bail” warrant for his arrest, which remained outstanding for more than 10 years. ( Id.)

In October of 2006, Johnson was arrested and charged with criminal trespass to property. ( Id. ¶ 9.) At that time, the warrant issued on February 16, 1996. was executed, and Johnson appeared before the circuit court on the State's request to revoke the probation imposed on July 3, 1995. ( Id.) At the subsequent revocation hearing, the circuit court took judicial notice of the pretrial investigation report, which was supported by documents from the Tennessee court system. ( Id. ¶ 16.) These documents indicated that Johnson had been charged, convicted, and sentenced for several offenses in Tennessee from 1998 through 2006. ( Id.) They also reflected that on April 3, 1996, Johnson was sentenced in Tennessee to a prison term of three years and received 130 days' credit against that term for time already served. ( Id.)

The circuit court also heard testimony from Root and Johnson. Root testified that according to the records maintained by the probation department, Johnson had failed to report since the imposition of his probation term in July 1995. ( Id. ¶ 10.) He stated that the notice of revocation petition and the February 1996 hearing date were mailed to Johnson at the most recent address on file with the department, and when Johnson did not appear in court on February 16, 1996, a warrant was issued for his arrest. ( Id. ¶¶ 11–12.) Root also testified that Johnson's assigned probation officer, Bruns, was no longer employed by the probation department. ( Id. ¶ 10.) He stated that, as far he knew, Johnson never met with Bruns. ( Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) Root acknowledged that he was unaware that a six-month jail term had been imposed as part of Johnson's probation, and could not recall if he had checked to determine whether Johnson was in custody as of February 1996. ( Id. ¶ 13.) He also admitted that it was not possible for Johnson to report to the department while serving a jail term. ( Id.)

Johnson testified that from July 3, 1995, through at least February 16, 1996, he was incarcerated in Tennessee without interruption and was unable to contact the probation department. ( Id. ¶ 15.) Johnson also stated that after being released from prison, he worked in Tennessee and did not report to the Cook County Adult Probation Department because he “didn't know he was still on probation.” ( Id.)

At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the circuit court found that although Johnson was unable to report to the probation department while he was incarcerated in Tennessee, his failure to report after he was released from prison in Tennessee in August 1997 constituted a violation of his probation. ( Id. ¶ 17.) The court revoked Johnson's probation and sentenced him to consecutive terms of one. three, and five years, totaling nine years' imprisonment. ( Id. ¶ 18.)

Johnson timely filed notices of appeal, and on September 22, 2009, the Second Division of the First Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois (“Appellate Court”) reversed the circuit court's judgment revoking Johnson's probation and vacated his sentence. ( Id. ¶¶ 19–20.) The basis for the reversal by the Appellate Court was that Root, as a probation officer, did not have the authority under the relevant Illinois statute to initiate the proceeding to revoke Johnson's probation. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Accordingly, the Appellate Court held that the petition seeking revocation of Johnson's probation was invalid ab initio and could not serve as the basis for issuance of a warrant for Johnson's arrest. ( Id. ¶ 22.) The Appellate Court further held that in the absence of a valid pleading, Johnson's probation was not tolled and his 18 month probation expired on January 2, 1997, leaving the circuit court without jurisdiction to rule on the revocation petition in March 2007. ( Id. ¶ 23.) Johnson was released from custody in April 2010. ( Id.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Johnson brought suit in this case on February 25, 2011, alleging claims under state and federal law. ( Id.) Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), Johnson alleges claims for wrongful conviction (Count I); false imprisonment (Count II); substantive due process/egregious abuse of power (Count III); equal protection (Count IV); and a Monell claim against Cook County (Count V). ( Id. ¶¶ 24–41.) Under state law, Johnson avers claims for indemnification against Cook County (Count VI); false imprisonment (Count VII); malicious prosecution (Count VIII); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IX). ( Id. ¶¶ 42–54.)

On February 25, 2011, Root filed a motion to dismiss. (R. 15, Root's Mot.) In his motion, Root contends that Johnson's claims against Root should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because he is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, public official immunity, and/or sovereign immunity. ( Id. at 2.) Root also maintains that he is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for all official capacity claims, and therefore that Johnson's complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). ( Id.) Finally, Root argues that Cook County should be dismissed from the lawsuit because there is no employment relationship between Cook County and Root or the Cook County Adult Probation Department. ( Id.)

In opposing Root's motion, Johnson argues that Root is not entitled to absolute, public official, or sovereign immunity. (R. 23, Johnson's Resp.) Johnson concedes, however, that he has no cause of action against Root in his official capacity or against Cook County because Root is a state employee. ( Id. at 1.) Given these concessions, the remaining issue before the Court is whether Johnson's claims against Root in his individual capacity should be dismissed because Root is entitled to absolute immunity for Johnson's federal claims and/or public official or sovereign immunity for Johnson's state law claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) “challenges the sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir.2009). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court construes the complaint “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accept[ing] well-pleaded facts as true, and draw[ing] all inferences in her favor.” Reger Dev. LLC v. Nat'l City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir.2010). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint must overcome “two easy-to-clear hurdles”: (1) “the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which it rests”; and (2) “its allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a ‘speculative level[.]’ ” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir.2008). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed if, as a matter of law, “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)).

ANALYSIS

In support of his motion to dismiss, Root contends that the doctrines of absolute immunity, public official immunity, and sovereign immunity bar Johnson's claims. The Court will consider each in turn.

I. ...