Lacy v. Vill. of Maywood

• Decision Date: 02 September 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-3081
• Parties: LIDDELL LACY, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF MAYWOOD, MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICER SEAN EARLY, MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICER CARLOS PATTERSON, and MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

LIDDELL LACY, Plaintiff,
v.
VILLAGE OF MAYWOOD, MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICER SEAN EARLY, MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICER CARLOS PATTERSON, and MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-3081

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

September 2, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert M. Dow, Jr. United States District Judge

Plaintiff Liddell Lacy brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Village of Maywood and Maywood Police Officers Sean Early, Carlos Patterson, and an unknown John Doe alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. Lacy also brings a state-law claim for fraudulent concealment against Defendant John Doe for his alleged role in thwarting Lacy from naming him in this suit.

Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss in part [16] Lacy's amended complaint [14] (“Complaint”). Defendants seek to dismiss (1) Count IV of the Complaint, and (2) Defendant Officer John Doe from the Complaint in its entirety. In addition to opposing Defendants' motion to dismiss [18], Lacy asks the Court to grant him leave to file a second amended complaint in order to substitute Lt. Daryl Fairley for the unnamed John Doe.

For the reasons explained below, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss [16] in full and grants Plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint to substitute Lt. Fairley. Plaintiff is directed to file the amended complaint no later than September 26, 2022. The parties

1

are directed to file a joint status report no later than October 12, 2022, setting out (a) a deadline by which Defendants will respond to the amended complaint; (b) a proposed discovery plan, and (c) a statement in regard to any settlement discussions and/or interest in a referral to the Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference.

I. Background^[1]

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Liddell Lacy brings this action based on his detention by the Maywood Police Department from June 8, 2019, through June 14, 2019. According to the Complaint [14], on the morning of June 8, 2019, Lacy was transported to a holding cell at the Maywood Police Department headquarters. [Id. at ¶ 19.] Lacy takes issue with the conduct of three police officers during his detention. He identifies two of those officers in the complaint-Defendants Officers Sean Earley and Carlos Patterson-and refers to the third officer as “John Doe.” [Id. at ¶¶ 7-9]. All three officers are alleged to be employees of the Village of Maywood. [Id.]

Lacy specifically alleges that upon being detained, he tied a blanket to the top of the toilet cell in his stall to demonstrate the hanging risk created it posed. [14 (Compl.) at ¶ 20.] Upon observing the blanket, Officer Earley ordered Lacy to stand and place his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. [Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.] Once the handcuffs were placed, Lacy complained they “were too tightly applied and that he suffered from a disability, resulting from injuries to his neck and shoulder.” [Id. at ¶ 24.] Officer Earley then “became even more aggressive, pushing [Lacy] towards the entry to the cell, and jerking and lifting Plaintiff's handcuffed wrists causing severe pain” to his shoulder. [Id. at ¶ 25.] Lacy requested evaluation by a physician and transport to a

2

hospital psychiatric ward, “as he had been counseled by his treating psychiatrist to admit himself in the event he feels totally overwhelmed.” [Id. at ¶ 27.] He was transferred to Westlake Hospital, where he stayed for several days. [Id. at ¶¶ 28-29.]

On June 13, 2019, Lacy was released from Westlake Hospital. [14 (Compl.) at ¶ 29.] Upon his return to the Maywood Police Department headquarters, Lacy began having problems with his vision. He alleges that he informed Officer John Doe that he was “in trouble” and needed to return to the hospital. [Id. at ¶¶ 30-31.] Officer John Doe denied Lacy's request and said Lacy was “playing games.” [Id. at ¶ 32.] Lacy's request, and Officer John Doe's denial, repeated two or three times before Officer John Doe called EMTs, to whom Officer Doe expressed his belief that Plaintiff was “not being truthful in his please for help.” [Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.]. Eventually, John Doe called emergency medical technicians, who returned him to Westlake Hospital. [Id. at ¶ 35.]

Lacy further alleges that a consulting crisis worker at Westlake Hospital instructed Officer Patterson to transfer Lacy to the psychiatric ward at Cermak Health Services of Cook County. [14 (Compl.) at ¶ 36]. Despite these instructions, Officer Patterson refused. [Id. at ¶ 37.] He then returned Lacy to the Maywood Police Department. [Id.]. Lacy was detained overnight and released the next morning after his initial Court appearance. [Id. at ¶¶ 38-39.]

Also relevant in hindsight, Lacy alleges that following his release, he returned to the Maywood Police Department to retrieve his belongings. [14 (Compl.) at ¶ 40.] He spoke with Officer John Doe and “requested that Officer John Doe identify all Maywood Police Department officers whom [Lacy] had encountered from June 8, 2019, through June 14, 2019. [Id. at ¶ 41.] Lacy further states that “[i]n response to [Lacy's] request, Officer John Doe provided a handwritten list of officer names. [Id. at ¶ 42.] Critical to this motion, that list omitted Doe's own identity. [Id. at ¶ 42.]

3

B. Procedural Posture

On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this action pro se [1], naming Officers Sean Earley, Carlos Patterson, and John Doe. On December 23, 2021, after retaining counsel, Lacy amended his pleadings. The now operative Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that Officers Earley, Patterson, and John Doe violated Lacy's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts I and II) and seeks indemnification from Defendant Village of Maywood (Count III). Lacy further brings a state-law claim for fraudulent concealment (Count IV) against unknown Officer John Doe.

Defendants then moved to dismiss [16] in part Lacy's Complaint [14] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).^[2] In their motion, Defendants ask this Court to dismiss the fraudulent concealment claim against Officer John Doe (Count IV) and to dismiss John Doe from the Complaint entirely.

II. Legal Standard

Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true all of Plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor. Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007). However, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, the well-pleaded facts of the complaint must allow the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.”

4

Langworthy v. Honeywell Life & Acc. Ins. Plan, 2009 WL 3464131, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2009) (citing...