Maniscalco v. Simon
| Decision Date | 05 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-2402,11-2402 |
| Parties | ANTHONY MANISCALCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAY SIMON and JEFFREY HAUPTMAN, Gurnee Police Officers, and MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF ILLINOIS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Before BAUER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
SYKES, Circuit Judge. One evening in March 2007 Anthony Maniscalco hosted a birthday party for a local politician at his restaurant in Gurnee, Illinois. When the festivities ended, Maniscalco capped the night with two celebratory shots of Patrón tequila and a trip to a nearby McDonald's, where he encountered Fidel Castroworking at the drive-through window. Minutes before Maniscalco arrived, a Gurnee police officer had stopped at the drive-through, but not to buy food. Instead, the officer handed castro a note containing four numbers—2626—and told him to give it to his co-worker Fernando Guzman. Castro did as he was told. The numbers on the note partly corresponded to Maniscalco's license-plate number: C112626.
Maniscalco drove up a moment later and got into a heated argument with Guzman while paying for his order, grabbing Guzman by the wrist and nearly pulling him through the pay window (or so Guzman told the police). Maniscalco released Guzman's arm and drove to the pick-up window. As Castro was giving him his food, Guzman yelled at him to stop. Castro stopped, and Maniscalco angrily drove off, getting his late-night snack at another fast-food restaurant instead.
In the meantime the McDonald's manager called 911, and a dispatch went out over the police radio about the alleged assault. It was not long before Maniscalco was stopped and arrested for disorderly conduct and drunk driving. The charges didn't stick. A jury found him not guilty of drunk driving and battery (upgraded from the original disorderly conduct charge). Maniscalco then sued the arresting officers and McDonald's under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiracy to violate his Fourth Amendment rights. He believes that Gurnee police and McDonald's employees were in cahoots to induce him to breach the peace so the officers would have a pretext to arrest him.
On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court sifted through the evidence and found it wanting. We agree. Notwithstanding Castro's deposition testimony about the odd and unexplained note, the evidence supports probable cause to arrest, and McDonald's cannot be liable in any event because there is no vicarious liability under § 1983.
At the time of these events, Anthony Maniscalco was a restaurant entrepreneur and well-known resident of the Village of Gurnee, a suburban community located at the northern reach of the Chicago metropolitan area. Maniscalco, known as "Tony," describes himself as a "very, very public" person in the community, "the man, if you will, in Gurnee," and "a voice in that town." His restaurant, Paisans, was "the nicest restaurant [in the area], not just in Gurnee." He took an active role in local charity drives and was close to several public officials, including the chief of police. In 2005 he ran for a seat on the village's board of trustees; he lost, but only narrowly. Because he "made a stand" in the election, and perhaps more generally because of his notoriety in the community, Maniscalco had some detractors as well, or so he believes.
On the evening of March 25, 2007, Maniscalco threw a birthday party at Paisans in honor of State Senator Terry Link. The event appears to have doubled as a political fund-raiser, though the record is not entirely clear on that point. Either way, the party was apparentlya success; it was well-attended and ran until about midnight. As things were winding down, Maniscalco knocked back a shot of Patrón tequila. He closed Paisans at about 1 a.m., then stopped briefly at a restaurant across the street and had another shot of tequila with a friend. On the way home, he stopped at a nearby 24-hour McDonald's to grab a bite to eat.
Just before Maniscalco arrived, an unidentified Gurnee police officer pulled up to the drive-through and handed a piece of paper to Fidel Castro, a McDonald's employee who was working at the drive-through pick-up window. The officer told Castro to give the note to Fernando Guzman, another McDonald's employee. Castro glanced at the note but did not examine it closely; he later testified in his deposition that it contained the handwritten numbers 2626.
A minute or two after the officer left, Maniscalco pulled up to the McDonald's drive-through and ordered a "number four" with cheese and onions and a Coke. Guzman took his order, but apparently they had trouble understanding each other. When Maniscalco drove around to the pay window, where Guzman was located, an argument erupted. What happened next is disputed. Maniscalco claims that Guzman swore at him in Spanish and refused to give him proper change. Guzman, on the other hand, says that Maniscalco was verbally abusive and grabbed him by the wrist, almost pulling him through the pay window. Without receiving his change, Maniscalco drove ahead to the pick-up window where Castro was packaging his order. Castro startedto hand Maniscalco his food, but Guzman suddenly yelled for him to stop. Castro stopped and pulled the bag back through the pick-up window. Maniscalco cursed and drove off. Guzman jotted down Maniscalco's license-plate number as he drove away.
Johanna Escobar, the manager of the McDonald's, called the police to report that one of her employees had been grabbed and verbally berated by a customer at the pay window. Guzman provided a description of Maniscalco—a male of Italian descent in his 40s wearing a dark suit—and also described the car, including its license-plate number: C112626.
Still hungry, Maniscalco drove to the local Steak 'n Shake, another fast-food restaurant not far away. Meanwhile, Gurnee Police Officer Jeffrey Haupt-man was dispatched to the McDonald's to investigate the incident, and the dispatcher alerted patrol officers in the area to be on the lookout for Maniscalco's car. Officer Steven Olds soon spotted Maniscalco driving nearby. Because the dispatcher had reported a possible battery, Officer Olds called for backup and waited until Officers Jay Simon and Dan Pacheco arrived before initiating a traffic stop. When Maniscalco pulled over, Officers Olds and Simon approached the car and noted that Maniscalco exhibited signs of intoxication. Olds recognized Maniscalco as a well-known businessman in the community.
Officer Hauptman, meanwhile, was at the McDonald's taking statements from Guzman and Escobar. He and Officer Olds spoke over the police radio and by cell phoneabout what to do next. Olds, who had just talked to Maniscalco, asked Hauptman: "You know who it is, don't you?" Hauptman responded that it was "Tony," meaning Maniscalco; he later testified that this was a guess based on the description of the suspect in the McDonald's assault. Olds then asked, "How come everybody knows but me?" Apparently other patrol officers had also guessed that the man they were looking for was Maniscalco based on the description from the dispatcher. Hauptman instructed Olds to arrest Maniscalco for battery and disorderly conduct based on the statements from Guzman and Escobar.
The officers at the scene of the stop did not conduct field sobriety tests during their roadside encounter with Maniscalco. Instead, following Hauptman's instructions, Olds handcuffed Maniscalco and took him into custody. After they arrived at the police station, Officer Simon administered sobriety tests. Maniscalco did not do well, and when asked to take a Breathalyzer test, he refused. Maniscalco was charged with disorderly conduct and driving under the influence of alcohol. The disorderly conduct charge was dismissed a few months later when the McDonald's employees failed to appear in court. The charge was later reissued as a battery, and in December 2008 a jury acquitted Maniscalco on both the battery and drunk-driving charges.
After the criminal proceedings had come and gone, Maniscalco brought this § 1983 suit against Officers Hauptman and Simon, "one unknown Gurnee police officer," and McDonald's Restaurants of Illinois, Inc.He alleged that the officers conspired with McDonald's employees to fabricate probable cause for his arrest in violation of his right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from unreasonable seizure.
Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion, holding that the uncontroverted evidence established that Officers Hauptman and Simon had probable cause to arrest Maniscalco for disorderly conduct and driving under the influence of alcohol. The court acknowledged Castro's testimony about the unexplained note from an unidentified Gurnee officer bearing numbers corresponding to the license plate of the car Maniscalco was driving. In the court's view, however, that strange encounter did not undermine the existence of probable cause because there was "[n]o evidence, direct or circumstantial, connect[ing] Hauptman and Simon to that event." Absent more, the court held, the conspiracy theory was "pure speculation." Without a Fourth Amendment violation, the § 1983 claim necessarily failed. As an additional ground for summary judgment, the court held that the suit against McDonald's was improper because respondeat superior liability is unavailable under § 1983.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Maniscalco as the nonmoving party. Spivey v. AdaptiveMktg. LLC, 622 F.3d 816, 822 (7th Cir. 2010). To defeat summary judgment, Maniscalco needed evidence establishing a genuine factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillum v. Armor Health Care
...generally provides medical services at the HOC, and neither has Plaintiff alleged a policy claim against Armor. Maniscalco v. Simon, 712 F.3d 1139, 1145 (7th Cir. 2013); McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants also......