Morris v. City of Rockford
| Docket Number | 3:20-CV-50384 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 2023 |
| Parties | TERRANCE AND DARNIESHIA MORRIS Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiffs Terrance Morris and Darnieshia Morris sued Rockford, its police department, and several police officers after Mr Morris was arrested and charged with two offenses following an altercation at a youth football game. Dkt. 85. Several of their claims were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage. Dkt. 101. Now, Rockford and Defendant Rockford Police Officer Kenneth Farmer move the Court for summary judgment as to the remaining claims. Dkt. 115. For the following reasons, the Court grants their motion.
Before setting out the background facts, first a word about their origin. “On summary judgment, the Court limits its analysis of the facts to the evidence that is presented in the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements.” Kirsch v. Brightstar Corp., 78 F.Supp.3d 676, 697 (N.D. Ill. 2015). The statements serve a valuable purpose they help the Court in “organizing the evidence and identifying disputed facts.” F.T.C. v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 633 (7th Cir. 2005). Local Rule 56.1 requires a party seeking summary judgment to file an accompanying statement of facts, with numbered paragraphs and citations to the record supporting those facts. See LR 56.1(d). “Factual allegations not properly supported by citation to the record are nullities.” Bolden v. Dart, No. 11 C 8661, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102397, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 23, 2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
The party opposing summary judgment must “admit the asserted fact, dispute the asserted fact, or admit in part and dispute in part the asserted fact.” LR 56.1(e)(2). To dispute a fact, the party opposing summary judgment must, in its response, “cite specific evidentiary material that controverts the fact and must concisely explain how the cited material controverts the asserted fact.” See LR 56.1(e)(3). The opposing party's response “may not set forth any new facts, meaning facts that are not fairly responsive to the asserted fact to which the response is made.” LR 56.1(e)(2). To assert new facts, the opposing party must file its own statement of facts. LR 56.1(b)(3). Facts not otherwise included in the statement of facts may be ignored. See Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 810 (7th Cir. 2005).
If it is not already apparent, the consequence of failing to comply with Local Rule 56.1 is dire: “Asserted facts may be deemed admitted if not controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material.” See LR 56.1(e)(3). The Court is entitled to expect strict compliance. See Cracco v. Vitran Exp. Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009); Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d at 733; Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). None of this is new. Local Rule 56.1 and its predecessor Local Rule 12(m) and 12(n) have existed for decades.
Rockford and Officer Farmer filed a Local Rule 56.1 Statement. Dkt. 117. Mr. and Mrs. Morris, in response, neither admit nor deny the statements in Rockford and Officer Farmer's Rule 56.1 Statement. See Dkt. 121. Instead, they offer seven pages of argument, throw in “certain facts” that they believe were “left out,” and add “certain facts” needed to “clarify misstatements” by Rockford and Officer Farmer. Id. at 1. Whatever purpose they intended their filing to serve, it fails to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) and 56.1(e). See Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008). To top it off, it does not even respond in “concise numbered paragraphs.” See L.R. 56.1(d)(1). Thus, the Court will disregard Mr. and Mrs. Morris' response and will rely on Rockford and Officer Farmers' Local Rule 56.1 Statement. Cichon, 401 F.3d at 809-10.
Turning to the facts of this case, on October 6, 2018, Rockford police responded to “several calls from multiple persons, reporting a fight involving multiple people” at Rockford Lutheran High School in Rockford, Illinois. Dkt. 117, at ¶¶ 7, 8. According to the calls, “someone had pulled out a gun, causing people to run away.” Id. at ¶ 7.
Law enforcement arrived at the scene and spoke with multiple witnesses. Id. at ¶¶ 9-33. During their investigation, they learned that after a youth football game, there was a heated argument between the visiting football coaches, Mr. Morris and Devorah Clark, and the home team football coach, Dustin Wolf. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 16, 21, 30, 34. The argument escalated into a “large fight in the parking lot” near the field. Id. at ¶ 12. Then, Mr. Clark pulled a gun out, pointed it at Mr. Wolf's stomach, and the crowd scattered. Id.
One witness, Antionette R. Johnson, stated that before the football game, she was “parked next to a black Acura ILX with Indiana State plates, which was occupied by an adult black male and [an] adult black female.” Id. at ¶ 22. She saw the male, “dressed in all black, exit the Acura, take a handgun from the trunk of the Acura, placed it in a backpack and walk towards the football field carrying the backpack.” Id. at ¶ 23. Because Ms. Johnson was afraid of guns, she “started her vehicle and drove home.” Id. at ¶ 24. After Ms. Johnson heard about the “fight” and that “someone had pulled a gun,” Ms. Johnson returned to the scene to speak with law enforcement. Id.
Although Ms. Johnson could not identify the individuals that had been in the vehicle, she was able to identify the Acura, which was still parked in the parking lot. Id. at ¶ 25.
A search of the Acura's registration number revealed that the car was registered to Darnieshia Morris, Mr. Morris' wife. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 27. When an officer then spoke with Mrs. Morris, Mrs. Morris explained that her husband had a concealed carry permit from Indiana and that there was a handgun in the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 27. Mrs. Morris gave consent for the officer to search the vehicle, and when the officer searched the vehicle, he recovered a loaded, chambered handgun in a cloth holster from the glove compartment. Id. at ¶¶ 27-29.
A different officer spoke with Mr. Morris, and Mr. Morris explained that there were “altercations during and after a football game at the school,” but denied seeing anyone brandish a weapon. Id. at ¶ 32.
After the witness interviews, Lieutenant Bradley Stein determined that a series of show up identifications were needed “so witnesses could identify who argued with Dustin Wolf and who pulled out the gun during the argument.” Id. at ¶ 35. During the identifications, three witnesses separately identified Mr. Morris as the man who had argued with Mr. Wolf, and four witnesses identified Mr. Clark as the man who had brandished the firearm. Id. at ¶ 39.
Following the identifications, Lieutenant Stein called Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Carder and shared the results of the investigation and identifications. Id. at ¶ 40. Lieutenant Stein requested authority to “file any relevant felony charges” against Mr. Morris. Id. Mr. Carder determined that, based on the investigation, Mr. Morris should be charged with unlawful use of a weapon (“UUW”) and mob action, and approved such charges. Id. at ¶ 42. Lieutenant Stein then directed Officer Melissa Sundly to place Mr. Morris under arrest. Id. at ¶ 44. Mr. Morris was then transported to the Winnebago County Jail. Id. at ¶¶ 44-45.
Three days later, on October 9, 2018, Mr. Morris was arraigned before a Winnebago County Court judge and released on bail. Id. at ¶ 46. Although he was later indicted, a Winnebago County judge ultimately dismissed the charges in January 2020. Id. at ¶¶ 47-48. Mr. Morris does not know why the judge dismissed the charges against him. Id. at ¶ 48.
Officer Farmer's only involvement in this incident was interviewing Mr. Clark, calling Mr. Carder to request authority to file charges against Mr. Clark, and arresting Mr. Clark. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 40, 44. He never spoke with, or otherwise communicated with, Mr. or Mrs. Morris during “any time relevant to this case.” Id. at ¶ 51.
Mr. and Mrs. Morris went on to file a blunderbuss thirty-five count lawsuit. The Court dismissed many of the thirty-five claims at the motion to dismiss stage. Dkt. 101. The claims that remain against Officer Farmer are: Count VII (42 U.S.C. § 1983 False Arrest/Unlawful Detention); Count VIII (Due Process); Count IX (Conspiracy); Count X (Malicious Prosecution); Count XI (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress); and Count XII (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Failure to Intervene). Dkt. 85, ¶¶ 52-85; see Dkt. 101. The claims that remain against Rockford are: Count XXXIII (Conspiracy); Count XXXIV (Malicious Prosecution); and count XXXV (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). Dkt. 85, ¶¶ 184-99; see Dkt. 101. At a prefiling conference, the Court asked counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Morris whether they intended to voluntarily dismiss any of the remaining counts. (For example, one would think that a conspiracy count when only one defendant remains would be a good candidate for voluntary dismissal.) Counsel declined.
Mrs. Morris is a named plaintiff to the lawsuit, but only requests relief as to the failure to intervene and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. See Dkt. 85, at ¶¶ 71-79, 80-85, 195-99.
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if, when viewing the record and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-movant, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial