Peraica v. Vill. of McCook, Case No. 10 C 7040.
| Decision Date | 28 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10 C 7040. |
| Citation | 124 F.Supp.3d 816 |
| Parties | Anthony PERAICA, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF McCOOK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Anthony J. Peraica, Jennifer Marie Hill, Anthony J. Peraica & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Paul A. O'Grady, Kevin Mark Casey, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC, Chicago, IL, Molly Maureen O'Reilly, John Francis O'Reilly, O'Reilly Law Offices, Wheaton, IL, for Defendants.
Anthony Peraica ("Peraica") has brought this action against the Village of McCook ("McCook"), McCook Mayor Jeffrey Tobolski ("Tobolski") and various local law enforcement officials1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983"). Peraica charges that defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting and detaining him because of his political affiliations-more specifically because of his 2010 campaign against Tobolski for Cook County 16th District Commissioner. Peraica also brings a number of state claims under the rubric of "supplemental jurisdiction" as conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (" Section 1367").
Defendants have now moved for judgment on the pleadings—and for dismissal of Peraica's Amended Complaint (hereafter simply "Complaint") in its entirety—under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(c). For the reasons stated in this opinion, this Court grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Peraica's Section 1983 claim but declines the invitation to exercise jurisdiction over his Section 1367 state law claims, which are accordingly dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Courts review Rule 12(c) motions under the same standards as motions brought under Rule 12(b)(6) (Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 727–28 (7th Cir.2014) ). Adams, id. at 728 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) then went on to spell out those standards in terms that encompassed the "plausibility" requirement introduced by what this Court has termed the Twombly–Iqbal canon:
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading state, but allegations in the form of legal conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement of relief.2
And importantly, courts "need not ignore facts set forth in the complaint that undermine the plaintiff's claim or give weight to unsupported conclusions of law" (Buchanan–Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir.2009) ).
In addition to considering the facts set out in a complaint, courts can take "[j]udicial notice of historical documents, documents contained in the public record, and reports of administrative bodies" (Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. Thompson, 161 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir.1998) ). Such public records include state court proceedings in which a plaintiff has previously litigated issues identical to those presented in the complaint (4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 527 n. 4 (7th Cir.2000) ). In this instance that calls for this Court to take judicial notice of the records (found at Dkt. 73–1 to Dkt. 73–6) of the criminal proceedings against Peraica in the Circuit Court of Cook County and, on appeal, before the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District.
This lawsuit arises out of the October 30, 2010 arrest of Peraica by McCook Police Officer Russell Delude ("Delude," one of the named defendants) and other officers with the McCook Police Department (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 53). That night was just three days before the election for Cook County 16th District Commissioner in which Peraica and Tobolski were rival candidates.
Here in summary is the story as Peraica tells it (the phrasing is intentional) in his Complaint. On the night in question Peraica was the passenger in a white Chevrolet van driving southbound on Joliet Road in McCook (id. ¶ 26). That van was pulled over by McCook Police Officer Radke ("Radke"), who "proceeded to harass" Peraica and the van's driver and to search the van, uncovering nothing incriminating (id. ¶¶ 29–31).
There was then a delay of about 45 minutes, during which time Tobolski and McCook Police Chief Frank Wolfe ("Wolfe") were both informed of the traffic stop and the fact that Peraica was a passenger in the van (id. ¶¶ 40–41). Radke told Peraica and the driver that they were free to go, but then his supervisor, Officer Browder ("Browder"), arrived on the scene and countermanded Radke's order (id. ¶¶ 34–35). Browder recognized Peraica and made a cell phone call to an unknown recipient (id. at ¶¶ 37–38).
Following that call—and at the direction or participation of Wolfe and Tobolski—a man was brought to the scene of the traffic stop who falsely claimed to have witnessed Peraica tampering with a cardboard campaign sign (id. ¶¶ 42–43). Peraica was placed under arrest and charged with criminal damage to property (id. ¶ 46). Upon his release on bond four hours later Peraica learned that numerous media outlets had become aware of his arrest and that a local news reporter, on information provided by Tobolski, was waiting for him when he was released from police custody (id. ¶¶ 53–56). It was all a grand conspiracy, Peraica alleged, to discredit him on the eve of the election (id. ¶ ¶ 57–64).
Peraica told that tale of woe (and quite a tall tale it turned out to be) in his complaint filed in this action on November 1, 2010, just two days after his arrest.4 But this federal lawsuit was soon stayed, for state authorities had initiated criminal proceedings against Peraica in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Fifth Municipal District. There, after a bench trial, Peraica was convicted of criminal damage to property (People v. Peraica, No. 10–5–7284–01 (July 20, 2011) (Trial Tr. at 164:3–164:12)). Following the trial the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction (People v. Peraica, 2014 IL App (1st) 133080–U, 2014 WL 4657428 (2014) ),5 and the Illinois Supreme Court then denied leave to appeal (People v. Peraica, reported in table at 388 Ill.Dec. 7, 23 N.E.3d 1205 (Jan. 28, 2015) ), making Peraica's conviction final.
At both the trial and appellate level the Illinois courts repeatedly and definitively rejected most of the "facts" that Peraica has alleged before this Court (and that are summarized above). Apart from the finding of guilt (which necessarily did away with Peraica's contention that multiple police officers as well as Wolfe and Tobolski had fabricated all the evidence against him), the trial court also held that the initial stop of the van was justified due to the driver's failure to signal, that the stop was reasonably extended and finally that probable cause had existed to arrest Peraica (see Peraica ¶¶ 13–14). And those holdings were carefully analyzed and squarely upheld by the Appellate Court (Peraica ¶¶ 36–46).
In upholding those rulings the Appellate Court implicitly but necessarily rejected the version of events that Peraica had put forward in his Complaint about the timing of the decision to arrest him. Instead that court relied on findings (1) that Officer Delude (not Radke) pulled the van over, (2) that Delude personally observed a stick in the back of the van matching the description of a stick that had been used to destroy campaign signs and (3) that Delude had received reports from another officer that vandalism suspects had just been seen in a van similar to that carrying Peraica (Peraica ¶ 45). And that court also implicitly but necessarily rejected Peraica's allegations that Browder suspiciously appeared after a long delay and ordered Peraica to remain right after permission had been given for him to move along. Instead the Appellate Court took as gospel Delude's explanation for why there was a delay between the initial stop, the arrival of another officer and finally the witness show-up and arrest of Peraica: Delude needed time to ask another officer to look for damaged campaign signs at the location where Peraica's van had just been seen, and it was that officer who appeared on the scene after some delay (id. ). Lastly, as to the eyewitness who fingered Peraica immediately before his arrest—and who Peraica claimed had been coached by police to lie—the trial court specifically credited that witness' identification and thus necessarily rejected Peraica's allegation of witness tampering (Trial Tr. 163:16–164:6):
Mr. Baloga [the above-mentioned witness] looked out his window; saw a person. First he heard noise, saw somebody out there, saw the profile from both sides, saw the person leave, saw the person hitting the sign.... The fact remains the person who perpetrated the crime was apprehended a short distance away. There was a show-up on the street. There was no doubt in Mr. Baloga's testimony as to who did it. He identified Mr. Peraica as the offender.
Defendants moved that this Court take judicial notice of all of those state court findings and of Peraica's criminal conviction and, having done so, enter judgment on the pleadings in defendants' favor. Following that motion Peraica withdrew his false arrest and unlawful detention theories of relief. But he now pushes forward for Section 1983 purposes on the theory that he was deprived of his right to political affiliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, entitling him to relief under Section 1983. In addition he continues to press for relief under Illinois...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Kuspa
... ... case remained ongoing, however, the Court “put a ... officers ... 10. That affiant, while basing this affidavit on ... Section 1983 claim.” Peraica v. McCook , 124 ... F.Supp.3d 816, 822 ... ...