Schertz v. Waupaca County
Decision Date | 22 March 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 86-C-739.,86-C-739. |
Citation | 683 F. Supp. 1551 |
Parties | Michael SCHERTZ, Beverly Schertz and Michael E. Sias, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Plaintiffs, v. WAUPACA COUNTY, William Mork, Robert Andraschko, Dennis Kussmann, Larry Jensen, Donald Berglund, Louis Tomaselli, Carl Paetzke, and Unknown John Doe Insurance Cos., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Alvin R. Ugent, Podell, Ugent & Cross, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.
Robert Johnson, Cook & Franke, Milwaukee, Wis., for Waupaca County, William Mork, Robert Andraschko, Dennis Kussmann, Larry Jensen, and Donald Berglund.
David T. Flannagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for Louis Tomaselli and Carl Paetzke.
DECISION AND ORDER
In the early morning hours of July 14, 1985, policeman Gerald Mork was found dead near Iola, Wisconsin. Iola's Police Chief Michael Schertz was subsequently arrested and tried for murdering Mork. However, a jury found Schertz not guilty of the murder and another jury found him not guilty of related charges of theft and misconduct in office. Shortly after the conclusion of this second trial, plaintiffs Michael Schertz and his wife Beverly filed the above-captioned lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages and alleging that the defendants violated their federal civil rights and engaged in other tortious conduct which caused injury to them. The defendants1 are: Waupaca County (Wisconsin); William Mork, Sheriff of Waupaca County and father of Gerald Mork; Robert Andraschko, Chief Deputy of the Waupaca County Sheriff's Department; Dennis Kussmann, Larry Jensen, and Donald Berglund, officers in the Waupaca County Sheriff's Department (the six, collectively called the "Waupaca County Defendants" throughout this opinion); and, Louis Tomaselli and Carl Paetzke, special agents for the Wisconsin Department of Justice (collectively called the throughout this opinion) . The court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
After the filing of the complaint on July 18, 1986, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they are immune from suit. The court granted their motions in part, but also gave the plaintiffs additional time to conduct discovery. See Decision and Order of March 24, 1987. All discovery in this case has now been completed and the defendants have again moved for summary judgment in their favor on the grounds that there are no material issues of disputed fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. These motions are now fully briefed and ready for decision.
In support of their motion for summary judgment and based on evidence in the record, the Waupaca County Defendants2 have offered the following version of the circumstances surrounding this action:
Brief in Support of Waupaca County Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment at 2-7 (citations omitted). Ultimately, on December 12, 1985, a jury found Schertz not guilty of Mork's murder. And on July 11, 1986, another jury found Schertz not guilty of the crimes of theft and misconduct in public office.
The plaintiffs have not disputed any of these facts and the court finds that the defendants' version is supported by the record. However, the plaintiffs have also asked the court to consider their version of the Mork murder investigation:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. City of Fort Wayne
...or prevent the deprivation, a post-deprivation remedy is all the process that a state must provide. See, e.g., Schertz v. Waupaca County, 683 F.Supp. 1551, 1576 (E.D.Wis.1988) (finding no due process violation for the damage done during a search because there were adequate post-deprivation ......
-
DiNicola v. DiPaolo
...463, 470 (7th Cir.1986); Whitmore v. Smith, No. Civ. A. 96-2745, 1997 WL 438441 at *5 (E.D.Pa., Jul 30, 1997); Schertz v. Waupaca County, 683 F.Supp. 1551, 1564 (E.D.Wis. 1988) (citing cases), aff'd, 875 F.2d 578 (7th Cir.1989); Seip v. Newark Police Dept., 648 F.Supp. 489, 492 Although the......
-
Griffin v. Strong, Civ. No. 86-C-894G.
...30 L.Ed.2d 78 (1971); Warren v. Byrne, 699 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1983); Brubaker v. King, 505 F.2d 534 (7th Cir.1974); Schertz v. Waupaca County, 683 F.Supp. 1551 (E.D.Wis.1988); Spartacus Youth League v. Board of Trustees, 502 F.Supp. 789 (N.D.Ill.1980); Smith v. Wickline, 396 F.Supp. 555 (W.D.O......
-
Schertz v. Waupaca County
...in favor of the Waupaca defendants on the basis that Schertz had not undermined the determinations that probable cause existed. 683 F.Supp. 1551 (1988). II. On appeal, Schertz presents only his Section 1983 claim that the state and Waupaca defendants arrested and detained him without probab......