Shea v. Winnebago Cnty. Sheriff's Office
| Decision Date | 10 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-CV-50201 |
| Parties | Ronald R. Shea, Plaintiff, v. Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
ORDER
For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions to dismiss [105], [106], [123], [128], are granted. The Koehler defendants' motion to dismiss [138] is granted in part and denied in part. All of plaintiff's claims against the Koehler defendants are dismissed except for plaintiff's battery claim against Carolyn Koehler (count two). The Winnebago County defendants' motion to dismiss [123] is granted in its entirety. The University of Illinois College of Medicine's motion to dismiss [105] is granted. Defendant Wendy Lowery's motion to dismiss [106] is granted. Defendant Shelli Sublett's motion to dismiss [128] is granted. Tammie Hutzler is also dismissed. Carolyn Koehler is the only defendant that remains. The Magistrate Judge is to schedule an in person status hearing with plaintiff and all defense counsel including those where the claims have been dismissed.
On May 29, 2012, pro se plaintiff Ronald Shea filed a multi-count complaint, pursuant in part, to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against a number of defendants. [1]. The complaint was 104 pages long and inappropriately included extensive narrative with irrelevant legal arguments and legal citations. See [1]. Because of this, the court, sua sponte, struck the complaint and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). [76].
On January 9, 2014, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint and attached his proposed amended complaint with his written motion. See [81]; [81-1]. After reviewing the proposed amended complaint, the court found it suffered from the same deficiencies as the original complaint and therefore issued an Order striking the first amended complaint. In the court's Order, it granted plaintiff one final opportunity to file a complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See [85].
On February 21, 2014, plaintiff submitted his second amended complaint. See [89]. In it, he asserted twenty-three causes of action against eighteen defendants. The court reviewed this complaint and determined plaintiff had cured many of the deficiencies in his prior two complaints. See [91]. As a result, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed with the case.
Between May 12, 2014 and June 27, 2014, seventeen of the eighteen named defendants in the second amended complaint filed five separate motions to dismiss.1 See [105], [106], [123], [128], & [138]. While each motion raised unique arguments with respect to each set of defendants, all defendants argued that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has responded to each of the motions and all are ripe for the court's review. The court notes that its analysis has been hampered by the excessive number of claims made by plaintiff, as well as the conclusory allegations against multiple defendants.
Yeftich v. Navistar, 722 F.3d 911, 915 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "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 to relief." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In cases such as these, the inference of liability is only "speculative." Id.
The second amended complaint purports to assert federal claims under Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The remaining claims are brought under state law.
All of the claims relate to events which allegedly began in November 2011. At this time, plaintiff states that he moved from California to Illinois to help his aging mother. After he moved, defendants Carolyn and Doug Koehler (plaintiff's sister and brother-in-law), allegedly engaged in some sort of conspiracy to seize control of his parents' estate and prevent plaintiff from seeing his mother. Specifically, plaintiff claims that on November 26, 2011, Carolyn and Doug Koehler entered his mother's home, kicked in his bedroom door, and "attempted to murder [him]." [140] at 2. He states that on the said evening there were three different attacks and the last of which involved Carolyn Koehler "denud[ing] [p]laintiff of his blanket and pillow, [and] abrading the cornea of his [] left eye." Id. A few weeks after the attacks, plaintiff claims Carolyn and Doug Koehler tried to have him arrested and evicted from his mother's home. He contends the Koehlers filed false charges against him and caused him to suffer physical injuries as well as financial hardship.
At some point after this incident, plaintiff claims that he was wrongfully incarcerated. While the circumstances leading up to his arrest are not explained, it is clear that plaintiff believes he was wrongfully detained and wrongfully prosecuted. Also around this time, plaintiff claims he received medical treatment from the University of Illinois College of Medicine. Although the type of treatment is not specified and the exact time he received such treatment is not clear, it seems plaintiff believes his medical treatment was inadequate and that this inadequate treatment was somehow related to his incarceration. These allegations form the basis of all twenty-three of plaintiff's claims.
Counts one through fourteen of the second amended complaint are asserted solely against Carolyn and Doug Koehler, (hereinafter "the Koehler defendants"). These claims relate to the events which allegedly occurred in November 2011. The first thirteen counts are state law claims for civil conspiracy, battery, assault, "intrusion into seclusion," trespass, false imprisonment, trespass to chattels, conversion, malicious prosecution, defamation, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and "restitution damages." [89] at 6-11. Count fourteen is the only federal claim against the Koehler defendants. In count fourteen, plaintiff alleges that the Koehler defendants are liable for violations of the civil RICO statues because they "attempted to transfer part or all of the estate of Phyllis and Gerald Shea across state lines . . . through multiple fraudulent reports and misrepresentations using interstate highways, interstate wire, and United States Mail." [89] at 11-12.
In count fifteen, plaintiff asserts a malicious prosecution claim. This claim is brought against the Koehler defendants as well as defendant Tammie Hutzler, a senior home care provider in Rockford, Illinois. Here, plaintiff claims the Koehler defendants directed Hutzler to file a restraining order to prevent plaintiff from seeing his mother but this restraining order "had no legitimate purpose under the law" and was "denied outright by the court." [89] ¶ 46.
Counts sixteen and seventeen are asserted against Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Winnebago Deputy Sheriff Douglas Dobbs, Winnebago County Sheriff Richard Meyers, Winnebago Deputy Sheriff Lorenzo Thompson, Correctional Officer Rob Lukowski, Correctional Officer Anthony Enna, Correctional Officer Bryan Johnson, Correctional Captain Tim Owens, and Superintendent of the Winnebago County Jail, Andrea Tack (hereinafter, "the Winnebago County defendants"). In count sixteen, plaintiff claims the Winnebago County defendants are liable under Section 1983 because they "wrongfully incarcerated [p]laintiff for over 70 hours" and denied him his right to a phone call from the Winnebago County Jail. See [89] ¶ 48. Count sixteen also alleges the Winnebago County defendants are liable under Section 1983 because they refused to 1) treat plaintiff for injuries he sustained; 2) provide plaintiff warm clothing; 3) provide plaintiff medication; and 4) allow plaintiff to file a criminal complaint against the Koehler defendants. See [89] at 12-15.
Count seventeen is an ADA claim against the Winnebago County defendants. Here, plaintiff claims he informed the Winnebago County defendants of the physical conditions fromwhich he suffered and they failed to provide him reasonable accommodations for his disabilities. [89] at 16.
Counts sixteen and seventeen are also asserted against the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Rockford, ("UIC")2 , Wendy Lowery, Shelli Sublett and two Doe defendants. While plaintiff fails to allege why these defendants are liable in counts sixteen and seventeen, they are nonetheless named defendants.
Counts eighteen through twenty-two are asserted solely against UIC, Lowery, Sublett, and two Doe defendants. It appears as though plaintiff alleges UIC is liable for various causes of action because Wendy Lowery and Shelli Sublett were UIC employees and were somehow involved in plaintiff's inadequate medical treatment and illegal incarceration.
In count eighteen, plaintiff attempts to set forth a false imprisonment claim. He alleges Lowery recommended that he be incarcerated and states that this recommendation was part of the reason he was wrongfully detained. He also blames Sublett for his incarceration. He states Sublett failed to take "appropriate actions" after an interview with plaintiff and drafted a report that contributed to his incarceration. [89] ¶ 61.
In count nineteen, plaintiff alleges a "false light" claim against UIC, Lowery, Sublett and a Doe defendant. Here, he claims that Lowery and Sublett "maliciously published representations about [his] mental health" in a false light. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial