Starks v. City of Waukegan

• Decision Date: 24 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 09 C 348.,09 C 348.
• Citation: 123 F.Supp.3d 1036
• Parties: Bennie STARKS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WAUKEGAN, William Biang, Artis Yancey, as Special Representative of Deceased Defendant Miguel Juarez, David Deprez, Carl Hagstrom, Russell Schneider, Sharon Thomas–Boyd, and Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory, Defendants. Sharon Thomas–Boyd, Cross–Plaintiff, v. City of Waukegan and Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory, Cross–Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

123 F.Supp.3d 1036

Bennie STARKS, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF WAUKEGAN, William Biang, Artis Yancey, as Special Representative of Deceased Defendant Miguel Juarez, David Deprez, Carl Hagstrom, Russell Schneider, Sharon Thomas–Boyd, and Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory, Defendants.

Sharon Thomas–Boyd, Cross–Plaintiff,

v.City of Waukegan and Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory, Cross–Defendants.

No. 09 C 348.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed July 24, 2015.

John Ladell Stainthorp, G. Flint Taylor, Jr., Joey L. Mogul, People's Law Office, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Michael D. Furlong, Peter Michael Trobe, Trobe, Babowice & Associates, LLC, Waukegan, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FEINERMAN, District Judge.

Bennie Starks spent twenty years in prison for a 1986 rape and assault that he says he did not commit. In this suit, Starks alleges that Waukegan police officers William Biang, David Deprez, and Miguel Juarez (collectively, with the City of Waukegan, "Waukegan Defendants"), dentists Russell Schneider and Carl Hagstrom (together, "Dentist Defendants"), and forensic serologist Sharon Thomas–Boyd conspired to and did violate his federal due process rights in connection with his criminal prosecution, and that they conspired to and did maliciously prosecute and intentionally inflict emotional distress on him in violation of Illinois common law. Doc. 259. Starks also alleges that the City of Waukegan and the Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory ("NIRCL"), Thomas–Boyd's employer, are responsible under both the common law and the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9–102, for paying any judgments that he might obtain against the individual defendants; Thomas–Boyd has filed a cross-claim to similar effect against both entities. Docs. 230, 259. A three-week jury trial is set to commence on August 17, 2015. Docs. 338, 397.

Everyone except Starks has moved for summary judgment. Docs. 309, 312, 316, 319, 325, 329. Thomas–Boyd also has moved the court to declare Illinois's certificate of innocence statute, 735 ILCS 5/2–702, unconstitutional, Doc. 386, and the Attorney General of Illinois has intervened to defend the statute's constitutionality, Docs. 399, 401. For the following reasons, Dentist Defendants' and NIRCL's summary judgment motions are granted, Waukegan Defendants' and Thomas–Boyd's summary judgment motions are granted in part and denied in part, and Thomas–Boyd's motion to declare the Illinois certificate of innocence statute unconstitutional is denied as moot.

Background

Starks is the primary non-movant, so the following facts are set forth as favorably to him as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. See Hanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2012) ; In re United Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 463, 468 (7th Cir.2006). Wherever possible, the court will cite Starks's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) responses or Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statements. Docs. 356, 360 (opposing Waukegan Defendants' summary judgment motion); Docs. 348, 349, 350 (opposing Dentist Defendants' motions); Docs. 352, 353 (opposing Thomas–Boyd's motion). Dentist Defendants attached to their summary judgment materials the transcripts from Starks's 1986 criminal trial, and the court will cite those transcripts for convenience. Docs. 313–4, 313–5. The court also will cite the opinions of the Appellate Court of Illinois in Starks's state criminal proceedings.

In the 1986 trial, which was conducted by the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, a jury found Starks guilty of the January 1986 battery and rape of a 69–year–old woman in Waukegan. People v. Starks, 365 Ill.App.3d 592, 302 Ill.Dec. 769, 850 N.E.2d 206, 209 (2006) ("Starks II "). Starks was released from prison and granted a new trial in 2006 on the basis of DNA testing that excluded him as the source of the semen found on the victim and in her underwear. Id., 302 Ill.Dec. 769, 850 N.E.2d at 211 ; Doc. 360 at ¶ 38. The Lake County State's Attorney dismissed the rape and attempted rape charges nolle prosequi in May 2012 and the aggravated battery charge in January 2013, and in September 2013, the Lake County court issued Starks a Certificate of Innocence declaring him "innocent of all offenses for which he was incarcerated." Doc. 360 at ¶ 39; Doc. 360–3 at 125, 127, 129–130. Following is an overview of the facts surrounding Starks's arrest and conviction; further details appear in the Discussion section.

On the night of January 18, 1986, the victim stepped outside her apartment for some fresh air when, she says, she was knocked down, dragged into a ravine, beaten up, and raped. Doc. 360 at ¶ 3. Her attacker, she told police, wore a watch and carried a black trench coat and a red shopping bag. Ibid. During the attack, she ripped the watch off the attacker's wrist, and the attacker eventually fled with the red bag but left the trench coat behind. Ibid. When police initially responded to the crime scene, the victim told them that she had only been assaulted, not raped, id. at ¶ 4, and emergency room doctors noted that there was no trauma to her vaginal area, Doc. 352 at ¶ 3. Around 5:00 a.m. on January 19, however, the victim told a hospital worker that she had been raped. Doc. 360 at ¶ 5.

A caseworker from the Illinois Department of Public Aid testified at Starks's trial that the victim had told her that she had not actually been raped and had lied to police and medical personnel because she wanted Starks "to pay for beating her up." Doc. 352 at ¶ 3; Doc. 313–5 at 78–79. At trial, the victim gave confused and contradictory testimony about what happened the night in question. Starks II, 302 Ill.Dec. 769, 850 N.E.2d at 210 ; Doc. 313–4 at 108, 114–115, 117.

Police recovered the trench coat and watch from the ravine, along with a scarf and a pair of gloves found in the coat. Doc. 356 at ¶ 6. A dry cleaning ticket in the coat eventually led police to identify Starks as its owner. Id. at ¶ 7. On January 21, 1986, Starks voluntarily went to the Waukegan police station, signed a Miranda waiver, and spoke to Biang. Doc. 360 at ¶ 7. Starks admitted that the trench coat was his, and that on the night of the attack he was carrying a red bag containing a sweater he had purchased earlier that day. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 7. Several witnesses testified at trial that they had seen Starks in various taverns that night with both the trench coat and the red bag. Doc. 313–4 at 146–177. Starks told Biang that he had been robbed of the coat and watch, along with some cash and other items. Doc. 360 at ¶ 7. Starks also told Biang that he had been robbed of the red bag, but Biang's police report indicated that Starks said that he had left the red bag at his mother's house before the robbery. Ibid.; Doc. 360–1 at 25–26, 28–29 (Starks's January 22, 2014 deposition testimony); id. at 136–138 (Biang's January 21, 1986 report). Biang's report was not admitted into evidence at trial, but his testimony was consistent with what he wrote in the report. People v. Starks, No. 2–86–1021, 168 Ill.App.3d 1162, 132 Ill.Dec. 363, 539 N.E.2d 926 (table), slip op. at 11 (Ill.App. June 2, 1988) ("Starks I ") (reproduced at Doc. 360–2 at 83–108, 93); Doc. 313–5 at 55–63 (Biang's trial testimony).

After taking Starks's statement, Biang and Juarez went to the hospital to interview the victim. Doc. 356 at ¶ 9. The victim had earlier described her assailant as a clean-shaven African–American male around 18 or 19 years old; Starks at the time was 26 and had a mustache and beard. Doc. 360 at ¶¶ 2–3. Nevertheless, when Juarez showed the victim a photo array, she fingered Starks. Doc. 356 at ¶ 9. The photo array was not introduced into evidence at trial and has since been destroyed. Doc. 360 at ¶¶ 13–14. Neither Juarez nor the victim referred to the photo array at trial; the victim identified Starks in court as her attacker. Doc. 356 at ¶¶ 34–35; Doc. 360–2 at 87; Doc. 313–4 at 114.

Biang returned from the hospital and arrested Starks, whom Biang noticed had scratch marks on his body. Doc. 356 at ¶ 10; Doc. 352 at ¶ 7. The next morning, Deprez asked Starks how he had gotten scratched; according to Deprez's notes, Starks responded, "I must've fell somewhere." Doc. 360 at ¶ 19; Doc. 360–1 at 214–215 (Deprez's January 22, 1986 report).

Starks, however, maintains that he told Deprez that he had been scratched during the robbery. Doc. 360 at ¶ 19; Doc. 360–1 at 33–34. Deprez's report was not admitted into evidence at trial, and his testimony was limited to stating that he had administered the Miranda waiver to Starks. Doc. 360–2 at 93; Doc. 313–5 at 50–54, 56 (Deprez's trial testimony).

A grand jury indicted Starks on February 5, 1986. Doc. 360–1 at 188. Juarez, the only witness at the grand jury proceeding, testified that the victim identified Starks's picture from the photo array and, in response to a grand juror's question, added that the victim had "[n]o hesitation on her identi [fication] of [Starks], no." Doc. 360–1 at 186, 188 (Juarez's grand jury testimony). Juarez further testified that Starks's picture had been included in the array because he "was at the scene" and because police had found his trench coat, gloves, and scarf in the ravine where the victim was attacked. Id. at 187. Juarez also told the grand jury that "there was a laundry tag located [in the trench coat] and we were able to trace the laundry tag to the cleaners and the cleaners were able to tell us who that customer had been." Ibid. At trial, however, Juarez testified only that the victim had told him that her attacker was 18 or 19 years old and clean shaven. Doc. 360–2 at 94; Doc. 313–5 at 85–87 (Juarez's trial testimony).

Meanwhile, having noticed what appeared to be a bite mark on the victim's shoulder, Biang contacted Schneider on January 22, 1986 (the day after Starks's arrest) to serve as a forensic dental consultant on the case. Doc. 360 at ¶¶ 27–28; Doc. 349 at ¶ 34. Biang accompanied Dentist Defendants to...