Towne v. Donnelly
| Decision Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20 cv 4097 |
| Parties | BRIAN TOWNE, Plaintiff, v. KAREN DONNELLY, GEORGE MUELLER, BRIAN VESCOGNI, MATTHEW KIDDER, DAVID GUALANDRI, JEREMIAH ADAMS, SCOTT CRUZ, RANDY BAXTER, CITY of OTTAWA, ILLINOIS, and COUNTY of LASALLE, ILLINOIS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Brian Towne has brought an amended complaint against defendants alleging violations of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment, along with a failure to intervene and a conspiracy claim based on these constitutional violations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Towne also brings supplemental state law claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, indemnification, and conspiracy under Illinois law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Before the Court are defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants in part with prejudice and grants in part without prejudice defendants' motions to dismiss. Because the Court is dismissing Towne's constitutional claims with prejudice the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over Towne's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
In both 2008 and 2012, Towne was elected State's Attorney for LaSalle County, Illinois. In 2012, while defendant Karen Donnelly was attending law school, she was employed by the LaSalle County State's Attorney's Office (“SAO”). Also, in 2012, Donnelly's son was indicted by the LaSalle County SAO for criminal offenses entered a guilty plea, and was sentenced to four years in prison. Towne alleges that while Donnelly was working as a clerk in the SAO, she attempted to improperly access information regarding her son's prosecution.
After Donnelly completed law school in 2014, she applied for and was denied an entry-level position with the LaSalle SAO. In the fall of 2015, Donnelly began her campaign for State's Attorney for the 2016 election opposing Towne. Assistant State's Attorney (“ASA”) George Mueller helped Donnelly with her campaign. Donnelly won the election and was sworn in as LaSalle County's State's Attorney on December 1, 2016.
On March 22, 2017, Donnelly, Mueller, ASA Brian Vescogni, and ASA Matthew Kidder had a meeting with defendant David Gualandri, a City of Ottawa police officer. During that meeting, Donnelly explained that the SAO was conducting an investigation into Towne's alleged misconduct while he was the State's Attorney and requested that Gualandri continue this investigation. Towne alleges that he and Gualandri previously had a conflict when Towne declined to charge an individual Gualandri wanted charged.
Donnelly investigated Towne's conduct with the assistance of Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Gualandri, ASA Jeremiah Adams Scott Cruz, an Ottawa police officer, and Randy Baxter, a LaSalle County investigator. During the investigation Gualandri, Cruz, and Baxter interviewed witnesses, but did not document or disclose that these interviews occurred. Donnelly and Kidder were each present for at least one of these witness interviews. Towne also contends defendants interviewed a SAO employee, who was fired after the employee gave a favorable statement about Towne.
According to Towne, the investigation did not uncover any criminal acts. Nevertheless, Gualandri proceeded to include false statements in his report and omit other materials, such as witness statements. Towne asserts the other defendants knew of these false statements and omitted materials. He further alleges that Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, and Adams were involved in the investigation by providing guidance to the investigating officer and participating in witness interrogations prior to the presentation to the grand jury. In September 2017, defendants presented the case against Towne to a LaSalle County grand jury. Towne contends that Donnelly, Mueller, and Kidder made misstatements to the grand jury in order to obtain the indictment.
In September 2017, Towne surrendered when he was informed of the indictment against him and was immediately released on a $50, 000 personal recognizance bond. In October 2017, defendants presented the case to the grand jury for amended indictments. Meanwhile, during the criminal proceedings, Towne moved for the appointment of a special prosecutor, which the state court granted on November 28, 2017. Greg McClintock was then appointed as special prosecutor on February 14, 2018. Donnelly and Mueller appealed the special prosecutor appointment, which the Illinois Appellate Court denied in March 2019. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Donnelly's petition for leave to appeal in June 2019.
In the interim, Towne filed a speedy trial demand. On August 2, 2019, the trial court granted Towne's motion and dismissed all charges against Towne. Towne asserts that after the case was dismissed, Donnelly continued to make statements to the media about him and accused special prosecutor McClintock of having improper motives.
Construing Towne's allegations as true, the Court is disheartened by the alleged misconduct on behalf of former LaSalle State's Attorney Donnelly and other LaSalle County and Ottawa public officials and employees. The Court notes that both Donnelly and Gualandri are defendants in other pending lawsuits in this district regarding similar claims of misconduct.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 529, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011). When considering dismissal of a complaint, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A complaint is facially plausible when the plaintiff alleges “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “[A] motion to dismiss based on failure to comply with the statute of limitations should be granted only where the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense.” Vergara v. City of Chicago, 939 F.3d 882, 886 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
In Count I, Towne brings a First Amendment retaliation claim alleging that his criminal prosecution was motivated by political activity, namely, his running for LaSalle County State's Attorney in the 2016 election. Defendants argue that this claim is untimely under the two-year limitations period. “A § 1983 claim borrows the statute of limitations for analogous personal-injury claims in the forum state; in Illinois that period is two years.” Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir. 2019). “Although courts look to state law for the length of the limitations period, the time at which a § 1983 claim accrues ‘is a question of federal law,' ‘conforming in general to common-law tort principles.'” McDonough v. Smith, 139 S.Ct. 2149, 2155 (2019) (citation omitted).
At issue is when Towne's First Amendment political retaliation claim accrued. Looking to federal law, “the statute of limitations clock begins to run on First Amendment retaliation claims immediately after the retaliatory act occurred.” Gekas v. Vasiliades, 814 F.3d 890, 894 (7th Cir. 2016). In his amended complaint, Towne alleges that he was charged via grand jury indictments in September 2017, and Towne brought this lawsuit in July 2020. Thus, Towne's First Amendment retaliation claim is untimely under the two-year limitations period.
Towne nonetheless argues that the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough is controlling and that his First Amendment claim did not accrue until his criminal charges were dismissed in August 2019. In McDonough, the Supreme Court analyzed the accrual for a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on fabricated evidence. Analogizing such claims to the tort of malicious prosecution, the Supreme Court concluded that Fourteenth Amendment due process claims based on fabricated evidence do not accrue until a favorable determination of the underlying prosecution. Id. at 2156.
Towne's First Amendment claim is not analogous to a malicious prosecution claim because these claims are “fundamentally different causes of action.” See Gekas, 814 F.3d at 894. To explain, “it is the standard rule that accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under this standard, a First Amendment claim accrues when the retaliatory action occurred, namely, when Towne was charged with criminal offenses, because Towne “knew or should have known” that defendants' actions violated his First Amendment rights. Gekas, 814 F.3d at 894. On the other hand, a malicious prosecution claim is not “complete” while the criminal proceedings are ongoing. McDonough, 139 S.Ct. at 2158. As such, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss Count I as untimely with prejudice because McDonough does not control the limitations inquiry.
In Count II, Towne brings a Fourth Amendment wrongful pretrial detention claim alleging that the criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial