783 F.3d 1081
7th Cir.2015Background
- In 2004 the Cook County State’s Attorney ran "Operation Pocket Change" after drug dealer Hosie Thurman attempted to bribe Maywood officers; undercover officers Wheeler and Yancy posed as corrupt cops.
- A pen register and wiretap of Thurman revealed extensive contacts between Thurman and Maywood Officer Arian Wade, including recorded calls in December 2004 in which Wade warned Thurman that an area near his grandmother’s house was "hot."
- Lieutenant Mobley told the Operation team (via a call to the wire room) that he had announced at roll call to stay out of Thurman’s territory; investigators heard Wade’s warning to Thurman about 90 minutes after that notice.
- Warrants were obtained for Wade’s arrest and for a search of his home; searches produced a fraudulent arrest warrant for Thurman and other corroborating evidence. Wade was indicted, tried, and acquitted by a jury.
- Wade sued Officers Collier, Mobley, and Wheeler and the Village of Maywood alleging malicious prosecution (state law) and a class-of-one equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (Illinois law) — whether defendants’ alleged lies defeated probable cause | Wade: defendants lied about Mobley making the Dec. 9 roll-call announcement, so indictment was tainted and there was no probable cause | Defs: grand jury indictment is prima facie probable cause; independent evidence (wiretap, pen register, fraudulent warrant, contacts) established probable cause | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for defendants — indictment and additional evidence established probable cause; memorandum date discrepancies do not create genuine issue of material fact |
| Class-of-one equal protection claim under § 1983 — whether Wade was intentionally treated differently than similarly situated officers | Wade: other officers who communicated with dealers were not prosecuted, so he was singled out without rational basis | Defs: comparators are not similarly situated (undercover officers were part of the investigation; alleged other comparators lack record support or differ materially); prosecutorial discretion and employment context make a class-of-one theory poor fit | Court: Claim fails — essentially a repackaged malicious-prosecution claim; no proper similarly situated comparator; Engquist logic disfavors class-of-one in public employment/prosecutorial-discretion context |
| Sufficiency of record to show Mobley lied about roll call | Wade: conflicting memoranda and date inconsistencies raise a triable issue that Mobley lied | Defs: testimony from investigators and ASAs shows Mobley called the wire room before Wade’s call; Mobley explained memorandum errors as mistakes | Held: No genuine factual dispute — timing evidence refutes Wade’s framing theory |
| Municipal/secondary liability for Collier, Wheeler, Maywood | Wade: (implied) other officers and the Village are liable if Mobley lied | Defs: no basis for liability because plaintiff failed on primary claims | Held: Court did not reach in depth because primary claims failed; no basis to hold others or municipality liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Swearnigen-El v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dept., 602 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2010) (elements of Illinois malicious prosecution claim and grand jury indictment as prima facie probable cause)
- Logan v. Caterpillar, 246 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2001) (probable cause is a complete defense to malicious prosecution)
- Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) (probable cause is an objective inquiry; defined as a substantial chance of criminal activity)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one theory is a poor fit in public employment because of discretionary decisionmaking)
- Reget v. City of La Crosse, 595 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2010) (comparators must be identical or directly comparable in all material respects for equal protection claim)
- Vukadinovich v. Bartels, 853 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1988) (dismissing equal protection claims that merely reframe malicious prosecution)
- Fares Pawn, LLC v. Indiana Dept. of Fin. Inst., 755 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2014) (burden on plaintiff to identify similarly situated comparator to survive summary judgment)