Bianchi v. McQueen
58 N.E.3d 680
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Louis Bianchi (McHenry County State’s Attorney) and three employees were investigated by Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan and assistants including Thomas McQueen and private contractor Quest Consultants; indictments followed but plaintiffs were acquitted after bench trials.
- Plaintiffs sued McQueen and Quest investigators in state court for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and defamation, alleging fabrication of evidence and concealment of exculpatory information to induce indictments.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Ill. Sup. Ct. Rules 2-615/2-619, arguing sovereign (Court of Claims) jurisdiction, absolute/quasi-judicial immunity, failure to state claims, and assignment/indemnification defenses.
- Trial court dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding defendants were state employees entitled to sovereign immunity and that no exceptions applied.
- On appeal, the Second District held (1) defendants are state employees but plaintiffs pleaded that defendants acted beyond or in excess of their authority by manufacturing evidence, so sovereign immunity/Court of Claims exclusivity did not bar the suits; (2) plaintiffs stated claims for malicious prosecution and IIED; (3) defamation claim against McQueen was dismissed because statements were within his official duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction / sovereign immunity bars suit | Defendants are not proper "state employees" for immunity or, alternatively, they acted beyond authority so immunity exception applies | Defendants were special State’s Attorney/investigators (state employees) and Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction | Defendants are state employees, but plaintiffs plausibly alleged defendants acted illegally/beyond authority (fabricating evidence), so circuit court has jurisdiction; sovereign immunity does not bar the tort claims |
| Whether absolute prosecutorial or witness immunity bars claims | Plaintiffs: fabrication before probable cause and investigative acts are not protected by absolute immunity | McQueen: entitled to absolute immunity for preparing indictments, grand jury conduct, witness interviews, and press statements | Absolute immunity rejected for the alleged pre‑indictment fabrication and investigative misconduct (Buckley rationale); Rehberg does not shield fabrication outside grand jury testimony; press statements within official duties were privileged for defamation claim |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded malicious prosecution (probable cause, malice, causation) | Plaintiffs alleged deliberate fabrication/concealment that induced Tonigan and grand jury—no probable cause; malice alleged | Defendants rely on Dalby affidavit, grand jury indictment, and argue no facts showing lack of probable cause or malice | Court held complaint sufficiently alleged lack of probable cause, malice, and that defendants played a significant role in causing prosecution, so malicious prosecution survives pleading challenge |
| Whether defamation claim survives against McQueen | Plaintiffs: press conference repeated false allegations; injury from false public statements | McQueen: absolute/state official privilege for statements made in scope of duties | Court held alleged statements were within prosecutorial/public‑information scope; defamation claim dismissed for failure to plead conduct outside official duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (prosecutorial absolute immunity does not cover investigative acts like fabricating evidence before probable cause)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (grand‑jury witnesses have absolute immunity for testimony; does not protect fabrication outside grand jury proceedings)
- Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104 (intentional torts by state employees acting beyond authority may be litigated in circuit court)
- Leetaru v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., 2015 IL 117485 (substance of claim determines Court of Claims exclusivity; cannot evade by naming individuals)
- Healy v. Vaupel, 133 Ill. 2d 295 (Attorney General’s decision to defend does not determine proper forum; acts outside authority are not protected by sovereign immunity)
- White v. City of Chicago, 369 Ill. App. 3d 765 (distinguishable: prosecutorial acts within advocacy role retained immunity where not alleged to be manufactured evidence)