Bowne v. Donnelly
2025 IL App (3d) 230073-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2025Background
- Brian Towne, former LaSalle County State’s Attorney, was indicted on 17 counts of misconduct; charges were later dismissed for violation of speedy trial statute.
- Towne sued Karen Donnelly (his successor), the City of Ottawa, and LaSalle County, alleging malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.
- Circuit court dismissed Towne’s complaint with prejudice, finding prosecutorial and witness immunity, time-barred tort claims, and lack of specific factual allegations.
- Towne argued he was unable to allege full facts due to pending grand jury transcript release, but complaint was dismissed before transcripts were obtained.
- On appeal, Towne challenged both the legal bases for dismissal and the court’s refusal to allow amendment after obtaining new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial Immunity | Donnelly’s actions were outside the scope of advocacy; acted investigatively | Acts within scope of prosecutorial duties are immune | Prosecutorial immunity does not bar all allegations |
| Statute of Limitations | Claims accrued at criminal dismissal, so timely | Claims accrued at arrest; thus, time-barred | Claims accrued at dismissal; lawsuit was timely |
| Specificity of Complaint | Factual detail limited until grand jury transcripts obtained | Complaint lacked essential specifics | Dismissal proper due to lack of specificity, but with leave to amend |
| Dismissal With Prejudice | Should be allowed to amend once more facts are available | Lack of specificity warrants dismissal with prejudice | Dismissal should be without prejudice to allow amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (describes "functional approach" to prosecutorial immunity)
- Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94 (Ill. 2004) (malicious prosecution claim accrues at favorable termination)
- Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504 (Ill. 1996) (sets five elements for malicious prosecution)
- Freides v. Sani-Mode Mfg. Co., 33 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 1965) (probable cause presumption can be rebutted by showing indictment obtained by fraud)
- Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology Int’l, 177 Ill. 2d 267 (Ill. 1997) (favorable termination element in malicious prosecution pleadings)
- Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76 (Ill. 2004) (standards for section 2-615 motions to dismiss)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (Ill. 2006) (complaint should not be dismissed unless no set of facts could entitle to recovery)