Brewster McCauley v. City of Chicag
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21179
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- McCauley, administrator of her daughter's estate, sued Chicago officials, IDOC and its director, and Martinez’s estate after Martinez killed McCauley and then killed himself; Martinez had previously violated parole and a protection order, and authorities knew but did not detain him or arrest him.
- Parole-violation information was relayed to IDOC but no parole-violation warrant was issued; Martinez remained at large and continued violating protection orders.
- Complaint asserted 13 claims, including equal-protection claims against the City and Walker (IDOC director); district court dismissed federal claims, declined supplemental state claims.
- Monell claim alleged City policy/custom of discrimination against a class of domestic-violence victims; the court rejected this on a pleading level.
- District court held IDOC director’s official-capacity claim barred by Eleventh Amendment; denied McCauley limited discovery to support a personal-capacity claim.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding the Monell claim plausibly pleaded only generalized policy failures, not intentional discrimination, and that discovery was properly denied.]
- Dissent argued that Iqbal should not extinguish potential Monell claims and urged leave-to-amend; emphasized that the complaint plausibly alleged discriminatory intent and policy-based harm under proper pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCauley’s Monell claim is plausibly pled | McCauley argues City had a policy to discriminate against domestic-violence victims | City contends no policy of discrimination; allegations are too general | Dismissed; not plausibly state a Monell policy of intentional discrimination against the class. |
| Whether discovery to support personal-capacity claim against Walker was proper | Limited pre-Rule 12(b)(6) discovery could reveal Walker’s personal involvement | No personal involvement shown; discovery unnecessary and futile | Discovery denied; no abuse of discretion in denying pre-pleading discovery. |
| Application of Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard to Monell claim | Iqbal should not foreclose a plausible Monell claim given notice pleading | Plaintiff failed to plead a plausible policy of selective protection | Majority adopts Iqbal but finds pleading insufficient to state Monell claim; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard; distinguishs facts from conclusions)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government liability for policy or custom that causes constitutional injury)
- Leatherman v. Tollette?, 507 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1993) (no heightened pleading for certain Monell claims (policy/custom))
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) ( Rule 8 notice pleading allows general allegations of intent)
- Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) (illustrates plausibility analysis after Twombly/Iqbal)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (case distinguishing simple discrimination claims under pleading standards)
- Hilton v. City of Wheeling, 209 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2000) (selective withdrawal of police protection as equal-protection concern)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (governmental inaction in protection from private violence not actionable)