Edward Tobey v. Brenda Chibucos
890 F.3d 634
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Tobey, convicted in Florida and Illinois for possession of child pornography, was on probation in both states; Florida supervision was transferred to Illinois under the Interstate Compact.
- Probation conditions included sex-offender treatment, polygraph testing, internet restrictions, and limits on contact with minors; Tobey repeatedly failed sexual-history polygraphs.
- After alleged probation violations, Illinois probation officer Brenda Chibucos reported concerns to Florida authorities; Florida initiated an affidavit and arrest warrant and Tobey was taken into custody in April 2013 and transported to Florida, where he spent 106+ days before return to Illinois.
- Tobey sued Chibucos (probation officer), Mary Stanton (assistant state’s attorney), and supervisors in federal court claiming wrongful arrest/kidnapping (Count I), continuing threats/denial of visits and due-process violations (Count II), supervisory liability (Count III), and state-law claims (Counts IV–VI).
- District court dismissed all federal counts (statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and immunity) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; it denied Rule 11 sanctions. Both sides appealed; this panel affirmed dismissal and denial of sanctions, and issued a Rule to Show Cause on appeal conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Count I (false arrest/imprisonment) | Tobey says he lacked knowledge that defendants acted without process until counsel reviewed records in March 2016, so suit filed April 1, 2016 was timely or tolled. | Defendants point to Florida order showing detention ended Aug 2013; §1983 claim accrues when unlawful detention ends, so two-year limitations expired Aug 2015. | Dismissed: claim barred by two-year statute; accrual when detention ended (Aug 2013); ignorance of legal significance does not delay accrual or toll. |
| Use of out-of-complaint court records on Rule 12(b)(6) | Tobey objects to district court reliance on defendants’ docket/extradition documents without converting to summary judgment and disputes their accuracy. | Defendants say public court orders and certified records are judicially noticeable and show extradition and court proceedings. | Court may judicially notice undisputed public court orders critical to complaint (conditions of probation) but must be cautious on facts subject to reasonable dispute; dismissal stands on other grounds. |
| Immunity (absolute) for prosecutorial/probation conduct | Tobey alleges Stanton and Chibucos conspired and acted unlawfully (e.g., fabricated cover, coerced agreements). | Defendants assert absolute immunity for prosecutorial/quasi-judicial acts and for probation officers performing revocation-related functions; Younger abstention and habeas are proper remedies for challenging probation conditions. | Dismissed: Stanton and Chibucos entitled to absolute immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase; remaining supervisory claim fails; Younger abstention and habeas framework limit federal relief. |
| Sanctions / Rule 11 and appellate frivolity | Tobey contends his verified allegations provided good-faith basis; district court should not sanction. | Defendants argue the certified record contradicted Tobey’s story and counsel failed reasonable pre-filing inquiry. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions; however, appellate court issued a Rule to Show Cause under Fed. R. App. P. 38 requiring explanation of appellate filing given the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: legal conclusions not accepted)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (false-imprisonment accrual when detention pursuant to legal process begins or when detention ends)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (absolute immunity principles for prosecutors)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial absolute immunity)
- Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656 (probation/parole officer immunity for quasi-judicial acts)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention from interference in ongoing state proceedings)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (accrual rules; plaintiff’s ignorance of legal rights does not postpone accrual)
- Liberty v. City of Chicago, 860 F.3d 1017 (statute of limitations for §1983 actions in Illinois)