Geinosky v. City of Chicago
675 F.3d 743
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Geinosky received 24 bogus parking tickets of the same Toyota over 14 months (Oct 2007–2008) by Unit 253 officers, with inconsistencies suggesting harassment.
- Ticket pattern included sequential numbers on certain dates and timing when Geinosky’s estranged wife or he had custody of the car.
- Geinosky sued City of Chicago and eight Unit 253 officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for class-of-one equal protection, civil conspiracy, and substantive due process.
- District court dismissed all claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds; the Seventh Circuit reversed in part, affirming only the substantive due process dismissal.
- At issue was whether a pattern of unjustified harassment could support § 1983 claims without a named similarly situated comparator or traditional class-based discrimination.
- Tribune coverage and an internal investigation during the suit showed potential officer discipline, contextualizing the harassment allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Geinosky’s class-of-one claim states a valid equal protection claim | Geinosky alleges deliberate, irrational harassment by police that departs from any norm. | The city argues no rational basis or purpose, and that the plaintiff must identify a similarly situated individual. | Yes; the claim survives as a pattern-based harassment case. |
| Whether the civil conspiracy claim is viable given the dismissed due process claims | Conspiracy allegations should remain if underlying harassment is plausible. | Conspiracy depends on the dismissed claims; dismissal should extinguish related conspiracy claims. | Revoked; conspiracy claim survives in light of the reverse of the equal protection dismissal. |
| Whether the substantive due process claim is viable | Harassment by police could shock the conscience and violate due process. | Harassment alone, without a conscience-shocking deprivation, does not meet the high due process standard. | Affirmed; substantive due process claim dismissed. |
| Appropriateness of the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards for conspiracy claims | Pattern of conduct demonstrates plausibility of a conspiracy. | Conspiracy allegations must be more than conclusory. | Complaint pleads a plausible conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 2008) (class-of-one limits in public employment context)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (Supreme Court 2000) (irrational or wholly arbitrary equal protection)
- McDonald v. Village of Winnetka, 371 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2004) (similarly-situated requirement in selective investigations/prosecutions)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (pleading standard for conspiracy claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (pleading standard—face plausibility requirement for claims)