Joseph Rossi v. City of Chicago
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10504
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rossi was assaulted by multiple assailants, one an off-duty Chicago police officer, and Glenn Mathews was assigned to investigate.
- Mathews performed minimal investigative work and later closed the investigation, affecting Rossi's civil suit prospects.
- Rossi sued Mathews under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of judicial access and sued the City of Chicago under Monell for a police culture of misconduct.
- The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding no denial of judicial access and no widespread municipal practice.
- Rossi's evidence showed partial police inaction, late investigations, misnaming of a suspect, and delayed Internal Affairs inquiries, but not a complete obstruction of legal relief.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding Rossi was not denied judicial access and Monell claims failed for lack of evidence of widespread city policy or custom.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Mathews’ conduct deny Rossi judicial access under §1983? | Rossi argues concealment and failure to investigate deprived him of facts. | Mathews contends no denial occurred; Rossi could pursue relief. | No constitutional denial of judicial access; qualified immunity applies. |
| Are Rossi’s Monell claims viable against the City? | Rossi asserts a city-wide code of silence and permissive practices. | City contends lack of evidence of widespread policy or custom. | Monell claims rejected for insufficient evidence of pervasive municipal policy. |
| Was the district court correct to grant summary judgment on §1983 and Monell claims? | Evidence showed investigative lapses forming basis for §1983 claim and policy claims. | Record insufficient to show constitutional violation or widespread policy. | Yes, district court proper to grant summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984) (egregious cover-up denial of judicial access (extreme))
- Vasquez v. Hernandez, 60 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 1995) (cover-up delaying relief, not precluding redress)
- Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 1994) (facts known to plaintiff enough to sue; not denied access)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no affirmative duty to aid unless deprivation of rights)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1983) (right to meaningful access to courts; adequate, effective)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (standing for §1983 rights; not a general grant of relief)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)