Kitchen v. Burge
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42021
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Kitchen was arrested on August 25, 1988, interrogated for 16 hours, subjected to torture and racial insults, and signed a statement after refusing to speak with counsel.
- He was tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and spent 21 years in prison before his conviction was vacated and a new trial pursued; ultimately released via nolle prosequi on July 7, 2009.
- Kitchen alleges a broad conspiracy involving Burge, other Area 2/3 detectives, and multiple city officials to conceal torture and fabricate/withhold evidence.
- The complaint names officer defendants, municipal defendants, ASA defendants, Mayor Daley, the City, County, and SAO, each moving to dismiss various counts.
- Goldston OPS report (1990) finding systemic abuse and its suppression/rebuttal by officials is central to Kitchen’s asserted conspiracy.
- Procedurally, the court analyzes Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, addressing Count I (§1983 fabrication/suppression), Counts II–III (false arrest/imprisonment and torture), Count IV (coercive interrogation), Counts V & X (conspiracy), Counts VII (false arrest under Illinois law), Counts VI & XI (Monell/supervisory liability), and Count XII (indemnification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I §1983 claim survives against officer defendants. | Kitchen asserts a due process claim beyond Brady. | Officer defendants argue claim is essentially malicious prosecution barred by Seventh Circuit. | Count I survives against officer defendants. |
| Whether Count I §1983 claim survives against municipal defendants. | Kitchen asserts suppression of exculpatory evidence and ongoing due process violation. | Municipal defendants contend no causal link and miscast theory, with limited duty to investigate. | Count I survives against municipal defendants. |
| Whether ASAs are entitled to prosecutorial immunity for Count I. | ASAs engaged in fabricating Williams's statement and post-trial suppression actions; immunity unclear. | ASAs are absolutely immune when acting as prosecutors or while preparing/witness control; post-trial actions covered by immunity per Van de Kamp. | ASAs are entitled to prosecutorial immunity for Count I; claims dismissed against ASAs. |
| Whether Mayor Daley is liable on Count I. | Daley’s decisions promoted及defense of Burge and concealed torture evidence causally connected to confinement. | Daley’s conduct lacks causal connection; he is protected by prosecutorial immunity for actions as SAO. | Daley granted dismissal of Count I. |
| Are Counts II–III time-barred and properly dismissed? | Not opposed; focus on accrual. | Fourth Amendment claims accrue by arraignment; timely defense. | Counts II and III dismissed as untimely. |
| Is Count IV timely and properly pled against defendants? | Coercive interrogation claim not barred by Heck accrual; not time-barred. | Accrues under Heck and two-year limitations; some immunity defenses apply. | Count IV timely against City defendants? Ultimately, ASAs and Daley immune; Count IV survives against none; but」と note: main holding: Timely, but immune defenses apply; count resolved in favor of immunity for ASAs and Daley; leave venue-specific result as stated in opinion. |
| Whether Counts VI, XI Monell and vicarious liability survive against City. | City liable for pattern/custom and respondeat superior for underlying rights violation. | Without underlying liability or proper theory, fail. | Counts VI and XI survive; Monell and supervisory claims remain viable against City. |
| Whether Count XII indemnification against City/County/SAO survives. | Indemnification available for judgments against former officials. | Indemnification unnecessary given dismissals of primary defendants; immunity issues apply to SAO. | Count XII: County dismissed; SAO immune; City indemnification claim denied or resolved consistent with dismissals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.2001) (malicious prosecution not recognized as §1983 claim)
- Wiley v. City of Chicago, 361 F.3d 994 (7th Cir.2004) (continuing seizure theory rejected for Fourth Amendment)
- Patterson v. Burge, 328 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ill.2004) (proceedings and evidence suppression; basis for immunity analysis)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (prosecutorial immunity extends to colleagues/supervisors for training/supervision)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (immunity for prosecutors when acting as advocates)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity extends to activities intimately related to judicial process)
- Hill v. Coppleson, 627 F.3d 601 (7th Cir.2010) (prosecutorial immunity analysis in context of ongoing interrogation)
- Partee, 978 F.2d 362 (7th Cir.1992) (absolute immunity for prosecutors who withhold exculpatory information before conviction)
- Andrews v. Burge, 660 F. Supp.2d 868 (N.D. Ill.2009) (statements and prosecutor duties during interrogation; immunity again)
- Reid v. State of N.H., 56 F.3d 332 (1st Cir.1995) (continuing immunity for prosecutors after conviction; exculpatory materials)
- Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 77 (6th Cir.1986) (supervisory liability standard; must show involvement and knowledge)
- Patterson II, 2010 WL 3894433 (N.D.Ill.2010) (prosecutorial immunity extended in appellate context)