Milton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
1:11-cv-07872
N.D. Ill.May 25, 2012Background
- Milton and Earnest filed a seven-count amended complaint against Wal-Mart, the Village of Gurnee, and two Gurnee police officers.
- Defendants answered Count I (illegal search/seizure) and moved to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and VI under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiffs allege racial profiling, unlawful entry/search, and confiscation of a computer from Wal-Mart.
- Court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard to evaluate sufficiency of the remaining counts.
- Court grants motion to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and VI for lack of plausible claims.
- Decision entered May 25, 2012; ruling against plaintiffs on the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts II, III, IV, VI survive | Milton/Earnest argue needs fact-based claims | Defendants contend failure to state plausible claims | Counts II, III, IV, VI dismissed |
| Whether Count II asserts procedural due process or substantive due process | Alleges procedural due process deprivation | Claim mislabels as procedural; improper substantive claim | Count II dismissed |
| Monell claim adequacy for Village of Gurnee | Alleged widespread practice using isolated incident | Insufficient ongoing custom or policy | Count III dismissed |
| § 1981 claim against state actor viability | § 1981 implied right of action against state actors | § 1983 is exclusive remedy for state actors | Count IV dismissed |
| IIED claim against defendants | Severe emotional distress alleged | No facts showing severe distress | Count VI dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (state may provide due process via post-deprivation remedies)
- Jett v. Dallas Ind. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (§ 1983 exclusive damages remedy for § 1981 against state actors)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (local government liability requires policy or custom)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (analysis of excessive force claims guiding Fourth Amendment inquiry)
- Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch Univ., 167 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir. 1999) (briefs cannot amend complaints)
- Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2009) (briefs not to amend complaint)
- Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984) (briefs cannot rewrite complaints)
- Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) (cited for standard on municipal liability; not binding here)