Mitchell v. Plano Police Department
1:16-cv-07227
N.D. Ill.Sep 29, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Sharon Mitchell sued the City of Plano, Plano Police and Zoning departments, several officers, and two private residents alleging a long-running campaign of harassment, false arrests, defamatory statements, and other torts and constitutional violations dating from 2009–2016.
- Key alleged events: her son’s 2009 arrest and her complaints about it; police visits and citations in 2010 (resulting in acquittals); an October 2015 vehicle incident; four arrests in November 2015 (including trespass and alleged violation of an Order of Protection); and 2016 vehicle-registration citations later admitted to be administrative errors.
- Mitchell alleged § 1983 claims (Fourth Amendment, First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, due process), state-law torts (false arrest/imprisonment, defamation, false light, IIED, malicious prosecution), and indemnification/respondeat superior claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); private defendants additionally argued lack of color-of-law for § 1983. Court treated allegations liberally but required factual detail per Iqbal/Twombly.
- Court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim: most counts dismissed without prejudice; Count 9 (obstruction of justice) dismissed with prejudice as no civil cause exists; claims against Plano Police Department and Plano Zoning Department dismissed with prejudice because they are not suable entities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell pleaded a § 1983 unlawful arrest/false arrest (Fourth Amendment) and state false arrest claim | Arrests were wrongful and based on fabricated testimony and coaching | Complaint lacks facts showing lack of probable cause at time of arrest; many events time-barred | Dismissed: Mitchell did not plead facts negating probable cause; 2009/2010 claims time-barred; counts 1 and 4 dismissed |
| Whether defendants are proper municipal or departmental defendants and whether municipal liability pleaded (Monell) | City and its departments participated in retaliatory policy/custom against Mitchell | Police and zoning departments are not suable; City not plausibly alleged to have an official policy/custom causing violations | Dismissed: Police and zoning departments not suable (dismissed with prejudice); Monell claim against City inadequately pleaded |
| Defamation / False light / Publication & malice elements | Defendants published false statements about Mitchell causing reputational harm | Plaintiff fails to identify particular false statements, who published them, or facts showing falsity or actual malice; testimony is privileged | Dismissed: failure to plead specific false statements, publication, causation, and malice; privileged testimony bars claims where applicable |
| First Amendment retaliation / Equal protection / Due process / Malicious prosecution / IIED | Conduct was retaliation for her complaints and part of sustained harassment campaign; class-of-one discrimination; fabricated prosecutions; outrageous conduct caused severe distress | Allegations are conclusory, temporally disconnected, lack causation or facts tying officials to conduct, some claims time-barred; legal theories misapplied (e.g., obstruction no civil remedy) | Dismissed: pleaded facts insufficient to show retaliatory motive, class-of-one harassment, fabricated-evidence due-process, malicious prosecution elements, or extreme outrageousness for IIED. Count 9 dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (complaints by pro se plaintiffs are construed liberally)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual allegations, not legal conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires official policy, custom, or final policymaker act)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (witness testimony enjoys absolute immunity against § 1983 claims)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (probable cause and immunity principles relevant to arrests)
- Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392 (probable cause standard for arrests)
- Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556 (fabrication of evidence can support due process claim under § 1983 in limited circumstances)
- Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743 (class-of-one equal protection discussion)
- Wallace v. City of Chicago, 440 F.3d 421 (false arrest claim accrual/timing)