Rashad Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 881 F.3d 577

Swanigan was arrested after being misidentified as a serial bank robber (the “Hard Hat Bandit”), detained ~51 hours without a probable-cause hearing, and released when the prosecutor declined charges; a jury later awarded him $60,000 for an unconstitutionally prolonged detention.
Swanigan filed a separate Monell suit against the City alleging constitutional injuries from three CPD policies: (1) a “hold” policy that prolonged custody, (2) a lineup policy that produced misidentifications, and (3) a cleared/closed case-file practice that he says continues to label him the robber.
The district court dismissed the amended Monell complaint; the Seventh Circuit reviews that dismissal de novo and affirms in part and rejects most claims.
Court held Swanigan cannot recover from the City for the prolonged detention because he already recovered against the officers (avoiding double recovery and inconsistent verdicts) and he lacks standing for injunctive relief against the hold policy.
Court held lineup-related constitutional claims fail because mistaken identifications that were never used at trial do not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial; compelled participation in lineups while already in custody is not a separate Fourth Amendment seizure.
Court held cleared-closed file claim fails: reputational harm alone is not a due-process injury, and injunctions are barred by lack of standing given speculative future harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
City liability for prolonged detention (Monell)	City policy caused the extended detention; seeks additional damages and injunctive relief	Swanigan already recovered from officers; Monell requires municipal policy causation; injunctive relief speculative	Monetary recovery barred by double-recovery/inconsistent-verdict principles; injunctive relief denied for lack of standing
Standing for injunction against hold policy	Risk of future unlawful prolonged detention justifies injunctive relief	Future harm is speculative; plaintiff likely to avoid arrest; no certainly-impending injury	No standing — threatened injury is not certainly impending or substantially likely
Lineup policy (due-process/unreliable IDs)	Improper lineups produced unreliable IDs and harmed Swanigan	Misidentifications never used at trial; injury is evidentiary and arises only if IDs affect trial	Claim fails; due-process exclusion concerns are trial-centered and Swanigan was never tried
Cleared-closed case-file policy (reputational harm)	File continues to link him to robberies, risking reputational and safety harms and justifying damages and injunction	File accurately states prosecutor declined charges; reputational injury not a Fourteenth Amendment liberty or property interest; future harm speculative	Dismissed: reputational injury alone not cognizable under Due Process; no standing for injunctive relief

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (detention over 48 hours without prompt probable-cause determination is presumptively unreasonable)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputational harm alone is not a deprivation of "liberty" or "property" under the Due Process Clause)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (constitutional challenges to identification procedures are evidentiary and tied to trial fairness)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires an actual or certainly-impending injury to satisfy Article III)
City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986) (jury findings that an officer inflicted no constitutional harm foreclose inconsistent municipal liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)