Rodriguez v. Cook County, Ill.
2011 WL 6287910
7th Cir.2011Background
- Rodriguez was convicted of murder; Illinois appellate court reversed for insufficient evidence in 2000.
- Rodriguez filed a federal §1983 suit alleging two police officers coerced a witness to identify him.
- District court granted judgment as a matter of law for one officer and submitted the rest to a jury; Rodriguez appealed.
- Rosario’s prior federal suit was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit in 2006.
- In 2010 Rodriguez filed a new §1983 suit naming the three original defendants plus three prosecutors and their offices.
- District court dismissed state-law claims and determined statute of limitations and preclusion barred the suit; Rodriguez challenged 2008 Illinois certificate of innocence as restarting the clock.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 735 ILCS 5/2-702 tolls or restarts limitations for §1983 claims. | Rodriguez contends the 2008 certificate of innocence restarts time against all defendants. | Defendants argue no tolling or new accrual for §1983 against individuals; statute applies only to state claims. | No; accrual and tolling do not restart limitations for individuals. |
| Whether the 2008 certificate of innocence creates a new federal civil-rights claim against prosecutors. | Rodriguez relies on the certificate to revive his federal claims. | Certificate creates a new state claim against Illinois, not against prosecutors. | Certificate does not revive federal claims; accrual occurred in 2000. |
| Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Rodriguez's §1983 claim given the reversed conviction. | Rodriguez argues ongoing validity of conviction is unsettled. | Heck accrual occurs when conviction is reversed or set aside; certificate does not affect that. | Heck accrual occurred in 2000; suit filed in 2010 is untimely. |
| Whether the district court erred by declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against prosecutors. | Rodriguez seeks state-law claims under §1367 in federal court. | Prosecutors are immune or must be sued in state court; supplemental jurisdiction applies only to certain claims. | The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice under §1367(c) but federal jurisdiction for personal-capacity claims exists. |
| Whether prosecutors enjoy absolute or state-sovereign immunity barring suit in federal court. | Prosecutors should be liable in federal court for personal-capacity claims. | Prosecutors have immunity; claims should be dismissed or barred. | Prosecutors' personal-capacity immunity does not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction; claims dismissed without prejudice under §1367(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court 2001) (federal preclusion rules govern when prior judgments are from federal court)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court 1995) (federal judgments not subject to legislative revision by states)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court 1985) (borrowed state-law limitations; accrual rules for §1983)
- Kitchen v. Burge, 781 F.Supp.2d 721 (N.D.Ill.2011) (certificate of innocence not extending accrual under Heck; later clarified)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court 1994) (§1983 claims cannot attack conviction; accrual upon reversal or set-aside)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court 2007) (claims accrual when underlying legality is determined)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court 1908) (no Eleventh Amendment barrier to suits for prospective relief against state officials)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court 1989) (official-capacity suits treat state as defendant; immunity considerations)
- Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court 1997) (federal jurisdiction limits on state-imposed immunities)