916 F.3d 611
7th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Marshall Spiegel, a long-time condominium resident in Wilmette, photographed and videotaped neighbors Corrine and William McClintic to document alleged condominium-rule violations.
- Corrine McClintic repeatedly filed police reports alleging Spiegel's conduct (including alleged videotaping at the pool and confronting her), and Wilmette police warned Spiegel he could be arrested for disorderly conduct if he continued.
- Spiegel sued McClintic and the Village of Wilmette under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (conspiracy and municipal liability) and sued McClintic under Illinois law for intrusion upon seclusion; he sought injunctive relief and later sought to amend his complaint.
- The district court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state claims and denied motions for preliminary injunction, to vacate, and to amend; Spiegel appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considered whether Spiegel pleaded (1) a conspiracy making McClintic a state actor; (2) a Monell policy or custom by Wilmette; and (3) damages for intrusion upon seclusion under Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McClintic can be liable under § 1983 via conspiracy (private actor acting under color of state law) | McClintic conspired with Wilmette police (e.g., police threatened arrest at her request), so private conduct became state action | McClintic merely reported incidents to police; no allegation of an agreement or that officers acted with knowledge of false reports | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a concerted agreement or joint activity under Fries and related precedent |
| Whether Wilmette is liable under Monell for enforcing disorderly-conduct ordinance to suppress photography | Enforcement of the ordinance against Spiegel reflects municipal policy/practice that chills First Amendment activity | Ordinance is facially constitutional; isolated officer contacts do not establish a municipal policy, custom, or ratification | Dismissed — no plausible express policy, widespread practice, or final policymaker; ratification not shown |
| Whether McClintic committed intrusion upon seclusion under Illinois law | McClintic peered into Spiegel's unit and possibly photographed interior, constituting an unauthorized, offensive intrusion | Plaintiff failed to allege required damages from the intrusion | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead actual damages (required element) |
| Whether district court erred denying preliminary injunction, VACATE, or leave to file third amended complaint | Injunctive relief and amendment necessary to vindicate rights; proposed additional facts and defendants would cure defects | Claims were futile; final judgment bars amendment absent successful Rule 59/60 motion; motions properly denied | Affirmed — motions properly denied given failure to state claims and final-judgment rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (private actors are not liable under § 1983 absent action under color of state law)
- Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452 (7th Cir.) (to hold private person liable under § 1983 via conspiracy, plaintiff must plead an understanding with state actors and willful joint participation)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy, widespread custom, or action by a final policymaker)
- Gramenos v. Jewel Cos., 797 F.2d 432 (7th Cir.) (distinguishing mere reporting to police from exercising state power)
- Butler v. Goldblatt Bros., 589 F.2d 323 (7th Cir.) (furnishing information to police does not by itself create joint state action)
- Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir.) (conspiracy with state actors requires more than independent reports; courts distinguish cases where state actor actively furthers a private scheme)
- Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385 (8th Cir.) (a facially lawful policy that lacks antidiscrimination detail does not alone create Monell liability)
- Waters v. City of Chicago, 580 F.3d 575 (7th Cir.) (municipal ratification requires approval of both conduct and the employee's motivation)