1:20-cv-02433
N.D. Ill.Feb 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Tom Stephens alleges that on May 8, 2019 Cook County Sheriff's Police Detectives Sheryl Collins and Timothy McPhillips falsely arrested him for sexual exploitation of a child, leading to detention and prosecution without probable cause.
- The Complaint names Cook County as the employer of Collins and McPhillips and asserts Counts IV (malicious prosecution), VI (intentional infliction of emotional distress), and VIII (respondeat superior/vicarious liability) against the County.
- Cook County moved to dismiss those counts under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing counties are not vicariously liable for the acts of sheriff deputies because the sheriff is an independently elected officer and the County lacks control over deputies.
- The Court applied the federal pleading standard (Twombly/Iqbal) and Illinois law recognizing deputy sheriffs as agents of the sheriff, not the county.
- The Court granted the County’s partial motion and dismissed Counts IV, VI, and VIII against Cook County with prejudice, while noting the County remains a proper party for indemnification (Count IX).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook County can be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for actions of Cook County sheriff deputies | County employed the deputies and is therefore vicariously liable for their misconduct | Sheriff is an independently elected officer; County has no control over sheriff/deputies so respondeat superior does not apply | Dismissed: County not vicariously liable for deputies' actions under Illinois law |
| Whether County can be liable on Counts IV (malicious prosecution) and VI (IIED) via respondeat superior | These tort claims should reach the County through vicarious liability for deputies | Same as above: County cannot be vicariously liable; only indemnification claim remains appropriate | Dismissed with prejudice as to Counts IV and VI against County; indemnification claim preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must allege more than labels and conclusions)
- Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2007) (accept well-pleaded facts on motion to dismiss)
- Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1989) (sheriff is independent; county lacks control over sheriff deputies)
- Ryan v. County of DuPage, 45 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1995) (similar principle re: county control and liability)
- Moy v. County of Cook, 640 N.E.2d 926 (Ill. 1994) (Illinois law: counties not liable for sheriff/deputies under respondeat superior)
- Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003) (county must be named as indemnitor in suits involving sheriffs/deputies)