NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To cited only accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals
For Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois
Submitted March [*] Decided March
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge
No. ‐ DANIEL J. MCNETT, Appeal from District
Plaintiff Appellant Court Northern Illinois, Eastern Division.
v . C
NICHOLAS ROBERTSON, et al.
Defendants Appellees . Gary Feinerman, Judge .
O R D E R Daniel McNett, Illinois inmate, challenges alleging two detained violation Amendment, Palatine (which employs officers) has practice arresting people without cause, violation Department Social Services New York (1978). dismissed 18 1508 2 screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, because McNett pleaded facts that affirmatively defeated his claims. We affirm. review de novo a under U.S.C. § 1915A, we accept the
alleged in McNett’s amended complaint as true. See Cesal v. Moats , F.3d (7th Cir. McNett alleges that he was falsely arrested one night by Officers Nicholas Robertson Mark Dockendorf, who their squad cars boxed in his car outside the church homeless shelter that he drove to as part a “procession cars.” Unbeknownst to McNett the time, the officers were responding to a call placed by another driver who had complained that McNett was following her. When questioned by one the officers, McNett produced a driver’s license that turned out to invalid. The officers then arrested McNett. district judge concluded that McNett had pleaded himself out court. The
judge reasoned that the officers had probable cause to arrest McNett for driving a license, dooming his Fourth Amendment claim. McNett’s claim against the failed, the judge added, because McNett based his conclusory allegations solely on his own experience, which was insufficient to suggest any unlawful municipal practice.
On appeal, McNett asserts that the officers’ decision to stop him the church parking lot was unreasonable because the caller did not allege any criminal activity the officers did not investigate the caller’s reason for dialing 911. But the district judge properly concluded that McNett’s allegations about the legality the stop did not state a Amendment Accepting McNett’s allegations as true, officers had reasonable suspicion to stop McNett based the caller’s that McNett was tailing her. See United States Drake 774–75 2006); see also Wooden 2008) (“A system designed to provide an emergency response to telephonic tips could not operate if had to verify identity all callers test their claim to have seen crimes progress.”). Moreover, McNett does not allege that officers saw anything before stopping him that provide reason to doubt caller’s report, so officers acted unreasonably by stopping to investigate caller’s complaint.
As for arrest, also properly determined McNett pleaded himself out acknowledged he showed officers invalid driver’s license when asked identification; therefore had cause arrest him. ILCS 5/6 303; Columbia Wesby S. Ct. n.2 (2018); Atwater City Lago Vista 318, (2001); Ewell Toney 2017). underlying constitutional violation, succeeded Horton Pobjecky
AFFIRMED
[*] agreed decide this case oral argument briefs record adequately present legal arguments, oral argument significantly aid F ED . R. C IV . P. 34(a)(2)(C).