Humes v. Rosario, 3:19-CV-3050

ROBERT HUMES, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL ROSARIO, in his official and individual capacities;KENNY WINSLOW, in his official and individual capacities;and THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS Defendants.

No. 3:19-CV-3050

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

August 19, 2019

OPINION

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (d/e 13) filed by Defendants City of Springfield and Springfield Police Chief Kenny Winslow. The Motion seeks to dismiss Counts II and V, the only counts brought against Chief Winslow and the City.

The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The official capacity claim against Chief Winslow in Count Two is dismissed but Count Two remains against the City and Chief Winslow in his individual capacity. Count Five is dismissed to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the City liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory but remains to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the City liable under a respondeat superior theory with respect to Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendant Officer Samuel Rosario—Counts Three and Four.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Robert Humes originally filed this suit in February 2019 against Samuel Rosario, who was at all times relevant employed as a police officer for the City of Springfield; Kenny Winslow, the Chief of Police; and the City of Springfield, Illinois. Plaintiff sued Officer Rosario and Chief Winslow in their official and individual capacities.

In June 2019, this Court dismissed Count Two, the failure to train claim, for failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Count Five, finding Plaintiff stated a claim that the City is liable under a theory of respondeat superior for Officer Rosario's alleged assault and battery of Plaintiff. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a five-count Amended Complaint. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,alleging that Officer Rosario unreasonably seized Plaintiff and deprived Plaintiff of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count One) and alleging that Chief Winslow and the City failed to train, instruct, and supervise Officer Rosario and other officers in the Springfield Police Department (Count Two). Plaintiff also brings state law claims against Officer Rosario for assault and battery (Counts Three and Four) and against the City under a respondeat superior liability theory (Count Five).

Chief Winslow and the City move to dismiss Counts Two and Five.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States"). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions givingrise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. Christensen v. Cty. of Boone, Ill., 483 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief and giving the defendants fair notice of the claims. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true and construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Id. However, the complaint must set forth facts that plausibly demonstrate a claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A plausible claim is one that alleges factual content from which the Court can reasonably infer that the defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Merely reciting the elements of a causeof action or supporting claims with conclusory statements is insufficient to state a cause of action. Id.

IV. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

The following facts come from the Amended Complaint and are accepted as true at the motion to dismiss stage. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1081.

On February 27, 2017, Officer Rosario arrived at Plaintiff's residence to investigate a possible crime committed by an individual other than Plaintiff. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. During Officer Rosario's official investigation of the possible crime, he had a conversation with Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. During the conversation with Plaintiff, Officer Rosario suddenly "assaulted and beat" Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff did not verbally or physically provoke Officer Rosario. Id. ¶ 12. Officer Rosario tackled Plaintiff, physically restrained him, and repeatedly punched Plaintiff on his face, head, and other parts of his body. Id. ¶ 13. Officer Rosario did not witness Plaintiff commit a crime or have probable cause to believe Plaintiff committed any crime. Id. ¶ 15. Officer Rosario's assault on Plaintiff resulted in Plaintiff being physically and emotionally injured and made to suffer public ridicule and personal embarrassment. Id. ¶ 18.

Plaintiff further alleges that Chief Winslow and the City were responsible for the administration of the Springfield Police Department and the development of policy and training of said department. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19, 20. As is relevant to Plaintiff's failure to train and supervise claim (Count Two), Plaintiff alleges that Chief Winslow and the City were aware that morale was low. Id. ¶ 30. In October 2017, Sergeant Grant Barksdale of the Springfield Police Department stated that, for a few years prior, widespread dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Springfield police officers put Chief Winslow and the City on notice that the education of employees as to their duties, the development of department personnel, and the establishment of professional standards for employees was severely deficient. Id. ¶ 31. A poll of 82% of the membership of the union representing Springfield police officers showed that 84% believed that Defendant Winslow's performance in establishing professional standards for employees was unsatisfactory during a time period covering the date of Officer Rosario's assault on Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 32. The same poll showed that 85% of Springfield officers believed that Chief Winslow's performance in the education of employees as to their duties wasunsatisfactory. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff alleges that previous attempts to remedy Springfield officers' complaints regarding training and professional standards "fell on deaf ears." Id. ¶ 34. Moreover, Chief Winslow did not have a written employment contract with the City, even though previously hired chiefs had written contracts containing employment duties and performance criteria, such as establishing professional standards and educating employees as to their duties. Id. ¶ 35.

Plaintiff further alleges that Chief Winslow and the City were aware that Officer Rosario had been the subject of previous reports of violent outbursts, including slamming his fist on a car during a traffic stop (id. ¶ 36) and pulling a taser on a man sitting down at a warming center for refusing to get up (id. ¶ 37). In addition, Chief Winslow and the City were aware Officer Rosario was experiencing difficulties at home and that he suffered from lack of sleep on the date in question. Id. ¶ 38. Internal affairs files revealed that Officer Rosario's supervisors noticed something amiss in the days leading up to the assault. Id. ¶ 39. Officer Rosario informed his supervisors the day before the assault of Plaintiff that he was having a hard time at home and was struggling to balance hisofficial duties and personal problems. Id. ¶¶ 40, 41. Officer Rosario received no response. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff asserts that Chief Winslow and the City's failure to respond to the problems brought to their attention by Officer Rosario and other Springfield police officers is evidence of their deliberate indifference to matters and to the rights of persons with whom such an untrained employee comes in contact. Id. ¶ 43.

Plaintiff further alleges that Chief Winslow and the City's failure to address the problems concerning the education of employees as to their duties, the development of department personnel, and the establishment of professional standards for employees is clear evidence of their deliberate indifference to such matters and the rights of person with whom such untrained employees come in contact. Am. Compl. ¶ 44. Chief Winslow and the City's failure to properly train and supervisor Officer Rosario and other officers and their indifference to numerous complaints regarding training over the course of several years was so widespread as to constitute a course of conduct or custom of failing to train and supervise employees. Id. ¶ 45.

In July 2019, the City and Chief Winslow filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants move to dismiss Count Two, the failure to train claim against Chief Winslow and the City, and Count Five, the respondeat superior claim against the City.

V. ANALYSIS

A. Count Two States a Claim but the Official Capacity Claim Against Chief Winslow is Dismissed as Duplicative

The City moves to dismiss Count Two, the failure to train claim, arguing that the Amended Complaint consists solely of conclusory allegations unsupported by any accompanying facts other than Plaintiff's own experience of alleged excessive force. The City asserts that the additional facts alleged by Plaintiff do not establish a pattern of similar constitutional violations and do...