Love v. City of Chi.

ALLISAH LOVE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, DAVID TENCZA, JOHN LEE, NIYELL POWELL,APRIL FISHER, IRIS HOUSTON, GLENN DAVIS, MR. SUTTER,TERRANCE MCMAHON, TERRANCE FAHEY, JAMES MURRAY,MARTIN ANDERSON, GLENN LANIER, JR., MR. CADDIGAN,MR. WOODS, MS. URBON, MR. ROBINSON, UNITED ROADTOWING, INC., and other UNNAMED PERSONS, Defendants.

No. 09 C 03631

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

May 7, 2015

Judge Edmond E. Chang

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Allisah Love, proceeding pro se, brings constitutional and Illinois common-law claims against myriad Defendants: the City of Chicago; twelve Chicago Police Department (CPD) officers; United Road Towing, Inc., a private company that contracts with the City to operate an automobile impound lot; and three employees of the City's Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), where Love formerly worked. Underlying the claims are several incidents in which Love was allegedly falsely arrested, defamed, wrongfully fired, retaliated against, and otherwise subjected to a conspiracy to deprive her of constitutional andstatutory rights.¹ (This list is not exhaustive, as detailed below.) Defendants now move separately to dismiss the various claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motions are granted in large part and denied in part. The majority of Love's claims and many named Defendants are dismissed; only a narrow set of claims related to one of Love's arrests and detainments, which occurred in November 2007, will survive.

I. Background

A. Factual Allegations

In evaluating the motions to dismiss, Love's factual allegations must be accepted as true with reasonable inferences drawn in her favor. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2079 (2011). For ease of reference, the allegations, which revolve around several discrete incidents related to Love's employment with the City and to separate altercations with the CPD that span years, are presented in chronological order. The complaint is voluminous and includes several tangents, but the operative facts are as follows.

1. Employment with OEMC

In March 1998, Love accepted employment with OEMC in the position of Police Operator I, which functions as a "police call taker." Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 125, 126. Two years prior, Love had passed an examination to work as a police dispatcher, or Police Operator II. Id. ¶ 124. The different responsibilities required by the two positions are not clear, but Operator I provides for a pay grade belowthat of Operator II. Id. ¶ 125. When Love began as an Operator I, she and other candidates who had previously passed the Operator II exam were told by the City that they would be moved into that higher-paying job once positions opened, before outside applicants were considered. Id.

Despite that representation, in June 1998, three months after Love started work, the City posted a job announcement for 32 Operator II positions, requiring that applicants have at least 18 months of experience in 911-dispatching, a condition Love did not meet. Id. ¶¶ 127-28. Love contends that the City intentionally engaged in a deceptive employment practice in filling Operator II slots in this manner and refusing to transition Love into the role despite further vacancies. Id. ¶ 129. Love complained to her union, but the complaint went nowhere. Id. ¶¶ 130-31.

According to Love, her union-inquiries and complaints about the hiring practices (it is unclear to whom exactly Love made these complaints) motivated the City to conspire to retaliate against her. Id. ¶ 134. To that end, between 1998 and 2000, Love received twelve disciplinary actions, ten of which, she says, were unfounded; among these was a 20-day suspension after Love allegedly handed in a broken handset, even though a log showed that fifteen other employees had turned in damaged handsets. Id. ¶ 136. Furthermore, during the course of 2000, Love made at least ten reports of supervisor harassment, none of which was ever addressed (no further details are provided about the nature of this harassment). Id. ¶ 138. In June of that year, Love also sought employment with the Los Angeles Police Department,but alleges that her application was denied because the City of Chicago failed to pay her college tuition and gave negative feedback about her to the LAPD.² Id. ¶ 139. Finally, despite taking and passing the City's firefighter examination twice, the City never contacted her to follow up on employment.³ Id. ¶ 140.

In particular, Love names three of her OEMC supervisors, Defendants James Murray, Martin Anderson, and Terrance Fahey, as among the participants in the City's conspiracy against her. Id. ¶ 137. In August 2000, Anderson, apparently in retaliation, demanded that Love resubmit paperwork related to her scheduled furlough. Id. ¶ 141. On December 10, 2000, Love reported an incident of harassment involving Murray (the underlying details of the harassment are not provided) to Fahey, evidently to no effect. Id. ¶ 142. That same day, Fahey refused Love's request to use sick leave, even though Love was ill, had plenty of hours she could use, and had followed standard procedures. Id. ¶¶ 142-43. Love was forced to leave work without authorization as a result and was later treated at a hospital (the nature of her illness is not described). Id. ¶¶ 143-44. When Love returned to work a few days later, she was suspended and, following a departmental review held "without proper notification" and where she was unrepresented by her union, OEMC terminated her employment on January 19, 2001. Id. ¶¶ 148, 150, 152. Lovealleges that even after her firing, the City retaliated against her by contesting her claim for unemployment benefits, though those benefits were ultimately approved. Id. ¶¶ 155-56.

2. April 2001 Arrest at Restaurant

About three months after her firing, Love was arrested while attending a performance sponsored by a local radio station at a restaurant on the South Side of Chicago. Id. ¶¶ 158, 177. Love arrived at the event, held on April 2, 2001, but, demanded a refund of her money because she was dissatisfied that the venue had no seating. Id. ¶¶ 157-59. While Love was waiting for the restaurant manager to sort out her request, one of the event's security personnel told her that she had to leave, and then grabbed and shoved her, forcing her down a staircase. Id. ¶¶ 162-64. Evidently, CPD officers were already present outside; Love approached one to obtain the name of the man who had shoved her. Id. ¶ 165. This officer reported to Love, falsely, that the security man's name was Herman Jones and that he worked for the sheriff's department, when in fact he was a CPD officer, Defendant Glen Lanier, Jr. Id. ¶¶165-66. None of the other CPD officers on site, including Defendants Caddigan, David Woods, and Urbon, agreed to take the complaint Love wished to make against Lanier.⁴ Id. ¶ 167.

After Love went to a local police station to file her complaint, she was directed back to the restaurant so that police could identify the security officer who had pushed her. Id. ¶ 170. After some confusion and a call to 911, Love was drivenback to the restaurant, where Caddigan, Woods, and Urbon were still present, and she pointed Lanier out. Id. ¶¶ 171-76. After Lanier was questioned by the officers, however, it was Love who was placed under arrest. Id. ¶¶ 176-77. When asked why she was being arrested, Woods answered, "Disorderly conduct." Id. ¶ 177. When Love appeared for her hearing on the charge, the case was dismissed, because the State refused to prosecute. Id. ¶ 181. Love contends that Lanier, Caddigan, Woods, and Urbon filed a false police report against her to bring the disorderly conduct complaint, in retaliation of her pending complaints against the City (evidently, her accusations of unfair hiring practices at OEMC). Id. ¶ 180.

3. October 2007 Arrest of Love's Brother

The story picks up six years later. In late October 2007, Love's teenage brother (his name is Christopher Grooms), along with two other juveniles, were stopped and searched by CPD Officers David Tencza and John Lee (they are named as defendants). Id. ¶ 27. The teenagers were driving a car owned by Uylonda Henderson, the mother of one of the two boys riding with Grooms. Id. ¶ 30. Love alleges that, during the stop, one of the teenagers witnessed Tencza plant something in the car that Tencza and Lee claimed was drugs. Id. ¶ 34. Love's brother, and only he, was arrested for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, id. ¶ 35, and Henderson's car was impounded, id. ¶ 37. The felony charge was dismissed by a state court on November 13, 2007, however, after the State declined to prosecute following lab results that showed that the substance found (allegedly planted) in the car was not a controlled substance. Id. ¶¶ 53, 54.

4. November 2007 Arrest at Auto Pound

Meanwhile, at Henderson's request, Love assisted her in trying to get Henderson's car released by the City. Love spoke on Henderson's behalf at an administrative hearing regarding the impoundment. Id. ¶¶ 45, 49, 57. Love alleges that counsel for the City purposefully sought to dismiss the "administrative hearing case" so that the City would not have to produce the lab reports on the substance found in the car. Id. ¶ 60. After much expense and hardship to her family due to the lack of a car for nearly a month, Henderson won an order directing the City to return the impounded car, at no cost, on November 19, 2007. Id. ¶¶ 62, 63.

On November 20, Love and Grooms, along with Henderson and her son, went to pick up the car at a lot located on the South Side. Id. ¶ 68. Unfortunately, Henderson's car would not start after sitting idle for a month, even after a jump from one of the lot's employees. Id. ¶¶ 69, 70. Lot personnel refused to allow Henderson's son to bring his car into the lot, or to push Henderson's car outside, to try giving it a jump that way. Id. ¶ 72. Henderson and Love were instead told...