Mitchell v. Doherty

530 F.Supp.3d 744

Dylan MITCHELL, Dayna Schultz, Larissa Walston, Michael Riggs, Ivan Holland, Andrew Ehrhardt, Ross Wagner, and Jaylen Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Eugene DOHERTY, in his official capacity as the Chief Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois; Gary Caruana, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Winnebago County; and Winnebago County, Defendants.

No. 20 C 50285

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed March 30, 2021

Brad Thomson, People's Law Office, Adele D. Nicholas, Law Office of Adele D. Nicholas, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Dylan Mitchell, Dayna Schultz, Larissa Walston, Michael Riggs, Ivan Holland.

Adele D. Nicholas, Law Office of Adele D. Nicholas, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Ross Wagner, Andrew Ehrhardt, Jaylen Butler.

Erin Walsh, Kelly C. Bauer, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Eugene Doherty.

Charlotte Ann LeClercq, Winnebago County State's Attorney's Office, Michael F. Iasparro, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, for Defendants Gary Caruana, Winnebago County.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN Z. LEE, United States District Judge

Winnebago County, Illinois, does not conduct bail hearings over a normal weekend. The question is whether that practice is constitutional.

Plaintiffs are individuals who, at various times during the summer of 2020, were arrested in Winnebago County between Friday night and Saturday morning. Each Plaintiff was jailed over the weekend until Monday afternoon, when a court determined that each was eligible for release. Plaintiffs argue that Winnebago County's failure to hold bail hearings within 48 hours of their arrests violates the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Gerstein v. Pugh , 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin , 500 U.S. 44, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991).

To remedy this, Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action seeking injunctive relief that would require Winnebago County to conduct a bail hearing within 48 hours for individuals who are arrested and held without a warrant. Plaintiffs also seek damages on an individual basis for violations of their rights caused by their weekends in jail. At this stage, Plaintiffs have filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction and class certification; Defendants, in turn, have moved to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motions are denied as moot.

I. Background ¹

A. Facts

On the night of Friday, July 31, 2020, Plaintiffs Dylan Mitchell, Dayna Schultz, and Larissa Walston were attending a protest in support of Black Lives Matter when they were arrested without warrants by the Rockford police. 1st Am. Class Action Compl. ("Am. Compl.") ¶¶ 25–45, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff Ivan Holland also was arrested that night (although the complaint does not specify whether he was a protester). Id. ¶¶ 53–58. The police arrested Plaintiff Michael Riggs at another demonstration the following day, id. ¶¶ 46–52, and Plaintiffs Ross Wagner, Andrew Ehrhardt, and Jaylen Butler during yet another protest on the night of Friday, August 21. Id. ¶¶ 59–80. All were arrested without warrants. Id. ¶¶ 26, 33, 40, 47, 53, 60, 67, 74.

After their arrests on a Friday night or a Saturday afternoon, each of the Plaintiffs was transported to the Winnebago County Jail and detained over the weekend before appearing in court the following Monday at 1:30 p.m. to determine whether and under what conditions he or she would be released on bond. Id. ¶¶ 28, 35, 42, 49, 55, 64, 71, 78. Mitchell, Schultz, Walston, and Riggs were released on their own recognizance after their bail hearings. Id. ¶¶ 29, 36, 43, 50. Bail for Holland was set at $50,000. Id. ¶ 56. And, although detained when this action was filed, Wagner, Ehrhardt, and Butler have since been released on their own recognizances as well. See Pls.’ Combined Resp. Opp. Def. Chief Judge Doherty's Mot. Dismiss and Reply Supp. Mot. Prelim. Inj. ("Pls.’ Combined Resp.") at 2, ECF No. 48.

As Plaintiffs elaborate in their declarations in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, their weekends in jail caused each of them to suffer, not only a loss of liberty, but "physical pain and suffering, lost wages, and emotional distress." See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 31, 38, 45, 52, 58, 65, 72, 80 (alleging damages); Mitchell Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 35-1; Riggs Decl. ¶¶ 4–5, ECF No. 35-1; Wagner Decl. ¶¶ 3–5, 7–9, ECF No. 35-1; Walston Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 35-1 (collectively, "Decls. Pls. Walston, Mitchell, Riggs, and Wagner") (elaborating). For example, while detained, Wagner did not receive any medical treatment for a concussion and a bleeding head wound that he had sustained during his arrest. Wagner Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. Walston was not permitted to take her prescription medication. Walston Decl. ¶ 6. And Mitchell was fired from a job she had held for over two years after the police informed her employer of her arrest; she has lost ten to fifteen pounds as a result of anxiety stemming from her detention. Mitchell Decl. ¶ 6.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. Because Winnebago County falls within Illinois's 17th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiffs sue Eugene Doherty, Chief Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, in his official capacity as the individual responsible for establishing the schedule for probable cause and bond hearings. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2–4. Plaintiffs also assert a claim against Winnebago County Sheriff Gary Caruana in his official capacity as the individual responsible for managing the Winnebago County Jail and setting policies regarding the custody of pre-trial detainees. Id. ¶¶ 21, 81–86. And Plaintiffs have joined Winnebago County as a defendant pursuant to Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County , 324 F.3d 947, 948 (7th Cir. 2003), as the entity financially responsible for the jail and the 17th Judicial Circuit Court. Id. ¶ 22. (Except where it is necessary to distinguish among them, the Court will refer to Defendants collectively as "Winnebago County," "the County," or "Defendants.")

Mitchell, Holland, Riggs, Schultz, and Walston initially filed their complaint on August 2, 2020, claiming that the County had failed to make a probable cause determination within 48 hours of their warrantless arrests, in violation of the Supreme Court's mandate in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin . Class Action Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 (citing Cnty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin , 500 U.S. 44, 57, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991) ). In McLaughlin , the Supreme Court held that "the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an extended pretrial detention following a warrantless arrest," and that "a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement." 500 U.S. at 47, 56, 111 S.Ct. 1661.

However, after filing their complaint, Plaintiffs learned that the County, in fact, does arrange for a judge to make probable cause determinations (albeit on an ex parte basis) within 48 hours of an arrest, even on the weekends. Pls.’ Am. Mot. Prelim. Inj. ("Mot. Prelim. Inj.") at 2 n.1, ECF No. 19. So, on August 21, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

In addition to adding Plaintiffs Butler, Ehrhardt, and Wagner, Plaintiffs now claim that the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted in McLaughlin , not only requires a probable cause determination without 48 hours of a warrantless arrest, but also mandates a judicial determination of bail eligibility within the same time period. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2–4, 104–05. And so, in Count I, Plaintiffs name Chief Judge Doherty and seek a class-wide injunction that would require the 17th Judicial Circuit Court to hold bail hearings within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. Id. ¶ 105. In Count II, Plaintiffs seek damages against Sheriff Caruana for the named Plaintiffs on an individual basis for their loss of physical liberty, physical pain and suffering, lost wages, and emotional distress as a result of the alleged constitutional violations. Id. ¶ 108.

In conjunction with the amended complaint, Plaintiffs also moved for class certification and a preliminary injunction. See Pls.’ Am. Mot. Class Cert., ECF No. 18; Mot. Prelim. Inj. Chief Judge Doherty opposed both motions and moved to dismiss Count I. See Def. Chief Judge Doherty's Mot. Dismiss Count I, ECF No. 38. Sheriff Caruana moved to dismiss Count II. See Def. Sheriff Caruana's Mot. Dismiss Count II, ECF No. 28. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, see 11/5/20 Min. Entry, ECF No. 52, and at the Court's direction, Chief Judge Doherty submitted a supplemental filing outlining the schedule for bond hearings in Winnebago County, see Suppl. Filing Regarding Bond Hearings, ECF No. 55.

II. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

When considering motions to dismiss, the Court accepts "all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park , 734 F.3d 629, 632 (7th Cir. 2013). At the same time, "allegations in the form of legal conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion." McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 694...