Patterson v. Vill. of River Forest

1

2024 IL App (1st) 230830-U

XAVIER PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST and SETH DEYOUNG, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-23-0830

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division

July 17, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 17 L 3053 Honorable Scott D. McKenna, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

LAMPKIN, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: Where plaintiff sued the village and the detective for malicious prosecution, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because there was probable cause to believe the plaintiff had committed criminal sexual assault.

¶ 2 After plaintiff Xavier Patterson was acquitted of the charge of criminal sexual assault of a college classmate, he sued defendant Seth DeYoung, a former detective of the River Forest Police Department (RFPD), for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff also sued defendant Village of River Forest (the Village) for derivative claims of respondeat superior and indemnification. The case was fully litigated through discovery, after which the circuit court awarded summary judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on the basis that probable cause supported plaintiff's charging.

¶ 3 On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that the classmate's allegations lacked credibility and thus failed to confer probable cause to prosecute plaintiff. Plaintiff also argues that the circuit court's summary judgment rests on an impermissible credibility determination.

¶ 4 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.^[1]

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On the morning of May 4, 2011, RFPD Officer Sarah Arrigo was dispatched to a university campus regarding a report of criminal sexual assault. At the university, security personnel said that they had received a telephone call from Jane Doe's mother, who advised security that someone gained access to her daughter's dorm room and made her do things that she did not want to do. Jane, her mother, and her boyfriend were in Jane's room waiting for the police. The security supervisor walked Jane, her mother, and her boyfriend to another room where Officer Arrigo obtained statements from them. Officer Arrigo's report does not indicate that she spoke to Jane in the presence of her mother and boyfriend.

¶ 7 According to Officer Arrigo's case report, Jane's boyfriend received several text messages from Jane to the effect of "wake up," "emergency," and "I want to go home." He told Officer Arrigo that when he spoke to Jane by telephone, she told him that she was up late studying for a final examination, fell asleep, and woke up with a person pulling down her pants. Jane's boyfriend said that Jane was crying and provided no further details. He then telephoned Jane's mother and advised her of the situation. Jane's mother spoke to Jane and then told Jane's boyfriend that someone forced Jane to have sex. Jane's boyfriend was aware that Jane let another student into her dorm room while she studied, but that student left the room.

¶ 8 Jane's mother told Officer Arrigo that when Jane's mother received the telephone call from Jane's boyfriend at 9 a.m. on May 4, he said that someone went into Jane's room and pulled down her pants. Jane's mother then telephoned Jane, who said that she wanted to pretend that the incident did not happen. Jane then explained that at 11 p.m she was in her room studying for a final exam when plaintiff, a fellow student and acquaintance, knocked on her door. Jane allowed plaintiff into the room, but he left at some point. Soon Jane went to sleep and woke up with plaintiff on top of her. Jane's mother asked Jane if plaintiff was naked and if he raped her, and Jane replied, "Yes."

¶ 9 When Jane talked to Officer Arrigo, Jane identified plaintiff by name and said that he was her friend. They had met through Jane's ex-roommate, who had moved out of the room two weeks before the incident. Jane was never in a relationship with plaintiff and had never been sexually intimate or affectionate with him. At 11 p.m. on May 3, she was studying in her room for a final exam and listening to music when plaintiff knocked on her door. She allowed plaintiff into her room and they spoke briefly about her French class. Plaintiff laid down on Jane's bed while she sat on the edge of the bed, studying on her laptop. Plaintiff soon fell asleep on top of the blanket, facing the wall. At midnight, Jane went to bed underneath the blanket, facing away from plaintiff, and quickly fell asleep. When she woke up, she was on her stomach and her leggings were pulled down. Plaintiff was on top of her and, without her consent, had inserted his penis into her vagina. She started to move and pushed plaintiff away from her with her legs. She turned to her side and plaintiff exited the bed and left the room. There was no conversation between her and plaintiff prior to or after the incident. Neither she nor plaintiff were under the influence of alcohol or narcotics at the time. Jane then attempted to reach her boyfriend by text and telephone. Officer Arrigo accompanied Jane to her dorm room where Jane described the locations and positions during the incident. Jane did not know if plaintiff used a condom or ejaculated but she pointed out to Officer Arrigo an area of the bed that was wet after plaintiff had exited the bed.

¶ 10 Later that same morning of May 4, defendant DeYoung, who had been an RFPD officer since 2002 and detective since 2007, was assigned to investigate. After being informed of Jane's complaint by Officer Arrigo, DeYoung proceeded to the hospital where Jane was present with her family members. Jane, who was waiting for an examination and sexual assault kit to be completed by hospital staff, appeared "confused, hunched over, distraught," and in "a very defeated posture." As a result, DeYoung provided Jane with his contact information so that they could discuss her case once she was discharged.

¶ 11 At 6:50 p.m. that same evening of May 4, DeYoung interviewed Jane at the RFPD. DeYoung observed that Jane's demeanor appeared just as it did at the hospital: "broken, crushed, distraught, very upset." After DeYoung read Jane warnings from a photographic array form- which Jane signed, indicating that she understood the warnings and wished to view the array- Jane immediately identified the photograph of plaintiff as her assailant, signed her name above his photo, provided DeYoung with plaintiff's name, and told DeYoung that she knew plaintiff well, as they were friends.

¶ 12 Jane then explained to DeYoung that after allowing plaintiff into her room around 11 p.m. on May 3, they discussed final exams, and plaintiff at one point fell asleep on Jane's bed on top of her blanket while Jane studied. Jane told DeYoung that she continued studying until around midnight, at which time she laid down at the edge of her bed-under the blankets and facing away from plaintiff-and quickly fell asleep from exhaustion. Jane continued that, at some point during the night, she awoke due to discomfort in her vaginal area. She noticed that her pants and underpants were down by her knees and ankles and realized that plaintiff was penetrating her vagina from behind with his penis. Jane stated to DeYoung that she then tensed up or wiggled, after which plaintiff got off her, pulled up his shorts, and left the room without either person speaking.

¶ 13 Jane told DeYoung that after plaintiff left her room, she called her boyfriend. When he failed to answer, she texted him several times that he needed to immediately come get her. Jane showed DeYoung the text messages she had sent to her boyfriend between 1:59 a.m. and 2:32 a.m. on May 4. Because her boyfriend did not respond, Jane explained that she showered and fell asleep, until she awoke around 8:30 a.m. due to a call from her boyfriend, at which time she described to him what happened.

¶ 14 Jane told DeYoung that she had no prior sexual contact with plaintiff and only considered him a friend. She said she did not give plaintiff consent to perform any sexual act on her, including penetrating her vagina with his penis. Jane also told DeYoung, who had never met Jane or plaintiff before this investigation, that she would sign a criminal complaint against plaintiff. During her interview with DeYoung, Jane was upset and cried, which caused DeYoung to pause the interview several times so Jane could compose herself. Before leaving the RFPD, Jane submitted buccal and pubic hair standards, and she signed a medical request form allowing DeYoung to obtain her emergency room records. Jane also swore out a complaint against plaintiff for criminal sexual assault.

¶ 15 The following afternoon of May 5, 2011, DeYoung interviewed plaintiff at the RFPD. Plaintiff admits that, during this interview, he told DeYoung that he went to Jane's room, engaged in sexual contact with Jane, became frustrated because the sexual contact was twice interrupted, lost his erection, and left Jane's room. Plaintiff also states on appeal that he told DeYoung that "Jane was fully awake and never stopped him."

¶ 16 Later that same evening, around 9 p.m. on May 5, DeYoung asked Cook County Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) John Reich, who was assigned to the felony review unit of the State's Attorney's office, to respond to the RFPD. The felony review unit is a 24-hour unit that assists police departments with evaluating cases and evidence, determines the appropriate...