Fonseco vs. Nelson Et Al

8/9/2019 Fonseco vs. Nelson Et Al

1/15

RECE{VEDIttARg 10

OFFICE OF THB ATTORNBY GBNERALSTATE OF ILLINOISLisa MadiganATTORNEYGENERAL

March 6. 010Mr.DavidNelsonHarrisburg,llinois 2946

Re: ArnulfoFonseca . Nelson, t al.USDC-SDL No.08-435DearMr.Nelson:

Enclosed leaseindanorder enyinghemotiono reconsiderheorder rantingthesummaryudgmentiledby Dr.LeVaughn;n order rantingummaryudgmentnfavor f heSaline ounty efendantsnddecliningo exerciseupplementaljurisdictionover heState-lawlaims; nda udgmentnyour avoron he ederal laims.At he imethe motionor summaryudgment as iledon yourbehalf,he only emaininglaimsagainst ouwere he State-lawlaims f intentionalnfliction f emotional istress nddefamation.

Theplaintiff ayattemptoreviveheseState-lawlaims y ilingn hecircuit ourt.Should edoso,youwould eserved itha summonsndcopyof hecomplaint.fyouwant epresentationromouroffice, ouwillneed o makeanotherequest.lf youhaveanyquestions,lease o nothesitateo contactme at (217) 82-1841or by electronic ail o [email protected].

Karen . McNaughtAssistant ttorneyGeneralEnclosurescc:Michael inshaw / enclosures

500SouthSecondStreet,Springfield,llinois 62706 (?17)782-1090 TTY (877)844-5461 Fax:(?17)j8Z-7046100WestRandolph treer, hicago,llinois60601 (312) 14-3000 TTY: (800)964-3013 Fax: 312) 14-38061001EastMain,Carbondale,llinois 62901 (618) 29-6400 TTY (877)675-9339 Fax: 618) ?9-6416 .iI+6

Sincerelyours,


2/15

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJPocument15 Filed 3/16/10Page1 of 3IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHESOUTHERNISTzuCTOF LLINOIS

ARNULFO FONSECA.Plaintiff,

CHARLES DAVID NELSON,et al.,Defendants,

)))))))))

ORDER

CivilNo. 08-435-CJP

PROUD,MagistrateJudge:Before he Court s Plaintiffs Motion o Reconsiderhe Court'sMemorandum ndOrder

of September0,[email protected]).PlaintiffasksheCourt o reconsiderhe ordergranting efendant ark LeVaughn's

motion or summaryudgment, ntered n September0,2009, nddocketed t Doc. 182.Thatorderwasentered y DistrictJudgeReagan, nd t disposed f all claimsagainstLeVaughn.Thereafter,he emaining arties onsentedo finaldisposition y the undersigned.

JudgeReagan's rdergrantedummaryudgmentn favorof LeVaughn n he ast woclaims ending gainst im, .e., hathe ntentionallynflictedemotional istress y fabricatingtestimony tplaintiffs murder rialregarding shleighMiller's cause f death, nd hatheconspired ith otherso convict laintiffof chargeshatwere unsupportedby theevidence."On he ntentionalnflictionof emotional istress laim,JudgeReagan oncludedhatLeVaughnwasentitledo absolutemmunity ecauseheclaimwasbased olelyonhis n-court estimony.On hecivil conspiracy laim, udgeReaganound hatplaintiffhadnotpresentednyevidenceat hesummaryudgment tageo demonstratenagreement, hich sa necessarylement f theconspiracylaim.


3/15

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJP ocument 15 Filed03/16/10 Page2 of 3Plaintiffnowasks heCourt o reconsiderudgeReagan's rderbecause,ccordingo

plaintiff,JudgeReaganmisreadheevidence s o theemotional istress laimandapplied hewrong egalstandardegardinghenecessity f provingan agreementspartof a conspiracyclaim.

. The eassignmentfthis caseo a differentjudge oes otpresent n open-endedopportunityor thepartieso revisitdecisionshat havealready eenmade. n fact, he ule squite heopposite;he law of thecase" octrine reates presumptionhat earlierrulingswillstand."Bestv. Shell Oil Co.,107F.3d 544,546 7th Cir,l997). Thisdoctrine reflectstherightfulexpectationf litigantshata change fjudgesmidway hrougha casewill notmeangoingback o squareone." Mendenhallv.Mueller StreamlineCo., 419F.3d 686, 691(7'hCir.2O05)(internal itationomitted).Thus, econsiderationf a previous uling s authorizednly"if there s a compellingeason,uch sa changen, or clarification f, law hatmakes lear hatthe earlier ulingwaserroneous." sntamarina .Sears,Roebuck& Co,,466F.3d 5701 71-572 7'hCir. 2006). Conversely, udge s not free o reconsider prior udge'sdecision"merelybecausee hasa different iewof the aw or the acts rom he irst udge."Best,107F.3dat 546 internalcitationomitted).

Plaintiffpoints o no compellingeasonor reconsiderationf JudgeReagan's reviousorder. He hasnotpresentednychangen the aw or anyclarification f the aw thatmakestclear hatJudgeReagan'sulingwas n error.

For he oregoingeasons,laintiffs Motion o Reconsiderhe Court'sMemorandumandOrderof September0,2009 Doc.197) s DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.DATE: March 16,2010.

s/ Clifford J. ProudCLIFFORD J. PROUDUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE2


4/15

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJPocument15 Filed 3/16/10Page3 of 3


5/15


IN THE .INITEDSTATES ISTRICTCOURTFORTHESOUTHERNISTRICTOF LLINOISARNULFO FONSECA,

Plaintiff,v .CIIARLES DAVID NELSON,et al.,

))))) CivilNo. 08-435-CJP))))efendants.

MEMORAITIDUM and ORDERPROUD, MagistrateJudge:

Before heCourt s Defendants' otion or Summary udgment. Doc.117). Themotion s filed onbehalfof defendantseithBrown,Ken Clore,RandyButler,Mike Jones,ToddFort,SteveSloan,MonaNelson,SalineCounfy,Sheriff Officeof SalineCounty, nd heState's ttorney'sOfficeof SalineCounty.DefendantsradNeal andDavidBlazieralsooinedin the motion,but hey,alongwith he Villageof CanierMills, weredismissed nplaintiff smotionon June26,2009. See,Doc.148. Thus, hemotion or summaryudgments brought nbehalfof all remaining efendantsn this case, ith theexception f defendant harles avidNelson.

Plaintiff iledaresponseo hemotionat Doc. 136. Defendantshen iled a replyatDoc.151 .

Natureof Plaintiffs ClaimThe Court irst notes hat he operative omplaint s the FourthAmendedComplaint,

Doc.163. TheFourthAmended omplaintwas iled n responseo JudgeReagan's rdersdirecting ame samatter f housekeeping.ee,Docs.156,158,and 162. It wasclearly he


6/15

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJPocument16 Filed 3/16/10Page of 9

intention f JudgeReagan ndof thepartieshat hepreviously-filed ispositivemotions,includinghis one,be construed s efering to the complaint samended. ee,Doc. 129.

PlaintiffArnulfoFonseca'song-time irlfriend,AshleighMiller, was njuredon May 28,2007. Shediedasaresultof thosenjurieson June6,2007.According o FourthAmendedComplaint,Miller sufferedhe njurieswhen shefell out of the carhe wasdriving." Doc. 163,!f18. On June4, 2007,Fonseca ascharged ith aggravatedUI, aggravatedrivingwith arevokedicense, bstructingustice, nd ailing o reportapersonalnjury accident.He wasreleasedn bond.Doc.163, f19.

On June13,2007, onseca ascharged ith two counts f first-degree urderarisingout of Ms. Miller's death.Fonsecaumedhimself nto RandyButler, thearestingoffrcer orthe SalineCounty Sheriff s Department,ursuanto an arrestwarrant" hat hadbeensignedbyJudgeWaldenE. Morris. Doc. 163, lt[20'2f

JudgeMorris conducted preliminary earing n July 5,2007,anddeterminedhat herewasprobable auseo proceed n wo counts f first-degree urder.Doc. 163, f24. Bondwassetat onemillion dollars.Plaintiffwasunable o makebond,and emainedn ail until trial.Doc.163,127. On April 8, 2008, ury foundhim notguiltyon bothmurder ounts.Doc. 1630n26.

The FourthAmendedComplaint onsists f 11counts. n Counts through ,plaintiffsue under42 U.S.C.$1983 or various iolations f hisrightsunder heUnitedStatesConstitution.Counts through1l allege nlystate aw claims.

Standardor Summary udgment


7/15

Case :08-cv-00435-CJPocument16 Filed 3/16/10Page3 of9

Summaryudgments appropriate here hepleadings,he discovery nddisclosurematerials n file, andanyaffidavits how hat here s no genuinessue f material actand hatthe movingparty s entitled o udgmentasa matterof law. Estateof Suskovichv. AnthemHealthPlansof Virginia,Inc.,553F.3d559,563(7'hCir. 2009), citingFed.R. Civ. P. 56(c).Accord,Breneisen , Motorola, nc.,512 F.3d 972 7'hCir. Cir. 2008XLevyv. MinnesotaLifeIns.Co.,5l7F.3d519 7'hCir. 2008).

In rulingon a summaryudgmentmotion, he Courtconstruesll factsand easonableinferencesn the ight most avorableo thenon-moving arty here,Plaintiff). Lloydv. SwiftyTransp.,Inc,,552 .3d 594,600 7'hCir.2009); TASDistributingCo.,Inc,v. CumminsEngine Co.,1nc.,491F.3d 625,630 7'hCir. 2007);Reynolds . Jamison,488F.3d 756,764(7'hCir. 2007).

In responseo summaryudgment,henon-movant annot eston hispleadings. ather,thenon-movant ustprovideevidence nwhich he ury or courtcould ind in ftrs avor.Maclinv. SBCAmeritech,s20 .3d 781,786 7'bCir. 2008).As the Seventh ircuit ecentlyexplained:

[T]henon-moving artymustsubmitevidencehat here s agenuinessue or trial.Fed.R. Civ.P. 56(e); tasznik . St.Josephosp.,464F 3d 691,694 7'hCir. 2006).Theexistencef merelya scintillaof evidencen support f thenon-moving arfy'spositions nsufficient;heremustbe evidence n which he ury could easonablyindfor thenonmovingarty.GiantScreenSports. CanadianmperialBank of Commerce,553F.3d 27,531-32(7'hCir.2009).

Stated notherway, o countera summaryudgmentmotion, henonmovingpartymaynot simply e iterateheallegationsontainedn hispleadings; oresubstantialvidencemustbe


8/15


presented.nd a genuinessue f materialact s not shown y the mereexistence f "someallegedactualdispute etweenheparties,?'ndersonv, LibertyLobby, nc,, 477U,5.242,247(1986),or "somemetaphysicaloubtas o the material acts,"MatsushitaElec. ndus. Co. v.ZenithRadio Corp.,475U.S. 574,586 1986).Rather, genuinessue f material act existsonly f "a fair-mindedury could eturn verdict or the non-moving arty]on theevidencepresented."nderson, 77U.S,at 252.

AnalysisCount I is for violationof plaintiff s FourthAmendment ights by falseanestand

imprisonment. his claim s directedo all of the movingdefendantsxceptor MonaNelson.Plaintiffallegesn this count hatdefendantstook steps" o arrest im andkeephimincarceratedwaiting rial "withoutjustification."He allegeshat herewasa lackof probablecauseor his arrest ecauseno reasonableerson ouldhave ookedat he evidence vailable"andconcludedhat herewasprobableauseo supporthe charge f first-degree urder.Hefurtherallegeshathe wouldnothave een ubjectedo sucha highbondhad he defendantsotcharged im with sucha serious rime.Doc. 163,ut}28-30.

It must irst be noted hatSection 983s not hesource f anysubstantiveights; ather,the statute rovides vehicle or "vindicatingfederal ightselsewhereonfened."Albright v.Oliver, 14S.Ct. 807,811 1994).Thus, or plaintiff o maintain n actionunderSection 983,he mustestablishhat some onstitutionalighthasbeennfringed y defendants,bid

The Seventh ircuit hasconsistentlyeld hat heexistencef probable ause or anarrestotallyprecludesnysection 983 laim or unlawfularrest,alse mprisonment,rmalicious rosecution,egardlessfwhetherhe defendantsadmaliciousmotives or arresting


9/15


theplaintiff."Markv. Furay,769F.2d1266,12697th ir. l9s5). Seealso, chertzv.IlaupacaCounty,875F.2d578(7'hCir. 1989).

This is not a case f a wanantless nest. Plaintiffwasanestedpursuanto a warrantissued y JudgeMorris. Doc.163,T21. A "plaintiffgenerally annot ase FourthAmendmentclaimon anarrestmadepursuanto a validwarrant." l'hitlock v. Brownr20f0 WL624307, 3(7'hCir. February 24,2010\.

Plaintiff hasnot madean argumenthat hearrestwarrantwas nvalid on its face. Rather,heargueshat herewasno probableauseor its ssuance. owever,he validityof thewarrantandof the nformationeliedupon o issuehewarrant represumed.Whitlock, d.. Thepresumptionf validitycanbeovercome y a showing hata defendantknowinglyorintentionallyr with a reckless isregardor the ruth,made alsestatementso the udicialofficer,and hat he falsestatements erenecessaryo the udicial officer'sdeterminationshatprobable ause xisted or theanests."Beauchamp . Cityof Noblesville,nd.,320 F.3d 733,742 7'hCir. 2003).Plaintiffhasnotevenattemptedo makesucha showing ere.

Fonseca'sesponseo themotion or summaryudgments devoidof anyevidenceoovercomehepresumptionf the validityof thewarrant, ndhisFourthAmendment laimthereforeails. Plaintifls only arguments that he ackof probable ause is apparentrom helater reliminaryearing hichcontainsoevidencef [sic] hatAshleighMillerwaseverstruck,much ess hatPlaintiffstruck er." Doc.136,pp.2-3. Thewarrantwas ssued y JudgeMorrison June13,2007, nd hepreliminary earing id not akeplaceuntil July5, 2007. See,Doc..163, |l[21 & 24. Obviously, nargument boutevidence resentedt alaterpreliminaryhearing oes othing o overcomehepresumptionf thevalidityof thewarrant.


10/15


Counts ,3, 4 and5 all allege iolationof Fonseca's ourteenth mendment ueProcessights.

In Count2, Fonsecalleges dueprocessiolation akinto malicious rosecution"based nhisclaim hat herewasnoprobable auseo prosecuteim for first-degree urder.He cannot ursue malicious rosecutionlaimunder hedueprocess lause.The dueprocessclausedoesnot support constitutionalort of malicious rosecutionf state awprovidesparallelremedy." ohnsonv. aville,s7s .3d 656,663 7'hCir.2009),citingNewsomev.McCabe,256 .3d 747,7517'hCir.2001). See lso, vilav. Pappas,59lF.3d552,553-554(7'hCir. 2010); Parishv. Cityaf Chicago,594 .3d 551,552(7'hCir. 2009)("Seventhircuitpreeedentoesnotpermitanaction or malicious rosecutionnder$1983f a state emedyexists,"). llinois awprovides remedy or malicious rosecution. wickv. Liautaud,662N.E.2d1238,12421996).Therefore, laintiff s claim or malicious rosecutionannot epursued nderSection 983 s t does ot state constitutionaliolation.

For similar easons,efendantsreentitled o summaryudgment n Count4, whichagain elateso theallegedackof probable ause.PlaintiffargueshatCount4 is "essentiallyaclaimagainstheState f Illinois hrough neof its constitutionalfficers theState'sAttorney.]"According o plaintiff, hebasis f thisclaim s that determiningprobable ausewithout heuseof agrandury is completelynadequateo ensure isUnitedStatesConstitutionalights"protecting im rom arrest nd rial withoutprobable ause.Doc.136,pp.7-8.

First, he dueprocesslause oes otprotect "rightto be reeof prosecution ithoutprobableause."Albrightv. Oliver,,l14S. Ct. 807,812 1994\."TheFourteenth mendment


11/15

Case3:08-cv-00435-CJPocument16 Filed 3/16/10Page of g

does otprotect gainst ll deprivationsf liberty. It protects nlyagainst eprivations f libertyaccomplishedwithoutdueprocess f law."' Bakerv. McCollan,99 S. Ct.2689, at2695(re7e).

To theextent hatplaintiff is asserting right notto be arrested r prosecuted ithoutprobableause, ount4 advanceshesame laimasCounts and2, anddefendantsreentitledto summaryudgment or the reasonset orthabove. Further, he Fifth Amendmentequirementof grandury indictment oes otextendo the states Albright,l14 S. Ct. at 812. To theextent hat Count4 is based n the ackof agrandury proceduren Illinois, it doesnot set ortha violation f anyprovision f theUnitedStates onstitution.

In Count3, plaintiffallegeshathis Fourteenth mendment ueprocessightswereviolated y "fabrication[of evidence]nd nfluence.'ohe onlyallegation s o MonaNelson sthatshesatat heprosecutor'sableandcriedduring he estimony f the victim'smother.KenCloreandMike Jones llegedly ttemptedo convince ariouswitnesseso give alse estimonyat rial,andactually rocuredhe alseestimony f a ailhouse nitch.

DefendantsrgueFonsecaannot ursue dueprocess laimherebecauseewasacquiued f thecharges. Plaintiffmakes o responseo thisargument, xcepto againstatethatvarious efendantsarticipatedn fabricating vidence.Doc.136,p. 7. This s completelyinadequateo staveoff summaryudgment.

ThisCourtagreeshatplaintiffcannotmaintain dueprocess laimbased n the useoffalse estimony herehe wasacquitted f thecriminalcharges.Substantiveueprocess rotectsfromviolations f fundamentalightsonly. Whereheaccused asbeen cquitted, e hasnotsufferedheviolationof a fundamentalight.Avila v, Pappas,sglF.3d552,554 7,hCir.


12/15


2010), itingAlbrightv. Oliver,114S. Ct. 807,812 1994).Further,here s noproceduralueprocesslaimbecause[t]heright o defend neselfin he state rosecution,nd o advancetort claim n state ourt,s all theprocess ue or anunsupportedr maliciously ursued riminalcharge." vila,59l F.3dat 554.

Lastly,defendantsreentitledo udgmenton plaintiffsclaim n Count5 thathis right otravelwasviolated ecauseudgeMonis seta highbond. In his response,laintiffadmitshattheclaimattemptedo beset orth n Count5 is "essentiallycovered y Claims1- 4." Doc.136,p. 8. Defendantsreentitledo udgment n Count5 for the easons iscussedbove egardingCounts hrough . Further,heamount f thebondwassetby the udge,andnot by anyof thedefendants,

This Courthasconcludedhatall of the movingdefendantsreentitled o summaryjudgment nplaintiffs federal laims,Counts1through5. TheCourtwill not ruleondefendants'motion or summaryudgmentas o plaintiff s state ourtclaims,set orth in Counts6 through l. Theonly remaininglaimsas o themovingdefendantsndas o defendantNelson restate awclaims.ThisCourtdeclineso exercise upplementalurisdictionoverFonseca'semaining tateaw claims.28 U.S.C.$1367(c)(3). ee,UnitedMine Workers .Gibbs,86 .ct. 1130, 139 1966); vila v. Pappas,sgtF.3d552,5s3 7th ir . 2010).

ConclusionFor he oregoingeasons, efendants' otion or Summary udgmentDoc.117) s

GRANTEDas o all defendantsnCounts1,2,3,4 and5. TheClerkof Court s directedoenterudgment n hoseCountsn favorof defendantseithBrown,KenClore,RandyButler,Mike Jones, oddFort,SteveSloan,MonaNelson,SalineCounfy,SheriffsOfficeof Saline


13/15


County, nd heState's ttorney's ffrceof SalineCounty.TheCourtmakes o rulingonDefendants' otion or Summary udgmentDoc. l7) as

to Counts ,7,8,9, 10 ,or 11.Rather,heCourtdeclineso exerciseupplementaljurisdictionoverplaint if fsstatelawclaims.ccordingly,Counts, '7,8,9, 0and ll areordereddismissedwithoutprejudiceor lackofjurisdiction.Thus, heCourtalsodeclineso rule on defendantNelson'sMotion or Summary udgment, oc. 114,which nvolvesonlystate aw claims.

TheClerkof Court sdirectedo enter inal udgmentn accordanceerewith.IT IS SO ORDERED.DATE: March16,2010.

s/ Clifford J. ProudCLIFFORD J. PROUDUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


14/15


IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHESOUTHERN ISTRICTOF LLINOISARNULFO FONSECA,

Plaintiff._YS_

CHARLES DAVID I\-ELSON,KEITH BROWN,KEN CLORE, MARK LeVAUGHN, RANDYBUTLER, MIKE JONES, BRAD NEAL, DAVIDBLAZIER, TODD FORT, STEVE SLOAN, MONANELSON,SALINE COUNTY,SHERIFF'SOFFICESALINE COUNTY,STATE'SATTORNEY'SOFFICE SALINE COUNTY.and VILLAGE OFCARRIER MILLS,

NO.08-435-CJP

Defendants.

JUDGMENT N A CIVIL CASEDefendantsRADNEAL,DAVID BLAZIER,andVILLAGE OFCARRIERMILLS,were

dismissednJuly26,2009by anOrderenteredyUnitedStates istrictJudgeMichael .Reagan(Doc.148).

Defendant ARK LeVAUGHwasdismissedn September0,2009by an Orderenteredby UnitedStates istrictJudgeMichael .ReaganDoc.182).

Defendants EITH BRowN, KEN cLoRE, RANDY BUTLER, MIKE JONES,TODDFORT,STEVESLOAN,MONANELSON,SALINECOIINTY,SHERIFF,S FFICE f SALINECOLTNTY, TATE'SATTORNEYSOFFICE f SALINECOLINTYweredismissednMarch16,2010by an Orderentered y UnitedStatesMagistrateudgeCliffordJ. Proud Doc.216).

Page o'f 2


15/15

Case :08-cv-00435-CJPocument17 Filed 3/16/10Page of 2

IT IS IIEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that udgment senteredn favorof defendantsCHARLES DAVID NELSON, KEITH BROWI\, KEN CLORE, MARKLeVAUGHN, RANDY BUTLER, MIKE JONES, BRAD NEAL, DAVID BLAZIER, TODDFORT, STEVE SLOAN, MONA NELSON, SALINE COUNTY, SHERIFF'S OFFICE ofSALINE COUNTY, STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE of SALINE COTINTY andVILLAGEOF CARRIER MILLS andagainst laintiffARNULFO FONSECA.

Plaintiffshall akenothins rom hisaction.DATEDthis 16ft ayof March. 010

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL,CLERKBY: S/.AngellVehlewaldDeputyClerk

Approvedby S/ Clifford .I. ProudUnited StatesMagistrateJudgeClifford J. Proud

Page? f 2

Documents

Fonseco vs. Nelson Et Al