Heidi Erickson v. Michael Inman, et al.

Summary

The order addresses Heidi Erickson’s motions for leave to amend, disability accommodations, reconsideration, and correction of an alleged error in a proposed amended complaint. The court grants leave to file the first amended complaint, denies leave to file a second amended complaint, and finds several other motions moot. Applying the screening standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court dismisses claims against numerous defendants and evaluates the claims against the remaining parties.

Holdings

1. A one-day late amendment may be accepted where the plaintiff demonstrates excusable neglect and denying the extension would create substantial injustice.
2. Leave to file a second amended complaint was properly denied where the proposed pleading was even longer and more confusing than the previously dismissed complaint and the plaintiff failed to show excusable neglect for the nearly one-month delay.
3. An IFP complaint must be dismissed to the extent it fails to state a plausible claim or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant, applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.
4. A plaintiff cannot state a claim merely by listing a defendant in the caption or by relying on conclusory allegations without personal involvement.
5. Civil conspiracy is a theory of liability rather than a standalone § 1983 claim or standalone Illinois civil-conspiracy claim; a plaintiff must allege an agreement, membership in the agreement, and an act in furtherance that caused injury.
6. Erickson plausibly stated an Illinois replevin claim concerning her service dog and cats against McDonough County, which she alleged was holding the animals.
7. The amended complaint plausibly alleged ADA claims against the City for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in the zoning appeals process, and against Lake Behavioral Hospital for disability discrimination.
8. The amended complaint plausibly alleged Fourth Amendment claims based on the May 2, 2025 search, seizure of animals, excessive force, and seizure of Erickson through arrest and involuntary commitment.
9. The amended complaint plausibly alleged that city and individual defendants deprived Erickson of due process by failing to provide notice concerning seized property and by failing to accommodate her participation in an adjudicative zoning hearing.
10. Erickson plausibly stated an Illinois false-imprisonment claim against Herrick, Clemens, and Lake Behavioral Hospital, but not against Marcedo.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Erickson showed excusable neglect and substantial injustice sufficient to permit filing her first amended complaint one day after the deadline.
2. Whether leave should be granted to file a substantially longer second amended complaint filed nearly one month after the amendment deadline.
3. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated plausible claims under the ADA, the Fourth Amendment, procedural due process, Illinois replevin law, and Illinois false-imprisonment law.
4. Whether claims against defendants not adequately connected to alleged wrongdoing, immune defendants, non-suable governmental subdivisions, and claims lacking a private right of action should be dismissed at the screening stage.

Disposition

other