Julius A. Littlejohn v. City of Chicago and Cesar H. Villalobos

Summary

The court grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motion to dismiss Julius A. Littlejohn’s claims arising from his arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass. The court allows the federal and Illinois false-arrest claims, the federal Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim, and the related respondeat superior claim against the City of Chicago to proceed, while dismissing the Illinois malicious-prosecution claim without prejudice. The court declines to consider body-worn-camera footage and the misdemeanor complaint at the pleading stage because they were not properly incorporated into the complaint.

Holdings

1. The court may not consider body-worn-camera footage that was neither attached to nor referenced in the complaint, or a misdemeanor complaint that was neither attached nor incorporated by reference, when deciding the motion to dismiss.
2. The allegations that no one from AutoZone notified Littlejohn that he was not allowed on the property, that Villalobos handcuffed him upon arriving, and that AutoZone did not tell Villalobos he had been asked to leave plausibly stated seizure without probable cause under federal and Illinois law.
3. Littlejohn adequately stated a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. The Illinois malicious-prosecution claim was insufficiently pleaded and was dismissed without prejudice.
5. Because the state-law false-arrest claim survived, the respondeat-superior claim against the City also survived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated federal and Illinois false-arrest claims despite defendants' reliance on body-worn-camera footage and the misdemeanor complaint.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded favorable termination for an Illinois malicious-prosecution claim.
4. Whether the City of Chicago could be held liable under respondeat superior for the surviving Illinois false-arrest claim.
5. Whether the Illinois malicious-prosecution claim should be dismissed without prejudice because amendment might not be futile.

Disposition

other