Opinion
Case No. 98 C 8123
August 1, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiffs Lesa Northam, James Coursey, James Nolan, and John Dabrowski ("plaintiffs") have brought suit against Michael F. Bonamarte (among others) for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs allege that Bonamarte infringed their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. Bonamarte has filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the two year statute of limitations began to run when he retired in 1994, and thus plaintiffs' claims, which were not raised until late 1999, are time barred. Plaintiffs oppose this motion, arguing that Bonamarte is a member of an ongoing conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights and that the statute of limitations therefore did not begin to run when Bonamarte retired because the wrongful conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy had not come to an end. As explained below, however, plaintiffs' argument ignores the fact that the court previously dismissed the allegations of a conspiracy in violation of § 1983. Bonamarte's motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.
A cause of action under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that someone acting under color of law deprived her of a right secured by the Constitution or a federal law. Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 457 (7th Cir. 1998). "The state statute of limitations for personal injury suits provides the limitations period for [a] § 1983 action." Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 466 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275 (1985)). In Illinois, that limitations period is two years. Id.; 735 ILCS 5/13-202. "The two-year statutory period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known that his constitutional rights were violated." Horton v. Marovich, 925 F. Supp. 540, 543 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (citing Cathedral of Joy Baptist Church v. Village of Hazel Crest, 22 F.3d 713, 716 (7th Cir. 1994)). However, in the case of a conspiracy to violate a plaintiff's civil rights, "[w)here the alleged conspiracy is `continuous,' the limitations period does not begin to run until the final overt act causing injury is completed." Hampton v. Hanrahan, 522 F. Supp. 140, 143 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
It is undisputed that Bonamarte has not held any public office or been employed by any government authority since January 7, 1994, when he retired from his employment with Highland Park. January 7, 1994 is thus the last point in time when Bonamarte could have acted under color of law to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. It is also undisputed that plaintiffs did not sue him until nearly six years later. Plaintiffs in fact concede that if there is no viable § 1983 conspiracy claim, then Bonamarte should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. indeed, plaintiffs stated that if there are no conspiracy claims, they withdraw their claims against Bonamarte. (Pls.' Mem. Supp. Obj. Bonamarte Summ. J. Mot. at 2, 1.) But according to plaintiffs, their § 1983 conspiracy claims against Bonamarte and Dahlberg survived defendants' motion to dismiss.
It is inconceivable that plaintiffs could make that argument with a straight face. In ruling on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was a seven-count complaint filed against twenty-two defendants, the court dismissed all but part of Count 1, a § 1983 claim alleging that defendants violated and conspired to violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Count I survived only as to Bonamarte, Daniel Dahlberg, the current chief of police, and the City of Highland Park. (Mem. Opin. Order of Sept. 7, 2001 at 6-7, 11.) More importantly, Count 1 survived solely to the extent that plaintiffs alleged that Bonamarte, Dahlberg and the City violated their constitutional rights; Count 1 was dismissed to the extent it alleged a conspiracy to violate § 1983. ( Id. at 14.) The court was unequivocal on this point: "[Plaintiffs] provide none of the detail that the Seventh Circuit requires in pleading a conspiracy. The plaintiffs' allegations of a § 1983 conspiracy are therefore dismissed as to all defendants." ( Id. at 14) (emphasis added).
Given that plaintiffs have no conspiracy claim, it is evident that the statute of limitations for their § 1983 claim against Bonamarte ran long before they ever sued him. Bonamarte's motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.