Opinion
02-CV-5693
January 2, 2003
OPINION
According to the Amended Complaint, unidentified Sauk Village police officers mistakenly performed a drug raid at the house of Lucille and Laura Pitlock. As a result of this single incident, the Pitlocks have sued the Village of Sauk Village and Police Chief Cora Beem under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim against either the village or Beem.
This complaint fails to state a claim against the village because it fails to allege the existence of an unconstitutional municipal policy. In order to impose municipal liability for a single incident under § 1983, the Pitlocks must prove that the "single incident of unconstitutional activity . . . was caused by an existing unconstitutional municipal policy." City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985); Crockett v. City of Northlake, No. 00 C 4542, 2002 WL 31236085 (N.D.Ill. 2002). Here, the Pitlocks alleged only that representatives of the village hired Beem, but this does not amount to the establishment of a municipal policy. In essence, the Pitlocks allege that somehow the employer is responsible for the acts of Beem since it hired her, but this is the essence of respondeat superior liability rejected by Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). The only policy alleged in the complaint is the village's policy "to keep illegal drugs out of the Village," but this is certainly not an unconstitutional policy. And although an allegation that a "Village had a policy of inadequate training [and supervision]" may be sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability, see Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest, Ill., 110 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1997), the Pitlocks make no allegation whatsoever regarding a village policy of inadequate training, notwithstanding whether such inadequate training was the cause of the mistaken drug raid.
To the extent that the Pitlocks attempt to cure defects in their Amended Complaint by way of their Response Memorandum, I consider such an attempt invalid. I take the Complaint as it is — devoid of any allegation of inadequate training.
This complaint fails to state a claim against Beem because it essentially alleges mere negligence, but negligence, even gross negligence, is not culpable under § 1983. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 986 (7th Cir. 1988). Rather, "supervisors must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see. They must in other words act either knowingly or with deliberate reckless indifference." Id. This complaint fails to meet this standard. The Pitlocks merely allege that Beem is "responsible for the adequacy of police training," that she knew or should have known of the planned drug raid, and that after the mistaken raid she called the Pitlocks to apologize and offer restitution. The Pitlocks do not allege that Beem was personally involved or deliberately indifferent to such intentionally wrongful conduct. They do not even allege that she knew of the illegal raid and approved or condoned it, which appear to be the types of allegations minimally necessary for actions such as this. See Cervantes v. Metropolitan Enforcement Group ("MEG"), No. 01 C 4433, 2001 WL 1329295 (N.D.Ill. 2001).
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is GRANTED.