Preview:

No. 2--09--0032 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ ANDRE JACKSON, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Kane County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 07--L--615 ) THE COUNTY OF KANE and ARAMARK ) CORRECTIONAL SERVICE, ) Honorable ) Donald J. Fabian, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Andre Jackson, a prisoner in the Kane County Adult Correctional Center (the jail), filed a pro se amended complaint against defendants, the County of Kane and Aramark Correctional Service (Aramark), alleging that from about January 2006 through January 2008 inmates at the jail were served meals on cracked and broken trays in disregard of state laws. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and defendant timely appealed. We affirm. BACKGROUND On November 14, 2007, plaintiff (and three other inmates) filed a complaint against Aramark and Kane County Sheriff Patrick B. Perez (the Sheriff), alleging that Aramark, with the Sheriff's knowledge, violated "Illinois Department of Health Food *** sanitation codes and county jail stand[ards]" by serving inmates food on broken and cracked trays.

No. 2--09--0032 On December 21, 2007, plaintiff (and the three other inmates) filed an amended complaint, now "on behalf [of] Kane County Jail Detainee's," which was substantially similar to the initial complaint except that the amount claimed was adjusted upward from $100,000 to $5 million. The plaintiffs additionally claimed that the service of food on broken and cracked trays violated their "constitutional rights." On December 27, 2007, the Sheriff moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2--619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West 2006)), arguing that the Sheriff had immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2--103, 2--205, 4--103 (West 2006)). On January 25, 2008, Aramark moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2--615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West 2006)). On May 14, 2008, the trial court granted each defendant's motion to dismiss. With respect to the Sheriff's claim that he had immunity, the court stated: "[T]o the extent that the plaintiffs' Complaint can be construed to allege state common law or statutory claims, the defendant Kane County Sheriff is absolutely immunized from liability therefrom." With respect to whether the complaint otherwise stated a cause of action, the court stated: "A reading of plaintiffs' Complaint does not enable the Court to ascertain the underlying legal basis(es) therefore [sic]. The Complaint lacks factual specificity as to the claimed wrongful acts of the defendants and fails to allege how such acts have proximately caused injuries to the plaintiffs. Thus, the Complaint does not state a cause of action upon

-2-

No. 2--09--0032 which relief may be granted. However, plaintiffs' responses to defendants' motions allude to the existence of facts which, if properly plead, may state a cognizable claim." Thus, the court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On June 25, 2008, plaintiff (and one other inmate) filed an amended complaint against the Sheriff and Aramark, and they named the Kane County Board as an additional defendant. On July 23, 2008, the Sheriff moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2--619(a)(9) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West 2006)), again arguing that the Sheriff had immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. On August 14, 2008, the Kane County Board moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2--619(a)(9), arguing (1) that it was not named in plaintiff's original complaint and that plaintiff had not been granted leave to add parties to the suit; and (2) that because the Kane County Board is not in an employment relationship with the Sheriff, it cannot be held vicariously liable for the Sheriff's actions. On August 26, 2008, plaintiff moved to withdraw the amended complaint against the Sheriff and for leave to file an amended complaint against the County of Kane and Aramark. The amended complaint was filed on August 26, 2008. Other than naming Aramark in the caption, the complaint did not allege any act by Aramark as a basis for plaintiff's purported claim. On September 12, 2008, Aramark moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2--615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West 2006)), arguing, in part, that plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered any injury. Also, on that date, the County of Kane moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2--619(a)(9),1 arguing (1) that it was not named in plaintiff's original

1

In their motions to dismiss, the County of Kane and the Kane County Board referred to -3-

No. 2--09--0032 complaint and that plaintiff had not been granted leave to add parties to the suit; and (2) that because Kane County is not in an employment relationship with the Sheriff, it cannot be held vicariously liable for the Sheriff's actions. On December 10, 2008, the court granted: (1) the Sheriff's motion to dismiss; (2) the Kane County Board's motion to dismiss; (3) the County of Kane's motion to dismiss; and (4) Aramark's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff timely appealed. ANALYSIS Plaintiff first argues that the court erred in granting the Sheriff's motion to dismiss based on its finding of immunity because, according to plaintiff, state immunity rules do not apply to actions brought under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.

Download 2090032.pdf

Illinois Law