Green

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

URBANA DIVISION

SHARRON L. GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-2169

DEMETRIUS D. WILLIAMS, et al,

Defendant.

Order

Now before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

(D. 24).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion is granted.

I

The Defendants filed the pending Motion on July 28, 2026. (D. 24). The

Plaintiff has not filed a response. The Court entered a Text Order that identified

the Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and indicated that the Court is prepared to rule

by default. (D. 25). The Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise interacted

with that Text Order. The Motion is therefore ripe for disposition.

II

This case centers on the Plaintiff’s allegations that he was subject to a false

arrest. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that on June 30, 2023, he was arrested and

processed by City of Kankakee police officer, Defendant-Williams (“the First

Arrest”). Later that day, the Plaintiff was shopping at a Walgreens. He alleges that,

at that Walgreens, Officer Williams asked the Plaintiff for identification “despite

knowing exactly who he was per his earlier arrest made on the same day.” (D. 1 at

1 Citations to the electronic docket are abbreviated as “D. ___ at ECF p. ___.”

ECF p. 2). After the Plaintiff allegedly declined to provide identification,

Defendants Cole and Benoit arrived on the scene and, along with Officer Williams,

seized and arrested the Plaintiff (“the Second Arrest”). The Plaintiff alleges that

this seizure and arrest was unlawful, and is based on nothing more than the fact

that Officer Williams recognized the Plaintiff from his earlier arrest.

In the pending Motion, the Defendants reveal that, after a “reasonable

investigation”, they learned that the Plaintiff “had not been arrested earlier on

June 30, 2023.” (D. 24 at ECF p. 2). Rather, the Plaintiff had been arrested on June

29, 2023—and not by the City of Kankakee, nor by Defendant-Officer Williams.

Yet the Plaintiff’s Complaint and discovery responses indicate that the City of

Kankakee (and specifically Officer Williams) facilitated the First Arrest, before

then administering the Second Arrest that same day. Moreover, the First Arrest

serves as the basis for the Plaintiff’s claim that Officer Williams arrested the

Plaintiff a second time based only on recognizing him from the First Arrest.

When the Defendants provided the Plaintiff’s counsel with the results of

their factual investigation, the Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from this litigation. But

the Plaintiff has not withdrawn his case, despite the apparent factual

inconsistencies. Thus, the Defendants now move under Rule 11 to dismiss this case

with prejudice, given that the Plaintiff offers “no factual basis” to “support[ ] his

allegation that any Defendant knew his identity from a prior arrest.” (D. 24 at ECF

p. 3).

III

“The failure of an attorney to make an objectively reasonable investigation

of the facts underlying a claim of the applicable law justifies the imposition of Rule

11 sanctions.” Schaffer v. Chicago Police Officers, 120 F.R.D. 514, 516 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

(citing In re Ronco, Inc., 835 F.2d 212, 217 (7th Cir. 1988)). Moreover, “[p]ro se

plaintiffs also have a duty to investigate the factual basis of their lawsuit.” Id.

(citing Shrock v. Altru Nurses Registry, 810 F.2d 658, 661–62 (7th Cir. 1987)).

Here, the Defendants’ investigation revealed that the Plaintiff’s Complaint

is incompatible with readily available police records. Specifically, in direct

contradiction with the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Defendants’ investigation

revealed that Defendant-Williams and the City of Kankakee did not administer the

First Arrest. The Plaintiff, meanwhile, has not even filed a response to the pending

Motion. Given the lack of opposition, the Court has no reason to discredit the

results of the Defendants’ investigation and its impact on this litigation. Based on

the record before us, the Plaintiff has plainly “fail[ed] to make a reasonable inquiry

into both the factual and legal basis for the claim he asserts.” Brown v. Nat'l Bd. of

Med. Examiners, 800 F.2d 168, 172 (7th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Rule 11 has been

violated.

Given the Rule 11 violation, the Court now must determine the appropriate

sanction. Here, dismissal is appropriate. The Defendants’ investigation directly

undermines the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. If Officer Williams and the City

of Kankakee were not present for the First Arrest, then it is factually baseless that,

at the time of the Second Arrest, Officer Williams “kn[ew] exactly who [the

Plaintiff] was per his earlier arrest made on the same day.” (D. 1 at ECF p. 2). The

Plaintiff, meanwhile, has not filed a response or otherwise contested the veracity

of the Defendants’ investigation. Thus, because (1) the Plaintiff’s pleading has run

afoul of Rule 11, (2) the Plaintiff has made no effort to cure that violation, and (3)

the results of the Defendants’ uncontested investigation render this case baseless,

the Plaintiff’s case is dismissed. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,

393 (1990) (“It is now clear that the central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless

filings in district court ….”).

IV

For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11

Sanctions (D. 24) is granted, and this case is dismissed without prejudice. If the

Plaintiff, within fourteen days of this Order, can show cause as to why this case

should be reopened in light of this Order, the Plaintiff may do so. Otherwise, this

case will remain closed.

It is so ordered.

Entered on August 20, 2026

s/Jonathan E. Hawley

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE