Case law

Holzhauer v. Town of Normal

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 3, 2023

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants Bleichner, Edmiaston and Ferguson assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity; that their conduct did not violate a clearly-established constitutional … Here, however, the Court has found that these Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff, so the Court need not address the qualified immunity defense. Van den Bosch v.

Henry v. Farmer City State Bank

127 F.R.D. 154 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1989

Second, with respect to the individual section 1983 defendants, the claims against them also flew in the face of established judicial precedent. … It is black letter law that those who act in reliance on a facially valid court order are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See Henry, 808 F.2d at 1239 (and cases cited therein).

Moon

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2026

A claim is defective if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C … Beginning with Murray, Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim for 3 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Willis v. Wolfe

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 18, 2020

Consequently, Plaintiff does not explain how either Defendant Brannon or Hamilton are involved in his claims, and the mere fact that an individual was a supervisor is insufficient to establish liability. See Smith v. … Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s complaint clearly explains the basis for his claim against Defendant Wolfe. In addition, Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force is not complex.

Glisson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department

408 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 6, 2006

Gab asserts that he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on all of Glisson’s claims. … To determine whether an official is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity, courts must look at the nature of the function the official carried out.

Demeter, Inc. v. Werries

676 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 1988

Clearly, Plaintiffs are correct. The appropriate test for application of the Supremacy Clause in the situation presented here was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rice v. … Presumably, the Illinois Grain Insurance Fund would qualify. The fact that this option is given is further evidence that Congress has preempted state action in this area. See Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v.

First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Bauknecht

71 F. Supp. 3d 819 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 24, 2014

Buntrock, 217 F.R.D. 441, 446 (N.D.Ill.2003) (“Such discovery clearly seeks not the facts, but the manner in which the SEC intends to marshal them.”). … The statute and law are clear: in order to establish loss through lost revenue, a plaintiff must establish an interruption in service.

Snodgrass v. Jones

755 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 1991

Therefore, we clearly have the power to reconsider our prior ruling if we determine that it was erroneous. … Clearly this interpretation would be stretching the meaning of the doctrine too far.

Ramos v. Hernandez

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 1, 2022

District Judge: The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s initial complaint for failure to clearly articulate a violation of his constitutional rights and as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil … A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A

Hooser v. United States

486 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2007

This clearly meets the definition of a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, even if it was an act of juvenile delinquency. … Therefore, Petitioner’s argument clearly fails. Petitioner has relied on United States v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.2001).

Lauderdale v. Illinois Department of Human Services

210 F. Supp. 3d 1012 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2016

Accordingly, the record establishes that the individual Defendants had no role in setting the Plaintiffs salary. … Defendants Saddler, Kilbury and Alvarado would also be entitled to qualified immunity on the individual capacity claims.

Simmons v. Illinois Dept of Human Rights

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2021

The immunity afforded to the states extends to state agencies. Kroll v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 1991). … “[T]o establish injury in fact when seeking prospective injunctive relief, a plaintiff must allege a ‘real and immediate’ threat of future violations of their rights.” Scherr v.

Philippe v. Harris

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 2020

A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A … Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 1997)(expert testimony not necessarily required to establish deliberate indifference).

Fleet Management Systems, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

627 F. Supp. 550 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 1986

Legislative history clearly indicates what. … The former enjoy neither an inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences.

Mason v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

830 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 9, 2011

In conclusion, Plaintiff has failed, as a matter of law, to establish gender discrimination under the direct method. *545 B. … McCastland, by himself, lacked any power which would qualify him as Plaintiff’s supervisor. See Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co., 276 F.3d 345, 355 (7th Cir.2002).

Jackson v. Kayira

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 10, 2020

A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A … Plaintiff has clearly alleged the named Defendants were deliberate indifference to his serious medical need.

James

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2026

Finally, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 55). … immunity.

Martin v. Petersen Health Operations, LLC

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 22, 2021

However, that subset of nonuse clearly does not apply here. … Plaintiff need not and did not rely on federal law to establish any element of her claims (such as a violation of federal law to establish negligence per se).

Eslinger

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Apr 9, 2026

“In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must establish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional rights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or damages.” Roe v. … Absent consent, “federal sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States, including suits against federal agencies or federal officials in their official capacities.” Morgan v.

Adair v. Robinson

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jul 18, 2019

While Plaintiff claims the Defendants also violated his rights pursuant to the ADA, he has not clearly articulated a claim. … To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, “the plaintiff must prove that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity