abfinute Onder Form (06497

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Namestasidinie | James B. Moran | Stee Ome

CASE NUMBER 03 C 3841 DATE 10/31/2003
CASE GAYLER COBBS vs. MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, et al
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
q@ o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Q Brief in support of motiondue___.
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) Q Ruling/Hearingon____sesetfor__—_aat
(5) im} Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor_ saat
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]}on__—s—ssetfor__———at_
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at
(8) oa [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) Ci Local Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

to dismiss is denied.

(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

ao [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendant Cook County’s motion

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
of | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. 4YNGI 15}
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. He2 GL
Pin Shel
courtroom Sild 16 13069
LG deputy’s es .
initials at
Date/timg received in
central Clerk's Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
GAYLER COBBS, )
Plaintiff, }
vs. } No. 03 C 3841
MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, ete., et al., }
Defendants. } been €D

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action alleging that defendants discriminated against her for over
eight years because of her refusal to contribute or raise money on behalf of defendant Citizens
for Sheahan. Defendant Cook County filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) arguing that plaintiff failed to state a claim against it. That motion {fs denied.

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss we must assume the truth of all well-
pleaded allegations, making all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Sidney S. Arst Co, v.

Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, 25 F.3d 417, 420 (7" Cir. 1994). The court should dismiss a

claim only if it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support
of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
While the complaint does not need to provide the correct legal theory to withstand a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, it must allege all of the elements necessary to recover. Ellsworth v. City of
Racine, 774 F.2d 182, 184 (7 Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1047 (1986).

The county argues that it cannot be held accountable for the alleged conduct of the

sheriff and his deputies because the sheriff is an independently-elected officer and answe! O


w

ue

No. 03 C 3841 Page2

only to the electorate, not the county. See Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180, 1187 (7 Cir.
1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 929 (1990). The county claims that plaintiff's complaint fails to
state a claim because it attempts to impose such vicarious liability.

In Hlinois, the county fs a necessary party in any suit seeking damages against an
independently-elected county officer such as the sheriff. Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County,
324 F.3d 947, 948 (7 Cir. 2003), citing, Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 787 N.E.2d 127,
141, 272 DL. Dec. 312, 203 Il.2d 497 (Ill. 2003). Because state law requires the county to pay
ifa plaintiff is successful in such a suit, the county must be named as a defendant so that it may
veto potential settlements proposed at its expense. Jd, Even though defendant county is
correct in asserting that plaintiff fails to state the correct legal theory against it, it must remain
a party to this action. See Ellsworth, 774 F.2d at 184. The county’s obligation to pay requires,
of course, a determination of liability by the sheriff, and the claims against him remain the
subject of his motion to dismiss. That motion has not been decided.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Cook County’s motion to dismiss is denied.
Moras
hn. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. S. District Court

Qed. Bt, 2003.