IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Virgean Houskins,
Plaintiff,

Vv. 03 C 6553

Sheriff of Cook County, sued
in his official capacity,
County of Cook, and Donald
Keith, sued in his individual
capacity,

}
)
)
)
)
)
Michael F. Sheahan, The )
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At the conclusion of the case in chief presented by
plaintiff Virgean Houskins (“Houskins”), co-defendant Sheriff
Michael Sheahan (“Sheahan”) moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”)
50(a) for judgment as a matter of law. This Court took the
motion under advisement, after which the trial proceeded to the
conclusion of the evidentiary presentation, and the jury then
reached a verdict in Houskins’ favor that awarded $240,000 in
damages against Sheahan and $60,000 ($10,000 in compensatory
damages and $50,000 in punitive damages) against co-defendant
Donald Keith (“Keith”). Sheahan, who had not renewed his motion
under Rule 50(b) when all the proofs were closed, thereafter
filed a post-judgment renewal of his Rule 50 motion after the

verdict was rendered, and Houskins’ counsel has filed a written



response.*

Houskins* response has done an extraordinarily effective job
of refuting all aspects of Sheahan’s motion, so much so that this
Court’s analysis would simply parrot the arguments that have been
set out by Houskins’ counsel--an act of supererogation. That
extends all the way from Houskins’ explanation of why Sheahan is
limited to the ground that his counsel originally advanced in the
Rule 50(a) motion at the close of Houskins’ case in chief (the
asserted absence of a “custom,” which is one--but by no means the
only--basis for imposing liability under the seminal Monell
decision), thence to the sustainability of the verdict under the

principle exemplified by Pembauer v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S.

469, 480-82 (1996)? and then on to the alternative ground that
the evidence, when viewed most favorably to Houskins together (as
required) with reasonable and favorable inferences, would also

support the “custom or practice” prong of Monell.

lKeith’s own post-judgment motion is in the last stage of
the briefing process.

2In that regard, the limited scope of Sheahan’s original
motion forfeited his ability to challenge the verdict from that
perspective.

3It appears that Houskins’ Mem. 5 n. 12 is correct in
pointing out the perils of the premature preparation of defense
motions to be tendered at the conclusion of a plaintiff’s proof.
Sheahan’s written motion missed entirely the proof of the action
taken by Cook County Jail Executive Director Ernesto Velasco, who
was the final decisionmaker as to the challenged retaliatory
action against Houskins.



Conclusion

This Court cannot recall any prior instance in which it
ruled on a matter by referring to a litigant’s legal submission
and simply saying “That’s entirely right.” This however is such
a situation, one in which repeating the analysis that has been so
well articulated in Houskins’ responsive memorandum would add
nothing useful to the resolution of the issues. For the reasons
well and amply stated in Houskins’ responsive memorandum,

Sheahan’s renewed Rule 50 motion is denied and the verdict

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

against him stands.

April 14, 2006