## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2904 C HRISTO PH ER W I L S ON, et a l., Plai nt i f f s -Appe l l ant s, v. K EI T H P R I CE , etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 CV 7199

—Wi ll iam J. H ibb ler , Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 10, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 4, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . K eit h P ric e, a H ar ve y, Illin ois al der m anwho ha d r ec ei ve d s ev er alc o m pl aint s ab o ut car s par ked i l l ega l l y in fro nt o fM idnightA uto Ex press , deci ded to ta ke m att er s into hi s o w n hands. H e dro ve t o the r e pa i r s ho p, de man de d tha tthe c a r s be mo v e d, and afteran e m plo yee r efused hi s o rd er s, sava gel y b eat the e m plo yee unti lhe was unconsci ous. The questi on bef or e the co urt i s whether th is conduct gi ves ri se to2 N o. 09

- 2904

a fede r alc l ai m unde r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3. Al th o ug h the al de r man ’ s a c t i o ns we r e r e pr e he ns ib l e , we fi nd tha tthey w er e no t m ade u n d er co l oro fst ate l aw and, ther ef or e, cannot ser ve as the b asi s for§ 1983 l i abi l i ty. A s a r esul t, w e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo fthe pla in tiffs’ com pla i nt.

I . B AC KGR OUND Pri ce was ata llti m es re l evantto thi s ca se an al der m anf o r the S i xt h W ar d o fthe Ci tyo fHar ve y ( “the City ”)
. On M ay 2, 20 08 , Pr i ce r ecei ved a num bero f pho ne c al l s fro m hi s co ns ti tu en ts c o m pl aini ngabo ut ca r s par k ed i l l eg al l y o n the par k way i n fr o nto fM i dni g ht A u to Exp re ss ( “M i dn i ght Auto”) , a carr epai r shop l oca ted withi n the Si xth W ar d. That ev en i ng, Pri ce a tte m pte d t o c al lthe Ci tyabo utr emov i ngthe cars, b ut di d n o tge t a r e s po ns e . P r i c e the n de c i de d t o g o t o Mi dni ght Auto hi m sel f

. W h en he ar ri ved, he s poke w i th Ch ri sto pher W i l son, a m echani c atthe shop, and d eman de d tha tWi l s o n mov e the c a r s . Wi l s on r e fus e d. Pri ce then dem anded thatW i l son sum m on t h e ow ner ofM i dn i ght Auto. W ilso n to l d Pri ce t o fi nd the own er hi mse l f a nd the n t urne d t o wa l k a wa y . F ur i o us , Pri ce punc he d W i l so n i n the he ad se ve r alt i m es , l ea ving Wi l s o n u n c o n s c i o u s a n d wi th a fr a c t u r e d j a w. W i l so n a nd hi s wi fe, Cami l i a Bo o k er, s ue d Pr i ce a nd the C i t y o fH a r v e y f o r d a ma g e s . In th e i r fi r s ta me n d e d c o mpl a i nt, the p l a i nt i ff s a s s e r t e d c l a i m s u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. §§ 1983 and 198 5 a gainstPri ce ( Count I ) and the City ( Cou ntI I ) , a s wel la s st at e l aw c l ai m s f o r l o ss o fc o ns o r tiumN o. 09

- 2904 3

T he p lain t i ffs m ak e rep eate d referen ce to th e crim ina l case 1 againstPri ce, i n w hich an Il li nois s tat e c ourt f ound Pric e g u ilt y o f b a tt er y aft er a b en ch tr ia l. S ee P eo p le v. P rice, N o. 08 M C 6 0110 03 -01. T he p lain tiffs attem p t to d raw ou r atten tion to exc erpts from the tr ial t ransc ri pt, but the plaint iff s never 

### (continued...) ( Count I I I ) and bat ter y (C ou n t IV). They a l so ra i sed an i nd em ni fi cati on cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty pu rs uant to 74 5 I l l

. Co m p. S ta t. § 1 0/9- 10 2 ( Cou ntV)
. Pr i ce a nd th e Ci t y mov e d t o di s mi s s a l l c o un t s pu r s ua ntto Rule 12(b) ( 6) , ar gu in g that W i l son f ai l ed to st ate a claim against th em un d er § 1983 an d that the cou rt sh o ul d no t ex er ci se s uppl ement alj ur i sdi ct io n o ve r the r emai ni ng st at e l aw cl ai m s. The di st r i ct cou rt f o und that W i l son had plea ded f acts d em onstrat i ng tha t Pr i ce h ad notact ed und erco l oro fst ate l aw and acco rdi ng ly dism i ss e d the § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m wi th pr ej ud i c e . T he di s t r i ct cour t a l so decl i ned to exer ci se j uri sdic ti on o verthe sta te l aw c l ai m s and di smi ss ed th em wi th o utpr ej udi ce . The p lain tiffs ap p ea l th e d ism iss al.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e r ev i ew de no vo a di st rict c o ur t’ s dec i si o n t o g r an t a m ot ion to d ism iss u n d er R u le 1 2(b )(6)
. M cCre ady v. e Bay, Inc. , 4 53 F. 3d 88 2, 8 88 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. “ W e co ns true the com p lai nt i n th e li gh t m ost favorable to the p lain t iff, ta k i nga s true a llwel l

- pl ea ded f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns a nd m ak in g a ll p os sib le in fer en c es from th os e a l l eg at ion s in h is or h er fav or .” Id. (citation om itted ). Th e co m p la int’s 14 N o. 09

- 2904



### (...continued) referenc ed the e xce rpts i n the com plaint, n or did they att ach the m t o the c om pl ai nt
. Bec aus e the e xc er pt s ar e out s i de the p le a d i n g , th ey ar e st ri ck en fro m th e a p p ea l. M cC rea d y, 453 F. 3d a t89 1. The re f or e, we on l y c ons i der thos e al l eg at i ons m ad e w ithin the fou r cor ne rs of the co m p lain t. “al l ega ti ons m ust pla usibl y sugge st that the pla i nti ff has a r i ght t o re l i ef, r ai si ng tha t pos sibi l i ty abov e a ‘ specul ati ve l eve l ’ ; iftheydo not, the pla i nti ffpl eads i tse l fo ut o f cour t. ” Tam ayo v. Blag ojevi ch , 526 F .3d 10 74, 10 84 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ) (c ita tio n om itt ed ). D ism iss al i s p ro p e r if“it appears beyo nd doubt that the pla i nti ff cannot p ro ve any f acts that w oul d s up port hi s cl ai m f orr el i ef

. ” Ken ne dy v. Na t’l Ju ven ile D et. Ass’n , 187 F. 3d 690, 694 ( 7th Cir. 1999). The c en tr alque st i on on a ppea li s whethe r the pl ainti ff s hav e a l l ege d fa cts suffi ci ent t o est ab l i sh thatPri ce w as acting under co l oro fst ate l aw duri ng th e M ay 2, 20 08 alt er c at ion ou ts id e M id n igh t A u to . To be liab le und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, Pri ce m ust hav e a cted “under c o l o r o fs ta te law ” t o d ep riv e W ilso n of so m e fe d er ally gu a r a n t e e d righ t. P ick rel v. C ityof Sp ring field, Ill. , 45 F. 3d 1115 , 11 18 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)
. “N ot eve ry acti on bya st at e offic i alo r e m pl o y ee i s to b e dee m ed as o cc ur r i ng
‘ und erco l or ’ o fs tat e l aw , ” H ug hes v . M eyer, 880 F. 2d 967, 971 ( 7th C i r. 19 95) ; r ather, act i on i s t ake n und erco l or ofst a t e l a w “ whe n i ti nv o l v e s a mi s us e o fp o we r, p osse ss ed by virt u e o f st at e la w an d m ad e p os sib le on ly because the w ro ngdoeri s cl othe d w i th the a u th or i ty of sta te l aw , ” Ho n a k er v. Sm ith, 256 F. 3d 477, 48 4- 85 ( 7th Cir
. 20 01 ). Th e m er e a sse rt i on that o ne i s a st ate o ffi cerN o. 09

- 2904 5 does not necess ar i l y m ean that o ne act s under col oro f st a t e la w . A skew v. B lo em k er, 548 F.2d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 1976 )
. A st ate o ffi cer ’s c on du ct doe s no t co nsti tute ac tin g u n d er co lor o f st at e la w u n les s itis “r ela te d in som e w ay t o the per f or m ance o fthe du ti es ofthe sta te offi ce. ” Ho na k er, 256 F. 3d at 485. The plai nti ff s co ntend that Pri ce was ac ti ng under col oro fst ate l aw wh en he att acke d W i l son because Price w as “p erform ing his civic du ties as 6 W a r d A lder- th m an for th e C ity ” w h en h e w en t t o M id n igh t A u to in a n e ff o r t t o h a v e th e i l l e g a l l y p a r k e d c a r s mo v e d

. Ye t, t he pla i nti ff s f ai lto ar ti cul ate wh i c h of Pri ce’ s a cti ons at M i dn i ght Auto r el ate to hi s a l derm ani c duti es. U nd er th e I l l i n o i s Mu n i c i p a lC o d e , al d e r me n a r e e l e c t e d me mber s o fthe m u ni ci pal i ty’ s ci ty counci l, and i n that c ap ac ity se rv e a “p u re ly leg isla tiv e” fu n c tio n . See 6 5 Il l. C om p . S tat
. § 5/ 6- 4- 6 ( “The pow er s o fthe council shal lbe pu re l y l egi sl ati ve, exce pt as m ay be o ther w i se sp ec i f ica lly p ro vid ed by an y ot h er ac t o r b y a n y a rt icle of th is C od e.” ); see als o U n i t e d S ta tes v. B rew ster, 408 U .S
. 5 0 1 , 512 (19 72 ) (“A legis lat ive ac t h as co n sis te n tly b ee n d efin ed as an ac t g en er ally d o n e i n C on gr es s in relation to the bu siness before it .”). N o other sta tu tory p r ov isio n ex p an d s t h e p ow er s o f an ald er m an . See ge ne r al l y 65 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. §§ 5/ 6- 4- 2 t o 6- 4- 8. E ven draw ing all r e ason able inference s in W il son ’s f avo r, the com pla i nt’ s a l l ega ti ons do not de m on strat e that any aspect of Pri ce’ s conduct on M ay 2, 200 8 re late d to hi s l eg i sl at i ve dut i es , whi chi ncl ude b o ththe st atut o r i l y a utho r i ze d e na ct m en t o f l eg i sl at i o n a nd the6 N o. 09

- 2904

ac ti vi ti es “ r el at ed i n s o m e way ” to the pe r f o r m an ce o fthe leg isla tiv e fu n c tio n . Ho na k er, 25 6 F
. 3d at4 85
. At o r ala r g um ent, defense counselco nceded that an a l derm an m ay b e a c t i ngun d e r c o l o r o fs t a t e l a w wh e n h e p e r f o r ms acti ons w i thi n the pow er s g ra nted to hi m o r that he pra cti ces und erco m m on l aw , i ncl ud i ng l egi slati ve i nvest i gat i on. U nd erthatfra m ew or k, we fi nd that Pri ce was we ll w i thi n hi s a l derm ani c autho ri ty w hen he i ni ti al l y c al l ed the Cityto req u est thatano therdepartm ent m ove the c ar s about w hi ch Pri ce’ s co nsti tuents h ad co m p lain ed . Fu rt h e r, be c au se w e u n d er st an d h is role as legi slator to en t it le him to perform the sec ond ary ac ti vi ti es ne ce ss ar y f o r the ful fi l l m en t o ftha t func ti o n, w e a l so fi nd thatPri ce woul d h ave bee n enti tl ed to go to M i dn i ght Auto f orthe pu rpose o fi nvest i gat i on ( i
. e. , g et tingthe v eh i cl e ta gnumbe r s, i nqui r i ngabo ut w hy the ca rs ar e par ked the re ) , and perhaps thi s was Pri ce’s in itiali ntent. But, ev en as sum i ng tha t he w as at M i dn i ght Auto i n a c apac i ty l egi ti m ate l y r el ate d to hi s r ol e a s l egi sl ato r, i t i s ind i sput able that Pri ce cro sse d that l i ne and entere d the r eal m o fl aw enf or cem en t

— w hi ch i s wholly unre l ate d to the duti es ofa l egi sl ato r

— the m om ent he dem anded that W i l son m ove th e cars. Th e plaintiff s con ced e as m uc h in th eir brief, st at i ng th at Pr i ce “was st epping i n th e sh o es for the H ar veyPol ice [ w hen he] pro ceeded to at tem pt to enf or ce certain City of H arvey p arking req uirem e nt s.” Price’s prese nce atM i dn i ght Auto m ay have been re l ate d to hi s a l derm ani c duti es i n that he was re sponding to const i tuen t com pla i nts, but eve n Pri ce doe s no t di spute that h is a u th or ity to ac t w as lim ite d to en ac tin g legis lat ion inN o. 09

- 2904 7

r es po ns e to tho se c o m plai nt s. I t i s cl ea r tha t ta k i ng su ch ex ecu tive action w as ou tsid e th e scop e of P r ic e’s al derm ani c g ra nt o fautho ri ty. That Pri ce’ s co nd uct was not c on n ecte d to hi s l egi sl ati ve du ti es orr el ate d acti vi ti es dist in gu i shes thi s ca se fro m cas es l i ke C o le v. C ityof C hic ago , N o. 06 C 470 4, 2008 W L 68687( N .D . I ll. J an . 4, 2008), on w hich the p lai nt iffs he av i l y r ely . In Co le, th e p lain tiff b ro u gh t a § 19 83 cla im aga i ns tthe c i t y a nd s e v e r a lp a r a med i c s i n pa r tbas ed on th e a lleg at io n t h at on e p ar am ed ic h ad p h ys ica lly a s s a u l t e d th e p l a i nt i f fwh i l e r e mo v i n gh i m fr o m a n a mb u lan c e. T h e c ou r t e x p lain ed th at “[m ]ov in g p at ien ts in a nd o uto fa mbu l a nc e s i s s o methingth a tp a r a med i c s do i n t he co urse o

f their regu la r du ties , ” wh i c h th e c o u r tf o und w as “enough to s u pp or t Col e’ s a rgum ent that W ar d w as acting under co l oro fst ate l aw duri ng Col e’ s r em ova l from the am bul ance, as an a l l ege dlyi m properuse of f or ce o ccurr ed w hi l e W ar d w as perf or m i ng hi s offici al du ti es. ” Id. at * 4 ( em phasi s a dd ed). U nl i ke the par ame d i c ’ s d u t y t o r e mo v e p a t i e n t s fr o m a mb ul an ce s , h o wever, Price’s d em an d that W il son rem ove t he cars i l l ega l l y par ked i n fro nt o fM i dn i ght Auto ( and, obvi ousl y, hi s u s e off o r c e a g a i ns tWi l s o n whe n W i l s o n r e fus e d) does not const i tute part ofan a l derm an ’s r egul arduti es w hethe r tho s e du t i e s a r e l e g i s l a t i v e o r o the r wi s e n e cessar y forl egi sl ati on. A s su ch, i t i s no t a bas i s o n w hi ch we c a n fi n d P r i c e t o b e a c t i n gu n d e r c o l o r o fs t a t e l a w. Bec au se Pr i ce ha d no e nf o r ce m en t au th o r i ty, no ne o fthe acti ons tak en to co m pel W i l son to m ove the i l l ega l ly p a r k e d c a r s we r e e ffe c t u a t e d u n d e r c o l o r o fs t a t e l a w,8 N o. 09

- 2904

as one cannot m i suse pow ero ne d oe s no t pos ses s. Gi b s on v. C ityof C hic ago , 910 F.2d 1510, 1518 (7th C ir. 1990). W hen offi ci al s pos ses s no autho rity t o act, we have f ound that thei r conduct i s o utsi d e th e am bi t o f§ 1983
. See id
. ( “[ W ] e ha ve f o und no auth o r i tyf o r e xpa ndi ng thi s co n c ep t of[ acting under co l oro r prete nse o fl aw ] to e nc o mpa s s the a c t i o ns o fa n o ffi ci al who p o s s e s s e d ab s ol ut e l y n o au t hor i ty to actb utno ne th el es s as su m ed th e posi ti on o fan i m poste r in p retendi ng tha t he did. ”) (em p h as is in orig in a l ). See a lso Vande r l i ndev. Br oc hm an, 792 F. S up p. 52 , 53

- 54 ( N
. D. I ll. 1992 ) ( “J ust be cause [ de fe nd a nt s , t wo fi r e fi g ht e r s wh o p hy s i c a l l y a s s a ul ted pla i nti ff s] m ay have p rocl ai m ed them sel ves as ‘ the l aw i n Oa kLa wn’ do es not of co ur se make i t so . . . . And the f act t h at [ defe nd ants] had and exhibi ted badge s evi dencingthei r sta tus a s fi re fi ghter s doe s no t s om ehow conve rtthe m into the equi val ent o fo ff

- du ty l aw enf or cem en t o ffi cer s withi n the sco pe ofthe Se cti on 1 983 case s that fi nd the ‘ un d er col oro fl aw ’ r equi re m ent s ati sfi ed in som e factu al contex ts.”). I n H ugh e s v. M eyer, 88 0 F. 2d at 969, a gam e warden of th e W i sco nsi n Departm ent o fN atur alReso urces pro vi d e d l o c a ls h e r i ff s wi th i n f o r ma t i o n r e g a r d i n gth e p l ai nti ff s’ al l ege d atte m pt to f al sel y i m pri son hi m , ther eby cau sin g the pl ai nti ff s’ ar re st. The pl ai nti ff s br ought a § 1 983 acti on a gainstthe w ar den and the sher i ff s, al l eging tha t the defendants vi ol ate d thei r ri ghts unde r the F o ur thAm en dm en t bya r r esting the m wi th o ut probable c ause. W e found that the ga m e warden’s pro vi si on o fi nfo rm ati on about the a ll ege d cri m i nalactwas n otu n d er co lor o f st at e la w . Id. at 972. W hil e the wardenN o. 09

- 2904 9 had the autho ri ty to en for c e W i sco nsi n’s ga m i ng l aw s, “h i s au th o r i ty pr es um ab l y do es no t ex te nd to th e ge ner ale nf o r ce m en t o fs ta te l aw ; he i s a g ame war den, charg ed onl y with enf or ci ng the stat e’s gam e l aw s, not the fullpanopl y o fcr i m i nall aw s s uch as thos e a ga i nst f a l s e i mpr i s o nme nt
. ” Id. L ike th e g am e w ar d en in H ug hes, Pr i ce ’ s ac ti o ns wer e no t do ne b y v i r tu e o fthe author i ty gr anted to hi m byh i s e m plo ym ent. Pri ce had no a utho r i tyt o unde r ta k e an y s o r t o fe nf orcement action in r es po ns e to the c o m pl aint s he r ec ei ve d abo ut th e i l l eg al l y par k ed ca r s i n fr o nto fM i dni g htAuto , a nd the pla i nti ff s hav e f ai l ed to al l ege f acts de m onst ra ti ng tha t P ric e’s co n d u c t w as rela te d to th e p er for m an c e o f h is dut i es a s ana l der m an . The c as es i n whi chwe ha ve f o und tha t ano ffi ci al ’s co nduc t m ayc o ns titut e st at e ac ti o n e ve n whe n the con ducte xc ee ds th e o ffi ci al ’ s g r an t o fa utho r i tya r e o fno as si st an ce t o t he p l aint i ff s he r e. In Lo pez v. V a nd erw a ter, 620 F. 2d 1229 , 12 36 ( 7th C i r. 19 80) , we hel d that “ [ a] cti on tak en bya sta te offi ci alwh o i s cl oak ed w i th o fficial pow erand w ho p u rp or ts to be acting under co l oro f offi ci alr i ght i s s tat e a cti on a nd is tak en under co l oro f sta te l aw w hethero r not the a cti on i s in f act i n exces s o f the a uthor i ty actual l y d ele gated to the offi ci alunder st at e l aw. ” The r e, we det er m i ne d tha t th e defen dan t ju d ge ’s a c tio n s in illega lly p ro se c u tin g t h e p lain tiff c ou ld f or m the basi s o fthe pla i nti ff’ s § 1983 cl ai m despi te th ei r non-j ud i ci alnatur e be cause he “was abl e t o tak e hi s pr o se cut o r i ala cts be caus e he was c l o ak ed wi ththe offi ce o fj ud ge. H i s use o fthato ffi ce t o pros ecute Lo pe z wa s a c t i o n un de r c o l o r o fs t a t e l a w. ” Id. at 12 37.10 N o. 09

- 2904 Unl i k e th e pl aint i ffi n Lo p ez, how ever, the p lai nt iffs here have m ade no substa nti ve conte nti on that Pr i ce att em pted to c loa k hi m sel fi n hi s a uthor i ty as al derm an d u rin g t h e c on fro n ta tio n w ith W ilso n . T h e co m p lain t is d ev oid of an y a lleg at i o n t h at P ric e b or e a n y in d icia of h is p os itio n as an ald er m an or t h at h e in vo ke d h is al derm ani c o ffi ce in an y w ay, ev en to i denti fy hi m sel fas an a l der m ana t an y po i ntdur i ngthe c o nfr o nt at i o n. F urther, ther e a re n o othe r al l ega ti ons i nd i cating tha t Pri ce’ s co nd uct was cont em pla ted withi n the s c op e o f his alde rm an ic au th ority, an d th e fai lure t o id en tify o ne se l fa s a st at e o ffi ci ali s i nc o ns i st ent w ith be i ng c loa ke d in o n e ’ s offic ial a u th or ity
. C f. P ick rel, 45 F. 3d at 11 18 (find in g t h a t o ff-d u ty p olic e o ffice r w h o p h ys ica lly at ta ck ed pl aint i ffa t r est au r an t co ul d ha ve b ee n a ct i ng u n d er co lor o f st at e la w b e c a u s e h e w as w ea rin g h is po l i ce uni f o r m , di spl ay i nghi s ba dge , weari nghi s g un, an d his m arked squ ad car w as ou tsid e the restau ran t). Pr i ce ’ s co nfr o nt at i o n wi thW i l son a m o unt s to no m or e th an a dispute between pri vate ci ti zens. A pri vate ci ti zen m ay not be l i abl e under § 1 983 unle ss the c i ti zen bec om es a p ub li c officer p r o t e m or co ns pi r es wi tha pu bl i c em plo yee to depri ve a p erson ofhi s co nsti tuti onal rig h ts
. P rof

fitt v. R idg w a y, 279 F.3 d 5 0 3 , 507 (7th C ir. 2002 )
. The pl ai nti ff s hav e m ade n o allegati on that Pri ce’ s co nd uct fi ts in to ei thercat ego ry, and w i thout so al l eging, the com pla i nt f ai l s t o dem onst ra te that Pri ce w as ac tin g u n d er co lor o f st at e la w . See H ug hes, 880 F. 2d at 972 ( concl ud i ng tha t g am e warden did n ot act und er c olo r of s ta te law be c au se h i s c o n d u c t w as “fu n c tio n ally eq ui va l e n tt o th a to fa n y p r i v a t e c i t i z e n ” )
. T h e p l a i n-N o. 09

- 2904 11

To the ex ten t that Co unt I pu rports to rai se a c lai m und er 42 2 U .S. C
. § 19 85 , it also fails to state a claim

. T he on ly co nc eiv ab ly appl i c abl e s ubs ec t i on i s § 19 85 ( 3) , whi c h r equ ir es thata pl ai nt i ffal l eg e, am ong othe r thin g s, thatthe defen dant s i nt en t i ona l l y con spi re d t o de pri ve hi m ofe qua l pr ot ec t i on ofthe laws. The com plaintm akes no such al le ga tion, but rather c ons i sts m ain l y ofc onc l us or y a l l eg at i ons , whi c h i s i ns uffi c i en t to m eetthe pleading st and ards ofRu le 8 oft h e F ed eral Ru le s o f C iv il P ro ce d u re . S ee Fed

. R
. Civ. P . 8; A sh cr oft v. Iq b al, 129 S
. C t
. 1 9 3 7, 1 9 4 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( Ru l e 8 “ de man ds mo r e th a n a n u na d o rn ed , th e-d efe n d a n t-u n la w fu lly -h a rm ed -m e a cc u sa tio n .”). T o th e exten t that Co u nt II asserts a m u nicip al liab ility claim 3 a ga i ns tthe Ci t y, i ta l s o f a i l s . W hi l e a m un i c i pa l i t y c a n be f ound l i able u nder§ 19 83 whenthe m uni c i pal i t y’ s pol i c y or cu sto m in flic ts t h e i nju ry , M on ell v
. D ep ’t of S oc ial Sv cs ., 436 U
. S. 658, 694 ( 1978) , the plai nti ff s have not all eged any s uch p olicy or cu stom
. I n st e ad , the y arg u e tha t the C ity “ failed to t r a i n ” P r i c e . T h i s , h o we v e r , i s n o t a v a l i d b a s i s f or t he City’ s li a b ili ty since i t does not have the abili ty t o tr ain, s up erv ise, or o the rw ise d isciplin e P rice, w ho is an e l ected official. S ee R y an v. C ou n ty of D u P ag e, 45 F. 3d 1 0 9 0 , 1092 ( 7th Cir

. 1995) (“It is p lain tha t the co u nty w as p ro p erly d ism iss ed ; Illino is s he ri ff s ar e i ndepe nden t l y e l ec t ed o ffi c i al s no ts ubj ec tt o th e co n tr o l o f th e c o u n ty .”) (c ita tio n o m itt ed ). ti ff s “may no t av o i d di smi ss al

. . . si m pl y b y a tt ac hi ng bar e l ega lco ncl usi ons to narr ate d fa cts w hi ch fa i lto ou tlin e t h e b as is of t h eir cla im s.” P erkin s v. Silv erstein, 939 F.2d 463 , 466 (7th C ir. 1991). A s we concl ud e that P ric e d i d not a ct under col oro f sta te l aw , we affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo f Counts I and I I o fthe com pla in t. Because the federa l

2 3 cl ai m s were proper l y di sm i sse d, i t was al so approp ri ate12 N o. 09

- 2904 f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto di sm iss t he pendent st ate l aw cl ai m s in the absence o fany i nd ependent basi s for fed er al jur isd ict ion
. See Willia m s v. A z ta r Ind . Ga m ing C o ., 351 F.3d 294, 300 (7th Cir. 2003).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The di st r i ct co ur t’ s di smi ss al o f th e pl aint i ff s’ c o m pl aint i s A FFI RMED .

10- 4- 10