# United States C ou rt of Appeals

Forthe Seventh Ci rcuit Chic ago, I lli nois 60604

N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 1 2

B e f o r e
J O E L M

. F L AUM

, Cir c u it Ju d

ge

T E R E N C E T

. E VA N S

, C ir c u it Ju d

ge *



### J O H N D A N I E L T I N D E R , C ir c u it Ju d

ge

N o s

. 1 0

- 1 9 7

4 & 1 0

- 2 0 6 4

A N DY T HA

Y E R , e t a l

. , P la in t if fs

-Ap p e ll a n t s ,

v

.
R A L P H C H I C Z E WS KI, e t a l

. ,

D e fe n d a n t s

-Ap p e ll e e s

. A p p e a l s fr o m the U ni te d S ta te s D i s tr i c t C o u r t f o r the N o r the rn D i s tr i c t o f I l l i n o i s , E a s te rn D i v i s i o n

.
N o s

. 1 : 0 7

- c v - 0 1 2 9 0 & 1 : 0 7

- c v - 1 4 0 6
J o h n W

. D a rr a h

, Ju d ge

.
O R D E R

We iss ue d our de cis ion in th is c ase on Se pte mbe r 18, 2012 , af fi r min g th e dist r ict cour t’s

e nt r y of summar y j udgme nt in fa vor of t he de fe nd an ts on Br adf or d Lyttl e ’s fal se ar r e st an d mali cious pr ose cution cl aims , on Lyttl e ’s an d A nd y Th aye r ’s Fir st A me nd me nt r e tali atio n cla ims, an d on Tha ye r ’s cla ss- of- one e qua l pr ote cti on cla im. W e als o dis miss e d Lyttl e ’s fac ial ch all e ng e to sub se cti on (d) of C hi cago’ s dis or de r ly c ond uct or din an ce , Ch ica go Mun ici pal Code , Ill . § 8 -4- 010( d), hol din g th at th e cl aim wa s moote d by our r e ce nt opin ion in Bel l v

. Keat ing , 697F.3d 445 (7t h Cir . 201 2), wh ich par tial ly i nv ali date d subs e cti on (d) on ove r br e adth



### C i r c u i t J u d g e E v an s d i e d o n Au g u s t 1 0, 2 0 1 1 , an d d i d n o t p a r ti c i p a te i n the * 

### d e c i s i on o f the P e ti ti o n f o r Re h e a r i n g , w hi ch i s b e i n g r e s o l v e d b y a q u o r u m o f the p an e l

u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 4 6 ( d )

.

### Nos. 10-1974 & 10-2064 Page 2

an d vag ue ne ss gr ounds

. See Tha yer v. Ch icze wski , 697 F.3d 514 (7t h Cir . 201 2). H owe ve r , Lyttl e fi le d a pe titi on for pan e l r e he ar in g, con te nd in g th at b y af fi r min g th e dist r ict cour t’s judgm e nt in its e nt ir e ty, w e in adve r te nt ly di spose d of hi s cla im a gain st th e City of C hi cago for dama ge s for e nf or ce me nt of C hi cago Mun ici pal C ode , Ill . § 8 -4- 010( d) a s an unc ons tituti ona l pol icy

. See Mo nel l v . D ep’ t o

f So c. Ser vs. , 436 U .S. 65 8, 69 0 ( 1978 ). H e asks th at w e r e man d to th e dist r ict

cour t fo r e nt r y of judgm e nt in h is f avor on h is Mo nel l cl aim an d a tr ial li mite d to da mage s. Con ce din g th at mun ici pal c or por atio ns , li ke th e City , ar e n ot e nt itl e d to q ualif ie d imm uni ty, th e de fe nd an ts ag r e e th at w e sh ould add r e ss Lyt tle ’s Mo nel l cl aim but th e y mai nt ain th at th e
r e que st f or a tr ial on dama ge s is pr e matur e . Lyttl e h as mov e d for le ave to f ile a r e ply i n suppor t ofh is pe titi on for r e he ar in g; th at mot ion is gran ted

.
Bel l did not in val idat e subse cti on (d) “to th e e xte nt th at it le giti mize s di spe r sal wh e n th r e e or
mor e pe ople ar e e ng age d in disor de r ly con duct lik e ly to cause ‘sub stan tial ha r m,’ ” 697 F.3d at 463– 64, an d we did not de cid e wh e th e r th e off ice r s ha d pr obab le cause to ar r e st Lyttl e , Thay er, 697 F

. 3 d a t 5 27 (f in din g “ar guab le pr obab le cause to or de r dispe r sal an d ar r e st Lyttl e ”). Thus, we
o v e r l o o k e d Lyttl e ’s Mo nel l cla im agai ns t th e City an d it wi ll ne e d to be addr e sse d in th e f i r s t in stan ce in th e dist r ict cour t. H owe ve r , a tr ial on damag e s onl y woul d be pr e matur e ; th e que stion of lia bil ity must be con side r e d an d, as th e City poin t s out in its r e spon se to th e pe titi on for

r e he ar in g, if the off ice r s had prob abl e cause to ar r e st Lyttl e for a viol atio n of the val id porti on of subse cti on (d) , Lyttl e suff e r e d no con stit ution al viol atio n. Ac cor din gl y , th e pe titi on for pan e l

r e he ar in g is gran ted an d our sli p opin ion iss ue d Se pte mbe r 18, 2012 , is ame nd e d as f ollow s:

M The se con d se nt e nc e of th e fi r st p a r a g r a p h of th e opin ion is ame nd e d to r e ad: “Th e plai nt if fs br ought cla ims agai ns t both th e City unde r Mo nel l v. De par tm ent of Socia l Ser vice s
a n d t h e ar r e stin g off ice r s unde r Se cti on 1983 for Fir st Am e nd me nt r e tali atio n, Four t h Am e nd me nt fal se ar r e st, Four te e nt h Am e nd me nt cla ss- of- one e qua l pr ote cti on, an d state law mal ici ous pr ose cution .”

M The las t se nt e nc e of t he fi r st par agr aph of t he opin ion is a me nd e d to r e ad: “ The dist r ict

cour t gr an te d summa r y j udgme nt an d w e af fi r m in par t on th e bas is ofq ualif ie d immun ity.”

M The four th se nt e nc e of t he se con d par agr aph of t he opin ion is a me nd e d to r e ad: “ We aff ir m th e gr an t ofsummar y j udgme nt in fa vor of t he de fe nd an t of fi ce r s; w e do so, how e ve r , on th e bas is ofq ualif ie d imm uni ty.”

M The las t se nt e nc e of t he se con d par agr aph of t he opin ion is o mitt e d an d a n e w s e nt e nc e is a dde d in its plac e , w hi ch r e ads: “ H owe ve r , Lyttl e als o asse r ts a cla im t ha t th e City viol ate d h is c ons tituti ona l r igh ts b y th e e nf or ce me nt of s ubse cti on (d) , th at i s, as a polic y. See Mo nel l v . D ep’ t o f So c. Ser vs. , 436 U .S. 65 8, 69 0 ( 1978 ). A r e man d w ill be

### Nos. 10-1974 & 10-2064 Page 3

r e qui r e d for r e soluti on of t ha t cl aim onl y.”

M On page 24, th e las t se nt e nc e of t he fi r st par agr aph is a me nd e d to r e ad: “ Ac cor din gly,

we af fi r m th e dist r ict cour t’s e nt r y of summar y j udgme nt in fa vor of t he de fe nd an t off ice r s on Lyttl e ’s fal se ar r e st an d mal ici ous pr ose cution cl aims . But Lyt tle ’s Mo nel l cla im a gain st th e City , w hi ch is n ot e nt itl e d to q ualif ie d imm uni ty, r e main s. See O wen v

. Cit y of Ind epe nden ce , 445 U .S. 62 2, 63 8 ( 1980 ).”

M On page 36 i mme diat e ly pr e ce din g th e Con clusi on se cti on, th e fol low in g par agr aph is in se r te d:

But th e mootn e ss ofth e fa cia l c ha lle ng e to sub se cti on (d) doe s n ot dis pose of L yttl e ’s Mo nel l cl aim agai ns t th e City . A lth ough Bel l in val idat e d a por tion of t he diso r de r ly

con duct or din an ce , it le ft t he r e st un touch e d, an d th e City asse r ts th at th e r e wa s pr obab le cause for th e ar r e st ofLyttl e unde r th e val id por tion of t he or din an ce . In fi nd in g th e or din an ce as a wh ole to b e con stit ution al, th e dist r ict cour t did n ot n e e d to

r e ach th is q ue stion . Th e r e for e , Lyttl e ’s Mo nel l cl aim wi ll be r e man de d for fur th e r pr oce e din gs.

M On page 36, th e Con clusi on se cti on is a me nd e d to r e ad:

W e A F F IRM th e dist r ict cour t’s e nt r y of summar y j udgme nt in fa vor of t he de fe nd an t off ice r s on Lyttl e ’s fal se ar r e st an d mal ici ous pr ose cution cl aims . We A F F IRM th e e nt r y of s ummar y j udgme nt in fa vor of a ll de fe nd an ts on Lyttl e ’s an d Th aye r ’s Fir st Am e nd me nt r e tali atio n cla ims an d on Tha ye r ’s cla ss- of- one e qua l pr ote cti on cla im. W e D IS M IS S Lyttl e ’s fac ial ch all e ng e to sub se cti on (d) as m oot. Lyt tle ’s Mo nel l cla im a gain st th e City is R EM AND ED to th e dist r ict cour t fo r fur th e r pr oce e din gs co ns iste nt wi th th is opin ion

.