## 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

- 3719 N ONA R AY, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO AND C H I CA GO P OLI CE O FFIC ER M ALIN O W SKI #702 8, 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 7274

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 5, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, R O V NE R an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . In O c to b er 20 0 8 , M alin ow sk i, a pol i ce o ffi cer, st opped N ona Ray f oro p er ating a m oto r v e hi cl e atn i g htwi tho uth e a dl i g ht s . Du r i ngthi s s t o p, M al i no wsk i a nd hi s par tn erdi sc o ve r ed a pac k ag e conta i ni ngc o nt r o l l ed su bs ta nc es wi th i n Ra y ’ s car. The offi cer s a rr est ed Ray a nd took h erto a nearby pol i ce station, w he r e she w as d etaine d f or several hou rs bef or e be i ng char ged with posse ssi on o fa cont ro l l ed2 N o. 09

- 3719 substa nce and subse quen tly rel eas ed. Ray l ate r fi l ed sui t a gainst the Ci ty ofChica go and pol i ce o ffi cer M al i no wsk i, a l l egingtha t th ei r a ct i o ns v i o l at ed th e Con

st i tu ti o n’ s pr o hibi ti o n o n unr ea so nabl e se i zu res a nd depri ved hero fherr i ghts to d u e p ro cess and equal p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r th e l a w. T he di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed Ra y ’ s cl ai m s f o r f ai l ure to al l ege f acts suffi ci ent t o supp ort a fi nd i ng tha t her c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s h a d b e e n v i o l a t e d

. We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und O n Oct o be r 1 7, 2 00 8, M al i no wsk i o bs er ve d Ra y o perating an autom obi l e at ni ght w i thout i ts headl i ghts tu rned on. M ali now ski and his part ne r pu ll ed Ray over, in structing Ray and her passenge r to l eave the vehi cl e. Shor tl y ther eafter, M al i now ski or hi s partn er di sco ver ed a pl ast i c ba g c ontaini ng wh at they bel i eve d t o be coca i ne i nsi de Ray’ s ca r. The o ffi cer s pl aced Ray und er a r r e s t a nd took her to a nea rby p oli ce stat ion, w he re sh e was e ve ntua l l y c harged wi thpo ss es si o n o fa c o ntr ol l e d s ub s t a nc e . T he e xa c tl e ng th o fR a y ’ s de t e nt i on i s uncl ear, howev erthe parti es’ pl eadi ngs a gr ee that Ray was d eta i ned fo r seve ra l hour s. The cr i m i nal charg e a gainst Rayf orposs ess i on was dropped at her fi rs t co urt appearance . Pu r suant t o S e c t i o n 7

- 2 4

- 2 2 5 o fthe Mun i c i pa l Co de of C h ica g o , M alin ow sk i im p ou n d ed R ay ’s v eh icle foll owing her ar re st
. S ecti on 7

- 24- 225 ofthe Code provi des th at, whena r r es tingi ndi vi du al s f o r po ss es si o n o fa c o n-N o. 09

- 3719 3 troll ed sub stan ce in a m o t or vehicle, police offi cers “shal l p ro vide f orthe towingo fthe vehi cl e t o a f aci l i ty con troll ed by th e c it y” an d that “the ow ne r ofrecord ofany m oto r vehi cl e that co nt ain s any c ontr ol l ed substa nce . . . shal l be l i abl e t o the c i ty f oran a dm i ni str ati ve penal ty
. . . pl us any appli cabl e t owing and sto ra ge fee s.” On N ove m ber19 , 20 08, Ray conte st ed the sei zure o f herv eh i cl e ata pr o ce edingb efo r e th e Ci tyo fChi ca go’s Depa r tmento fAdm i ni strati ve Hea r i ng s ( DOA H )
. S he ar gued that she h ad been unaw ar e that there were drugs i n he r car, tha tthe dr ug s di d n o tb e l o ngt o h e r a nd , he nc e, tha t sh e sh o ul d no t ha ve t o pa y the s tatu to r y fi ne orthe cos ts ass oci ate d w i th i m pou nd i ng herve hi cl e. The City’s counselar gued that the o rdi nance i m posed st ric t liab ility on th e o w n er s o f v e h i c les th at co n ta in controlled substa nces. A t the co ncl usi on o fthe proceed ing, th e hea ring officer agree d w ith th e C ity’s interpr et at i o n o fthe o r di na nc e an d en te r ed a fi ndi ngo r der i ng Ray t o pay $2 , 180 i n fees and cos ts. On Decem ber12 , 20 08, Ray fi l ed a c om pla i nt ag ai nst th e C ity ofCh icago and Offi cer M ali now ski in th e U
. S. D istri ct Cou rt for th e N orthe rn District of I ll inois. R a y ’s com pla i nt al l ege d t hat s he was depri ved ofr i ghts se c u re d b y t h e F ou rt h an d Fou rt ee n th A m en d m en ts . I t a l s o i nc l ud e d a s up ple men t a l s t a t e c l a i m s e e k i nga dm i ni str ati ve re vi ew o fthe DO A H ’s finding, as wellas a chal l enge to the c onst i tuti onal i ty ofthe or dinance. On Oc tobe r 7, 2 00 9, the d i st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d de fen d a n ts’ Ru le 12(b) (6) M otion to D ism iss. Th e d istri ct cou rt4 N o. 09

- 3719 f o und tha t Ra y ’ s co m pl aint f ai l ed to a l l eg e f ac ts s uffi ci en t to su p p or t a n y of h er cla im s fo r re lief. R ay c u r r e n tly appeal s fro m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fhercl ai m s.

I I . Discussi on W e a pp l y the deno vo sta nd ar d w hen r ev i ew i ng a dist ri ct cour t’ s deter m i nati on that a pla i nti ff has fa i l ed to s t a t e a c l a i m f o r wh i c h r e l i e fc a n b e g r a n t e d , a c c e p t i ng as tru e a ll w ell-p lea d ed alleg at ion s a n d d ra w in g a ll re as on ab le in f e re n c es in t h e p lain tiff’s fav or . Bie l ans kiv. County of

Kane, 5 5 0 F
. 3 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 3 ( 7 th C i r . 20 08 )
. Howeve r, we “n eed notacc ept as tr ue l ega l co ncl usi ons, o r th r ea dba r e r ec i ta l s o fthe e l ement s of a ca us e o fa ct i o n, supp or ted bym er e co ncl u so ry st ate m ents. ” Brooks v. R o ss , 57 8 F
. 3d 574, 58 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. C om pla i nts ne ed on ly p ro vid e a “ sh or t a n d p lain st at em en t o f th e c laim sh ow in g that the ple ader i s enti tl ed to re l i ef” that is “suffi ci ent t o provi de the defe nd ant w ith f ai r noti ce o f th e c lai m and i ts basi s. ” Wind y C ity M etal Fa brica to rs & Supply, Inc. v. C IT Tec h. Fin. Se rvs . , Inc. , 53 6 F
. 3d 663, 667 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng B el l Atl. C o rp . v . Tw om bly, 55 0 U .S

. 544 ( 2007 ) )
. W hi l e the federa l ple ading sta nd ar d is quit e fo rg i vi ng, o ur r ecentdeci si ons have em phasi zed th a t“ the c o mpl a i ntmus tc o nt a i n s uffi c i e ntf a ctual m at te r, ac c ep te d as tru e, to st at e a cla i m t o re lief th at is pla usibl e o n i ts f ace. ” B on t ev . U. S
. Ba n k, N. A. , 62 4 F
. 3d 461, 463 ( 7th Cir

. 20 10) ( ci ti ng Ash crof tv. Iq b al , ___ U
. S.
___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). Ray co ntend s th at the dis tr i ct c ourter re d w hen i t di sm issed her com p lai nt
. Ou r review of th e d istri ct cou rt’sN o. 09

- 3719 5 dec i si o n i s so m ewha t co m pl i ca te d b y the v ague a nd inarticu la t e c lai m s for reli ef that are set forth in R ay’s com pla i nt and the var i etyo fways that herco unsel has inter prete d these cl ai m s o verti m e. Yet, bec ause w e find that Ray has fail ed to p le a d f acts that are suffi ci ent t o supp or t a n y o fthe cl ai m s s he co uld have p lausibly m ean t to a s s ert, w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s j ud gm ent.

A . Clai m s Bas ed on R ay’ s Arr estand P ost- A r r est D et enti on Ray’ s co m pla i nt appear s t o alle ge thatthe pol i ce v i ol ate d h erFo urth Am endm ent r i ghts w hen theyar re ste d and detai ned h er . On appeal, Ray has cl ar i fi ed the base s ofhercl ai m , ar gui ng ( 1) thath erar re st const i tuted an illeg al s eiz u re be c au se th e p olic e o ffice rs lac ke d p ro b ab le ca us e to b el i ev e th ats he was g ui lty ofpo ss es singa c o ntr ol l ed substa nce and ( 2) thatthe offi cer s deta i ned her for an un reason ably l ong p eriod of tim e after arresting h er. The dis tr i ct c ourtd i d not er r i n dis m i ssing Ray’ s a rr est
re l ate d cl ai m . W here a pol i ce offi cer“has pro babl e ca use to beli eve th at an i nd iv idu al has com m itted even a very m i no r c r i m i na l o ffen se i n h i s pr es en ce , he m ay, wi th o ut vio lat in g t h e F ou rt h A m en d m en t, ar re st th e o ffen d er .” A twa te r v. C ity of Lago Vis ta , 532 U .S. 31 8, 35 4 (2 00 1). T h is is tru e eve n if th e m in or c rim in al offen se is a t ra ffic offe n se . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Chi l ds , 27 7 F
. 3d 94 7, 95 3 ( 7th Cir. 2002 ) ( e n b anc ). So lon g a s a p olic e o ffice r h as p ro b ab le cause to bel i eve thata perso n has c om m i tte d a cr i m e, th e n i t i s n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e l e v a n t wh e th e r “ th e6 N o. 09

- 3719 perso n w as ar re ste d on .

. . char ges forwh i ch ther e was n o probabl e ca use. ” Hol m e s v. Ci ty of Hof f m an Esta tes , 511 F. 3d 673, 68 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Ray has co nceded that s he c o mm i t t e d a t r a ffi c v i o l a t i o n i n the pr e s e nc e o f M ali now ski an d h is pa rtne r. U nd er A tw a ter a nd Chil ds , thi s pro vi ded the p ol i ce with al l o fthe probabl e ca use the y ne e de d t o a r r e s t Ra y wi tho ut v i o l a t i ng the Fo urth A m en d m en t. See A tw a ter, 53 2 U.S

. at32 4- 25. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’s d i sm i ssa l o fRay’ s pos t- ar re st dete n t i o n c l a i m wa s a l s o p r o p e r . R a y i s c o r r e c ti n a s se r ti ng th at th e law doe s not g ran t po li ce offi cers c ar t eb l anc he afte r issui ng a tr affi c ci tat i on to detai n a m oto ri st to in ve st iga te oth er p os si b le c rim in al a c tiv ity
. U nited Sta tes v . F ig u e r o a - Es p a na , 511 F.3d 696 , 702-03 (7th C ir. 2007); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fi nke, 85 F. 3d 1275 (7t h C ir
. 1996). I nd eed, we have he l d that in such si tuati ons the po li ce ar e r equi r ed t o r el ea se i ndi vi dual s “a s so o n a s th e officers hav e assu red them selves th at no skulldu ggery i s a f oo t. ” Chil ds , 2 77F
. 3d at9 52
. The rules ar e co nsi der ab l y di ffer en t, ho wev er, whenpo l i ce o ffi cers actual l y arrest an i nd i vi du al

— s uc h i nd i v i du a l s “ ne e d not b e r e l e a s e d a s qui c k l y a s p o s s i bl e. ” Id. at 952. A per son ar re st ed witho ut a w ar ra nt m ay be he l d pri orto a j ud i ci aldeter m i nati on o fpro babl e ca use fo r a “bri ef per i o d” t o c ar r y o ut“ th e admi ni st r at i ve s te ps i nc i den t to ar re st. ” C ho rtek v . City o f M ilw a uk ee, 35 6 F
. 3d 740, 74 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 004 ) ( ci tingGe rs t e i n v . Pugh , 42 0 U.S

. 10 3, 113- 14 ( 1975 ) )
. W hen cons i deri ng thi s i ssue i n a c ase prese nti ng anal ogou s f acts , we hel d that det enti on tim es ran gin g fro m th re e t o fo u r t ee n an d on e-h alf ho ur s wer e no t co ns ti tu ti o na l l y unr ea so nabl e abs en tN o. 09

- 3719 7 any e vi dence thatthe d ela y i n re l eas i ng the ar re ste d i nd i vi du al s was m oti vate d by a n i m properpurpose. C ho rtek, 35 6 F .3d at74 7- 48. Because Ray has not alle ge d th at th e le n gt h of h er d et en t ion ex c ee d ed th is ti m e f r a me o r th a t i t wa s th e r e s u l t o f i l l i c i t mo t i v e s , s he ha s fai led to stat e a clai m f or w hich w e can grant relief

.
B. Clai m s Bas ed on R ay’ s All ege dly M al i ci ous Pro secuti on R ay’s com p laint cont ains a claim that cou ld be interprete d to incl ud e a n al l ega ti on that Defendants vi ol ate d her Four th a nd Fo urte enth Am endm ent r i ghts by causi ng herto be charg ed w i th pos sessi on o fa contr ol l ed s u b s t a n c e . On a p p e a l, R a y h a s a r g u e d th a th e r c o mpla i nt st ate s that the pol i ce pl anted the drugs that provi ded the basi s forRay’ s p oss ess i on char ge and, hence, th at i t al l eg es f ac ts su ffi ci en t to su ppo r t a m al i ci o us p r o s e c u t i o n t o r tc l a i m. The d istr i ct c ourtdeci si on t o dism i ss thi s cl ai m was corr ec t. F ede r alc o ur ts a r e r ar ely the a ppr o pr i at e f o r um for m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n cla im s. W e h av e p re vio u s ly sta ted thati nd i vi du al s do not have a “ fed er alr i ght no t to b e su m m one d i nt o c o ur t an d pr o se cut ed wi th o ut probabl e ca use, under e i therthe Four th A m endm ent o r th e F ourt eenth A m endm ent’ s Pr oce du ra l Due Pro cess Clause

. ” Tully v . Bar ada , 59 9 F .3 d 5 91, 594 ( 7th Cir. 2010). See a lso Bie l ans ki, 550 F.3d at63 8-4 2 (“ [T ]h e in te re st in not bei ng pro secute d gro und les sly i s no t a n i nter estthat th e F o ur thAm en dm en t pr o te ct s. ”) ( i nt erna l c it at i o ns om i tte d). W hi l e we h ave al so hel d that we w i l l al l ow8 N o. 09

- 3719 i nd i vi du al s t o bring S ecti on 1 983 m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on s u i t s w h e n th e r e l e v a n ts t a t e ’ s l a w d o e s n o tp r o v i de t h e m w ith a w ay to p u rs u e s u c h cla im s, Ne wsome v. M cCa be, 25 6 F
. 3d 747, 75 0- 51 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 1), I l l i noi s l aw re c og n ize s t or t c l a im s fo r m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n . See Swi ckv. Li nu ta rd, 66 2 N
. E.2 d 1238, 12 42 ( I l l

. 19 96)
. H ence, i t wa s a pp r o pr i a t e f o r the di s t r i c t c o ur t t o r e fus e t o hearRay’ s cl ai m s a n d concl ud e that the appropr i ate venue forhercl ai m s i s I l l i noi s s tat e co urt. O n a p p e a l, R a y h a s a t t e mpt e d t o r e c a s tth e ma l i ci o us prosec u tio n cl ai m se t for th i n herco m pla i nt as a Brady cl ai m , b ute ve n i fs he had orig i na l l y pr es en te d the di s t r i c tc o ur twi th a B rady cl ai m , i t t oo would have been prop erly d ism issed

. Ev er since th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n in Brady v . M aryl and, 373 U
. S . 8 3 (196 3), we have perm itt ed i nd i vi du al s t o fi l e S ecti on 1 983 sui ts al l eging tha t they ha ve been denie d a f ai r tr i albec ause the s tat e has f ai l ed to pro vi de them w ith a cces s t o m at er ial ex c u lp at or y e vid en c e. See Ne w s o me, 2 5 6 F
. 3 d at 7 5 2
. R a y h a s f a i l ed t o i d e n t i fy a s i n g l e i n s t a n c e , h o wev er , w h er e w e h av e allow ed su c h su its w h en th e in d ivid u al is m er ely ch ar ge d w ith a c rim e, bu t n ev er fu lly p ro se c u te d

. Se e, e . g. , Gar ci a v. Ci ty of Ch ica go , 24 F. 3d 966, 97 1-7 2 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ) (h old in g t h at th e r e w as n o b as is f ora Brady cl ai m w h ere the char ges ag ai nst a n i nd i vi du al w er e nol l epros sed ); Popev. Ci ty of Chi cago , N o. 08

- c- 4715 , 20 09 W L 81162 5, at* 3 ( N
. D. I l l

. M ar . 24 , 20 09) ( “The r ule aga i nst b rin gin g m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m s . . . cannot b e a v o i de d b y mi s c ha r a c t e r i z i ngma l i c i o us p r o s e c ut i on cl ai m s ba sed o n prov i ding f al se i nfo rm atio n . . . as Brady vio lat ion s for failin g to d isc los e th at th e info rm at i o n isN o. 09

- 3719 9 f al se. ”) ( ci ti ng G auger v. Hendle, 34 9 F
. 3d 35 4, 360 ( 7th Cir

. 20 03)). B ecause Ray concedes that the c harg es agains t her w e r e d r o p p ed at her fi rst p ost-arrest cou rt appearance , hercla i m fal l s outsi de ofthe excepti on r eco gni ze d i n Brady . As R a y h a s n o ti de nt i fi e d a nyo the re xc e pti on that would s ave her fro m the gen er albarag ai nst mal i c i ou s p r o s e c ut i o n c l a i ms, we a r e l e ftt o c o nc l ud e that the di str i ct c ourtwas c or re c t in fi nd i ng hercl ai m to b e i r r e pa r ab l y fl a we d.

C. Clai m s Concerning Sect i on 7- 24- 225 ofthe M un i ci pal Code ofChicag o Fi nal l y, Ray’ s co m pla i nt as serts a supp l em entalst ate cl ai m , pursuant to I l l i noi s’ A dm i ni str ati ve R ev iew A ct, 735 I LC S 5/ 301 et seq. (20 10 ) , s ee k i ngr ev i ew o fthe DO A H ’ s fi nd i ng tha t Rayw as l i abl e under Se cti on 7

- 24- 225 ofthe M unici pal C ode o fChica go. Ray has a rgued that he r c l ai m a l so i nc l ude s a di r ec t ch al l en g e to the c o nstituti o na l i tyo fthe o r di na nc e. On appe al, R ay r ai se s o nl y o ne ar g um en t co nc erni ngthe di st r ict co ur t’ s r ul i ng . S he con t en d s tha t w e shou ld reverse th e d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ng be cause the c ourti napp ro pri ate l y c onsi dered m at er i al s o ut si de o fthe c o m pl aint

— a tr an sc r i pt o fthe DOA H he ar i ng

— w hen decidingwh etherto di sm i ss her cl ai m s. R ay ’s a rg u m en t s u ffer s fro m se ve ra l p ro b lem s. Firs t, it i s wel l es tabl i sh ed that dist ri ct c ourt s m ay tak e j ud i ci al noti ce of cer tain docum ents

— i nc l udi ngre co r ds o fa dm i ni st r at i ve a ct i o ns

— w h en d ec id in g m ot ion s t o d ism i s s. See, e . g. , Fornalik v. Pe r rym an , 223 F.3 d 523, 529 (7th Cir. 2000);10 N o. 09

- 3719 Gen
. Ele c. Cap. Corp. v . L e a s eR e s o l u t i o n C o rp. , 1 28 F. 3d 1074 , 1080 (7th Cir. 1997). H en ce, even if th e d istri ct cou rt ha d r el i ed o n th e he ar i ng tr an sc r i pt wh en de ci di ng whethe r i t sh o ul d di smi ss Ra y ’ s claim , i t i s no t appa r en t th at its ac tio n s w ou ld h av e c on st itu te d err or . Se c on d , a re vi ew o fthe dis tri ct c ourt ’ s o pini on e stabl i shes that i ts deci si on was not b as ed o n the tr anscr i pt, but on Ray’ s f ai l ure to ple ad “f acts to supp or t her al l ega ti o n[ s] tha t th e ch al l en g ed o r di na nc e i s unc o ns ti tu
ti onal

. . . [and that] the fi nd i ng o fthe Dep t. o fA dm i ni str ati ve H ear i ngs i s a rbi tr ar y, unrea sonab l e, and ag ai nst t h e m an ifes t w eig h t.” B ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isi on to dism i ss Ray’ s cl ai m w as based on defi ci enci es that it found i n herco m pla i nt and hero nl y a rgum ent o n appe alf o cus es e xc l us i ve l y on i ss ue s r el at ed to the t r an sc rip t, sh e h a s fa iled to id en tify gro u n d s fo r re ve rs al. F in a lly, our ow n ind ep en d en t assess m en t of th e suffi ci en cy o f Ra y ’ s co m pl aint l ea ds us to th e sam e con cl usi on a s the di str i ct c ourt
. Th e c om p lai nt si m plydoes not con tain a lle gations of fact su ffici en t to sup p ort Ray ’s cl ai m s th atDOA H ’ s fi ndi ng s wer e arbi tr ar y o r tha t th e or d in an c e is u n c on st itu tio n al.

I I I . Concl usio n F o r a l l o fthe r ea so ns s etf o r thabo ve , the ru li ng o fthe d ist ric t c ou rtis A FFI RMED .
1- 5- 11