Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180402_0000713.NIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:09:13+00:00

Document:
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants.
Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge.
Yet, one Defendant, John Escalante, has nothing to do with Plaintiff's procedural due process claim. Escalante was not named the CPD Interim Superintendent until December 1, 2015, three and a half months after Plaintiff retired from CPD and was denied his retirement identification card. Aside from the case caption, Escalante's name appears only twice in the nineteen-page Complaint (Dkt. No. 69), and at no point in the Complaint does Plaintiff attempt to connect Escalante to his claimed injury of a denial of his due process rights. The pleadings, including the Complaint and Escalante's responses in his Answer, reflect that Escalante had no part in the denial of Forgue's retirement identification card. Accordingly, the Court should enter judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), and dismiss Escalante from this action with prejudice.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hodsco Constr., Inc., 191 F.Supp.3d 863, 867 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (Norgle, J.) (citing Lodholtz v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Inc., 778 F.3d 635, 639 (7th Cir. 2015) and granting a Rule 12(c) motion)). In order to defeat a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a plaintiff's complaint “must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 191 F.Supp.3d at 867-68 (quoting Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir. 2012)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (stating that a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). The Court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and ignores any allegations that are mere legal conclusions. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 191 F.Supp.3d at 868 (citing Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014)). “In considering a 12(c) motion, the court ‘accept[s] the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to the . . . non-moving party.'” Diamond Blade Warehouse, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d at 870 (quoting Guise v. BWM Mortg., LLC, 377 F.3d 795, 798 (7th Cir.2004)).
The Court will grant a 12(c) motion only if “it appears beyond a doubt that [Plaintiff] cannot prove any facts to support a claim for relief and [Defendant] demonstrates that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved.” Diamond Blade Warehouse, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d at 870 (quoting Brunt v. SEIU, 284 F.3d 715, 718-19 (7th Cir. 2002)). A Rule 12(c) is the appropriate mechanism to dismiss a formally sufficient complaint when a plaintiff “does nothing to back it up after the defendant moves for dismissal.” Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees v. Substance, Inc., 79 F.Supp.2d 919, 940-41 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (Norgle, J.) (citing Walker v. National Recovery, Inc., 200 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 1999)) (granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims under Rule 12(c) even if the counterclaims “technically” stated claims pursuant to 12(b)(6)).
Critically, at the time Plaintiff retired from the CPD and learned he was not going to receive his retirement credentials-August 2015-Defendant Escalante was serving as the Chief of the Bureau of Detectives, not Superintendent. (Escalante Answer ¶ 7, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) In fact, Defendant Escalante lacks any substantive knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the denial of Plaintiff's retirement credentials, as evidenced by his Answer to the Complaint.
At all times relevant hereto it was the policy and practice of the Chicago Police Department, and in particular Defendants Police Superintendent John Escalante, and Donald J. O'Neill, to issue what is known as a “retired identification card” to those sworn peace officers employed by Defendant City of Chicago who retire for pension purposes, such as Lieutenant Forgue.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.