Opinion ID: 661134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count III and IV

Text: 48
49 As set forth in Defendant Bertinetti's affidavit, he was the municipal attorney for the City of Carlinville. As the municipal attorney, he was delegated by statute to handle all prosecutions before the Board of Police Commissioners. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, p 10-2.1-25 (1987). 50 Therefore, Bertinetti is entitled absolute prosecutorial immunity. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515-516 (1978). 51
Albertine, Loveless and Hacke 52 Defendant next argues that the above Defendants are entitled to good faith qualified immunity. To be entitled to immunity from individual liability for damages on the ground of good faith for an act allegedly violating constitutional rights, an official must meet two tests: (1) He must be acting, not with malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the [plaintiff], but sincerely and with a belief that he is doing right; (2) If he meets the first test, he is liable only if he knew or reasonably should have known that his act would violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. Hostrop v. Board of Jr. College Dist. No. 515, 532 F.2d 569 (7th Cir.1975). 53 The Court finds that there is no factual dispute as to either of the Hostrop elements. First, as set forth in Defendants' affidavits, there was no malicious intention. Defendants' actions in this matter were taken in furtherance of their discretionary authority to maintain the policies and procedures of the police department and to mediate citizens' complaints. After having received numerous complaints concerning Plaintiff's job practices on the night shift, Defendant Mayor Pascoe assigned Plaintiff to the day shift and made attempts to meet with Plaintiff to try to avoid having to refer the complaints to the Board of Police Commissioners for disciplinary action. The affidavits of the Defendants show that they were not acting with a malicious intent to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. 54 Nor does Plaintiff offer any evidence to refute the above findings. Plaintiff does argue that Commissioner Stivers' statements concerning Maria Frost were the product of ex parte communications. However, no evidence supports any allegation that it was one of the Defendants who communicated with Stivers. Nor does this show malicious intent. There is also no competent evidence that any of the Defendants were present during the deliberations of the Board of Commissioners. 55 Second, there was no dispute that any of the Defendants knew that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were being violated. Indeed, as the state courts found, no constitutional rights were violated. The procedures outlined in Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 24, p 10-2.1-17, were followed in this case. Moreover, the decision of the Circuit Court of Macoupin County affirming the Board's discharge of Plaintiff collaterally estops Plaintiff from relitigating this issue before the Court. 56