Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment Dismissing Case Against Police Officers

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s summary judgment for Johnson & Bell’s clients, a municipality and its police officer employees.  In this case, plaintiff argued that the defendants violated her decedent’s due process rights, secured by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, by creating a danger that ultimately led to his murder.  Specifically, the plaintiff argued that by using her son as an informant in drug cases and disclosing his name during criminal case discovery, the police officer defendants caused his subsequent murder, for which no one has been arrested and charged.  Defense argued that the defendants had no duty to protect the plaintiff from danger caused by another person, and that the defendants’ conduct was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s decedent’s death.  Johnson & Bell’s motion for summary judgment based on those arguments, and based on the fact that the plaintiff violated various procedural rules during discovery, which included the failure to adhere to Local Rule 56.1 governing the marshaling of proof in a motion for summary judgment, was granted.  The plaintiff also argued on appeal that the district court improperly denied her motion for a special prosecutor to investigate perjury by the defendants, and the Court of Appeals upheld the district court on those issues as well.  Johnson & Bell attorney, Brian P. Gainer, obtained summary judgment in the district court.  Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. and Mr. Gainer secured affirmance of summary judgment before the Seventh Circuit.