United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
ANA L. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,
NEWTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
T. MOODY JUDGE
Ana L. Rodriguez was involved in a rather unfortunate mix-up.
Her troubles began on August 24, 2012, when she went to the
Newton County Jail in Order to post bond for a friend in
custody. (DE # 51-3 at 1.) Upon identifying herself to jail
personnel, she was advised that there was an active warrant
for an individual named Ana R. Rodriguez. (Id.)
Plaintiff pointed out that her name and date of birth did not
match the individual named in the warrant. (Id.)
Nevertheless, she was taken into custody at the Newton County
Jail and held for transfer to Lake County, which had
originated the warrant. (Id.)
would spend the next three days in the Newton County Jail
before being transferred to the Lake County Jail on Monday,
August 27, 2012, at 11:15 AM. (Id.; DE # 43-2.) At
intake, she repeatedly advised Lake County Jail staff of the
mix-up and pointed out the discrepancies with the warrant.
(DE # 51-3 at 1.) Plaintiff claims that Lake County Jail
staff ignored this information and processed her into
custody. (Id.) She was ultimately held in custody
for another eight hours before posting $1, 000 bond.
(Id. at 2; DE # 43-4.)
Lake County Jail and Lake County Sheriff's
Department claim that, at intake, Jail staff
consulted a computer database called the “Wanted Person
Table.” (DE # 42 at 2.) On that date and time, the
information in the Wanted Person Table matched
plaintiff's name and date of birth. (DE # 43-7.) Neither
party offers any explanation for why the information in the
Wanted Person Table did not match the information contained
in the original warrant. Lake County defendants otherwise
agree that they did not make any attempt to verify
plaintiff's claims regarding the mix-up. (DE # 42 at
charges for which the warrant was issued were eventually
dismissed against plaintiff on May 15, 2013. (DE # 51-3 at
2.) On September 8, 2013 plaintiff served a Notice of Tort
Claim on Lake County Defendants as well as Newton County Jail
and the Newton County Sheriff's Department (“Newton
County Defendants”). (DE # 43-3.)
then filed the instant suit against Lake County and Newton
County defendants. In her second amended complaint (DE # 28),
she brings four counts: (1) a state law claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (2)
state law tort claim for false arrest; (3) a federal claim
for deprivation of privileges and immunities in violation the
14th Amendment; and (4) a federal claim for deprivation of
liberty without due process in violation of the 14th
and Newton County defendants have amicably resolved these
claims and accordingly filed a stipulation of dismissal. (DE
# 33.) The remaining defendants, Lake County Jail and the
Lake County Sheriff's Department have filed a motion for
summary judgment as to all claims. (DE # 41.) The motion has
been fully briefed and is ripe for ruling.
have moved for summary judgment. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 requires the entry of summary judgment, after
adequate time for discovery, against a party “who fails
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party's case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“[S]ummary judgment is appropriate-in fact, is
mandated-where there are no disputed issues of material fact
and the movant must prevail as a matter of law. In other
words, the record must reveal that no reasonable jury could
find for the non-moving party.” Dempsey v.
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 F.3d 832,
836 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that
these requirements have been met. Carmichael v. Village
of Palatine, Ill., 605 F.3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2010).
“[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by
‘showing'-that is, pointing out to the district
court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case.” Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 325. Once the moving party has met his burden, the
non-moving party must identify specific facts establishing
that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986);
Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir.
2003) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). In doing
so, the non-moving party cannot rest on the pleadings alone,
but must present fresh proof in support of its position.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Donovan v. City of
Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 947 (7th Cir. 1994). In viewing
the facts presented on a motion for summary judgment, the
court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to
the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of that party. Chmiel v. JC Penney Life Ins.
Co., 158 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 1998).
State Law Claims
argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on
plaintiff's state law claims (Counts 1 &2) because
she has failed to comply with the requirements of the Indiana
Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”). (DE # 42 at 4.)
Plaintiff does not dispute that these two counts are subject
to the ITCA's ...