Ex-Joliet Mayor O'Dekirk's Federal Lawsuit Falls Apart, Judge Rules

JOLIET — Former Joliet Mayor Bob O'Dekirk, who remains a private practice lawyer in downtown Joliet, has suffered a defeat in his federal lawsuit. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Cummings essentially dismissed O'Dekirk's July 2023 lawsuit against former Joliet police officials Marc Reid and Al Roechner, former Joliet City Councilman Jim McFarland, current Joliet City Councilman Pat Mudron and others.

"Judge Cummings' dismissal of all of the federal claims today is a huge win for all of the Defendants," Plainfield lawyer John Schrock informed Joliet Patch's editor. The Law Offices of John Schrock represented McFarland in the former mayor's lawsuit.

"This ruling prevents the former Mayor from tying up all of the defendants with expensive and prolonged litigation," Schrock said. "Judge Cummings ruled that the issues raised by the former Mayor should be determined by the voters at the ballot box and not by a judge in federal court. Judge Cummings dismissed the former Mayor's state law claims without prejudice, which means that those state law claims, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, can be refiled in state court.

"With respect to my client, James McFarland, it has been documented in the Don Dickinson case filed in Will County, that James McFarland was not at any of the meetings alleged by the former Mayor in the federal lawsuit that was dismissed. Any re-filing of the state law claims against James McFarland would be without any factual support," Schrock told Patch.

Tuesday's decision on O'Dekirk's federal lawsuit came with a judge's nearly 20-age ruling. In July 2023, Joliet Patch reported that more than three months after losing his bid for a third term in office, Joliet's former mayor had retained a Palos Heights law firm to file a federal RICO lawsuit against former Joliet Police Chief Roechner, Roechner's wife, Nancy Griparis, current Elwood Police Commander Reid and a host of others including Shaw Media, the newspaper company that publishes The Herald-News in Joliet.

The federal lawsuit also named former Joliet Herald-News editor Joseph Hosey, plus current Joliet City Councilman Pat Mudron and former City Councilman Jim McFarland as defendants as well as the city of Joliet.

Shaw Media was later dropped as a defendant in the case. And last year, Hosey returned to work for the company again.

Joliet Patch has dissected this week's federal ruling out of the U.S. District Court in Chicago and highlighted the key findings from Judge Cummings:

• "Plaintiffs’ effort to allege a substantive due process claim fails for two reasons. First, plaintiffs fail to allege a 'fundamental right or liberty' that O’Dekirk was deprived of based on defendants’ conduct. To reiterate, O’Dekirk was neither arrested nor charged nor convicted nor deprived of liberty in any way on account of defendants’ alleged scheme. Furthermore, even if plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants’ conduct caused O’Dekirk to lose his bid for reelection by a 2-1 margin and thereby cost him his job as mayor of Joliet were plausible, a proposition which defendants vehemently dispute, this allegation would not support plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim because employment, including public employment, is not a fundamental right.”
• "Second, defendants’ alleged conduct—as distasteful, troubling, and wrongful as it appears—does not rise to the level of 'shocking the conscience.' As the Seventh Circuit has made clear, 'every official abuse of power, even if unreasonable, unjustified, or outrageous, does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional deprivation.'"

• "To recap, plaintiffs allege that the defendants coerced Dickinson to fabricate testimony, altered the contents of Dickinson’s phone, then submitted the altered evidence to the Illinois State Police and other investigators in an unsuccessful effort to have O’Dekirk charged and convicted of a crime. They do not allege that defendants used physical force, made any threats of harm or violence, or interfered with any protected relationships. Even taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, as the Court must on a motion to dismiss, they fall far short of plausibly alleging that defendants’ actions were so outrageous as to 'shock the conscience,' particularly given the rough-and-tumble electoral context within which the actions occurred."
• "In sum: because plaintiffs fail to allege a violation of O’Dekirk’s fundamental right or liberty and conduct by defendants that meets the shocks the conscience standard, the Court concludes that the Complaint does not state a viable substantive due process claim."
• "Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims for the violation of RICO and conspiracy to violate RICO should be dismissed because plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege: (1) an injury to their “business or property”; (2) the existence of two RICO predicate acts; (3) a pattern of racketeering activity; or (4) the existence of a legally cognizable 'enterprise.' Defendants’ first argument, that plaintiffs fail to adequately allege an injury to 'business or property,' is persuasive ... In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that O’Dekirk was 'publicly defamed' and ridiculed on account of defendants’ actions. Defendants assert—and plaintiffs do not dispute—that the above injuries are personal injuries that are not compensable under RICO."

• "The thrust of the Complaint is that defendants schemed to 'create a public political backlash against O’Dekirk with the goal of him losing his position as mayor of Joliet and being charged criminally.' As distasteful as this may be, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants’ scheme extended beyond that to an effort to destroy O’Dekirk’s law practice. Consequently, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ Section 1983 and RICO claims with prejudice."
• "With the federal claims dismissed with prejudice, only plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendants for indemnification, willful and wanton conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress remain. The Seventh Circuit has embraced a “sensible presumption that if the federal claims drop out before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims.” Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims."

Related Joliet Patch coverage of the 2020 saga:

• Ex-Joliet Mayor Files Federal Suit: Roechner, Reid Among 8 Defendants
• Ex-Chief, Ex-Deputy Chief Conspired To Damage Mayor: IL State Police
• Mudron: Dickinson Wanted To Get Ahead Of Private Parts Photo Scandal
• Joliet Police Pension Spiker Becomes Elwood Police Sergeant
• 'Duck' Dickinson's Criminal Case Dismissed, Jobe-Gavin 'Disappointed'
• Ex-Councilman McFarland Files Defamation Suit Vs. Mayor O'Dekirk