Whether the Petitioner pled sufficient facts to support his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Respondent Jonathan Henderson

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Rule 4A Petitioner invokes the protection of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that one who deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and law, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. Unfortunately, cases against police officers due to motor vehicle collisions are not uncommon. Circuit Courts across this country have struggled with the level of severity of an officer’s actions required to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a police officer. Indeed, such fact-specific inquiries should be left to the factfinders, i.e., the jury. Instead, the Seventh Circuit’s decision below demonstrates the flawed approach taken to these cases at the circuit level. Relying upon the facts pled at the initial stage of a case, without an opportunity for meaningful discovery, the Circuit Court unreasonably and untimely disposed of the Petitioner’s claims. The Seventh Circuit’s decision below deprived Petitioner from conducting any discovery to support his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a police officer. Petitioner pled sufficient facts to survive a judgment on the pleadings in the context of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. This case presents the following questions: 1. Whether, in light of the procedural posture of this case, the Court should convert Respondents’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings to a Motion for Summary Judgment. u 2. Whether the Petitioner pled sufficient facts to support his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Respondent Jonathan Henderson.