Rossi v. City of Chicago

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-City and police officer’s motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendant-officer’s failure to investigate plaintiff’s claim that he was assaulted by off-duty police officer violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to access to courts, since said failure resulted in spoliation of evidence that could have been used in civil case filed by plaintiff against alleged assailant. Plaintiff does not have constitutional right to have police investigate his case at all. Moreover, plaintiff did not show that any failure by officer to investigate foreclosed plaintiff's ability to learn facts of case and to seek relief for any injury where: (1) police officer did not conceal any facts about incident that plaintiff did not already know; and (2) plaintiff was not reliant on officer to discover facts necessary to fill in gaps in his knowledge. Fact that prompt search of alleged assailant’s home might have produced stronger case of plaintiff in his action against alleged assailant does not require different result.