CHICAGO — A woman who was severely injured when her former partner, a Cook County correctional officer, shot her before killing herself, won’t be allowed to continue her lawsuit alleging the county contributed to the injury because the Cook County Sheriff’s Office required her partner to obtain a gun.
U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso issued an opinion May 3 granting summary judgment in favor of Cook County; Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart; several sheriff’s office employees; and the Cook County Public Administrator, which acted as a special representative of the deceased, Erika Aguirre.
According to Alonso’s opinion, in November 2015, Aguirre broke into the Bridgeview home of Enrique and Gloria Jaimes, shooting her ex-partner, Deisy Jaimes, and Enrique, before taking her own life. Aguirre and Deisy Jaimes started dating in 2011 and were living together and had become engaged before the relationship frayed. They ultimately parted on Oct. 19, 2015, when Deisy moved back in with her parents.
“By virtue of her CCSO credentials, Aguirre had the authority to carry her weapon while off duty, although she was not required to do so, per the CCSO firearms policy,” Alonso wrote, noting Aguirre bought the gun used in the shooting in January 2011 because she needed it for work.
At the time of the incident, Aguirre was working in the jail’s receiving, trust and classification division, a post for which she was not required to carry a gun.
“While the CCSO requires its correctional officers to purchase a firearm, correctional officers are prohibited from bringing weapons into the Cook County Jail,” Alonso wrote. “Although there are some posts filled by correctional officers that require carrying a firearm, there is no evidence that Aguirre was ever assigned to such a post during her years as a correctional officer.”
The Jaimes family supplied expert testimony regarding the effects of job-related stress on correctional officers, including two prior instances of an off-duty Cook County Sheriff’s officer shooting a spouse. The county countered with information about its pre-hire screening process, as well as programs for employees experiencing personal and professional difficulties.
Alonso said summary judgment was appropriate because the Jaimes’ argument relied on their allegations Aguirre was acting “under color of law” on the night in question. He also said that decision defeated the claims against Aguirre’s supervisors, as well as those against Dart challenging official Sheriff’s Office practices.
“It is undisputed that, while off-duty and dressed in black (including a black ski mask), Aguirre forcibly broke into the Jaimes’ home through a basement window, and without saying a word, opened fire on everyone she encountered,” Alonso wrote. “There is no evidence showing that Aguirre’s conduct was in any way related to the performance of her official duties.”
Although Aguirre’s concealed carry permission came through her job title, Alonso said the legal transport of a gun “cannot blanket all of Aguirre’s subsequent conduct in the color of the law.” Further, although there is evidence of Aguirre making remarks in 2014 implying her job would permit her to harm Jaimes without consequence, Alonso said those threats don’t inform her actions the night of the shooting.
Alonso cited a Feb. 23 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion vacating a $44 million verdict in favor of a man shot by an off-duty Chicago police officer during a personal dispute. In that decision, the panel ruled the city wasn’t liable for a police officer’s private action.
“Claims based on the CCSO’s failure to maintain a proper early warning system and on a CCSO policymaker’s failure to investigate and suspend Aguirre’s firearm privileges depend on a finding that Aguirre was acting under color of law at the time of the shooting,” Alonso wrote. “Failure to prevent private acts of violence cannot amount to a constitutional violation.”
To proceed on the due process claims, the Jaimes family needed to show the county created or increased the danger they faced, that a failure to protect them caused their injuries and that the CCSO’s conduct “shocks the conscience,” Alonso said. Their complaint doesn’t meet those standards, even if its policy on employee guns rose to the level of gross negligence, the judge said.
“In light of measures the CCSO takes in its hiring process, firearms training and programs aimed at addressing the mental health of its correctional officers,” Alonso wrote, “no reasonable jury could find that the CCSO was deliberately indifferent to the danger that its correctional officers would misuse their weapons to commit acts of domestic violence.”
Jaimes is represented in the action by attorney Jon Loevy, and others with the firm of Loevy & Loevy, of Chicago.
The Cook County defendants have been represented by attorneys Terrence M. Burns and Elizabeth Ekl, of the firm of Reiter Burns LLP, of Chicago.