Dist. Court rules against Hoffman in county lawsuit
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
Gordon Woods
gwoods@theclintonjournal.com
SPRINGFIELD — U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough issued an opinion August 8 dismissing a case against the county by former county board member Terry Hoffman.
Hoffman claimed in the suit, filed in January 2015, that his right of free speech was violated and also alleged false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
In her opinion, Myerscough wrote that the court agreed “plaintiff has not produced evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find that he suffered a deprivation likely to deter free speech.”
Hoffman was arrested by county deputies after he allegedly poked then Emergency Management Agency director Teresa Barnett in a threatening manner while visiting her in her county office. Hoffman later was found not guilty of the charge.
Hoffman claimed the arrest and actions of county state’s attorney Dan Markwell were part of an attempt to harass him because of his position against the Clinton Landfill while he served as a county board member. His suit also named Sheriff Jered Shofner and then chief deputy Anthony Monaghan.
Markwell had refused to meet with Hoffman to discuss details of a possible settlement with the landfill in order to avoid violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. By this time Hoffman was represented by counsel in his suit against county officials.
In her opinion, Myerscough wrote, “Markwell understands Rule 4.2 to prohibit him from communicating with a party on a matter if the party is adverse to DeWitt County on that matter and represented by an attorney …”
Myerscough also wrote, had Hoffman not filed suit against DeWitt County, Markwell would not have been concerned about Rule 4.2. The Court also concluded there was no evidence Markwell’s actions were retaliatory in nature.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence upon which a jury could find a First Amendment violation by Defendant Markwell, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known,” Myerscough wrote.
The Court ruled in favor of the defendants in the case
