Motions continue in Purvis’ lawsuit
SPRING VALLEY — Forty-two months after former Hall High School teacher Gina Purvis filed suit against the school, former Superintendent Dan Oest, Principal Patti Lunn, Dean of Students Gary Vicini, the city of Spring Valley and Police Chief Doug Bernabei, the lawsuit is still winding through the courts.
It all began in December 2004, when Purvis, then 29, was indicted on charges of criminal sexual conduct with a 15-year-old male student, which was alleged to have occurred in the spring of 2004.
After a lengthy investigation and headline-grabbing trial, Purvis was acquitted of all charges on Oct. 31, 2005, by LaSalle County Circuit Court Judge H. Chris Ryan Jr.
Nine days later, Purvis filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division. The suits charge the Hall defendants deprived Purvis of her rights to due process and equal protection; the Hall Board of Education negligently retained, trained and supervised Oest, Lunn and Vicini; and the Spring Valley Defendants deprived Purvis of her rights to due process and equal protection.
A series of motions and countermotions followed, and in January, the court issued written opinions about motions for summary judgments filed by both the city and Bernabei, now the city of Peru’s chief of police, and by school officials.
On Jan. 5, the court said the city and Bernabei’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, but began by criticizing everyone involved.
According to the opinion, “The Seventh Circuit recently stated, ‘Clarity, simplicity, and brevity are underrated qualities in legal advocacy.’... Unfortunately, the parties in this action appear to be unfamiliar with this concept.”
The opinion went on to say the process was complicated by the fact that “Purvis persists in using a shotgun approach of wide-ranging theories rather than concisely stating her claims with more precision. That being said, the Court spent days searching the record for basic facts by digging through the exhibits, much like a pig in search of truffles, trying to assemble scattered and piecemeal information into a more coherent compilation for analysis.”
The Spring Valley defendants moved for a summary judgment on a number of grounds, and were more successful with some arguments than others.
The defendants were unsuccessful in their argument that Purvis had no claim based on her arrest because her arrest was supported by probable cause and was made following an indictment and court order. Purvis had argued a valid warrant did not preclude a false arrest claim if the officer had reason to doubt that probable cause existed because he either misled or perjured himself before the grand jury to obtain the indictment.
According to the Court, “Given the many issues of material fact concerning the scope of Bernabei’s knowledge, his possible omission of impeaching evidence, and disputed facts bearing on the credibility of both Bernabei and (Purvis’ accuser), the existence of whether there was probable cause to arrest Purvis must also be decided by the jury at trial.”
The defendants were successful in disputing Purvis’ claim that Bernabei was a factor in the decision of the school to terminate her employment. The Court ruled, “There is no evidence suggesting that Bernabei was directly involved in or had any control over these processes after the issuance of his report.”
The Court also upheld the defendants’ assertion that absolute immunity bars any claims against Bernabei for his testimony before the grand jury and at trial, but it drew the line at saying Bernabei was also entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court wrote, “While a jury may ultimately find that Bernabei did not willfully omit evidence casting doubt on his or (Purvis’ accuser’s) credibility, provide misleading testimony to the prosecutor or grand jury to help obtain the indictment, or act without probable cause in arresting Purvis, the numerous disputes of material fact discussed previously in this Order preclude the Court from making any such finding here.”
The Court also rejected the defendants’ assertion that Purvis’ claims against the city were unsubstantiated, saying, “Unfortunately for the City, the Court disagrees that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Bernabei’s liability, and this argument must therefore be rejected.”
On Thursday, learn what the court has ruled in Purvis’ case against the high school.
Comment on this story at www.bcrnews.com.
