Howder et al v. Mount Carmel Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SCOTT HOWDER, as Independent Administrator
of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and
DREMA DEISHER, as Guardian of the Estate of
Ciarra Bruce, a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MOUNT CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
SERGEANT GILBERT SANTOS-ASTORGA,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-01897-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Mount Carmel Police Department (“Mount
Carmel PD”)’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). It asks the Court to dismiss Counts 1 and 3 of
Plaintiffs Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased,
and Drenna Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor’s complaint for failure to
state a claim. Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. 26).
This action arises from events that occurred on or about October 10, 2024, and resulted in
the death of Uriah Howder and injury of Ciarra Bruce. On that date, Uriah got into a domestic
argument with his girlfriend, Ciarra, at a gas station, and the Mount Carmel PD were notified of
the incident. At the time, Uriah was residing at 48 Lambert Drive in Mount Carmel, IL (“the
Residence”). Following the incident, Uriah and Ciarra returned to the Residence. Shortly after
their return, Defendant Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga (“Santos”) arrived at the Residence, and
entered without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. Once Santos entered the
Residence, he approached Uriah, who was sitting at the kitchen table, and grabbed him by the
wrist. Uriah stood up, pulled a knife from his pocket, and said he was going to stab Santos. In
Case 3:25-cv-01897-JPG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
response, Santos shot Uriah, and Uriah fell to the floor. Uriah then attempted to stand up, and
Santos shot him again. The second shot killed him. At the time Santos fired his gun, the room
was dark and full of people, including numerous minor children. This caused a stray bullet to
strike Ciarra in the hand. Plaintiffs filed their four-count complaint on October 10, 2025, alleging
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counts 1 and 3 allege that the Mount Carmel PD violated
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights through its acts and omissions with respect to departmental
practices and policies. Counts 2 and 4 allege that Santos conducted an unlawful, warrantless
entry in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
It is well established that a police department may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Averhart v. City of Chicago, 114 F. App’x 246, 247 (7th Cir. 2004); Chan v. Wodnicki, 123
F.3d 1005, 1007 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Mount Carmel PD must be dismissed from
this action. Plaintiff acknowledges that the Mount Carmel PD is not a suable entity and seeks to
substitute the City of Mount Carmel (“the City”) in its place. They propose two avenues to make
this substitution. First, they ask the Court to deny the motion and treat Counts 1 and 3 as
intended to be brought against the City. In the alternative, they ask the Court to grant the motion
without prejudice and allow them leave to amend their complaint. The Court declines to construe
the complaint as being against the City. It believes, for the purposes of clarity, it is best to have
Plaintiffs file an amended complaint. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ arguments that its
naming of the Mount Carmel PD was a misnomer and that any amended complaint will relate
back to the original complaint. However, the Court will not reach these issues because it believes
the amended complaint will be filed well within the statute of limitations period. Section 1983
claims arising in Illinois, like Plaintiffs, are subject to the two-year personal injury limitation
Case 3:25-cv-01897-JPG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
period. Manley v. City of Chicago, 236 F.3d 392, 395 (7th Cir.2001) (§§ 1983 and 1985); see
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 267-68 (1985) (generally, apply statute of limitations of most
analogous state law to § 1983 and § 1988 cases). The events giving rise to this action occurred
on or about October 10, 2024. Accordingly, the amended complaint will be filed within the two-
year statute of limitations.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Mount Carmel Police
Department (“Mount Carmel PD”)’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). Counts 1 and 3 of Plaintiffs’
complaint are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including April 6,
2026, to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 5, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01897-JPG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>