Background
On November 22, 2022, St. John, Indiana police received a report that someone had pointed a gun at children from the Agee residence. Officers Paige Hickenbottom, Samuel Jacobs, and Jarrett Stickle responded and found that sixteen-year-old John Agee had been working with an airsoft gun in the backyard. No discharge was reported by witnesses; they had only seen someone aim the gun. Officer Stickle confirmed that John’s older brother Braden had an alibi. Despite these facts, Officer Stickle swore out a probable cause affidavit charging John with felony intimidation using a deadly weapon (claiming the airsoft gun qualified). The same officer also cited Jacqueline Agee, an Illinois police officer, for knowingly permitting John to discharge a pellet gun in town limits—again, no discharge was alleged by any witness.
During the investigation, officers allegedly made derogatory statements about Jacqueline being an Illinois cop who thinks she “gets away with it” and “makes good money.” After the Agees retained counsel, the prosecutor declined to prosecute John and Jacqueline’s citation was dismissed with prejudice. Jacqueline then sued the three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, initially claiming malicious prosecution and false arrest. The district court dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a post-judgment motion proposing to add a class-of-one equal protection claim, alleging the officers pursued baseless charges out of personal animus toward Jacqueline for being an Illinois law enforcement officer. The district court denied this motion as “futile.”
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of leave to amend, holding that the class-of-one equal protection claim is not legally futile and must be allowed to proceed. The court reaffirmed the liberal standard for amending complaints under Federal Rule 15(a)(2), emphasizing that district courts should grant leave to amend freely when justice requires, particularly when a plaintiff’s original complaint has been dismissed. The court noted that the uncertain pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal make it especially important to allow timely amendments.
On the merits of the equal protection claim, the court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded the two elements of a class-of-one claim: (1) intentional differential treatment from others similarly situated, and (2) absence of any rational basis for the difference. The officers’ alleged statements about Illinois cops, combined with allegations that they pursued charges they knew lacked probable cause, supported a plausible inference of personal animus. Critically, the court found that probable cause was not established “to a certainty” on the face of the complaint. For John’s charge, essential facts were missing (distance from children, statements made, detailed weapon description) that Indiana courts consider when determining whether an airsoft gun constituted a “deadly weapon.” For Jacqueline’s citation, no witness alleged a discharge—only aiming—yet the citation specified “discharge with knowledge and permission,” making probable cause a matter of mere conjecture. The court therefore concluded that the equal protection claim was viable and not doomed by the probable cause issue.
Key Takeaways
- Class-of-one equal protection claims can proceed even when a plaintiff identifies a specific non-protected-class basis for alleged animus (here, officer’s status as Illinois cop), as long as the two required elements are pleaded plausibly.
- Probable cause, even if arguable, does not defeat an equal protection claim “to a certainty” at the pleading stage when critical facts remain unpleaded or disputed; certainty is required to find futility.
- District courts must grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) unless it is certain from the face of the proposed amendment that it would be futile; the liberal amendment standard applies even to post-judgment motions treated as Rule 59(e) motions.
- When a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over a Rule 59(e) motion, the court may issue an “indicative ruling” under Rule 62.1 stating it would grant the motion if the appellate court remands, avoiding premature denial on jurisdictional grounds.
Why It Matters
This decision affirms that police officers can face equal protection liability when they pursue criminal charges or citations they know lack probable cause, motivated by personal animus unrelated to protected-class membership. The ruling protects defendants who are not members of traditional protected classes—here, the family of an out-of-state law enforcement officer—from harassment through baseless prosecution. It prevents district courts from using the “futility” doctrine to shut down promising claims before plaintiffs have had a chance to develop their allegations through discovery, reinforcing that pleading-stage dismissals should be rare and require legal certainty of failure.
The decision also clarifies important procedural rules that can streamline appeals: when a district court cannot grant a motion to amend due to loss of jurisdiction, it should issue an indicative ruling rather than a summary denial, allowing the appellate court to remand if appropriate and permitting the district court to explain its reasoning on the merits. This promotes judicial efficiency and gives appellate courts a fuller record for review.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.