FILED c?ii?? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 12 92:2 for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GRACIELA ROMIRO FLORES - and ANA MARIE FLORES, indivi- ZUDGF dually and as parents and next friend of ANA FLORES, a minor, Plaintiffs, TIVE JOHN DETECTIVE WILLIAM SERGEANT EDWARD DETECTIVE JACK OFFICER (2) ANDERSON, STAR #14297; SUPERINTENDENT FRED RICE, CHICAGO CITY POLICE CITY OF CHICAGO and OTHER UNNAMED AND UNKNOWN CHICAGO CITY DETECTIVE REYNALDO POLICE PERSONNEL, Defendants. SPHIPAIHT JURISDICTION 1. This action is brought for violations of the 4th, 5th, 8th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C., 891981, 1983, 1985 1986, 1988. The jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 1651. In addition, plaintiffs invoke the pendent jurisdic? tion of this Court over related or ancillary state law claims, PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs Romiro and Ana Marie Flores are citizens of Mexico and lawful permanent resi and the parents and legal guardians and at all times pertinent residents County of Cook, State of Illinois. 3. Plaintiff Ana Flores, aged fifteen (15), is a minor and a citizen of the United States and at all time pertinent a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. 4. Plaintiff Graciela Flores, aged twenty-two (22), is a citizen of Mexico, and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, the sister of plaintiff Ana Flores, daughter of plain- tiffs Romiro and Ana Marie Flores, and at all times pertinent a resident of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. 5. Defendant City of Chicago is a duly constituted muni? cipal corporation of the State of Illinois and is and was the employer of the hereinafter?named police personnel. 6. Defendant Fred Rice at all times material hereto was and is the duly appointed Superintendent of Police of the defendant City of Chicago Police Department, and is sued herein in his official capacity. 7. Defendants Reynaldo Guevera, William O'Brien, John Dolan and Jack Leonard, at all times material hereto were duly appointed employees of defendant City of Chicago and Rice and were acting in their individual and official FIG I Capacities. Plaintiffs assert that these individuals were directly involved in the illegal search of plaintiffs' home, and the subsequent beating, harassment and conspiracy perpetrated upon plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores. 8. Defendant Officer Anderson, Star #14297, at all times material hereto was a duly appointed employee and uniformed patrolman of defendants City of Chicago and Fred Rice, and was acting in his individual and official capacity. Plaintiffs assert this individual failed to render medical aid and participated in the subsequent conspiracy perpetrated upon plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores. 9. Defendants Edward Mingey and David Wagner and others as yet unknown to plaintiffs are supervisory officers and police officers who at all times material hereto were and are employees of the defendants City of Chicago and Fred Rice and were acting in their individual and official capacities. It is believed that these supervisors participated in the illegal search and seizure of plaintiffs' residence, and the subsequent cover-up and conspiracy against plaintiffs Gra- ciela and Ana Flores. These and other unknown supervisors failed to adequately train, supervise, discipline and correct abuses of police personnel complained of herein and alleged to be part of a larger pattern of abuse. 10. Defendants Guevera, O'Brien and Mingey at all ma? terial times herein are part of a special unit of the Chicago Police Department known as Gang Crimes North. Said individuals work undercover without official city police uniforms, and in plainclothes. ll. Defendants Leonard and Dolan at all material times herein are part of a special unit of the Chicago Police Department known as Area 5 Violent Crimes and work undercover, without official city police uniforms, and in plainclothes. 12. Officer Anderson at all material times herein is a uniformed Chicago City Police Officer. 13. At all times relevant and material to this complaint, all defendants were acting under color of state law. FACTS 14. On November 10, 1984 City of Chicago Police Detec- tives Guevera, O'Brien, Leonard, Dolan and Sergeants Mingey and Wagner, at approximately 12:25 proceeded to the residence of the plaintiffs' Flores family located at 1748 Lorel Street, Chicago, Illinois. Their purpose was to exe? cute a search warrant for a basement apartment located therein. 15. As alleged in paragraphs 10 and ll of this complaint, all police personnel were dressed in "street clothing" and not recognizable as Chicago Police Officers. 16. Certain members of the group of police officers led by Sergeant Mingey approached the front door of plaintiffs' residence and were met by Lina Flores (the third daughter of Romiro and Ana Marie Flores) who is not a party to this law? suit. These officers demanded entry to the basement apart? ment claiming to be police officers but refused to produce any identification. Sergeant Mingey did hand Graciela Flores a folded sheet of paper purporting to be a warrant but snatched it back before she was able to unfold and read it. The premises were searched in a reckless and destructive manner subsequent to an assault and battery on plaintiffs hereinafter described. 17. At virtually the same time Sergeant Mingey and his group of unknown officers were confronting Lina Flores, a second group of plainclothes officers led by defendant Guevera kicked down the rear door of the premises and en- countered Ana Flores (then aged 13) in the basement doing laundry. One or more of the officers in the second group grabbed plaintiff Ana Flores and began to slap, verbally -5- -.. haw--? abuse, shake and terrorize said plaintiff while using foul and profane language. No person in the second group dis- plnyed any identification demonstrating that they were police officers. in. A few moments after the attack on plaintiff Ana Flores began, Ana's sister, plaintiff Graciela Flores, ap? peared in the basement and viewed the attack in progress. Graciela Flores attempted to intercede on behalf of her ulster but was seized from the rear by her hair, and was slapped, beaten, kicked and further verbally abused by one or more plainclothes officers. No person in the second group produced any identification showing that they were Chicago City Police Officers. 19. At some point during the melee in the basement, defendant Mingey and Group I joined their brother officers in said basement and either participated in the assault on both plaintiffs, or did nothing to stop it. 20. An unknown member of the defendants' raiding group called for back-up and transportation, whereupon Officer Anderson appeared upon the scene. Although defendant Graciela Flores was in tears, complaining of excruciating pain and in an obviously battered condition, no member of the raiding party - or Officer Anderson - would transport or arrange for transport of said plaintiff Graciela Flores to a hospital. 21. No member of the defendants' raiding party would give information as to where either plaintiff sister was being plaintiff Ana Marie Flores, was crying hysterically. was withheld from plaintiff 22. Medical attention was in a battered Graciela Flores for many hours, although she condition and in obvious and serious pain. Only after re? requests for medical attention was plaintiff trans- peate as placed in plaintiff Graciela ported to a hospital. A pin Flores' arm by an emergency?room physician and she was re? turned to the police station. Upon her re-arrival at the police station an unknown officer removed said pin, causing plaintiff Graciella Flores great pain, suffering and further agony. Said unknown police officer claimed that the pin was a weapon and against department policy to allow her to have such a pin while in custody. 23. Plaintiff Graciela Flores was refused permission to make a telephone call and was held in police custody for over twenty?four (24) hours. 24. Both plaintiffs Graciela Flores and Ana Flores were charged with two (2) counts of battery (38 Ill. Rev. Stats., and one (1) count of obstruction of a police officer (38 Ill. Rev. Stats., 531?1), in an effort to cover up the previously alleged police misconduct. 25. Defendants Guevera and O'Brien testified falsely in furtherance of the conspiracy against Ana Flores, as alleged herein, in a proceeding to have said juvenile declared to be delinquent. No other participant in the police raid came forward to testify truthfully to right the wrongs alleged herein. 26. Defendants Guevera, Mingey, O'Brien and Anderson testified falsely in furtherance of the conSpiracy against Graciela Flores at her trial for the offenses alleged here? in. No other participant in the police raid came forward to testify truthfully to right the wrongs alleged herein. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I EXCESSIVE FORCE 27. The force used by defendants Guevera and other un- known police personnel was without legal provocation and continued past the time plaintiffs were arrested and im- mobilized. 28. The conduct of the individual police officers, de- fendants above?named, in beating the plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores, constituted intentional, malicious, willful and wanton disregard of said plaintiffs constitutional rights or was so grossly negligent as to shock the con- science of civilized human beings and is fundamentally of? fensive to a civilized society. 29. The conduct as alleged above deprived plaintiffs of their rights secured under the 4th, 5th and due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 30. The conduct as alleged above deprived plaintiffs of their rights to equal protection and benefit of the laws as secured by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 31. At the time of the incidents alleged above and prior thereto, upon information and belief, defendants Mingey and Wagner and certain other members of the Chicago Police Depart- ment as yet unknown to plaintiffs knew or should have known the violent propensities of the aforementioned officers and failed to properly train, supervise, regulate or discipline Mid?m?. I COUNT II h?h ILLEGAL SEARCH SEIZURE 33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 as set forth in Count I of this Complaint. 34. Defendants Guevera, Brien, Mingey, Wagner, Dolan and Leonard obtained a Search Warrant to search the basement apartment of plaintiffs' residence, however, said Warrant was improperly executed. As alleged in paragraphs 16 through 18 herein, defendants refused to allow any per- son in plaintiffs' household to read the purported Warrant and further refused to produce any identification, demon- strating that defendants were bona fide Chicago Police Officers. 35. By the conduct alleged above, plaintiffs were denied their constitutional rights to be free of unlawful arrest, search and seizure, and physical harm. 36. The acts alleged above were done intentionally, will~ fully, wantonly and maliciously, with reckless disregard for the constitutional rights, safety and property interests of the plaintiffs. 37. The defendant police personnel acted under color of law and are personally responsible for the improper and un_ reasonable use of their authority. 38 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of this complaint as a predicate of liability for defendants City of Chicago and Superintendent Fred Rice. -11- WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court for One-Million (1.0 Million) Dollars in compensatory damages and Two-Million (2.0 Million) Dollars in punitive damages against defendants, jointly and severally, and for such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C., 31988. -12- COUNT COSSPIRACY 39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations r-r 1 - prragraphs 1 through 26 as set forth in Juris? -- - . . . -112t1,?, rattles and Facts sections of this Complaint. I . . - uefendant Officers Guevera, O'Brien, Mingey, Wagner: Dolan and Leonard conspired together to use brutal and exces- orce against plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores, de- priving said plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and im- munities, including equal protection of the laws and due process at law as guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The aforementioned conspiracy violates 42 U.S.C. 51931, 1983 and 1985 in that said defendants did purposely plan, while acting under color of law, statutes and customs, to discriminate against the plaintiffs due to their age, sex, race and national origin. Said conspiracy also violated plaintiffs' rights guaranteed and protected under the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. At the times and dates indicated and herein alleged, defendant Officers Guevera, et a1., had a duty to protect the bodily integrity of the plaintiffs and to keep them secure from illegal scarchs and seizures. 42. Notwithstanding the duties owed the plaintiffs, the defendants, and each of them, failed or refused to prevent the wrongs conspired against them as alleged herein and breached their statutory duty as imposed by 42 U.S.C. 81886. -13- 43. Defendants further conspired to cover up their al? leged wrongdoings by falsely arresting plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores, and thereby caused said plaintiffs to be falsely imprisoned and detained in jail. 44. Defendant Officers Guevera, O'Brien, Mingey and Anderson further conspired together to testify falsely in the adult prosecution of plaintiff Graciela Flores and in either or both of the juvenile prosecutions of plaintiff Ana Flores, as alleged in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Facts section of this Complaint. 45. The conduct of the defendants described above was intentional and malicious or constituted willful and wanton negligence. Defendants' conduct was outrageous and of a nature that warrants the award of punitive and exemplary damages in favor of plaintiffs and against all 46. defendants. The defendant police personnel acted under color of law and are personally responsible for the imprOper and unreasonable use of their authority. 47. Defendant City of Chicago and Superintendent Fred Rice are responsible for the conduct of the defendant officers alleged herein, through their failure to train, supervise and correct the abuses of said police personnel and through the participatory acquiescence and ratification of the supervisory personnel, Sergeants Mingey and Wagner, as alleged herein. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court for Two and One?Half Million (2.5 Million) Dollars in compensatory damages and Five? Million (5.0 Million) Dollars in punitive damages against defen- -14.. dants, jointly and severally, and for such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attor? neys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C., 81988. -15- COUNT IV UNLAWFUL DETAINER 48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 as set forth in Count I of this Complaint. 49. Plaintiff Graciela Flores was charged with obstruc? tion of a police officer (38 Ill. Rev. Stats., 831-1) and battery (38 Ill. Rev. Stats., as averred in para- graph 24 herein; all charges are and were Class A misdemeanors under the laws of the Stataof Illinois. 50. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 528, as set forth in Illinois Revised Statutes 110A, bonds for like offenses are automatically set at the sum of One?Thousand Dollars. Supreme Court Rule 530 entitles per? sons detained to be released from custody upon the posting of ten-percent of the cash bond, or in this instance, One? Hundred ($100.00) Dollars. 51. Plaintiff Graciela Flores' family was willing to tender the One?Hundred ($100.00) Dollar bond but did not know her whereabouts. 52. Plaintiff Graciela Flores wished to make arrangements to make bond but was refused permission to use the telephone by police personnel unknown to plaintiff. 53, Plaintiff Graciela Flores was held in police custody for approximately twenty?four (24) hours. 54 Plaintiff Graciela Flores had no previous criminal record. Department's Central Identification Bureau that the plain? fingerprints had cleared. 56. tiff' At all times mentioned herein the agents and offi? cers of the Chicago Police Department were acting under color of law and carrying out the official policies of Fred Rice, Superintendent of Police, and the City of Chicago. 57. The detention of plaintiff Graciela Flores for twenty?four (24) hours on misdemeanor charges constitutes an unreasonable and arbitrary deprivation of plaintiff's right to liberty and due process of law under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court for Two?Hundred Fifty-Thousand Dollars in compensatory damages and Five?Hundred?Thousand Dollars in punitive damages against defendants, jointly and severally, and for such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C., 81988. _17_ COUNT NEGLIGENCE - PENDENT STATE CLAIM 58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 24 as set forth in Jurisdiction, Parties and Facts. 59. All defendants, known and unknown, were and are in the employ of the City of Chicago and were at all times mater ial hereto acting within the scope of their employment and as such owed a duty of reasonable care to plaintiffs. 60. The acts and omissions set forth in paragraphs 2 through 24 above were done in such negligent fashion as to demonstrate a lack of caution or regard for plaintiffs' right to be free from unlawful arrest, search and seizure, and without the due care which a prudent and reasonable individual would have displayed in the exercise of official duties. 61. The acts and omissions as set forth in paragraphs 20 and 22 above demonstrate a negligent disregard for the health and safety of one in custody of the State and said acts were undertaken without due care and diligence with which a reasonable and prudent individual similarly situated should have exorcised their official duties. 62. Prior to the institution of this suit and within the one-year period of limitations, plaintiffs caused to be served upon the Clerk of the City of Chicago a Notice of Claim which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 63. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent -18- and unlawful acts and omissions of the defendants, the plaintiffs have sustained pecuniary loss and damage, pain and anguish. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defen? dants, jointly and severally, in the amount of Two?Hundred Fifty?Thousand Dollars in compensatory damages, plus such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys' fees. COUNT VI ASSAULT BATTERY - PENDENT STATE CLAIM 65. Plaintiffs' remedies under the Constitution and laws of the United States are deficient in certain parti- culars; therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 881983 and 1988, plaintiffs seek further remedies under State law. 66. At all times pertinent herein defendant Police Officers, known and unknown, were in the employ of defen- dants City of Chicago and Superintendent Fred Rice. 67. On the above?referenced dates and times defendant Police Officers were working and acting within the scope of their employment as employees, servants, or agents of the defendants City of Chicago and Superintendent Fred Rice. 68. On the above?referenced dates and times defendant Police Officers acting within the scope of their employment, maliciously, wantonly and recklessly assaulted and battered plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores. 69. By reason of the aforementioned assault, plaintiffs Graciela and Ana Flores suffered grievous bodily harm and mental anguish, and will continue to so suffer into the future. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of One?Million (1.0 Million) Dollars in compensatory damages and Two-Million (2.0 Million) Dollars in punitive damages, plus such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys' fees. -20.. COUNT VII FALSE ARREST - PENDENT STATE CLAIM 70. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 24 and paragraphs 62this Complaint. On the above? refercnced dates and times defendant Police Officers acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, viciously, maliciously, wantonly and recklessly caused the false arrest of plaintiffs Graciela Flores and Ana Flores. 72. By reason of the false arrest of plaintiffs,Graciela and Ana Flores were forced to suffer great mental anguish, and public embarrassment and pecuniary loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of Two-Hundred Fifty- Thousand Dollars in compensatory damages and Five?Hundred Thousand Dollars in punitive damages, plus such other relief as law and equity allows, including in- terest, costs and attorneys' fees. -21- COUNT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - PENDENT STATE CLAIM Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 26set forth in this Complaint. Defendants Guevera, O'Brien, Mingey and Anderson appeared in open Court and testified against Graciela and Ana Flores on State criminal charges in an attempt to con- vict said plaintiffs and, further, defame their good names, when each and every defendant knew their testimony to be groundless, fanciful and false. 75. Said malicious prosecution caused plaintiffs Gra- ciela and Ana Flores and plaintiffs Romiro and Ana Marie Flores to forego their ordinary daily affairs and appear in Court on many occasions, to their economic and social de- triment. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants. jointly and severally, in the amount of Five?Hundred Thousand Dollars in compensatory damages and One-Million (1.0 Million) Dollars in punitive damages, plus such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys' fees. -22.. COUNT IX UNLAWFUL DETAINER - PENDENT STATE CLAIM 76. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-24 of the Facts section, 62 of Count and 65, 66 and 67 of Count VI of this Complaint. 77. That at the aforesaid time and place plaintiff Graciela Flores was placed under arrest for two (2) counts of battery (38 Ill. Rev. Stats., and one (1) count of obstruction of a police officer (38 Ill. Rev. Stats., 831-1). 78 For the aforementioned misdemeanor offenses bail is automatically set at the sum of One?Thousand Dollars by the Illinois Supreme Court Rule 528 as set forth in Chapter 110A, Ill. Rev. Stats., and that pursuant to Su- preme Court Rule 530 said plaintiff was entitled to be re? leased upon the posting of ten?percent or One-Hundred ($100.00) Dollar cash bond. 79. Plaintiff Graciela Flores was willing to tender the cash bond amount but was detained against her will for over twenty-four (24) hours and refused the use of the telephone in order to call her parents. 80. Plaintiff Graciela Flores had no previous criminal record. 81. The aforementioned conduct was willful, wanton, brutal, intentional and meant to visit punishment on plain- tiff Graciela Flores without due process of law. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of Two-Hundred Fifty? Thousand Dollars in compensatory damages and Five?Hundred?Thousand Dollars in punitive damages, plus such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys? fees. COUNT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EM PENDENT STATE CL OTIONAL DISTRESS AIM 82. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 of Jurisdiction, paragraphs 2 through 13 of Parties, paragraphs 14 through 26 of Facts, and paragraphs 62 of Count V, and paragraphs 65, 66 and 67 of Count VI of this Complaint. 83. By reason of the above?referenced assault and battery, verbal abuse, false arrest, unlawful detainer and malicious prosecution at the hands of defendant Police Offi- cers, plaintiffs were forced to endure great emotional and mental agony. 84. As a result of the emotional distress inflicted upon plaintiffs, plaintiffs were unable to attend to their normal daily affairs, forced to seek counselling, and sold their residence out of fear of retribution from defen? dant Police Officers. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of Five- Hundred Thousand Dollars in compensatory damages and One?Million (1.0 Million) Dollars in punitive damages, plus such other relief as law and equity allows, including interest, costs and attorneys' fees. -25.. Neil Gershon 205 W. Wackcr Drive Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60606 312: 346-6126 GRACIELA ROMIRO FLORES and ANA MARIE FLORES, indivi- dually and as parents and next friend of ANA FLORES, a minor, BY: 4& Neil s?on, at?orney foi plainti -26- . g: . in in: I. Civil action I. . loin-l. the Cit E, tn. .bo'e Cl.l..nt' chicolo for Donate. on account of injurioo he further Notified that this Notice in [inn in Iccorduoo with tho 0 I I ate. In couplionco thereof. this Notice is being filod with ouch of you in 0 (ice. tolothor Iiih tho iollovin: State-out. of Intorntion. [mt Namnnl the Person to whom the causeofacrion hasaccrued: GRACIELA FLORES: ROMIRO 5' NA MARIE FLORES, individually and as parents and next friend of ANNA FLORES, a Minor. 2. Name a! the Injured Persons: GRACIELA FLORES and ANNA FLORES 3. Address of the Injured Person: 1748 N. Lorel, Chicago, IL 60639 I c: 4- Accident occured on the 10thDay of November I 2 o'clock 3 :2 arabout 12:incident 5 . Location or place where tlmaclmw occurred: 1748 N. Lorel, Chicago, IL 60639 - - if: rc warrant 6. Thu gmmralnat .IIW t: . Polic??g?gicers,ig?igaant to the execution of a sea, falsely detained, arrested and wrongfully battered t?e a?dre- mentioned individuals of Nazareth Hospital, 1 7. Norm) and address of the attending physician: ohn 0 St. Ma 23% Divigion S?reet, ChiZagg, 60?2? . B. Nam? and ms of maria whr're Injured party was attended11;a i 2233 w. Division Street, Chicago, IL 60622; and St. Anne's Hospita 4950 W. Thomas, Chicago, IL 50651 9. Nature of Injury: Bruises nerve damage and emotional distress WOW-fit. ASSOCIATES - . HON sprains, strains, severe mental ?532' :l felon-at A can or NOTICI 0N . 1, an of Chlouo city of Chicago A Iunloipol Corporation A Inicipnl Corporation Carnot-Moo couml City Cloth NICAN PHONE 3724922 Form 1! MKY: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GRACIELA FLORES, et al., ?Nux?k X4586 Plaintiffs, vs. NO. 85 9575 c: ;g a? 1 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., JUDGE ASPEN a; g; 0 Defendants. 7ij 1?:3 c1 .43: 13 E3 NOTICE OF FILING TO: NEIL GERSHON, ESQ. 205 W. WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2000 Lumen i? U.) nu CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have this day filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO to First Amended Complaint, copy of which is hereto attached and herewith served upon you. DATED at Chicago, Illinois this 2nd day of May, 1986. Respectfully submitted, JUDSON H. MINER ACTING CORPORATION COUNSEL CI OF CHICA BY: ROOM 511 CITY HALL STANLEY SACKS Assistant Corp 121 NORTH LA SALLE STREET CHICAGO, ation Counsel ILLINOIS 60602 744?9210 MKY- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GRACIELA FLORES: et al., Plaintiffs, vs. 3 NO. 85 9575 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., JUDGE ASPEN Defendants. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3.1mm 33W3 ?as? ma 03?? i 5 (7 ?3 :3 NOW COMES DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO, through its atto??py,tj .4 .- JUDSON H. MINER, Acting Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago, and in Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, states as follows: I I I (1) Defendant admits that this action is brought pursuant to the cited statutes and constitutional provisions, but denies that Plaintiffs properly state a claim thereunder. A I (2) Defendant has insufficient knowledge of the allegations 0! Paragraph 2 and, therefore. neither admits nor denies the aliegations, but demands strict proof thereof. (3) Defendant has insufficient knowledge of the allegations of Paragraph 3 and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegation?. but demands strict proof thereof. (4) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 4. (8) Defendant admits that DOLAN, GUEVERA, LEONARD and were employed by the City of Chicago and that they were so employed on November 10, 1984 and in the performance of their police duties. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5. (6) Defendant admits that ANDERSON was employed by the City of Chicago Police Department and was acting in said capacity on November 10. 1984. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6. (7) Defendant admits that MINGEY and WAGNER were employed as Chicago Police Officers on November 10, 1984 and were performing police functions on that date. Defendant denies the remaining alelgations of Paragraph 7. (8) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 8. (9) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 9. (10) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 10. (11) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 11. A (12) Defendant admits that DOLAN, GUEVERA. LEONARD. MINGEY: and WAGNER proceeded to 1748 Lorel Street on November 10. 1984 to execute a Search Warrant for the basement apartment located therein. Defendant has insufficient knowledge of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 and, therefore, neither admits nor denies, but demands strict proof thereof. (13) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 13- (14) Defendant admits that MINGEY attempted to gain entry to the premises through the front door and that he was met there by LINA FLORES. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14. (15) Defendant admits that GUEVERA used necessary force to gain entrance into the basement apartment. Defendant has insufficient knowledge of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegations, but demands strict proof thereof. (16) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. (18) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. (19) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. (20) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, with the exception being that Officer ANDERSON was at the building on Lorel. (21) Defendant has insufficient knowledge of the allegations of Paragraph 21 and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegationS, but demands strict proof thereof. (22) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. (23) Defendant denies that GRACIELA FLORES was refused permission to make a phone call. Defendant has insufficient knowledge of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23 and. therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegations, but demands strict proof thereof. (24) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. (2S) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. (26) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. (27) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. (28) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. (29) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. COUNT I - EXCESSIVE FORCE (30) Defendant realleges the Answer as given previously to Paragraphs 1 through 18 and 29 of the Complaint. (31) The Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and further states that any force used by the a; . Officers was justified by law and was reasonable under the circumstances. (32) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 0f the Complaint. (33) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 33 0f the Complaint. (33A) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 33A of the Complaint. (34) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. (35) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. (36) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. (37) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. COUNT II - FALSE ARREST (38) Defendant realleges the Answers as given previously to Paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. (39) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. (40) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. (41) Defendant denies the alelgations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. -5.- (42) Defendant denies the Complaint. (43) Defendant denies the Complaint. (44) Defendant denies the Complaint. (4S) Defendant denies the Complaint. COUNT (45) the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the allegations of Paragraph 45 of MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Defendant realleges the Answers as given previously to Paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. (47) Obstructing the Police in Juvenile Court. Defendant admits that ANA FLORES was charged with Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 47. (48) Battery (2 Counts) and Obstructing a Police Officer. Defendant admits that GRACIELA FLORES was charged with Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 48. (49) Defendant the Complaint. (50) Defendant the Complaint. (51) Defendant the Complaint. (52) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 49 of admits the allegations of Paragraph 50 of denies the allegations of Paragraph 51 of denies the allegations of Paragraph 52. COUNT IV - MEDICAL DEPRIVATION (53) Defendant realleges the Answers given previously to Paragraphs 1 through 22 and Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. (54) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. (55) Defendant has insufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. (56) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. No Answer is made on behalf of Unknown Police Personnel. (57) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. No Answer is made on behalf of Unknown Police Personnel. (58) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. COUNT - ASSAULT AND BATTERY (59) Defendant realleges the Answers previously given to Paragraphs 1 through 18 and Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. (60) Defendant admits that under certain circumstances pendent state claims are appropriately filed in the Federal Court. Defendant denies that those circumstances are present in this case. (51) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. (62) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. (63) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. (64) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint COUNT VI - FALSE ARREST (65) Defendant realleges the Answers previously given to Paragraphs 1 through 29, and Paragraphs 60, 61 and 64 of the Complaint. (66) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. (67) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint. COUNT VII - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (58) Defendant realleges the Answers previously given to Paragraphs 1 through 29 and 47 through 52, and Paragraphs 60, 61 and 64 of the Complaint. R?Z?hv. COUNT MEDICAL DEPRIVATION (69) Defendant realleges the Answers previously given to Paragraphs 1 through 20 and 29, and Paragraphs 60 and 64 of the Complaint. (70) Defendant admits the existence of the statute set forth in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. (71) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. No Answer is being made on behalf of Unknown Police Personnel. (72) Defendant admits that ANDERSON was an employee of the City of Chicago. No Answer is being made on behalf of "Unknown Police Personnel". (73) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint. No Answer is being made on behalf of Unknown Personnel. (74) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. No Answer is being made on behalf of Unknown Officers or Personnel. COUNT IX - NEGLIGENCE (75) Defendant realleges the Answers previously given to Paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. (76) Defendant admits that the Officers were in the employ of the City of Chicago and were acting within the scope of their employment. (No Answer is being made on behalf of Unknown . . - '1 Officers and/or Personnel.) Defendant is Immune from C1V1 liability for the negligent acts of its employees under Ch. 85, Section 2-202, I.R.S., "Tort Immunity Act". (77) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint. (78) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. (79) Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. (80) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune from liability due to negligent acts of its employees under Ch. 85, ?2-202, I.R.S., "Tort Immunity Act". WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiffs, and for any other relief that this Court may deem proper. Defendant demands trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, JUDSON H. MINER ACTING CORPORATION COUNSEL ROOM 511 - CITY HALL 121 NORTH LA SALLE STREET CHICAGO, IULLINOIS 60602 744-9210 Assistant Corpor tion Counsel -10? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE going Notice, at the address(es) therein shown, by placing same in a stamped, addressed envelope and depositing in the U. 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, May, 1986. S. Mail at City Hall, Illinois on this 2nd day of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GRACIELA FLORES, et a1., Plaintiffs, VS. NO. 85 9575 JUL ~11986 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., JUDGE ASPEN Defendants. MOTION FOR STATUS HEARING mime Wm ASPEN n.9- mum NOW COME the defendants, by their attorney, JUDSON H. MINER, Acting Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, and respectfully move this Honorable Court for a Status Hearing regarding the above case. 1. That this Court set a Discovery Cut?date of July 1, 1986. 2. That Defendants' have answered Plaintiff's Request for Production in timely fashion. 3. That Plaintiffs' have yet to answer Defendants' Request for Production, although the time for answering has passed. 4. That by mutual agreement of the parties, Depositions have been put off. 5. That Plaintiff's counsel has indicated to me that due to a possible conflict of interest with plaintiff?s family wherein they are suggesting incompetency of counsel in a related matter, he will be seeking voluntary dismissal of this case. . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF EASTERN DIVISION coum GARCIA FLORES, et 31., Plaintiffs, vs. No. 85 9575 8L: JUDGE ASPEN ?2 kg CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. NOTICE OF MOTION TO: STANLEY SACKS Assistant Corporation Counsel Room 511 City Hall 121 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 1.75? PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this day, June 37, 1986, I have filed with the Clerk of this Court for hearing before Judge Aspen the attached Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, which shall be heard on Tuesday, June??17?I9867?at or about the hour of 10:00 A. M. in the Courtroom usually occupied by said Judge Aspen. MM Neil Gershon Eeiinffiggon, Attorney for 205 W. Wacker Drive #2000 Chicago, I1., 60606 (312) 346-6126 Received a copy of the within Motion Certificate of Service and Notice of Motion: Date: ?3 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL _11985 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JUUE GARCIA FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. No. 85 9575 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., JUDGE ASPEN Defendants. MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Now come the Plaintiffs, GARCIA FLORES, et al., and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure moves this Honorable Court for an Order allowing Plaintiffs to voluntarily dis? miss the above?entitled cause, without prejudice. Respectfully ubmitted, 7? By: Att?r?ey for Plaintiffs Neil Gershon 205 W. Wacker Drive - Suite #2000 Chicago, Il., 60606 (312) 346-6126 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, NEIL GERSHON, an attorney, certify that I served a copy 91' the foregoing Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and Notice of Motion to Stanley Sacks, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago at the address listed on the Notice of Motion, by deliver- ing a copy to the said party listed above and the address stated on the Notice of Motion this 15th day of June?9822? Gershon I Wacker Drive- Ste. #2000 Chicago, Il., 60606 (312) 346?6126