You are on page 1of 20

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:370

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANGEL PEREZ, JOSE MARTINEZ,
)
JUANITA BERRY, CALVIN COFFEY and )
ESTEPHANIE MARTINEZ on behalf of )
themselves and all other persons similarly )
situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF CHICAGO et. al.,
)
Defendants.
)

No. 13 C 4531
Judge Dow
JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION
2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, who bring this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(2), (3) on behalf of those similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, THE
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT T KAMIN, LAW OFFICE OF JASON R. EPSTEIN, AND LAW
OFFICE OF PHILLIP BRIGHAM, LLC., and complaining of Defendants Jorge L. Lopez,
Edmund Zablocki, Matthew P. Cline, Joseph Wagner, Herbert Betancourt, John P. Dolan,
unknown Officers, and the City of Chicago and states as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. The jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
sections 1983 et seq. and 1988; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, and 1343(a);
the Constitution of the United States; and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 1367.

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:371

PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, ANGEL PEREZ (Perez), is an adult male who, at all relevant times, was a
resident of Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.
3. Plaintiff, JOSE MARTINEZ (Jose), is an adult male who, at all relevant times, was a
resident of Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.
4. Plaintiff, JUANITA BERRY (Berry), is an adult female who, at all relevant times,
was a resident of Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.
5. Plaintiff, CALVIN COFFEY (Coffey), is an adult male who, at all relevant times, was
a resident of Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.
6. Plaintiff, ESTEPHANIE MARTINEZ (Estephanie), is an adult female who, at all
relevant times, was a resident of Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.
7. Defendants, Jorge L. Lopez ("Lopez") Star No. 17836, Edmund Zablocki ("Zablocki")
Star No. 7505, Matthew P. Cline ("Cline") Star No. 2184, Joseph Wagner ("Wagner'')
Star No. 14796, Herbert Betancourt ("Betancourt") Star No. 16976, John P. Dolan
("Dolan") Star No.17722, and unknown Officers, were at all relevant times, working as
Chicago Police Officers, and were residents of Cook County, Illinois.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Lopez, Defendant Cline, Defendant Zablocki,
Defendant Wagner, Defendant Betancourt, Defendant Dolan, and unknown Officers,
were acting in the course of their employment and under color of law.
9. Defendant Lopez, Defendant Cline, Defendant Zablocki, Defendant Wagner, Defendant
Betancourt, Defendant Dolan, and unknown Officers are being sued in their individual
capacities.

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:372

10. Defendant, City of Chicago, (the "CITY'') is and was a municipality, at all relevant
times, the employer and principal of Defendant Lopez, Defendant Cline, Defendant
Zablocki, Defendant Wagner, Defendant Betancourt, Defendant Dolan and all other
unidentified police officers who arrested and tortured the plaintiffs, and as such, is and
was at all relevant times responsible for the supervision, training, policies, practices, and
customs of the Chicago Police Department and its officers.

FACTS
Angel Perez
11. On October 20, 2012 at approximately 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff Perez was working as a
delivery driver for Castillo Delivery Service.
12. At the aforementioned date and time, Plaintiff Perez was returning to Desorak Restaurant
at 1514 W. Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois, following a delivery.
13. As Plaintiff Perez traveled eastbound on Taylor Street near the intersection of Taylor and
Ashland Streets, he was pulled over by an unmarked police car with flashing headlights.
14. Two Chicago Police officers approached Plaintiff Perezs car, and did not identify
themselves, but called each other George (Defendant Lopez) and John (Defendant
Dolan).
15. The officer who identified himself as John approached Plaintiff Perezs drivers side
door, opened Plaintiff Perezs car door and pulled Plaintiff Perez out of his car.
16. Defendant Lopez opened the passenger door and began searching Plaintiff Perezs car.

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:373

17. Plaintiff Perez was handcuffed and placed into the unmarked police car. Defendant
Dolan then drove Plaintiff Perezs car to the black site behind the police station at
Harrison and Kedzie. Defendant Lopez followed in the unmarked car with Plaintiff Perez
handcuffed in the back seat. While on the way to the police station, Plaintiff Perez asked
that his lawyer be contacted.
18. Upon arriving at the police station, Plaintiff Perez was searched in the parking lot.
Plaintiff Perez was then brought into the Harrison Street Police Station through a back
entrance, brought to a small room and handcuffed to a bar on the wall.
19. Defendant Lopez took Plaintiff Perezs cellular telephone and left the room, leaving
Officer Dolan in the room with Plaintiff Perez. Plaintiff Perez was not free to leave the
police station as he was handcuffed to the wall the entire time he was in the police
station.
20. Defendant Lopez returned to the room and the two officers began bombarding Plaintiff
Perez with questions regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street area.
Plaintiff Perez responded that he did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings
in the Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the officers call his
lawyer. Plaintiff Perezs lawyer was never contacted and the questioning continued. The
officers were particularly interested in why Plaintiff Perez had the telephone number of
an individual by the name of Dwayne in his telephone.
21. The interrogation of Plaintiff Perez continued for approximately one and a half to two
hours. At the end of the interrogation, the officers informed Plaintiff Perez that they were
going to harass him every day on Taylor Street until they got what they wanted from him.
Plaintiff Perez was un-handcuffed, given his car keys and told he could leave by Officer

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:374

Dolan.
22. On October 21, 2012, Defendant Lopez called Plaintiff Perezs cell phone and told
Plaintiff Perez that what took place the night before was a mistake and that he needed
Plaintiff Perez to sign some papers so that his car would not be towed. Defendant Lopez
instructed the Plaintiff Perez to meet him at Als Beef on Taylor Street at 3:00 p.m. that
day.
23. Plaintiff Perez went to Als Beef at 3:00 p.m. and Defendant Lopez arrived in a police
squad with Officer Zablocki, who was tall, with red hair and a beard.
24. The officers drove to the back of the parking lot and Plaintiff Perez followed them to that
location. Officer Edmund Zablocki exited the squad car and began to psychologically
torture Plaintiff Perez with threats, grabbed him, and slammed his head onto the trunk of
his car. Then the officers searched Plaintiff Perez, handcuffed him with his hands behind
his back, and placed him in the squad car.
25. Plaintiff Perez was then taken to the black site at the Homan Square police facility. He
was led to a second floor room with chairs and a table. Again, Plaintiff Perez was
handcuffed to a bar in a locked room, and this time he was also placed in leg shackles.
26. Plaintiff Perez was held against his will in the locked room for several hours, handcuffed
and shackled, and was not free to leave the custody of the defendants. Several officers
(approximately six officers), who were later identified as Defendant Matthew P. Cline,
Defendant Edmund Zablocki, Defendant Joseph Wagner, Defendant Herbert Betancourt,
and Defendant John Dolan, entered the room. During the next several hours the named
Defendants each took turns torturing and threatening Plaintiff Perez
27. The named Defendants threatened that they would send Plaintiff Perez to Cook County

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:375

Jail where he would be raped by gang members; that they would charge him in a
conspiracy to obstruct justice; that they would plant evidence on Plaintiff Perez and his
family members if he continued to refuse to assist them. Plaintiff Perez did not
cooperate.
28. One of the officers in the room identified himself as the Commander.
29. Plaintiff Perez repeatedly requested his lawyer; that request was not acknowledged by the
officers.
30. The officers wanted Plaintiff Perez to call or text Dwayne and set-up a drug purchase,
but he refused to call or text Dwayne.
31. After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the officers began to pull and
contort the Plaintiff Perezs body while he was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his
ankles causing Plaintiff Perez severe pain. At one point, Defendant Zablocki sat on
Plaintiff Perezs chest and placed his palms on Plaintiff Perezs eye sockets and pushed
hard against them causing Plaintiff Perez severe pain. Defendant Zablocki also drove his
elbows into Plaintiff Perezs back and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in
the room at the time and did not intervene. All the defendant officers went in and out of
the interrogation room yelling the named threats causing Plaintiff Perez mental damage.
32. In an attempt to contact the outside world, Plaintiff Perez agreed to make the call and he
attempted to call a friend of his to inform him what was transpiring at which time an
officer took Plaintiff Perez s telephone and ended the call.
33. After several hours of verbal and physical torture, Defendant Lopez and an officer who
claimed to be a police sergeant were alone in the room with Plaintiff Perez. The officers
told Plaintiff Perez that if he refused to cooperate with them that they were going to give

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:376

him a little taste of what he would be getting at the Cook County Jail. They put
Plaintiff Perez over a chair and pulled down his pants, and Defendant Lopez said I hear
that a big black nigger dick feels like a gun up your ass.
34. Then Defendant Lopez and/or Defendant Zablocki, knowing their actions created a strong
likelihood of great bodily harm and mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed
to be one of officers service revolvers, into Plaintiff Perezs rectum causing Plaintiff
Perez severe pain and humiliation. The two officers laughed hysterically while inserting
the object into Plaintiff Perezs rectum.
35. Defendant Zablocki then said I almost blew your brains out. The officers told Plaintiff
Perez that they would continue to insert the gun into his rectum until he cooperated with
them.
36. Plaintiff Perez began to cry and agreed to cooperate with the officers.
37. The officers then removed the leg shackles from Plaintiff Perez and took him from the
room to a car waiting outside. Plaintiff Perez was still handcuffed at this time. Once in
the car, the Plaintiff Perez was instructed, by the officers, to call Dwayne and set-up a
purchase of either heroin or crack cocaine. Plaintiff Perez called Dwayne but Dwayne
did not answer the telephone. Plaintiff Perez was then instructed to text Dwayne, which
he did and Dwayne then called Plaintiff Perez .
38. Plaintiff Perez spoke to Dwayne about purchasing one gram of heroin and agreed to meet
Dwayne at an agreed location and time. The police then brought Plaintiff Perez to his
car, provided Plaintiff Perez with money to purchase the heroin, a box believed to be a
GPS device and an audio recording device to record the transaction.
39. Plaintiff Perez completed the purchase from Dwayne for the Chicago Police and returned

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:377

the drugs and equipment to the police. The officers then wanted Plaintiff Perez to sell
drugs to Dwayne. Plaintiff Perez told the officers that he would not be involved again
with them.
40. Plaintiff Perez was released from police custody at approximately 9:30 p.m. on October
21, 2012.
41. Defendant Lopez subsequently repeatedly called Plaintiff Perezs cellular telephone from
his cellular telephone requesting additional meetings with Plaintiff Perez . The Lopez
calls stopped for a period after Plaintiff Perez contacted the Independent Police Review
Authority for the Chicago Police Department and complained about the events of October
20 and October 21, 2012, in which the named Defendants arrested Plaintiff Perez,
without probable cause, restrained and refused to release him from custody.
42. At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012, prior to Plaintiff Perezs
seizure and torture, did Plaintiff Perez commit a crime.
43. Plaintiff Perez was held incommunicado and off the grid before being formally taken
and processed at an area police station.
Calvin Coffey
44. On February 6, 2015, after interrogating Plaintiff Coffey on the streets about narcotic
activity, the police took him to the black site at Homan Square in handcuffs.
45. At Homan, Plaintiff Coffey was put in a locked room and handcuffed to a bench on the
back wall. Officer Carlos and a tall thin unknown Caucasian officer came in many times.
Coffey refused to cooperate with the officers and after 1.5 to 2 hours, the officers stopped
coming into the room.
46. Plaintiff Coffey had to relieve himself, and for 2 more hours he called out for someone to

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:378

escort him to the bathroom. No one came, and eventually he was forced to relieve
himself on the floor. An unknown overweight police officer, with dark, slicked back hair
came into the room, saw that Plaintiff Coffey had done a bowel movement and made
Calvin clean it up with his skull cap.
47. Because one of his hands was restrained, Plaintiff Coffey struggled to obey the
command, and did so inadequately. Plaintiff Coffey was forced to endure the stench in
the interview room for the remainder of his stay at Homan.
48. Plaintiff Coffey was held incommunicado and off the grid before being formally taken
and processed at an area police station.
Juanita Berry
49. On February 6, 2015, Juanita Berry, was with Calvin Coffey on the streets (5th and
Kostner), when police picked up Coffey for delivery.
50. Plaintiff Berry was handcuffed and taken separately from Coffey to the black site at
Homan Square and placed in a locked room.
51. Plaintiff Berry was handcuffed to a ring or bar on the wall. Unknown Officers, including
Officer Carlos, a medium Hispanic officer, about 59 and husky, kept coming into the
room.
52. The officers asked Plaintiff Berry to get them two guns from an acquaintance, or else
they would charge her with aiding in the delivery of controlled substance of Calvin
Coffey.
53. Plaintiff Berry was not allowed to make a phone call. After several hours, and many
threats, she agreed to try to retrieve a gun.
54. Plaintiff Berry and the officers drove to pick up one gun from the acquaintance, and the

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:379

officers told her this was satisfactory. Then the officers took her to Dunkin Donuts and
let her go.
55. Plaintiff Berry was held incommunicado and off the grid before being formally taken
and processed at an area police station.
Estephanie Martinez
56. On August 9, 2006, officers entered the apartment that Plaintiff Estephanie shared with a
roommate. Plaintiff Estephanies roommate was arrested.
57. Officers handcuffed Plaintiff Estephanie and took her to the black site at Homan Square.
58. Plaintiff Estephanie was placed in a locked room and handcuffed to a bar on the wall.
After a while she asked to make a phone call to tell her parents she was alright. Her
request was denied.
59. Later, Plaintiff Estephanie asked a guard to escort her to the bathroom. The guard said
she did not have a key to Plaintiff Estephanies handcuffs. Plaintiff Estephanie repeated
the request to any guard she could find, but with no success. Finally, she was forced to
relieve herself on the floor of the locked room. She was held at Homan Square for two
full days.
60. Plaintiff Estephanie was held incommunicado and off the grid before being formally
taken and processed at an area police station.
Jose Martinez
61. On September 29, 2011, officers came up to Plaintiff Martinez, told him they knew who
he was and that they wanted him to cooperate. When he refused, they took him to Homan
Square, put him in a locked room in leg shackles.
62. Plaintiff Martinez was cuffed to a bench for nine hours.

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:380

63. Plaintiff Martinez was held for nine hours (noon to 9pm) without food, water or use of
the restroom. The locked room smelled like urine and feces.
64. Plaintiff Martinez was held incommunicado and off the grid before being formally
taken and processed at an area police station.
65. Plaintiff Martinez was tortured because he refused to cooperate.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
66. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 65 as if fully set forth herein.
67. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), (3).Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, as representative of the following class (the
Class).
68. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated allege that their unconstitutional mistreatment
occurred because of the practice and policy of the City of Chicago, through the Chicago
Police Department (CPD) in holding citizens at black sites such as the Homan Square
police facility, involuntarily, incommunicado, without processing them, without reading
them their Miranda rights, subjecting them to restraint of movement via handcuffs, leg
shackles and/or locked rooms or cells, denying them access to attorneys, denying them
access to phones, bathrooms to relieve themselves, and keeping their whereabouts secret
from friends, family and society at large for several hours to days at a time.
69. A black site is an enhanced interrogation center. As opposed to a regular police
station, a black site is a police facility at which people are detained without formal
acknowledgement of the detention. Detainees at the sites are held incommunicado, with
no access to attorneys and no ability to communicate with the outside world. The privacy
of the black sites is conducive to torture, defined as physical or mental coercion.

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:381

Detainees are held until they cooperate with the corrupt police officers. If detainees
refuse to cooperate, they are placed under formal arrest and transferred to regular police
stations. The corrupt officers who use the black sites will manufacture the necessary
probable cause to justify the formal arrests.
Enhanced interrogation means torture. The CPD black sites contain locked
interview rooms, wretched from human waste and containing bars on which to
handcuff citizens. Once cuffed to the bars on the walls, the citizens are forced to stand
for hours or even days on end. Detainees are denied access to food, water and the use of
bathroom facilities. Forcing detainees to relieve themselves in their cells is tortuous in
itself, but the smell serves as compulsion to future detainees. Though the black sites are
not actual police stations, they contain cells for holding detainees. The cells serve as
props for the enhanced interrogation. The implicit communication is that if a detainee
does not cooperate, he will spend a considerable amount of time in a cell. The
constitutional shorthand is that where there are cells, there must be attorneys. However,
if attorneys were allowed at these sites, there could be no enhanced interrogation.
70. Corrupt officers from all over Chicago arrest citizens with or without probable cause and
bring them to black sites.
71. The dual purpose of this class action is to enjoin the operation of CPDs black sites and to
compensate the victims thereof.
72. This is an appropriate class action because the proposed class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable. The acts complained of are ongoing acts that relate back
to the conception of the violations.
73. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether Defendants

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:382

actions violate Plaintiffs 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments and procedural due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
74. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
75. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
76. The named Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel who are willing and able to protect
the interests of the class.
77. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,
thereby making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages with
respect to the class as a whole.
COUNT I
EXCESSIVE FORCE AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF 42
U.S.C. 1983
78. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77 as if fully set forth herein.
79. At all relevant times, the individual Defendants had a legal duty to refrain from using
unnecessary and unreasonable force under the circumstances.
80. The individual Defendants either participated in or allowed the excessive force and
psychological torture of Plaintiffs to continue.
81. The following acts were done with deliberate indifference and in violation of Plaintiffs
bodily integrity.
82. The acts of the individual Defendants, including but not limited to, handcuffing Plaintiffs
to a bar on the wall for hours; shackling Plaintiffs ankles; refusing Plaintiffs contact with
their attorneys and loved ones; refusing to allow Plaintiffs to leave the police site/
station/room; physically torturing Plaintiffs; pulling Plaintiff Perezs pants down, and by
inserting, or assisting in inserting, a metal object into Plaintiff Perezs rectum; and

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:383

torturing the plaintiffs until they agreed cooperate, constituted unreasonable seizures,
excessive force, and deprived the plaintiffs of their right to be free from such conduct, as
guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
83. At all relevant times, the actions of all defendants involved in detaining Plaintiffs were
done maliciously, willfully, wantonly, with deliberate indifference, and/or in reckless
disregard for the plaintiffs safety, constitutional rights, physical and mental well-being.
84. The acts and/or omissions of the individual Defendants proximately caused the plaintiffs
to suffer both physical and psychological injuries, pain, suffering, humiliation and fear.
Some of the plaintiffs injuries will be permanent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand substantial compensatory damages against the
individual Defendants for the plaintiffs physical and emotional trauma, pain, injury,
suffering, fear and humiliation, and additionally, because the defendants acted
maliciously, willfully, wantonly, with deliberate indifference, and/or in reckless disregard
for Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs demand substantial punitive damages from
the individual defendants, as well as costs, attorneys fees, and whatever additional relief
this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT II
42 USC 1983 DUE PROCESS CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO INTERVENE/PROTECT
85. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77, and 79-84 as if fully set
forth herein.
86. The individual defendants failed to intervene and/or protect Plaintiffs from each other,
themselves, and any other unidentified officers acts when they allowed handcuffing of
Plaintiffs to a bar on the wall for hours; shackling Plaintiffs ankles; refusing Plaintiffs
contact with their attorneys and family; refusing to allow Plaintiffs to leave the police

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:384

site/ station/room; physically torturing Plaintiffs; for example, by pulling Plaintiff Perezs
pants down, and by inserting, or assisting in inserting, a metal object into Plaintiff Perezs
rectum. The individual defendants failed to stop any of the above acts until Plaintiffs
agreed to cooperate with police, knowing said acts and their failure to protect Plaintiffs
from these acts created a substantial risk of great bodily harm and mental anguish,
depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights without due process of law, in violation
of the United States Constitution.
87. Said acts and/or omissions the individual defendants during the illegal detention of the
plaintiffs caused pain and suffering of a physical and mental nature.
88. The acts and/or omissions of the individual Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs to
suffer both physical and psychological injuries, pain, suffering, humiliation and fear, both
in the past and in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, demand substantial compensatory damages against the
individual defendants for Plaintiffs physical and emotional trauma, pain, injury,
suffering, fear and humiliation, and additionally, because the defendants acted
maliciously, willfully, wantonly, with deliberate indifference, and/or in reckless disregard
for Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs demand substantial punitive damages from
these defendants, as well as costs, attorneys fees, and whatever additional relief this
Court deems equitable and just.
TH

4 ,5

TH

TH

6 AND 14

TH

COUNT III
AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS - 42 U.S.C. 1983

89. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77, 79-84, and 86-88 and as if
fully set forth herein.
90. Plaintiffs were held incommunicado and off the grid before being formally taken and

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:385

processed at an area police station.


91. Although Plaintiffs were suspects in the custody of the individual defendants, and subject
to interrogation, the individual defendants refused Plaintiffs contact with their attorneys
and family.
92. The individual defendants gave no Miranda warnings to the Plaintiffs.
93. The individual defendants physically and psychologically tortured the Plaintiffs to get
them to cooperate or confess to crimes.
94. Said acts and/or omissions of the individual defendants during the illegal detention of the
plaintiffs caused pain and suffering of a physical and mental nature.
95. The acts and/or omissions of the individual Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs to
suffer both physical and psychological injuries, pain, suffering, humiliation and fear, both
in the past and in the future.
COUNT IV
STATE LAW - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST
THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
96. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77, 79-84, and 86-88 and 9095, as if fully set forth herein.
97. The actions of the individual defendants as set forth above placed Plaintiffs in fear of
their life, safety and in fear of receiving an assault and battery.
98. The actions of the defendants constituted extreme and outrageous conduct, and were done
deliberately and intentionally and in a willful and wanton manner.
99. The Defendants intended that their conduct inflict severe emotional distress and/or knew
there was a high probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress.
100.

The conduct of the defendants did in fact cause Plaintiffs to suffer severe

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:386

emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand substantial compensatory damages against the
individual defendants for the plaintiffs physical and emotional trauma, pain, injury,
suffering, medical expenses, loss of a normal life, fear and humiliation, and additionally,
because the defendant acted maliciously, willfully, wantonly, with deliberate
indifference, and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs
demand substantial punitive damages from this defendants, as well as costs, attorneys
fees, and whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT V
MONELL POLICY PRACTICE AND CUSTOMS VIOLATION AGAINST DEFENDANT
CITY OF CHICAGO

101.

Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77, 79-84, 86-88, 90-

95,and 97-100 as if fully set forth herein.


102.

The actions of Defendants, known and unknown, in each instance alleged above,

and common to each class member, were done pursuant to one or more de facto policies,
practices and/or customs of the Chicago Police Department, and therefore, the City of
Chicago.
103.

From at least 2004-2014, Defendant City of Chicago, through its Police

Department, had interrelated de facto policies, practices, and customs which included
inter alia the failure to properly train, supervise, discipline, counsel and otherwise control
its police officers, thereby allowing them to engage in the excessive use of force, torture
and other police abuses, particularly in cases where officers were allowed to torture and
sodomize the plaintiff class members within black site police facilities.
104.

As a direct and proximate cause of these policies, defendants violated plaintiff

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:387

class members rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, as applied by 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and caused plaintiff class
members pain, suffering, mental anguish, and humiliation.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff class members demand compensatory damages against the City of
Chicago. Plaintiffs also request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the above
policies of Defendant City of Chicago, ordering it to close all police facilities at which citizens
are detained, yet no public lobby exists, no record of the detainees exists, detainees may not
make phone calls to family or friends, and attorney visits are not permitted.
COUNT VI
STATE LAW-RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR - CITY OF CHICAGO

105.

Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77, 79-84, 86-88, 90-

95, 97-100,102-104 as if fully set forth herein.


106.

The aforesaid acts and state law violations of the police officers as set forth

above, were committed wilfully, wantonly, with deliberate indifference, and/or in


reckless disregard for the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and the City of Chicago is
therefore liable as principal for the actions of its employees and/or agents, under the
doctrine of respondeat superior, for the state law claims set forth in Count III above.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand compensatory damages against the City of Chicago,
including but not limited to, their injuries, pain, suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses,
loss of a normal life, and humiliation, and such other relief as this Court deems just and
equitable.

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:388

COUNT VII
INDEMNIFICATION PURSUANT TO 745 ILCS 10/9-102

107.

Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate paragraphs 1- 65, 67-77, 79-84, 86-88, 90-

95, 97-100,102-104 and 106 as if fully set forth herein.


108.

Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for

compensatory damages for which its employees are liable for.


109.

The individual defendants were at all relevant times, acting in the scope and

course of their employment as members and agents of the Chicago Police Department
under the color of law. Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts
committed by its employees.
WHEREFORE, should defendant Officers be found liable on one or more of the claims set
forth in above, Plaintiffs hereby demand that, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, Defendant City of
Chicago be found liable for any judgment or settlement for damages obtained against said police
officer defendants as well as for all attorneys' fees and costs awarded or otherwise obtained, and
that:
A.

That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiffs general damages, including


emotional distress, in a sum to be ascertained at a trial of this matter;

B.

That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiffs special damages;

C.

That Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO be required to reimburse the


individual defendants;

D.

That defendants be required to pay Plaintiffs attorneys fees pursuant to


42 U.S.C. 1988, the Equal Access to Justice Act, or any other applicable
provision;

E.

That defendants, except CITY OF CHICAGO, be required to pay


Plaintiffs exemplary and punitive damages in a sum to be ascertained at a

Case: 1:13-cv-04531 Document #: 96-1 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:389

trial of this matter;


F.

That defendants be required to pay Plaintiffs costs of the suit herein


incurred;

G.

That the defendants be enjoined from denying arrestees or witnesses


housed at any Chicago Police facility contact with their attorneys;
enjoined from denying arrestees or witnesses the right to make a
reasonable number of public phone calls, and required to permit arrestees
or witnesses access to phones within two (2) hours of going into police
custody; and

H.

That Plaintiffs be granted such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper.

PLAINTIFFS HEREBY REQUEST A TRIAL BY JURY.

Dated: March 31, 2015

Law Offices of Scott T. Kamin


Law Office of Phillip Brigham
Law Office of Jason Epstein
55 E. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1050
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 322-0077
Ill. Attorney No.: 6226855

/s/ Scott T. Kamin


Scott T. Kamin
One of Plaintiffs Attorneys

You might also like