Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
POLICE OFFICER MICHELLE MORSI,
POLICE OFFICER JOSE LOPEZ,
POLICE OFFICER JASON VANNA,
P.O. J.R. HICKEY STAR NO. 11523,
P.O. L.F. HILL STAR NO. 16047,
P.O. J.M. DAISY STAR NO. 10982,
P.O. NAVIA STAR NO. 7390,
P.O. McMAHON STAR NO. 17102,
P.O. HO STAR NO. 7995,
P.O. CHEVELIER STAR NO. 7206,
POLICE OFFICER JOHN BLAHUSIAK,
DETECTIVE MICHELLE MOORE-GROSE,
DETECTIVE WILLIAM SULLIVAN,
DETECTIVE BRYAN NEELY,
SGT. DURHAM STAR NO. 1803,
SGT. J. BROWN STAR NO. 1133,
SGT. GREER STAR NO. 1316,
SGT. R. BLAS STAR NO. 1248,
individually, and the CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendants.
Jury Demand
COMPLAINT AT LAW
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, CATHERINE BROWN, by and through one of her
attorneys, David S. Lipschultz of GOLDBERG WEISMAN CAIRO, and complaining against
the Defendants, Police Officer Michelle Morsi, Police Officer Jose Lopez, Police Officer Jason
Vanna, Police Officer J.R. Hickey Star No. 11523, Police Officer L.F. Hill Star No. 16047,
Police Officer J.M. Daisy Star No. 10982, Police Officer Michelle Moore-Grose, Police Officer
Navia Star No. 7390, Police Officer McMahon Star No. 17102, Police Officer Ho Star No. 7995,
Police Officer Chevelier Star No. 7206, Police Officer John Blahusiak, Detective William
Sullivan, Detective Bryan Neely, Sergeant Durham Star No. 1803, Sergeant J. Brown Star No.
1133, Sergeant Greer Star No. 1316, Sergeant R. Blas Star No. 1248, individually, and the City
of Chicago, as follows.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 1988 (the Civil Rights Act of 1871); and the laws of the State of Illinois, to redress
deprivations of the civil rights of the Plaintiffs, accomplished by acts and/or omissions of the
Defendants and committed under color of law.
2.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343, 1331 and 1367.
3.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, as the acts
The Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, is a United States citizen and a resident of the
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Michelle Morsi
(Officer Morsi) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. She is
sued in her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer
Morsi was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of her
employment and under color of law.
6.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Jose Lopez
(Officer Lopez) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. He is
sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer
Lopez was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his
employment and under color of law.
7.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Jason Vanna
(Officer Vanna) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. He is
sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer
Vanna was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his
employment and under color of law.
8.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer J.R. Hickey Star
No. 11523 (Officer Hickey) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police
officer. She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Officer Hickey was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of his/her employment and under color of law.
9.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer L.F. Hill Star No.
16047 (Officer Hill) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer.
She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Officer Hill was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope
of his/her employment and under color of law.
10.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer J.M. Daisy Star
No. 10982 (Officer Daisy) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police
officer. She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Officer Daisy was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of his/her employment and under color of law.
11.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Navia Star No.
7390 (Officer Navia) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer.
She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Officer Navia was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of his/her employment and under color of law.
12.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer McMahon Star No.
17102 (Officer McMahon) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police
officer. She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Officer McMahon was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of his/her employment and under color of law.
13.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Ho Star No. 7995
(Officer Ho) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. She/he is
sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer
Ho was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his/her
employment and under color of law.
14.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Chevelier Star No.
7206 (Officer Chevelier) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police
officer. She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Officer Chevelier was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of his/her employment and under color of law.
15.
(Detective Moore-Grose) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police
detective. She is sued in her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Detective Moore-Grose was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting
within the scope of her employment and under color of law.
16.
(Detective Sullivan) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police detective.
He is sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint,
Detective Sullivan was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of
his employment and under color of law.
17.
(Detective Neely) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police detective.
He is sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint,
Detective Neely was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his
employment and under color of law.
18.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant Durham Star No. 1803
(Sergeant Durham) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.
She/he is sued in her/his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Sergeant Durham was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of her/his employment and under color of law.
19.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant J. Brown Star No. 1133
(Sergeant Brown) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.
She/he is sued in her/his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Sergeant Brown was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of her/his employment and under color of law.
20.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant Greer Star No. 1316
(Sergeant Greer) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.
She/he is sued in her/his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Sergeant Greer was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of her/his employment and under color of law.
21.
At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant R. Blas Star No. 1248
(Sergeant Blas) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.
She/he is sued in her/his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this
Complaint, Sergeant Blas was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the
scope of her/his employment and under color of law.
22.
At all times relevant herein, Defendant City of Chicago was and is a municipal
corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is the employer and
principal of Defendants Coleman.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
23.
On or about May 13, 2013, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the Plaintiff, Mrs. Brown,
was driving in her vehicle in the alley behind her residence at 8320 S. Kerfoot, Chicago, Illinois.
24.
At that time, Mrs. Brown was not committing any crimes or engaging in any
unlawful activity.
25.
26.
27.
The force used by the Defendant Police Officers was unreasonable, unprovoked,
As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendant Police Officers, Plaintiff
Said actions of the Defendant Police Officers were intentional, willful and
wanton.
30.
Said actions the Defendant Police Officers violated the Plaintiffs Fourth
Officers, the Plaintiff suffered violations of his constitutional rights, physical injuries, emotional
anxiety, fear, pain and suffering, and monetary loss and expense.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, prays for judgment, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs against the Defendant Police Officers.
COUNT II
SECTION 1983 FALSE ARREST
PLAINTIFF BROWN AGAINST DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERS
32.
The Defendant Police Officers did not have probable cause to arrest Mrs. Brown.
34.
The actions of the Defendant Police Officers violated the Mrs. Browns Fourth
Amendment Rights and were in violation of said rights protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983.
35.
Officers, Mrs. Brown suffered violations of her constitutional rights, loss of liberty, monetary
expenses, fear, emotional distress, and other injuries.
COUNT III
INDEMNIFICATION PURSUANT TO 745 ILCS 10/9-102
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO
36.
35 as their respective allegations of paragraph 36 of Count III as though fully forth herein.
37.
The acts of the Defendants were committed in the scope of their employment with
Pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9-402, Defendant City of
Chicago is liable for any judgments for compensatory damages in this case arising from the
actions of the Defendant Police Officers.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, respectfully asks this Honorable
Court to order the Defendant City of Chicago to pay the Plaintiff any judgments for
compensatory damages against Defendant Police Officers.
JURY DEMAND
The Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David S. Lipschultz
David S. Lipschultz
GOLDBERG WEISMAN CAIRO
One East Wacker, 38th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 464-1200
Atty. No. 6277910
JS 44 (Rev. 3/13)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Catherine Brown
Cook
NOTE:
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
Other
448 Education
2 Removed from
State Court
PRISONER PETITIONS
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
Habeas Corpus:
530 General
535 Death Penalty
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
Remanded from
Appellate Court
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and
write a brief statement of cause.)
5/11/15
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
DEF
1
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
OTHER STATUTES
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee
(Prisoner Petition)
465 Other Immigration
Actions
Reinstated or
Reopened
Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
Multidistrict
Litigation
VII. Previous Bankruptcy Matters (For nature of suit 422 and 423, enter the case
number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by a judge of this Court.
Use a separate attachment if necessary.
DEMAND $