2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS COMPLAINT

Transcription

1 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 11 E-FILED Wednesday, 11 March, :31:13 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KYLE O BRIEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, CHAMPAIGN ) POLICE OFFICERS JEFFREY PICKETT, Star ) # 7729, JEDIDIAH MACKEY, Star #706, ) SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON FRATERNITY, an ) Illinois Not-For-Profit Company, and RICKY ) EYESTONE, ) ) Defendants. ) JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT NOW COMES the plaintiff, KYLE O BRIEN, through his attorneys, Jared S. Kosoglad, P.C. and MEYER and KISS, LLC, and complaining of the defendants CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, CHAMPAIGN POLICE OFFICERS JEFFERY PICKETT, Star # 729, JEDIDIAH MACKEY, Star # 706, SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON FRATERNITY, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Company, and RICKY EYESTONE, states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action seeking damages against defendants for committing acts under color of law, depriving plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. JURISDICTION 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983; the judicial code 28 U.S.C and 1343 (a); the Constitution of the United States; and pendent jurisdiction as provided under U.S.C. 1367(a). 1

2 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 2 of 11 PARTIES 3. Plaintiff KYLE O BRIEN is a citizen of the United States of America, who currently resides in Lake County, Illinois. 4. Defendants JEFFERY PICKETT, Star # 7729, and JEDIDIAH MACKEY, Star #706 ( Defendant Officers ) were, at the time of this occurrence, duly licensed Champaign Police Officers. They engaged in the conduct complained of in the course and scope of their employment and under color of law. They are sued in their individual capacities. 5. Defendant CITY OF CHAMPAIGN ( CITY ) is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is the employer and principal of the police officer defendants. 6. Defendant RICKY EYESTONE is employed as House Director of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity at the Illinois Beta Chapter at the University of Illinois in Champaign, Illinois. At all times relevant, Eyestone acted at the direction of and in concert with the Defendant Officers. 7. Defendant SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON FRATERNITY, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Company, ( SAE ) is the employer and principal of RICKY EYESTONE. FACTS 8. On August 31, 2013, Plaintiff Kyle O Brien was visiting associates at the University of Illinois. The week of Plaintiff s visit constituted rush week for the University of Illinois Greek system. 9. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff was lawfully on the public way at the area of East Daniel Street and South 3rd Street. The SAE Fraternity house is located on that corner. 10. Individuals tipped over the dumpster at SAE. 2

3 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 3 of SAE fraternity members wrongfully came to believe Plaintiff was one of the persons who tipped over their dumpster. A verbal confrontation ensued, and SAE House Director Eyestone eventually dialed Thereafter, Plaintiff voluntarily left the verbal confrontation and walked south on 3 rd Street toward Chalmers, eventually making a right to head west. 13. SAE members jumped down from the fence and closely followed Plaintiff as he walked south on 3 rd and then west on Chalmers. 14. As Plaintiff approached Washington Park, also known as Frat Park, Plaintiff began to flee south through the park. 15. At SAE House Director Eyestone s direction and advice, an SAE member chased Plaintiff into the park and unlawfully tackled Plaintiff on the basketball court. Defendant Pickett observed the SAE member tackle Plaintiff, and the physical contact constituted a battery by the SAE member against Plaintiff. 16. Thereafter, Defendants Pickett and Eyestone used an excessive and unreasonable amount of force on Plaintiff, which included blunt force, pressure to Plaintiff s head, and chemical spray. 17. Defendant Mackey arrived seconds later and delivered an excessive and unreasonable amount of force on Plaintiff, including multiple knee strikes to the torso and a closed fisted blow to Plaintiff s head that caused Defendant Mackey damage to his finger. 18. Defendant Pickett knew that Eyestone and Mackey intended to use excessive force against Plaintiff, had a reasonable opportunity to prevent them from using excessive force against Plaintiff, and did not intervene to prevent the excessive force used by Eyestone and Mackey. 3

4 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 4 of Defendant Pickett accepted Defendant Eyestone s help because Eyestone persuaded Pickett that he was a former law enforcement officer. 20. After the arrest, Eyestone told Champaign Police he was a retired law enforcement officer, even though his Arizona law enforcement license had been terminated for stealing money from the police union through unauthorized checks. 21. Each of the individual defendants, in conspiracy with each other, caused the initiation and/or continuation of false charges against Plaintiff for which the Defendant-Officers and Eyestone knew there was no probable cause or other legal basis. 22. The conspiracy began during a conversation at Washington Park between CPD Officers Mackey, Pickett, and SAE House Director Eyestone. In part, the goal of the conspiracy was to avoid responsibility for the use of excessive force against Plaintiff and in part to cover up wrongdoing by an SAE member and University of Illinois athlete. 23. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Officers Pickett and Mackey authored false police reports, and all of the individual defendants caused false charges to be brought against Plaintiff and falsely testified at Plaintiff s criminal trial. 24. Plaintiff was charged with three felonies: aggravated battery to Officer Pickett, aggravated battery to the SAE student athlete, and felony resisting arrest for causing Defendant Mackey s broken finger. 25. Prior to trial, the State evolved its position on a plea. At first, the State insisted that Plaintiff be convicted of a felony and serve jail time. Then, the State agreed to permit Plaintiff to plea to a misdemeanor but only if he spent several weeks in jail. Then, the final evolution of their offer in Plaintiff s case included one year of conditional discharge 4

5 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 5 of 11 on a misdemeanor charge. Plaintiff declined all offers and at all times asserted his innocence of the false and malicious charges caused to be brought by the defendants. 26. On the date of Plaintiff criminal trial, the State dismissed the aggravated battery felony involving the SAE student athlete. Upon information and belief, the dismissal was predicated on the SAE member s admission that Plaintiff did not batter him. 27. Officer Pickett s testimony to the effect that he issued verbal commands to Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff s flight was false and malicious. 28. Officer Pickett s radio transmissions included a statement to the effect that he saw Plaintiff running, that he (Officer Pickett) wasn t chasing Plaintiff, and that a fraternity member was chasing Plaintiff, which impeached Officer Pickett s story. 29. At trial, Officer Pickett attempted to explain the statement by claiming that the transmissions had been condensed and the statement in question was composed of multiple transmissions at different times. This testimony was also false. 30. A criminal trial was held on the remaining two charges against Plaintiff from September 29, 2014 through October 2, During the trial, Officer Mackey admitted that the injury to his finger was not Plaintiff s fault. 32. After several hours of deliberations, a jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the aggravated battery charge against Plaintiff but could not reach a verdict on the felony resisting arrest charge. 33. Had a second trial taken place, a Champaign Police witness would have testified that the transmission by Officer Pickett was in fact one transmission and not separate. 5

6 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 6 of Prior to the second trial, the State offered to dismiss all felony charges against Plaintiff, in exchange for supervision on misdemeanor disorderly conduct based on Plaintiff s involvement in the verbal confrontation that preceded the involvement of Champaign Police. 35. The criminal charges against Plaintiff were dismissed in a manner indicative of and consistent with Plaintiff s innocence of the three felony charges. 36. Each of the individual defendants initiated and/or caused the three false felony criminal charges against Plaintiff to be initiated and/or continued. 37. On August 31, 2013, and continuing to the present day, each of the individual defendants conspired and continues to conspire against Plaintiff in violation of his rights to charge Plaintiff with crimes they knew Plaintiff did not commit. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the malicious actions of the co-conspirators, Plaintiff was injured, including loss of freedom, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of his dignity, the deprivation of his constitutional rights, physical injuries, attorney s fees, emotional distress, and lost time. COUNT I: 42 U.S.C Excessive Force Against Defendant Officers and Ricky Eyestone 39. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 40. The actions of the Defendant Officers and Ricky Eyestone constituted unreasonable, unjustifiable, and excessive force against Plaintiff, thus violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. Section As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of Defendant Officers, Plaintiff was injured, including severe pain, physical injury, mental suffering, anguish and humiliation, and fear. 6

7 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 7 of 11 WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II: 42 U.S.C Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights Against Defendant Officers and Ricky Eyestone 42. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 43. As described more fully above, the Defendants reached an agreement amongst themselves to frame Plaintiff for crimes he did not commit, and to thereby deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights, all as described more fully throughout this Complaint. 44. In this manner, the Defendant Officers, acting in concert with each other, have conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. 45. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit prior agreement referenced above, Plaintiff s rights were violated, and he suffered damages, severe emotional distress and anguish, attorney s fees, and a deprivation of his liberty, as is more fully alleged above. 47. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff and others. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 7

8 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 8 of 11 COUNT III: 42 U.S.C Failure to Intervene (Excessive Force) Against Defendant Pickett 48. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 49. The actions of Defendant Pickett, described above, whereby they knowingly caused Plaintiff to be subject to excessive and unreasonable force by Defendants Mackey and Eyestone, constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s rights under the U.S. Constitution in violation of the Constitution of the United States. 50. On or about August 31, 2013, Defendant Pickett failed to intervene when Defendants Mackey and Eyestone caused Plaintiff to be subject to excessive and unreasonable force, as alleged throughout this Complaint, even though there was no legal basis for the amount of force used. 51. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of Defendants, Plaintiff was injured, including the deprivation of his liberty and the taking of his person. In addition, the violations proximately caused Plaintiff mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, exposed him to public scandal and disgrace, caused physical and emotional injuries, and caused him to incur various expenses, including but not limited to attorneys fees, all to Plaintiff s damage. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT IV: 745 ILCS 10/9-102 Indemnification Against Defendant City of Champaign 52. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 53. Defendant City of Champaign is the employer of Defendant Officers. 8

9 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 9 of Defendant Officers committed the acts alleged above under color of law and in the scope of their employment as employees of the City of Chicago. WHEREFORE, should Defendant Officers be found liable on one or more of the claims set forth above, Plaintiff demands that, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, the Defendant City of Chicago be found liable for any judgment plaintiff obtains against said defendant, as well as attorneys fees and costs awarded. COUNT V: Malicious Prosecution State Claim Against Defendant Officers and Ricky Eyestone 55. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 56. By the actions detailed above, the individual defendants knowingly sought to and did in fact maliciously prosecute Plaintiff on false charges for which they knew there was no probable cause. 57. The City and SAE are sued in this Count pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, in that defendant officers and Ricky Eyestone performed the actions complained of while on duty and/or in the employ of defendant City and/or SAE, and while acting within the scope of their respective employment. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the malicious prosecution, Plaintiff was damaged, including the value of his lost liberty, exposure to public scandal and disgrace, damage to his reputation, mental and emotional suffering, attorneys fees, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 9

10 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 10 of 11 COUNT VI: Conspiracy to Commit Battery State Claim Against Ricky Eyestone 59. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 60. Defendant Eyestone made an express or implied agreement to commit the tortious act of battery by directing the actions of the SAE member to make physical contact with Plaintiff as he ran through Washington Park. 61. Defendant Ricky Eyestone directed and advised the SAE member to make physical contact with Plaintiff as he ran through Washington Park. 62. Pursuant to Defendant Ricky Eyestone s direction, the SAE member intentionally made physical contact with Plaintiff that caused Plaintiff to suffer physical injuries. 63. SAE is sued in this Count pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, in that Defendant Eyestone performed the actions complained of while on duty and/or in the employ of Defendant SAE, and while acting within the scope of his employment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT VII: Respondeat Superior State Claim Against Ricky Eyestone 64. Plaintiff realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth here. 65. SAE is sued pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, in that Defendant Eyestone performed the actions complained of while on duty and/or in the employ of Defendant SAE, and while acting within the scope of his employment. 10

11 2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 11 of 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. Respectfully submitted, KYLE O BRIEN By: /s Jared S. Kosoglad One of Plaintiff s Attorneys Jared S. Kosoglad Jared S. Kosoglad, P.C. 118 South Clinton Street, Suite 200 Chicago, IL T: E: jared@jaredlaw.com /s Louis Meyer Louis Meyer and Daniel Kiss Meyer & Kiss 311 W Stratford Peoria, Illinois E: dankiss@meyerkiss.com E: louismeyer@meyerkiss.com /s Daniel Kiss 11