Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1
|
|
- Osborn Griffin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LORETTA MURPHY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a ) municipal corporation, ) CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS ) A. HLADCZUK (Star # 4917), R. ) TORRES (Star # 14607), P. MACK ) (Star # 600), and other unknown and ) unidentified City of Chicago police ) officers, individually and ) in their official capacity, and ) MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, ) INC., d/b/a Chicago Marriott ) Downtown Hotel, and Marriott ) Hotel Services, Inc.'s security guard ) MICHAEL MADER, ) ) Jury Trial Demanded Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff Loretta Murphy, by and through her undersigned attorneys, for her Complaint against Defendants City of Chicago, Chicago Police Officers A. Hladczuk (star # 4917), R. Torres (star # 14607), P. Mack (star # 600), other unknown and unidentified City of Chicago police officers, Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Marriott Downtown Hotel, and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.'s security guard Michael Mader, states and alleges as follows:
2 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2 Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 1343, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and (3), in that all defendants reside in this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. The Parties 3. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation, and is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois and was, at all times material to this Complaint, the employer of Defendant Chicago Police Officers A. Hladczuk, R. Torres and P. Mack. 4. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres P. Mack and other unknown officers were, at all times material to this Complaint, duly appointed Chicago Police Officers and citizens of the State of Illinois. On information and belief, all the Defendant police officers reside in the City of Chicago. Plaintiff is suing all the Defendant police officers in their individual and official capacities. 5. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., d/b/a Chicago Marriott Downtown Hotel, (hereinafter, "Marriott Downtown Hotel") is a Delaware corporation registered to do business in State of Illinois. Marriott Downtown Hotel is a hotel located at 540 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL Defendant Michael Mader was, at all times, a security officer employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 7. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy is a citizen of Illinois and resides in this District. 2
3 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3 Background 8. This is an action seeking damages against Defendants for committing acts, under color of law, which deprived Plaintiff Loretta Murphy of rights secured by the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Illinois. 9. This action arises from the unlawful and malicious detention and arrest of Loretta in the early morning hours of May 29, On May 28, 2011, Loretta attended her daughter's wedding. 11. Loretta's daughter had contracted with Marriott Downtown Hotel for rental of a honeymoon suite and a hospitality suite. 12. Loretta's daughter informed Marriott Downtown Hotel that the wedding guests would be arriving at Marriott Downtown Hotel at or around midnight, following the daughter's wedding reception. 13. Loretta's daughter also informed Marriott Downtown Hotel that the wedding guests would be bringing alcohol into the hospitality suite and that they would require additional seating in the hospitality suite. 14. Loretta, her daughter and other guests arrived at Marriott Downtown Hotel by shuttle at approximately 12:30 am on May 29, Loretta and other guests proceeded from the shuttle to the hospitality suite. 16. Staff employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel brought several cases of beer and additional seating to the hospitality suite. 17. At approximately 2:00 am, Loretta's daughter left the hospitality suite with her new husband. Upon leaving the hospitality suite, Loretta's daughter encountered 3
4 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4 several security guards who were employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel approaching the hospitality suite. 18. Loretta's daughter informed these security guards that she had just been married and that she had contracted with Marriott Downtown Hotel for use of the hospitality suite. Loretta's daughter also informed the security guards that Marriott Downtown Hotel agreed in advance of the wedding date that the wedding guests would be allowed to use the hospitality suite for a party following the wedding reception. 19. The security guards apologized to Loretta's daughter, the security guards said that they would not return, and the security guards left the area. 20. At approximately 2:30 am, Loretta went to sleep in a closed bedroom that was a part of the hospitality suite. 21. Other invited wedding guests remained in the hospitality suite. 22. Loretta was subsequently awoken by one of the wedding guests telling her that security officers were at the door of the hospitality suite. 23. Loretta came into the main part of the hospitality suite and observed several security officers employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 24. On information and belief, the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers included, among others, Defendant Michael Mader. 25. The Defendant Chicago police officers subsequently came to the hospitality suite. 26. On information and belief, the Chicago police officers at the hospitality suite included, among others, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres and P. Mack. 4
5 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5 27. Loretta informed the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers and the Chicago police officers that it was her daughter's wedding night and that herself and the other guests in the room were permitted to be in the room. 28. One of the wedding guests continued to drink from a champagne bottle while the Chicago police officers and the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers were in the hospitality suite. 29. The Chicago police officers became upset and demanded that the guest put the champagne bottle down. 30. Loretta explained to the officers that they were guests in the hospitality suite and that the officers should be respectful of the right to be in the suite. 31. The officers became upset with Loretta's statement of the guests' rights to be in the suite celebrating Loretta's daughter's wedding. 32. At that time, the Chicago police officers arrested Loretta, restrained her, and Defendant Michael Mader signed a criminal complaint against Loretta on behalf of Marriott Downtown Hotel for disorderly conduct. 33. At the time of her arrest, Loretta was on private property owned by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 34. At the time of her arrest, the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers were acting under color of law wherein they directed the Chicago police officers to the hospitality suite, wherein they allowed the Chicago police officers into the hospitality suite, and wherein they directed and/or conspired with the Chicago police officers to arrest and to prosecute Loretta where there was no probable cause to do so. Without the assistance, compliance and conduct of the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers, the 5
6 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6 Chicago police officers would not have been in a position to arrest Loretta, and they would not have arrested Loretta. The Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers and the Defendant Chicago police officers all knew that without their conspiracy to fabricate charges against Loretta, they would not be able to proceed with the arrest of Loretta. 35. In the criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendant Michael Mader supplied the necessary information for the Chicago Police Department to proceed with formal arrest charges against Loretta. The information in the criminal complaint was the sole basis of the criminal charges against Loretta. All the while, both Michael Mader and the Defendant Chicago police officers knew that the allegations in the criminal complaint were false. 36. Loretta was taken to the first district Chicago police station where she was processed. Loretta was not released until 6:30 am on May 29, While at the police station, Loretta was kept handcuffed in a cell. 37. The arrest of Loretta was unlawful and in violation of the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Illinois. 38. Prior to trial, the chief security officer for Marriott Downtown Hotel came to court and asked the Cook County State's Attorney's Office to drop the charge against Loretta. 39. The Cook County State's Attorney's Office dismissed the charge against Loretta in its entirety. The dismissal was the final determination of said charge. 40. At all times material to this Complaint, all the Defendant police officers acted in their capacity as duly appointed Chicago Police Officers under color of the 6
7 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7 statutes, customs, ordinances, and usage of the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department. 41. At all times material to this Complaint, all the Defendant police officers acted within the scope of their employment as Chicago Police Officers. 42. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader acted within the scope of his employment as a security guard for Marriott Downtown Hotel. 43. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel acted in concert with the City of Chicago Police Department and acted pursuant to the policy, practice or custom of the City of Chicago. 44. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel acted under color of law. COUNT I Section 1983 Action For False Arrest Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 45. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 46. There was no warrant for the arrest of Loretta on May 29, The arrest of Loretta on May 29, 2011 was without probable cause for Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers to believe that Loretta had committed the charged offense, and Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers knew that they were without probable cause to arrest Loretta. 7
8 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8 48. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Loretta's rights, deprived Loretta of her liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago Police Department, in that: a. As a matter of both policy and practice, the Chicago Police Department directly encourages, and is thereby the moving force behind the type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately train, supervise, and control its officers, such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate indifference. b. As a matter of policy and practice, the Chicago Police Department facilitates the type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately investigate, punish and discipline prior instances of similar misconduct, thereby leading Chicago police officers to believe their actions will never be scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future abuses such as those affecting the Plaintiff in this case. c. Generally, as a matter of widespread practice so prevalent as to comprise municipal policy, officers of the Chicago Police Department abuse citizens in a manner similar to that alleged by the Plaintiff in this count on a frequent basis, yet the City of Chicago, and the Chicago Police Department's Internal Affairs Division, make findings of wrongdoing in a disproportionately small number of cases. 8
9 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9 d. City policy makers are aware of, condone and facilitate by their inaction, a "code of silence" in the Chicago Police Department. Police officers routinely fail to report instances of police misconduct and lie to protect each other from punishment, and go undisciplined for doing so. e. The City of Chicago has failed to act to remedy the patterns of abuse, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby causing the types of injuries alleged here. f. The City of Chicago, acting by and through its agents, has knowledge of, and the relevant policy makers have failed to act to remedy, the patterns of abuse described in the preceding sub-paragraphs, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby tacitly approving and ratifying the type of misconduct alleged here. 50. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' unlawful and malicious deprivation of Loretta's rights, namely her arrest and confinement, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT II Section 1983 Action For Excessive Force Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 52. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 53. The conduct of the Defendant Chicago police officers toward Loretta constituted excessive force in violation of the United States Constitution. 9
10 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and with willful indifference to Loretta's constitutional rights. 55. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 56. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' unjustified and excessive use of force, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT III State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 58. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 59. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct in arresting Loretta, as detailed above, was extreme and outrageous. 60. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct was willful and wanton. 61. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers intended to cause severe emotional distress to Loretta or knew that their conduct would result in a high probability of severe emotional distress to Loretta. 10
11 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: Loretta suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' extreme and outrageous conduct, as detailed above. 63. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. COUNT IV Section 1983 Action For Unreasonable Seizure Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 64. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 65. One or more of the Defendant Chicago police officers unlawfully seized Loretta, and in the course of that seizure, engaged in harassing and abusive behavior toward Loretta, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 66. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others. 67. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 68. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 11
12 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' unreasonable seizure, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT V State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Malicious Prosecution 70. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 71. By conspiring with Defendant Michael Mader to sign a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers actively participated in the commencement of a criminal proceeding against her. 72. The criminal proceeding was dismissed by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in favor of Loretta. 73. There was no probable cause for the criminal complaint against Loretta. 74. In conspiring to bring a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers acted intentionally and with malice. 75. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 76. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 12
13 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT VI Section 1983 Action For Conspiracy To Deprive Constitutional Rights Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 78. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 79. As described more full above and throughout this Complaint, there was an agreement between the individual defendants and other known and unknown coconspirators, including but not limited to Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers, to deprive Loretta of her constitutional rights. 80. Specifically, the Defendants conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity. 81. The conspiring Defendants' actions were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Loretta's rights. 82. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 83. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 13
14 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conspiracy, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT VII State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Assault And Battery 85. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 86. The conduct of one or more of the individual Defendants, acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment, constituted unjustified and offensive physical contact and/or created in Loretta the reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, undertaken willfully and wantonly, and proximately causing Loretta's injuries. 87. The actions of the individual Defendants were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Loretta's rights and to the rights of others. 88. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 89. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. 14
15 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15 COUNT VIII State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For False Imprisonment 91. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 92. Loretta was handcuffed and taken into police custody, and thereby had her liberty to move about unlawfully restrained, despite individual Defendants' knowledge that there was no probable cause for doing so. 93. The actions of the individual Defendants were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Loretta's rights and to the rights of others. 94. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 95. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT IX State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Conspiracy 97. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 15
16 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: As described more full above and throughout this Complaint, there was an agreement between the individual Defendants and other known and unknown coconspirators, including but not limited to Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers, to participate in an unlawful act, or to act in an unlawful manner toward Loretta, including by conspiring to falsely detain and assault Loretta, falsely arrest her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon her. 99. The Defendant Chicago police officers committed one or more overt acts to further their common scheme of participating in an unlawful manner toward Loretta The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conspiracy, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT X Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant City Of Chicago For Failure To Properly Train, Supervise and Discipline 103. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 104. As described more fully above, Defendant City of Chicago has a policy or custom of not properly training its police officers to report constitutional violations committed by other police officers. 16
17 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: As described more fully above, Defendant City of Chicago has a policy or custom of not appropriately disciplining its police officers when they have committed constitutional violations As described more fully above, Defendant City of Chicago has a policy or custom of not properly supervising police officers who have committed prior constitutional violations, and/or who are likely to commit future constitutional violations The damages suffered by Loretta, as detailed above, are a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its residents, including Loretta Defendant City of Chicago's failure to properly train, discipline and supervise its police officers caused a deprivation of Loretta's rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C Defendant City of Chicago is fully knowledgeable of its shortcomings in training, discipline and supervision, as described in the preceding paragraphs On information and belief, the damage caused to Loretta as a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's polices and customs, as described in the preceding paragraphs, has resulted in many instances of constitutional violations of City of Chicago residents Defendant City of Chicago allowed Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres and P. Mack and other unknown police officers, through deliberate indifference or callous disregard of Loretta's rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, to remain unsupervised and undisciplined. 17
18 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's policy or custom of not properly training its police officers, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres P. Mack and other unknown police officers were able to violate Loretta's rights As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's policy or custom of not properly training, supervising and disciplining its police officers, Loretta was damaged, as described above. COUNT XI State Law Claim For Respondeat Superior Against City of Chicago 114. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 115. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the individual Defendants were members and agents of the Chicago Police Department acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment. its agents Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts committed by COUNT XII State Law Claim For Indemnification Against City of Chicago 117. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 118. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment activities. 18
19 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: The individual Defendant Chicago police officers are or were employees of the Chicago Police Department who acted within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described herein. Count XIII Section 1983 Claim For False Arrest Against Defendant Michael Mader 120. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 121. Defendant Michael Mader acted in concert with the Chicago Police Department to deprive Loretta of her civil rights Defendant Michael Mader directed and/or conspired with the Chicago Police Department to arrest Loretta There was no warrant for the arrest of Loretta on May 29, The arrest of Loretta on May 29, 2011 was without probable cause for Defendant Michael Mader to believe that Loretta had committed the charged offense, and Defendant Michael Mader knew that there was no probable cause to arrest Loretta Defendant Michael Mader acted intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Loretta 's rights, deprived Loretta of her liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Michael Mader's unlawful and malicious deprivation of Loretta's rights, namely her arrest and confinement, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. 19
20 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20 COUNT XIV State Claim Against Defendant Michael Mader For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 127. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 128. Defendant Mader's conduct in causing the arrest of Loretta, as detailed above, was extreme and outrageous Defendant Mader's conduct was willful and wanton Defendant Mader intended to cause severe emotional distress to Loretta or knew that his conduct would result in a high probability of severe emotional distress to Loretta Loretta suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendant Mader's extreme and outrageous conduct, as detailed above. COUNT XV State Claim Against Michael Mader For Malicious Prosecution 132. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 133. By signing a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendant Michael Mader commenced a criminal proceeding against her The criminal proceeding was dismissed by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in favor of Loretta There was no probable cause for the criminal complaint against Loretta In signing a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendant Michael Mader acted intentionally and with malice. 20
21 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Michael Mader's conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT XVI State Law Claim Against Michael Mader For Conspiracy 138. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 139. As described more full above and throughout this Complaint, there was an agreement between the individual Chicago police officers, other known and unknown coconspirators, and Defendant Michael Mader, to participate in an unlawful act, or to act in an unlawful manner toward Loretta, including by conspiring to falsely detain and assault Loretta, falsely arrest her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon her The Defendants committed one or more overt acts to further their common scheme of participating in an unlawful manner toward Loretta The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendants within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that the Defendant's employer is liable for his actions As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conspiracy, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. Count XVII Claim Against Marriott Downtown Hotel For Respondeat Superior 143. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 21
22 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: Defendant Michael Mader was, at all times, a security officer employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel exerted control over the actions of Defendant Michael Mader At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee of Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel Defendant Michael Mader's act of going to the hospitality suite on the night in question, of letting the Chicago Police Department officers into the hospitality suite and of signing a criminal complaint against a guest was the kind of conduct authorized by Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel of its security officers As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Michael Mader's conduct and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel's conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Loretta Murphy respectfully requests that the Court grant her the following: 1. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers individually and in their official capacity, and Defendant City of Chicago, jointly and severally, an award of compensatory damages; 2. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers individually for punitive damages; 22
23 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23 3. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers, individually and in their official capacity, and Defendant City of Chicago, jointly and severally, an award of the costs that Plaintiff Loretta Murphy has incurred in bringing this action; 4. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers, individually and in their official capacity, and Defendant City of Chicago, jointly and severally, an award of reasonable attorney's fees in connection with bringing this action; 5. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of compensatory damages; 6. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of punitive damages; 7. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of the costs that Plaintiff Loretta Murphy has incurred in bringing this action; 8. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of reasonable attorney's fees in connection with bringing this action; and 9. Any such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 23
24 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24 Jury Demand Plaintiff Loretta Murphy demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury. PLAINTIFF LORETTA MURPHY By: /s/ Richard A. Duffin One of Her Attorneys Richard A. Duffin Duffin & Dore, LLC 206 S. Jefferson Suite 100 Chicago, IL (312) May 25,
25 Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 2 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25
Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/02/10 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:10-cv-05593 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/02/10 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION KURT KOPEK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:15-cv-01061 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KEVIN TAPIA and FELIPE HERNANDEZ, ) No. ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:17-cv-07566 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION JOSEPH BASKINS Plaintiff, V. PATRICK
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN LEO HARDY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. ) CITY OF MILWAUKEE, EDWARD FLYNN ) OFFICER MICHAEL GASSER, ) OFFICER KEITH GARLAND, JR. ) and unknown
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/04/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
Case: 1:15-cv-01920 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/04/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ESTATE OF ROSHAD MCINTOSH, ) Deceased, by Cynthia
More informationCase 2:06-cv FSH-PS Document 20 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-05977-FSH-PS Document 20 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY -------------------------------------------------------X SALEEM LIGHTY, -against- Plaintiff,
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 15 Filed: 01/27/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:29
Case: 1:13-cv-04152 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/27/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KEVIN CZAJA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More information2:16-cv HAB # 1 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
2:16-cv-02046-HAB # 1 Page 1 of 9 E-FILED Friday, 19 February, 2016 02:32:45 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
More information3:14-cv SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
3:14-cv-03087-SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 10 E-FILED Wednesday, 26 March, 2014 02:37:15 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD
More information)(
Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------)( LUMUMBA BANDELE, DJIBRIL
More information2:15-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS COMPLAINT
2:15-cv-02055-CSB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 11 E-FILED Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 04:31:13 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KYLE O BRIEN,
More informationto redress his civil and legal rights, and alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Anthony Truchan, is a resident of Nutley, New Jersey.
MICHAEL D. SUAREZ ID# 011921976 SUAREZ & SUAREZ 2016 Kennedy Boulevard Jersey City, New Jersey 07305 (201) 433-0778 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Anthony Truchan Plaintiff, ANTHONY TRUCHAN vs. SUPERIOR COURT
More informationCase 2:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17
Case 2:17-cv-14382-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: KELLY DOE, vs. Plaintiff, EVAN CRAMER,
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1
Case: 1:17-cv-03627 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DISTRICT JOHN ADAM JONES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) 17
More informationCase 2:10-cv HGB-ALC Document 1 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JANET DELUCA CIVIL ACTION
Case 2:10-cv-01141-HGB-ALC Document 1 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JANET DELUCA CIVIL ACTION VERSUS CITY OF COVINGTON, RICHARD PALMISANO, JACK WEST,
More informationPRELIMINARY STATEMENT. Brooklyn in which he was serving out the last months of his prison sentence to a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------X Daniel McGowan : : Plaintiff, : : COMPLAINT AND -v- : DEMAND FOR A : JURY TRIAL United States
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON. Case No.:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON DREW WILLIAMS, JASON PRICE, COURTNEY SHANNON vs. Plaintiffs, CITY OF CHARLESTON, JAY GOLDMAN, in his individual
More informationCase 1:12-cv S-LDA Document 1 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT
Case 1:12-cv-00574-S-LDA Document 1 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND GENERAL JONES, Plaintiff vs. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, by and through
More informationPlaintiffs, by their attorney, NORA CONSTANCE MARINO, ESQ. complaining of the defendants herein, respectfully show this Court, and allege
NEW YORK STATE COURT OF CLAIMS --------------------------------------------------------------X JANET E. ENOCH, STEVE O. HINDI, and MICHAEL KOBLISKA, Claimants, -against- THE STATE OF NEW YORK, T. D AMATO,
More informationSummons SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WAYNE X
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WAYNE --------------------------------------------------------------------X JANET E. ENOCH, STEVE O. HINDI, AND MICHAEL KOBLISKA, - against Plaintiff(s),
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION TAD JOHNSON and CHARLENE JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, vs. Case
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendants. : : June 26, 2018 COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : JOSUE MATTA : : Plaintiff : : v. : : : Christopher Dadio; Luther Cuffee; John Slaven; : And Victor Colon, in their individual capacities : : : Defendants.
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-08107 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION LAFAYETTE THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationCase 3:08-cv DAK Document 31 Filed 02/25/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 308-cv-01868-DAK Document 31 Filed 02/25/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DARLA JENNINGS, as guardian of the estate of S.W., a minor DARLA
More informationCase 3:17-cv DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13
Case 3:17-cv-00071-DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION [Filed Electronically] JACOB HEALEY and LARRY LOUIS
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
Case: 1:15-cv-06876 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION MERYL SQUIRES CANNON, ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5
Case:0-cv-00-WHA Document Filed0//0 Page of Wayne Johnson, SBN: Law Offices of Wayne Johnson P.O. Box 0 Oakland, CA 0 (0) - Attorney for Plaintiffs 0 LYNART COLLINS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
GREGORY SMITH Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JEANETTE MYRICK, in her individual capacity, 1901
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case 1:15-cv-01336-PLM-PJG ECF No. 1 filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NATALIE THOMPSON, as next friend for D.B., a minor, Plaintiff, Case No.
More information2:15-cv PDB-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:15-cv-10547-PDB-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 Timothy Davis and Hatema Davis, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN
More informationCase 2:18-cv PMW Document 2 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:18-cv-00445-PMW Document 2 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 21 MARK L. SHURTLEFF (USB 4666) SHURTLEFF LAW FIRM, PC P.O. Box 900873 Sandy, Utah 84090 (801) 441-9625 mark@shurtlefflawfirm.com Attorney for
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION DONNY MCGEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO POLICE ) DETECTIVE FARLEY, CHICAGO POLICE ) DETECTIVE LENIHAN,
More informationCase 2:14-cv GAM Document 1 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 214-cv-05454-GAM Document 1 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KIA GAYMON, MICHAEL GAYMON and SANSHURAY PURNELL, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed// Page of RACHEL LEDERMAN (SBN 0) Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach Attorneys at Law Capp Street San Francisco, CA Telephone:..00; Fax:..0 Email: rachel@beachledermanlaw.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00156-RC Document 1 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JOHN TOPPINGS and STEPHANIE TOPPINGS, PLAINTIFFS,
More informationCase 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/12/17 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:17-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DEVON ARMSTRONG vs. CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationCase 1:13-cv MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiff, Defendants. REYES, M.J PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 tv 13-0076 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------- Y ANAHIT PAPILLA x r COMPLAINT AND JURY
More informationCase: 1:17-cv JG Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/13/17 1 of 13. PageID #: 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:17-cv-01926-JG Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/13/17 1 of 13. PageID #: 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DASHONE DUNLAP, SAYEQUEE HALE, MARCUS JACKSON M.D., through
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case 1:09-cv-00155-JRH-WLB Document 1 Filed 12/09/09 Page 1 of 22 DUSTIN MYERS and RODNEY MYERS. Plaintiffs, VS. MURRY BOWMAN, Individually, and as the Chief Magistrate of Jefferson County, Georgia; WILEY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION JUDGE:
Case 3:09-cv-01264-RGJ-KLH Document 1 Filed 07/29/09 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION RENEE STRINGER Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO: JUDGE: WESLEY
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: 451193/2015 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X Date Purchased: July 17, 2013 FEROZ ALAM, Plaintiff
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:12-cv-00738-MJD-AJB Document 3 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Melissa Hill, v. Plaintiff, Civil File No. 12-CV-738 MJD/AJB AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v.
JANE DOE, Individual And As Next Friend Of LISA DOE, AND LISA DOE, Individual, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v.
More informationCase 5:17-cv Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION
Case 5:17-cv-00007 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION MARCEL C. NOTZON, III, Individually vs. CAUSE NO. CITY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ROBERT WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JAMES O BRIEN, GERALD CARROLL, ) JOHN HALLORAN, EDWARD TRIGGS, ) CHICAGO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Paul Scott Seeman, Civil File No. Plaintiff, v. Officer Joshua Alexander, Officer B. Johns, Officer Michael Thul, Officers John Does 1-10, and City of
More informationCase 1:12-cv WGY Document 6 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRCT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-40120-WGY Document 6 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRCT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ROBERTO CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS - LAW DIVISION. v. No.: COMPLAINT AT LAW
3526.000 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DUPAGE ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS - LAW DIVISION Douglas Walgren, Individually and as Independent Administrator
More informationCase 1:11-cv JBS-AMD Document 37 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 223 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 111-cv-02300-JBS-AMD Document 37 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID 223 MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES BY Mark B. Frost BY Ryan M. Lockman Pier 5 at Penn s Landing 7 N. Columbus Blvd. Philadelphia, PA
More informationCase 1:06-cv VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:06-cv-05206-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------X KENNETH
More informationCase 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 3:18-cv-01452 Document 1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 NATHANIEL DEVERS; CORY SHIMENSKY; and, STEPHEN SHIMENSKY, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
More informationPlaintiff Edgar Castro for his Complaint against Defendants hereby alleges as
David W. Dow (#00) Ddowlaw1@gmail.com Jennifer L. Levine (#001) jlevine@ddowlaw.com DOW LAW OFFICE E. Camelback #1 Phoenix, Arizona 0 Office: 0..0 Direct: 0-0-1 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. New York Eastern District Court Case No. 1:11-cv Jordan et al v. The City of New York et al.
PlainSite Legal Document New York Eastern District Court Case No. 1:11-cv-02637 Jordan et al v. The City of New York et al Document 19 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer Corporation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:10-cv-02411-JDW-EAJ Document 1 Filed 10/27/10 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION BELINDA BROADERS, AS PARENT, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FOR AND
More information2:13-cv BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 06/24/13 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1
2:13-cv-12772-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 06/24/13 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL DWAYNE THOMAS Vs Plaintiff, Judge Magistrate Case No:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA THIRD DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA THIRD DIVISION SARAH COFFEY, KRIS HERMES, and ) COMPLAINT ERIN STALNAKER, ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY Plaintiffs, ) TRIAL v. ) ) DAVID LANGFELLOW, in his individual
More informationCase 4:08-cv SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BRETT DARROW, Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. Cause No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01964-WYD-CBS STEVEN HOWARDS, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO VIRGIL D. GUS REICHLE, JR., in his individual and official capacity,
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
Case: 1:14-cv-06959 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RICKY WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : PATRICIA WALLACE and COURTNEY : DOPP, : : COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civil Action Number : THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, : MICHAEL AMATO,
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case 1:09-cv-08081 Document 1 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION THADDEUS JIMENEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO,
More informationCase 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/24/17 Page 1 of 23
Case 4:17-cv-01268 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/24/17 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION KHALIL EL-AMIN, Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:12cv26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION MARILYN FIELDS STEPHEN FIELDS Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:12cv26 RICKY KING, CITY OF CENTER DETECTIVE JUDGE: STEPHEN
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/11/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
Case: 1:17-cv-01931 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/11/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KATHLEEN GRIFFIN ) ) Plaintiff, ) No.: 17 C
More informationCASE 0:12-cv PJS-TNL Document 15 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:12-cv-00824-PJS-TNL Document 15 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil File No.:12-CV-824 (PJS/TNL) WILLIAM DEMONE WALKER ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) AMENDED
More information4:15-cv SLD-JEH # 1 Page 1 of 8 COMPLAINT. 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and
4:15-cv-04028-SLD-JEH # 1 Page 1 of 8 E-FILED Friday, 13 March, 2015 05:01:04 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/26/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-09244 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/26/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ALMA BENITEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. ) vs. ) Judge
More informationCourthouse News Service
0 0 A. James Clark, #000 CLARK & ASSOCIATES S. Second Avenue, Ste. E Yuma, AZ Telephone ( - Attorneys for Plaintiff KYLE HAWKEY, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff,
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:15-cv-00720 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION MALIA KIM BENDIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. )
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 1) Americans for Safe Access Webster St., Suite 0 Oakland, CA Telephone: () - Fax: () 1-0 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
Case 1:10-cv-03827-NLH -KMW Document 1 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 19 PageD: 1 Edward Barocas, Esq. (EB8251) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION P.O. Box 32159 Newark, New Jersey 07102
More informationCase 3:14-cv BR Document 1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:14-cv-01601-BR Document 1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 7 PAMELA S. HEDIGER, OSB #913099 pam@eechlaw.com LAURIE J. HART, OSB #052766 laurie@eechlaw.com PO Box 781-0781 Telephone: 541.754.0303 Fax: 541.754.1455
More informationCourthouse News Service
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE, -against- Plaintiff, COUNTY OF ULSTER, ULSTER COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT,
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case 1:09-cv-05471 Document 1 Filed 09/03/2009 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION ALTON LOGAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 09 cv 5471 v. )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (SBN 0) dalekgalipo@yahoo.com 00 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 0 Woodland Hills, California Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 1:07-cv-00158-RBK-JS Document 14 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 10 Joseph C. Grassi, Esquire BARRY, CORRADO, GRASSI & GIBSON, P.C. 2700 PACIFIC AVENUE WILDWOOD, NEW JERSEY 08260 (609) 729-1333 (phone)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:16-cv-00349-HE Document 1 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 1. ADAIRA GARDNER, individually, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationCase 1:13-cv JTN Doc #16 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 22 Page ID#81
Case 1:13-cv-01351-JTN Doc #16 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 22 Page ID#81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHANN DEFFERT, v. Plaintiff, OFFICER WILLIAM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION KIRK CHRZANOWSKI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 12 CV 50020 ) LOUIS A. BIANCHI, individually and in ) Judge: his
More informationCase 9:15-cv DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2015 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:15-cv-80521-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2015 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JEAN PAVLOV, individually and as Personal Representative
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 189934) Americans for Safe Access P.O. Box 427112 San Francisco, CA 94142 Telephone: (415) 573-7842
More informationCase 1:06-cv JJF Document 5 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:06-cv-00366-JJF Document 5 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ALICE WALKER, individually CIVIL ACTION and as guardian, of her husband,
More informationU NITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT tor the
Case 1:12-cv-00992-RWS Document 1 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 7 J\0 440 (Rev. 12/09 Summons in a Civil Action Chelsea Elliot and Jeanne Mansfield P/ainriff v. The City of New York, New York Police Department,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :0-cv-000-DGC Document Filed 0//0 Page of Steven E. Harrison, Esq. (No. 00) N. Patrick Hall, Esq. (No. 0) WALLIN HARRISON PLC South Higley Road, Suite 0 Gilbert, Arizona Telephone: (0) 0-0 Facsimile:
More informationPlaintiff, Joseph DiNoto, by and through his attorney, avers the following against the PARTIES
LIEBLING MALAMUT, LLC Adam S. Malamut - Attorney ID No.: 019101999 Keith J. Gentes - Attorney ID No.: 036612009 1939 Route 70 East, Suite 220 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 856.424.1808 856.424.2032 (1) WWW.1,1\41awN.I.com
More informationCase 4:08-cv CW Document 19 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-00-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq./ State Bar # BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq./State Bar # LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS Airport Corporate Centre Oakport Street, Suite 0 Oakland,
More informationCase: 4:17-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 07/19/17 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case: 4:17-cv-02017 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 07/19/17 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI KAREN POWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No.: 4:17-CV-2017
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JONATHAN DANIEL, v. Plaintiff, THE CITY OF PEORIA, JIM ARDIS, Mayor of Peoria, in his individual capacity; PATRICK URICH, City Manager
More information.JAh : Plaintiff Salah Williams, residir,g at 129 Chancellor Avenue in the City of Newark,
.. RANDY P. DAVENPORT, ESQ. Attorney-At-Law 50 Park Place, Suite 825 Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 623-5551 * Fax (973) 623-6868 Attorney for Plaintiff, Salah Williams rndavennortaaacom SALAH WILLIAMS,
More informationCase: 3:12-cv JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 1 of 7. PageID #: 1
Case: 3:12-cv-02380-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 1 of 7. PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ALFONSO VASQUEZ-PALAFOX, ) ) No. Plaintiff, )
More information2:15-cv MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 04/01/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:15-cv-11252-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 04/01/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ERICA MOORE as ) Personal Representative of the ) Estate of
More informationthe Sheriff, Contra Costa County and DOES 1-20 seized his medical marijuana and destroyed it
0 0 the Sheriff, Contra Costa County and DOES -0 seized his medical marijuana and destroyed it without notice or a hearing, as Michael Lee first learned at the hearing on his motion for the return of his
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Plaintiff, Number:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Nicholas Conners, in his capacity as father and natural tutor of Nilijah Conners, Civil Action Plaintiff, Number: versus Section: James Pohlmann,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND JURISDICTION
2:09-cv-10052-AC-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/09 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1 AMY McPHEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. - THE CITY OF DETROIT, A Municipal
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION GREGORY V. TUCKER, ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGE v. ) ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE CITY OF SHREVEPORT,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION GREGORY C. LOVE 5165 Joseph Street Maple Heights, OH 44137 and DUNJA BIGGINS 5059 Erwin Street Maple Heights, OH 44137 and BRANDON
More informationCOMPLAINT NATURE OF THE ACTION PARTIES
Case 6:17-cv-06004-MWP Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DUDLEY T. SCOTT, Plaintiff, -vs- CITY OF ROCHESTER, MICHAEL L. CIMINELLI,
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-04546 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSEPH J. SMITH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS, And JOHN K. PATTERSON, COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00056 ERIK H. MICHALSEN, MICHAEL A. POWELL, [Trial
More information1:15-cv JBM-JEH # 1 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT
1:15-cv-01100-JBM-JEH # 1 Page 1 of 15 E-FILED Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 04:11:35 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHRISTOPHER
More information