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 No. 18-cv-5946 CITY OF YORKVILLE, SGT. KLINGEL, and OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON, Defendants. COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TAD JOHNSON and CHARLENE JOHNSON, by and through their attorney, Blake Horwitz, of The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd., and pursuant to this Complaint at Law against the above named Defendants, CITY OF YORKVILLE, SGT. KLINGEL, and OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON, state as follows: I. JURISDICTION 1. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a); the Constitution of the United States; and this Court s supplementary jurisdiction powers. II. PARTIES 2. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON is a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States. 3. PLAINTIFF CHARLENE JOHNSON is a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States. 1
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2 4. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL was at all times material and relevant hereto employed by and acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE. 5. DEFENDANT OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON was at all times material and relevant hereto employed by and acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE. 6. DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE is a duly incorporated municipal corporation. At all times material to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS, SGT. KLINGEL, and OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON, (collectively hereinafter DEFENDANT OFFICERS ) were acting under color of state law, ordinance and/or regulation, statutes, custom and usages of DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE. III. FACTS 7. The PLAINTIFFS are residents of the City of Yorkville, Illinois. 8. On September 14, 2017, PLAINTIFFS were at their residence on the 2500 block of Overlook Court. 9. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS were summoned to the PLAINTIFFS residence pursuant to a call by a neighbor. 10. The neighbor had reported that PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON was littering. 11. When the DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrived, the PLAINTIFFS were outside their residence. 12. At no time were the DEFENDANT OFFICERS invited into the PLAINTIFFS residence. 2
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3 13. DEFENDANT JOHNSON then watched PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON through a window of the residence. 14. Prior to watching PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON through the window, DEFENDANT JOHNSON was advised by PLAINTIFF CHARLENE JOHNSON that TAD JOHNSON was suffering from a significant emotional condition. 15. After hearing that TAD JOHNSON was suffering from a significant emotional condition, and after DEFENDANT JOHNSON noticed that TAD JOHNSON was exhibiting behavior consistent with an emotional problem of some sort, DEFENDANT JOHNSON yelled at TAD JOHNSON the following: Come on out and make me move... you still live with mom... bring it! and Please, finish yourself off. to TAD JOHNSON. 16. Ultimately, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS entered PLAINTIFFS abode and the DEFENDANT OFFICER(S) handcuffed TAD JOHNSON. 17. Prior to entering the residence, there was no probable cause to enter the home, and the DEFENDANT OFFICERS entered the residence absent a warrant. 18. As he previously said he would, DEFENDANT JOHNSON tased TAD JOHNSON. 19. There was no reason to tase TAD JOHNSON as TAD JOHNSON did not present a threat to any of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS. 20. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL did not intervene in stopping the use of a taser on TAD JOHNSON even though he had a reasonable opportunity to do so. 3
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4 21. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL was in the proximity to prevent the tasing of TAD JOHNSON. 22. Prior to tasing TAD JOHNSON, DEFENDANT JOHNSON advised DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL that he would in fact tase TAD JOHNSON. 23. Prior to entering PLAINTIFFS residence, DEFENDANT JOHNSON stated to DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL that TAD JOHNSON is getting tased immediately, just FYI. 24. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested TAD JOHNSON. 25. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested CHARLENE JOHNSON. 26. There was no probable cause to arrest TAD JOHNSON 27. There was no probable cause to arrest CHARLENE JOHNSON. 28. As a result of the actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, TAD JOHNSON was injured, including, inter alia, physical injuries, emotional injuries, loss of freedom, loss of liberty, and other injuries. 29. As a result of the actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHARLENE JOHNSON was injured, including, inter alia, emotional injuries, loss of freedom, loss of liberty, and other injuries. 30. In response to the dash cam video and audio of the incident, the Yorkville Chief of Police, Rich Hart, stated: I can state that this behavior that is on the video is completely unacceptable; it does not meet with the mission or the value of the Yorkville Police Department. 31. DEFENDANT JOHNSON was suspended from the Yorkville Police Department for his actions as alleged above. 4
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5 32. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL was terminated from the Yorkville Police Department for his actions as alleged above. COUNT I 1983 Excessive Force (DEFENDANT OFFICERS) 33. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 34. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS violated TAD JOHNSON S clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force. 35. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conduct, as alleged above, violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 36. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS aforementioned actions were the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations set forth above, and TAD JOHNSON suffered damages. WHEREFORE, TAD JOHNSON demands judgment against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II 1983 False Arrest (DEFENDANT OFFICERS) 37. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 38. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested the PLAINTIFFS. 39. No probable cause existed to arrest the PLAINTIFFS. 40. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS violated the PLAINTIFFS clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. 5
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6 41. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conduct as alleged above, violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 42. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations set forth above, and the PLAINTIFFS suffered damages. WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFFS respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT III State Law False Arrest (DEFENDANT OFFICERS) 43. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 44. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested the PLAINTIFFS without probable cause to believe that the PLAINTIFFS committed a crime. law. 45. The conduct of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS was in violation of Illinois 46. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the direct and proximate cause of the arrest of the PLAINTIFFS, and caused the PLAINTIFFS to suffer damages. WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFFS respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 6
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7 COUNT IV 1983 Failure to Intervene (DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL) 47. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 48. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL failed to intervene when DEFENDANT JOHNSON was using unreasonable force against TAD JOHNSON, as alleged above. 49. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL knew that DEFENDANT JOHNSON was about to use unreasonable force against TAD JOHNSON and had an opportunity to prevent the harm to TAD JOHNSON from occurring but failed to do so. 50. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL S failure to intervene by stopping DEFENDANT JOHNSON S use of excessive force on TAD JOHNSON was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 51. The aforementioned actions of DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL were the direct and proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above, and TAD JOHNSON S injuries. WHEREFORE, TAD JOHNSON demands compensatory damages from DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL. TAD JOHNSON also demands punitive damages against DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL and whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT V Malicious Prosecution State Law Claim (DEFENDANT OFFICERS) 52. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 7
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8 53. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS commenced and/or continued criminal proceedings against TAD JOHNSON absent probable cause. 54. Upon information and belief, inter alia, TAD JOHNSON was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. 55. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of Illinois law set forth above, and TAD JOHNSON suffered damages. WHEREFORE, TAD JOHNSON respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in favor of TAD JOHNSON and against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, individually, and award compensatory damages, court costs, and such other relief that this court deems just and equitable. COUNT VI Malicious Prosecution State Law Claim (DEFENDANT OFFICERS) 56. PLAINTIFF CHARLENE JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 57. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS commenced and/or continued criminal proceedings against CHARLENE JOHNSON absent probable cause. 58. Upon information and belief, inter alia, CHARLENE JOHNSON was charged with resisting arrest. 59. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of Illinois law set forth above, and CHARLENE JOHNSON suffered damages. 8
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9 WHEREFORE, CHARLENE JOHNSON respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in favor of CHARLENE JOHNSON and against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, individually, and award compensatory damages, court costs, and such other relief that this court deems just and equitable. COUNT VII Indemnification Claim pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102 (DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE) 60. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 61. DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE is the employer of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS alleged above. 62. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS, as alleged above, committed the acts under color of law and in scope of employment of the DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE. WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANT OFFICERS be found liable for any of the alleged counts in this case, the PLAINTIFFS demand that, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, the DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE pay the PLAINTIFFS any judgment obtained against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS as a result of this Complaint. COUNT VII Respondeat Superior Claim (DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE) 63. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above. 9
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10 64. DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE is the employer of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS alleged above. 65. The aforesaid acts of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were committed within the scope of their employment, and, therefore, DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE, as principal, is liable for the actions of its agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior. WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, in their individual capacity, be found liable for any of the alleged state law counts in this cause, the PLAINTIFFS demand that, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE pay any judgment obtained against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS. JURY DEMAND The PLAINTIFFS demand trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, s/ Blake Horwitz Attorney for the Plaintiffs Blake W. Horwitz, Esq, The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd. 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1611 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 676-2100 Fax: (312) 445-8741 10