Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 1 of 9
NOLAN,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01−cv−04486

Rodriguez v. Highland Pk, Cty of, et al Assigned to: Honorable Amy J. St. Eve Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Lorenzo Rodriguez

Date Filed: 06/14/2001 Date Terminated: 04/16/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Keevan David Morgan Morgan & Bley, Ltd. 900 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 4 East Chicago, IL 60607−4111 (312) 243−0006 Email: kmorgan@morganandbleylimited.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Lawrence Berk Faegre & Benson LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402−3901 (312) 759−2838

V. Defendant City of Highland Park

represented by Mark A. Stang Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. 30 S. Wacker Drive Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 855−5445 Email: mstang@chuhak.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elliot Michael Regenstein Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263−3600 Email: elliot.regenstein@hklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John B. Murphey Rosenthal, Murphey, Coblentz & Janega 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 1624 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 541−1070 Email: jmurphey@rmcj.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Laurence Volin Holland & Knight LLC

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 2 of 9

131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263−3600

Steven M. Elrod Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263−3600 Email: steven.elrod@hklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Daniel Pierce

represented by Mark A. Stang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elliot Michael Regenstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Laurence Volin (See above for address)

Naomi Felicia Katz Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263−3600 Email: naomi.katz@hklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M. Elrod (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant David Limardi

represented by Mark A. Stang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elliot Michael Regenstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Laurence Volin (See above for address)

Steven M. Elrod (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Daniel J Dahlberg

represented by Mark A. Stang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 3 of 9

Elliot Michael Regenstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Laurence Volin (See above for address)

Naomi Felicia Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M. Elrod (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jerry Cameron

represented by Jack J. Carriglio Cozen O'Connor 123 N. Wacker Drive Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 474−4477 Email: jcarriglio@cozen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elliot Michael Regenstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Gregory Argionis Cozen O'Connor 123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 474−7900 Email: jargionis@cozen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/14/2001 06/14/2001 07/31/2001 07/31/2001 08/10/2001
08/20/2001

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Keevan David Morgan as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( no summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: (1−1 through 1−3)). (yp) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 6/14/01 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 10310343. (yp) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Daniel Pierce, Daniel J Dahlberg by Mark Allen Stang, Naomi Felicia Katz. (yp) Modified on 08/01/2001 (Entered: 08/01/2001)
4 RULE 6(b)MOTION by defendants Daniel Pierce and Daniel J Dahlberg for enlargement of time in which they must answer or otherwise plead to the complaint ; Notice (yap) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted as to defendants David Limardi, City of Highland Park, executed as to Daniel Pierce, Daniel J Dahlberg on 7/11/01, defendants Jerry Cameron, City of Highland Park on 7/12/01 (3−1 through 3−6). (yp) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
5 MINUTE ORDER of 8/20/01 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing set to 9/27/01 at 9:15 a.m. Defendant Pierce's and Dahlberg's Rule 6(b) motion for enlargement of time until 9/27/01 to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint [4−1] is granted. Mailed notice (yap) (Entered: 08/23/2001)

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 4 of 9

09/26/2001 09/27/2001 10/15/2001 10/23/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001
11/15/2001 11/15/2001 11/19/2001 11/21/2001 11/26/2001
11/26/2001
11/28/2001 11/30/2001 12/03/2001 12/03/2001 12/04/2001
01/02/2002

6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Jerry Cameron by Jack J. Carriglio (yp) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
7 MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/01 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held and continued to 10/15/01 at 9:15 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel is to appear at status hearing set for 10/15/01 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 10/15/01 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held and continued to 9:15 10/30/01 . Mailed notice (jdh) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
ALIAS SUMMONS issued, one original and one copy as to defendant Highland Pk, Cty of. (lc) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendants David Limardi on 9/5/01, City of Highland Park on 7/12/01, Daniel Pierce on 7/11/01, Jerry Cameron on 7/12/01, City of Highland Park 10/24/01 (8−1 through 8−5). (yp) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
9 MOTION by plaintiff for finding of proper service , and/or for extension of time to effectuate service (Attachments); Notice. (yp) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
10 MINUTE ORDER of 10/25/01 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held and continued to 12/4/01 at 9:15 a.m. Defendants given until 11/21/01 to respond to the complaint. Plaintiff's motion for finding of proper service [9−1] and/or for extension of time to effectuate service [9−2] is stricken as moot. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
11 NOTICE of change of address by Jack J. Carriglio attorney for defendant Jerry Cameron. (yp) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
NOTICE of change of address by Jack J. Carriglio attorney for defendant Jerry Cameron (Original in 97cv5131). (yp) Modified on 11/20/2001 (Entered: 11/20/2001)
12 MOTION by defendant Jerry Cameron to enlarge time to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
18 MOTION by defendants City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg to dismiss the complaint ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
13 MINUTE ORDER of 11/26/01 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Defendant Jerry Cameron's motion to enlarge time until 12/3/01 to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint is granted [12−1]. Status hearing date of 12/4/01 at 9:15 a.m. to stand. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
14 MEMORANDUM by defendants Highland Pk, Cty of, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg in support of Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss of City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, and Daniel J. Dahlberg. (yp) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
15 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Highland Pk, Cty of, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg by Mark Allen Stang, Michael Laurence Volin, Steven M. Elrod. (yp) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
19 MOTION by plaintiff to compel Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(F) discovery conference ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
16 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Jerry Cameron by James Gregory Argionis. (yp) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
17 MOTION by defendant Jerry Cameron to dismiss complaint ; Memorandum in support; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
20 MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/01 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Plaintiff's motion to compel Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f) conference by 12/26/01 is granted [19−1]. Defendants motions to dismiss the complaint [18−1], [17−1] are taken under advisement. Plaintiff to respond by 1/02/02. Defendants to reply by 1/16/02. Ruling by mail. Status hearing held and continued to 2/19/02 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
21 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to Highland Park's motion to dismiss [18−1]; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 01/03/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 5 of 9

01/02/2002 01/16/2002 01/16/2002 01/23/2002
02/06/2002 02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/08/2002 02/12/2002
02/19/2002 02/20/2002 03/07/2002 03/13/2002 03/18/2002 03/19/2002 03/20/2002 03/21/2002
04/15/2002 04/15/2002

22 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to motion to dismiss [17−1]; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 01/03/2002)
23 REPLY BRIEF by defendant Jerry Cameron in support of his Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss [17−1]; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
24 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss [18−1] of City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, and Daniel J. Dahlberg. (yp) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
25 MINUTE ORDER of 1/23/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : The defendants' motion to dismiss complaint [17−1], [18−1] are denied, except that to the extent plaintiff alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, any such claim is dismissed with prejudice. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
26 ANSWER by defendants [1−1]. (yp) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
27 MOTION by defendant Jerry Cameron to reconsider this court's 1/23/02 order , or alternatively to certify for appeal ; Memorandum of law in support (Attachment); NOtice. (yp) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
28 MOTION by defendant Jerry Cameron to extend time for his answer to plaintiff's complaint . (yp) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
29 JOINDER IN CO−DEFENDANT CAMERON'S MOTION by defendant City of Highland Pk to reconsider, and motion for conditional withdrawal of official defendants' answer (Attachments); Notice. (yp) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
30 MINUTE ORDER of 2/12/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Defendant's motion to reconsider this court's 1/23/02 order [27−1] or alternatively, to certify for appeal [27−2] is denied for the reasons stated in open court. Official defendants' joinder in co−defendant Cameron's motion to reconsider, and motion for conditional withdrawal of official defendants' answer is moot [29−1]. Defendant Jerry Cameron's motion to extend time until 2/19/02 for his answer to plaintiff's complaint [28−1]. Status hearing is reset to 3/7/02 at 9:15 a.m. to set the discovery schedule. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
31 ANSWER by defendant Jerry Cameron to plaintiff's complaint for violations of Civil Rights and other relief [1−1]; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
32 AMENDED ANSWER by defendant's Highland Pk, Cty of, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg to complaint. [1−1] (hmb) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 3/7/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held and continued to 9:15 5/2/02 . No notice (tbk) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
34 MOTION by plaintiff to strike affirmative defenses ; Memorandum in support; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
35 MOTION by defendants City of Highland Pk, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J. Dahlberg to strike plaintiff's motion to strike ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
33 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to City defendants' motion to strike; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
36 MOTION by defendants City of Highland Pk, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J. Dahlberg to extend time to respond to plaintiff's first requests to admit ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
37 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Defendants' joint motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's first requests to admit is granted [36−1] to and including 3/28/02. Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses is denied [34−1]. Defendants' motion to strike is denied [35−1]. No notice (yp) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
38 MOTION by plaintiff to compel discovery (Attachments); Notice (ar) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
39 MOTION by defendants City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg and Jerry Cameron to stay discovery (Attachment); Notice (ar) Modified on 04/23/2002 (Entered: 04/23/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 6 of 9

04/18/2002
05/01/2002 06/24/2002 07/02/2002 07/15/2002 08/19/2002 08/30/2002 09/13/2002
09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/27/2002 09/27/2002 09/30/2002 10/01/2002
10/04/2002 10/18/2002 10/21/2002 10/21/2002 10/21/2002

40 MINUTE ORDER of 4/18/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is granted [38−1]. Defendants given to 05/02/02 to respond to outstanding discovery. Defendant Jerry Cameron's oral motion to join official defendants' motion to stay is granted. Defendants' motion to stay discovery [39−1] is denied. Maied notice (ar) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 5/1/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing reset to 9:15 5/8/02 . Mailed notice (jdh) (Entered: 05/01/2002)
41 MOTION by plaintiff for rule to show cause (Attachments); Notice. (air) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
42 MINUTE ORDER of 7/2/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler: Plaintiff's motion for rule to show cause [41−1] continued to 9:15 a.m. on 7/15/02. No notice (air) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
43 MINUTE ORDER of 7/15/02 by Hon. William J. Hibbler: Status hearing set for 10/09/02 at 9:15 a.m. Plaintiff's motion for rule to show cause [41−1], is denied as stated in open court. Mailed notice (cdy) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
44 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Peter Lawrence Berk. (yp) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
EXECUTIVE committee order of 8/30/02 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Amy St. Eve from the Hon. William J. Hibbler pursuant to the mass reassignment order. Mailed notice. (las) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
45 MINUTE ORDER of 9/13/02 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Status hearing set for 11:00 a.m. on 10/01/02. Enter Initial Status Order. (Entered Order Setting Status Report for Cases Newly Assigned to Judge St. Eve.) Mailed notice by judge's staff (jmp) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
46 APPENDIX filed by defendant to defendants' motion to dismiss complaint due to plaintiff's fraud on the court. (yp) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
50 MOTION by defendant to dismiss complaint due to plaintiff's fraud on the court ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
47 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants City of Highland Prk, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J. Dahlberg by Elliot Michael Regenstein. (yp) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
48 STATUS REPORT by defendants; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
49 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
51 MINUTE ORDER of 10/1/02 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Defendant's oral motion for leave to file supplement to the motion to dismiss is granted, and the supplement is to be filed by 10/4/02. Plaintiff's response to be file dby 10/18/02 [50−1]. Defendant's reply to be filed by 10/25/02. Oral motion of Thomas Durkin for leave to file additional appearance on behalf of plaintiff is granted. Discovery is stayed until 10/29/02. Status hearing held and continued to 10/29/02 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
52 MEMORANDUM by defendants Highland Pk, Cty of, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg in support of defendants' motion to dismiss complaint due to plaintiff's fraud on the court [50−1] (Attachments). (yp) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
53 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to defendants' motion to dismiss [50−1]; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
54 NOTICE by plaintiff of filing regarding exhibits to the plaintiff's objection to defendants' motion to dismiss [53−1]. (yp) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
55 NOTICE by plaintiff of filing regarding referenced material to the plaintiff's objection to defendants' motion to dismiss [53−1] (Attachments). (yp) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
57 MOTION by defendants Highland Pk, Cty of, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg to strike plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to dismiss ; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 10/25/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 7 of 9

10/23/2002 10/24/2002
10/31/2002 11/07/2002 11/07/2002 11/08/2002 11/14/2002
11/14/2002
11/18/2002 12/12/2002 01/21/2003 01/23/2003 01/23/2003
01/28/2003
01/29/2003

56 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to motion to strike response; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
58 MINUTE ORDER of 10/24/02 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to dismiss is granted [57−1]. Defendant Cameron's oral motion for leave to adopt defendants' motion to dismiss filed on 9/26/02 is granted. Plaintiff to file a response to the motion to dismiss [50−1], within the 15 page limit pursuant to the rules, by 10/31/02. Defendants to reply by 11/7/02. Status hearing set for 10/29/02 is stricken and re−set to 11/14/02 at 9:00 a.m. Discovery is stayed pending ruling on the motion on the motion to dismiss. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
59 AMENDED OBJECTION by plaintiff to defendant's motion to dismiss [53−1]; Affidavit of Keevan D. Morgan (Attachment); Notice. (yp) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
60 REPLY brief by defendant Jerry Cameron in support of defendants' motion to dismiss complaint due to plaintiff's fraud on the court [50−1]; Notice. (jmp) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
61 REPLY memorandum by defendants Highland Pk, Cty of, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J Dahlberg's motion to dismiss complaint due to plaintiff's fraud on the court [50−1] (Attachments). (jmp) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
62 MOTION by plaintiff to file exhibit (Attachments); Notice and certificate of service (rmm) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
63 MINUTE ORDER of 11/14/02 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 1/23/03. Plaintiff's motion to file exhibit is denied as moot [62−1]. Defendant's oral motion for plaintiff to amend the caption on the complaint is granted. Parties are to meet pursuant to Rule 26(f) and exhaust all settlement possibilities prior to the next status hearing. Fact discovery to be completed by 1/24/03. Dispositive motions to be filed 2/21/03. Responses to be filed by 3/14/03. Replies to be filed 3/28/03. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
64 MINUTE ORDER of 11/14/02 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve: Defendants City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi and Daniel J. Dahlberg have moved to dismiss plaintiff Lorenzo Rodriguez's complaint because of his alleged fraud on the Court. Defendant' motion to dismiss complaint due to plaintiff's fraud on the court is denied [50−1]. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
65 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/24/02 before The Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. (lc) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
66 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/14/02 Before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. (vmj) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
68 SECOND STATUS REPORT by plaintiff; Notice (yap) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
67 EXPEDITED REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for settlement conference Mailed notice. (tmh) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
69 MINUTE ORDER of 1/23/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 04/08/03. Plaintiff to disclose experts and submit reports pursuant to Rule 26 by 02/14/03. Plaintiff's expert to be deposed by 03/14/03. Dispositive motions to be filed by 03/28/03 and should be noticed. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Nolan to conduct a settlement conference. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 1/28/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing set to 9:00 a.m. on 2/12/03 before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously filed initial status report is sufficient. For further details see attached standing order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 1/29/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing stricken. Settlement conference set for 1:30 2/12/03. Parties are reminded that Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with her Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference,

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 8 of 9

01/30/2003 02/03/2003
02/05/2003 02/13/2003 02/14/2003
02/24/2003 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 03/11/2003
03/19/2003 03/21/2003 03/26/2003 04/02/2003 04/08/2003 04/09/2003 04/16/2003
04/17/2003
05/07/2003

which is available on the court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
70 MOTION by defendant Highland Pk, Cty of for leave to file additional appearance of John B. Murphey ; Notice. (hmb) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
71 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Defendant City of Highland Park's motion for leave to file additional appearance of John B. Murphey and Rosenthal, Murphey & Coblentz is granted [70−1]. Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 2/5/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference set for 1:30 2/13/03 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
73 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant City of Highland Park of by John B. Murphey (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
72 MINUTE ORDER of 2/14/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held. Parties unable to reach agreement. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Terminating the case referral to Hon. Nan R. Nolan. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
74 NOTICE of change of address by Holland & Knight LLC attorneys for defendants; Notice. (cem) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/10/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing set to 10:15 3/11/03 . Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
75 EXPEDITED REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for settlement conference Mailed notice. (tmh) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
76 MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Telephonic status hearing held. Parties have reached a settlement agreement. Telephonic status continued to 3/19/03 at 10:30 a.m. to confirm the terms of the agreement. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/19/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Telephonic status hearing held and continued to 10:30 3/26/03 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/21/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Status hearing reset from 9:00 4/8/03 to 9:00 4/9/03 . Mailed notice (tmh) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/26/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 1:00 4/2/03 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 4/2/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 1:00 4/8/03 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 4/8/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 4:30 p.m. on 4/10/03. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 4/9/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 4/16/03 . Mailed notice (tmh) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
78 MINUTE ORDER of 4/16/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Status hearing held. Parties have reached a settlement agreement. Plaintiff's oral motion to dismiss this case with leave to reinstate is granted. This case is hereby dismissed, with prejudice with leave to reinstate by or on 5/16/03. This court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. Any pending dates are stricken. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Terminating case. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
77 MINUTE ORDER of 4/17/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : The District Court notified this Court that this case has settled. Status hearing held on 4/10/03. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned Judge. Terminating the case referral to Hon. Nan R. Nolan. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
79 MOTION by plaintiffs to reinstate case ; Notice of motion and certificate of service (eav) (Entered: 05/14/2003)

Case: 1:01-cv-4486 As of: 02/13/2019 06:12 PM CST 9 of 9

05/13/2003 05/13/2003
05/16/2003 05/21/2003 06/12/2003 06/18/2003 06/30/2003 07/03/2003

SCHEDULE set on 5/13/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference set for 10:15 5/16/03 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
80 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Plaintiffs' motion to reinstate case is denied, without prejudice. [79−1] Plaintiff is given leave to reinstate this case by or on 6/17/03 as stated in open court. Parties are directed to meet with Magistrate Judge Nolan after this status, as stated in open court. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 5/16/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held. No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 5/21/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Telephonic status held with attorney John Murphy. Parties are drafting settlement papers and will be finalizing the agreement by 5/23/03. No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
81 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to reinstate to 6/30/03 , or to reinstate case ; Notice. (air) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
82 MINUTE ORDER of 6/18/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve: Plaintiffs' motion to extend time to reinstate [81−1] or reinstate is granted [81−2]. Plaintiff granted leave to reinstate this case by or on 6/30/03. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
83 MOTION by plaintiff to enforce or notice of reinstatement (short) (Attachment); Notice. (cem) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
84 MINUTE ORDER of 7/3/03 by Hon. Amy J. St. Eve : Plaintiff's motion to enforce or notice of reinstatement is granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice [83−1]. The case is not reinstated at this time. Plaintiff granted leave to reinstate the case by or on 8/13/03. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/14/01 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

u DOCKETED .......,~·::.:::··

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOuRitJN l5 2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

OOt

flli:D·E04

EASTERN DIVISION

01 JUil i 4 Piil?.: 27

LORENZO RODRIGUEZ,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

~

)

)

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, DANIEL PIERCE, )

DAVID LIMARDI, DANIEL J. DAHLBERG, )

and JERRY CAMERON,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CLt::i\r\ U.S Di::i1 t\!CT COURT
JUDGE HmBLER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAN

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND OTHER RELIEF

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, LOERNZO RODRIGUEZ, by and through their attorney,

Keevan D. Morgan of Morgan & Bley, Ltd., and complaining of the Defendants, the CITY OF

HIGHLAND PARK, DANIEL PIERCE, DAVID LIMARDI, DANIELJ. DAHLBERG, and JERRY

CAMERON, and bring this action for violations of their civil rights under the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, 42 US.C §§ 1983.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE A This Court has jurisdiction to hear this cause by virtue of (a) 28 US.C § 1331, (b) 28

US. C. § 1343, (c) 28 US. C. § 2201, and (d) 42 US. C. §§ 1983. B. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 US. C. § 1391(b), because one or more of the

Defendants reside in this District, and because a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District

PARTIES The Plaintiff 1. The Plaintiffis a citizen of Mexico who resides in this District

'<\

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/14/01 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
-,
The Defendants 2. All the individual Defendants are citizens ofthe State ofillinois, and reside in this District. 3. Defendant CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK is an Illinois Municipal Corporation. 4. Defendant DANIEL PIERCE is the Mayor of Highland Park. 5. Defendant DAVID LIMARDI is the Highland Park City Manager. 6. Defendant DANIEL J. DAHLBERG ("Dahlberg") is the current Chief of Police of
Highland Park. 7. Defendants JERRY CAMERON is a Highland Park Police Commander. 8. For many years prior to, and including the time of the acts complained ofherein, the City
has had a policy, custom and/or usage with the force of!aw in Highland Park that encouraged, and/or allowed the "racial profiling" of ethnic and racial minorities, including unlawfully stopping and/or arresting said minorities, and/or treating them less favorably than caucasians during and after arrests. For purposes ofthis Complaint, "racial profiling" means the widespread police practice ofusing race as a factor in deciding whom to target for law enforcement; racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a negative signal that causes an officer to react with suspicion; racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, or arrests, or treats someone less favorably on the basis of race or ethnicity. The racial profiling policy was direct, but unwritten, and known as the "NUT Ordinance," meaning, in part, that no ''Niggers" were allowed "Up-Town," for all or some of the period complained of
9. Defendant Dahlberg helped to enforce the ''NUT Ordinance" when he was a Patrol Officer, and continued it in effect, at least among some Patrol Officers, after he became Chief In addition, all of the Defendants allowed to continue, without protest or punishment, the encouragement and
Page2 of 6

Civil Cover Sheet InpuCt Faorsme: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/14/01 Pagfeitt3p:lolwfw5w.uPnao.ugseeoIuDns.#go:W3 POBLICitOimSI'cvwvmllln-

c~iliJTED STATES DISTRICT CObJT

.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DOCKETED

lirnt Q-
U Civil Cover Sheet Input

n Fll.ED·E04
Pf112:

JUN 15 2001

This form has been approved for use by the general public for generating t~s c!J~~~f{W- for filing
new cases in the Northern District of Illinois. Your comments about the ±'6h1i1tno s~ggestions for
improvements are always greatly appreciated.

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in

September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The

information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by

law. This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District of Illinois. (Instructions)

JUDGE HIBBLER

OlC 448,8

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAN

b)-
Name:
Firm: i
Address: 1 Phone:

ofFirst Listed Plaintiff
Cas~;;)
Name:
Firm: Address: Phone:

I

-

---

1IT. Basis of Jurisdiction
~- II1I .(..S3-e.. l-F.e·.·ec.d·t-e-rf·.a·r.·lo·.-Q.m--.u··.ed.s.t.rioo·.·.np·.·-(-Um·.·S·e-.·n·n·u·o·t··ba.e.p.l.oa.r.w.ty..))... ,Ir.:!:.1J

...........·····... .

:ill. Citizenship of Principle Parties (Diversity cases only)
I~t,t.!~!!.!.____. ___..______________ ·El

[~D~~E~F=E~NeD='A~N=T:c=1=;=~~=~=-~=-~=~P=--=~=e=n=:=~-=e~=~w=··)=···=-=---=·=--tG~~=~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~d)/

I of3

'6/14/2001 9:53AM

Civil Cover Sheet InpuCt Faorsme: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/14/01 Pagehtt4p://owfw5w.tPlllda.ugsoeoIuDrts.#go:v4/POBUC/FormS/cvCOVeilitm -
"'·

' V. Nature of Suit (Select one box)

• Contract
0 II 0 Insurance
0 120 Marine
0 130 ~ller Act
0 I40 Negotiable Instrument 0 I 50 Recovery of Overpayment &
': Enforcement of Judgment . 0 151 Medicare Act
0 152 Student Loan -non VA
0153 RecoveryofVABenefrts
0 ! 160 Stockholder Suits
0 190 Other Contract
Q 195 Contract Product Liability
Real Property
0 210 Land Condenmation 0 220 Foreclosure
0 230 Rmt Lease & Ejectment
0 240 Torts to Land
0 245 Tort Product Liability
0 290 Other Real Property
! Bankruptcy
0 422 Appeal28 USC 158
0 423 Withdrawal28 USC !57
! Property Rights
. 0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark

Other Statutes

0 400 State Reapportiorunent

Personal Injury

Personal Injury

0 310 Aitplane

0 362 Med. Malpractice

0 0 3I5 Airplane Product Liability

365 Personal Injury - Product

0 320 Assault, Libel & Slander Liability

0 0 368 Asbestos Pernonal Injury 330 Federal Employers' Liability Product Liability

0 340 Marine

Personal Pronertv

0 345 Marine Product Liability

0 370 Other Fraud

Q 350 Motor Vehicle

0 371 Truth in Lending

0 410 Antitrust
0 430 Banks & Banking
0 450 Commercei!CC Rates/ etc
0 460 Dq>ortation
0 470R.ICO
0 810 Selective Service 0 850 Securities I Conunodities I
Exdl.ange

0 355 Motor Vehicle Product
Liability
0 360 Other Pernonal Injury

0 0 380 Other Pers Property Damage

875 Customer Challenge 12 USC

0 385 Property Damage Product
Liability

3410
0 891 Agricuhural Acts

Civil Rights
0 441 Voting

Prisoner Petitions

0 892 Economic Stabilization Act

0 0 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence

893 Environmental Matters

0 442 Employment
0 443 Housing/Accomodations
0 444 Welfare @ 440 Other Civil Rights
Forfeiture/Penalty

Habeas Corpus,
0 530 Habeas Corpus General
0 535 Habeas Death Penahy
0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 555 Prison Condition
Labor

0 894 Energy Allocation Act

0 895 Freedom of Information Ad. 0 i
900 Appeal ofFee Determination '

Under Equal Access to Justice
0 950 Constitutionality ofState

I

Statute

0 890 Other Statutory Actions

0 610 Agricuhure

0 710 Fair Labor Standards Act Social Security

0 620 Other Food & Drug

0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations

0 861 HIA (1395!1)

0 625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881
0 630 Liquor Laws
0 640 RR & Truck
0 650 Airline Regulations

0 730 Labor/Mgmt. Rq>orting &
Disclosure Act
0 740 Railway Labor Act
0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 791 E.R.I.S.A

0 862 Black LWlg (923)
0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
0 864 SSID Title XVI
0 865 RSI (405(g))

Q 660 Occupational Safety/Health
0 6900ther

Federal Tax Suits
0 870 Taxes US Plaintiff or
Defendant

0 871 IRS Third Party 26 USC 7609

VI Cause of Action (CITE THE u. s. STATUTE UNDER WHICH You ARE FIUNG AND wruTE A BR.IEF STATEMENT oF CAUsE.
8 DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY.)
r-·4·2-U:S:C.w-Secti~98'3----·-··~~----··-·~-"" .,.-."-·--.,.~,-·

~~

I'.B...

...... ·r:·==···=····=···-=--=-·=··"'·,,-::=."=-""-."."--=·····=-~··:=·"'=··=·===·=··g=··j···=···=···=··~'iF."'=::-~~=~~~

vn iI

.

Reques t ed .m

' OctassAction
Under FRCP 23

:,IDeJrumd .......... I .

I JuryDeJrumd (requested in Complaint)

J Complaint

@Not Class Action

@Yes 0No

0 8l '=====:'IU.• r=========~~=========··=···=·····=····=··==~~~~==~~~~

@ is not a reftling of a previously dismissed action.

1

is a refiling ofcase number '

previously dismis.::.sed::::..b:::y:_J:_:u::d::g:=.e..:::

um

--

2of3

6/14/2001 9:53AM

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/14/01 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5

UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DOCflF1fD

JUN ls 200!

In the Matter of Lorenzo Rodriguez, Plaintiff,
vs.

1C Case NumbO

City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J. Dahlberg, & Jerry Cameron.
APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY($) FOR:
Plaintiff.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAN

/
I/~
I ~Kelevan D. Morg~
FIRM Morgan & Bley, Ltd.
ST9R0E0ET AWDDeRsEtSSJackson, Suite 4 East
CITY/STATEJZIP
Chicago, IL 60607

(B)
SIGNATURE
NAME
FIRM STREET ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
1958844

MEMBER OF TAtAL BAR?

YES f:9

TRIAL ATTOANE't?

YES ~

0 NO 0 NO

TELEPHONE NUMBER

IDENTIFICATION NUMBEH (SEE fTEM 4 ON At VERSE)

MEMSER OF TRIAL BAR? TFUAL ATTOANE'n

YES 0
YES O

O NO

C€SlGNA TED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES O

O NO

(C)
SIGNATURE
NAME
FIRM

(!))
SIGNATURE
NAME
FlAM

STREET ADDRESS

STREET ADDRESS

CrTY/ST ATE.!ZIP

CfTY/STATE/ZIP

TELEPHONE NUMBER

TELEPHONE NUMBER

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YESO

0 NO

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES O

NO O

f2, ~~m~~A~LG~ANIAT~OTA~NE~EOY~'?AS~L~~~L~C~O~U~NS~E~L~Y?E-S-~0YE~S~[J=----N-O~N0~O-[J~--~~~~T~R~IAG~LNAAT~TTO~REN~EDY~A1S~L~OC~A~L~C~O~U~NS~EY~EUS~--0~YE~S~[J=--N-O--~0NO~[J=-~~~~~ ~

PLEASE COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE.

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 25 Filed: 01/23/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:66

Minu1e Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern .. .. : ...·-:-•'"'"""'+-·" ---~~--

·~-· 0-·~·0"-··•·-'----------~----- ~---...

' ..... "' '-

,_ ..,, ... .--- -··- '"'·-·-·

D. istric.t.

of

Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER

.·

DATE

January 23, 2002

CASE TITLE

'""'""·· ""' ~ -- n~_f!te following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion. e.g.• plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the

. .

_ . nature.ofthe_moti.on being presented.) ____ . _

,., __.

MOTION: _il..;;;k;_.(:;,ft\iJ.~!tl-JH\;,i-~;.~H-.,\F-iV:-:A~ i ,:·.;--..~ ~~f.j ,-;:,·..;; :- -~··. · ·-~-~ i ' / J. ' '

. Defendant Jerry Cameron's Motion to Dismiss (doc. #17); , Motion to Dismiss of Defendants City of Highland Park, Pierce, Limardi, and Dahlberg (doc. #18)

(I) 0

Filed motion of [ use listing in "Motion" box above.]

<2~~-: .::1\~a::,::~~{1~f1~1~~~9~i:·Rf,~~~~,~';}4H~6_~-I~t~~-·-:·__·;:·:·:

(3) 0

Answer briefto motion due_·__· . Reply to answer brief due___.

,,.... ;r.;J:/~~~-~-lF1Ji·~.mt·~r~w.-ifl~!fhf(?:"'J.i--ih_.:-n.•?~·:~j~;

. --- --- . (4) -.,

··"·'". 0~."""-.··""'~-~.,.,R~--·u-·l.in··g-"/·H·· e-a··rin__g_,.,o- n --.~ set for

.

at

.

(5) · 0

Status hearing [held/continued to] [set for/re·set for] on _ _ set for _ _ at ___.

0:.:.::.. ~o~fe~~nce [held/conti~ued [s~i '--l:'-J-F!;~~~~M~Jon\-:fJ,Q'i:o":"'-~ff";.tiPW""'"'''

(6) · '

:Prettlal

·;;:.~:'!.:;~· ·· ,_,,,.,
to]

for/re-set for] on

set for

at

.

..... - - ···--·--~.•,..-_.,...,.....--~-~,.,,__ ..._.......,, .. -- ,_,..~---~----·-·--<>,. -· . .

" ... ' .

---

--- ---

(7) 0

Trial [set for/re-set for] on

at _ _

~~b~~ltUi-ii;t:I;:.WJ.f-tU-Key;;&WJJ.L'dnr.r 'i':tJI'-JS ..' ;'<!~{t{<,,·~u. ;··:'

(8) .0

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] hel~lcontin11ed to _ _ at _ _.

(9) 'b

·This case is dismissed [withlwitliout] prejudice and without costs [by/agreement/pursuant to] 0 FRCP4(m) 0 General Rule 21 0 FRCP4l(a)(l) 0 FRCP4l(a)(2).

(10) • [Other docket entry] The motions to dismiss (doc. #s 17 & 18) are DENIED, except that to the extent Plaintiffalleges a violation ofhis Eighth Amendment rights, any such claim is dismissed with prejudice.

~;,~.~8~~}!1P,:-;!fH11:~-";{-U·-~-~f-: __ ,_,,.-.
~fT~l:titf;;:~Y] ''-:'."; _·r;_, . _; ;-; /+~--;,: ;.. ::·"
see prder.on the reverse~ide ofthe o_riginal minute order.]

"'''' ,J!-,•.,-r~~·-, ,.. ;
No notices required.
No~~,~~~iled:,by ju_dge'~---~taff.
Notified counsel by telf:phone.
oOCketing· to·ma;r notices::
Copy to jl:ldge/magistrate judge.

HJnO:J lJP:llSIO ·s·n
}1l:J3lJ

courtroom

JHC

deputy's

initials

1----------; --~~~~~-~-~~'~,~ ~~{· 1,--,'·.~-__.l:;::;;;.::::::;:;;,::.;==------l

mailing deputy initials

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 25 Filed: 01/23/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:67

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against the City of Highland Park, Pierce, its Mayor,

Limardi, the City Manager, Dahlberg, the Highland Park Chief of Police (all hereinafter referred to as. the "Official

Defendants"), and Cameron, a Highland Park Police Commander ("Officer Cameron"), asserting violations of his

afleges constitutional rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. Piallltiff, alvlexican citizen,

that while he

was sitting alone in a jail cell at the Highland Park Police Station, Officer Cameron sprayed pepper spray through a

window on the locked cell door directly into Plaintiff's face, causing him extreme pain. Plaintiff contends Officer

Cameron intentionally and unjustifiably assaulted him because he is not Caucasian. Plaintiff claims Officer Cameron

acted pursuant to a municipal policy condoning racial profiling, i.e., the mistreatment of minorities before and after

arrest, and that the Official Defendants not only approved of this policy known as the "NUT ordinance," but also refused

to punish officers accused of wrongdoing. The Official Defendants and Officer Cameron each contend the Complaint

fails to allege a constitutional violation. However, the Court concludes the Complaint is sufficient. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts all well~pleaded allegations in a complaint as true.

Latuszkin v. City of Chicago, 250 F.3d 502,504 (7th Cir. 2001). Although Plaintiff raises a§ 1983 municipal liability

claim, the Complaint "need not meet any heightened pleading standard, but rather must simply set forth sufficient

allegations to place the court and defendants on notice of the gravamen of the complaint." Id. See also Leatherman v.

Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 162, 168 (1993); Sherwin Manor Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. McAuliffe, 37 F.3d

1216, 1219 (7th Cir. 1994). In light of the liberal notice pleading requirement of the Federal Rules, dismissal is

warranted only if there is no set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint upon which relief could be

granted. Latuszkin, 250 F.3d at 504; Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 122 F.3d 417,419 (7th Cir. 1997).

The Official Defendants argue that the Complaint is deficient because Plaintiff does not allege the City of

Highland Park had a policy of using excessive force on minorities. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that his

claims cannot be construed so narrowly. The Complaint identifies an alleged City policy of treating minorities less

favorably after arrest, and claims that Officer Cameron was enforcing that policy when he physically assaulted Plaintiff.

Those allegations, if true, as the Court assumes they are for purposes of this motion, undoubtedly state a Monell claim

against the Official Defendants. See e.g., McCormick v .City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325-26 (7th Cir. 2000). In

their reply to the motion, the Official Defendants weakly suggest that the Complaint does not allege Plaintiff is a member

of a protected group. But the Court finds Plaintiffs general allegation that he is a citizen of Mexico against whom the

NUT Ordinance was enforced is more than sufficient for pleading purposes to suggest that Plaintiff is indeed a minority.

The Official Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Officer Cameron's challenges to the Complaint are equally unavailing. First, Officer Cameron contends Plaintiff

has alleged no facts suggesting he was pepper sprayed because of his national origin. To state an equal protection claim,
Plaintiff must allege that "a state actor purposefully dis.criminated against him because of his identification with a Iffifi[;l';f'

particular (presumably historically disadvantaged) group." Sherwin Manor, 37 F.3d at 1220. The Complaint clearly

sets forth an equal protection violation in that Plaintiff alleges he is a minority who was singled out for assault based J~ifi~i~i>jl)
upon Officer Cameron's anti-minority animus. See Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 635 (7th Cir. 2001);

Sherwin Manor, 37 F.3d at 1221. Contrary to Officer Cameron's position, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiff need

only allege discriminatory intent, not prove it. See Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998). Next, Officer

Cameron maintains, citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), that Plaintiff cannot state a due process deprivation

because he has adequate procedural safeguards under Illinois iaw. However, the Court agrees with.Plaintiffthat Parratt,

"''"''H which involved a property deprivation, is inapplicable here because Plaintiff alleges a liberty deprivation. Illinois tort

4c

Jaw is, therefore, inadequate. Finally, Officer Cameron argues that Plaintiff, as a pretrial detainee, has no rights under

the Eighth Amendment. He is correct, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979), and Plaintiff concedes as much ~~m~f~

in his respons~k Nevertheless, J'laintiff also asserts that Officer Cameron's unprovoked attack on him violated his ~~

substantive due process rights'uifder the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is a cognizable claim. See Lack v. Jenkins,

641 F.2d 488, 494-95 (7th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Officer Cameron's motion to dismiss is denied, exceptto the extent

Plaintiff claims any Eighth Amendment violation.

Moreover, the Court finds no basis for striking Plaintiffs allegations concerning "racial profiling" or anti-

Semitic condu~t•. The Seventh Circuit broadly defined racial profiling as meaning "the improper use of race as a basis
for taking law enforcement action." Chavez, 251 F.3d at 620. Thus, while Plaintiffs claim might normally be classified l:j.iji¥tti·i'•>

as one of raciaJ(j.iscrimination, his use of the term "racial profiling" is also appropriate. As for the allegations of anti-

Semitic activity by Officer Cameron, those facts are certainly relevant to Plaintiffs claim 'ofdiscriminatory treatment l·k;;:c:;;t<::;:••:···

because he is a non-Caucasian, and thus are properly includedl...!!!~:..OJ~~~~~

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:392
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of A!ll!'iigned .Judge
or Magistrate Judge
CASE NUMBER

Amy J. St. Eve
01 c 4486

Sitti11g Judge if Other lh.11n Assi~ncd Jud~o:c
DATE

11114/2002

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

Rodriguez vs. City of Highland Park
[In the following bux (a) iru..licalt: the:: party filing Lhe motion, e.g., plain tift; dcfcn('lant, 3rct p~rty plaintiff, ~lld (b) sttJ.tc brict1y tllc natmc oftht:: motion being prt::stmit::J."I

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1)

0

Filed motion of [ usc listing ln HMotion'' box above.]

(2) 0

Brief in support of motion due

(3)

0

(4) 0

(5) 0

(6) 0

(7) 0

Answer brief to motion due___ Reply to answer brief due__

Ruling/Hearing on--·-· set for···-·--- at ___.

Stams hearing[held/continned to] [set for/re-set fi>r] on

set for

at

Prebcial conference[held/continued to) [stl forlre-<et forj on ___ set for _ _ _ at _ _ _. Triallset for/re-set for] on _ _ _ at _ _ _.

(8) 0

[Bench/Jury trial] lHearing] held/continued to ___ at ___.

(9) 0

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and withollt costs[by/agreementlpursuant to] 0 FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP4l(a)(l) 0 FRCP4I(a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendants City of Highland Park,

Daniel Pierce, David Limardi and Daniel J. Dahlberg have moved to dismiss Plaintirr Lorenzo

Rodriguez's Complaint because of his alleged fraud on the Court. Defendants' Motion to Disrnis~ is

denied .

• (11)

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.)

No notices required, advised in upen court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by jttdge'!:i staff.

Notified coumd by tdephonc. Dol':keting to mail notic~sMail AO 4:50 form. Copy to judgc:::/magistrat~ judge.
courtroom deputy's inilial!i

l~IIO'J ~~~tf10
t;t; :'1 ~ld '11 1\0N ZO ~-""'-""""'-"""-''----

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:393

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
!!:ASTERN DIVISION

LORENZO RODRIGUEZ,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,

)

DANIEL PIERCE, DAVID UMARDT, )

DANIEL J. DAHLBERG, and

)

JERRY CAMERON,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01 C 4486 Judge Amy J. SL Eve

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi and Daniel.!. Dahlberg

have moved to dismiss Plaintiff Lorenzo Rodriguez's Complaint because of his alleged fral~d on

the Court. For \he reasons discllssed below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Mexican citizen who has been living and working in the United States

illegally for several years. Plaintiffs trlle name, which is reflected on his educational certificate

from Mexico and his Mexican MilitaJ.y Registration book, is Abel Reyes. Plaintiff, however, has

also used the naJ.ne Lorenzo Rodrigllez. For example, in order to obtain employment after he

arrived in the United States, Plaintiff obtained counterfeit Social Security a1.1d Resident Alien

cards bearing the name Lorenzo Rodriguez.

Sometime prior to June of 1999, Highland Park Police slopped Plaintiff for speeding and,

because he Jacked a driver's license, arrested him. Plaintiff claims that in connection with this

arrest, a j lldge warned him that continued speeding would result in further arrests.

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:394
On June 20, 1999, Highland Park Police arrested Plaintiff for drunk driving after he collided with another vehicle. Plaintifftold police his name was Luis Lopez, apparently because Plaintiff was concerned that the judge who had warned him after his earlier arrest would send him to jail. Plaintiff also gave false information concerning his birthday and employment status because he was concerned that the police would discover the name Luis Lopez was Hctitious.
On July 1, 1999, the Highland Park Police arrested Plaintiff for obstruction of justice afler they discovered that he had used a fictitious name. This lime, Plainti IT gave the police the name Lorenzo Rodriguez. Plaintiff also used this name when he appeared before the Lake County Circuit Court, which ullimately ordered that he receive two years of sLtpervision.
On June 14, 2001, Plaintiff llled the instant action against the City of Highland Park, Daniel Pierce, David Limardi, Daniel J. Dahlberg and Jeny Can1eron, asserting violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. PlaintitT alleges that while alone in a jail cell at the police station, Cameron sprayed pepper spray directly into Plaintiffs face causing him extreme pain. Plaintiff contends that Can1eron intentionally and unjustifiably assaulted him because he is not Caucasian. PlaintitT claims that Cameron acted purs•~anl to a municipal policy condoning racial profiling-- i.e., the mistreatment of minorities before and after arrest. He further contends that the other Defendants approved this policy and failed to punish police officers accused ol'mistrcating minorities. Plaintiff filed the action under the name Lorenzo Rodriguez-- the name he had been using with the police when he was allegedly assaulted.'
1 Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. On January 23,2002, Judge Hibbler granted that Motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims.
2

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:395
With one week left on his court-ordered supervision, on September 3, 2001, Highland Park Police again stopped Plaintiff lor dmnk driving. This time, Plaintiff gave the police his true name, Abel Reyes. Plaintiff claims that he provided the police with the name Abel Reyes because at the time of his arrest he was carrying either his Mexican consular registration or a Wisconsin State Identification Card, both of which bore his true name. Ultimately, PlaintiiTwas convicted of drunk driving, and the court ordered six Jnonths ofprobation, 21 hours of school, and a $1210 fine.
In connection with the instant action, Defendants served discovery seeking, among other things, infonnation concerning any names or aliases used by Plaintiff. On March 21, 2002, Plaintiff served his answers to interrogatories, where he disclosed for the llrst time that his name was actually Abel Reyes. The veriilcation to Plaintifrs answers, however, was signed by Lorenzo Rodriguez. Some three weeks later, on April 10 and I 2, 2002, Defendants deposed Plaintiff, ql.lestioning him extensively about the various names he had given the authorities.
Three days after Plaintiffs deposition, several Defendants moved to stay discovery, noting that they would be moving to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for alleged identity fraud. Judge Hibbler denied the Motion to Stay, hut did not express any opinion on the propriety of dismissal in light of Plaintiffs alleged identity fraud. (SeeR. 61-1, Dei's.' Reply Mem., Ex. C, p. 13 ("Okay, certainly, the defense has its right to file motions based upon discoveries that happened during the course ofthe deposition in this case, but I sec no reason why that motion should in any way delay the discovery in this case.").1
2 Thus, Judge Hibbler never addressed the question whether Plaintiffs conduct warranted dismissal of his Complaint. Plaintiffs suggestion that Judge Hibbler rejected the relief sought by Defendants and that "the law of the case is that there has been no fraud" is disingenuous.
3

.-

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:396

On September 26, 2002, Defendants Pierce, Limardi, Dahlberg and the City filed their Motion to Dismiss, which Cameron later joined. On October 18,2002, Plaintiff filed a thirtynine page brief"objccting" to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Although this Court's standing rules required that he seek leave bctbrc filing a brief in excess of fi !'teen pages, Plaintiff failed to do so 3 Moreover, Plaintiff compounded this error by failing to squarely address the allegations raised by Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Instead, Plaintiff's Objection wasted twenty-eight pages on a rambling, nearly incoherent account of Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants and the history of the Civil Rights statutes. Accordingly, this Court struck Plaintiffs overlong Objection and directed him to file an opposition to Defendants' Motion that complied with the fifteen page limit and addressed the issues raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss.
ANALYSIS The concept of"fraud on the court" has been construed very narrowly. The concept involves
a particular type or fraud which is "directed to the judicial machinery itself." l/1 the Matter (1
Whitney-Forbes, inc., 770 F.2d 692, 698 (7'h Cir. 1985) (quoting Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713,718 (lOth Cir.l983)). "When a litigant's conduct abuses the judicial process, dismissal of a lawsuit is a remedy within the inherent power of the court." Dotson v. Bravo, 202 F.R.D. 559, 574 (N.D. IlL 2001) (quoting Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694 (8'h Cir.200 1)). The law favors a trial on the merits, however, see C.K.S. Engineers, Tnc. v_ White Mountain Gypsum Co., 726 F.2d 1202, 1206 (7'" Cir. 1984), and thus, tho courts' inherent power to dismiss a lawsuit as a sanction "'should usually be employed only in extreme situations, where there is a clear record of

3 This action was reassigned to this Court's initial calendar pursuant to the Executive Committee's August 14, 2002 Order.
4

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:397
delay or contumacious nmduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailable."' Marrocco v. General Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 220, 224 (7'" Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original; citations and quotations omitted).
Defendants maintain that dismissal is warranted here because Plaintiff perpetrated a fraud upon the Court when he filed this action under a fictitious name. Defendants suggest that Plaintiff deliberately concealed his tme identity in order to gain a litigation advantage. Defendants also argue that Plainti rrncvcr volunteered his tn1e name, instead providing it in only response to their discovery demands. Finally, Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs attomey, Kecvan Morgan, was complicit in the alleged fraud.
Defendants argue that this case is analogous to Dotson v. Bravo, 202 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Ill. 200 I). In that case, the plaintiff had sued various police officers and the City of Chicago for malicious prosecution arising out ofhis arrest and prosecution following a confrontation with police. Dotson, 202 F.R.D. at 561. During the course of discovery in the civil action, the defendants discovered that the plaintiff had filed the action under the fictitious name "Shaunte Dotson." This name was not a "true alias" because, other than the lawsuit, there was no evidence that the plaintiff had ever been known as "Shaunte Doston." Jd. at 562 (citing People v. Gonzalez, 313 Ili.App.3d 607, 613, 730 N.E.2d 534, 541 (Ili.App.Ct. 2000) ("an alias is an additional name by which a person is known or identified"). The plaintiff had volunteered the fictitious name at the time ofhis original arrest because in order to conceal his criminal record under his tmc name. Td. at 562·63. As
5

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:398
Magistrate Judge Rosemond noted, the plaintiffs use of the fictitious name gave him several advantages-- for example, denying prosecutors information conceming his criminal history. !d. at 563.
The plaintiffcontinued to use the fictitious name "Shaunte Dotson" in his civil action against various police officers and the City of Chicago. For example, the plaintiff gave the fictitious name in response to the defendants' interrogatories and failed to produce documents noting his true identity. Dotson, 202 F.R.D. at 566. Moreover, the plaintiffresisted the opportunity to come clean about his identity until the court granted the defendants' motion to compel, and even then, the plaintiff offered discovery responses that were less than completely forthcoming. As Magistrate Judge Rosemond observed, the plaintiti "impeded defendants' discovery efforts regarding his identity and arrest history at every juncture until his May 25, 2001 deposition [six months after the action was originally filed]." Id. at 568.
Confronted with the extensive record of deception and obfhscation in Dotson, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plain!irrs action. Magistrate Judge Rosemond detem1ined that the plaintiff"delibera!ely planned and carefully executed a scheme to deceive slate law enforcement and the state judicial machinery, and that he continued the deceit through lies, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure in federal court." Dotson, 202 F.R.D. at 570. Further, Magistrate Judge Rosemond concluded that the plaintiffs conduct "interfered with and obstructed the 'judicial process' a process which 'clearly includes a party's right to full, complete and truthful discovery."' !d. at 573 (citation omitted). Noting that the court's inherent power to dismiss an
6

.·

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:399

action is essential to a trial court's ability to manage its caseload and protect the interests oflitigants, Magistrate Judge Rosemond held that dismissal was warranted in light of the plaintiffs perjury and fraud. !d. at 576.
Plaintiffs alleged misconduct falls short of the misconduct in Dotson, however, and thus, dismissal would not be appropriate here. First, Plaintiffs usc of the name lorenzo Rodriguez was less egregious because that nan1e quali fled as a "true alias." Indeed, Defend;mts concede that Plaintiff had used the nan1e in connection with his efforts to secure employment after he arrived in the United States. Unlike in Dotson, therefore, Plaintiff did not invent a fictitious name solely for the purpose of deceiving the police or the cmtrts.
Second, Plaintiffdisclosed his true name in response to Defendants' discovery and testi fled extensively in his deposition about the various na111es he had used with the authorities. This is in stark contrast to Dotson, where the plaintiff supplied false and misleading responses in discovery, gave perjured deposition testimony, and came clean regarding his identity reluctantly and only after the court granted the defendants' motion to compel. Dotson, 202 F.R.D. at 566-68.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs disclosure in iliis case cannot be considered truly voluntary coming, as it did, only in response to Defendants' discovery. Defendants argue, in other words, that Plaintiffs disclosure was not voluntary because he was required to provide this information under the Federal Rules. In this sense, however, no disclosure ofpotentially relevant information after the commencement of litigation could ever be considered tmly voluntary, if only in light of the initial disclosure requirements and the ongoing duty to supplement under Rule 26.
Plaintiffmight have attempted to prolong the deception by giving false or misleading answers in response to Defendants' discovery and by withholding production of certain documents, but this
7

• Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:400
Plaintiff did not do so. Cf. Millerv. Hojjinan, No. A 97-7987, 1999 WL 415397, at* 10 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 1999) (denying motion to dismiss where plaintiff had filed suit under an alias but later testi fled about his true identity during his deposition); see also Morris v. McMasler-Carr Supply Co., No. 01 C 6349, 2002 WL 1290390, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2002) (refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint for supplying false in formation in his discovery responses, in part because the plaintiff "did come clean at his deposition").
To be sure, Plaintiffshould have us~d his true name from the outset, and the reasonable time to have disclosed his true name W(>uld have been when he flied his complaint in this action. Plaintiffs counsel argues that the timing ofPiaintiffs disclosure was reasonable because he suggests that he learned his client's true name sometime on March 18, 2002 and that he disclosed this information to Defendants very shmily thereafter. Mr. Morgan's affidavit, however, is somewhat vague on this question. lie claims that he learned his client's true identity on March 18, 2002, but does not rule out that he may have sirnply forgotten this information or failed to previously understand it. (SeeR. 59-1, Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mol. to Dismiss, Aff. ofKccvan D. Morgan aq\4.)
As Defendants point out, Plainti rrs "disclosure at the llrst reasonable lime" argument ignores Mr. Morgan's obligations under the Federal Rules to scrutinize his client's allegations prior to flling the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (b)(3) ("By presenting to the court (whether by signing, ftling, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best o I' the person's knowledge, infom1ation, and belief,
8

Case: 1:01-cv-04486 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/14/02 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:401

fonned after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, ... the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support ... "). Regardless when Mr. Morgan became aware of Plaintiff's true identity, however, Plaintiffs alleged misconduct d\Jes not measure up to the plaintiffs misconduct conduct in Dotson.
Third, any prejudice to Del"endants caused by Plaintiff's failure to disclose his true identity is minimal compared to the prejudice suffered by the Dotson defendants. Indeed, there is no suggestion that Defendants are still lacking information concerning Plaintiffs background. To the contrary, Defendants have apparently assembled a detailed limeline ofPlaintiffs earlier attempts to confuse the authorities by using various other names or aliases. Defendants have apparently received documentation concerning Plaintiffs use of various names with the authorities, ami they were able to question him thoroughly on this issue in his deposition. Thus, it appears that the prejudice to Defendants here has been limited.
CONCLUSION For these reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

DATED: November 14, 2002

ENTERED

9