Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick and Deanda Wilson,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

Chicago Police Sergeant Frank Ramaglia, Star # 1775; )

Chicago Police Sergeant Brian Kane, Star # 5538;

)

Chicago Police Officer Kathleen McCann, Star # 3636; )

Chicago Police Officer Kevin Connolly, Star # 13184; )

Chicago Police Officer Alejandro Miranda, Star #8300; )

Chicago Police Officer John Doe; and the CITY OF

)

CHICAGO,

)

)

Defendants

)

No. Judge

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs JESSIE PATRICK, ATHERIS MANN and DEANDA WILSON, by their

undersigned attorneys, for the complaint against Defendants, the City of Chicago; Chicago police

officers; and unidentified employees of the City of Chicago (collectively, “Defendant Officers”),

state:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Patrick, Mann and Wilson were wrongly arrested, charged, and detained

for approximately fifteen months because of the fabrication and coercion of inculpatory evidence

by the Defendants sued in this action.

2. Directly after their arrest, Plaintiffs were also physically and psychologically

abused while detained at the Chicago Police Department’s unconstitutional detention center at

the intersection of South Homan Street and West Filmore Avenue (hereinafter “Homan Square”).

3. On January 14, 2015 Plaintiffs were acquitted of all charges when Cook County

Judge William O’Brien entered a directed finding of not guilty for all of the Plaintiffs.

1

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
4. The unconstitutional conduct complained of herein was a part of longstanding, widespread and interrelated Chicago Police Department patterns and practices, including several that were an integral part of the detention, interrogational, and intelligence gathering practices employed at Homan Square.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the United States Constitution. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation located within this judicial district. Additionally, the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this judicial district.
PARTIES 8. Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick and Deanda Wilson are African American residents of the City of Chicago, Illinois. 9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sergeants Frank Ramaglia and Brian Kane, and Police Officers Katherine McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda and John Doe were employed by the Chicago Police Department. Each is sued in his or her individual capacity, and each acted under color of law and within the scope of his/her employment. 10. Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation, and was the employer of each of the Defendant Officers at all relevant times, and is responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the Chicago Police Department that are alleged herein.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
FACTS 11. On the morning of October 21, 2013, Anthony Speight was arrested around the corner from the 900 block of North St. Louis Avenue in Chicago, Illinois for possession of heroin with intent to deliver. 12. Plaintiffs had no involvement with the illegal possession and delivery of the aforementioned heroin. 13. On the morning of October 21, 2013, Plaintiffs Jessie Patrick and Atheris Mann were in a vehicle on the 900 block of North St. Louis Avenue, Chicago, running errands when they were pulled over by Defendant Chicago Police Officers Ramaglia and Connolly. 14. Defendants Ramaglia and Connolly had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Plaintiffs Jessie Patrick and Atheris Mann had committed, were committing, or were going to commit any criminal offense nor did they have an arrest warrant or search warrant for Plaintiffs. 15. Defendant Ramaglia approached Plaintiffs Patrick and Mann’s vehicle, took their identification, conducted a pat down search of Plaintiffs and handcuffed their hands together. 16. Plaintiff Patrick and Mann were not in possession of any contraband, had not violated any local ordinance, state or federal law, and Defendant Ramaglia did not find any drugs on their persons or in the vehicle. 17. About the same time, Defendant Connolly arrived on the scene with Anthony Speight whom he had already handcuffed. Connolly placed Speight into the police vehicle; Plaintiffs Mann and Patrick were placed in the same vehicle with Speight shortly thereafter. 18. Plaintiff Patrick’s mother, and Plaintiff Mann’s female partner asked the Defendant officers if the men were going to jail, and one of the Defendant officers responded
3

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
that at least one of them would be. 19. Plaintiffs Patrick and Mann were then transported by Defendants Ramaglia and
Connolly to Homan Square. 20. A few hours later, Plaintiff Deanda Wilson was at a store near the North 900
block of St. Louis Avenue buying a soda when Defendant Officer Miranda detained and handcuffed him.
21. Defendant Miranda had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Deanda Wilson had committed, was committing, or was going to commit any illegal offense nor did he have an arrest warrant or search warrant for Plaintiff.
22. Defendant Miranda thoroughly searched Deanda Wilson and did not find a weapon or any other contraband.
23. Defendant Miranda then transported Plaintiff Wilson to Homan Square. Detention at Homan Square
24. Plaintiffs Mann and Patrick were taken into a room by Defendant Ramaglia, who instructed them to strip, and they were then subjected to a full strip search.
25. Defendant Ramaglia searched them and demanded that they cooperate with him or they would be “locked up.”
26. Plaintiff Mann asked for his attorney but Defendant Ramagalia ignored his request.
27. Plaintiff Patrick asked Ramaglia if he could call his mother so that she could call an attorney, and his request was similarly ignored.
28. Defendant Ramaglia took Plaintiff Mann to a windowless, dark cell and handcuffed him to the wall.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
29. Ramaglia then lead Plaintiff Patrick to a separate dark cell where he was also handcuffed to the wall.
30. Both Plaintiffs were then left alone in their cells. 31. Sometime later, Defendant Miranda transported Plaintiff Deanda Wilson to Homan Square, where Defendant Ramaglia was waiting. 32. Defendant Ramaglia removed Plaintiff Wilson from the transport police vehicle and attempted to plant narcotics on him, but stopped his effort upon Defendant Miranda’s intervention. 33. Ramaglia then directed Plaintiff Wilson to a separate dark cell with no windows, where he was also handcuffed to the wall.
Interrogation and Abuse at Homan Square 34. Later that day, Defendant Ramaglia re-entered Plaintiff Mann’s cell and advised him to “help yourself.” Ramaglia interrogated him about a person named Shardell Green and advised Plaintiff Mann that if he offered information on Green, he could go free. 35. Plaintiff Mann did not know anything about Green and therefore supplied no information, causing him to remain detained in his Homan Square cell. 36. While interrogating Plaintiff Mann, Defendant Ramaglia assaulted him with a stream of insults, racial slurs, including the N word, and threats. 37. A few minutes after Defendant Ramaglia left Plaintiff Mann’s cell, Defendant Kane entered his cell and repeated Ramaglia’s demand to “help yourself” by sharing information about Green. Kane grabbed Plaintiff Mann by the collar with both hands and threatened his family.
5

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
38. Once again, Plaintiff Mann did not have any information to offer and could not supply information, causing him to remain detained in his Homan Square cell.
39. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Ramaglia entered Plaintiff Patrick’s cell. 40. Ramaglia interrogated Plaintiff Patrick, and told him to “help yourself” by revealing information about the location of illegal guns in Patrick’s neighborhood. 41. Patrick was both unable and unwilling to provide any information, causing him to remain detained in his Homan Square cell. 42. Defendant Ramaglia also assaulted Plaintiff Patrick with a stream of insults and threats. 43. Minutes later, Defendant Kane entered Plaintiff Patrick’s cell and advised him that he would go to jail for a long time if he did not share information about the location of illegal guns in his neighborhood. Kane repeatedly threatened and insulted Patrick. 44. Plaintiff Patrick was unable to share any information and Defendant Kane left. 45. Later the same day, Defendant John Doe entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell, advised him that they did not want to keep him detained because he had not done anything wrong, and instructed him to provide information on the sale of illegal drugs in his neighborhood so that he could go free. 46. Plaintiff Wilson was both unable and unwilling to supply any information, so Defendant Doe advised Plaintiff Wilson that he would go to jail. 47. Wilson asked Defendant Doe to use the bathroom but was met with no response. 48. Minutes later Defendant Doe re-entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell, Wilson asked for an attorney and Doe made no response.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
49. Later Defendant Ramaglia entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell and stated “give me something and I’ll let you go.”
50. Wilson had nothing to reveal, asked for an attorney and asked again to use the bathroom. Defendant Ramaglia did not respond, but instead spoke with Defendant Connolly at the cell’s entrance.
51. Defendant Ramaglia then once again approached Plaintiff Wilson and held a knife to Wilson’s neck.
52. Defendant Ramaglia then used the knife to cut off strings that hung down from the neck of Plaintiff Wilson’s sweatshirt.
53. Minutes later, Defendant Ramaglia re-entered the cell with Defendant Kane and Kane advised Plaintiff Wilson that he didn’t have to go to jail and that he should “help” himself.
54. Again Plaintiff Wilson asked for his lawyer and to use the bathroom but the Defendants again ignored his request, and left him alone in the cell.
55. Sometime later Plaintiff Wilson urinated on himself, because he was never permitted to go the bathroom.
56. Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson all remained detained in their cells at Homan Square all day without access to an attorney, to food, to a bathroom, or to family members despite their persistent pleas.
57. At no time did the Defendants question any of the Plaintiffs about the crime for which they were ultimately wrongfully charged.
Plaintiffs’ Arrest and Prosecution 58. After being held incommunicado at Homan Square, Plaintiffs were transported to the 11th District Police Station where they were charged with the manufacture and delivery of
7

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
heroin. This was the first time that any of the Plaintiffs were given a purported reason for their arrest.
59. Plaintiffs were then transported to Cook County Jail and held for trial. 60. In support of Plaintiffs’ arrest and prosecution, Defendants McCann, Ramaglia, Connolly, and Kane filled out and filed false and incomplete police reports, McCann falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ Grand Jury Proceedings, and McCann, Connolly and Kane falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ trial. 61. Additionally, some or all of the Defendants made false statements concerning the evidence to the prosecutors. 62. As a result of the Defendants’ false reports, false statements, and false testimony, Plaintiffs were arrested, held in custody awaiting trial for approximately fifteen months, and then wrongfully taken to trial. 63. Despite Defendants’ false and misleading police reports, false statements to the prosecutors, and false testimony, Judge William O’Brien issued a directed finding of not guilty at the conclusion of the State’s case. 64. In making his finding of not guilty as to all three Plaintiffs, Judge O’Brien found that Defendants McCann and Connolly were so thoroughly impeached that the State was unable to meet its burden of proof. 65. Anthony Speight was found guilty of possession of what appeared to be the same heroin that Defendant police officers relied upon in their false arrests of the Plaintiffs and their unsuccessful attempt to convict them of crimes they did not commit. 66. Plaintiffs spent a total of approximately fifteen months in Cook County jail.
8

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
67. The Defendant Officers, acting within the scope of their employment and under color of law, agreed among themselves and with other individuals to act jointly and in concert in order to deprive each Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
68. In this manner, the Defendant Officers, acting jointly and in concert with other co-conspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
69. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the Defendant co-conspirators engaged in and facilitated one or more overt acts, including, but not limited to, those set forth above – including falsely arresting Plaintiffs, illegally detaining and coercively interrogating them in Homan Square, fabricating evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, writing false reports, committing perjury during hearings and trials, and otherwise willfully participating in joint activities.
70. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit prior agreement and joint actions in furtherance of the conspiracy referenced above, each Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights were violated, and each Plaintiff suffered injury, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, physical injuries, emotional distress and other mental and emotional injury and trauma.
COUNT I [42 U.S.C. §1983 Claim for False Arrest, Illegal Search and Illegal Detention] 71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 72. The actions of Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, Connolly, McCann, Miranda, and Doe, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, in falsely arresting, detaining, strip searching and imprisoning Plaintiffs without probable cause, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in their person, papers and effects
9

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus also violated 42 U.S.C. §1983.
73. The actions of the Defendants named in paragraph 72 above were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, their injuries, mental suffering, anguish and humiliation, and loss of personal freedom, and expenses, as set forth more fully above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT II [42 U.S.C. §1983 Claim for Excessive Force] 74. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 75. The actions of Defendants Ramaglia and Kane as set forth in the facts above, individually, jointly and in conspiracy, also violated Plaintiffs Wilson and Mann’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive and unreasonable force as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Wilson and Mann demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia and Kane, and because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
10

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
COUNT III [42 U.S.C. §1983 Due Process Claim for Fabrication of Evidence] 76. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 77. Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and John Doe, individually, jointly and in conspiracy fabricated and manufactured false inculpatory evidence to be used against Plaintiffs. This evidence formed the basis for Plaintiffs’ false arrest, wrongful prosecution and approximately fifteen months of wrongful imprisonment. 78. Without this manufactured and fabricated evidence, Plaintiffs would not have been arrested, prosecuted, or imprisoned. 79. These actions by these Defendants named above thereby deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IV [42 U.S.C. §1983 Brady Claim for Suppression of Evidence] 80. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 81. Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and John Doe, acting individually, jointly and in concert to, deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to due process of law, by suppressing and otherwise depriving prosecutors and Plaintiffs of exculpatory material and information.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
82. If said exculpatory evidence were not withheld by the Defendants, Plaintiffs would not have been prosecuted, and/or their imprisonment and prosecution would have ended substantially before it in fact was ended.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT V [42 U.S.C. §1983 Claim for Failure to Intervene] 83. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 84. One or more of Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe had opportunities and the duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiffs and prevent the constitutional violations described above, but declined or refused to do so. 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
COUNT VI [42 U.S.C. §1983 Monell Claim] 86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 87. The unconstitutional actions of Defendants Ramaglia, McCann, Connolly, Kane, Miranda and Doe, as alleged above, were done pursuant to one or more interrelated de facto policies, practices and/or customs of the Defendant City of Chicago, acting through and by its Police Department, Police Superintendents, Police Board, Mayors, and City Council. 88. These interrelated de facto policies, practices, and customs included, inter alia: a) Maintaining an “off the books” police detention, interrogation, and intelligence gathering center at Homan Square where the CPD unconstitutionally detained many thousands of predominantly, and disproportionately, African American and Hispanic citizens without probable cause and without access to lawyers and family; b) Using unconstitutionally coercive and torturous tactics while interrogating detainees at Homan Square including, but not limited to, handcuffing them to the wall in dark, Spartan-like cells without food, water, or access to bathroom facilities; using physical threats, beatings, assaults with a knife, and other forms of physical brutality; conducting illegal strip and violently invasive body cavity searches; subjecting detainees to verbal racial abuse, and using the threat of charging the detainee with bogus criminal offenses if he or she did not provide information; c) Manufacturing and falsifying evidence in order to falsely arrest, charge and prosecute persons who refuse to give information while detained at Homan Square; d) The police code of silence, whereby police officers refuse to report or otherwise cover-up instances of police misconduct, and/or fabricated, suppressed, and destroyed evidence of which they were aware, despite their obligation under the law and police regulations. Said
13

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
code of silence also includes police officers either remaining silent or giving false and misleading information during official investigations and Grand Jury proceedings in order to protect themselves and/or fellow officers from internal discipline, civil liability, or criminal charges, and perjuring themselves in criminal cases where they and/or their fellow officers have coercively or otherwise unconstitutionally interrogated a suspect, arrestee or witness, or falsely detained, arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted a criminal defendant;
e) The failure to properly train, supervise, discipline, transfer, monitor, counsel and/or otherwise control police officers, particularly those who were repeatedly accused of abuse of suspects; of making and/or facilitating wrongful detentions, false arrests, wrongful imprisonments, malicious prosecutions and wrongful convictions; of making false reports and statements; and/or of physically, psychologically or otherwise illegally or improperly coercive questioning or interrogation of witnesses, suspects and arrestees, particularly persons who were physically and/or psychologically abused during questioning.
89. Said interrelated policies, practices and customs, as set forth above, both individually and together, were maintained and implemented with deliberate indifference; and were, separately and together, a moving force and a direct and proximate cause of the unconstitutional acts committed by the named Defendants and their co-conspirators herein, and the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendant City of Chicago, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VII [State Law Claim for Malicious Prosecution] 90. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
14

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
91. The Defendant Officers named in this Complaint accused Plaintiffs of criminal activity knowing those accusations to be without genuine probable cause, they fabricated inculpatory evidence and suppressed exculpatory evidence, and they made false statements to prosecutors and wrote false reports with the intent of exerting influence on, and to institute and continue, the judicial proceedings against Plaintiffs.
92. The Defendant Officers named in this Complaint caused Plaintiffs to be improperly subjected to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause.
93. These judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in Plaintiffs’ wrongful prosecution and imprisonment, and the consequent injuries set forth above.
94. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken intentionally, with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
95. On January 14, 2015, the prosecution terminated in Plaintiffs’ favor. 96. As a direct and proximate result of this misconduct, Plaintiffs sustained, and continue to sustain, injuries as set forth above, including physical injury and emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VIII [State Law Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress] 97. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 98. The acts and conduct of the Defendant Officers named in this Complaint, as set forth above, were extreme and outrageous. The Defendants’ actions were rooted in an abuse of
15

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
power or authority, and they were undertaken with intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability, that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs, as is more fully alleged above.
99. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer physical injury and severe emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IX [State Law Claim for Civil Conspiracy] 100. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 101. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant Officers named in this Complaint, acting jointly and in concert with other known and unknown coconspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. 102. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Defendant Officers committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity including but not limited to the malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs and the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon them. 103. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken intentionally, with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference. 104. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff suffered damages, including physical injury and severe emotional distress, as is more fully alleged above.
16

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT X [State Law Claim for Respondeat Superior] 105. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 106. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, each of the Defendant Officers was a member and agent of the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago, acting at all relevant times within the scope of his employment and under color of law. 107. Defendant City of Chicago is thereby liable as principal for all state law torts committed by the Defendant Officers as alleged herein, including malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick, Mann, and Wilson demand compensatory damages against Defendant City of Chicago in any and all amounts assessed against the individual Defendant officers, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT XI [745 ILCS 10/9-102 Claim Against Defendant City of Chicago] 108. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 109. Defendant City of Chicago is the employer of Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Kane, Miranda and Doe.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18

110. Defendants committed the acts alleged above under color of law and in the scope

of their employment as employees of the City of Chicago.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson

demand judgment against defendant City of Chicago in the amount awarded to the Plaintiffs

against any and all Defendants as compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest,

and/or for any settlement entered into between the Plaintiffs and any Defendant, and for

whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

38(b) on all issues so triable.

Dated: October 19, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ G. Flint Taylor______ G. Flint Taylor, Shubra Ohri PEOPLE’S LAW OFFICE 1180 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60642 (773) 235-0070

18

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:154

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

Atheris Mann, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Chicago Police Sergeant Frank Ramaglia, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

Case. No. 15 C 9197

)

)

Judge Ronald A. Guzmán

)

)

)

ORDER

For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss [19] is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ Brady claim is dismissed with prejudice. Wilson’s excessive force claim against Defendant Kane is dismissed, and the motion to dismiss Patrick’s excessive force claim against Kane is denied as moot. Plaintiffs are given 21 days from the date of entry of this order to replead the due process claim relating to the fabrication of evidence and their claim for civil conspiracy, which are dismissed without prejudice.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs allege that they were wrongfully arrested, detained, charged, and prosecuted by Defendants, and were physically and psychologically abused at the Chicago Police Department’s purportedly unconstitutional detention center located at the intersection of South Homan Street and West Filmore Avenue in Chicago (“Homan Square”). (Compl., Dkt. # 1). Plaintiffs filed an eleven-count complaint, and Defendants move to dismiss portions of Count II (excessive force) as well as Counts III (violation of due process based on fabricating and withholding evidence), IV (Brady claim based on suppression of evidence) and IX (conspiracy). For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Facts

The following facts are taken as true for purposes of this motion. On the morning of October 21, 2013, Anthony Speight was arrested around the corner from the 900 block of North St. Louis Avenue in Chicago, Illinois for possession of heroin with intent to deliver. Plaintiffs had no involvement with the illegal possession and delivery of the aforementioned heroin. On the morning of October 21, 2013, Plaintiffs Jessie Patrick and Atheris Mann were in a vehicle on the 900 block of North St. Louis Avenue, Chicago, running errands when they were pulled over by Chicago Police Officers Ramaglia an Connolly. According to Plaintiffs, Ramaglia and Connolly had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Patrick and Mann had committed, were committing, or were going to commit any criminal offense nor did they have an arrest warrant or search warrant for Plaintiffs. Ramaglia approached Patrick and Mann’s vehicle, took their identification, conducted a pat down search of Plaintiffs, and handcuffed their hands together. Patrick and Mann were not in possession of any contraband, had not violated

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:155
any local ordinance, state or federal law, nor did Ramaglia did not find any drugs on their persons or in the vehicle.
About the same time, Defendant Connolly arrived on the scene with Anthony Speight, whom he had already handcuffed. Connolly placed Speight into the police vehicle, and Mann and Patrick were placed in the same vehicle with Speight shortly thereafter. When Patrick’s mother and Mann’s female partner asked the officers if the men were going to jail, one of the officers responded that at least one of them would be. Patrick and Mann were then transported by Ramaglia and Connolly to Homan Square. A few hours later, Plaintiff Deanda Wilson was at a store near the North 900 block of St. Louis Avenue buying a soda when Defendant Officer Miranda detained and handcuffed him. Miranda had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Wilson had committed, was committing, or was going to commit any illegal offense nor did he have an arrest warrant or search warrant for Wilson. Although Miranda thoroughly searched Wilson and did not find a weapon or any other contraband, Miranda transported him to Homan Square.
At Homan Square, Mann and Patrick were taken into a room by Ramaglia, who conducted a full strip search of the two men. Ramaglia demanded that Mann and Patrick cooperate with him or be “locked up.” Mann asked for his attorney, and Patrick asked to call his mother so she could call an attorney, but Ramagalia ignored both requests. Ramaglia took Mann and Patrick to separate windowless, dark cells where he handcuffed them to the wall and left the men alone in their cells.
Sometime later, Miranda transported Wilson to Homan Square, where Ramaglia was waiting. Ramaglia removed Wilson from the transport police vehicle and attempted to plant narcotics on him, but was stopped by Miranda. Ramaglia then directed Wilson to his own dark cell with no windows, where he was also handcuffed to the wall.
Later that day, Ramaglia re-entered Mann’s cell and advised him to “help yourself.” Ramaglia interrogated him about a person named Shardell Green and advised Mann that if he offered information on Green, he could go free. Because Mann did not know anything about Green, he was unable to supply any information, and remained detained in his cell. While interrogating Mann, Ramaglia assaulted him with a stream of insults, racial slurs, and threats. A few minutes after Ramaglia left Mann’s cell, Kane entered his cell and repeated Ramaglia’s demand to “help yourself” by sharing information about Green. Kane grabbed Mann by the collar with both hands and threatened his family. Once again, Mann did not have any information to offer and could not supply information, and remained detained in his Homan Square cell.
Shortly thereafter, Ramaglia entered Patrick’s cell. Ramaglia interrogated Patrick, and told him to “help yourself” by revealing information about the location of illegal guns in Patrick’s neighborhood. Patrick was both unable and unwilling to provide any information, and Ramaglia assaulted him with a stream of insults and threats. Minutes later, Kane entered Patrick’s cell and advised him that he would go to jail for a long time if he did not share information about the location of illegal guns in his neighborhood. Kane repeatedly threatened
2

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:156
and insulted Patrick. Patrick was unable to share any information and Kane left. Later the same day, Defendant John Doe entered Wilson’s cell, advised him that they did not want to keep him detained because he had not done anything wrong, and instructed him to provide information on the sale of illegal drugs in his neighborhood so that he could go free. Wilson was both unable and unwilling to supply any information, so Defendant Doe advised Wilson that he would go to jail. Wilson asked Defendant Doe for permission to use the bathroom but was met with no response.
Soon after, Defendant Doe re-entered Wilson’s cell, and when Wilson asked for an attorney, Doe did not respond. Later, Ramaglia entered Wilson’s cell and stated “give me something and I’ll let you go.” Wilson had nothing to reveal, asked for an attorney, and asked again to use the bathroom. Ramaglia did not respond, but instead spoke with Defendant Connolly at the cell’s entrance. Ramaglia then once again approached Wilson and held a knife to Wilson’s neck, which he used to cut off strings that hung down from the neck of Wilson’s sweatshirt. Minutes later, Ramaglia and Kane re-entered the cell, and Kane advised Wilson that he did not have to go to jail and that he should “help” himself. Wilson again asked for his lawyer and to use the bathroom but Defendants ignored his request, leaving him alone in the cell. Sometime later Wilson urinated on himself because he was not permitted to use the restroom.
Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson remained detained in their cells at Homan Square all day without access to an attorney, food, a bathroom, or family members despite their persistent pleas. At no time did the Defendants question any of the Plaintiffs about the crime for which they were ultimately wrongfully charged.
After being held at Homan Square, Plaintiffs were transported to the 11th District Police Station where they were charged with the manufacture and delivery of heroin. This was the first time that any of the Plaintiffs were given a purported reason for their arrest. Plaintiffs were then transported to Cook County Jail and held for trial. In support of Plaintiffs’ arrest and prosecution, McCann, Ramaglia, Connolly, and Kane filled out and filed purportedly false and incomplete police reports, McCann falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ grand jury proceedings, and McCann, Connolly, and Kane falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ trial. Additionally, some or all of the Defendants made false statements concerning the evidence to the prosecutors.
Plaintiffs were tried before Judge William O’Brien, who issued a directed finding of not guilty at the conclusion of the State’s case. In making his finding of not guilty as to all three Plaintiffs, Judge O’Brien found that McCann and Connolly were so thoroughly impeached that the State was unable to meet its burden of proof. Anthony Speight was found guilty of possession of what appeared to be the same heroin that Defendant police officers relied upon in their false arrests of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs spent a total of approximately fifteen months in Cook County Jail.
According to the complaint, Defendants agreed among themselves and with other individuals to act jointly and in concert in order to deprive each Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the Defendant officers engaged in and facilitated one or more overt acts, including, but not limited to, those set forth above – including
3

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:157
falsely arresting Plaintiffs, illegally detaining and coercively interrogating them in Homan Square, fabricating evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, writing false reports, committing perjury during hearings and trials, and otherwise willfully participating in joint activities.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “‘A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Adams, 742 F.3d at 728 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A court must accept all of the plaintiff's factual allegations as true when reviewing the complaint, but conclusory allegations merely restating the elements of a cause of action do not receive this presumption. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Analysis
A. Count II – Excessive Force
Defendants move to dismiss Wilson and Patrick’s excessive force claims against Kane. Wilson states that he is voluntarily dismissing his excessive force claim against Kane, and Patrick did not bring an excessive force claim against Kane. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to dismiss Wilson excessive force claims against Kane. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Patrick’s excessive force claim is denied as moot.
B. Count III – Due Process (Fabrication of Evidence)
Defendants contend that Count III fails to state a plausible fabrication of evidence claim. In response, Plaintiffs refer to allegations that Plaintiffs were not involved in the illegal possession and delivery of heroin; Defendants lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause to justify the stop, searches and arrest of Plaintiffs; Defendants did not find any drugs on Plaintiffs; Ramaglia attempted to plant narcotics on Wilson; Plaintiffs were charged with the manufacture and delivery of heroin that appears to be the same heroin for which an unrelated suspect, Anthony Speight, was found guilty of possessing; Plaintiffs wrongfully served time in prison; Defendants filled out and filed false and incomplete police reports; McCann falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ grand jury proceedings, and McCann, Connolly and Kane falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ trial.
But none of these allegations provides any facts supporting a due process claim for fabricating evidence. Plaintiffs allegations are conclusory and contain no detail as to what statements were false, why they were false, or when they were made. Simply alleging that Defendants “filled out false police reports” and made “false statements to prosecutors” does not meet the pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Munoz v. Rivera,
4

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:158
No. 14 C 6794, 2015 WL 3896917, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2015) (noting that “plaintiff claims vaguely that defendants ‘falsely reported’ either what plaintiff had told them during his post-arrest questioning, . . . or what they had perceived at the scene of [the victim’s] death” but does “not allege . . . when defendants made these reports, to whom they made them, or how the false reports w ere used in the course of plaintiff's criminal trials.”); Alvarado v. Hudak, No. 14 CV 9641, 2015 WL 4978683, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2015) (“With respect to the falsified reports, Alvarado does not provide any factual particulars about the reports and how they were used to secure his conviction.”); Miles v. McNamara, No. 13 C 2395, 2014 WL 948884, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2014) (“Moreover, it is unclear to the court what evidence was fabricated that could have been detrimental to Miles.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ due process claims based on false reports or false statements (i.e., fabrication of evidence) fail to state a claim.
To the extent that Plaintiffs allege that any of Defendants testified falsely at the grand jury or trial, Plaintiffs concede that Defendants are absolutely immune from liability for a due process violation based on such testimony.
C. Count VI – Brady Claim
Count IV of Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that “Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and John Doe, acting individually, jointly and in concert . . . , deprive[d] Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to due process of law, by suppressing and otherwise depriving prosecutors and Plaintiffs of exculpatory material and information.” (Compl., Dkt. # 1, ¶ 81.) To prevail on a civil Brady claim against an officer, an accused must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to him; (2) the evidence was concealed by the officer; and (3) the concealed evidence resulted in prejudice. Cairel v. Alderden, --- F.3d —, 2016 WL 2641836 (7th Cir. May 5, 2016).
According to Plaintiffs’ response, the purported Brady materials are Defendants’ false police reports “despite having knowledge of Plaintiffs’ innocence,” and the fact that Defendants “withheld from prosecutors the fact that the heroin they relied upon in their arrest was actually heroin found in the possession on an unrelated suspect Anthony Speight.” (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt. # 37, at 9.) But the Court has already found that the allegations of false police reports fail under Rule 8(a). In any event, Plaintiffs’ claim is unavailing under Seventh Circuit precedent. See Saunders–El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 562 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding that where a plaintiff “seeks to charge the officers with a Brady violation for keeping quiet about their wrongdoing . . . our case law makes clear that Brady does not require the creation of exculpatory evidence, nor does it compel police officers to accurately disclose the circumstances of their investigations”); Harris v. Kuba, 486 F.3d 1010, 1017 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Harris essentially seeks an extension of Brady to provide relief if a police officer makes a false statement to a prosecutor by arguing that an officer is ‘suppressing’ evidence of the truth by making the false statement. This court has already foreclosed this extension.”).
Plaintiffs also confusingly assert that they “could not have known that the heroin they were charged with possessing was in fact possessed by another unrelated individual . . . .” (Pls.’
5

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:159
Resp., Dkt. # 37, at 10.) But they allege that they were not in possession of any contraband (Compl., Dkt. # 21, ¶ 16), so they had to have known that the heroin they were charged with possessing came from somewhere else. This information was not concealed.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Brady claim is dismissed.
D. Count IX–Conspiracy
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for civil conspiracy under Illinois law. Plaintiffs allegations of conspiracy state:
101. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant Officers named in this Complaint, acting jointly and in concert with other known and unknown conspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
102. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Defendant Officers committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity including but not limited to malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs and the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon them.
(Compl., Dkt. # 1, ¶¶ 101-102.)
However, as noted by the Seventh Circuit:
The Rules of Civil Procedure set up a system of notice pleading. Each defendant is entitled to know what he or she did that is asserted to be wrongful. A complaint based on a theory of collective responsibility must be dismissed. That is true even for allegations of conspiracy. Although every conspirator is responsible for others' acts within the scope of the agreement, it remains essential to show that a particular defendant joined the conspiracy and knew of its scope. [Plaintiff’s] complaint does not get even that far.
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Knight, 725 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 970-71 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Even before” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “a bare allegation of conspiracy was not enough to survive a motion to dismiss.”).
Here, the complaint alleges at most collective responsibility, but no facts in support of an intentional agreement to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs or intentionally inflict emotional distress upon them. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the conspiracy claim.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 49 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:160

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ Brady claim is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ due process claim relating to the fabrication of evidence and their claim for civil conspiracy are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs are given 21 days from the date of entry of this order to replead these two claims to the extent they are able in accordance with their responsibilities under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. As to the excessive force claim, Wilson has voluntarily withdrawn this claim against Kane, so Defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim is granted. Because Patrick did not bring an excessive force claim against Kane, the motion to dismiss that claim is moot.

Date: July 19, 2016

________________________________________ Ronald A. Guzmán United States District Judge

7

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:161

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick and Deanda Wilson,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

Chicago Police Sergeant Frank Ramaglia, Star # 1775; )

Chicago Police Sergeant Brian Kane, Star # 5538;

)

Chicago Police Officer Kathleen McCann, Star # 3636; )

Chicago Police Officer Kevin Connolly, Star # 13184; )

Chicago Police Officer Alejandro Miranda, Star #8300; )

Chicago Police Officer John Doe; and the CITY OF

)

CHICAGO,

)

)

Defendants.

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT1

No. 15 C 9197 Judge Guzman

Plaintiffs JESSIE PATRICK, ATHERIS MANN and DEANDA WILSON, by their

undersigned attorneys, for the complaint against Defendants, the City of Chicago; Chicago

police officers; and unidentified employees of the City of Chicago (collectively, “Defendant

Officers”), state:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Patrick, Mann and Wilson were wrongly arrested, charged, and

detained for approximately fifteen months because of the fabrication and coercion of inculpatory

evidence by the Defendants sued in this action.

2. Directly after their arrest, Plaintiffs were also physically and psychologically

abused while detained at the Chicago Police Department’s unconstitutional detention center at the

intersection of South Homan Street and West Filmore Avenue (hereinafter “Homan Square”).

3. On January 14, 2015 Plaintiffs were acquitted of all charges when Cook County

1 All changes to the original complaint are designated by italics.

1

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:162
Judge William O’Brien entered a directed finding of not guilty for all of the Plaintiffs. 4. The unconstitutional conduct complained of herein was a part of longstanding,
widespread and interrelated Chicago Police Department patterns and practices, including several that were an integral part of the detention, interrogational, and intelligence gathering practices employed at Homan Square.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the United States Constitution. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation located within this judicial district. Additionally, the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this judicial district.
PARTIES 8. Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick and Deanda Wilson are African American residents of the City of Chicago, Illinois. 9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sergeants Frank Ramaglia and Brian Kane, and Police Officers Katherine McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda and John Doe were employed by the Chicago Police Department. Each is sued in his or her individual capacity, and each acted under color of law and within the scope of his/her employment. 10. Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation, and was the employer of each of the Defendant Officers at all relevant times, and is responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the Chicago Police Department that are alleged herein.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:163
FACTS 11. On the morning of October 21, 2013, Anthony Speight was arrested around the corner from the 900 block of North St. Louis Avenue in Chicago, Illinois for possession of heroin with intent to deliver. 12. Plaintiffs had no involvement with the illegal possession and delivery of the aforementioned heroin. 13. On the morning of October 21, 2013, Plaintiffs Jessie Patrick and Atheris Mann were in a vehicle on the 900 block of North St. Louis Avenue, Chicago, running errands when they were pulled over by Defendant Chicago Police Officers Ramaglia and Connolly. 14. Plaintiffs Patrick and Mann never engaged in any hand to hand narcotics transactions while on the 900 block of North St. Louis. 15. Defendants Ramaglia and Connolly had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Plaintiffs Jessie Patrick and Atheris Mann had committed, were committing, or were going to commit any criminal offense nor did they have an arrest warrant or search warrant for Plaintiffs. 16. Defendant Ramaglia approached Plaintiffs Patrick and Mann’s vehicle, took their identification, conducted a pat down search of Plaintiffs and handcuffed their hands together. 17. Plaintiff Patrick and Mann were not in possession of any contraband, had not violated any local ordinance, state or federal law, and Defendant Ramaglia did not find any drugs on their persons or in the vehicle. 18. About the same time, Defendant Connolly arrived on the scene with Anthony Speight whom he had already handcuffed. Connolly placed Speight into the police vehicle;
3

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:164
Plaintiffs Mann and Patrick were placed in the same vehicle with Speight shortly thereafter. 19. Plaintiff Patrick’s mother, and Plaintiff Mann’s female partner asked the
Defendant officers if the men were going to jail, and one of the Defendant officers responded that at least one of them would be.
20. Plaintiffs Patrick and Mann were then transported by Defendants Ramaglia and Connolly to Homan Square.
21. A few hours later, Plaintiff Deanda Wilson was at a store near the North 900 block of St. Louis Avenue buying a soda when Defendant Officer Miranda detained and handcuffed him.
22. Defendant Miranda had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Deanda Wilson had committed, was committing, or was going to commit any illegal offense nor did he have an arrest warrant or search warrant for Plaintiff.
23. Defendant Miranda thoroughly searched Deanda Wilson and did not find a weapon or any other contraband.
24. Defendant Miranda then transported Plaintiff Wilson to Homan Square. Detention at Homan Square
25. Plaintiffs Mann and Patrick were taken into a room by Defendant Ramaglia, who instructed them to strip, and they were then subjected to a full strip search.
26. Defendant Ramaglia searched them and demanded that they cooperate with him or they would be “locked up.”
27. Plaintiff Mann asked for his attorney but Defendant Ramagalia ignored his request.
28. Plaintiff Patrick asked Ramaglia if he could call his mother so that she could call
4

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:165
an attorney, and his request was similarly ignored. 29. Defendant Ramaglia took Plaintiff Mann to a windowless, dark cell and
handcuffed him to the wall. 30. Ramaglia then lead Plaintiff Patrick to a separate dark cell where he was also
handcuffed to the wall. 31. Both Plaintiffs were then left alone in their cells. 32. Sometime later, Defendant Miranda transported Plaintiff Deanda Wilson to
Homan Square, where Defendant Ramaglia was waiting. 33. Defendant Ramaglia removed Plaintiff Wilson from the transport police vehicle
and attempted to plant narcotics on him, but stopped his effort upon Defendant Miranda’s intervention.
34. Ramaglia then directed Plaintiff Wilson to a separate dark cell with no windows, where he was also handcuffed to the wall.
Interrogation and Abuse at Homan Square 35. Later that day, Defendant Ramaglia re-entered Plaintiff Mann’s cell and advised him to “help yourself.” Ramaglia interrogated him about a person named Shardell Green and advised Plaintiff Mann that if he offered information on Green, he could go free. 36. Plaintiff Mann did not know anything about Green and therefore supplied no information, causing him to remain detained in his Homan Square cell. 37. While interrogating Plaintiff Mann, Defendant Ramaglia assaulted him with a stream of insults, racial slurs, including the N word, and threats. 38. A few minutes after Defendant Ramaglia left Plaintiff Mann’s cell, Defendant Kane entered his cell and repeated Ramaglia’s demand to “help yourself” by sharing
5

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:166
information about Green. Kane grabbed Plaintiff Mann by the collar with both hands and threatened his family.
39. Once again, Plaintiff Mann did not have any information to offer and could not supply information, causing him to remain detained in his Homan Square cell.
40. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Ramaglia entered Plaintiff Patrick’s cell. 41. Ramaglia interrogated Plaintiff Patrick, and told him to “help yourself” by revealing information about the location of illegal guns in Patrick’s neighborhood. 42. Patrick was both unable and unwilling to provide any information, causing him to remain detained in his Homan Square cell. 43. Defendant Ramaglia also assaulted Plaintiff Patrick with a stream of insults and threats. 44. Minutes later, Defendant Kane entered Plaintiff Patrick’s cell and advised him that he would go to jail for a long time if he did not share information about the location of illegal guns in his neighborhood. Kane repeatedly threatened and insulted Patrick. 45. Plaintiff Patrick was unable to share any information and Defendant Kane left. 46. Later the same day, Defendant John Doe entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell, advised him that they did not want to keep him detained because he had not done anything wrong, and instructed him to provide information on the sale of illegal drugs in his neighborhood so that he could go free. 47. Plaintiff Wilson was both unable and unwilling to supply any information, so Defendant Doe advised Plaintiff Wilson that he would go to jail. 48. Wilson asked Defendant Doe to use the bathroom but was met with no response. 49. Minutes later Defendant Doe re-entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell, Wilson asked for
6

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:167
an attorney and Doe made no response. 50. Later Defendant Ramaglia entered Plaintiff Wilson’s cell and stated “give me
something and I’ll let you go.” 51. Wilson had nothing to reveal, asked for an attorney and asked again to use the
bathroom. Defendant Ramaglia did not respond, but instead spoke with Defendant Connolly at the cell’s entrance.
52. Defendant Ramaglia then once again approached Plaintiff Wilson and held a knife to Wilson’s neck.
53. Defendant Ramaglia then used the knife to cut off strings that hung down from the neck of Plaintiff Wilson’s sweatshirt.
54. Minutes later, Defendant Ramaglia re-entered the cell with Defendant Kane and Kane advised Plaintiff Wilson that he didn’t have to go to jail and that he should “help” himself.
55. Again Plaintiff Wilson asked for his lawyer and to use the bathroom but the Defendants again ignored his request, and left him alone in the cell.
56. Sometime later Plaintiff Wilson urinated on himself, because he was never permitted to go the bathroom.
57. Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson all remained detained in their cells at Homan Square all day without access to an attorney, to food, to a bathroom, or to family members despite their persistent pleas.
58. At no time did the Defendants question any of the Plaintiffs about the crime for which they were ultimately wrongfully charged.
Plaintiffs’ Arrest and Prosecution 59. After being held incommunicado at Homan Square, Plaintiffs were transported to
7

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:168
the 11th District Police Station where they were charged with the manufacture and delivery of heroin. This was the first time that any of the Plaintiffs were given a purported reason for their arrest.
60. Plaintiffs were then transported to Cook County Jail and held for trial. 61. In support of Plaintiffs’ arrest and prosecution, Defendants McCann, Ramaglia, Connolly, and Kane filled out and filed false and incomplete police reports, McCann falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ Grand Jury Proceedings, and McCann, Connolly and Kane falsely testified at Plaintiffs’ trial. 62. Specifically, Defendants McCann and Ramaglia filed supplementary reports on October 21, 2013 riddled with false and fabricated statements including: a. that Defendant McCann observed Plaintiff Patrick engage in a hand to hand narcotics transaction with an unknown Hispanic man while standing near 949 N. St. Louis; b. that Defendant McCann observed Plaintiff Wilson approach a black vehicle near 904 N. St. Louis and converse with Plaintiff Mann, who stepped out of the vehicle, and exchange currency for a plastic bag, presumably containing narcotics, with Plaintiff Mann; c. that Defendant McCann observed Plaintiff Wilson hide the plastic bag behind a board on the front porch of 939 N. St. Louis; d. that Plaintiff Mann drove further up the street and exited the car to converse with Plaintiff Patrick on the street; e. that Defendant McCann observed Plaintiffs Mann and Patrick exchange an unknown object and an unknown amount of money; and
8

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:169
f. that Defendant Connolly recovered a bag of narcotics from the porch where Defendant McCann observed Plaintiff Wilson secret a plastic bag. 63. In fact, Plaintiffs Mann, Wilson and Patrick were not in possession of, or engaged in, the sale of illegal narcotics at any time on October 21, 2013. Each of the foregoing statements included by Defendants in their police reports is false. 64. Defendants Connolly, McCann and Ramaglia filed reports on October 21, 2013 inventorying narcotics that they falsely claimed to have recovered from Plaintiffs Wilson and Patrick. 65. Additionally, some or all of the Defendants made false statements to the prosecutors, both at the felony review level and in preparation for the trial of Plaintiffs, concerning the evidence and affirming their false reports in support of the prosecution of Plaintiffs. 66. As a result of the Defendants’ false reports, false statements, and false testimony, Plaintiffs were arrested, held in custody awaiting trial for approximately fifteen months, and then wrongfully taken to trial. 67. Despite Defendants’ false and misleading police reports, false statements to the prosecutors, and false testimony, Judge William O’Brien issued a directed finding of not guilty at the conclusion of the State’s case. 68. In making his finding of not guilty as to all three Plaintiffs, Judge O’Brien found that Defendants McCann and Connolly were so thoroughly impeached that the State was unable to meet its burden of proof. 69. Anthony Speight was found guilty of possession of what appeared to be the same heroin that Defendant police officers relied upon in their false arrests of the Plaintiffs and
9

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:170
their unsuccessful attempt to convict them of crimes they did not commit. 70. Plaintiffs spent a total of approximately fifteen months in Cook County jail 71. The Defendant Officers, acting within the scope of their employment and under
color of law, agreed among themselves and with other individuals to act jointly and in concert in order to deprive each Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
72. In this manner, the Defendant Officers, acting jointly and in concert with other co-conspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
73. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the Defendant co-conspirators engaged in and facilitated one or more overt acts, including, but not limited to, those set forth above – including falsely arresting Plaintiffs, illegally detaining and coercively interrogating them in Homan Square, fabricating evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, writing false reports, committing perjury during hearings and trials, intentionally inflicting emotional distress and otherwise willfully participating in joint activities.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit prior agreement and joint actions in furtherance of the conspiracy referenced above, each Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights were violated, and each Plaintiff suffered injury, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, physical injuries, emotional distress and other mental and emotional injury and trauma.
COUNT I [42 U.S.C. §1983 Claim for False Arrest, Illegal Search and Illegal Detention] 75. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 76. The actions of Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, Connolly, McCann, Miranda, and Doe, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, in falsely arresting, detaining, strip searching and imprisoning Plaintiffs without probable cause, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth
10

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:171
Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in their person, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus also violated 42 U.S.C. §1983.
77. The actions of the Defendants named in paragraph 76 above were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, their injuries, mental suffering, anguish and humiliation, and loss of personal freedom, and expenses, as set forth more fully above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT II [42 U.S.C. §1983 Claim for Excessive Force] 78. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 79. The actions of Defendant Ramaglia as set forth in the facts above, individually, jointly and in conspiracy, also violated Plaintiffs Wilson and Mann’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive and unreasonable force as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Wilson and Mann demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendant Ramaglia, and because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:172
COUNT III [42 U.S.C. §1983 Due Process Claim for Fabrication of Evidence] 80. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 81. Defendants Ramaglia, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and John Doe, individually, jointly and in conspiracy fabricated and manufactured false inculpatory evidence to be used against Plaintiffs as more specifically set forth in paragraphs 61 to 66 above. This evidence formed the basis for Plaintiffs’ false arrest, wrongful prosecution and approximately fifteen months of wrongful imprisonment. 82. Without this manufactured and fabricated evidence, Plaintiffs would not have been arrested, prosecuted, or imprisoned. 83. These actions by these Defendants named above thereby deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IV [42 U.S.C. §1983 Claim for Failure to Intervene] 84. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 85. One or more of Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe had opportunities and the duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiffs and prevent the constitutional violations described above, but declined or refused to do so. 86. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to prevent the violation of
12

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:173

Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries set forth

above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or

compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and

Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus

the costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems

equitable and just.

COUNT V [42 U.S.C. §1983 Monell Claim]

87.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

88.

The unconstitutional actions of Defendants Ramaglia, McCann, Connolly,

Kane, Miranda and Doe, as alleged above, were done pursuant to one or more interrelated de

facto policies, practices and/or customs of the Defendant City of Chicago, acting through and by

its Police Department, Police Superintendents, Police Board, Mayors, and City Council.

89.

These interrelated de facto policies, practices, and customs included, inter

alia:

a) Maintaining an “off the books” police detention, interrogation, and intelligence

gathering center at Homan Square where the CPD unconstitutionally detained many thousands

of predominantly, and disproportionately, African American and Hispanic citizens without

probable cause and without access to lawyers and family;

b) Using unconstitutionally coercive and torturous tactics while interrogating

detainees at Homan Square including, but not limited to, handcuffing them to the wall in dark,

Spartan-like cells without food, water, or access to bathroom facilities; using physical threats,

13

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:174

beatings, assaults with a knife, and other forms of physical brutality; conducting illegal strip and

violently invasive body cavity searches; subjecting detainees to verbal racial abuse, and using

the threat of charging the detainee with bogus criminal offenses if he or she did not provide

information;

c) Manufacturing and falsifying evidence in order to falsely arrest, charge and

prosecute persons who refuse to give information while detained at Homan Square;

d) The police code of silence, whereby police officers refuse to report or otherwise

cover-up instances of police misconduct, and/or fabricated, suppressed, and destroyed evidence

of which they were aware, despite their obligation under the law and police regulations. Said

code of silence also includes police officers either remaining silent or giving false and

misleading information during official investigations and Grand Jury proceedings in order to

protect themselves and/or fellow officers from internal discipline, civil liability, or criminal

charges, and perjuring themselves in criminal cases where they and/or their fellow officers have

coercively or otherwise unconstitutionally interrogated a suspect, arrestee or witness, or falsely

detained, arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted a criminal defendant;

e) The failure to properly train, supervise, discipline, transfer, monitor, counsel

and/or otherwise control police officers, particularly those who were repeatedly accused of

abuse of suspects; of making and/or facilitating wrongful detentions, false arrests, wrongful

imprisonments, malicious prosecutions and wrongful convictions; of making false reports and

statements; and/or of physically, psychologically or otherwise illegally or improperly coercive

questioning or interrogation of witnesses, suspects and arrestees, particularly persons who were

physically and/or psychologically abused during questioning.

90.

Said interrelated policies, practices and customs, as set forth above, both

14

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:175

individually and together, were maintained and implemented with deliberate indifference; and

were, separately and together, a moving force and a direct and proximate cause of the

unconstitutional acts committed by the named Defendants and their co-conspirators herein, and

the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or

compensatory damages against Defendant City of Chicago, plus the costs of this action,

attorney’s fees and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VI [State Law Claim for Malicious Prosecution]

91.

Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.

92.

The Defendant Officers named in this Complaint accused Plaintiffs of criminal

activity knowing those accusations to be without genuine probable cause, they fabricated

inculpatory evidence and suppressed exculpatory evidence, and they made false statements to

prosecutors and wrote false reports with the intent of exerting influence on, and to institute and

continue, the judicial proceedings against Plaintiffs.

93. The Defendant Officers named in this Complaint caused Plaintiffs to be

improperly subjected to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause.

94. These judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in

Plaintiffs’ wrongful prosecution and imprisonment, and the consequent injuries set forth above.

95. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken intentionally, with

malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.

96. On January 14, 2015, the prosecution terminated in Plaintiffs’ favor.

97. As a direct and proximate result of this misconduct, Plaintiffs sustained, and

continue to sustain, injuries as set forth above, including physical injury and emotional distress.

15

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:176
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VII [State Law Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress] 98. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 99. The acts and conduct of the Defendant Officers named in this Complaint, as set forth above, were extreme and outrageous. The Defendants’ actions were rooted in an abuse of power or authority, and they were undertaken with intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability, that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs, as is more fully alleged above. 100. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer physical injury and severe emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand substantial actual or compensatory damages against Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Miranda and Doe, and, because they acted maliciously, wantonly, and/or oppressively, punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VIII [State Law Claim for Respondeat Superior] 101. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 102. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, each of the
16

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:177
Defendant Officers was a member and agent of the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago, acting at all relevant times within the scope of his employment and under color of law.
103. Defendant City of Chicago is thereby liable as principal for all state law torts committed by the Defendant Officers as alleged herein, including malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick, Mann, and Wilson demand compensatory damages against Defendant City of Chicago in any and all amounts assessed against the individual Defendant officers, plus the costs of this action, and such other and additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IX [745 ILCS 10/9-102 Claim Against Defendant City of Chicago] 104. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 105. Defendant City of Chicago is the employer of Defendants Ramaglia, Kane, McCann, Connolly, Kane, Miranda and Doe. 106. Defendants committed the acts alleged above under color of law and in the scope of their employment as employees of the City of Chicago. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, Plaintiffs Mann, Patrick, and Wilson demand judgment against defendant City of Chicago in the amount awarded to the Plaintiffs against any and all Defendants as compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, and/or for any settlement entered into between the Plaintiffs and any Defendant, and for whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-09197 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:178

Dated: August 9, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Shubra Ohri__________ G. Flint Taylor Shubra Ohri Sarah Gelsomino PEOPLE’S LAW OFFICE 1180 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60642 (773) 235-0070

18

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 1 of 14
ROWLAND,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−09197

Mann et al v. City of Chicago et al Assigned to: Honorable Ronald A. Guzman Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Atheris Mann
Plaintiff Jessie Patrick

Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Date Terminated: 11/08/2018 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by G. Flint Taylor , Jr. People's Law Offices 1180 North Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, IL 60642 (773) 235−0070 Email: flint.taylor10@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin H. Elson People's Law Office 1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60622 (773)235−0070 Email: ben.elson79@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino People's Law Office 1180 N. Milwaukee AVenue Chicago, IL 60642 773 235 0070 Email: sarahgelsomino@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shubra Ohri People's Law Office 1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60642 (773)235−6699 Email: shubraohri@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by G. Flint Taylor , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin H. Elson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shubra Ohri (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 2 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Deanda Wilson

represented by G. Flint Taylor , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin H. Elson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shubra Ohri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Frank Ramaglia Chicago Police Sergeant, Star # 1775;

represented by Jorge V. Cazares Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. 180 N. LaSalle Street Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 768−7800 Email: jcazares@pjjlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Jones , Jr. Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601−2700 (312) 768−7800 Email: wjones@pjjlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Booker Cifonelli Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. 180 North LaSalle St. Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 (312)768−7800 Email: jcifonelli@pjjlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khara Coleman Office of the Cook County Sheriff 50 W. Washington Street, Room 704 Chicago, IL 60602 312−603−5473 Email: khara.coleman@cookcountyil.gov TERMINATED: 08/30/2018
Rachel C. Steiner Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3400

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 3 of 14

Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 768−7800 Email: rsteiner@pjjlaw.com TERMINATED: 06/01/2016

Defendant
Brian Kane Chicago Police Sergeant, Star # 5538

represented by Jorge V. Cazares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Jones , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Booker Cifonelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khara Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018

Rachel C. Steiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2016

Defendant
Kathleen McCann Chicago Police Officer, Star # 3636

represented by Jorge V. Cazares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Jones , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Booker Cifonelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khara Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018

Rachel C. Steiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2016

Defendant
Kevin Connolly Chicago Police Officer, Star # 13184

represented by Jorge V. Cazares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Jones , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Booker Cifonelli

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 4 of 14

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khara Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018

Rachel C. Steiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2016

Defendant
Alejandro Miranda Chicago Police Officer, Star # 8300

represented by Jorge V. Cazares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Jones , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Booker Cifonelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khara Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018

Rachel C. Steiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2016

Defendant
John Doe Chicago Police Officer

represented by John Doe PRO SE

Khara Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018

Defendant City of Chicago

represented by Jorge V. Cazares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Jones , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Booker Cifonelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khara Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018

Rachel C. Steiner (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 5 of 14

TERMINATED: 06/01/2016

Service List

represented by Cassandra P. Miller Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC 20 South Clark Street Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 739−4200 Email: cmiller@edcombs.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle A. Alyea Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, Llc 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 739−4200 Email: malyea@edcombs.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/20/2015 10/20/2015
10/20/2015 10/20/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752−11198681. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Geraldine Soat Brown. (daj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson by G. Flint Taylor, Jr (Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson by Shubra Ohri (Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at: www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Status hearing set for 12/21/2015 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia (pg, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson by Shubra Ohri Corrected appearance regarding docket number 3 (Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann as to City of Chicago on 10/21/2015, answer due 11/12/2015. (Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann as to Kevin Connolly on 10/21/2015, answer due 11/12/2015. (Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann as to Brian Kane on 10/21/2015, answer due 11/12/2015. (Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann as to Kathleen McCann on 10/21/2015, answer due 11/12/2015. (Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann as to Alejandro Miranda on 10/21/2015, answer due 11/12/2015. (Taylor, G.) (Entered:

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 6 of 14

10/21/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/16/2015
01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/12/2016
01/20/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016

10/21/2015)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann as to Frank Ramaglia on 10/21/2015, answer due 11/12/2015. (Taylor, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia by Walter Jones, Jr (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia by Jorge V. Cazares (Cazares, Jorge) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
14 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia by Jonathan Booker Cifonelli (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
15 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia by Rachel C. Steiner (Steiner, Rachel) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
16 MOTION by Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia for extension of time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (Unopposed) (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
17 NOTICE of Motion by Jonathan Booker Cifonelli for presentment of extension of time 16 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/17/2015 at 09:30 AM. (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Unopposed motion by Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia for extension of time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint 16 is granted to and including 1/11/2016 for all defendants. Status hearing set for 12/21/2015 is stricken and reset to 1/22/2016 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
19 MOTION by Defendants Kathleen McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia, City of Chicago, Brian Kane to dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
20 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Jones, Jr for presentment of motion to dismiss 19 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 1/14/2016 at 09:30 AM. (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
21 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia(Jones, Walter) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Set deadlines as to motion by Defendants Kathleen McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia, City of Chicago, Brian Kane to dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 19 : Response due by 2/2/2016. Reply due by 2/17/2016. Ruling by mail. Motion hearing set for 1/14/2016 is stricken and no parties shall appear. Status hearing set for 1/22/2016 to stand. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing set for 1/22/2016 is reset to 2/2/2016 at 09:30 AM. on Court's own motion. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
24 STATUS Report by Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson (Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
25 MOTION by Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson for extension of time to file response/reply (Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
26 NOTICE of Motion by Shubra Ohri for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 25 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/2/2016 at 09:30 AM.

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 7 of 14

02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016 03/01/2016 03/15/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/28/2016
04/14/2016 04/15/2016

(Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
27 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 2/2/2016. Unopposed motion by Plaintiffs to file their response to Defendants partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint 25 is granted to and including 2/23/16. Reply due 3/8/2016. Ruling by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
28 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 2/2/2016 and continued to 2/16/2016 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
29 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing set for 2/16/2016 at 9:30 AM is reset to 02:30 PM. on Court's own motion. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
30 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 2/16/2016. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by 3/8/2016. Status hearing set for 3/17/2016 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
31 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Briefing schedule on motion by Defendants Kathleen McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia, City of Chicago, Brian Kane to dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 19 is stayed pending further order of Court. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
32 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson by Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino (Gelsomino, Sarah) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
33 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing set for 3/17/2016 is reset to 3/24/2016 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
34 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 3/24/2016. Set deadlines as to motion by Defendants Kathleen McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia, City of Chicago, Brian Kane to dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 19 : Response due by 4/14/2016. Reply due by 4/28/2016. Ruling by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
35 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Discovery supervision including all discovery motions and protective orders is being referred to Magistrate Judge Rowland by Executive Committee Order. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
36 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: It appearing that, for reasons of judicial efficiency, coordinated pretrial proceedings in the cases listed below should be presided over by a single district judge as provided for by IOP 13(e) and that a single magistrate judge should be designated for these cases; and It further appearing that the Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr., has agreed to preside over these proceedings; and It further appearing that Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland has agreed to be the designated magistrate judge in these proceedings; therefore It is hereby ordered that Judge Dow shall preside over pretrial proceedings, in the cases listed below; and It is hereby ordered that the cases listed below be referred to Magistrate Judge Rowland for discovery supervision and settlement proceedings when requested. It is further ordered that these cases shall remain pending on the calendars of the judges to whom they are currently assigned, and that an order be entered in each case by Judge Dow at such time as coordinated pretrial proceedings have concluded. Signed by Executive Committee on 3/28/2016.(mr, ) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
37 RESPONSE by Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson to MOTION by Defendants Kathleen McCann, Kevin Connolly, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia, City of Chicago, Brian Kane to dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 19 (Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
38 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: This case has been consolidated with Perez v. Chicago, 13−4531, for purposes of discovery. Fact discovery to close on 11/21/16. Status set 6/14/16 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 8 of 14

04/26/2016 04/26/2016 05/03/2016 05/12/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/08/2016 06/14/2016
07/19/2016
08/09/2016

39 MOTION by Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to dismiss 19 (Steiner, Rachel) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
40 NOTICE of Motion by Rachel C. Steiner for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 39 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 5/4/2016 at 09:15 AM. (Steiner, Rachel) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
41 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia's unopposed motion for extension of time until 5/12/2016 to file reply in support of partial motion to dismiss 39 is granted. Notice of motion date of 5/4/2016 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
42 REPLY by Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia to motion to dismiss 19 (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
43 MOTION by Attorney Rachel C. Steiner to withdraw as attorney for City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia. No party information provided (Steiner, Rachel) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
44 NOTICE of Motion by Rachel C. Steiner for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 43 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 6/2/2016 at 09:15 AM. (Steiner, Rachel) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
45 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Rachel C. Steiner's motion for leave to withdraw her appearance on behalf of Defendants City of Chicago, Sergeant Matthew Cline, Detective Jorge L. Lopez, Officer Edmund Zablocki, Officer Joseph Wagner, Officer Herbert Betancourt, and Officer John Dolan (collectively, "Defendants") is granted. The notice of motion date of 6/2/2016. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
46 ORDER: Rachel C. Steiner's motion for leave to withdraw her appearance on behalf of Defendants Sergeant Frank Ramaglia, Sergeant Brian Kane, Officer Kathleen McCann, Officer Kevin Connolly, and Officer Alejandro Miranda (collectively, Defendants) 43 is granted. The notice of motion date of 6/2/2016 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 6/1/2016. Mailed notice. (jl) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
47 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, John Doe, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia by Khara Coleman (Coleman, Khara) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
48 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. This case is consolidated with Perez v. Chicago, 13−4531, for purposes of pretrial discovery. The plaintiffs in this matter agree to be bound by the Protective Orders entered in Perez (Dkt. 18 & 19 ) until further order of the Court. The parties are directed to confer with the plaintiffs in Perez about the orderly production of documents for both cases. The court strongly prefers one set of documents related to liability be produced for both cases. Status hearing set for 09/13/16 at 9:00 a.m. To get this case on track with Perez, fact discovery is set to close on 10/17/16. The court will revisit this date at the September status. Status hearing set for 09/13/16 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
49 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/19/2016: Defendants' partial motion to dismiss 19 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' Brady claim is dismissed with prejudice. Wilson's excessive force claim against Defendant Kane is dismissed, and the motion to dismiss Patrick's excessive force claim against Kane is denied as moot. Plaintiffs are given 21 days from the date of entry of this order to replead the due process claim relating to the fabrication of evidence and their claim for civil conspiracy, which are dismissed without prejudice. [For further details see order.] Mailed notice(is, ) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
50 AMENDED complaint by Deanda Wilson, Jessie Patrick, Atheris Mann against All Defendants (Ohri, Shubra) (Entered: 08/09/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 9 of 14

08/23/2016 08/23/2016 09/13/2016 11/09/2016
12/14/2016 12/18/2016 12/20/2016

51 ANSWER to amended complaint by City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia(Jones, Walter) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
52 NOTICE by City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia re answer to amended complaint 51 (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
53 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Parties report discovery is ongoing. Written discovery shall be completed by 01/10/17. Status hearing set for 11/09/16 at 9:00 a.m. to set remaining discovery schedule. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
54 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Defendants shall (1) respond to Mann document requests by 11/11/16; (2) respond to Perez document requests by 11/18/16; (3) send a letter to Perez counsel describing all the officers' conduct involved in any of the interrogations of any of the Perez plaintiffs by 11/14/16; and (4) produce to both sets of plaintiffs' counsel all OPS and IPRA documents for each individual Defendant in both cases by 11/30/16. Plaintiffs Angel Perez and Juanita Berry shall respond to interrogatories by 11/30/16, Plaintiff Calvin Coffey shall respond to interrogatories by 12/15/16. Status hearing set for 12/14/16 at 9:00 a.m. to report on discovery. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
55 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Counsel report on discovery. The 1/10/17 cutoff date for written discovery is stricken. Defendants shall respond to interrogatories by 12/23/16. Status hearing set for 02/01/17 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
56 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson by Benjamin H. Elson (Elson, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/18/2016)
57 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on November 9, 2016, before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Court Reporter Contact Information: Laura LaCien, 312−408−5032, laura_lacien@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

01/31/2017 01/31/2017 02/01/2017

Redaction Request due 1/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/20/2017. (Lacien, Laura) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
58 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago to bifurcate Plaintiffs' Monell Claim and to Stay Discovery & Trial on those Claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
59 NOTICE of Motion by Jonathan Booker Cifonelli for presentment of motion to bifurcate, 58 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 2/8/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
60 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Counsel report on discovery. Status hearing set for 3/9/17 at 9:30 a.m. Motion hearing held. Defendant City of Chicagos Motion to Bifurcate Plaintiffs' Monell Claim and to Stay Discovery and Trial on those Claims 58 is denied with respect to bifurcating discovery and denied without prejudice as to bifurcating for trial. It would be inappropriate for this court to consider whether to bifurcate the Monell claims for trial. That decision is best left to the district court judge. As to discovery, the court is aware of the several cases, thoughtfully described by defendants, bifurcating Monell discovery in this district in order to focus on the alleged constitutional violations suffered by the individual plaintiffs and any damages arising therefrom. That narrower focus of course also contributes to judicial efficiency, always a concern. (Mot. at 4−7). This case is different than the cited cases for two significant reasons, one procedural and one

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 10 of 14

03/09/2017
04/19/2017 04/19/2017 05/02/2017 05/02/2017 05/04/2017

substantive; either reason is dispositive. As a procedural matter, this case is coordinated for discovery purposes with Perez v. City, 13 C 4531. (Dkt. 36) (citing IOP 13(e)). The City will not be moving to bifurcate discovery in Perez because of the class allegations pending in Perez. The Mann and Perez plaintiffs are working jointly to conduct Monell discovery in order to streamline discovery. So the City does not save itself any burden by a bifurcation here and no judicial efficiencies are gained. As to the merits, this is not a run−of−the−mill Monell claim based on excessive force or wrongful arrest. The allegation here is that the City sanctioned the use of a facility, not a police station, to detain suspects without charges and without access to counsel or families, used coercive tactics during interrogations, and sanctioned a code of silence. (Dkt. 50, Amended Complaint, Count V). The fact that the facility was not a police station, and was unknown to the public, potential counsel and families of those detained, raises a number of discovery questions as to the policies that governed that facility, what level of command authorized and knew about the facility, and the command structure of the facility. While these are currently contained in the Monell count, questions about the authority of the individual officers to detain the individual plaintiffs at Homan Square would be fair discovery even absent the Monell claim. As stated in Court, Plaintiffs' oral Monell discovery will be limited to the City's policies, practices and procedures as they relate to the Homan Square facility. Finally, Plaintiffs shall promptly respond to the City's interrogatory requesting the factual basis for their Monell claim. No appearance necessary on 2/8/17. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
61 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held on 3/9/17. By Friday 3/17/17: (1) parties are to reach an agreement on the search terms and custodians the City will use to conduct its ESI search; (2) Mann Plaintiffs' counsel shall respond to Defendants' Rule 37 letter; and (3) Defendants shall produce a list of the units working out of Homan Square from 2003−2015. By 3/22/17, Plaintiffs' counsel shall notify Defendants what units they need a list of commanders from. By 4/12/17, Defendants shall produce a list identifying commanders of the units that Plaintiffs' class counsel selected from 2006−2015. Class Counsel in the Perez case shall respond to revised interrogatory requests by 4/7/17. Defendants' previously redacted documents shall be produced to Plaintiffs' class counsel unredacted pursuant to the protective order entered in the Perez case 18 and 19 for "attorney's eyes only". The parties in Mann have agreed that the protective orders entered in Perez are binding in Mann. Status hearing set for 4/20/17 at 9:30 a.m. Individual counsel for Mr. Perez must be present at the next status hearing. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
AGREED ORAL MOTION by Parties to reset status hearing. (dm, ) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
62 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Parties' agreed oral motion to reset status hearing is granted. Status hearing previously set for 4/20/17 is stricken and reset to 5/4/17 at 9:30 a.m. Individual counsel for Mr. Perez must be present at the next status hearing. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
63 MOTION by Defendants City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, John Doe, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia to amend/correct magistrate judge status hearing,,,,, set/reset hearings,,,, 61 Protective Order (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
64 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Jones, Jr for presentment of motion to amend/correct,, motion for relief,,, 63 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 5/9/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Jones, Walter) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
65 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held and continued to 6/7/17 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants' motion to amend protective order 63 is granted in part and denied in part. The Homan Square sign in lists are to be produced from 2008 − 2015. This is 5 years prior to the plaintiffs having been taken to Homan Square. The City is permitted to redact the names of any Confidential Informants who were signed−in to Homan Square and all the police officers' cellular telephone numbers. All other information contained on the sign−in sheets shall be produced. The sign−in lists are to be produced pursuant to the Protective Order entered in the Perez case. The spread sheets created by the City for purposes of separate FOIA litigation shall be produced from 2005 − 2015. These documents will not contain any redactions. The entirety of these documents are being produced FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 11 of 14

06/07/2017 06/22/2017
06/30/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/07/2017 07/08/2017

ONLY. It is imperative that officers' names contained in these spreadsheets be protected from disclosure. The Court has every confidence in plaintiffs' attorneys, as officers of the court, willingness to abide by this limitation. This document product shall be complete by 6/2/17. The parties report being close to an agreement on search terms and custodians and close to identifying commanders for purposes of setting depositions. The City is to begin the email searches and to provide the final list of snap shots of leadership by 5/26/17. At the next status the Court intends to set a close of oral fact discovery. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
66 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Parties are continuing to try to resolve disputes regarding search terms and custodians. Status hearing set for 6/22/17 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
67 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held and continued to 7/27/17 at 9:30 AM. Parties have reached an agreement on all search terms except one (Homan Square). The City is to submit a proposed order to(Proposed_Order_Rowland@ilnd.uscourts.gov) by 6/27/17 indicating wither it wants to include that term in its search terms or whether it wants to verify, by affidavit, the burden of searching that term by 7/27/17. The parties largely agreed on the custodians to be searched but are at odds over non−police force City officials. Plaintiff's motion on this matter is due 6/30/17. Defendants' response is due 7/14/17. Reply is due 7/21/17. Finally, the parties' joint request that the Court conduct an in camera review is granted. By 7/6/17, the City shall provide to the Court the 24 hour "log−in book" with the redacted names highlighted. The Court is tasked with verifying that the highlighted names are identified in the "log−in book" as witnesses or confidential informants, therefore justifying the redactions. If the Court has follow−up questions for the City, the Court will alert the parties at the next status, prior to engaging in any ex parte discussion with defense counsel about the matter. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
68 MOTION by Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson to compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Elson, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
VERBAL MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago to enter order regarding searching the term "Homan Square". (dm, ) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
69 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Defendant's verbal motion is granted. By July 27, 2017, Defendant City of Chicago will verify by affidavit the burden of searching the standalone term "Homan Square" for all Chicago Police Department email custodians from November 2008 to the present. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
70 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time to submit un−redacted 24−hour sign−in book for court inspection (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
71 NOTICE of Motion by Jonathan Booker Cifonelli for presentment of extension of time 70 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 7/13/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
72 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Defendant City of Chicago's unopposed Motion for extension of time to submit un−redacted 24−hour sign−in book for court inspection 70 is granted. By 7/17/17, Defendant shall provide the Court with the 24−hour "log−in book." No appearance necessary on 7/13/2017. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
73 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 03−09−2017 before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/Transcript−Order−Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 7/31/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/8/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/6/2017. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 07/08/2017)

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 12 of 14

07/14/2017 07/21/2017 07/25/2017 08/03/2017
08/09/2017 08/09/2017 08/10/2017 09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/08/2017 09/20/2017 09/20/2017

74 RESPONSE by City of Chicago to MOTION by Plaintiffs Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson to compel 68 the City to include certain custodians from the Mayor's Office in their email search (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
75 REPLY by Atheris Mann, Jessie Patrick, Deanda Wilson to response to motion 74 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Defendant City of Chicago to Include Certain Custodians From the Mayor's Office in Their Email Search (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Elson, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
76 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: On the Court's own motion, status hearing previously set for 7/27/17 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken and reset for 8/3/17 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
77 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. The Court reviewed the unredacted 24−hour "log−in book" that Defendant City of Chicago provided to the Court for in camera inspection. By 8/18/17, Defendant shall produce those documents to Plaintiffs as follows: (1) juvenile names shall be unredacted (with the exception of juveniles who are confidential informants), (2) names of confidential informants may remain redacted including "Jane Doe" or "John Doe", and (3) any identifiers, symbols or numbers indicating confidential informant status shall be unredacted. As the parties already know, if any document containing a juvenile name is filed in the litigation, that name must be redacted. At this time, Defendant is not required to search the standalone term "Homan Square" for all Chicago Police Department email custodians from November 2008 to the present, in light of all of the other searches being done by the City and based on defense counsel's representations at the hearing about the burden. By 8/18/17, the parties shall issue initial deposition notices. At the next status hearing, the Court will set firm deadlines for the completion of written and oral fact discovery. Status hearing set for 9/14/17 at 9:30 am. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
78 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for leave to file Sur−Reply Instanter to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the City to Include Certain Custodians from the Mayor's Office in Their Email Search (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
79 NOTICE of Motion by Jonathan Booker Cifonelli for presentment of motion for leave to file, 78 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 8/22/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
80 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Defendant City of Chicago's motion for leave to file Sur−Reply Instanter to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 78 is granted. No appearance necessary on 8/22/17. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
81 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant City of Chicago to Include Certain Custodians in Their Email Search 68 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
82 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 9/8/2017. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
83 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing previously set for 9/14/17 is stricken and reset for 9/22/17 at 9:15 a.m. At the next status hearing, the Court will set firm deadlines for the completion of written and oral fact discovery. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
UNOPPOSED ORAL MOTION by Plaintiffs to reset status hearing. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
84 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiffs' unopposed oral motion to reset status hearing is granted. Status hearing previously set for 9/22/17 is stricken and reset for 9/29/17 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 1743. At the next status hearing, the Court will set firm deadlines for the completion of written and oral fact discovery. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 13 of 14

09/28/2017 10/02/2017 10/16/2017 11/28/2017 12/13/2017
01/10/2018 01/10/2018 01/26/2018
03/15/2018 05/02/2018

85 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: At the request of the parties, status hearing set for 9/29/17 is stricken and reset for 10/2/17 at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 1743. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
86 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of discovery including the collection of emails from the Chicago Police Department and the Mayor's Office. Individual defendants are to be deposed by 12/15/17. Status hearing set for 12/7/17 at 9:00 am. At the next status, parties should be prepared to report on the production of emails to Plaintiffs and the amount of time needed to complete plaintiffs' and Monell related depositions. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
87 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The Clerk of Court has notified the Court that Sarah Gelsomino has not renewed her membership in the Court's Trial Bar as required under Local Rule 83.11(i). Sarah Gelsomino is given 14 days from the date of this order to renew her membership or be subject to removal as lead counsel from this matter. Mailed notice (is, ) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
88 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing set for 12/7/17 is stricken and reset for 12/13/17 at 9:00 a.m. At the next status, parties should be prepared to report on the production of emails to Plaintiffs and the amount of time needed to complete plaintiffs' and Monell related depositions. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
89 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Mr. Taylor appeared telephonically. Parties reported on the production of emails to Plaintiffs and the amount of time needed to take depositions. Parties are to confer regarding search terms by 12/20/17. Defendants shall produce email samples to Plaintiffs by 12/29/17. Defendants shall produce Mayor's Office emails by 1/26/18. Status hearing set for 1/16/18 at 9:30 a.m. At the status, the Court will revisit the date by which all of the defendants shall be deposed. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
UNOPPOSED ORAL MOTION by Plaintiffs to reset status hearing. (dm, ) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
90 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiffs' unopposed oral motion to reset status hearing is granted. Status hearing previously set for 1/16/18 is stricken and reset for 1/26/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
91 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Parties report on production of electronic discovery. Electronic discovery from the Mayor's office is to be produced by February 7, 2018. Electronic discovery from the CPD was to cover the period November 2008−2017. That time period will be shortened to January 2010 − 2017. However, no defendant is permitted to make any argument or inference in briefing or at trial that the City or any individual defendant did not engage in a pattern or practice of conduct as alleged by plaintiffs because plaintiffs do not have evidence of such conduct that predates January 2010. The parties are ordered to commit to such a stipulation in writing by 2/9/18. Production of the CPD electronic discovery shall be done on a rolling basis and shall be concluded by 3/9/18. Party depositions are ongoing and shall be essentially complete by 2/28/18. Status set for 3/15/18 at 9:30 AM. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
92 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Parties reported on the status of discovery including the collection of emails from the Chicago Police Department and the Mayor's Office. Non−Monell depositions and email production shall be completed by 4/20/18. Status hearing set for 5/2/18 at 9:30 a.m. Parties should be prepared to close of fact discovery, including Monell discovery. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
93 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Defense counsel reported significant progress has been made with respect to the Chicago Police Department emails. Defendants shall provide a list of search terms for the emails already produced to Plaintiffs by 5/4/18. Production of the CPD emails shall be completed with exception of the 2,700 spreadsheets by 5/11/18. Email production has been completed with respect to the Mayor's Office emails, with the exception of 15 or 16 emails that will be produced by the end of this week. Close of fact discovery, which

Case: 1:15-cv-9197 As of: 12/02/2018 05:15 PM CST 14 of 14

07/17/2018 07/31/2018 08/28/2018
08/29/2018 08/29/2018 08/30/2018 09/24/2018 11/07/2018 11/08/2018

includes all party and non−party depositions, is set for 6/15/18. Close of Monell discovery is set for 11/9/18. Status hearing set for 7/17/18 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
94 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Plaintiffs have submitted a settlement demand to defendants. Defense counsel needs additional time to talk to his client. Status hearing set for 8/14/18 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants shall be prepared to report if a settlement conference would be fruitful. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
95 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: On the Court's own motion, status hearing set for 8/14/18 is stricken and reset for 8/28/18 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants shall be prepared to report if a settlement conference would be fruitful. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
96 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. The parties believe a settlement conference would be productive. Settlement Conference set for 9/24/18 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to exchange position letters prior to the settlement conference. Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with a demand letter. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' demand by 9/17/18. Plaintiffs shall submit copies of all letters exchanged by the parties to Settlement_Rowland@ilnd.uscourts.gov by 9/18/18. If any party's position letter consists of more than 10 pages (including exhibits), the party is responsible for submitting a courtesy copy to Judge Rowland's chambers (Room 1334) on or before 9/19/18. Parties should also review and comply with Judge Rowland's standing order regarding settlement conferences which can be found on the Court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. By close of business today 8/28/18, defense counsel shall chambers at 312−435−5857 to confirm this date. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
97 MOTION by Attorney Khara Coleman to withdraw as attorney for City of Chicago, Kevin Connolly, John Doe, Brian Kane, Kathleen McCann, Alejandro Miranda, Frank Ramaglia. No party information provided (Coleman, Khara) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
98 NOTICE of Motion by Khara Coleman for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 97 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 9/13/2018 at 09:30 AM. (Coleman, Khara) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
99 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Defendants attorney Khara Coleman's motion for leave to withdraw 97 is granted. Motion hearing noticed for 9/13/2018 is stricken and no appearance is required. Attorney Khara Coleman terminated. Mailed notice (is, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
100 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Settlement Conference held. Settlement reached. Parties should file their dismissal papers with the district court judge. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. Honorable Judge Mary M. Rowland no longer referred to the case. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
101 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Cifonelli, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
102 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Pursuant to the parties' stipulation to dismiss 101 , this case is dismissed without prejudice with leave to reinstate within 75 days. If a motion to reinstate or extend the date is not filed within the 75−day period, the dismissal without prejudice will automatically convert to one with prejudice at the end of the 75−day period. Each side shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Any pending motions or schedules are stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (is, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)