.;
-.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

ROSEMARY RAYMUNDO, both

)

individually and on behalf of a class of )

others similarly situated,

)

)

Judge Kapala Magistrate Judge Mahoney
07 CV 50087

Plaintiff,

)

~----

-

)

Jury Demanded

v.

)

)

Civil Rights Class Action

WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WINI\EBAGO )

COlTKTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

)

Seeking Damages and Injunctive Relief

RICHARD A. MEYERS, both individually)

and in his official capacity as Sheriff of )

Winnebago County, JOHN DOE, both

)

both individually and in his capacity as )

FILED

Director of Corrections of Winnebago

)

County,

)

MAY 1 4 2007

)

Defendants.

) COMPLAINT

UMNIICTeHDASETLAWTESDOO~13T~S, CLERI{
"ICTCOLJAT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants

of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed class by the United States Constitution and

the laws ofthe United States of America. Winnebago County and the Winnebago

County SheritTs Office have had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the

Winnebago County Jail and are booked into the facility, regardless of particularized

suspicion or cause. Upon information and belief, this policy is derived from the written

procedures of the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office and was promulgated by senior

officials within that office; specifically, Defendants Sheriff Richard A. Meyers and

Director of Corrections John Doe.

2. It has been well established in this judicial district that individuals charged with

misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent some level of particularized

suspicion or cuase to believe that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the

policy of Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office to force those

charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip-search upon entry into the

Winnebago County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but it is insensitive and unnecessary.

3. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and on behalf of a class of others

who were strip-searched after being charged with minor crimes, to vindicate the clear and

unnecessary violation of her civil rights and those of the class members she proposes to

represent. She seeks monetary damages for herself and each member of the proposed

class, a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding

Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office from continuing to

violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiffs

complains as follows:

JURISDICTION

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive

damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights

of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42

U.S.c. 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the

provisions of28 L.S.C. 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the

constitutionality of the policies of a local government.

5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.c. 139J(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff s claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 6. On or about January 8, 2007, Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo was arrested at her home in South Beloit, IL, on a warrant for failing to appear in court for charges of transporting a child without an appropriate child restraint system (625 ILCS 25/4). She was first taken to the South Beloit police station and then taken to the Winnebago County Jail. 7. Defendant Winnebago County is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriffs Office, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Winnebago County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Office personnel, including those working in the Winnebago County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Winnebago County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Office personnel employed in the jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Illinois. 8. Defendant Winnebago County Sheriffs Office ("Sheriffs Office") is a County Sheriff s Office organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriffs Office was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Winnebago County Jail. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Office, together with Winnebago County, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to

the Winnebago County Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Office personnel, including those working at the Winnebago County Jail. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Office, together with Winnebago County, was responsible for enforcing the rules of Winnebago County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Office personnel employed in the Winnebago County Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Illinois. 9. Defendant Richard A. Meyers ("Sheriff Meyers") is the duly elected Sheriff of Winnebago County, and, as such, is a policy-maker who created and/or implemented an unconstitutional policy with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Winnebago County Jail exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Meyers is made a defendant in this action in his individual and official capacities. 10. Defendant John Doe ("Director of Corrections Doe") is the duly appointed Director of Corrections of the Winnebago County Sheriff s Office and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Winnebago County Jail. As such, Director of Corrections Doe is a policy maker who created and/or implemented an unconstitutional policy with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Winnebago County Jail exercises custodial or other control. Director of Corrections Doe is made a defendant in this action in his individual and official capacities. 11. Collectively, Sheriff Meyers and Director of Corrections Doe will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants."
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals who were strip-searched without particularized justification upon their entry into the Winnebago County Jail. 13. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be strip-searched without any particularized justification upon their being placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office and Winnebago County. Specifically excluded from the proposed class are Defendants and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assIgnees. 14. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 15. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are scores of people arrested for minor crimes who are placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail every month - all whom are members of the proposed class. 16. Upon information and belief~ joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Winnebago County and this judicial district. Futhermore, upon information and belief,

many members of the calss are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually. 17. COIlil1I011 questions oflaw and fact exist as to all members of the class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants' conducting strip-searches absent particularized justification. All members of the class were illegally strip-searched without particularized justification upon entering the Winnebago County Jail in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial district. 18. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class. Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff is typical of the harms suffered by the class members. 19. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has no interest that is adverse to the interests of the members of the class. 20. Plaintiffs counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute th is action against the Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff knmvs of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class. 21. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), in that all class members were subjected to the same policy requiring the illegal strip-searches without particularized justification upon being placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail. In ShOli, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office and the Policy Making Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.

22. In addition to celiification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3). 23. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants' written and/or defacto policy of stripsearching without particularized justification all individuals placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de Jacto policy existed. 24. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and since they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Futhermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members ofthe class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this district presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the class. 25. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants' flagrant violation of the civil rights of the Plaintiff and the proposed class.

26. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). 27. Finally, Plaintiff seeks the certification of a limited fund class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1 )(B) for the purposes of assessing punitive damages against the Policy Making Defendants. The prohibition against strip-searching without particularized justification has been established in this Judicial circuit for several years, and with good reason: Subjecting someone to the indignity of a strip-search is only appropriate where there exists some particularized suspicion or cause to believe that the individual possesses weapons or contraband. 28. This action is a textbook example of when punitive damages should be imposed on those in charge of a local correctional facility. The Policy Making Defendants, however, have limited personal assets that would quickly be exhausted upon the imposition of punitive damages in only a few cases. As all members of the proposed class deserve to equally share in the assets of the Policy Making Defendants, the certification of a limited fund punitive damages class is appropriate, with the Court, after verdict, to establish this limited fund from the liquidated assets of the Policy Making Defendants and distribute the fund to all members of the class.
FACTS 29. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip-searches of arrestees unless the officer has particularized suspicion or cause to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband.

30. Upon information and belief, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto pol icy, custom or practice of strip-searching without particularized justification all individuals who enter into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of particularized suspicion or cause to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. 31. Upon information and belief, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip-searching without particularized justification all individuals who enter the custody of the Winnebago County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics of the nature of their charged crime. 32. Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip-searches without particularized justification. This judicial circuit has stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip-search individuals without particularized justification, with this principle being clearly established in John Doe, et at. v. Calumet City, Illinois, et at. (754 F.Supp. 1211). 33. The Defendants' written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip-searches without particularized justification has been promulgated, effectuated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.

34. Particluarized justification to conduct a strip-search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest. 35. Upon information and belief, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff's Office and the Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a policy, practice or custom of strip-searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or defacto policy made the strip-searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip-searches. 36. Pursuant to this written and/or defacto policy, each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff, were victims of a routine strip-search upon their entry into the Winnebago County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of particularized justification, and in fact were not supported by particularized justification. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-searches conducted pursuant to this written and/or de[acto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip-searches - each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff- have suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts applicable to the Named Plaintiff

38. Ms. Raymundo's experience is representative. On or about January 8, 2007, Rosemary Raymundo was arrested at her home in South Beloit, IL. She was picked up on a warrant for failing to appear for a court date on charges oftransporting a child without an appropriate child restraint system (625 ILCS 2514). 39. Plaintiff Raymundo was initially transported to the South Beloit Police Station and subsequently transported to the Winnebago County Jail. 40. Upon being placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail, Plaintiff Raymundo was strip searched. Two women correctional guards ordered her to remove her clothing. Once removed, Plaintiff was ordered to spread her cheeks and cough. At no time did anyone ask if Plaintiff consented to this search, and at no time to Plaintiff give consent for this search.
CAUSES OF ACTION I: Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law --Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 42. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip-searches without particularized reason to believe that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons. 43. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiff s rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Winnebago

County Corrections Officers to strip-search Plaintiff and class members without particularized justification. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Winnebago County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 44. These strip-searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office. As such, Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office are directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and member of the class. 45. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Meyers and Director of Corrections Doe are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Winnebago County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the stripsearch policy questioned in the lawsuit. As such, Meyers and Doe are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the class. 46. Sheriff Meyers and Director of Corrections Doe knew that the strip-search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and members of the class of their constitutional rights. 47. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.c. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and proposed class members have been irreparably injured.
II: Demand for Declaratory Judgement 49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above.

50. The policy, custom and practice of the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office, Winnebago County and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Winnebago County Jail without any particularized justification. 51 . Plai nti ff and members of the class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip-search policy of Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriff's Office to be unconstitutional.
III: Demand for Preliminary and Premanent Injunction 52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and realege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 53. The policy, custom and practice of the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office, Winnebago County and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Winnebago County Jail without any particularized justification. 54. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Winnebago County Jail, with new and/or prospective members ofthe class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff. 55. The continuing pattern of strip-searching individuals without particularized justification will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law. 56. Plaintiffs demand that Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office, the Policy Making Defendants and Winnebago County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip-searching individuals placed into the custody of the

Winnebago County Jail absent any particularized justification, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
IV: Against Defendants Winnebago County, The Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Meyers, and Director of Corrections Doe --Deliberate Indifference to Training and Supervision--
57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and realege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 58. The above-named Defendants were deliberately indifferent in the training and supervision of the individual corrections officers employed at the Winnebago County Jail, in that Defendants were deliberately indifferent in discharging their duty to make sure that any strip-searches conducted at the Winnebago County Jail were performed only in circumstances permitted by the United States Constitution. 59. The above-named Defendants knew, or should have known, that unconstitutional strip-searches were, or likely to be, taking place in the Winnebago County Jail. 60. Despite this knowledge, the above-named Defendants did not act to stop these unconstitutional practices from occurring. 61. This conduct on the part of the above-named Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.c. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under the color of state law. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, PlaintifTs have been irreparably injured.
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 63. The actions of the individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip-search policy even though they know that their

actions are unconstitutional. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 64. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, requests that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: I. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 2. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding compensatory damages to the named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class. 3. A judgment against Defendant Sheriff Meyers on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for $1,000,000 in punitive damages. 4. A judgment against Defendant Director of Corrections Doe on Plaintiff s First Cause of Action for $1,000,000 in punitive damages. 5. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring Winnebago County's and the Winnebago County Sheriffs Office's policy, practice and custom of stripsearching all detainees entering the Winnebago County Jail without particularized justification and regardless ofthe crime charged or suspicion of contraband or weapons, to be unconstitutional and improper. 6. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to strip-search individuals without particularized justification.

7. A monetary award for attorneys' fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

I Dated: S-) It( OJ Chicab, Illinois

Respectfully submitted,
James R. Fennerty ARDC #: 793000 Robert W. Ludemann ARDC #: 6286750 James R. Fennerty & Associates, L.L.C. 36 South Wabash Avenue, Suite 1310 Chicago, Illinios 60603 Phone: 312-345-1704 Fax: 312-422-0708 E-Mail: FennertyLaw@yahoo.com

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-50087 Document #: 10 Filed: 07/24/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

July

PARTIES' PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
07 c 50087
I. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held in _ ___,(""'c,.,as""e'-'n"'""u"'"m""'b""'e""""r).J-__on l 0, (date) 2 0 0 7 and was attended by:

James R. Fennerty

Raymundo et al

(name)

for Plaintiff(s) -----~(p=a"'-'rty'-J..-...'.'n""'am.......,..e.L-)_ _ _ _ _ __

Gregory M. Minger

Sheriff Meyers

_ _ _....J.(-'-"na,.,m#e,._)L__ _ _ _ for Defendant(s)

(party name)

II. The Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l) material will be exchanged by August 10, 2007

III. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation. Counsels hereby certify that their clients have read the Pamphlet governing the court's mediation program, that counsels have discussed with their respective clients the available dispute resolution options provided by the court and private entities, and that counsels have given an estimation of the fees and costs that would be associated with the litigation of this matter, through trial, to their clients. Further, counsels have provided to their clients an estimate of the fees and expenses reasonably expected to be incurred through an early successful mediation. Counsels certify that they have discussed the available ADR options with their clients and have considered how this case might benefit from those options. Lastly, if this is a fee shifting case, detense counsels certify they have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of making a Rule 68 offer of
judgment.

G Parties have agreed on early mediation.

has been chosen as the

mediator. The mediation shall be held within 60 days of this order. Discovery (shall)(shall not)

be stayed during the 60 days of referral. Pursuant to ADR local rules, this case is hereby

referred to mediation. Counsels and parties will submit evaluations to the Court within ten days

of the conclusion of mediation.

G Parties have agreed on mediation.

has been chosen as the

mediator. The parties believe the best time to mediate would be

and

request the matter be referred to mediation at that time. Counsels and parties will submit

mediation evaluations to the Court within ten days of the conclusion of mediation.

G Parties request an immediate settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge.

G Parties plan to utilize private ADR. (Parties shall explain the private ADR and when it will take
place).
~X Parties request this case be excused from ADR.

Case: 3:07-cv-50087 Document #: 10 Filed: 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:49

IV. Discovery Plan. The parties jointly propose to the court the following discovery plan:

A) Discovery will be needed on the following subjects:
Policies, procedures and practices in booking inmates at the Winnebago County Jail, specifically regarding searches.

B) Maximum of 25 interrogatories by each party to any other party. C) Maximum of 2 5 requests for admission by each party to any other party.

D) Maximum of 2 0 depositions by Plaintiff(s) and 10 by Defendants(s).

E) Each deposition [other than of

] shall be limited to a maximum of

_ __::3__ hours unless extended by agreement of the parties.

F) Fact discovery cut-offis set for July 10, 2008

G) Report from retained expert for the Plaintiff under Rule 26(a)(2) due._ _ _ _ _ __

Deposition of Plaintiffs expert shall be taken by

. Report from retained expert for

Defendant under rule 26(a)(2) due

. Deposition of Defendant's expert shall be

taken by

. Supplementations under Rule 26(e) will be scheduled by the court at the

request of the parties.

H) All discovery shall be cut off by _ _ _ _ _ _ (should be no longer than date for Defendant's expert deposition).

I) Time for the parties to amend pleadings and add counts or parties is hereby established as
August 10, 200.8
2007 J) The parties suggest the next discovery conference with the court be November 2 8, ?REE:J at 1:3Opm

All dispositive motions will be due 30 days after the fact discovery cut-off date unless otherwise ordered by the court and the parties agree pleadings, motions and briefs may be exchanged by e-mail, fax or other electronic means.

Rev. 8/03

 
 CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0017of 1P6aPgaeg1eIoDf 1#6:74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION
JT

ROSEMARY RAYMUNDO, both

)

individually and on behalf of a class of )

others similarly situated,

)

)

No. 07 C 50087

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WINNEBAGO )

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

)

RICHARD A. MEYERS, both individually )

and in his official capacity as Sheriff of )

Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, both )

individually and in her capacity as Jail

)

Superintendent of the Winnebago County )

Jail,

)

)

Defendants.

)

FILED
OCTOBER 26, 2007
MICHAEL W. DOBBINS CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants

of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed class by the United States Constitution and

the laws of the United States of America. Winnebago County and the Winnebago

County Sheriff’s Office have had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the

Winnebago County Jail and are booked into the facility, regardless of particularized

suspicion or cause. Upon information and belief, this policy is derived from the written

procedures of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and was promulgated by senior

officials within that office; specifically, Defendants Sheriff Richard A. Meyers and Jail

Superintendent Andrea Tack.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0027of 1P6aPgaeg2eIoDf 1#6:75
2. It has been well established in this judicial district that individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent some level of particularized suspicion or cause to believe that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the policy of Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip-search upon entry into the Winnebago County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but it is insensitive and unnecessary. 3. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and on behalf of a class of others who were strip-searched after being charged with minor crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of her civil rights and those of the class members she proposes to represent. She seeks monetary damages for herself and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiffs complains as follows:
JURISDICTION 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the constitutionality of the policies of a local government.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0037of 1P6aPgaeg3eIoDf 1#6:76
5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 6. On or about January 8, 2007, Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo was arrested at her home in South Beloit, WI, on a warrant for failing to appear in court for charges of transporting a child without an appropriate child restraint system (625 ILCS 25/4). She was first taken to the South Beloit police station and then taken to the Winnebago County Jail. 7. Defendant Winnebago County is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriff’s Office, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Winnebago County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Office personnel, including those working in the Winnebago County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Winnebago County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Office personnel employed in the jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Illinois. 8. Defendant Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) is a County Sheriff’s Office organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff’s Office was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Winnebago County Jail. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff’s Office, together with Winnebago County, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0047of 1P6aPgaeg4eIoDf 1#6:77
the Winnebago County Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Office personnel, including those working at the Winnebago County Jail. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff’s Office, together with Winnebago County, was responsible for enforcing the rules of Winnebago County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Office personnel employed in the Winnebago County Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Illinois. 9. Defendant Richard A. Meyers (“Sheriff Meyers”) is the duly elected Sheriff of Winnebago County, and, as such, is a policy-maker who created and/or implemented an unconstitutional policy with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Winnebago County Jail exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Meyers is made a defendant in this action in his individual and official capacities. 10. Defendant Andrea Tack (“Jail Superintendent Tack”) is the duly appointed Director of Corrections of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Winnebago County Jail. As such, Jail Superintendent Tack is a policy maker who created and/or implemented an unconstitutional policy with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Winnebago County Jail exercises custodial or other control. Jail Superintendent Tack is made a defendant in this action in her individual and official capacities. 11. Collectively, Sheriff Meyers and Jail Superintendent Tack will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendants.”
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0057of 1P6aPgaeg5eIoDf 1#6:78
12. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals who were strip-searched without particularized justification upon their entry into the Winnebago County Jail. 13. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be strip-searched without any particularized justification upon their being placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and Winnebago County. Specifically excluded from the proposed class are Defendants and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 14. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 15. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are scores of people arrested for minor crimes who are placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail every month – all whom are members of the proposed class. 16. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Winnebago County and this judicial district. Futhermore, upon information and belief,

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0067of 1P6aPgaeg6eIoDf 1#6:79
many members of the calss are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually. 17. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’ conducting strip-searches absent particularized justification. All members of the class were illegally strip-searched without particularized justification upon entering the Winnebago County Jail in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial district. 18. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class. Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff is typical of the harms suffered by the class members. 19. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has no interest that is adverse to the interests of the members of the class. 20. Plaintiff’s counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against the Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class. 21. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), in that all class members were subjected to the same policy requiring the illegal strip-searches without particularized justification upon being placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail. In short, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and the Policy Making Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0077of 1P6aPgaeg7eIoDf 1#6:80
22. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3). 23. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of stripsearching without particularized justification all individuals placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed. 24. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and since they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Futhermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this district presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the class. 25. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of the Plaintiff and the proposed class.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0087of 1P6aPgaeg8eIoDf 1#6:81
26. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). 27. Finally, Plaintiff seeks the certification of a limited fund class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B) for the purposes of assessing punitive damages against the Policy Making Defendants. The prohibition against strip-searching without particularized justification has been established in this judicial circuit for several years, and with good reason: Subjecting someone to the indignity of a strip-search is only appropriate where there exists some particularized suspicion or cause to believe that the individual possesses weapons or contraband. 28. This action is a textbook example of when punitive damages should be imposed on those in charge of a local correctional facility. The Policy Making Defendants, however, have limited personal assets that would quickly be exhausted upon the imposition of punitive damages in only a few cases. As all members of the proposed class deserve to equally share in the assets of the Policy Making Defendants, the certification of a limited fund punitive damages class is appropriate, with the Court, after verdict, to establish this limited fund from the liquidated assets of the Policy Making Defendants and distribute the fund to all members of the class.
FACTS 29. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip-searches of arrestees unless the officer has particularized suspicion or cause to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e0097of 1P6aPgaeg9eIoDf 1#6:82
30. Upon information and belief, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip-searching without particularized justification all individuals who enter into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of particularized suspicion or cause to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. 31. Upon information and belief, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip-searching without particularized justification all individuals who enter the custody of the Winnebago County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics of the nature of their charged crime. 32. Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip-searches without particularized justification. This judicial circuit has stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip-search individuals without particularized justification, with this principle being clearly established in John Doe, et al. v. Calumet City, Illinois, et al. (754 F.Supp. 1211). 33. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip-searches without particularized justification has been promulgated, effectuated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00170 ofP1a6gPea1g0eIoDf 1#6:83
34. Particluarized justification to conduct a strip-search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest. 35. Upon information and belief, Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office and the Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a policy, practice or custom of strip-searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip-searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip-searches. 36. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff, were victims of a routine strip-search upon their entry into the Winnebago County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of particularized justification, and in fact were not supported by particularized justification. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-searches conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip-searches – each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff – have suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts applicable to the Named Plaintiff

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00171 ofP1a6gPea1g1eIoDf 1#6:84
38. Ms. Raymundo’s experience is representative. On or about January 8, 2007, Rosemary Raymundo was arrested at her home in South Beloit, WI. She was picked up on a warrant for failing to appear for a court date on charges of transporting a child without an appropriate child restraint system (625 ILCS 25/4). 39. Plaintiff Raymundo was initially transported to the South Beloit Police Station and subsequently transported to the Winnebago County Jail. 40. Upon being placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail, Plaintiff Raymundo was strip searched. Two women correctional guards ordered her to remove her clothing. Once removed, Plaintiff was ordered to squat and to spread her cheeks and cough. Plaintiff was also ordered to spread her vagina. One or more of the correctional guards then lifted Plaintiff’s breasts. At no time did anyone ask if Plaintiff consented to this search, and at no time to Plaintiff give consent for this search.
CAUSES OF ACTION I: Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law --Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law— 41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 42. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip-searches without particularized reason to believe that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00172 ofP1a6gPea1g2eIoDf 1#6:85
43. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Winnebago County Corrections Officers to strip-search Plaintiff and class members without particularized justification. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Winnebago County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 44. These strip-searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office. As such, Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office are directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and member of the class. 45. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Meyers and Jail Superintendent Tack are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Winnebago County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the stripsearch policy questioned in the lawsuit. As such, Meyers and Tack are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the class. 46. Sheriff Meyers and Director of Corrections Doe knew that the strip-search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and members of the class of their constitutional rights. 47. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and proposed class members have been irreparably injured.
II: Demand for Declaratory Judgement

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00173 ofP1a6gPea1g3eIoDf 1#6:86
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 50. The policy, custom and practice of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office, Winnebago County and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Winnebago County Jail without any particularized justification. 51. Plaintiff and members of the class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip-search policy of Winnebago County and the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office to be unconstitutional.
III: Demand for Preliminary and Premanent Injunction 52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and realege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 53. The policy, custom and practice of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office, Winnebago County and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Winnebago County Jail without any particularized justification. 54. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Winnebago County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff. 55. The continuing pattern of strip-searching individuals without particularized justification will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00174 ofP1a6gPea1g4eIoDf 1#6:87
56. Plaintiffs demand that Winnebago County, the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office, the Policy Making Defendants and Winnebago County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip-searching individuals placed into the custody of the Winnebago County Jail absent any particularized justification, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
IV: Against Defendants Winnebago County, The Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Meyers, and Director of Corrections Doe --Deliberate Indifference to Training and Supervision--
57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and realege each and every allegation stated in the paragraphs above. 58. The above-named Defendants were deliberately indifferent in the training and supervision of the individual corrections officers employed at the Winnebago County Jail, in that Defendants were deliberately indifferent in discharging their duty to make sure that any strip-searches conducted at the Winnebago County Jail were performed only in circumstances permitted by the United States Constitution. 59. The above-named Defendants knew, or should have known, that unconstitutional strip-searches were, or likely to be, taking place in the Winnebago County Jail. 60. Despite this knowledge, the above-named Defendants did not act to stop these unconstitutional practices from occurring. 61. This conduct on the part of the above-named Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under the color of state law. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00175 ofP1a6gPea1g5eIoDf 1#6:88
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 63. The actions of the individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip-search policy even though they know that their actions are unconstitutional. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 64. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, requests that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: 1. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 2. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding compensatory damages to the named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class. 3. A judgment against Defendant Sheriff Meyers on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for $1,000,000 in punitive damages. 4. A judgment against Defendant Director of Corrections Doe on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for $1,000,000 in punitive damages. 5. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring Winnebago County’s and the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office’s policy, practice and custom of stripsearching all detainees entering the Winnebago County Jail without particularized justification and regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband or weapons, to be unconstitutional and improper.

CaCsaes:e3:30:70-7c-vc-v5-050080787DocDumoceunmt #e:n2t 113F-i2led: 1F0il/e2d6/1007/0P5a/g2e00176 ofP1a6gPea1g6eIoDf 1#6:89

6. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to strip-search individuals without particularized justification. 7. A monetary award for attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 5, 2007 Chicago, Illinois

/s/ James R. Fennerty James R. Fennerty
James R. Fennerty ARDC #: 793000 Robert W. Ludemann ARDC #: 6286750 James R. Fennerty & Associates, L.L.C. 36 South Wabash Avenue, Suite 1310 Chicago, Illinios 60603 Phone: 312-345-1704 Fax: 312-422-0708 E-Mail: FennertyLaw@yahoo.com

 
 AO 4C50a(Rseev.:5/385:)0Ju7dg-mcevn-t5in0a0C8ivi7l CDaseocument #: 157 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1610
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Western Division

Rosemary Raymundo v.
Winnebago County, et al.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case Number: 07 C 50087

G Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict.
O Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff’s motion to approve proposed settlement [153] is granted. The class settlement agreement and the terms contained therein are hereby approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, in the best interest of the class as a whole, and in satisfaction of Rule 23 and due process requirements. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore directs entry of this order incorporating the class settlement agreement [143, Ex. 1] as the final consent judgment. This case is closed.

Date: 4/11/2013

Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court
________________________________ /s/ Susan Bennehoff, Deputy Clerk

 
 MAHONEY,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−50087

Raymundo v. Winnebago County et al Assigned to: Honorable Frederick J. Kapala Referred to: Honorable P. Michael Mahoney Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Rosemary Raymundo both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

Date Filed: 05/14/2007 Date Terminated: 04/11/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by James Russell Fennerty James R. Fennerty &Associates, LLC 36 South Wabash Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 345−1704 Email: fennertylaw@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth N Flaxman Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C. 200 South Michigan Avenue Suite 201 Chicago, IL 60604−6107 (312) 427−3200 Email: knf@kenlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert W. Ludemann James R. Fennerty &Associates LLC 36 S. Wabash, Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 312−345−1704 Fax: 312−422−0708 Email: rwludemann@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerard Morrissey Thomas G. Morrissey 10249 South Western Avenue Chicago, IL 60643 (773) 233−7900 Email: tgmlaw@ameritech.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Winnebago County

represented by Gregory Michael Minger Winnebago County State's Attorney 400 West State Street Suite 804 Rockford, IL 61101 (815) 987−3179 Email: gminger@co.winnebago.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Meyer

Defendant Winnebago County Sheriff's Office
Defendant Richard A Meyers both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Winnebago County TERMINATED: 01/30/2013
Defendant John Doe both individually and in his capacity as Director of Corrections of Winnebago County TERMINATED: 10/26/2007 Defendant Andrea Tack both individually and in her capacity as Jail Superintendent of the Winnebago County Jail TERMINATED: 01/30/2013

Tribler Orpett and Meyer, P.C. 225 West Washington Street Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 201−6400 Email: mjmeyer@tribler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Oberts Tribler Orpett and Meyer, P.C. 225 West Washington Street Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 201−6400 Email: wboberts@tribler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Joseph Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Oberts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory Michael Minger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Oberts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory Michael Minger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Oberts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/21/2007
06/20/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/24/2007 07/25/2007
08/10/2007 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 10/26/2007 10/26/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Rosemary Raymundo; Jury Demand.(jat, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
THIS matter is referred to the Hon. P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 11(d). (jat, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (jat, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
3 ATTORNEY Appearances for Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo by James Russell Fennerty, Robert W. Ludemann (jat, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
5 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Status hearing set for 6/20/2007 at 01:30 PM. Plaintiff is directed to notify any party filing an appearance subsequent to the entry of this order of the status hearing. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
6 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Status hearing held on 6/20/2007. Parties to hold Rule 26 Meeting. Case management order due by 7/24/2007. Initial Pretrial Conference set for 7/25/2007 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Richard A Meyers by Gregory Michael Minger (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
8 ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Richard A Meyers(Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
9 CERTIFICATE of Service for Answer and Affirmative Defenses by Gregory Michael Minger on behalf of Richard A Meyers (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
10 PROPOSED Pretrial Order for Case Management by Rosemary Raymundo (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
11 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Initial Pretrial Conference held on 7/25/2007. Case management order approved. FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure due 8/10/07. FRCP 26(a)(2) expert disclosure reserved. Amended Pleadings due by 7/10/2008. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 7/10/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 8/11/2008. Discovery Hearing set for 11/28/2007 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
12 NOTICE by Rosemary Raymundo OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS (Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures) (Ludemann, Robert) Modified on 8/13/2007 (jat, ). [Discovery Document] (Entered: 08/10/2007)
13 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo for leave to file First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint)(Fennerty, James) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
14 NOTICE of Motion by James Russell Fennerty for presentment of motion for leave to file 13 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/26/2007 at 01:30 PM. (Fennerty, James) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
15 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file amended complaint 13 is granted. Response due by 11/16/2007. (glg, ) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
21 First AMENDED complaint by Rosemary Raymundo against Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers; Jury Demand (jat, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
16 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack by Gregory Michael Minger (Minger, Gregory) Filers Modified on 11/19/2007 (jat, ). (Entered: 11/16/2007)
17 ANSWER to Complaint First Amended and Affirmative Defenses by Richard A Meyers(Minger, Gregory) Text Modified on 11/19/2007 (jat, ). (Entered:

11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/28/2007 01/23/2008 02/22/2008 03/28/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 05/02/2008
05/23/2008 05/23/2008 06/30/2008 06/30/2008
07/02/2008

11/16/2007)
18 ANSWER to Complaint First Amended and Affirmative Defenses by Winnebago County(Minger, Gregory) Text Modified on 11/19/2007 (jat, ). (Entered: 11/16/2007)
19 ANSWER to Complaint First Amended and Affirmative Defenses by Andrea Tack(Minger, Gregory) Text Modified on 11/19/2007 (jat, ). (Entered: 11/16/2007)
20 NOTICE by Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Richard A Meyers (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
22 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Discovery hearing held on 11/28/2007. Discovery Hearing set for 1/23/2008 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
23 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Discovery hearing held on 1/23/2008. Discovery Hearing set for 2/22/2008 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Discovery hearing held on 2/22/2008. Discovery Hearing set for 3/28/2008 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
25 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 3/28/2008. Discovery Hearing set for 5/2/2008 at 01:30 PM. Motions for class certification due by 5/2/2008. (glg, ) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
26 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo for leave to file Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint)(Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
27 NOTICE of Motion by Robert W. Ludemann for presentment of motion for leave to file 26 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 5/2/2008 at 01:30 PM. (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
28 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−F)(Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
29 NOTICE of Motion by Robert W. Ludemann for presentment of motion to certify class 28 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 5/2/2008 at 01:30 PM. (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on 5/2/2008. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file amended complaint 26 is granted. Response due 5/23/08. Plaintiff's Motion to certify class 28 is taken under advisement; Set deadlines as to motion to certify class 28 : Responses due by 7/2/2008. Replies due by 7/16/2008. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that partys obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Discovery Hearing to set new discovery schedule set for 9/5/2008 at 01:30 PM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
31 ANSWER to Complaint Second Amended by Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Richard A Meyers(Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
32 CERTIFICATE by Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Richard A Meyers Certificate of Service (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
33 MOTION by Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Richard A Meyers for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class 28 (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
34 NOTICE of Motion by Gregory Michael Minger for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 33 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 7/2/2008 at 01:30 PM. (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
35 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion for extension of time to file response regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary

07/10/2008 08/04/2008
08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/20/2008 08/25/2008 10/29/2008 11/06/2008 12/22/2008 12/22/2008 01/09/2009
01/30/2009 02/02/2009

Raymundo to certify class 28 is granted. Responses due by 7/14/2008, Replies due by 7/28/2008. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
36 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: By agreement of counsel, Set deadlines as to motion to certify class 28 : Responses due by 8/4/2008. Replies due by 8/18/2008.Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
37 RESPONSE by Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Richard A Meyersin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class 28 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit WCJ Search Policy, # 2 Exhibit Tack partial transcript of deposition, # 3 Exhibit Marks partial transcript of deposition, # 4 Exhibit List of names and offenses, # 5 Exhibit Booking Report Brown, # 6 Exhibit Placement Card Studler, # 7 Exhibit Booking Report Hood, # 8 Exhibit Booking Report Gille, # 9 Exhibit Booking Report Simpson, # 10 Exhibit Booking Report Goacher, # 11 Exhibit Booking Report Preisler, # 12 Exhibit Booking Report Vansickle, # 13 Exhibit Booking Report Higgs, # 14 Exhibit Booking Report Pankey, # 15 Exhibit Answers to Interrogatories, # 16 Exhibit Raymundo Partial Transcript of Dep)(Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
38 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
39 NOTICE of Motion by Robert W. Ludemann for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 38 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/20/2008 at 01:30 PM. (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
40 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Motion for extension of time to file reply regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class 28 is granted. Replies due by 8/25/2008. Discovery Hearing reset for 10/29/2008 at 01:30 PM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
41 REPLY by Rosemary Raymundo to response in opposition to motion,,, 37 , MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class 28 (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
42 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 10/29/2008. Discovery Hearing set for 1/9/2009 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
43 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala:Plaintiff's motion for class certification 28 is denied.[For further details see text below.]Docketing mailed notice (pg, ) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
44 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class (Second Motion) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
45 NOTICE of Motion by Robert W. Ludemann for presentment of motion to certify class 44 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1/9/2009 at 01:30 PM. (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
46 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on 1/9/2009. Plaintiff's second Motion to certify class 44 is taken under advisement; Set deadlines as to motion to certify class 44 : Responses due by 1/30/2009, Replies due by 2/6/2009. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that partys obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Parties to hold Rule 26 Meeting. Case management order due by 2/24/2009. Initial Pretrial Conference set for 2/25/2009 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
47 RESPONSE by Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Richard A Meyers to MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class (Second Motion) 44 No Response (Minger, Gregory) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
48 REPLY by Rosemary Raymundo to response to motion 47 , MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to certify class (Second Motion) 44 (Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

02/24/2009 02/25/2009
04/29/2009 06/10/2009 07/08/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009
08/21/2009 08/25/2009 08/26/2009

49 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (jat, ) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
50 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Initial Pretrial conference held on 2/25/2009. Plaintiff's counsel does not appear. Case management order approved. FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure exchanged. FRCP 26(a)(2) reserved. Amended Pleadings due by 5/15/2009. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 7/31/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 9/1/2009. Discovery Hearing set for 4/29/2009 at 01:30 PM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
51 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 4/29/2009. Discovery Hearing set for 7/8/2009 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
52 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala: Plaintiff's second motion for class certification 44 is granted. [For further details see minute order.] Electronic notice (jat, ) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
53 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 7/8/2009. Discovery Hearing to set new discovery schedule, if necessary, set for 9/9/2009 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
54 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers by William B. Oberts (Oberts, William) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
55 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers by Michael Joseph Meyer (Meyer, Michael) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
56 MOTION by Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers for extension of time to complete discovery (Oberts, William) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
57 NOTICE of Motion by William B. Oberts for presentment of motion for extension of time to complete discovery 56 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/28/2009 at 01:30 PM. (Oberts, William) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
58 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 7−8−09 before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney. Court Reporter Contact Information: mary_lindbloom@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.
Redaction Request due 9/8/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/18/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2009. (Lindbloom, Mary) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
59 RE− NOTICE of Motion by William B. Oberts for presentment of motion for extension of time to complete discovery 56 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 8/26/2009 at 01:30 PM. (Oberts, William) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
60 RESPONSE by Rosemary Raymundoin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers for extension of time to complete discovery 56 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Court Transcript 7/8/09)(Ludemann, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
61 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion for extension of time to complete discovery 56 is granted as stated in open court. Dispositive motion due date stricken. Defendant to file proposed discovery schedule by 9/14/09. Discovery Hearing reset for 9/16/2009 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

09/14/2009 09/16/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009
11/09/2009 11/30/2009 12/21/2009 01/15/2010 02/22/2010

62 MEMORANDUM by Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers Regarding Class Certification and Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Oberts, William) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
63 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 9/16/2009. At the next discovery hearing counsel to report on Depositions of witness, as to the class notice, as to opt−in versus opt−out and as to ending date for class members. Discovery Hearing set for 10/9/2009 at 02:00 PM.) (glg, ) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
64 MOTION by Defendants Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers to withdraw and amend defendants' answers to plaintiff's request to admit to all defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Oberts, William) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
65 NOTICE of Motion by William B. Oberts for presentment of motion to withdraw, 64 before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 10/9/2009 at 02:00 PM. (Oberts, William)[refile for Judge Mahoney.] Modified on 10/7/2009 (pg, ). (Entered: 10/06/2009)
66 NOTICE of Motion by William B. Oberts for presentment of motion to withdraw, 64 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/9/2009 at 02:00 PM. (Oberts, William) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
67 MOTION by Defendants Winnebago County, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, Richard A Meyers for Relief from Judgment or Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Oberts, William) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
68 NOTICE of Motion by William B. Oberts for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief, 67 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 10/9/2009 at 02:00 PM. (Oberts, William) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
69 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on 10/9/2009. Defendant's Motion to withdraw and amend answers 64 is taken under advisement; Set deadline as motion to withdraw, 64 : Responses due by 11/23/2009, Replies due by 12/7/2009. Magistrate Judge will rule. Defendant's Motion for relief from judgment 67 is taken under advisement; Set deadlines as to motion for miscellaneous relief, 67 , : Responses due by 11/23/2009, Replies due by 12/7/2009. Motion is transferred to Judge Kapala for ruling. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is the obligation of that party, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 11/9/2009 at 09:30 AM. Plaintiff to place the call. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
70 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 11/9/2009. All briefing schedules are stayed as the parties are in settlement negotiations. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 11/30/2009 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
71 MINUTE entry before the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Pursuant to request of counsel, Telephonic Discovery Hearing reset for 12/21/2009 at 10:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
72 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 12/21/2009. Parties are in settlement negotiations. Telephonic Settlement Conference to report on settlement set for 1/15/2010 at 11:30 AM.Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
73 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Settlement conference held on 1/15/2010. Telephonic Discovery Hearing/Settlement Conference set for 2/22/2010 at 09:30 AM.Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
74 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing/Settlement conference held on 2/22/2010. Discovery Hearing set for 3/19/2010 at 01:30 PM.Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

03/19/2010
03/26/2010 03/26/2010 04/22/2010 05/07/2010 05/07/2010 05/07/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/14/2010
05/21/2010 05/21/2010 06/04/2010 06/04/2010
06/04/2010

75 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on 3/19/2010. Plaintiff given leave to file additional appearances. Motion to withdraw and amend answers to requests 64 is granted. Response due 4/9/10. Defendants' Motion 67 for relief from judgment is withdrawn wtihout prejudice with leave to refile. Discovery Hearing set for 4/23/2010 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
76 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo by Kenneth N Flaxman (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
77 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo by Thomas Gerard Morrissey (Morrissey, Thomas) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
78 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Pursuant to request of counsel, Discovery Hearing reset for 5/7/2010 at 01:30 PM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
79 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 5/7/2010. Discovery Hearing set for 5/26/2010 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
80 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to amend/correct class definition (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
81 NOTICE of Motion by Kenneth N Flaxman for presentment of motion to amend/correct 80 before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 5/14/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
82 MINUTE entry before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala: Plaintiff is directed to file an amended notice of motion resetting the motion to amend class definition 80 before Magistrate Mahoney. Case removed from Judge Kapala May 14, 2010 motion call at 9:00 a.m.Docketing mailed notice (pg, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
83 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Kenneth N Flaxman for presentment of motion to amend/correct 80 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 5/14/2010 at 01:30 PM. (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
84 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Motion to amend/correct 80 is taken under advisement. Defendants to file their motions by 5/21/10. Set deadlines as to motion to amend/correct 80 and any motions filed by defendants : Responses due by 6/4/2010 Replies due by 6/11/2010. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is the obligation of that party, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Telephonic Discovery Hearing reset for 7/23/2010 at 09:30 AM. Plaintiff to place the call. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
85 MOTION by Defendants Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office for judgment Pursuant to Rule 12(c) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Oberts, William) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
86 MOTION by Defendants Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Officefor Relief from Judgment or Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Oberts, William) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
87 MEMORANDUM by Rosemary Raymundo in Opposition to motion for miscellaneous relief 86 (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
88 RESPONSE by Rosemary Raymundoin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office for judgment Pursuant to Rule 12(c)MOTION by Defendants Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office for judgment Pursuant to Rule 12(c) 85 (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
89 RESPONSE by Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office to MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to amend/correct class definition 80 (Oberts, William) (Entered: 06/04/2010)

06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010 07/23/2010 09/03/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/08/2010 10/29/2010
11/01/2010 12/02/2010 01/11/2011 01/18/2011 01/19/2011
02/11/2011 02/14/2011

90 RESPONSE by Rosemary Raymundoin Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to amend/correct class definition 80 (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
91 REPLY by Defendants Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office to motion for miscellaneous relief 86 In Support of Their Motion for Relief From Judgment or Order (Oberts, William) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
92 REPLY by Defendants John Doe, Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office to motion for judgment, 85 Pursuant to Rule 12(c) (Oberts, William) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
93 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 7/23/2010. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 9/3/2010 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
94 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 9/3/2010. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 10/8/2010 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
95 SUPPLEMENT to motion for judgment, 85 (Oberts, William) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
96 NOTICE by Richard A Meyers, Andrea Tack, Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office re supplement 95 to Motion for Judgment (Oberts, William) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
97 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 10/8/2010. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 11/1/2010 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
98 MINUTE entry before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala: Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings 85 is denied. Defendants' motion to reconsider 86 is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to amend class definition 80 is granted in part and denied in part.[For further details see text below.]Docketing mailed notice (pg, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
99 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 11/1/2010. Parties to reconvene Rule 26 Meeting. Case management order due by 12/2/2010. Reconvened Initial Pretrial Conference set for 12/3/2010 at 02:00 PM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
100 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of counsel, Case management order due by 1/11/2011. Initial Pretrial Conference reset for 1/12/2011 at 02:00 PM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
101 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of counsel, Case management order due by 1/18/2011. Initial Pretrial Conference reset for 1/19/2011 at 02:00 PM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
102 STATUS Report and proposed case management order by Rosemary Raymundo (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
103 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Initial Pretrial conference held on 1/19/2011. Case management order approved. As stated in open court, defendant to produce list by 1/24/11 stated in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 shall be complied with by 2/14/11. Paragraph 3 to be complied with by 6/6/11. Counsel to submit proposed notice to class form to chambers. Discovery Hearing to complaint case management order set for 6/22/2011 at 02:00 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
104 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to approve form of class notice [AGREED] (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
105 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's agreed Motion to approve form of class notice 104 is granted. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

06/22/2011 09/09/2011 01/03/2012 01/27/2012 03/15/2012 04/26/2012 06/15/2012 07/03/2012
08/07/2012
08/28/2012 10/12/2012 11/08/2012 11/13/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/30/2012 12/03/2012

106 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:Discovery hearing held on 6/22/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 10/3/2011. Discovery Hearing set for 9/9/2011 at 01:30 PM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
107 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on 9/9/2011. Due to litigation before the US Supreme Court, this case is stayed until Discovery Hearing set for 1/11/2012 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
108 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Due to the court's schedule, Discovery Hearing reset for 1/27/2012 at 01:30 PM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
109 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 1/27/2012. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 3/16/2012 at 10:45 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
110 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of counsel, Telephonic Discovery Hearing reset for 4/26/2012 at 10:45 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
111 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 4/26/2012. Telephonic Discovery Hearing/Settlement Conference set for 6/19/2012 at 09:45 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
112 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of counsel, Telephonic Discovery Hearing/Settlement Conference reset for 7/3/2012 at 10:15 AM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
113 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing/Settlement conference held on 7/3/2012. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 8/7/2012 at 10:11 AM. Settlement Conference set for 8/28/2012 at 01:30 PM. Real parties in interest must be present. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
114 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 8/7/2012. Settlement Conference remains set for 8/28/2012 at 1:30 PM. The court specifically invites and looks forward to seeing and speaking with representatives of the liability insurance carriers for the Defendants in the hope of reaching a settlement on August 28, 2012. The court directs the parties to send a copy of this Minute Order to the liability carriers.Notice mailed by Judicial Staff (pg, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
115 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Settlement conference held on 8/28/2012. Status hearing set for 10/12/2012 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
116 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Status hearing held on 10/12/2012. Status hearing set for 11/9/2012 at 01:30 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
117 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of counsel, Status hearing reset for 11/21/2012 at 01:30 PM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
118 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of counsel, Status hearing reset for 11/30/2012 at 01:30 PM. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
119 Notice Of Class Action Claim by James Russell Drago[12−50116] (pg, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
120 Notice Of Claim by Bobby Dale Hare[99−50172] (pg, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
121 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 11/30/2012. Approval hearing set for 2/19/2013 at 02:00 PM. (glg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
122 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Minute entry # 121 is amended as follows: Approval hearing set for 12/19/2012 at 02:00 PM. Mailed

12/06/2012 12/11/2012 12/11/2012 12/11/2012 12/11/2012 12/11/2012 12/12/2012 12/12/2012 12/13/2012 12/18/2012
01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/03/2013 01/04/2013 01/07/2013 01/07/2013
01/08/2013 01/08/2013
01/09/2013 01/11/2013
01/11/2013 01/14/2013
01/15/2013

notice (glg, ) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
123 Claim by Charles Wyatt, Jr. (pg, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
124 Claims by Aaron Stephen Brown(2) (pg, ) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
125 Claims by Larry James Meyer, Jr.(2) (pg, ) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
126 Claim by Jamie Lynn Meyer (pg, ) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
127 Claims by Robert James Meyer(5) (pg, ) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
128 Claims by Robert Theodore Meyer(6) (pg, ) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
129 Claims by Anna S. Boles(4) (pg, ) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
130 Claims by Donell Boles(4) (pg, ) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
131 Claim by Anthony Fleming (pg, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
132 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Status hearing held on 12/18/2012. Hearing of 12/19/12 stricken. Settlement Conference set for 1/8/2013 at 02:30 PM. Real parties in interest to be present. Telephoned notice (glg, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
133 Claim by Melvin Morrow (pg, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
134 Claim by Frank Eslora (pg, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
135 Claim by Paul Mathis (pg, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
136 Claim by DaShea L. Harris (pg, ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
137 Claim by Christopher Brown (pg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
138 Claim by Cornelius D. Boles(9) (pg, ) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
139 CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo regarding terminate hearings, magistrate judge status hearing, set/reset hearings 132 (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
140 Claim by DaShea L. Harris (pg, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
141 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney:In court hearing held on 1/8/2013. Counsel to submit class documents as stated in open court. In Court hearing set for 1/14/2013 at 11:00 AM. (glg, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
142 Claim by Alfonso Thomas (pg, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
143 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to approve consent judgment [preliminary approval of class action settlement] (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
144 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Attachments: # 1 proposed Dismissal Order)(Oberts, William) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
145 MINUTE entry before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Motion for preliminary approval of consent judgment 143 is granted. The Court finds the settlement fair, reasonable and adequate. Counsel to submit amended exhibit 2 by 1/15/13. Objections, time to return claims and opt−out forms due 3/29/13. It is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the District Court grant the motion to dismiss individual defendants. Parties are given fourteen days from service of this order, as calculated under Rule 6 to file objections with Judge Kapala pursuant to FRCP 72. Objections need not be presented as stated in LR.5.3. A failure to file objections may result in waiver of appeals. Fairness hearing set before Judge Kapala for 4/5/2013 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (glg, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
146 Claim by Robert Harrington (pg, ) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 01/17/2013 01/24/2013 01/30/2013
03/20/2013 04/03/2013 04/05/2013 04/05/2013 04/08/2013 04/11/2013
04/11/2013

147 NOTICE by Rosemary Raymundo re order on motion to approve consent judgment, motion hearing, set/reset hearings,,,,,,,,, 145 [corrected Exhibit 2 to Document 143] (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
148 Claim by Michael Hodges (pg, ) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
149 Class Action Claim by Alfonso Thomas (jat, ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
150 MINUTE entry before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala: There being no written objection to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge entered on 1/14/13 145 , see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149−50 (1985), and the court having reviewed the report and recommendation, the court accepts the report and recommendation and dismisses the individual defendants 144 . Electronic notice (jat, ) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
151 LETTER from Jeffrey A. Caples dated 3/17/13. (pg, ) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
152 MEMORANDUM by Rosemary Raymundo in support of approval of proposed settlement (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
153 MOTION by Plaintiff Rosemary Raymundo to approve consent judgment (Flaxman, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
155 MINUTE entry before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala: Fairness hearing held. Motion to approve settlement to be filed. The matter is taken under advisement.Notice mailed (pg, ) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
154 RESPONSE by Defendants Winnebago County, Winnebago County Sheriff's Office to Class Claim by Alfonso Thomas (Oberts, William) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
156 MINUTE entry before Honorable Frederick J. Kapala: Plaintiff's motion to approve proposed settlement 153 is granted. The class settlement agreement and the terms contained therein are hereby approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, in the best interest of the class as a whole, and in satisfaction of Rule 23 and due process requirements. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore directs entry of this order incorporating the class settlement agreement [143, Ex. 1] as the final consent judgment. This case is closed.[ For further details see text below.] ; Civil case terminated. Docketing mailed notice (pg, ) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
157 ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by the Deputy Clerk for Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 4/11/2013:(pg, ) (Entered: 04/11/2013)