UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ERIC CAINE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JON BURGE, JAMES PIENTA, RAYMOND )

MADIGAN, WILLIAM MARLEY, WILLIAM )

PEDERSON,DANIEL MCWEENY, CITY OF )

CHICAGO and UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES )

OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

Defendants. ) 

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, ERIC CAINE, by his attorneys, LOEVY & 

LOEVY, and complaining of Defendants, JON BURGE, JAMES PIENTA, 

RAYMOND MADIGAN, WILLIAM MARLEY, WILLIAM PEDERSON, DANIEL 

MCWEENY, and UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES of the CITY OF CHICAGO, 

acting pursuant to the City’s policies and practices 

(collectively, “Defendant Officers”), and the City of Chicago, 

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. In the 1980s, Eric Caine was convicted of a

brutal double homicide that he did not commit. The only 

evidence introduced against Mr. Caine at trial was his coerced 

false confession and the coerced false confession of his coCase: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 1 of 30 PageID #:1
2

defendant, Aaron Patterson. Both of these wrongful confessions 

were procured with violence inflicted by members of the City’s 

now notorious Area Two detective headquarters, headed by Jon 

Burge. 

2. Mr. Caine served twenty-five years of

wrongful imprisonment before he was ultimately exonerated.

3. Unfortunately, the misconduct that caused Mr.

Caine’s wrongful conviction was not an isolated incident. To 

the contrary, Mr. Caine and his co-defendant were victimized by 

the same group of Area Two Police Detectives, led by Defendant 

Burge, who engaged in a disturbing succession of similar abuses 

over a period of years, frequently preying on young AfricanAmerican men in order to close unsolved cases via vicious and 

unlawful methods of interrogation.

4. Although Mr. Caine has won back his freedom, he

will never regain the decades lost in his life. This lawsuit 

seeks redress for those injuries.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of 

Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the United States Constitution. 

6. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Venue is proper under 28. U.S.C. § 

1391(b). A number of the parties reside in this judicial 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 2 of 30 PageID #:2
3

district, and the events giving rise to the claims asserted 

herein occurred here as well. 

The Parties

7. Plaintiff Eric Caine is a 46 year-old resident

of Chicago, Illinois.

8. Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois

municipal corporation, and is and/or was the employer of each of 

the Defendant Officers. The City of Chicago is responsible for 

the acts of the Defendant Officers while employed by the City of 

Chicago and while acting within the scope of their employment.

9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Jon

Burge, James Pienta, Raymond Madigan, William Marley, William 

Pederson, and Daniel McWeeny were police officers in the Chicago 

Police Department acting under color of law and within the scope 

of their employment for the City of Chicago.

The Sanchez Murders

10. On April 19, 1986, an elderly Hispanic couple,

Rafaela and Vincent Sanchez, were discovered dead in their 

apartment at 8849 South Burley Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. 

Among the officers present at the crime scene was Lieutenant Jon 

Burge.

11. A few days later, on April 22, 1986, Area Two

detectives arrested Michael Arbuckle in connection with the 

murders, although Mr. Arbuckle had nothing to do with the 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 3 of 30 PageID #:3
4

killings. Defendant Jon Burge and Gang Crimes Officer Kolowitz 

accompanied Arbuckle to Area Two Headquarters. 

12. While at Area Two, Arbuckle was placed in an

office and questioned about the Sanchez murders by Burge and 

Kolowitz. Officers Burge and Kolowitz informed Arbuckle that 

they “really wanted to get Aaron Patterson,” or words to that 

effect. 

13. The officers tried to convince Arbuckle to

inculpate Patterson in the double homicide. When Arbuckle 

refused to implicate Patterson, Defendant Burge threatened him 

with the death penalty. Burge then promised Arbuckle that he

would get him to “cooperate one way or another.” 

14. Defendant Burge questioned Arbuckle again

the next morning. The interrogation focused solely on the 

Sanchez murders. Burge threatened Arbuckle, and told him that 

Burge would “get some drug dealers to testify against [him] on 

the Sanchez murder if [he] did not cooperate,” or words to that 

effect. 

15. Despite Burge’s threats, Arbuckle continued to 

tell the truth: he denied any involvement in the murders and 

refused to implicate Patterson. 

16. In the afternoon of April 30, 1986, Aaron 

Patterson was arrested in connection with the Sanchez murders, 

although Patterson had nothing to do with the killings. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 4 of 30 PageID #:4
5

Patterson was transported to Area Two Headquarters by Defendants

Pienta, Marley, and Pederson. 

Under Duress, Patterson Falsely Implicates Mr. Caine

17. Around 6:00 p.m. that day, Patterson was placed 

in an interrogation room at Area Two Headquarters. Patterson 

was handcuffed to the wall and questioned by various Area Two 

detectives, including Defendants Pienta, Marley, Pederson and 

other Defendant Officers, concerning the Sanchez homicides. 

Patterson continuously denied having any involvement in the 

crime. 

18. Later that evening Defendant Pienta told

Patterson that he was “tired of this bullshit,” or words to that 

effect. Patterson continued denying any involvement in the 

crime. Defendant Pienta then left the room and returned with a 

gray plastic typewriter cover. 

19. Patterson, at the time, had his hands cuffed

behind his back. Defendant Pienta, Marley, and Pederson 

together with other Defendant Officers, then turned off the 

lights, placed the plastic cover over his head, and struck 

Patterson repeatedly in the chest. The cover was held against 

his mouth and nose, constricting his breathing. The cover 

remained on for over a minute. Patterson was being suffocated 

to death. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 5 of 30 PageID #:5
6

20. When Patterson still did not confess, he was

beaten and suffocated a second time by the same individuals. 

Afraid that he would be suffocated to death, Patterson 

acquiesced and told his torturers that he would say “anything 

you say” in order to make the torture stop. 

Patterson’s Contemporaneous Outcry of Torture

21. While alone in his interrogation room, Mr.

Patterson scratched into the bench that he was tortured and that 

his statement to the police was false. Specifically, Mr. 

Patterson etched the following message into the bench: “Aaron 

4/30 I lie about murders [,] Police threaten me with violence 

[,] Slapped and suffocated me with plastic [,] No lawyer or dad 

[,] No phone.”

22. After Patterson scratched the message into the

bench, Assistant State’s Attorney Kip Owen and Defendant Jon 

Burge came to speak with Patterson. Patterson asked Owen to 

force Burge to leave. Burge subsequently left the room. 

Patterson then informed Owen that he wanted a lawyer and had 

nothing to say. Owen immediately opened the door, revealing 

Defendant Burge standing directly on the other side. Owen told 

Burge that Patterson refused to give a statement.

23. Owen then left the room and Defendant Burge

entered, screaming “You’re fucking up!” Burge pulled out his 

revolver and placed it on top of the table. Burge then informed 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 6 of 30 PageID #:6
7

Patterson that “if you don’t do what we tell you to, you’re 

going to get something worse than before...it will have been a 

snap compared to what you will get.” Burge then asked Patterson 

if he was going to cooperate. Burge informed Patterson that 

“it’s your word against ours and who are they going to believe, 

you or us?” Defendant Burge continued to threaten Patterson, 

telling him that Burge could do anything he wanted to do to 

Patterson.

24. Later, Assistant State’s Attorney Peter Troy, 

entered the interrogation room with Defendant Madigan. 

Patterson told them that he would confess if he could call his 

family and an attorney. Troy and Defendant Madigan agreed. 

After the calls, Patterson refused to make a statement, or to 

sign a statement written by Troy. 

25. Defendant Madigan, accompanied by Assistant

State’s Attorney Troy, then beat Mr. Patterson once again, 

trying to get Patterson to falsely confess.

26. Defendant McWeeny then entered the room and 

professed to be a good cop, one of the few who did not torture 

suspects at Area Two Headquarters. Defendant McWeeny urged 

Patterson to cooperate because the other detectives “could do 

something serious to him if he didn’t.”

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 7 of 30 PageID #:7
8

27. After Defendant McWeeny left the room, Aaron

Patterson scratched another message into the bench. The message 

read: “Signed false statement to murders[,] Tonto on statement 

is the code word[,] Aaron.” 

28. A third messaged was scratched into the door

frame of the interrogation room. The message said, “Aaron 

lied.” All of Patterson’s etchings were documented in a memo by 

Defendant Pienta to Defendant Burge. 

29. On May 1, 1986, at 2:45 p.m., Mr. Patterson 

finally broke down in the face of continuing torture, and made a 

false and unsigned oral statement regarding his involvement in 

the Sanchez murders. He also falsely claimed that Mr. Caine was 

present at the murder scene.

30. An investigator from the Cook County Public

Defender’s Office later documented Patterson’s etchings by 

photographing them. 

Caine’s Arrest

31. Defendants arrested Mr. Caine based solely

on Patterson’s false and coerced statement. No other evidence 

pointed toward Mr. Caine’s involvement in the Sanchez murders in 

any way whatsoever.

32. On the same night Mr. Patterson was tortured, 

after he brought up Mr. Caine’s name under duress, Defendants

Pienta, Pederson and Area Two Sergeant Wilson arrested Mr. Caine 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 8 of 30 PageID #:8
9

at his mother’s home. While there, Mr. Caine was pushed in the 

back while he was handcuffed and walking down the stairs, 

causing Mr. Caine to lose his balance until one of the officers 

grabbed him.

33. During the ride to the police station, Mr. Caine

repeatedly denied any involvement in the crimes. Nevertheless, 

Defendant Pienta insisted that they would have killed Mr. Caine 

during his arrest, but for Mr. Caine’s mother’s friendship with 

Sgt. Wilson. 

34. When brought to Area Two Headquarters, Mr. Caine

was interrogated by Defendants Pienta and Marley, both of whom 

had tortured Aaron Patterson earlier that evening.

35. Defendant Pienta told Mr. Caine that Patterson 

had confessed to the murders. Mr. Caine insisted, truthfully, 

that he knew nothing about the killings.

36. Around 11:45 p.m., Defendant Pienta brought Mr.

Caine into Aaron Patterson’s interrogation room. When Mr. Caine 

saw Patterson, he looked like he had been beaten. Mr. Caine was 

only in that room for a short period of time. The only purpose 

for bringing him there was to intimidate Mr. Caine.

37. When the Defendants returned Mr. Caine to his

interrogation room, Defendant Pienta struck Mr. Caine in the 

chest and told him that he would get the same treatment as 

Patterson unless he was “cool.”

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 9 of 30 PageID #:9
10

38. Mr. Caine spent the night locked in an

interrogation room at Area Two Headquarters. 

39. While interrogating Mr. Caine the next day,

Defendant Madigan began outlining the murders. For a long 

period of time, while Mr. Caine remained silent, Defendant 

Madigan repeated key points of the confession that he wanted Mr. 

Caine to recite. 

40. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Madigan presented

his notes for Mr. Caine to study, and subsequently sign as his 

own statement. When Caine refused to sign the fabricated 

confession, Madigan struck Mr. Caine with a cupped hand on the 

side of his head. Mr. Caine heard a loud pop and felt a rush of 

pain. Mr. Caine cried out and doubled over in agony, as 

Defendant Madigan tried to quiet him. The strike to Mr. Caine’s 

head ruptured his eardrum, an extremely painful injury.

41. Tired, fearful, and in pain from his ruptured

eardrum, Mr. Caine signed the notes because he feared additional 

violence and wanted to go home. 

42. Later that day, Mr. Caine was brought into a room

with Assistant State’s Attorneys Peter Troy and William Lacey. 

Detective Madigan was also in the room, watching over Mr. Caine.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 10 of 30 PageID #:10
11

43. At 5:15 a.m. the next morning, in excruciating 

pain after being struck in the head and held all night, Mr. 

Caine signed his false confession. 

Eric Caine’s Trial

44. No evidence other than Mr. Caine’s and Mr.

Patterson’s false and coerced confessions was ever introduced at 

Mr. Caine’s trial. In fact, the physical evidence collected by 

Defendant Officers exculpated Mr. Caine and Patterson. 

Specifically, police found fingerprints at the crime scene that 

did not match Mr. Caine, Patterson, or any of the victims. 

45. Mr. Caine testified at his trial and continued to 

maintain his innocence. Mr. Caine also testified about the 

physical abuse he suffered at the hands of Detectives Madigan 

and Pienta while being interrogated. Nevertheless, on the basis 

of the coerced false confessions, the jury convicted Mr. Caine 

of murder, home invasion and residential burglary.

46. Mr. Caine was then sentenced to life

imprisonment.

Evidence of Police Misconduct

47. Unfortunately, Mr. Caine’s jury did not hear

testimony from Mack Ray, a key witness, at trial. Mack Ray has 

since testified that Wayne Washington confessed to him that he 

and his brother Willie Washington had actually committed the 

Sanchez murders.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 11 of 30 PageID #:11
12

48. Unknown to Mr. Caine, following the coerced 

confessions, Mack Ray went to the police station at 103rd Street 

and tried to tell several detectives that Wayne had confessed to

the Sanchez murders, but the detectives threatened him and said 

he would “end up dead” if he did not stay quiet. In fear that 

something would happen to him if he interfered, Mack Ray left 

town.

49. Willie Washington lived next door to the

Sanchezes. Because he was not arrested for the Sanchez murders, 

Willie Washington had the opportunity to break into another

neighbor’s house and initiate another violent attack shortly 

after being paroled for yet another home invasion.

50. Willie Washington has since been convicted of

several other incidents of felony residential burglary and home 

invasion. Washington is currently serving a 30-year sentence 

for home invasion in which he broke into the home of his 

neighbor, Colleen Hamling, and stabbed her nine times in the 

neck, seven times in the upper spine, eight times in the chest, 

and once in the hand. This crime was shockingly similar to the 

Sanchez murders. Willie Washington lived next door to them as 

well, and both were stabbed to death. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 12 of 30 PageID #:12
13

51. Mr. Caine’s jury never heard this exculpatory

evidence from Mack Ray because the Defendant Officers withheld 

it from Mr. Caine, his defense team, and the Cook County State’s 

Attorney’s office.

Exonerations

52. In 2003, Patterson was pardoned from death row by

then-Governor Ryan, based on Patterson’s innocence. 

53. On March 16, 2011, Eric Caine’s conviction was

vacated. The State immediately dismissed the charges and Mr. 

Caine was subsequently released after spending twenty-five years 

in prison for a crime that he did not commit. 

Supervisory Liability

54. The foregoing pattern of misconduct, including

the abuses of Mr. Caine in the Sanchez investigation, took place 

under the direct supervision of the Area Two Commander, Jon 

Burge. The constitutional violations alleged herein occurred at 

Defendant Burge's direction, and Defendant Burge was 

deliberately indifferent thereto.

55. Absent knowing participation by the command

personnel responsible for supervising the Defendant Officers, 

the misconduct alleged in this Complaint could not have 

occurred.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 13 of 30 PageID #:13
14

Chicago's “Street Files” Practice

56. The unconstitutional withholding of exculpatory

information from Mr. Caine’s defense in this case, as well as 

the subsequent destruction of portions of the same, was all 

undertaken pursuant to, and proximately caused by, a policy and 

practice on the part of the Chicago Police Department.

57. Specifically, at all times relevant hereto,

members of the Chicago Police Department, including the 

Defendants in this action, systematically suppressed Brady

material by intentionally secreting discoverable information in 

so-called “street files.” As a matter of widespread custom and 

practice, these clandestine street files were routinely withheld 

from the State's Attorney's Office and from criminal defendants, 

and were subsequently destroyed.

58. Consistent with the municipal policy and practice

described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants in this case 

concealed exculpatory evidence within street files that were 

never disclosed to Mr. Caine’s criminal defense team and that

have since been destroyed. This withholding and destruction of 

evidence that would have exonerated Mr. Caine was undertaken 

pursuant to the City's policy and practice in the manner 

described above.

59. The street files practice described in the

foregoing paragraphs was consciously approved at the highest 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 14 of 30 PageID #:14
15

policy-making level for decisions involving the police 

department, and was a proximate cause of the injuries suffered 

here by the Plaintiff.

60. The street files practice described in the

foregoing paragraphs was enjoined by court order and supposedly 

discontinued prior to the investigation of the Sanchez murders. 

Contrary to the Department's public pronouncements, however, the 

street files practice continued through and including the 

Sanchez investigation, directly causing a violation of Mr. 

Caine’s rights.

61. All of the individual Defendants acted under

color of law and in the scope of their employment in engaging in 

the actions alleged in this Complaint.

Count I

Due Process

62. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

63. As described more fully above, all of the

Defendants, while acting individually, jointly, and in 

conspiracy, as well as under color of law and within the scope 

of their employment, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional 

right to a fair trial.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 15 of 30 PageID #:15
16

64. In the manner described more fully above, the

Defendants deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence, and

fabricated false reports and other evidence, thereby misleading 

and misdirecting the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff. Absent 

this misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could not and 

would not have been pursued.

65. The Defendant Officers' misconduct also directly

resulted in the unjust criminal conviction of Plaintiff, thereby 

denying him his constitutional right to a fair trial, and a fair 

appeal thereof, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

66. As a result of this violation of his

constitutional right to a fair trial, Plaintiff suffered 

injuries, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, as 

is more fully alleged above.

67. The misconduct described in this Count was

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with 

willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

68. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in that Mr. Caine was the victim of, and his 

injuries were proximately caused by, a policy and practice on 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 16 of 30 PageID #:16
17

the part of the City of Chicago to pursue and secure false 

convictions through profoundly flawed investigations.

69. Specifically, throughout the 1980s, a group of

Chicago Police Officers in Area Two, including some or all of 

the Defendant Officers herein, engaged in a systematic pattern 

of coercion, fabrication of evidence, withholding of exculpatory 

information, and other illegal tactics, the sum total of which 

completely corrupted the investigative process.

70. This institutional desire to close cases through

abusive tactics regardless of actual guilt or innocence, in 

order to enhance police officers' personal standing in the 

Department, was known to the command personnel, who themselves 

participated in the practice.

71. The above-described widespread practices, so

well-settled as to constitute de facto policy in the Chicago 

Police Department during the time period at issue, were able to 

exist and thrive because municipal policymakers with authority 

over the same exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem.

72. The widespread practices described in the

preceding paragraphs were allowed to take place because the City 

declined to implement sufficient training and/or any legitimate 

mechanism for oversight or punishment. Indeed, the Department's 

system for investigating and disciplining police officers 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 17 of 30 PageID #:17
18

accused of the type of misconduct that befell Plaintiff was, and 

is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent.

73. Chicago police officers who manufactured criminal

cases against individuals such as Plaintiff had every reason to 

know that they not only enjoyed de facto immunity from criminal 

prosecution and/or Departmental discipline, but that they also 

stood to be rewarded for closing cases no matter what the costs. 

In this way, this system proximately caused abuses, such as the 

misconduct at issue in this case.

Count II

False Imprisonment

74. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

75. As described more fully above, all of the

Defendants, while acting individually, jointly, and in 

conspiracy, as well as under color of law and within the scope 

of their employment, caused Plaintiff to be falsely imprisoned 

in violation of his constitutional rights.

76. As a result of this violation, Plaintiff suffered

injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress, as is 

more fully alleged above.

77. The misconduct described in this Count was

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with 

willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 18 of 30 PageID #:18
19

78. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully above.

Count III

Coerced Confession -- Fourteenth Amendment

79. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

80. As more fully described above, one or more of the

Defendants used unjustified violence against Plaintiff in an 

attempt to coerce him to confess to a crime he did not commit.

81. As a result of Defendants' unjustified use of

force, Plaintiff suffered great mental anguish, humiliation, 

degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, and 

other consequential damages.

82. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others such that the Defendants' actions shock 

the conscience.

83. The misconduct described in this Count was also

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully above.

Count IV

Coerced Confession -- Fifth Amendment

84. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 19 of 30 PageID #:19
20

85. As more fully described above, one or more of the

Defendants used unjustified violence against Plaintiff in an 

attempt to coerce him to confess to a crime he did not commit.

86. Plaintiff, who was not provided any Miranda

warnings, was denied access to legal counsel for the duration of 

his interrogation, notwithstanding requests for the same. As a 

result of this and the other misconduct described in this 

Complaint, Plaintiff was forced to incriminate himself falsely 

against his will.

87. Plaintiff's coerced false statements were used

against Plaintiff in a criminal case to his detriment.

88. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff

suffered great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, 

physical and emotional pain and suffering, and other 

consequential damages, as well as loss of liberty.

89. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

90. The misconduct described in this Count was also

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully above.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 20 of 30 PageID #:20
21

Count V

Equal Protection

91. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

92. As described more fully above, Defendants, all

while acting individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, as well 

as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, 

denied Plaintiff equal protection of the law in violation of his 

constitutional rights.

93. Specifically, these Defendants actively

participated in, or personally caused, misconduct in terms of 

abusing minority criminal suspects in a manner calculated to 

coerce confessions and secure unjust convictions. Said 

misconduct was motivated by racial animus and constituted 

purposeful discrimination; it also affected minorities in a 

grossly disproportionate manner vis-a-vis similarly-situated 

Caucasian individuals.

94. As a result of this violation, Plaintiff suffered

injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress, as is 

more fully alleged above.

95. The misconduct described in this Count was

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with 

willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 21 of 30 PageID #:21
22

96. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully above.

Count VI

Section 1985 Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights

97. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

98. As described more fully above, each of the

Defendants conspired, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of 

depriving Plaintiff of Equal Protection of the law.

99. In so doing, Defendants took actions in

furtherance of this conspiracy, causing injury to Plaintiff.

100. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

101. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully in 

preceding paragraphs.

Count VII

Section 1983 Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights

102. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 22 of 30 PageID #:22
23

103. After the Sanchez murders, the Defendants

reached an agreement amongst themselves to frame Plaintiff for 

the crime, and to thereby deprive Plaintiff of his 

constitutional rights, all as described in the various 

Paragraphs of this Complaint.

104. Independently, before and after Plaintiff's

convictions, each of the Defendants further conspired, and 

continue to conspire, to deprive Plaintiff of exculpatory 

materials to which he was lawfully entitled and which would have 

led to his more timely exoneration of the false charges as 

described in the various Paragraphs of this Complaint.

105. In this manner, the Defendant Officers, acting in

concert with other unknown co-conspirators, including persons 

who are not members of the Chicago Police Department, have 

conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose 

by an unlawful means.

106. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the coconspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful 

participant in joint activity.

107. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit

prior agreement referenced above, Plaintiff's rights were 

violated, and he suffered financial damages, as well as severe 

emotional distress and anguish, as is more fully alleged above.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 23 of 30 PageID #:23
24

108. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

109. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully in 

preceding paragraphs, and was tacitly ratified by policy-makers 

for the City of Chicago with final policymaking authority.

Count VIII

Denial of Access to Courts

110. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

111. In the manner described more fully herein, each

of the Defendants, all while acting individually, jointly, and 

in conspiracy, denied Plaintiff the right to access to courts by 

their wrongful suppression and destruction of information and 

evidence which deprived Plaintiff of constitutional claims 

against potential Defendants.

112. Other claims were diminished by the passage of

years, and the accompanying erosion of evidence necessary to 

prove these claims against those Defendants.

113. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 24 of 30 PageID #:24
25

114. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department in the manner described more fully in 

preceding paragraphs.

Count IX

Failure to Intervene

115. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

116. In the manner described above, during the

Constitutional violations described above, one or more of the 

Defendants (and other as-yet-unknown Chicago Police Officers) 

stood by without intervening to prevent the misconduct.

117. As a result of the Defendant Officers' failure to

intervene to prevent the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional 

rights, Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as well as emotional 

distress. These Defendants had a reasonable opportunity to 

prevent this harm, but failed to do so.

118. The misconduct described in this Count was

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with 

willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

119. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken pursuant to Chicago's policy and practice in the 

manner described in preceding paragraphs.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 25 of 30 PageID #:25
26

Count X

Malicious Prosecution

120. Each of the paragraphs of the Complaint is 

incorporated as if restated fully herein.

121. Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be 

improperly subjected to judicial proceedings for which there was 

no probable cause. These judicial proceedings were instituted 

and continued maliciously, resulting in injury, and all such 

proceedings were terminated in Plaintiff’s favor in a manner 

indicative of innocence.

122. Defendant Officers accused Plaintiff of criminal 

activity knowing those accusations to be without probable cause, 

and they made statements to prosecutors with the intent of 

exerting influence to institute and continue the judicial 

proceedings.

123. Defendant Officers’ statements regarding 

Plaintiff’s alleged culpability were made with knowledge that 

said statements were false and/or perjured. In so doing, 

Defendant Officers fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory 

information.

124. The misconduct described in this Count was 

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally, with 

malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 26 of 30 PageID #:26
27

125. As a result of this violation of his rights, 

undertaken pursuant to the City’s policy and practice as 

described above, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not 

limited to emotional distress.

Count XI

IIED

126. Each of the paragraphs of this complaint is 

incorporated as if fully restated herein.

127. In the manner described more fully above, the 

Defendant Officers engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

128. Defendant Officers either intended that their 

conduct would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff or 

knew that there was a high probability that their conduct would 

cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. 

129. The misconduct described in this Count was 

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others. 

130. As a proximate result of this misconduct, 

undertaken pursuant to the City’s policy and practice as 

described above, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not 

limited to severe emotional distress.

Count XII

Respondeat Superior

131. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 27 of 30 PageID #:27
28

132. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding 

paragraphs, the Defendant Officers were members and agents of 

the Chicago Police Department acting at all relevant times 

within the scope of their employment.

133. Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal 

for all torts committed by its agents.

Count XIII

Indemnification

134. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

135. Illinois law provides that public entities are 

directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for 

which employees are liable within the scope of their employment 

activities.

136. The Defendant Officers are or were employees of 

the Chicago Police Department who acted within the scope of 

their employment in committing the misconduct described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ERIC CAINE, respectfully 

requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO, JON BURGE, JAMES PIENTA, RAYMOND 

MADIGAN, WILLIAM MARLEY, WILLIAM PEDERSON, DANIEL MCWEENY, and 

UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES of the CITY OF CHICAGO, awarding 

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 28 of 30 PageID #:28
29

compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as any 

other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, ERIC CAINE, hereby demands a trial by jury 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues 

so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

s/ Russell Ainsworth____

Attorneys for Eric Caine

Arthur Loevy

Jon Loevy

Michael Kanovitz

Russell Ainsworth

Pier Petersen

LOEVY & LOEVY

312 North May Street

Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 29 of 30 PageID #:29
30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Russell Ainsworth, an attorney, certify that on 

December 20, 2011 I served by electronic means copies of the 

complaint, civil cover sheet, and attorney appearances, on the 

counsel of record.

 s/ Russell Ainsworth____

Case: 1:11-cv-08996 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 30 of 30 PageID #:30