IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

COURTNEY THOMAS and

JEFFREY NICHOLS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF CHICAGO AND ITS POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, OFFICERS JASON LANDUM 

(#17355), OFFICER JOHN KENNEDY (#12134),

DET. C. THOMAS (#20199), DET. MICHAEL 

BURKE (#947), DET. JOHN DOUGHERTY 

(#20432), LT. JOHN MCMURRAY (#298),

SGT. MARK GIBSON (#2399), 

SGT. MICHAEL PARKER(#1295),

DET. PATRICK MADDEN (#20303),

OFFICER LARRY DOTSON (#18360),

OFFICER WILLIAM MOORE (#9849),

DET. NELLIGAN (#21287),

OFFICER RICHARD BOLTON (#3289),

OFFICER KORY PIERCE (#12045),

SGT. B. FERGUSON (#20286),

OFFICER S. HERRERA (#19968),

OFFICER RUSIMAK (#18793),

DANA ALEXANDER,

IPRA INVESTIGATOR JAMES LUKAS,

IPRA INVESTIGATOR KRISTI LYONS,

IPRA INVESTIGATOR GOODWIN,

IPRA INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL DUFFY

 Defendants.

Case No. _________________

Hon. _________________________

COMPLAINT

AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

_______________________________________ 

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, COURTNEY THOMAS and JEFFREY NICHOLS, by and 

through their attorneys, THE SHILLER PREYAR LAW OFFICES, complaining of the 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 2

Defendants, the Defendant, City of Chicago, Illinois and above-named Chicago police officers, 

and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. These civil rights and personal injury actions are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 to address deprivations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution of the United States. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367 to redress the deprivation 

and color of law of Plaintiff Thomas’ and Plaintiff Nichols’ rights as secured by the U.S. 

Constitution within this District (28 U.S.C. § 1391).

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Courtney Thomas is a United States citizen and currently lives in 

Michigan.

4. Plaintiff Jeffrey Nichols is a United States citizen and currently lives in Michigan.

5. Defendant Officers OFFICERS JASON LANDUM (#17355), OFFICER JOHN 

KENNEDY (#12134), DET. C. THOMAS (#20199), DET. MICHAEL BURKE (#947), DET. 

JOHN DOUGHERTY (#20432), LT. JOHN MCMURRAY (#298), SGT. MARK GIBSON 

(#2399), SGT. MICHAEL PARKER(#1295), DET. PATRICK MADDEN (#20303), OFFICER 

LARRY DOTSON (#18360), OFFICER WILLIAM MOORE (#9849), DET. NELLIGAN 

(#21287), OFFICER RICHARD BOLTON (#3289), OFFICER KORY PIERCE (#12045), SGT. 

B. FERGUSON (#20286), OFFICER S. HERRERA (#19968), OFFICER RUSIMAK (#18793), 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:2
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 3

AND DANA ALEXANDER are former or current employees of the City of Chicago and its 

police department.

6. Defendant IPRA Investigators LUKAS, LYONS, GOODWIN, and DUFFY, are 

present or former employees of the City of Chicago.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers and Defendant Investigators acted under 

color of law as duly appointed Police Officers of Defendant City and within the scope of their 

employment. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation and public entity organized 

under the laws of the State of Illinois and it and its police department are responsible for the 

policies, procedures, and practices implemented through its various agencies, agents, 

departments, and employees, and for injury occasioned thereby and it was or is the employer of 

the Defendant Officers.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. On or about January 1, 2010, Plaintiff Jeffrey Nichols was a licensed driver in 

Michigan and owned an automobile and drove it to Chicago, Illinois to drop off a relative and 

her younger child along with passenger and Plaintiff Courtney Thomas. 

9. Nichols dropped off the passenger and her child and intended to get lunch before 

shopping for some equipment and looking at used cars. 

10. Jeffrey Nichols is from Chicago and had previously purchased one or more cars in 

Chicago. 

11. Previously, Jeffrey Nichols had been harassed by police in a different jurisdiction, 

resulting in a civil rights claim settled in his favor.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:3
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 4

12. Previously, Courtney Thomas had had similar negative or problematic 

interactions with police officers in different jurisdictions, from which he had developed 

diagnosed stress disorders resulting in the need for psychological counseling.

13. Previously, Courtney Thomas had also been in Chicago years earlier in which he 

had been robbed/shot. 

14. On or about January 1st around 11:30 a.m. or so Nichols was driving on a Chicago 

street when they drove past a marked Chicago police car but with what appeared to be plain 

clothes Officers outside of the car.

15. Nichols and Thomas are both African American.

16. Nichols had to slow his car down and passed the Officers and the car. 

17. Nichols then made several turns and was driving on East 75th Street near Prairie 

Avenue/State Street when he noticed a Chicago Police car behind him.

18. Nichols thought that the Police car was intending to pass by him because he 

believed he had been driving legally, properly, and safely the entire time. 

19. Nichols then observed that it appeared as if the Police wanted him to pull over, so 

he did so timely, reasonably, and appropriately as can been seen on a surveillance videotape 

from a store across the street. Exhibit 1 (surveillance video). 

20. Defendant Landrum was in the passenger seat of the Police car while Defendant 

Officer Kennedy was driving.

21. Defendant Landrum went to the passenger side of the Nichols car, opened the 

door, and requested/removed Plaintiff Thomas from the passenger side of the car. 

22. Defendant Kennedy went to the driver’s side of the Nichols car, opened the door, 

and requested/removed Plaintiff Nichols from the car. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:4
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 5

23. Prior to this time, neither Defendant Officer stated why the Plaintiffs had been 

pulled over, why they were being asked to get out of the car, or stated that they were under arrest 

for any reason. 

24. Officer Kennedy began to put his hands on Courtney Thomas. 

25. Officer Landrum then began to yell over towards Courtney Thomas “what is your 

problem” and other confrontational words.

26. Officer Landrum then quickly went from behind the Nichols vehicle and grabbed 

and hit Thomas, including putting him into a headlock-type restraint.

27. Officer Landrum continued to attack and grabbed Thomas, including putting him 

to the ground and from which Thomas began to bleed. 

28. Officer Landrum yelled to Officer Kennedy that Thomas was going for 

Landrum’s service weapon, which was holstered and secured and that Kennedy should “shoot” 

Thomas. 

29. Officer Landrum and Officer Kennedy have given conflicting versions of the 

incident at issue.

30. Officers Landrum and Kennedy have given conflicting versions of what was said 

and by whom regarding the incident at issue.

31. Officer Landrum’s weapon was not unsnapped or upholstered or at any time held 

by Plaintiff Thomas, who was being forcibly restrained by Officer Landrum. 

32. Plaintiff Nichols was observing the scene unfold, including hearing Officer 

Landrum tell his partner “to shoot the motherfucker.” 

33. Plaintiff Nichols yelled out words to the effect that the officer can’t or shouldn’t 

shoot Thomas.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:5
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 6

34. Officer Landrum and Officer Kennedy brought Thomas over against a storefront 

where there was a metal security gate. 

35. Officer Kennedy had secured Thomas’ left arm with handcuffs and had 

handcuffed his left arm to the top portion of the metal security gate.

36. Thomas was secured and at no time was a threat to the life or safety of any 

officer, including since he had been handcuffed to the metal gate and was standing there 

handcuffed to the metal gate.

37. Officer Landrum then stated to Officer Kennedy, with Thomas handcuffed to the 

metal store security gate, words to the effect that “well if you won’t shoot him I will.” 

38. Officer Landrum took a step or two back from securing Plaintiff Thomas with 

Officer Kennedy, pulled his service weapon, a 9 millimeter handgun, and shot Plaintiff Thomas 

in the stomach area. 

39. Officer Kennedy was securing Thomas with Landrum and when Landrum said he 

would shoot Thomas, Kennedy had a shocked appearance on his face and had to jump out of the 

way so as not to be struck when Landrum shot Plaintiff Thomas. 

40. Officers Landrum and Kennedy forced the Plaintiffs out of the car, subdued, 

handcuffed, and arrested them.

41. Without cause or provocation, and in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments to 

the Constitution of the United States, Landrum unconstitutionally, and with excessive force, shot 

Plaintiff Thomas in the abdomen when he was handcuffed to a metal store grate.

42. Plaintiff Thomas suffered grievous, serious and permanent wounds and injuries 

from being shot with a 9 millimeter bullet into his stomach area, requiring multiple surgeries and 

loss of parts of his stomach and intestines. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:6
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 7

43. Multiple independent witnesses at the scene heard Officer Landrum tell Officer 

Kennedy to shoot Thomas but that Kennedy never even drew his weapon. 

44. Multiple independent witnesses at the scene saw the unfolding events and never 

saw Thomas try to reach for much less unholster Officer Landrum’s service weapon.

45. Multiple independent witnesses at the scene saw the unfolding events and never 

saw Thomas reach for or have any weapon himself.

46. Multiple independent witnesses at the scene saw the unfolding events and saw 

that Thomas was handcuffed to the gate and presenting no threat to anyone at that time.

47. Multiple independent witnesses at the scene saw the unfolding events and were 

outraged that a defenseless and handcuffed person was shot in the stomach for no reason at all 

such that they immediately began voicing outrage and asking the officers questions why he/they 

shot Thomas. 

48. At least one witness called 9-1-1 asking for a police supervisor because she was 

so outraged at the shooting and she began recording the scene she was so immediately excited 

and outraged at what was unfolding. 

49. Officer Kennedy was aware of Officer Landrum’s misconduct, including 

demanding that Kennedy “shoot the motherfucker,” which Kennedy disregarded and did not 

even unholster his weapon but rather handcuffed Thomas.

50. Officer Kennedy had reasonable opportunities to intervene and prevent Officer 

Landrum’s known and intended actions of seeing Thomas shot but failed to do so.

51. Meanwhile, Plaintiff Nichols had been taken from the back of his vehicle to the 

curb in front of his car.

52. Plaintiff Nichols was handcuffed. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:7
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 8

53. The temperature was cold and Nichols was not placed under arrest, was refused 

his request to get his coat in his car, and was seated handcuffed during which Officer Landrum 

would on at least two occasions forcibly “pinch” Nichols’ shoulder/neck area painfully and for a 

sustained period. 

54. Nichols was then told that he was “just a witness.” 

55. Nichols was then placed in the back of a “paddy wagon” of the Chicago Police 

Department, again not placed formally under arrest but he was handcuffed, not allowed to leave, 

without his coat, and forced to stay in the back of the police vehicle for a sustained period of 

time.

56. Nichols remained handcuffed in the back of the police paddy wagon and then 

driven to a police headquarters area some distance away.

57. Nichols was handcuffed to a wall inside the Chicago police building.

58. Nichols previously had suffered a back injury and told the officers that the 

handcuffing, especially to a wall, was hurting him, to which he was told by police: “Good.”

59. Nichols remained handcuffed for upwards of seven hours, including to a wall.

60. Nichols was handcuffed and not allowed to use the restroom, having to then 

urinate into a wastebasket.

61. Nichols was questioned and interrogated, including attempts to get him to 

incriminate himself and /or Thomas. 

62. Nichols was seized and restrained and imprisoned, against his will, and without 

probable cause or any other justifiable legal reason, for approximately ten or more hours.

63. Nichols was then “released” well after midnight and asked for a cab to be called 

and directions as to where he had been held.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:8
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 9

64. Defendant Officers became aggressive with him, trying to intimidate and 

challenge him with threatening language and finally said to other officers present that Nichols 

was a cop killer or was associated with a cop killer and that nobody should help him at all.

65. It was below freezing, and Nichols’ coat and car were taken from him by the 

Defendants, and he was finally able to leave the police headquarters in the early morning hours.

66. Because it was then in the early morning hours, Nichols had to find a 7-11 to stay 

in before the train station opened in a few hours but the train was booked because of the holiday, 

requiring Nichols to find a hotel since he had no transportation and no coat to wear. 

67. In addition, Nichols’ car was impounded and has been impounded from January 

1, 2010 until current date along with other personal possessions inside of the car. 

68. In an attempt to cover-up the unjustified shooting, and to intimidate Nichols, 

Officers Landrum and Kennedy concocted false facts and charges against Thomas and arranged 

to have Nichols seized without probable cause and intimidated and conspired with other police 

officers currently unnamed or not known in this complaint to violate Plaintiffs’ civil rights. 

69. Plaintiff Thomas was charged with multiple criminal charges in the Cook County 

Criminal Courts.

70. Plaintiff Thomas was hospitalized under arrest and then following surgeries and 

discharge was incarcerated from the date Landrum unjustifiably shot him until approximately 

September of 2011, when he entered a no contest plea to unlawful possession of a firearm and 

resisting arrest so that he could be released from the Cook County jail. 

67. Plaintiff Thomas had $3,462.00 in his possession with him to use if a decent used 

car could be found to buy in Chicago, which money was illegally/unconstitutionally seized and 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:9
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 10

remains unreturned and in the possession of the Defendants/City of Chicago and/or its Police 

Department or agencies.

68. Defendants attempted to intimidate and/or coerce the independent witnesses from 

reporting what they observed and reported—namely, that the Officers were the aggressors and 

created a confrontation, which then was under control but Landrum nevertheless then kept saying 

if Kennedy would not shoot Thomas he would, taking a step or two back, unholstering his gun, 

aiming and then shooting Thomas in the stomach.

69. As a direct and proximate result of the excessive force and wrongful conduct, 

Thomas suffered personal injuries, pain, agony and permanent damages, including medical 

treatments and bills in the past and future. 

70. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Nichols suffered 

personal injuries, harms, losses, and violations of his civil rights.

71. One or more Defendants created false police reports and gave false and 

misleading accounts of witness interviews and tried to coerce/intimidate witnesses to cover up 

the misconduct of Officers Landrum and Kennedy.

72. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendants Bolton and Pierce wrongfully 

seized the cash from Thomas.

73. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Madden took statements and 

then falsified portions thereof from witness Ozell Champagne.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:10
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 11

74. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Madden took statements and 

then falsified portions thereof from witness Antonio Champagne.

75. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Madden took statements and 

then falsified portions thereof from witness Robin Gibbs.

76. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Dougherty created a detectives 

supplemental report that included falsehoods.

77. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Nelligan took statements and 

then falsified portions thereof from witness Plaintiff Nichols.

78. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant C. Thomas took statements and 

then falsified portions thereof from witness Wambaugh.

79. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Moore created a crime scene 

report that contained falsehoods.

80. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Alexander approved multiple 

reports with known falsehoods.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:11
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 12

81. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Lyons took statements—and in 

the process manipulated those statements—from Jacqueline House and Ozell Champagne. 

82. Defendant Lyons further went about the investigative process in a manner 

designed to cover-up the excessive force used against Thomas and the unlawful seizure of 

Nichols.

83. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Lukas took statements—and in 

the process manipulated those statements—from Gibbs and Nichols. 

84. Defendant Lukas further went about the investigative process in a manner 

designed to cover-up the excessive force used against Thomas and the unlawful seizure of 

Nichols.

85. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Goodwin took statements—and 

in the process manipulated those statements—from Antonio Champagne and Ozell Champagne. 

86. Defendant Goodwin further went about the investigative process in a manner 

designed to cover-up the excessive force used against Thomas and the unlawful seizure of 

Nichols.

87. As part of both the conspiracy to cover-up the excessive force against Thomas 

and the attendant conspiracy to falsely seize Nichols, Defendant Duffy went about the 

investigative process in a manner designed to cover-up the excessive force used against Thomas 

and the unlawful seizure of Nichols.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:12
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 13

COUNT I—excessive force against Landrum and Kennedy

EXCESSIVE FORCE

88. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein.

89. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person who, acting under color of state law, deprives 

another person of his federal constitutional rights is liable to the injured person.

90. At all times relevant, Defendants were acting under color of state law.

91. Defendant Landrum’s conduct toward Plaintiff Thomas was objectively 

unreasonable and constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the 

Constitution.

92. Officer Kennedy was aware of Landrum’s misconduct and had several 

opportunities to intervene and prevent it and protect Plaintiff Thomas but failed to do so, 

subjecting him to liability under law.

93. Defendants’ acts were also willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and done with 

conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for Plaintiffs’ rights, entitling Plaintiff to punitive 

damages.

94. The actions of Defendants Landrum and Kennedy, individually and collectively 

or jointly, constituted unreasonable, unjustifiable, and excessive force against Plaintiffs Courtney 

Thomas thus violating his and their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

95. As a direct and proximate result and cause of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff

was injured physically, psychologically, emotionally, and financially, including but not limited 

to permanent pain, mental suffering, anguish, humiliation, and fear. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:13
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 14

96. The Defendants inflicted physical violence upon Plaintiff that was excessive, 

unnecessary, unreasonable, and grossly disproportionate to the need for action and for shooting a 

handcuffed man under the circumstances.

97. The actions of Defendants were willful, reckless, malicious, and/or done with a 

reckless indifference to, and callous disregard for, Plaintiffs’ rights. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request actual and compensatory and punitive damages in an 

amount deemed at the time of trial to be just and fair and along with attorneys’ fees and costs 

under the laws of the United States of America, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, et al. and the 

Constitution of the United States. 

COUNT II

UNLAWFUL SEIZURES OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY—AGAINST ALL

DEFENDANTS

 

98. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein.

99. Plaintiff Nichols was and is an innocent witness and victim, having been 

unconstitutionally seized, handcuffed, detained, physically punished, and his car and possessions 

seized and remain unretained to current date, all contrary to law and contrary to established 

procedures and processes, depriving him of the use and monetary value of his car and 

possessions.

100. Plaintiff Thomas had his money improperly and illegally seized and kept and 

without appropriate due process, which seizure and deprivation continues to current date.

101. The actions of all of the above-named Defendant Officers, individually and/or 

collectively and/or jointly, constituted unreasonable, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional searches 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:14
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 15

and seizures, without probable cause, without legal justification, and violations under the Fourth 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

102. Plaintiffs’ claims are pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for monetary relief 

and damages for violations of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches 

and seizures and for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment Right not to be deprived of due 

process of law.

103. All Defendant Officers were aware of each others misconduct as it relates to the 

unlawful seizure of Nichols, and the unlawful seizures of property from Nichols and Thomas, 

and had opportunities to intervene, but failed to do so.

104. The actions of Defendants were willful, reckless, malicious, and/or done with a 

reckless indifference to, and callous disregard for, Plaintiffs’ rights. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request actual and compensatory and punitive damages in an 

amount deemed at the time of trial to be just and fair and along with attorneys’ fees and costs 

under the laws of the United States of America, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, et al. and the 

Constitution of the United States. 

COUNT III

UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS/VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURAL

AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS/CONSPIRACY

 

105. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein.

106. Jeffrey Nichols owned the 1999 Silver Chrysler Concord that was pulled over by 

the above-named Officers Landrum and Kennedy and which was then subsequently seized, 

towed, impounded, and kept now since January 1, 2010, depriving Plaintiff of it use, economic 

value, and at a prohibitive and arbitrary cost.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:15
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 16

107. Jeffrey Nichols also had personal possessions inside of the car, which were also 

arbitrarily and capriciously seized and kept and have been since January 1, 2010.

108. Courtney Thomas had $3,462.00 on his person and/or in his possession and 

control and that Defendants seized and have kept since January 1, 2010.

109. Defendants, individually, collectively, and/or jointly, have unconstitutionally 

deprived plaintiffs of the use and value of their property, including unconstitutional takings and 

violations of procedural and/or substantive due process by the manner in which the car and 

personal property and clothing were seized and have been kept without appropriate due process, 

in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs.

110. Defendants, individually, collectively, and/or jointly, have conspired to deprive 

the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights outlined above along with deprivations and taking of 

their personal property outlined above, entitling them for an award of damages for their harms 

and losses.

111. Defendant officers impliedly and/or expressly conspired and agreed to violate 

Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and to cover up the wrongdoing of Officers Landrum and 

Kennedy, acting in furtherance of this conspiracy described in this Complaint. 

112. As a direct and proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs suffered the harms 

and losses described in this Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request actual and compensatory and punitive damages in an 

amount deemed at the time of trial to be just and fair, along with attorneys’ fees and costs under 

the laws of the United States of America, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, et al. and the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:16
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 17

COUNT IV

CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP EXCESSIVE FORCE, TO FALSELY SEIZE NICHOLS, 

AND TO FALSELY SEIZE PROPERTY

113. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs as if 

fully set-forth herein.

114. In addition to the conspiracy alleged in the previous count, all defendants 

conspired to cover-up the excessive force used against Plaintiff, and in so doing devalued 

plaintiff’s excessive force claim by creating false reports, erroneously creating inconsistencies in 

the witness statements of civilian witnesses, failing to secure all potential evidence, testifying 

falsely in court, and in various other ways.

115. The purpose of this conspiracy was to deprive Plaintiffs of the full benefit of the 

civil legal system in prosecuting their Fourth and 14th amendment claims.

116. This conspiracy did in fact impact that ability.

117. As a direct and proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs suffered the harms 

and losses described in this complaint.

118. In furtherance of this larger conspiracy, all defendants engaged in smaller 

conspiracies to deprive both plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, including but not limited to: 

1) the unlawful seizing of Nichols; 2) the wrongful seizure of Nichols’ property; 3) the wrongful 

seizure of Thomas’ property; and 4) the falsifying of police reports and statements.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request actual and compensatory and punitive damages in an 

amount deemed at the time of trial to be just and fair, along with attorneys’ fees and 

costs under the laws of the United States of America, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, et al. 

and the Constitution of the United States. 

Count IV

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:17
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 18

MONELL POLICY CLAIMS

119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and subsequent paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein.

120. Defendant City and/or its Defendant officers had policies, practices, customs and 

procedures by which (1) witnesses can be seized and detained and handcuffed for hours without 

justification and for punitive purposes; (2) “evidence” not related to nor relevant to any criminal 

charge be seized and detained and not returned arbitrarily and capriciously and without due 

process; and, (3) its police officers and allowed to violate the Constitutional rights of citizens 

without fear of any punishment for misconduct and to cover up misconduct rather than 

independently investigate it. In particular, there is an excepted practice by which IPRA actually 

acts as a shield for police-misconduct while operating under the guise of investigating police 

misconduct. In furthering this institutional covering up of police shootings, IPRA routinely fails 

to interview officers alleged of misconduct, routinely manipulates witness statements, and 

routinely fails to investigate obvious objective areas of science.

121. The Defendant City and/or its Defendant officers alternatively failed to establish 

and/or execute appropriate procedures for preventing the above factual malfunctioning and/or 

misuse of the judicial process, including but not limited to an entire array of police officers and 

supervising officers calling a person a “witness” yet all of them proceeding to de facto arrest 

him, detain him, handcuff him, mistreat him; and including but not limited to seizing and 

retaining personal property of both accused and innocent and uncharged persons without 

appropriate due process and without established procedures to return such personal property such 

that personal property can arbitrarily and capriciously be detained indefinitely.

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:18
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 19

122. Defendant City of Chicago violated Plaintiffs’ rights since it created the 

opportunities for, and tacitly or expressly approved of, the Defendants’ committing the foregoing 

Constitutional violations.

123. The above-described misconduct has become so common and widespread as to 

constitute a de facto policy and custom in the Chicago Police Department.

124. The widespread practice described in the preceding paragraphs was allowed to 

flourish because Defendant City of Chicago has declined to implement sufficient training and/or 

any legitimate and/or effective mechanisms for oversight and/or punishment of police officer 

misconduct and knowingly allow the cover up of misconduct. 

125. These policies, procedures, practices and/or customs were and are the moving 

force behind the constitutional violations alleged in this Complaint.

126. As a direct and proximate cause, the Plaintiffs suffered the harms and losses 

alleged elsewhere in this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request actual and compensatory and punitive damages in an 

amount deemed just and fair along with attorneys' fees and costs under the laws of the United 

States of America, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 et al.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William J. Stevens

William J. Stevens

P.O. Box 22

Lakeside, MI 49116

269-469-1469

ARDC: 2731215

lawyerbill@qtm.net

/s/ Brendan Shiller

Brendan Shiller

SHILLER PREYAR LAW OFFICES 

110 West Cermak, Suite B401

Chicago, IL 60608

312-226-4590

ARDC: 6279789

Brendan@shillerlaw.com

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:19
Courtney Thomas and Jeffrey Nichols v. Officer Jason Landum, et al. Case No. _________

Complaint and Jury Demand Page 20

_________________________

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William J. Stevens

William J. Stevens

P.O. Box 22

Lakeside, MI 49116

269-469-1469

ARDC: 2731215

lawyerbill@qtm.net

/s/ Brendan Shiller

Brendan Shiller

SHILLER PREYAR LAW OFFICES 

110 West Cermak, Suite B401

Chicago, IL 60608

312-226-4590

ARDC: 6279789

Brendan@shillerlaw.com

Case: 1:11-cv-09275 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:20