1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOSUE TAPIA, )

) No. 11 C 07997

Plaintiff, )

) JUDGE CASTILLO

vs. )

) Magistrate Judge Ashman

OFFICER SKARUPINSKI, OFFICER CHUDY )

#16126, OFFICER ROONEY, #10420, OFFICER )

WAKE #7403, SERGEANT RAYL #820, )

OFFICER LAYNE #8240, OFFICER LOPEZ )

#15191, OFFICER BUBACZ #13632, OFFICER )

SHERLOCK #10823, and THE CITY OF )

CHICAGO, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant Officers Skarupinski, Chudy, Rooney, Wake, Rayl, Layne, Lopez, Bubacz, and

Sherlock and the City of Chicago, by and through their attorney, Matthew A. Hurd, Deputy

Corporation Counsel, for their answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, hereby states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

common law and statutes of the State of Illinois. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this action pursuant to section

1983 and the common law and statutes of the State of Illinois. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in this paragraph.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over PLAINTIFF'S federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1343(a) and over PLAINTIFF'S state claims pursuant to the Court's supplemental

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:75
2

ANSWER: Defendants admit that jurisdiction is proper. 

3. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the claims arose

in this district as alleged below. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that venue is proper. 

PARTIES

4. PLAINTIFF is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.

5. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS were at all times relevant to this Complaint duly

appointed and sworn Chicago Police Officers. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

6. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS were acting in the course and scope of their

employment at all times where their conduct is referenced in this complaint. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

7. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS were on duty during the times in which their conduct

is referenced in this complaint. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

8. At all times material to this Complaint, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were acting

under color of state law, ordinance and/or regulation, statutes, custom and usages of the CITY OF

CHICAGO. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

9. This action is brought against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS in their individual

capacities. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

10. The CITY OF CHICAGO is a duly incorporated municipal corporation. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:76
3

ANSWER: Admitted.

11. The CITY OF CHICAGO shall provide legal representation for and indemnify the

Defendant officers for the charges lodged in this action. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

12. On May 15, 2011, Chicago police officers arrested the wrong person. The

DEFENDANT OFFICERS believed that they had arrested an individual who had an outstanding

warrant but erred and arrested a different individual all together. At the time of the arrest, JOSUE

TAPIA was lawfully driving his vehicle. Inside his vehicle were his wife and nephew. When the

DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested the PLAINTIFF believing him to be someone else, they attacked

him, threw him to the ground and tasered him so frequently that their conduct amounted to torture.

ANSWER: Defendants specifically deny that On May 15, 2011, Chicago police officers arrested

the wrong person. Defendants admit that Defendant Officers believed that they had arrested

an individual who had an outstanding warrant, and, on information and belief, that inside his

vehicle were his wife and nephew. Defendants deny the remaining allegations made and

contained in this paragraph. 

13. Torture is defined, by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "any act 

by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

for such purposes as ... punishing him for an act he ... has committed or is suspected of having

committed ... or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is

inflicted by ... a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. 

14. The mere use of a taser is not torture. However, in the instant case, the PLAINTIFF

was caused to suffer severe physical pain by being tasered on eleven (11) occasions, and beatings at

the hand of Chicago Officers, which was inflicted for discriminatory and/or punitive purposes for a

crime he was suspected to have committed. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations made and contained in Paragraph 14 except to

admit that the use of a taser is not torture.

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:77
4

15. The crime the PLAINTIFF was suspected to have committed was the subject matter

of an outstanding warrant for a different individual. The officers believed, without investigation, that

the PLAINTIFF had avoided and/or attempted to avoid incarceration and/or legal proceedings, by not

submitting himself to a court for adjudication of a criminal legal matter. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny it was without investigation, but admit the remaining allegations

of this paragraph.

16. The discriminatory act concerned the PLAINTIFF'S status as a Hispanic. Given the

PLAINTIFF'S heritage and the area where the incident occurred, the officers believed that they could

use outrageous aggression towards the PLAINTIFF, without consequences. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff is of Hispanic descent.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph.

17. On eleven (11) occasions, the electrical impulses from the Taser passed through the

PLAINTIFF'S body for a five to six second duration. The discharges were rapid fire, leaving only a

few seconds between each before the next firing occurred. 

ANSWER: Denied.

18. The PLAINTIFF experienced excruciating pain. His body was thrown into

convulsions, shaking involuntarily, as the electricity repeatedly passed through his body, causing him

to foam at the mouth. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

19. The PLAINTIFF has been seriously damaged. His mind has been altered by the

electrical impulses, to such an extent that he is no longer the same person he was prior to the

experience. For example, the PLAINTIFF is not able to work and/or care for his children as he did

prior to this occurrence. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

20. The Chicago Police Officers, knowing they had tasered the wrong person and used

outrageous force, covered up their misconduct by charging the PLAINTIFF for the commission of

severe crimes. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:78
5

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiff was charged with the commission of serious crimes,

but deny the remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph.

21. Torture is not new to certain Chicago Police Officers. Many officers have been

recently prosecuted civilly for prior acts of torture. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief asto the truth of the

allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.

22. Prior torture utilized by Chicago Officers concerned the use of electricity inflicted 

on civilians. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.

23. Ex-Commander Burge was recently convicted by a federal jury for committing perjury

by denying knowledge as to prior acts of torture. In connection with that cause, prior acts of torture

were covered up by Chicago Police Officers to avoid being subject to criminal prosecution. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

24. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS, aware of the past public spotlight attributable to

torture and severe acts of violence, sought to cover-up their misconduct so that their actions would

not draw attention by authorities who prosecute officers for criminal conduct. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in Paragraph 24.

25. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS are aware that a practice occurs among Chicago Police

Officers wherein information that is detrimental to fellow officers is withheld by way of a code of

silence, as has occurred in Alexandar v. City of Chicago, 8 C 6688; Smith v. City of Chicago, 9 C

0475; U.S.A. v. Commander Jon Burge, 8 CR 8416, U.S.A v. Jerome Finnigan and Keith Herrera,

7 CR 634. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies the same. 

26. In their reports, the DEFENDANTS charged PLAINTIFF with having battered three

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:79
6

Chicago Police Officers (RAYL, SKARPUNSKI and ROONEY). They further falsified evidence by

submitting that PLAINTIFF was under the influence of PCP and alcohol. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that in their reports, they charged PLAINTIFF with having

battered three Chicago Police Officers (Rayl, Skarpunski, and Rooney), deny the remaining

allegations made and contained in this paragraph. 

27. The medical records relating to the emergency medical treatment PLAINTIFF

received, demonstrate by way of blood and/or urine analysis that PLAINTIFF'S body was devoid of

PCP, alcohol or any other substance that could have altered his demeanor in any fashion. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

28. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS believed that if they charged the PLAINTIFF with

crimes, he may be found guilty, pursuant to false representations they submitted in official documents

and to a Court. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that they believed, based on the illegal acts of Plaintiff,

that he would be convicted of battering a police officer, but deny the remaining allegations

made and contained in this paragraph.

29. If the PLAINTIFF was found guilty of any of the charges lodged, the DEFENDANT

OFFICERS believed that they would be exonerated for the crimes they committed. It is well

established pursuant to Illinois and Federal law that an officer may use force upon a civilian if that

civilian uses force upon an officer. A conviction of any of the charges lodged against the PLAINTIFF

would have provided significant substantiation of the officers' allegations. However, the charges could

only have been successful by way of misrepresentations submitted to a Cook County criminal court

judge and jury. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that, were the Plaintiff to be convicted of the charges against

him, this would substantiate the Defendant Officers’ account of events. Defendants specifically

deny that Defendant Officers committed any crimes and that the charges against Plaintiff could

only been successful by way of misrepresentations submitted to a Cook County criminal court

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:80
7

judge and jury. The remainder of the allegations in this paragraph constitute a legal

conclusion to which no response is required.

30. In this matter, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS charged the PLAINTIFF with two counts

of aggravated battery and two counts of aggravated resisting arrest. All of these charges were felonies

and could have resulted in many years of incarceration for the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiff was charged with two counts of aggravated battery

and two counts of aggravated resisting arrest, that these charges were felonies and could have

resulted in the Plaintiff’s incarceration for multiple years. Defendants deny the remainder of

the allegations made and contained in this paragraph.

31. PLAINTIFF, at the time he was charged, had four young children and a wife and

would have suffered tremendously if he was caused to be incarcerated pursuant to the fabricated

charges. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies the same. 

32. On November 3, 2011, a Cook County jury determined that the PLAINTIFF was not

guilty of each and every felony charge lodged against the PLAINTIFF by the DEFENDANT

OFFICERS. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that on November 3, 2011, a Cook County jury determined that

the Plaintiff was not guilty of each and every felony charge lodged against the Plaintiff, but

deny the remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph. 

SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

33. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICERS SKARUPINSKI and ROONEY

performed a traffic stop of the PLAINTIFF, near the cross streets of 45th street and Hermitage. 

ANSWER: Admitted

34. After reviewing his driver's license, these officers released the PLAINTIFF. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:81
8

ANSWER: Admitted.

35. After releasing the PLAINTIFF, a computer within their police car provided

information as to a J. Tapia. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

36. This J. Tapia was not the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

37. This J. Tapia had an outstanding warrant pursuant to the information provided by the

in-car computer. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

38. The in-car computer provides information as to more than 10 million individuals.

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore these allegations are deemed denied.

39. The J. Tapia mentioned above was thirty pounds heavier than the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

40. The J. Tapia mentioned above was six inches shorter than the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

41. The J. Tapia mentioned above was twelve years older than the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

42. The information in paragraphs 39-41 was available to Officers Starupinski and Rooney

on Plaintiffs driver's license when they stopped PLAINTIFF. Officer Starupinski and Rooney knew

or reasonably should have known of the discrepancies between PLAINTIFF and the J. Tapia name

listed on the warrant. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

43. After receiving information about the warrant, DEFENDANT OFFICER

SKARUPINSKI and ROONEY approached PLAINTIFF'S car at 43rd and Paulina. At that point in

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:82
9

time DEFENDANT OFFICERS SKARUPINSKI and ROONEY seized PLAINTIFF, even though

neither officer had a reasonable belief that the PLAINTIFF had committed, was committing, or was

going to commit criminal activity of any sort. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that after receiving information about the warrant, Defendant

Officer Skarupinski and Rooney approached Plaintiff’s car at 43rd and Paulina and seized

Plaintiff. Defendants deny the remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph.

44. Subsequently, the balance of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrived on the scene and

arrested, participated in or caused the arrest of the PLAINTIFF without probable cause to believe that

the PLAINTIFF had committed, was committing or was going to commit criminal activity. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that subsequent to the events alleged in Paragraph 43, Officers

Chudy, Wake, Rayl, Layne, Lopez, Bubacz, and Sherlock arrived on the scene. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph. 

45. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS also engaged in an unreasonable search of the

PLAINTIFF. Specifically DEFENDANT OFFICERS searched the PLAINTIFF'S vehicle and the

PLAINTIFF'S person without a search warrant, without PLAINTIFF'S consent, and without a

reasonable suspicion that any contraband or evidence of criminal conduct was concealed on the

PLAINTIFF'S person and/or in PLAINTIFF'S vehicle. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS

alleged herein violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: Denied.

46. On or about May 15, 2010, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS touched PLAINTIFF in 

an unwanted and offensive manner, used unreasonable force and/or failed to intervene in the use of

unreasonable force upon PLAINTIFF. Specifically, but without limitation: 

a. the DEFENDANT OFFICERS struck and kicked the PLAINTIFF, even though the

PLAINTIFF was offered no resistance and posed no threat to himself or anyone else.

b. DEFENDANT OFFICER RAYL and CHUDY discharged a Taser onto the

PLAINTIFF'S body eleven (11) times, even though PLAINTIFF offered no resistance

and posed no threat to himself, police officers, or anyone else. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

47. The use of force initiated by and/or the failure to intervene in the use of force by the

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:83
10

DEFENDANT OFFICERS on or about May 15, 2010 caused an unreasonable seizure of the

PLAINTIFF in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

48. All DEFENDANT OFFICERS had the ability and were in sufficient proximity to

prevent the use of force perpetrated upon the PLAINTIFF by any DEFENDANT. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

49. On or about May 15, 2010, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS charged and/or participated

in the charging of the PLAINTIFF with criminal activity despite the fact that these officers failed to

observe or learn that PLAINTIFF had committed criminal activity of any sort. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

50. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS were absent probable cause to believe that the

PLAINTIFF had committed, was committing or was going to commit any criminal activity on or

about May 15, 2010. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that such a response is required, Defendants

deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

51. On or about May 15, 2010, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS participated in the charging

of PLAINTIFF with criminal activity despite the fact that none of these DEFENDANT OFFICERS

observed or learned that PLAINTIFF had committed criminal activity of any sort. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

52. On or about May 15, 2010, PLAINTIFF had not committed any act contrary to the

laws of the State of Illinois. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:84
11

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

53. After his arrest, the PLAINTIFF was charged with two felony counts of aggravated

battery and two felony counts of resisting arrest. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

54. On or about November 3, 2011, a Cook County Jury found the PLAINTIFF not guilty

of all charges lodged against him by the DEFENDANT OFFICERS. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that on or about November 3, 2011, a Cook County Jury found

the Plaintiff not guilty of each and every felony charge lodged against the Plaintiff, but deny

the remaining allegations made and contained in this Paragraph.

55. All felonies lodged against the PLAINTIFF, arising out of the May 15, 2010 arrest

have been terminated. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

56. All felonies lodged against the PLAINTIFF, arising out of the May 15, 2010 arrest

have terminated in a manner indicative of PLAINTIFF'S innocence. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants lack

personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief asto the truth of the allegations contained in this

paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

57. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the acts of or omissions by the

DEFENDANT OFFICERS, PLAINTIFF was caused to suffer damages including, but not limited to,

physical injury, pain and suffering, humiliation and emotional and psychological distress, prolonged

hospitalization and financial losses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that such a response is required, Defendants

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:85
12

lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained

in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. 

58. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER SKARUPINSKI came into physical

contact with PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

59. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER CHUDY tasered the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

60. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER ROONEY came into physical contact

with PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

61. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER WAKE came into physical contact with

PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

62. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICERLAYNE came into physical contact with

PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

63. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER LOPEZ came into physical contact with

PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

64. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER BUBACZ came into physical contact

with PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

65. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER SHERLOCK came into physical contact

with PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:86
13

66. On May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICER RAYL tasered the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

67. Collectively (meaning, added together), RAYL and CHUDY tasered the PLAINTIFF

eleven times. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore these allegations are deemed denied.

68. Collectively, the total number of times the Taser was fired byDEFENDANTS RAYL

and CHUDY, wherein the Taser was directed at the PLAINTIFF, was eleven. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

69. Each time a Taser was fired, directed at the PLAINTIFF, the duration of the electrical

firing was for a minimum of five seconds in duration. 

ANSWER: Denied.

Conspiracy

70. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conspired and acted together to cause damage to

PLAINTIFF by one or more of the following actions: 

a. agreed to falsely arrest the PLAINTIFF; 

b. agreed to falsely institute and/or continue criminal charges/proceedings against the

PLAINTIFF; and 

c. used excessive force and/or failed to intervene in the use of excessive force against the

PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

71. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conspired and acted together to cover up the false

arrest of the PLAINTIFF without probable cause or legal authority.

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

72. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conspired and acted together to cover up the use of

excessive force against the PLAINTIFF and/or the failure to intervene in the use of excessive force

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:87
14

against the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

73. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conspired and acted together to cover up the crimes

they had committed by charging the PLAINTIFF with the commission of serious felonies. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Plaintiff was charged with the commission of serious

felonies, but deny the remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph.

74. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conspired and acted together to cover up the torture

they inflicted upon the PLAINTIFF by charging the PLAINTIFF with the commission of serious

felonies. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

75. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS generated false and/or incomplete official reports

regarding the PLAINTIFF, alleged above, and gave false and/or incomplete versions of the events to

other officers and/or the State's Attorney's Office, in order to cover up and prevent disclosure of their

misconduct. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

76. In furtherance of the conspiracy alleged above, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS engaged

in communication on or about May 15, 2010 and/or thereafter, whereby the DEFENDANT

OFFICERS agreed to facilitate, engage in and support the actions and conduct alleged above. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph,

except to admit that the Defendant Officers communicated with one another on May 15, 2010.

77. As a result of this conspiracy, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, by and through their

actions, proximately caused PLAINTIFF to suffer, inter alia, physical injury, humiliation, fear, anxiety

and emotional distress; to be charged with criminal allegations; and incur financial losses, including

but not limited to attorneys' fees. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that such a response is required, Defendants

deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:88
15

COUNT I 

Excessive Force and Failure to Intervene 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment 

78. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth herein.

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein. 

79. The actions by the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, and the failure to

intervene in these actions amounted to the excessive use of force on the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

80. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, violated the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

81. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, were the direct and

proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

COUNT II

False Arrest 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment 

82. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1- 77 as though fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:89
16

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein. 

83. On or about May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICERS seized, handcuffed and

PLAINTIFF, even though neither DEFENDANT OFFICERS had a reasonable suspicion that the

PLAINTIFF had committed, was committing, or was going to commit criminal activity of any sort

prior to his detention. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that on May 15, 2010, Defendant Officer seized and handcuffed

the Plaintiff, but deny the remainder of the allegations made and contained in this paragraph.

84. On or about May 15, 2010, DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested the PLAINTIFF

without probable cause to believe that the PLAINTIFF had committed, was committing or was going

to commit criminal activity. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph, except to admit that

Defendant Officers arrested Plaintiff. 

85. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, violated the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

COUNT III 

Malicious Prosecution -- State Law Claim 

86. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth herein. 

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:90
17

87. Directly and in conspiracy, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS complained or alleged that

PLAINTIFF violated the laws of the State of Illinois. These allegations commenced and caused a

continuation of a criminal proceeding against PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Defendant Officers complained or alleged that Plaintiff

violated the laws of the State of Illinois. Defendants further admit that based on these

allegations, a criminal proceeding was commenced against Plaintiff. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations made and contained in this paragraph. 

88. Directly and in conspiracy, DEFENDANT OFFICERS charged PLAINTIFF with the

criminal activity alleged above without probable cause. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

89. Directly and in conspiracy, DEFENDANT OFFICERS charged PLAINTIFF with the

criminal activity alleged above, knowing the charges were false. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

90. On or about November 3, 2011, the underlying criminal charges were resolved in favor

of PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

91. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, violated Illinois law. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

92. The actions alleged in this Count were undertaken with malice, willfulness and/or

reckless indifference to the rights of the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:91
18

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

93. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, were the direct and

proximate cause of the violations set forth above. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

COUNT IV 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - State Law Claim 

94. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth herein. 

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein. 

95. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS on or about May 15, 2010, alleged

above, were extreme and outrageous. By and with these actions, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS

intended to cause or recklessly disregarded the probability that they would case severe emotional

distress to the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

96. These actions, alleged above, directly and proximately caused severe emotional

distress to the PLAINTIFF including, but not limited to, depression, fear and anxiety. As a result,

PLAINTIFF sought professional care and take medication. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants lack

personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:92
19

paragraph, and therefore denies the same. 

97. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, violated Illinois law. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

98. The actions alleged in this Count were undertaken with malice, willfulness and

reckless indifference to the rights of the PLAINTIFF. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

COUNT V 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Conspiracy Claim 

99. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth herein. 

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein.

100. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS conspired and acted together to cause damage to

PLAINTIFF, as alleged above. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

101. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, were the direct and

proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph. 

102. The actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, alleged above, were the direct and

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:93
20

proximate cause of the injuries that PLAINTIFF suffered and that are set forth above. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

each and every allegation made and contained in this paragraph.

COUNT VI 

State Law Claim (745 ILCS 10/9-102) 

103. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth herein. 

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein.

104. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is the employer of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS.

ANSWER: Admitted.

105. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS committed the acts alleged above under color of law

and while on duty and in the scope of their employment by the CITY OF CHICAGO. 

ANSWER: Admitted.

COUNT VII 

State Law Claim for Respondeat Superior

106. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth herein. 

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1-77 as though fully set forth

herein.

107. The acts of the DEFENDANT Officers, alleged above, were committed in the scope

of employment and therefore the Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO, as principal, is liable for the

actions of its agent(s) under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 

ANSWER: The allegations made and contained in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion

to which no response is required.

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:94
21

AFFIRMATIVE AND 12(b)(6) DEFENSES

1. At all relevant times, the use of any force against Plaintiff was reasonable.

2. Defendants are governmental officials, namely police officers, who perform discretionary

functions. At all times material to the events alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, a reasonably competent

officer, objectively viewing the facts and circumstances then confronting these Defendants, could

have believed his actions regarding the encounter with Plaintiff to be lawful, in light of clearly

established law and the information possessed by Defendants. Defendants therefore are entitled to

qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims under federal law.

3. Under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendants are not liable for any of the state law

claims alleged because the decision as to what action to take with regard to Plaintiff was a

discretionary decision for which the City and its employees are immune from liability. 745 ILCS

10/2-201 (2010).

4. Under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendants are not liable for any of the state law

claims alleged because a public employee is not liable for his or her acts or omissions in the execution

or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute willful and wanton conduct.

Defendants’ actions were performed in the execution and enforcement of the law and were not willful

and wanton. Therefore, Defendants are immune from liability for Plaintiff’s state law claims. 745

ILCS 10/2-202 (2010).

5. To the extent any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff were proximately caused, in

whole or in part, by negligent, willful, wanton and/or other wrongful conduct on the part of Plaintiff,

any verdict or judgment obtained by Plaintiff must be reduced by application of the principles of

comparative fault, by an amount commensurate with the degree of fault attributed to Plaintiff by the

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:95
22

jury in this case. 

6. To the extent that Plaintiff failed to mitigate any of his claimed injuries or damages, any

verdict or judgment obtained by Plaintiff must be reduced by the application of the principle that

Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate any injuries or damages attributed to Plaintiff by the jury in this case.

7. As to Plaintiff’s state law claims, Defendants are not liable to pay attorney’s fees, for the

law in Illinois clearly establishes that, absent a statute or contractual agreement to the contrary, each

party bears his or her own attorney’s fees and expenses and burdens of litigation. See Taylor v. Pekin

Ins. Co., 899 N.E.2d 251, 256 (Ill. 2008).

8. Defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request Plaintiff Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

JURY DEMAND 

Defendants demand trial by jury. 

Dated: February 15, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

_/s/ Matthew A. Hurd______

MATTHEW A. HURD

Deputy Corporation Counsel

30 N. LaSalle Street

Suite 900

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 742-6404 (Phone)

(312) 744-6566 (Fax)

Attorney No. 6191532

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:96
23

Case: 1:11-cv-07997 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:97