IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH A. WEST, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 12-cv-2667

)

vs. ) Judge Thomas M. Durkin

)

CITY OF CHICAGO; PATRICK F. KENNEDY; )

ROBERTA L. HONEYCUTT; RHEA M. )

ROBINSON; MATTHEW C. HILLIARD; BRIAN )

STOYAK; JOHN M. KILL; MICHAEL E. )

MURPHY; WILLIE WHITEHEAD; PATRICIA )

M. MARTINEZ; SCOTT STRAKA; TIMOTHY )

J. MADISON; GABRIEL B. BARRERA; JAMES )

SIMPSON, JR.; NORA E. COLLINS; DANIEL J. )

KNEZEVIC; COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS; )

UNKNOWN COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

POLICE OFFICERS; JACK T. LIU; PAUL )

SKRIVAN; CHUTARANA CHERAPONG; )

SCOTT MCLEAN; LA VELLE ASHFORD; )

ADBUL STEWART; JEREMY MCKINNEY; )

JERRY APPLEGATE; NOE CANO; WHITNEY )

LEE; SIMONE THORNTON; FRANCOIS )

LUCAS; CHAFFON HARRIS; SANDRA )

GRIFFIN; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )

INC.; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF WEXFORD )

HEALTH SOURCES; DEBRA MOFFIT- )

COLLINS; ANN BLANCHARD; VITALI )

KONONOV; KARYN MORGAN; KRISTINA )

KASHIRSKY; HOLLY LOGAN; MARY DIANE )

SCHWARZ; SYLVIA MAHONE; KENNETH )

BROOKS; )

)

Defendants. )

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANTS, PATRICK F.

KENNEDY, ROBERTA L. HONEYCUTT, RHEA M. ROBINSON, MATTHEW C.

HILLIARD, JOHN M. KILL, MICHAEL E. MURPHY, PATRICIA M. MARTINEZ,

SCOTT STRAKA, TIMOTHY J. MADISON, GABRIEL B. BARRERA, JAMES

SIMPSON, JR., NORA E. COLLINS, DANIEL J. KNEZEVIC, AND CITY OF

CHICAGO TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:423
2

NOW COME the Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO (the “City”), by and through its attorney,

Stephen Patton, Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, and PATRICK F. KENNEDY,

ROBERTA L. HONEYCUTT, RHEA M. ROBINSON, MATTHEW C. HILLIARD, JOHN M.

KILL, MICHAEL E. MURPHY, PATRICIA M. MARTINEZ, SCOTT STRAKA, TIMOTHY J.

MADISON, GABRIEL B. BARRERA, JAMES SIMPSON, JR., NORA E. COLLINS, and DANIEL

J. KNEZEVIC (“Defendants”), by and through one of their attorneys, Victoria R. Benson, Assistant

Corporation Counsel, and as and for their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint, hereby state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation of

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

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City admit this action is

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but deny that Plaintiff was deprived of his

rights. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1367.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City admit the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because, on

information and belief, all parties reside in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to the

claims asserted herein all occurred within this district. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:424
3

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City admit that the events

alleged by Plaintiff against these Defendants occurred within this district, but lack

sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Keith A. West was arrested in Chicago, Illinois and detained in the Chicago

Police Department 4th District Jail, in Cook County Jail, and in Stateville Correctional Center’s

Northern Reception and Classification Center (“Stateville NRC”) at the time of the events at issue

in this case. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and, upon information and

belief, City, admit that Plaintiff was detained at the 4th District Chicago Police

Station and detained in Cook County Jail, but lack sufficient information or

knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

allegations contained in this paragraph.

5. Defendant City of Chicago (“City”) is an Illinois municipal corporation that operates

the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”). The City has a legal responsibility to ensure that the

policies and procedures of its administrative departments, including the CPD, comply with the

United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City admit that the City

of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation that operates the Chicago Police

Department. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:425
4

because these allegations contain a vague, incomplete, and/or inaccurate statement

of the law. 

6. On information and belief, Defendant Officers Patrick F. Kennedy (Star No. 14414),

Roberta L. Honeycutt (Star No. 4428), Rhea M. Robinson (Star No. 7358), Matthew C. Hilliard (Star

No. 5090), Brian Stoyak (Star No. 7243), John M. Kill (Star No. 13366), Michael E. Murphy (Star

No. 15504), Willie Whitehead (Star No. 1358) and Patricia M. Martinez (Star No. 12298) (together,

the “Defendant Arresting Police Officers”) and Scott Straka (Star No. 2767), Timothy J. Madison

(Star. No.10679), Gabriel B. Barrera (Star No. 14679), James Simpson, Jr. (Star No.10221), Nora

E. Collins (Star No. 11393) and Daniel J. Knezevic (Star No. 1768) (together, the “Defendant

Transporting Police Officers” and together with the Arresting Police Officers, collectively the “the

Defendant Police Officers”) are residents of the State of Illinois and were employed by the CPD at

the time of the events at issue in this case. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant

Police Officers acted under color of state law and within the scope of their employment as members

of the CPD. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City admit the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

7. Defendant County of Cook, Illinois (“County”) is a municipal corporation that

operates the Cook County Sheriff's Police Department, Cook County Department of Corrections

(“Cook County DOC”) and Cermak Health Services of Cook County (“Cermak”). At all times

relevant to this Complaint, Cermak provided medical care to inmates incarcerated at Cook County

Jail, including Plaintiff during his incarceration at Cook County Jail. The County has a legal

responsibility to ensure that the policies and procedures of its administrative departments, including

the Cook County Sheriff, Cook County DOC and Cermak, comply with the United States

Constitution. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient

information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

allegations contained in this paragraph.

8. On information and belief, Defendants Unknown Cook County Sheriff’s Police

Officers (together, the “Defendant Sheriff’s Officers”) are residents of the State of Illinois and were

employed by the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department at the time of the events at issue in this

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:426
5

case. Although Plaintiff’s factual investigation into the specific identities ofthe Defendant Sheriff’s

Officers continues, at this time Plaintiff believes certain of the Defendant Sheriff’s Officers are

Deputy Sheriffs L. Ervin and A. Currie. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant

Sheriff’s Officers acted under color of state law and within the scope of their employment as

members of the Cook County Sherriff’s [sic] Police Department. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient

information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

allegations contained in this paragraph.

9. On information and belief, Defendant Correctional Officers Scott McLean, Lavelle

Ashford, Adbul Stewart, Jeremy McKinney, Jerry Applegate, Noe Cano, Whitney Lee, Simone

Thornton, Francois Lucas, Chaffon Harris and Sandra Griffin (together, the “Defendant Correctional

Officers”) are residents of the State of Illinois and were employed by the Illinois Department of

Corrections (“IDOC”) at the time of the events at issue in this case. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, the Defendant Correctional Officers acted under color of state law and within the scope

of their employment as members of the IDOC. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient

information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

allegations contained in this paragraph.

10. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) is a Florida Corporation that,

at all times relevant to this Complaint, provided medical care to inmates incarcerated at Stateville

NRC pursuant to a contract with the State. Wexford, in its capacity as a State contractor,

implemented policies, procedures, rules and regulations for the medical treatment and care of

inmates incarcerated at Stateville NRC and, at all times relevant to this Complaint, acted under color

of law.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:427
6

information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

11. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Employees of Wexford Health

Sources Nurse Debra Moffit-Collins, R.N.; Dr. Ann Blanchard, D.D.S.; Nurse Kristina Kashirsky;

Nurse Holly Logan; Nurse Karyn Morgan, R.N.; Dr. Vitali Kononov, M.D.; Mary Diane Schwarz,

P.A.; Dr. Sylvia Mahone, M.D.; Dr. Kenneth Brooks, D.D.S.; and other unknown Wexford

Personnel Defendants (together, the “Wexford Personnel Defendants”) were employed by Wexford

to provide medical services to Stateville inmates, including Plaintiff during his detention at Stateville

NRC. The Wexford Personnel Defendants were responsible for the provision of medical care,

treatment and medication to Plaintiff while detained at Stateville NRC, and, as a result, Defendants

were acting under color of law and within the scope of their employment. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient

information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Employees of Cermak Health

Services of Cook County Dr. Jack T. Liu, D.D.S., Paul Skrivan and Chutaratana Chearapong, R.N.

(together, the “Cermak Personnel Defendants”) were employed by Cermak to provide medical

services to Cook CountyJail inmates, including to Plaintiff during his detention at Cook County Jail.

The Cermak Personnel Defendants were responsible for the provision of medical care, treatment and

medication to Plaintiff while detained at Cook County Jail, and as a result, Defendants were acting

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

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient

information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13. On the evening of March 22, 2011, Plaintiff was handcuffed and arrested by the

Defendant Arresting Police Officers in the Chicago Police Department's 4th District (the “March 22

Arrest”). 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:428
7

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Robinson, and Hilliard admit handcuffing and arresting

Plaintiff on March 22, 2011 within the 4thDistrict oftheChicago Police Department.

Defendants Honeycutt, Kill, Murphy, and Martinez admit that Plaintiff was

handcuffed and placed under arrest on March 22, 2011 within the 4th District of the

Chicago Police Department, but deny participating in the handcuffing of Plaintiff on

March 22, 2011. 

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City, upon

information and belief, admit that Plaintiff was handcuffed and placed under arrest

on March 22, 2011 within the 4th District of the Chicago Police Department, but

deny participating in the handcuffing of Plaintiff on March 22, 2011.

14. During the March 22 Arrest, without provocation and acting pursuant to the CPD’s

custom and practice of using excessive force, the Defendant Arresting Police Officers repeatedly

punched and kicked Plaintiff on his head and body resulting in multiple physical injuries, including

a fractured tooth, a knocked-out filling, malocclusion, right shoulder trauma, swollen eye and lips,

aggravation of preexisting injuries to Plaintiff’s back, and damage to Plaintiff’s ribcage, legs, and

nerves. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, and Martinez

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City, upon

information and belief, deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

15. The excessive force used by Defendant Arresting Police Officers caused Plaintiffs

front tooth (incisor) to be fractured, leaving the root of the tooth exposed. Defendant Arresting Police

Officers' excessive force also knocked Plaintiffs filling out of his back tooth, leaving a very painful

and significantly-sized cavity in Plaintiffs molar. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, and Martinez

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:429
8

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City, upon

information and belief, deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

16. While still at the scene of arrest, Plaintiff repeatedly asked the Defendant Arresting

Police Officers for transportation to a medical facility where he could receive treatment for the

injuries caused during the March 22 Arrest. Despite the fact that Plaintiff’s tooth obviously needed

medical attention, the Defendant Arresting Police Officers deliberately and maliciously ignored

Plaintiff’s requests for medical treatment, berated Plaintiff with obscenities, and refused to allow

Plaintiff access to a medical facility for treatment and/or to provide transport to such a facility.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, and Martinez

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City, upon

information and belief, deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

17. Instead of arranging for medical treatment, the Defendant Arresting Police Officers

transported Plaintiff to the 4th District Police Precinct approximately two hours after the March 22

Arrest. After arriving at the precinct, Plaintiff, still suffering intense pain from his injuries, again

requested medical attention; however, the Defendant Arresting Police Officers maliciously refused

to provide medical treatment. One Defendant Arresting Police Officer said to Plaintiff, “make bond

then you can go to the hospital.” This statement, and the obscenities said by other Defendant

Arresting Police Officers, evidences an informal policy of the Chicago Police Department of refusing

to provide medical attention to its detainees. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, and Martinez

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City, upon

information and belief, deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

18. On Wednesday March 23, 2011, after enduring hours of intense pain, Plaintiff

eventually was taken to the emergency room at South Shore Hospital by certain Defendant

Transporting Police Officers. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and, upon information and belief,

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:430
9

City admit that Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room at South Shore Hospital,

but lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

19. Doctors at South Shore Hospital began a medical examination of Plaintiff’s injuries;

however, before the doctors completed the medical examination, Defendant Transporting Police

Officers deliberately and maliciously terminated Plaintiff’s medical treatment. One of the Defendant

Transporting Police Officers said to the doctor, “he can get all the medical [care] he wants at Cook

County Jail. We’re ready to go now.”

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, and

City, upon information and belief, deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, and Knezevic deny the

allegations contained in this paragraph.

20. Defendant Transporting Police Officers’ actions are further evidence fo the City’s

informal policy of refusing to provide medical attention to detainees. As a result of the Transporting

Police Officers’ actions, the only treatment given to remedy Plaintiff’s injuries at South Shore

Hospital was an injection of pain medication, rather than the treatment Plaintiff actually required.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, and

City, upon information and belief, deny there is any informal policy of refusing to

provide medical attention to detainees, and, upon information and belief, deny the

remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

Defendants Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, and Knezevic deny the

allegations contained in this paragraph.

21. On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to Cook County Jail. At or about 6:00

p.m., Plaintiff began medical intake at Cook County Jail, conducted by Cermak Personnel Defendant

Chutaratana Cherapong, R.N. At or about 7:15 p.m. on March 24, 2011, Plaintiff was examined by

Cermak Personnel Defendant Paul Skrivan. Plaintiff informed both Cermak Personnel Defendants

Ms. Chearapong and Mr. Skrivanof his dental injuries and the injuries to his ribs, head, eye, back,

and legs. Plaintiff informed Ms. Chearapong and Mr. Skrivan that he was suffering great pain from

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:431
10

his injuries and requested the removal of his damaged teeth. In response, Mr. Skrivan advised

Plaintiff that there were no personnel on staff to accommodate him and told Plaintiff that he would

have to cope with the pain.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

22. Although it was clear that Plaintiff required a full dental examination, a tooth

extraction and hisfilling replaced, the Cermak Personnel Defendants merely provided Plaintiff with

ibuprofen before completing medical intake. The Cermak Personnel Defendants also failed to

schedule a follow-up appointment for the following day. The Cermak Personnel Defendants' actions,

and their deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs injuries and suffering, evidence a pattern and practice

of Cermak Health Services of denying or delaying medical treatment that requires prompt attention.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

23. In the days following medical intake at Cook County Jail, Plaintiff repeatedly

described his injuries and pain to the Defendant Sheriff’s Officers and asked them for medical

treatment. Despite personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s injuries and Plaintiff’s ongoing pain and

suffering, the Defendant Sheriff’s Officers deliberately and maliciously ignored Plaintiff’s requests

for medical treatment, berated Plaintiff with obscenities and refused to allow Plaintiff access to the

Cermak medical facility for treatment. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:432
11

24. On March 28, 2011, almost one week after the March 22 Arrest, Plaintiff was finally

given a dental examination by Cermak Personnel Defendant Dr. Jack T. Liu, D.D.S. Dr. Liu told

Plaintiff that dental surgery was needed to remove the two teeth that were severely damaged by the

Defendant Arresting Police Officers during the March 22 Arrest. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

25. Later that day, Dr. Liu commenced dental surgery on Plaintiff. After removing the

damaged front tooth (Plaintiff’s incisor), Dr. Liu began treatment on Plaintiff’s damaged rear tooth

(Plaintiff’s molar). However, before completing treatment of the molar, Dr. Liu abruptly ended the

procedure and advised Plaintiff that surgery would not be completed due to “some matters beyond

[the doctor’s] control.” Dr. Liu’s conduct further shows that Cermak has an informal policy of

denying or delaying medical attention to its detainees, despite knowledge that an individual is in dire

need of medical attention. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

26. From March 28, 2011 through March 31, 2011, Plaintiff submitted four grievances

detailing the excessive use of force by the Defendant Arresting Police Officers during the March 22

Arrest, the ongoing denial of his repeated requests for medical treatment by the Defendant Arresting

Police Officers, Defendant Sheriff’s Officers, and Defendant Cook County Officers, and the

inadequate medical care provided by the Cermak Personnel Defendants. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:433
12

27. On April 1, 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to Stateville NRC for pre-trial detainment.

Upon his arrival, Plaintiff immediately notified certain Defendant Correctional Officers of his

injuries and resultant pain and suffering, and requested medical attention. Plaintiff also informed

numerous medical personnel at Stateville NRC – including Wexford Personnel Defendant Nurse

Debra Moffit-Collins and other unknown Wexford Personnel Defendants – of the specific nature of

his injuries and the great pain he was suffering. Despite their personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s

serious medical problems and pain and suffering, Wexford Personnel Defendants and Defendant

Correctional Officers deliberately and maliciously ignored Plaintiff’s requests for medical treatment.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

28. On April 2, 2011, Plaintiff was examined by one of the Wexford Personnel

Defendants, believed to be Dr. Ann Blanchard, D.D.S. This Wexford Personnel Defendant

confirmed that Plaintiff’s molar was damaged and that exposed nerve endings were the source of his

dental pain. Despite this diagnosis and Plaintiff’s request for dental surgery, the Wexford Personnel

Defendant explained that, pursuant to Wexford policies and procedures, neither she nor any of the

Wexford Personnel Defendants would be able to provide Plaintiff with adequate and necessary

medical treatment during his incarceration at the Stateville NRC facility and that he would have to

wait until he was transferred to another facility. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

29. On April 9, 2011, the Plaintiff saw Wexford Psychiatrist Dr. Vitali Kononov.

Plaintiff informed Dr. Kononov of the intense pain Plaintiff was suffering; however, despite Dr.

Kononov’s personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious medical problems and pain and suffering, Dr.

Kononov deliberately and maliciously ignored Plaintiff’s requests for medical treatment. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:434
13

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

allegations contained in this paragraph.

30. Between April 25, 2011 and May 22,2011, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff informed

Nurse Karyn Morgan, Nurse Kristina Kashirsky and Nurse Holly Logan of Plaintiff’s injuries.

Despite the Wexford Personnel Defendants’ personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious medical

problems and pain and suffering, the Wexford Personnel Defendants deliberately and maliciously

ignored Plaintiff’s requests for medical treatment

. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

31. During this time, Plaintiff also made dozens of requests for medical attention, both

written and oral, to Wexford Personnel Defendants Mary Diane Schwarz, Dr. Sylvia Mahone and

Dr. Kenneth Brooks, D.D.S. Despite the Wexford Personnel Defendants’ personal knowledge of

Plaintiffs serious medical problems and pain and suffering, the Wexford Personnel Defendants

deliberately and maliciously ignored Plaintiffs requests for medical treatment.

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

32. From April 2011 through August 2011, Plaintiff made repeated requests to the

Wexford Personnel Defendants and Defendant Correctional Officers for medical treatment to remedy

the pain and suffering caused by the myriad of injuries Plaintiff sustained during the March 22

Arrest, including crippling back pain, an injured right shoulder, pinched nerves in his left leg, and

a damaged tooth with exposed nerve endings. Plaintiff also informed the Wexford Personnel

Defendants and Defendant Correctional Officers of other physical maladies caused by these injuries

and associated pain, including sleep deprivation, weight loss, fatigue, and muscle deterioration.

Despite this personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious dental injuries and ongoing pain and suffering,

the Wexford Personnel Defendants and Defendant Correctional Officers continued to deliberately

and maliciously ignore Plaintiff’s requests for medical treatment. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:435
14

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

33. When Plaintiff requested medical attention on one occasion, one of the Defendant

Correctional Officers responded, “when you get to another prison you can see a dentist and get your

[medical] issues addressed.” Each of the Defendants conduct throughout Plaintiff’s incarceration

is evidence of an informal policy for each Defendant to simply delay medical treatment until the

prisoner has been sent to another facility. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny there was an informal

policy to delay medical treatment until Plaintiff was sent to another facility, but lack

sufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

34. From May 2011 through September 2011, Plaintiff submitted multiple grievances

detailing the excessive use of force by the Defendant Arresting Police Officers during the March 22

Arrest, the ongoing denial of his repeated requests for medical treatment by the Defendant Police

Officers, Defendant Sheriff’s Officers, Defendant Cook County Officers, Defendant Correctional

Officers, and Wexford Personnel Defendants, and the inadequate medical care provided by the

Cermak Personnel Defendants and the Wexford Personnel Defendants. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and, upon information and belief,

City deny Plaintiff was subjected to excessive force and was denied medical care, but

lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth

or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

35. On May 26, 2011, after months of repeated requests for treatment, Plaintiff s left rear

tooth was finally removed by a Wexford doctor, Dr. Kenneth Brooks, D.D.S. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:436
15

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

36. On November 29, 2011, Plaintiff underwent surgery at Carle Foundation Hospital in

Urbana, IL for the removal of vertebrae in his back. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City lack sufficient information

or knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Excessive Use of Force)

37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City reassert their

answers to paragraphs 1 through 36 above as and for their answer to this paragraph

as if fully set forth herein. 

38. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the conduct of Defendant Arresting Police

Officers toward Plaintiff during the March 22 Arrest constitutes an excessive use of force in

violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:437
16

39. Defendant Arresting Police Officers’ actions were not objectively reasonable and

were undertaken intentionally and with malice, willfulness and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

40. As a direct result of the unjustified and excessive use of force by Defendant Arresting

Officers and the City’s policy, practices, procedures, and custom, Plaintiff suffered damages

resulting from physical injuries, pain and suffering and emotional distress. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Failure to Intervene) 

41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City reassert their

answers to paragraphs 1 through 36 above as and for their answer to this paragraph

as if fully set forth herein. 

42. Each of the individual Defendant Arresting Police Officers had a reasonable

opportunity to prevent the use of excessive force against Plaintiff by the other Defendant Arresting

Police Officers, but failed to do so, acting pursuant to a pattern and practice of allowing excessive

force to be used on arrestees. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:438
17

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

43. Defendant Arresting Police Officers’ failure to intervene and prevent the use of

excessive force against Plaintiff was not objectively reasonable and was undertaken intentionally and

with malice, willfulness, and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

44. As a direct result of the failure to intervene by the Defendant Arresting Police

Officers and due to the City’s policy, practices, procedures, and custom, Plaintiff suffered damages

resulting from physical injuries, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Pre-Trial Denial of Medical Attention) 

45. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City reassert their

answers to paragraphs 1 through 36 above as and for their answer to this paragraph

as if fully set forth herein. 

46. As described in the preceding paragraphs, despite having actual knowledge of

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, the Defendant Police Officers, Defendant Cook County Officers,

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:439
18

and Defendant Correctional Officers acted with deliberate indifference in withholding access to

necessary and adequate medical attention from Plaintiff, evidencing an informal policy of each

Defendant to delay medical treatment to its detainees, and in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny that adequate medical

attention was withheld from Plaintiff by them, deny that they acted with deliberate

indifference in their dealings with Plaintiff, deny there is any informal policy to delay

medical treatment to detainees, and lack sufficient information or knowledge upon

which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained

in this paragraph. 

47. Defendants’ actions were not objectively reasonable and were undertaken

intentionally, with deliberate indifference, and with intent, knowledge, and reckless disregard of the

high probability that the conduct would result in serious future harm and severe emotional distress

to Plaintiff. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

48. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the Cermak Personnel Defendants and

Wexford Personnel Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical attention, despite

having actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the United States

Constitution. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City make no answer to the

allegations contained in this paragraph as they are not directed to these Defendants.

49. In refusing to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical attention, despite Plaintiff’s

objectively serious medical needs, Defendants Cermak Medical Personnel and Wexford Medical

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:440
19

Personnel engaged in objectively unreasonable misconduct that was undertaken intentionally, and

in accord with these facilities’ custom and practice, with deliberate indifference and with intent,

knowledge and reckless disregard of the high probability that the conduct would result in serious

future harm and severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City make no answer to the

allegations contained in this paragraph as they are not directed to these Defendants.

50. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff suffered damages

resulting from the violation of his constitutional rights, including pain and suffering and emotional

distress resulting from Plaintiffs’ untreated medical needs. 

ANSWER: Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez,

Straka, Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City deny the allegations

contained in this paragraph. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(State Law–Negligence) 

Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City make no answer to the allegations contained

in this count, which are the subject of a separately filed Motion to Dismiss. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(State Law--Respondent Superior)

Defendants Kennedy, Honeycutt, Robinson, Hilliard, Kill, Murphy, Martinez, Straka,

Madison, Barrera, Simpson, Collins, Knezevic, and City make no answer to the allegations contained

in this count, which are the subject of a separately filed Motion to Dismiss. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:441
20

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendant Officers are government officials, namely police officers, who performed

discretionary functions. At all times material to the events alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, a

reasonable police officer objectively viewing the facts and circumstances that confronted Defendant

Officers could have believed his actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the

information that Defendant Officers possessed. Defendant Officers, therefore, are entitled to

qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

2. Defendant Officers were working as police officers at the time of this incident.

Therefore, as to all claims, under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendant Officers are not liable

for any state law claim alleged because public employees are not liable for their acts or omissions

in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and

wanton conduct. 745 ILCS 10/2-202 (West 2011). 

3. Defendant Officers are not liable for any of Plaintiff’s alleged state law claims

because a public employee, as such and acting within the scope of his/her employment, is not liable

for an injury caused by the act or omission of another person. 745 ILCS 10/2-204 (West 2011). 

4. The City is not liable to Plaintiff for any state law claim for which its employees or

agents are not liable to Plaintiff. 745 ILCS 10/2-109 (West 2011). 

5. The City is not liable to Plaintiff for any federal claim for which its employees or

agents are not liable to Plaintiff. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986).

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

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

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:442
21

plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate, commensurate with the degree of failure to mitigate attributed to

Plaintiff by the jury in this case.

7. To the extent any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff was proximately caused,

in whole or in part, by the negligent, wilful, wanton and/or other wrongful conduct 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

jury in this case. 

8. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees for any state law claims. See Pennsylvania

Truck Lines, Inc. v. Solar Equity Corp., 882 F.2d 221, 227 (7th Cir. 1989); Kerns v. Engelke, 76 Ill.

2d 154, 166, 390 N.E.2d 859, 865 (1979); Miller v. Pollution Control Board, 267 Ill. App. 3d 160,

171, 642 N.E.2d 475, 485 (4th Dist. 1994). 

9. Defendant officers are not liable for failure to furnish or obtain medical care for a

prisoner in their custody, unless they knew from their observation that the prisoner was in immediate

need of medical care and were willful and wanton in failing to take reasonable action to summon

medical care. 745 ILCS 10/4-105 (West 2013).

JURY DEMAND

Defendants hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so triable. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:443
22

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor

and against Plaintiff, including for costs for defending this suit, and enter any other relief that this

Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Victoria R. Benson 

Victoria R. Benson

Assistant Corporation Counsel

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 742-1842

(312) 744-6566 (FAX)

Atty No. 6282508

Case: 1:12-cv-02667 Document #: 87 Filed: 05/13/13 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:444