UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LARRY WINKFIELD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1710

) Judge Thomas M. Durkin

THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, ) Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland

COOK COUNTY, CORRECTIONAL )

OFFICER KOZELL, CORRECTIONAL )

OFFICER VAZQUEZ, UNKNOWN )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS )

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COME Defendants, COOK COUNTY, THOMAS DART, and OFFICER 

VAZQUEZ, by their attorney, Anita Alvarez, State’s Attorney of Cook County, through her 

assistant, Martin Syvertsen, and pursuant to Rules 7 and 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, present the following Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Affirmative 

Defenses, and Jury Demand as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. At the time of the conduct complained of herein, Mr. Winkfield was a pre-trial detainee 

confined in the Cook County Jail (“CCJ”) in Chicago, Illinois. This is a civil action arising out 

of Defendants’ collective failure to protect Mr. Winkfield from an unprovoked attack by fellow 

pre-trial detainees in November 2011. Individual Defendants had actual knowledge of the 

danger to Mr. Winkfield, but disregarded the risk and failed to take reasonable measures to

abate it. As a result of the attack, Mr. Winkfield sustained severe injuries from which he has not

fully recovered. Based on these violations, Mr. Winkfield petitions this Court to enforce his

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:98
2

rights under the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. Mr. Winkfield seeks

damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the nature of the case as described comports with the 

allegations contained in the remainder of his Complaint, but deny the remaining 

allegations set forth in paragraph 1.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it 

arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 

because Mr. Winkfield seeks redress for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 2.

3. The Court may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Winkfield’s state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims arise out of the same case or controversy 

as his federal claims.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 3.

4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all 

events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims asserted herein occurred in this District.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 4.

PARTIES

5. At the time of the conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff Larry Winkfield was a detainee 

confined at the CCJ in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 5.

6. Defendant Thomas Dart (“Sheriff Dart”) is Sheriff of Cook County. Sheriff Dart oversees the 

operations of the CCJ and the Cook County Department of Corrections. Sheriff Dart is sued in 

his official capacity.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:99
3

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 6.

7. Defendant Cook County is a public entity organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. 

Cook County is liable for any judgments related to its agents and employees pursuant to 745 

ILCS 10/2-302. Defendant Cook County and its governmental subsidiary, the Cook County

Department of Corrections, are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Cook County.”

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 7.

8. Defendant Correctional Officer Kozell is a correctional officer employed by Cook County.

ANSWER: Defendants admit only that Defendant Kozell was employed by the Cook 

County Sheriff on the date at issue, November 25, 2011. Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations contained in paragraph 8. 

9. Defendant Correctional Officer Vazquez is a correctional officer employed by Cook County.

ANSWER: Defendants admit only that Officer Vazquez is employed by the Cook 

County Sheriff. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9. 

10. Additional Cook County employees, correctional officers, and prison officials whose 

identities are unknown to Mr. Winkfield were also responsible for the failure to protect Mr. 

Winkfield from an attack by fellow detainees. These unknown Defendants, as well as the

named Cook County employees, correctional officers, and prison officials are sued in their

individual capacities and are hereinafter referred to as the “Individual Defendants.”

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10.

11. At all relevant times and in all their actions, all Individual Defendants were acting under 

color of law and pursuant to their authority as employees of Cook County.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations with respect to the named and identified

and served Officers. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:100
4

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

12. On November 25, 2011, Mr. Winkfield was detained in Division 1-2-A of the CCJ. His 

cellmate was Willie Reeves.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 12.

13. At approximately 6:00 a.m. on that date, detainees detained in cells across the hall from Mr. 

Winkfield’s cell threatened Mr. Winkfield with grave physical harm. These detainees were 

known gang members.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 13.

14. Mr. Winkfield informed Officer Kozell that he was being threatened by those detainees and 

that Mr. Winkfield believed that they were going to make good on their threats and cause Mr. 

Winkfield grave physical harm if Mr. Winkfield and those detainees were released into the same 

common area. Mr. Winkfield sought protection from Officer Kozell.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 14.

15. Officer Kozell did not provide any assistance or protection to Mr. Winkfield, nor did Officer 

Kozell indicate that he intended to provide any assistance or protection to Mr. Winkfield.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 15.

16. Because Officer Kozell refused to provide assistance or protection, Mr. Winkfield asked to 

speak to a commanding officer in order to obtain protection from those detainees who were 

threatening him. That request was denied.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 16.

17. Despite Mr. Winkfield’s pleas for protection from Officer Kozell and Officer Kozell’s 

knowledge that Mr. Winkfield was being threatened, Officer Kozell did not take any action to 

protect Mr. Winkfield.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:101
5

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 17.

18. Cook County Department of Corrections General Order No. 9.23, which was in effect on 

November 25, 2011, in the unit in which Mr. Winkfield was incarcerated, stated, “Half of the 

living unit will be let out of their cells for a three (3) hour increment beginning with the 0700 

hours – 1500 hours shift. At the completion of the three (3) hour increment, that half will be 

locked back in their cells and the other half of the living unit will be let out of their cells for the 

remainder of the shift. This rotation shall continue on with the 1500 hours – 2300 hours shift.” 

On information and belief, the purpose of this General Order was to minimize the risk of

detainee fights by decreasing the number of inmates in common areas at any one time.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the General Order referred to is accurately quoted and 

was in place on the stated date, and that one possible purpose for such an order would be 

to minimize the risk of detainee fights. 

19. In violation of General Order No. 9.23, Officer Vazquez opened the jail cell doors of all of 

the cells on the tier at the same time.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 19.

20. Because Officer Vazquez opened all of the jail cell doors at the same time, the detainees 

who were threatening Mr. Winkfield were released from their cells at the same time that Mr. 

Winkfield was released from his cell.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 20.

21. Those detainees immediately attacked Mr. Winkfield with jailhouse knives. Mr. Winkfield 

shouted for help, but neither Officer Kozell nor Officer Vazquez made any attempt to protect 

him.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 21.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:102
6

22. Mr. Winkfield was attacked for several minutes during which time neither Officer Kozell 

nor Officer Vazquez attempted to intervene or to protect him.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 22.

23. After Mr. Winkfield had been stabbed multiple times and suffered a broken jaw, the guards 

intervened and broke up the fight.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 23.

24. Mr. Winkfield suffered lacerations to his back from the stab wounds, a broken jaw, and a 

swollen and bleeding mouth.

ANSWER: Defendants admit Plaintiff suffered a broken jaw, a scratched back, and 

had swelling and bleeding to his mouth. Defendants deny all remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 24. 

25. Plaintiff was treated for his injuries at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital. On November 29, 2011,

Mr. Winkfield had surgery to fix his jaw. He had another surgery to repair his jaw on February 

6, 2012.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 25.

COUNT I

Against the Individual Defendants

42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Failure to Protect

26. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.

ANSWER: Defendants restate and incorporate their answers to the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.

27. By the foregoing facts, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of an attack by fellow 

pre-trial detainees.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 27.

28. The Individual Defendants were are of facts that could lead them to believe a risk of harm to 

Mr. Winkfield existed.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:103
7

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 28.

29. The Individual Defendants disregarded the risk by failing to take reasonable measures to 

abate it.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 29.

30. The Individual Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk that Plaintiff 

would likely be attacked by another inmate.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 30.

31. The acts and/or omissions of these Individual Defendants described herein amounted to 

cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 31.

32. As a result of these violations of his Constitutional rights, the Individual Defendants have 

caused Mr. Winkfield unnecessary and wanton infliction of great pain, mental anguish, and 

further exacerbated his injuries.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 32.

COUNT II

Against the Individual Defendants

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (State Law Claim)

33. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.

ANSWER: Defendants restate and incorporate their answers to the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.

34. The acts and conduct of the Individual Defendants as set forth above were extreme and 

outrageous.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 34.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:104
8

35. The Individual Defendants intended to cause or acted with knowledge of the high

probability that their conduct would cause such distress.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 35.

36. The Individual Defendants’ actions and conduct did directly and proximately cause severe 

emotional distress to Plaintiff, resulting in injury to his mind, body, and nervous system, 

including loss of sleep, mental anguish, and severe pain and emotional suffering.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 36.

COUNT III

Indemnification Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-302 (State Law Claim)

37. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.

ANSWER: Defendants restate and incorporate their answers to the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.

38. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment, including any 

associated attorney’s fees and costs, for which employees are liable within the scope of their 

employment activities. See 745 ILCS 10/9-102.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 38.

39. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment, including any 

associated attorney’s fees and costs, for which employees are liable within the scope of their 

employment activities. See 745 ILCS 10/9-102.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 39.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

NOW COME, the Defendants, COOK COUNTY, THOMAS DART, OFFICER 

JEROLD SMITH, and OFFICER ERIC VELEZ, by their attorney ANITA ALVAREZ, State’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:105
9

Attorney of Cook County, through her Assistant State’s Attorney, Martin Syvertsen, assert the 

following Affirmative Defenses:

1. Defendants conduct was at all times objectively reasonable and did not violate 

any of Plaintiff’s clearly established Constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Defendants are 

entitled to the defense of Qualified Immunity.

2. Defendants Cook County and Tom Dart are immune from Plaintiff’s state law 

claims under 745 ILCS 10/2-102 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act which provides as follows: 

“A local public entity is not liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action brought 

directly or indirectly against it by the injured party or a third party.” Defendants Cook County 

and Tom Dart, in his official capacity, is a local public entity. Accordingly, Cook County and 

Tom Dart are immune from punitive damage awards. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 

453 U.S. 247 (1981).

3. Defendants are immune from Plaintiff’s state law claims under 745 ILCS 10/2-

201 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act which provides as follows: “Except as otherwise 

provided by Statute, a public employee serving in a position involving the determination of 

policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission 

in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused.”

 4. Defendants are immune from Plaintiff’s state law claims under 745 ILCS 10/2-

204 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act which provides as follows: “Except as otherwise 

provided by statute, a public employee, as such and acting within the scope of his employment, 

is not liable for any injury caused by the act or omission of another person.” 

5. Defendants are immune from Plaintiff’s state law claims under 745 ILCS 10/2-

202 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act which provides as follows: “A public employee is not 

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:106
10

liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or 

omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct.”

6. Defendant Cook County and Tom Dart are immune from Plaintiff’s state law 

claims under 745 ILCS 10/2-109, which states a local public entity is not liable for an injury 

resulting from an act or omission of its employee where the employee is not liable.

7. Defendants sued in their individual capacity did not possess knowledge of a specific 

risk of imminent harm to Plaintiff, and did not act with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s well 

being.

8. 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 in an amount commensurate with the degree of fault 

attributed to Plaintiff by the jury in the case. In addition, 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 amount of damages attributed to Plaintiff by the jury in this case.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, COOK COUNTY, THOMAS DART, and OFFICER 

VAZQUEZ, deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages. Defendants pray that this Honorable 

Court enter a finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint and 

that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that this Court award attorneys’ fees 

and costs along with granting other such relief to Defendants as it deems proper and just.

JURY DEMAND

Defendants, COOK COUNTY, THOMAS DART, and OFFICER VAZQUEZ, 

respectfully request a trial by jury.

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:107
11

Respectfully submitted,

ANITA ALVAREZ

State’s Attorney of Cook County

By: /s/ Martin Syvertsen

Martin Syvertsen

Assistant State’s Attorney

Torts / Civil Actions Bureau

500 Richard J. Daley Center

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 603-6672

Case: 1:12-cv-01710 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/24/13 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:108