1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DARREN L. McCOY, pro se, )

) No. 11 C 7960

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Judge Guzman

)

JOSEPH PULIA, et. al., )

) Magistrate Judge Finnegan

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

AND JURY DEMAND IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendants1, individual Chicago Police Officers Joseph Pulia, Patrick Grube, Rodrigo 

Corona, Vilma Argueta, Michael Alaniz, and Joseph Considine, by and through their attorney, 

Brian F. Kolp, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, in response to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, submit their answer, affirmative defenses and jury demand, and in support thereof 

state the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Defendants have attempted in good faith to address each and every allegation of 

Plaintiff's pro se complaint contained in Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint form, and have

incorporated numbered paragraphs for facilitating their answers to those allegations. Defendants 

have endeavored to set forth all of Plaintiff’s assertions. However, due to the style of the 

complaint, it is impossible to assure that all allegations have, indeed, been addressed. For this

reason, Defendants generally deny each and every allegation which may not be specifically 

addressed herein.

 1 As of the time of this filing, only 6 of the named defendants have been served through the Chicago Police 

Department Office of Legal Affairs. As such, this Answer is filed on behalf of only those officers.

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:41
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE2

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint arises under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the allegations, as stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, put 

Defendants on notice of a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.SC. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4).

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph.

3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in this paragraph.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is DARREN MCCOY, #M-16665, Logan Correctional Center, P.O. Box 1000, 

Lincoln, IL 62656.

ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in this 

paragraph.

5. C/o Joseph Pulia, Police Officer, Police Station 31 [sic] and Halsted.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Joseph Pulia is a Chicago Police Officer assigned to the 

9th District, 3120 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

6. C/o Patrick Grube, Police Officer, Police Station.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Patrick Grube is a Chicago Police Officer assigned to the 

9th District, 3120 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

7. C/o Rodrigo Corona, Police Officer, Police Officer.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Rodrigo Corona is a Chicago Police Officer assigned to 

the 9th District, 3120 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

8. C/o Vilma Argueta, Police Officer, Police Station 31 [sic] and Halsted.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Vilam Argueta is a Chicago Police Officer assigned to the 

9th District, 3120 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

9. C/o Michael Alaniz.

 2 Defendants added paragraphs 2 and 3.

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:42
3

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Michael Alaniz is a Chicago Police Officer assigned to the 

9th District, 3120 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

10. C/o Joseph Considine.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Joseph Considine is a Chicago Police Officer assigned to 

the 9th District, 3120 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

FACTS

11. In [sic] or about on [sic] 8-6-2010 time 2:41 A.M. I was placed under arrest, and handcuffed.

ANSWER: Defendants Pulia and Grube admit that Plaintiff was arrested at approximately 

2:41am on August 6th, 2010. Upon information and belief, Defendants Corona, Argueta, 

Alaniz and Considine admit that Plaintiff was arrested at approximately 2:41am on August 

6th, 2010.

12. This officer immediately started calling me all kind [sic] of names, such as nigger I’m gonna 

beat your black nigger ass boy.

ANSWER: To the extent that Defendants Pulia and Grube assisted in the arrest of Plaintiff, 

said Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph, and are without knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of ‘this officer’ or anything he or 

she may have said. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are directed 

at Defendants Corona, Argueta, Alaniz and Considine, said Defendants deny the same, and

are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of ‘this 

officer’ or anything he or she may have said.

13. As other officer(s) [sic] came on the scene, they all started to kick, and stomped [sic] me 

over, and over.

ANSWER: To the extent that Defendants Pulia and Grube assisted in the arrest of Plaintiff, 

said Defendants admit that reasonable force was used and was necessary in order to effect the 

arrest of Plaintiff, but deny that Plaintiff has accurately characterized the force said 

Defendants used, deny that they committed the wrongdoing complained of, and deny the

remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. Furthermore, said Defendants are without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of ‘other officers’ or 

anything they may have done. To the extent that allegations contained in this paragraph are 

directed at Defendants Corona, Argueta, Alaniz and Considine, said Defendants deny those 

allegations. Defendants Corona, Argueta, Alaniz and Considine are without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of ‘other officers’ or anything they 

may have done.

14. I was hand cuffed.

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:43
4

ANSWER: To the extent that Defendants Pulia and Grube assisted in the arrest of Plaintiff, 

said Defendants admit that Plaintiff was handcuffed at the time of his arrest. Defendants 

Corona, Argueta, Alaniz and Considine are without knowledge or information sufficient to 

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

15. Never did I cause, or at any time a treat [sic].

ANSWER: Given that the allegations contained in this paragraph are vague and confusing, 

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations contained in this paragraph.

16. I was put in the back of a police-truck, then pulled out of this truck, some one [sic] had 

identified me, put back [sic] in this police truck, and this beating started all over again.

ANSWER: Defendants deny that they participated in any ‘beating’ with respect to Plaintiff,

deny that they committed any of the wrongdoing complained of, and are without knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations 

contained in this paragraph.

17. I can prove all of the above.

ANSWER: To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are directed at them, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

18. I recall different officer(s) [sic] either hiting [sic] me, or both, [sic] hiting [sic] and calling me 

names such as niggers, black monkey and so force [sic].

ANSWER: To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are directed at them, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

19. All of the names of the defendants, [sic] are the names that were given to me, [sic] as the 

police officer(s) [sic] who partisipated [sic] in this beating.

ANSWER: To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are directed at them, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

20. I was taken to Marcy [sic] hospital.

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

to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.

21. I had to receive stiches [sic] in my right upper eye.

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

to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:44
5

22. I now have very bad headaches, I’ve now [sic] problems with my vision.

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

to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.

23. I’ve also, [sic] now problems [sic] with my back.

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

to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.

24. All of these problems I have never had before [sic].

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

to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.

25. All defendants partisipated [sic] in this situation.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Defendants are government officials, namely police officers, who performed 

discretionary functions. At all times material to the events alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, a 

reasonable police officer objectively viewing the facts and circumstances that confronted 

Defendants could have believed their actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and 

the information that Defendants possessed. Defendants, therefore, are entitled to qualified 

immunity.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The statute of limitations for state law claims against a municipality or its employees is 

one year. 745 ILCS 10/8-101. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the incident that gave rise to his 

claims against Defendants occurred on August 6th, 2010. Therefore, because Plaintiff filed his 

Complaint on November 8th, 2011, any and all potential state law claims Plaintiff may seek to 

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:45
6

bring against Defendants should be dismissed as beyond the statute of limitations.

ALTERNATIVE DEFENSES

In the event the Court disagrees with Defendants’ statute of limitations defense, 

Defendants state the following affirmative defenses:

1. Defendants were working as police officers at the time of this incident. 

Therefore, as to any possible state law claims Plaintiff may seek to bring against 

Defendants under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendants are not liable

pursuant to this Act because:

a. 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. 745 ILCS 10/2-202.

b. A public employee, as such and acting within the scope of his or her 

employment, is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of 

another person. 745 ILCS 10/2-204.

2. 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 Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate, commensurate with the degree of 

failure to mitigate attributed to Plaintiff by the jury in this case.

3. To the extent any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff were proximately 

caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent, willful, wanton and/or other 

wrongful conduct of the 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 

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:46
7

this cause. At the time of the actions alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, 735 ILCS 

5/2-1116 was in effect and reduces Plaintiff’s recovery according to his 

contributory negligence and bars his recovery entirely when the Plaintiff is more 

than fifty percent (50%) of the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which 

recovery is sought.

JURY DEMAND

Defendants respectfully demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff on all counts 

and claims in the complaint, dismissal of the case with prejudice and costs, and such other relief 

as this court deems appropriate and just.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Brian F. Kolp

BRIAN F. KOLP

Assistant Corporation Counsel

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 900

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.744.5890 (P)

312.744.6566 (F)

Atty. No.: 6301807

Case: 1:11-cv-07960 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/06/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:47