UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN OTERO, individually and )

on behalf of a class of similarly situated )

individuals, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 12 C 3148

)

vs. ) Honorable Judge

) Amy J. St. Eve

THOMAS J. DART, et al. )

) Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

NOW COME Defendants, Cook County Sheriff Dart and County of Cook, by their 

attorney, ANITA ALVAREZ, State’s Attorney of Cook County, through her assistant, Anthony 

E. Zecchin, and answers the Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other male inmates who were

victimized by Defendant’s policy of unconstitutionally detaining, holding in custody and

imprisoning free citizens following an acquittal or other favorable disposition of the charges

brought against them. Rather than freeing these citizens, Defendant instead manacles them,

herds them together with inmates of the general prison population, and subjects them to a

labyrinthine ordeal during which they are locked and confined in a series of holding cells and

even returned to their original jail cells precisely as if they had been found guilty of the very

crime of which they were acquitted.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 1.

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1066
2

2. These policies or practices violate Plaintiff’s and class members’ rights under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Furthermore, similarly

situated female acquitted inmates are not subjected to these policies or practices, but rather are

segregated from other inmates and not returned to their original jail cells. Defendant’s policies

or practices, therefore, also violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Defendant’s policies or practices deprived Plaintiff

and the putative class of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States

Constitution and, therefore, constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 2.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This

action is authorized and instituted pursuant to the Act of Congress known as the “Civil Rights

Act of 1991” and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 3.

4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b)-(c). Defendants reside and do business in the Northern District of Illinois and Plaintiff

is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in

the State of Illinois for the purposes of this lawsuit. All or a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4.

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:1067
3

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Brian Otero is a resident of the City of Chicago, in Cook County, Illinois.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5.

6. Defendants are the Sheriff of Cook County, Thomas J. Dart and Cook County,

Illinois. The Sheriff is being sued in his official capacity only. The County is joined pursuant to

Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003).

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 6.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

7. Defendant has a policy or practice of detaining free citizens following an acquittal

or other favorable disposition of the charges brought against them in a manner that results in an

unconstitutional seizure and deprivation of liberty under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution, and which also violates the equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in parpagraph 7.

8. More specifically, Defendant has a policy or practice under which it shackles,

transports and detains acquitted individuals with other regular inmates. Defendant also requires

all acquitted individuals to change back into their prison jumpsuit and be processed back into the

general prison population. In fact, Defendant has conceded that it has no policies or procedures

in place that distinguish acquittees from other inmates over whom Defendant has the continued

right to detain or that in any way acknowledge an inmate’s right to freedom that he acquires by

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:1068
4

virtue of an acquittal or other favorable disposition of the charges brought against him.

Furthermore, even though an acquittee’s file already includes a warrant check, Defendant’s

policy or practice is to hold acquitted individuals in custody pending the completion of yet

another warrant check. Moreover, Defendant intentionally waits until the last minute to run such

a check instead of doing so upon realizing the detainee has been ordered to be released. These

and other aspects of Defendant’s policies or practices result in a post-acquittal detention of

individuals that is unconstitutional.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 8.

9. The policies or practices described above apply equally to every single acquitted

male detainee and are so widespread, permanent and well settled that they constitute a custom or

usage with the force of law.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 9.

10. Furthermore, similarly situated female acquitted inmates are not subjected to 

these policies or practices. Unlike their male counterparts, female inmates who are acquitted or

otherwise ordered to be released are segregated from other inmates and are given the option to

either remain in the receiving room or return to their jail cell while Defendant processes their

release.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 10.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

11. After his acquittal, Plaintiff was subjected to the exact same policies and

procedures set forth above.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11.

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:1069
5

12. On November 23, 2009, the Chicago Police Department arrested Plaintiff for an

alleged burglary. Plaintiff was subsequently charged with burglary and was held, pending trial,

in Cook County Jail, since he could not afford to make bail.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiff was charged with burglary in 2009. Defendants 

are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 12.

13. On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff stood trial for the alleged burglary.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13.

14. Plaintiff was in Defendant’s custody from the time he was arrested on November

23, 2009 until his trial.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14.

15. The jury found Plaintiff “not guilty” following a trial and acquitted him of all

charges. The court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15.

16. At the time of his acquittal, Plaintiff had no outstanding warrants and no other

pending cases that would justify his continued detention.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16.

17. Following his acquittal, and despite the fact that there were no other pending

charges or warrants against Plaintiff, Defendant seized Plaintiff and placed him in handcuffs.

Plaintiff was then detained with other regular inmates in a number of different holding cells and

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:1070
6

ultimately processed back into his Division within the general prison population.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 17.

18. While being detained, held in custody and imprisoned in one of the various

bullpens, other inmates asked Plaintiff about the outcome of his trial. After informing the

prisoners that he had been found not guilty and would be leaving jail, the prisoners punched and

pummeled Plaintiff about the face and body. Plaintiff sustained physical injuries as a result of

the jailhouse beating he suffered while being detained by Defendant after his acquittal. Plaintiff

did not report the beating to Defendant because he was afraid he would somehow be charged in

connection with being beaten in the bullpen.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individually and as a class

action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. The class Plaintiff seeks to

represent is defined as:

All male inmates who while being detained by the Cook County Sheriff’s

Office were found not guilty, were acquitted, had charges brought against

them dismissed or otherwise received a judicial determination requiring

their release and for whom the Sheriff’s Office no longer had any legal

right to detain from April 27, 2010 through the present.

Excluded from the class are Defendants’ legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and

successors, and members of their immediate families, and any Judge who may preside over this

case and his or her immediate family.

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

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19.

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:1071
7

20. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. The exact number of class members is unknown at this time but can be

determined through discovery. Defendant has already admitted in discovery that a subset of the

class includes hundreds of individuals. On information and belief, Plaintiff believes there are

thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members of the class. Additionally, because Defendant’s

unconstitutional policies or practices are continuing, there are new class members every day.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20.

21. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the class that

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including, but not limited to:

(a) whether Defendant maintains a policy or practice of detaining male citizens who

were found not guilty, were acquitted, had charges brought against them

dismissed or otherwise received a judicial determination requiring their release by

seizing and handcuffing them, detaining and transporting them in the same

holding cells as the other regular inmates, processing them back into the general

prison population and continuing to hold them until running a check for

outstanding warrants;

(b) whether Defendant lacked policies and procedures that acknowledge a male

inmate’s right to freedom that he acquires by virtue of an acquittal or other

favorable disposition of the charges brought against him;

(c) whether Defendant’s policy or practice is to treat similarly situated female

acquittees differently than male acquittees;

(c) whether such policies or practices are so widespread, permanent, and well settled

that they constitute a custom or usage with the force of law;

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:1072
8

(d) whether such policies or practices were carried out under color of custom or usage

of State law and whether Plaintiff’s and class members’ constitutional rights were

violated under the color of State law; and

(e) whether such policies or practices violate Plaintiff’s and putative class members’

constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 21.

22. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the class.

Plaintiff’s claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class; namely,

Plaintiff and class members were all subjected to and damaged by Defendant’s unconstitutional

policy or practice as described above.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 22.

23. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Plaintiff’s

interests and the interests of class members do not conflict. Plaintiff’s interests in pursuing this

matter are aligned with the interests of the class members. Plaintiff is willing to actively

prosecute the class claims at issue in this case and has retained counsel experienced in and

capable of handling class action lawsuits.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 23.

24. Resolving this controversy as a class action is also superior to other methods.

Because this case involves similar, if not identical, claims of thousands of individuals against the

same defendants, class certification provides greater efficiency and consistency than piecemeal

litigation of nearly identical individual cases. Class treatment will minimize the costs of

discovery, motions, and trial and prevent a multiplicity of cases addressing identical issues that

would unduly and unnecessarily congest the judicial system.

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:1073
9

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 24.

25. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with

respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiff is currently being detained by Defendant and therefore

faces a real and immediate danger that he will again be subjected to Defendant’s unconstitutional

policies or practices.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 25.

COUNT I

(Unlawful Detention in Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein.

ANSWER: Defendants reassert and reincorporate their answers to all preceding paragraphs as 

their answer to paragraph 26.

27. Defendant maintains a policy or practice of detaining, holding in custody and

imprisoning male inmates in an unreasonable manner with deliberate indifference to their

constitutional rights following a trial or other court appearance where the individual is found not

guilty, is acquitted, obtains a dismissal of the charges brought against him or otherwise receives

a judicial determination requiring his release.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 27.

28. The aforementioned policy or practice deprived Plaintiff and the putative class of

liberty without due process, in violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 28.

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:1074
10

29. The aforementioned policy or practice deprived Plaintiff and the putative class of

rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 29.

30. The aforementioned policy or practice was carried out under color of custom or

usage of State law and Plaintiff’s and class members’ constitutional rights were violated under

the color of State law.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 30.

31. Defendant’s conduct is intentional, deliberate, willful, and conducted with

disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and the class. In fact, Defendant has been sued on at least

two prior occasions for, among other things, the specific and unreasonable detention procedures

and common conditions to which it subjects inmates after they are found not-guilty or otherwise

acquitted. See Watson v. Sheahan, et al., Case No. 94-cv-6891 (N.D. Ill.) and Bullock v. Dart, et

al., Case No. 04-cv-1051 (N.D. Ill.). Despite being put on notice of its unconstitutional policies

or practices and paying millions of dollars to settle prior class actions challenging those policies

or practices, Defendant continues to adhere to the same unlawful policies or practices.

32. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s policies or practices, Plaintiff and

the class have suffered harm, including actual damages, emotional distress damages and other

damages.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 31.

COUNT II

(Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:1075
11

fully set forth herein.

ANSWER: Defendants reassert and reincorporate their answers to all preceding paragraphs as 

their answer to paragraph 33.

34. As set forth above, Defendant maintains a post-acquittal detention policy or

practice that discriminates against male inmates based on gender.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 34.

35. The aforementioned policy or practice deprived Plaintiff and the putative class of

equal protection in violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 35.

36. The aforementioned policy or practice deprived Plaintiff and the putative class of

rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36.

37. The aforementioned policy or practice was carried out under color of custom or

usage of State law and Plaintiff’s and class members’ constitutional rights were violated under

the color of State law.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 37.

38. Defendant’s conduct is intentional, deliberate, willful, and conducted with

disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and the class. In fact, Defendants have been sued on at

least one prior occasion for, among other things, treating male inmates differently than similarly

situated female inmates who were found not guilty, were acquitted, obtained a dismissal of the

charges brought against them or otherwise received a judicial determination requiring their

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:1076
12

release. See Bullock v. Dart, et al., Case No. 04-cv-1051 (N.D. Ill.). Despite being put on notice

of its unconstitutional policy or practice and paying millions of dollars to settle a prior class

action challenging that policy or practice, Defendant continues to adhere to the same unlawful

policy or practice.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 39.

39. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s policy or practice of

discriminating against male inmates based on gender, Plaintiff and the class have suffered harm,

including actual damages, emotional distress damages and other damages.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 39.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court:

A. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, designate Plaintiff as representative of the class and counsel of record as class

counsel;

B. Declare that the policies or practices challenged herein are illegal and violative of the

Constitutional rights secured to Plaintiff and the class;

C. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and their 

officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons 

acting in concert with them, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, 

customs and usages as set forth herein;

D. Enter an Order requiring the Defendants to initiate and implement programs that: (1) 

do not violate the Constitutional rights of free citizens who were acquitted or otherwise

obtained a favorable disposition of the charges brought against them; (2) remedy the

effects of the Defendant’s past and present unlawful practices; and (3) eliminate the

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:1077
13

continuing effects of the unlawful practices described herein above;

E. Award damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and the class for their injuries;

F. Award punitive damages;

G. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action;

H. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

I. Enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the class and against Defendants, jointly and

severally, for the amounts set forth in Paragraphs E-H above; and

J. Order any and all other relief that this Court may deem just and equitable.

ANSWER: Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in his 

prayer for relief.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Sheriff Dart is named in his official capacity and therefore is immune from an award of 

punitive damages. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S. Ct. 2748 (1981).

JURY DEMAND

Defendants respectfully demand a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

ANITA ALVAREZ

State’s Attorney of Cook County

/s/ Anthony E. Zecchin

Anthony E. Zecchin

Assistant State’s Attorney 

500 Richard J. Daley Center

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 603-3373

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 65 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:1078