IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS – EASTERN DIVISION 

BRIAN OTERO, individually and on behalf 

of a class of similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS J. DART, SHERIFF OF 

COOK COUNTY and COOK COUNTY, 

ILLINOIS, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-03148 

Honorable Amy J. St. Eve 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

For his amended class action complaint against Defendants Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of 

Cook County (“Defendant”) and Cook County, Illinois, Plaintiff Brian Otero (“Otero” or 

“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, states 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. 

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:841
2 

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. 

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. 

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. 

PARTIES

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

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). 

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:842
3 

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. 

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 

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. 

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. 

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:843
4 

release. 

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

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

procedures set forth above. 

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. 

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

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

23, 2009 until his trial. 

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

charges. The court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 

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

pending cases that would justify his continued detention. 

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 

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

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:844
5 

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

connection with being beaten in the bullpen. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:845
6 

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; 

(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. 

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. 

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:846
7 

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

capable of handling class action lawsuits. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:847
8 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:848
9 

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 

fully set forth herein. 

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

practice that discriminates against male inmates based on gender. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:849
10 

policy or practice. 

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. 

 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 

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; 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:850
11 

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. 

JURY DEMAND

 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues set forth herein. 

Dated: January 15, 2014 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

BRIAN OTERO, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

 By: _ __ _/s/ Jacie C. Zolna________

 One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff 

and the Class 

Myron M. Cherry 

Jacie C. Zolna 

MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Robert M. Foote 

Kathleen Currie Chavez 

Peter Lawrence Currie 

Matthew J. Herman 

FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL LLC 

10 West State Street, Suite 200 

Geneva, Illinois 60134 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:851
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that he served the foregoing Amended Complaint 

upon: 

Anthony Zecchin 

Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office 

50 West Washington Street, Room 500 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

anthony.zecchin@cookcountyil.gov

via the electronic filing system on this 15th day of January, 2014. 

 

 _ __ _/s/ Jacie C. Zolna________

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/15/14 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:852