1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARLO MCDOWELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 5025

)

VILLAGE OF LANSING and OFFICER )

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Defendants. )

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MARLO MCDOWELL, by and through his attorney, 

BASILEIOS J. FOUTRIS, and for his amended complaint against the Defendants, VILLAGE 

OF LANSING and OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, states as follows:

Nature of Action

1. This action is brought pursuant to the Laws of the United States Constitution, 

through 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1988, to redress deprivations of the Civil Rights of the 

Plaintiff by the Defendants in connection with an incident on June 25, 2011.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. §1343, and 28 

U.S.C. §1367.

3. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was a resident of the State of Illinois in this 

Judicial District.

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:18
2

4. The VILLAGE OF LANSING is a municipal corporation located in the State of 

Illinois in this Judicial District. At all relevant times, the VILLAGE OF LANSING was the 

employer of Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ. OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ was at all relevant times employed by the VILLAGE OF LANSING as a duly 

appointed police officer in the VILLAGE OF LANSING acting within the course and scope of 

his employment and under color of law. OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ is being sued in 

his individual capacity with respect to the federal claim.

5. All the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this 

Judicial District.

Facts

6. On June 25, 2011, the Plaintiff was located in the parking lot of a bar/restaurant 

called Bottoms Up. 

7. On June 25, 2011, at the time the Plaintiff was in the Bottoms Up parking lot, the 

Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, arrived at the location. 

8. The Plaintiff was not violating any laws, rules or ordinances at any time when the 

Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, was at the Bottoms Up parking lot. In 

addition, the Plaintiff never posed a threat of danger to Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, at any time when OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ was at the Bottoms Up 

parking lot.

9. Upon arriving at the parking lot, the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, ordered the Plaintiff to get on the ground. As he gave this order, the Defendant, 

OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, pointed his Taser at the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff 

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:19
3

immediately complied and got on the ground and placed his hands behind his head as he lay on 

the ground.

10. After the Plaintiff got on the ground, the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, continued to point the Taser at the Plaintiff.

11. As the Plaintiff lay on the ground with his hands behind his head and with the 

Taser pointed at him, the Plaintiff was unable to defend or protect himself. The Defendant, 

OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, by directing the Plaintiff to lay on the ground while 

pointing a Taser at the Plaintiff, had created and/or increased the Plaintiff’s risk of harm.

12. As the Plaintiff lay on the ground with his hands behind his head and with the 

Taser pointed at him, a man walked toward the Plaintiff. The Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, saw the man walking toward the Plaintiff. The Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, did not do anything to stop or prevent the man from reaching the Plaintiff. 

Instead, the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, continued to point his Taser at the 

Plaintiff as the man walked toward the Plaintiff.

13. The man that was walking toward the Plaintiff eventually reached the Plaintiff 

and kicked the Plaintiff in the face.

14. The Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, did not do anything as the 

man kicked the Plaintiff in the face except for continuing to point the Taser at the Plaintiff.

15. In addition, the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, did not do 

anything to prevent or stop the man from kicking the Plaintiff.

16. The Plaintiff sustained severe injuries due to being kicked in the face. The 

physical injuries included, but were not limited to, a fractured jaw.

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:20
4

17. The acts of Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ were intentional, 

willful and wanton.

COUNT I - 42 U.S.C. §1983

Due Process - RODRIGUEZ

18. The Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive, and incorporates those 

Paragraphs herein, as though fully stated as this Paragraph 18.

19. As described above, the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, 

violated the Plaintiff’s due process rights on June 25, 2011.

20. The misconduct was undertaken by the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, under color of law, under the course and scope of his employment, was 

objectively unreasonable, with malice, and was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference 

to the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

21. The acts of the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, were undertaken 

in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant, OFFICER 

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff was injured, suffered emotional anxiety, mental trauma, 

humiliation, fear, stress, pain and suffering, and other damages.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARLO MCDOWELL, prays for judgment in his favor 

and against the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, awarding compensatory 

damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs against the Defendant, OFFICER 

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, as well as any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:21
5

COUNT II - Illinois State Law

Willful and Wanton Conduct – LANSING, RODRIGUEZ

23. The Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, and incorporates those 

Paragraphs herein, as though fully stated as this Paragraph 23.

24. As described above, on June 25, 2011, the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, acted in a willful and wanton manner and/or in utter disregard for the Plaintiff’s 

safety when he allowed a man to kick the Plaintiff in the face, when he knew, or should have 

known, that the man posed a danger to the Plaintiff, without doing anything to stop or prevent 

the kick from happening even though he prevented the Plaintiff from defending or protecting 

himself.

25. The misconduct was undertaken by the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, under color of law and under the course and scope of his employment as a 

LANSING police officer.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant, OFFICER 

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff was injured, suffered emotional anxiety, mental trauma, 

humiliation, fear, stress, pain and suffering, and other damages.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARLO MCDOWELL, prays for judgment in his favor 

and against the Defendants, VILLAGE OF LANSING and OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, 

awarding compensatory damages and costs against the Defendants, VILLAGE OF LANSING 

and OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, as well as any other relief this Court deems just and 

appropriate.

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:22
6

Count III - Illinois State Law

Indemnification - LANSING

27. The Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, and incorporates those 

Paragraphs herein, as though fully stated as this Paragraph 27.

28. At all relevant times OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ was acting under color 

of law and under the course and scope of his employment.

29. At all relevant times the VILLAGE OF LANSING was the employer of 

OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARLO MCDOWELL, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, 

demands judgment against the Defendant, VILLAGE OF LANSING, in the amounts awarded to 

the Plaintiff against the Defendant, OFFICER MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, and for whatever 

additional relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all Counts.

Respectfully Submitted by,

s/Basileios J. Foutris

BASILEIOS J. FOUTRIS

Attorney for Plaintiff MARLO MCDOWELL

FOUTRIS LAW OFFICE, LTD.

53 W. Jackson, Suite 252

Chicago, IL 60604

312-212-1200

bfoutris@foutrislaw.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:23
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, attorney of record herein, hereby certifies that on August 31, 2012 the 

foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT was electronically filed with the Clerk of the U.S. 

District Court using the CM/ECF System, along with judge’s courtesy copies being delivered; 

which will send notification of such filing to: Gregory Mathews at gmathews@ancelglink.com.

s/Basileios J. Foutris

Basileios J. Foutris

Foutris Law Office, Ltd.

53 W. Jackson, Suite 252

Chicago, IL 60604

312-212-1200

bfoutris@foutrislaw.com

Case: 1:12-cv-05025 Document #: 11 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:24