IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHEN JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF MAYWOOD, MAYWOOD POLICE )

COMMANDER ELIJAH WILLIS, MAYWOOD )

POLICE OFFICERS GUZMAN and ADAMIDIS, )

MAYWOOD POLICE DETECTIVES VARGAS and )

PORTER, UNKNOWN MAYWOOD POLICE )

OFFICERS and UNKNOWN MAYWOOD )

PARAMEDICS. )

)

Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, STEPHEN JOHNSON, by his attorneys, LOEVY & 

LOEVY, complains of Defendants, CITY OF MAYWOOD, MAYWOOD POLICE 

COMMANDER ELIJAH WILLIS, MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS GUZMAN and 

ADAMIDIS, MAYWOOD POLICE DETECTIVES VARGAS and PORTER, UNKNOWN 

MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS (collectively as “Defendant Officers”), 

and UNKNOWN MAYWOOD PARAMEDICS, and states as follows:

Introduction

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of 

Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
2

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All 

parties reside in this judicial district, and the events giving 

rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this judicial 

district.

Parties

4. Plaintiff, Stephen Johnson, is a 22-year-old 

resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

5. Defendant Maywood Police Commander Elijah Willis 

is and was at all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, employed by the City of Maywood.

6. Defendant Maywood Police Officers Guzman and 

Adamidis are or were at all times relevant to the events at 

issue in this case, officers employed by the City of Maywood.

7. Defendant Maywood Police Detectives Porter and 

Vargas are or were at all times relevant to the events at issue 

in this case, detectives employed by the City of Maywood.

8. Defendant Unknown Maywood Police Officers are or 

were at all times relevant to the events at issue in this case, 

officers employed by the City of Maywood. 

9. All of the Defendant Officers were at all 

relevant times acting under color of law and within the scope of 

their employment.

10. Defendant Unknown Paramedics are or were 

paramedics employed by the City of Maywood. All of the 

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
3

Defendant Paramedics were at all relevant times acting under 

color of law and within the scope of their employment. 

11. Defendant City of Maywood is an Illinois 

Municipal Corporation, and is or was the employer of the 

Defendant Officers and the Defendant Unknown Paramedics.

Factual Allegations

12. On or about October 29, 2011, Plaintiff was 

arrested by Maywood Police Officers Adamidis and Guzman.

13. Officer Adamidis took Plaintiff to the Maywood 

Police Department for booking.

14. Once they arrived at the Maywood Police 

Department, Officer Adamidis sat Plaintiff in a chair so that he 

could begin the booking process.

15. Shortly thereafter, Officer Guzman arrived at the 

Maywood Police Department in what can only be described as an 

angry rage.

16. Without any provocation from Plaintiff, Officer 

Guzman attacked Plaintiff, punching him multiple times in the 

head and face.

17. At one point, Plaintiff saw two Unknown Maywood 

Paramedics walk by. Plaintiff called out for help but the 

Defendant Unknown Paramedics ignored his pleas.

18. As a result of this attack, Plaintiff suffered 

serious injuries to his head, face, and arms, including but not 

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
4

limited to having his lip split open and one of his front teeth 

chipped. During the attack, Plaintiff was also fearful for his 

life.

19. The attack was witnessed by multiple Defendant 

Officers. Despite the fact that Plaintiff was not resisting in 

any way and was being injured, none of the Defendant Officers 

came to his aid. 

Count I -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Excessive Force

20. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

21. As described above, the conduct of one or more of 

the Defendant Officers constituted excessive force in violation 

of the United States Constitution.

22. The misconduct described in this Count was 

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with 

willful indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

23. The misconduct described in this Count was 

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

24. The misconduct described in this Count was 

undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Maywood

Police Department in that:

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
5

a. As a matter of both policy and practice, the 

Maywood Police Department directly encourages, and is thereby 

the moving force behind, the very type of misconduct at issue 

here by failing to adequately train, supervise and control its 

officers, such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate 

indifference;

b. As a matter of both policy and practice, the 

City of Maywood facilitates the very type of misconduct at issue 

here by failing to adequately investigate, punish and discipline 

prior instances of similar misconduct, thereby leading Maywood

Police Officers to believe their actions will never be 

scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future abuses 

such as those affecting Plaintiff;

c. Generally, as a matter of widespread 

practice so prevalent as to comprise municipal policy, officers 

of the Maywood Police Department abuse citizens in a manner 

similar to that alleged by Plaintiff in this Count on a frequent 

basis, yet the City of Maywood and the Maywood Police Department 

makes findings of wrongdoing in a disproportionately small 

number of cases;

d. City policy-makers are aware of, condone,

and facilitate by their inaction, a “code of silence” in the 

Maywood Police Department. Police officers routinely fail to 

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
6

report instances of police misconduct and lie to protect each 

other from punishment, and go un-disciplined for doing so; and

e. The City of Maywood has failed to act to 

remedy the patterns of abuse, despite actual knowledge of the 

same, thereby causing the types of injuries alleged here.

25. As a result of the Defendant Officers’ 

unjustified and excessive use of force and the City’s policy and 

practice, Plaintiff has suffered injury, including emotional 

distress.

Count II -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Failure to Intervene

26. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

27. As described more fully above, one or more 

Defendant Officers and/or Defendant Unknown Paramedics had a 

reasonable opportunity to prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights as set forth above had they been so 

inclined, but failed to do so.

28. Defendants’ actions were undertaken 

intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to 

Plaintiff’s rights.

29. As a result of Defendants’ failure to 

intervene, undertaken pursuant to the City’s policy and practice 

as described above, Plaintiff has suffered injury, including 

emotional distress. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
7

Count III –- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Conspiracy

30. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

31. As described more fully above, there was an 

agreement between the Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of his 

constitutional rights, including but not limited to, the use of 

excessive force and the denial to Plaintiff of medical care.

32. Defendants conspired by concerted action to 

accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. In 

furtherance of this conspiracy, one or more of the coconspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful 

participant in joint activity.

33. The actions of Defendants were undertaken 

intentionally, with malice, and reckless indifference to 

Plaintiff’s rights.

34. As a result of the individual Defendants’ 

conspiracy, undertaken pursuant to the City of Maywood’s policy 

and practice as described above, Plaintiff has suffered injury, 

including emotional distress.

Count IV -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Denial of Medical Attention 

35. Each Paragraph of the Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
8

36. As described more fully above, one or more of the 

Defendant Officers and/or Defendant Unknown Paramedics denied 

Plaintiff necessary medical attention.

37. In this manner, the conduct of the individual 

Defendants was objectively unreasonable and they were 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

38. Defendants’ actions were undertaken 

intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to 

Plaintiff’s rights.

39. As a result of this unjustified violation of 

Plaintiff’s rights by the individual Defendants, undertaken 

pursuant to the City of Maywood’s policy and practice as 

described above, Plaintiff has suffered injury, including 

emotional distress.

Count V -- State Law Claim

Assault and Battery

40. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

41. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the

conduct of one or more Defendant Officers, acting under color of 

law and within the scope of his employment, constituted 

unjustified and offensive physical contact, undertaken willfully 

and wantonly, proximately causing Plaintiff’s bodily injuries. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
9

42. The misconduct described in this Count was 

objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with 

willful indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

43. The misconduct described in this Count was 

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

44. As a result of the offensive touching, undertaken 

pursuant to the City of Maywood’s policy and practice as 

described above, Plaintiff sustained bodily and other injuries, 

including but not limited to a reasonable apprehension of great 

bodily harm.

Count VI –- State Law Claim

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

45. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

46. As described more fully above, one or more of the 

Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

47. The Defendants either intended that their conduct 

would cause severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff or else 

knew that there was a high probability that their conduct would 

cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

48. The misconduct described in this Count was 

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference 

to the rights of others.

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
10

49. As a proximate result of this misconduct, 

Plaintiff suffered injuries, including severe emotional 

distress.

Count VII –- State Law Claim

Conspiracy

50. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

51. Defendants, acting within the scope of their 

employment, entered into an agreement to, among other things, 

improperly subject Plaintiff to excessive force and to 

improperly deny Plaintiff access to medical care.

52. Defendants conspired by concerted action to 

accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. In 

furtherance of this conspiracy, one or more of the coconspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful 

participant in joint activity.

53. The actions of Defendants were undertaken 

intentionally, with malice, and reckless indifference to 

Plaintiff’s rights.

54. As a result of the individual Defendants’ 

conspiracy, undertaken pursuant to the City of Maywood’s policy 

and practice as described above, Plaintiff has suffered injury, 

including emotional distress.

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
11

Count VIII -- State Law Claim

Respondeat Superior

55. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

56. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding 

paragraphs, the Defendant Officers and Defendant Unknown 

Paramedics were members and agents of the Maywood Police 

Department acting at all relevant times within the scope of 

their employment.

57. Defendant City of Maywood is liable as principal 

for all torts committed by its agents.

COUNT IX -- State Law Claim

Indemnification

58. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated 

herein.

59. Illinois law provides that public entities are 

directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for 

which employees are liable within the scope of their employment 

activities.

60. The Defendant Officers and Defendant Unknown 

Paramedics are or were employees of the Maywood Police 

Department who acted within the scope of their employment in 

committing the misconduct described above.

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
12

WHEREFORE, STEPHEN JOHNSON respectfully requests that this 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants, THE 

CITY OF MAYWOOD, DEFENDANT POLICE COMMANDER ELIJAH WILLS, 

DEFENDANT MAYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS GUZMAN and ADAMIDIS, DEFENDANT 

MAYWOOD POLICE DETECTIVES PORTER and VARGAS, UNKNOWN MAYWOOD 

OFFICERS, and UNKNOWN MAYWOOD PARAMEDICS, awarding compensatory 

damages and attorneys' fees, along with punitive damages against 

the DEFENDANT OFFICERS in their individual capacities, as well 

as any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff STEPHEN JOHNSON hereby demands a trial by 

jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all 

issues so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/S/ Vincenzo Field____ 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Arthur Loevy

Jon Loevy

Vincenzo Field

LOEVY & LOEVY

312 North May

Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

Case: 1:12-cv-03014 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12