UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN JOHNSON, )

 ) No. 12-CV-5325

 Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Judge 

 )

Chicago Police Officers )

DOUGLAS NICHOLS #12415, ) Jury Demanded 

MANUEL LEANO #4303; )

LAWRENCE LOWREY #12731 )

HEARD #6986; GONZALEZ #12152 )

 Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

 NOW COMES the plaintiff BRIAN JOHNSON by his attorneys, Mark F.

Smolens, Law Office of Mark F. Smolens, and Richard R. Mottweiler,

Mottweiler & Associates, and as his complaint against the defendants, states

the following: 

1. This action seeks damages under federal law, Title 42 U.S.C.

§1983, for defendants' actions on July 26, 2010 which violated Plaintiff's

rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution. This action also seeks damages for claims arising under

Illinois law.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343 and this Court's supplemental and ancillary

jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. Venue in this District is

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

predicated upon Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) as all events giving rise to

the claims asserted herein took place within this Northern District of

Illinois.

3. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, BRIAN JOHNSON was a 

resident of the city of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois, in this

District.

4. At all times material hereto defendant OFFICER DOUGLAS

NICHOLS #12415, (hereinafter "NICHOLS") was a sworn law enforcement

officer employed by the City of Chicago. At all times material hereto

defendant NICHOLS was acting under color of state law and within the

scope of his employment with the City of Chicago. NICHOLS is sued

individually. 

5. At all times material hereto defendant OFFICER MANUEL LEANO

#4303 (hereinafter "LEANO") was a sworn law enforcement officer

employed by the City of Chicago. At all times material hereto defendant

LEANO was acting under color of state law and within the scope of his

employment with the City of Chicago. LEANO is sued individually. 

6. At all times material hereto defendant OFFICER LAWRENCE

LOWREY #12731 (hereinafter "LOWREY") was a sworn law enforcement

officer employed by the City of Chicago. At all times material hereto

defendant LOWREY was acting under color of state law and within the

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:1
3

scope of his employment with the City of Chicago. LOWREY is sued

individually.

7. At all times material hereto defendant OFFICER HEARD #6986

(hereinafter "HEARD") was a sworn law enforcement officer employed by

the City of Chicago. At all times material hereto defendant HEARD was

acting under color of state law and within the scope of his employment

with the City of Chicago. HEARD is sued individually.

8. At all times material hereto defendant OFFICER GONZALEZ

#12152 (hereinafter "GONZALEZ") was a sworn law enforcement officer

employed by the City of Chicago. At all times material hereto defendant

GONZALEZ was acting under color of state law and within the scope of his

employment with the City of Chicago. GONZALEZ is sued individually.

9. The City of Chicago is a municipal corporation and body politic

located in Cook County, Illinois. At all relevant times hereto, the City of

Chicago was the employer of defendants NICHOLS, LEANO, LOWREY,

HEARD, GONZALEZ and other police officers involved in varying degrees in

the events at issue.

10. Other individuals not presently known to the Plaintiff were, at

all relevant times to this complaint, duly appointed police officers of the

City of Chicago, Illinois. At all times material to this Complaint, these

presently unknown defendants acted toward Plaintiff under color of the

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:1
4

statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the State of Illinois, City of

Chicago, and the Chicago Police Department.

11. Plaintiff sues all of the individually named defendant police

officers in their individual capacities.

Common Allegations

12. At approximately 6:00 P.M. on July 26, 2010, Plaintiff was a

security guard on duty at a residential building located at 5636 S. Martin

Luther King Jr. Drive, Chicago Illinois.

13. At that time, Plaintiff saw Defendant officers approach the

locked gate at located outside of the entrance to 5636 S. Martin Luther

King Jr. Drive. Plaintiff unlocked and opened the gate, and allowed

Defendant officers onto the property of 5636 S. Martin Luther King Jr.

Drive.

14. Defendant officers told Plaintiff they were responding to a

domestic disturbance on the third floor of the building. Plaintiff told the

officers he would take them inside, which he did.

15. Despite the fact that Plaintiff suffered from the debilitating

effects of a previous stroke, Defendant officers thereafter pushed Plaintiff

against a wall and handcuffed him.

16. Plaintiff was taken into police custody and charged with

obstructing a police officer even though he had done nothing to obstruct

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:1
5

the officers. That charge was ultimately resolved in a manner indicative of

his innocence.

17. Defendant officers handcuffed Plaintiff so tightly that his hand

became numb.

18. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered pain in his arm and shoulder, pain

which continues to this day.

19. Prior to transporting Plaintiff to the Police Station, Defendant

officers kept Plaintiff handcuffed in a police vehicle for a period of hours. 

20. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of the 

defendant police officers, plaintiff sustained economic injuries, physical

injuries, humiliation, and indignities, and suffered great mental and

emotional pain and suffering, all to his damage.

21. The aforementioned acts of the defendant police officers were 

willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and done with reckless indifference

to and/or callous disregard for plaintiffs' rights and justify the awarding of

exemplary and punitive damages.

22. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of the 

 individual defendants, plaintiff was required to retain an attorney to 

institute, prosecute and render legal assistance to her in the within 

action, so that they might vindicate the loss and impairment of their 

rights.

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:1
6

Count I

[Section 1983 False Arrest]

23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates lines one through twenty -

two above as if fully restated here as this paragraph twenty-three.

24. As described above, Defendants conspired among themselves to

falsely arrest and detain Plaintiff without probable cause in violation of his

rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

25. As described above, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights when

they arrest Plaintiff and charged him with obstructing a police officer even

though he had done nothing to obstruct the officers. 

26. The misconduct described in this complaint was taken with

malice, willfulness, and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.

27. As a result of Defendant officers’ actions or omissions Plaintiff

has suffered physical injury and severe emotional damages.

Count II 

[Section 1983 Excessive Force]

28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates lines one through twentytwo above as if fully restated here as this paragraph twenty-eight. 

29. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff had the right to be from

injury from unreasonable, malicious, excessive force from state actors such

as defendants, as protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the Constitution of the United States.

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:1
7

30. As described above, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to

be free from unreasonable, malicious, excessive force when they

handcuffed Brian Johnson so tightly as to cause numbness in Plaintiff’s

wrist. 

31. As result of Defendants’ concerted unjustified and excessive

use of force, Brian Johnson suffered injuries, pain as well as severe

emotional distress. 

32. Upon information and belief, other Defendant officers were

present and had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm done to

Brian Johnson, and should have intervened to prevent the individual

officer’s unjustified and excessive use of force. 

33. As a result of their failure to intervene, Brian Johnson

suffered pain and injury, as well as severe emotional distress. 

34. The misconduct described in this count was objectively

unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with willful deliberate

indifference to Brian Johnson’s constitutional rights. 

35. The misconduct described was undertaken with malice,

willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:1
8

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully request that judgment be

entered in his favor, compensatory and punitive damages be awarded in an

amount to be determined by the jury, plus an award to the plaintiff

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1988 for attorney's fees and costs, in addition

to any other relief from this Court deemed just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Mark F. Smolens 

One of the attorneys for Plaintiff

MARK F. SMOLENS #6190482

LAW OFFICE OF MARK F. SMOLENS 

1627 Colonial Parkway

Inverness, Il 60067

773-580-4982

ryansmolensjones@hotmail.com

RICHARD R. MOTTWEILER #3123509

MICHAEL G. CANNON #6296028

NICOLE L. BARKOWSKI #6295834

MOTTWEILER & ASSOCIATES

1627 Colonial Parkway

Inverness, IL 60067

312-259-0234

tcblaw@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-05325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:1