violation of the victim's constitutional rights. AD 1
is stricken.

2. AD 2 is directly at war with the Complaint's

allegations. There is no way in which the actions referred

to in the preceding paragraph may be characterized as
“objectively reasonable.” AD 2 is also stricken.

As stated at the outset, defense counsel must try again.

They are ordered to file a single (and appropriate) responsive

pleading on behalf of all of their clients in this Court's
chambers (with a copy of course transmitted to plaintiff's
counsel) on or before January 13, 2003.

Finally, because all of the matters dealt with here are

ascribable to defense counsel rather than to their clients,

counsel are directed (1) to make no charge to their clients for

any time and expenses incurred in their having to return to the

drawing board and (2) to advise their clients in writing of this

order in that respect (transmitting a copy of that communication

to this Court for informational purposes, not for filing).

Ce Mla Secs obes

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

January 2, 2003


information sufficient to form a belief pretty well track the

second sentence of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b), the accompanying

demands for “strict proof” are totally without meaning or legal

significance. That locution must be omitted from the amended
pleading.

Next, even though Answer § 55 correctly points out the

garbled nature of Complaint § 55, making it impossible to draft an

appropriate response (something that plaintiff's counsel clearly

ought to correct), each answer improperly speaks of the Town of

Cicero rather than of defense counsel's individual client. That

must be corrected as well.

That is not true, however, of defense counsel's
characterization of Complaint § 60. There the allegation is
clearly comprehensible, and an answer is required.

Finally, some flaws in the ADs also require correction.
they are:

1. AD 1 misses the entire point of a legitimate
qualified immunity defense by stating incorrectly that
the “law in this area was not well settled.” It is
absurd to suggest that it was not well settled in
December 2001 that the unprovoked striking of an
unresisting member of the public by police officers who
used their batons, fists and mace or pepper spray
(allegations of the Complaint that must be accepted as
true for AD purposes) was not well established as a

3

Here


Minufs Order Form “ 577)
: ®

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Ju i Sitti r
vor Magistrate udge Milton I, Shadur thanvAssigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8656 DATE 2/2003
CASE Gregory Dejneka vs. Town of Cicero, et al
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented]

qu)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Qa Answer brief to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due

(4) a] Ruling/Hearing on__set fort

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____setfor_—_ at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__——sat__—,

(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for]on____at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued tot

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a\(1) COFRCP41(a)(2).

qo) =f [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. As stated as the outset, defense

counsel must try again. They are ordered to file a single (an appropriate) responsive pleading on behalf
of all of their client in this Court’s chambers (with a copy of course transmitted to plaintiff’s counsel) on

or before January 13, 2003.

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required. ;
sunibr of notices

Document
Number

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

ir -
Notified counsel by telephone. JAN.S, eeu

Docketing to mail notices.

G

<n ¢: LYfln- «
Mall AO 450 form, 89 Ja) deste depuis
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
c0:i \rn003
SR pry :
courtroom wd dae nated notes
SN deputy’s .
initials Gj G7 SN
~ U2 7 /pte/time received in
Géntral Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY DEJNEKA,
Me ewe

Plaintiff, gAN 02 2005

Judge Shadur
TOWN OF CICERO, ET AL

)
)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 02 C 8656
)
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Even though the same lawyers represent all three individual
defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) action, they
have thoughtlessly chosen to file a separate Answer and
Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") on behalf of each of their clients.
Both for that reason and because of other basic deficiencies in
those responsive pleadings, this Court is not filing them--it is
rather returning them to defense counsel with an order to submit a
single pleading on behalf of all three clients.

Quite apart from the disrespect that counsel such as the
lawyers here display for the environment (by excessive inroads on
our nation's forests)' as well as for their clients' pocketbooks
to a minimal extent, defense counsel have obviously not thought
about the lack of courtesy (presumably unintended) that is
involved in requiring this Court and opposing counsel to go

through three separate documents (indeed, comparing them side by

In that respect, after all, the damage has already been
done.



side) to learn the respects in which defendants take identical
positions and any respects in which they part company. Those
similarities and differences (if any) are readily apparent when
the reader is able to resort to just one document instead of
three.

As long as counsel must return to the drawing board (or
computer) in any event, some added defects in the present
submissions must be addressed as well. They will be ticked off in
short order.

For one thing, counsel must comply with this District Court's
LR 10.1. On that score they have ignored still another
requirement aimed at enabling the reader to examine a single
document--in this instance one document rather than two--to learn
what is and what is not being placed in issue by defendant or
defendants.

Next, each Answer J 1 is defective because it does not admit
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1983.
Defendants' Answers are not the place to avoid such an admission
by denying that plaintiff “has stated a proper claim pursuant to”
that statute. Moreover, this Court sees no way in which
defendants can reasonably deny the existence of supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (this is of course separate
from any defenses that defendants may have against plaintiff's
state law claims).

Next, even though the Answers' multitude of disclaimers of

2