1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON, )

) Case No. 20 CV 4156

Plaintiff, )

) Hon. Sara L. Ellis

)

vs. ) 

) Magistrate Judge Heather McShain

)

REYNALDO GUEVARA, the ESTATE of )

ERNEST HALVORSEN, DARRYL DALEY, )

WILLIAM ERICKSON, JOHN HEALY, and )

the CITY OF CHICAGO, )

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT GUEVARA’S MOTION TO JOIN THE PARTIES’ JOINT STATEMENT 

OF UNCONTESTED FACTS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF 

THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff, Demetrius Johnson, has filed suit against Reynaldo Guevara, other former 

Chicago Police Officers (Ernest Halvorsen (deceased), Darryl Daley, William Erickson, and John 

Healy) (“Defendant Officers”), and the City of Chicago, alleging violations of his constitutional 

rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and of state law (R.1). 

There are eight Counts alleged against Defendant Officers and Guevara are:

Count I – Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

Count II – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Unlawful Detention

Count III – Federal Failure to Intervene

Count IV – Federal Conspiracy (to Deprive Constitutional Rights) 

Count VI – State Law Malicious Prosecution

Count VII – State Law Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Count VIII – State Law Willful and Wanton Conduct

Count IX – State Law Conspiracy

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 309 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:14949
2

The co-defendant Officers moved for summary judgment, filing a Memorandum of Law 

in Support of Defendant Officers’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“DO Memo”) and the parties 

submitted a Joint Statement of Uncontested Facts.

1

II. Joint Statement of Uncontested Facts

Guevara moves to join the parties’ Joint Statement of Uncontested Facts.

III.Memorandum’s Introduction, Statement of Facts, and Legal Standard 

Guevara moves to join in their entirety the Sections of the Memorandum entitled, 

“Introduction,” “Factual Background,” and “Legal Standard.” (DO Memo, pp.1-11).

IV.Memorandum’s Argument Section 

Guevara moves to join, in part, the “Argument” Section of co-defendant Officers’ 

Memorandum. Guevara joins the following arguments.

a. Defendant Guevara Is Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on Johnson’s 

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claim (Count I) 

Johnson brings three types of due process claims in Count I: a fabrication claim of both 

police reports and witness identifications, an unduly suggestive identification claim and a Brady 

claim. (R. 1, pp. 31-32) He presents several theories of liability for each type of claim. Guevara is 

entitled to summary judgment on all theories of liability. Guevara moves to join the following 

parts of the “Argument” Section related to the Count I Due Process claim that demonstrate that he 

is entitled to partial summary judgment on that count. 

i. Part I – Fabrication of Evidence Claim (Count I) Fails on the Merits

As to the fabrication claim, Guevara joins all of Part I of the Argument Section except for

Part I.b (Defendants Erickson, Healy, and Daley’s argument regarding lack of personal 

1

Since this Motion is being filed simultaneously with the Independent Officers’ Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts no cite to the record is available. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 309 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:14950
3

involvement with witness identification of Johnson). (DO Memo, p.13-14). He is therefore entitled 

to summary judgment on this claim.

ii. Part II – Johnson’s Claim of Unduly Suggestive Identification 

Procedures Deprived him of a Fair Criminal Trial Fails as a Matter of 

Law (Count I)

Guevara joins all of Part II of the Argument Section (DO Memo, p.16-26), with the 

exception of Part II.d (Johnson cannot establish that Defendants Erickson, Healy, and Daley were 

involved in the suggestive identification procedures) (DO Memo, p.23-24). In Part II.c, Guevara 

specifically joins and adopts Halvorsen’s argument for himself, i.e., as with Halvorsen there is 

insufficient evidence that Guevara used a forbidden identification procedure that he knew would 

cause Elba, Rosa, or Ricardo Burgos to identify Johnson. (DO Memo, p.21-23). He is therefore 

entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

iii. Part III – Johnson lacks sufficient evidence to support his Brady claim

(Count I)

Guevara joins all of Part III of the Argument Section (DO Memo, p.26-33), except for Part

III.b (Johnson lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Daley, Halvorsen or Healy were 

aware of the June 13 six-witness lineup report) (DO Memo p. 28-29) and Part III.c (Erickson 

retired before Johnson’s criminal trial and there is no evidence that he was involved in producing 

documents to the State’s Attorney’s Office) (DO Memo p. 29-31). The remainder of Part III 

demonstrates that Johnson’s Brady claim cannot survive and Guevara is therefore entitled to 

summary judgment on this claim.

b. Part IV – Johnson’s Fourth Amendment Unlawful Pretrial Detention (Count 

II) and State Law Malicious Prosecution (Count VI) Claims Fail as a Matter 

of Law

Guevara joins all of Part IV of the Argument Section (DO Memo, p. 33-36) with the 

exception of Part IV.a (Erickson, Daley and Healy were not personally involved in gathering any 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 309 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:14951
4

evidence against Johnson or seeking charges) (DO Memo, p. 33-34). Accordingly, he is entitled 

to summary judgment on Count II (Fourth Amendment unlawful pretrial detention) and Count 

VI (state law malicious prosecution).

c. Part VI – Defendant is Entitled to Summary Judgment on Johnson’s Failure 

to Intervene Claim (Count III)

Guevara joins in Part VI of the Argument Section (DO Memo, p. 37-39) except for Part 

VI.b (Johnson lacks evidence that Halvorsen, Daley, Erickson and Healy had a realistic 

opportunity to intervene in any alleged constitutional violation) (DO Memo, p.38-39). To the 

extent the underlying claims against him are dismissed, so too is the failure to intervene claim. 

Because the claim is not cognizable in § 1983 cases, the claim in its entirety should be dismissed. 

However, Guevara understands, like his co-defendants, that Seventh Circuit law currently 

recognizes such a claim, so he raises the cognizability argument for preservation purposes.

d. Part VII - Halvorsen, Erickson, Daley and Healy are Entitled to Judgment on 

Johnson’s IIED Claim (Count VII) Because They Did Not Commit any 

Extreme and Outrageous Acts that Caused Emotional Distress

Guevara joins in Part VII (DO Memo, p. 39-40). Because all the other claims against 

Guevara fail, so too must the IIED claim.

e. Part VIII – There is no Evidence to Support Johnson’s § 1983 (Count IV) 

and state law (Count VI) Conspiracy Claims.

Guevara joins all of Part VII of the Argument Section. (DO Memo, p. 40-41). As those 

arguments state, Guevara is entitled to summary judgment on these conspiracy claims against him 

to the extent the underlying claims are dismissed as well as the fact that there is no evidence to 

support the conspiracy claim. He is also entitled to qualified immunity for this claim based on the 

intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine.

f. Part IX – Johnson Cannot State an Independent Claim for Willful and 

Wanton Conduct (Count VIII) Under Illinois State Law

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 309 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:14952
5

Guevara joins Part IX in its entirety. (DO Memo, p.42). Because there is no separate and 

independent tort of willful and wanton misconduct, he is entitled to summary judgment on Count 

VIII. 

V. Conclusion 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Reynaldo Guevara requests that the 

Court grant his motion to join the Joint Statement of Uncontested Facts in its entirety and Sections 

of the Defendant Officers’ Memorandum as detailed above. Guevara also requests, based on the 

foregoing, that this Court grant summary judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas More Leinenweber

 Thomas More Leinenweber

Thomas More Leinenweber

James V. Daffada

Gabrielle R. Sansonetti

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

LEINENWEBER, DAFFADA & SANSONETTI

120 N. LaSalle Suite 2000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

773-716-6117 (m)

thomas@ilesq.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 309 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:14953