UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION 

ESTATE OF STEVEN TYREL )

ROSENTHAL, JR., Deceased, by ) Case No. 1:20-cv-04323

TERINICA THOMAS, His Guardian and)

Independent Administrator of the Estate, )

) Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman

Plaintiff, )

) Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz

v. )

) JURY DEMAND

P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. )

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, P.O. )

CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, )

Individually, and the CITY OF )

CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., 

Decedent, by TERINICA THOMAS, his Guardian and Independent Administrator, by and through 

its attorneys, Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd., and complaining against the Defendants, P.O. 

ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO 

#15419, individually, and the CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, as follows:

COUNT I – EXCESSIVE FORCE 

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

specifically, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, and the laws of the State of Illinois, to redress 

deprivations of the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, 

JR., Decedent, accomplished by acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO 

BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO 

#15419, committed under color of law.

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:15
\ 2

2. Jurisdiction is based on Title 28 U.S.C. §1343 and §1331 and supplemental jurisdiction 

of the State of Illinois.

3. The Plaintiff, STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., Decedent, a Minor, was at all 

relevant times a United States Citizen and resident of the State of Illinois.

4. At all relevant times the Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, were duly appointed 

Chicago Police Officers acting within the scope of their employment and under color of law. 

5. The City of Chicago is a statutory municipal corporation and the employer of the 

Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. 

CAROLINA OROZCO #15419.

6. On August 17, 2018, the Decedent, STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., was in the 

vicinity of the 1500 Block of South Keeler Ave. 

7. The Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA 

#17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419 arrived in the vicinity based on a report of a 

man with a gun. 

8. Reportedly the Defendants started to chase the Decedent, a Minor, STEVEN TYREL 

ROSENTHAL, JR., who was scared. 

9. The Decedent, a Minor, STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., did not display a 

weapon.

10. The Decedent, a Minor, STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., did not threaten the 

Defendants with great bodily harm.

11. The Decedent, a Minor, STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., did not shoot a weapon 

at Defendants.

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:16
\ 3

12. The Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA 

#17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, either shot the Decedent, a Minor, STEVEN 

TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., or as a result of their actions seized him, causing his death by gunshot 

wound. 

13. The Decedent, a Minor, STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., ultimately succumbed 

to his injuries and died.

14. The Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA 

#17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, conspired together to cover up their actions in 

attempt to deprive the Plaintiff Estate from due process in prosecuting its claim.

15. At that time, the Defendants’, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, use of force was 

excessive, unreasonable, and unnecessary.

16. The actions of the Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, were intentional, willful 

and wanton. 

17. TERINICA THOMAS, the maternal aunt and Guardian of STEVEN TYREL 

ROSENTHAL, JR., a Minor, has sought to be named as Administrator of STEVEN TYREL 

ROSENTHAL, JR.’S Estate to redress the loss of STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR.’S life.

18. The actions of the Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, were pursuant to the 

customs, policies, and practices of the Chicago Police Department. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:17
\ 4

19. The actions of the Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, violated the Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20. As a result of the actions of the Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, the Decedent suffered 

permanent injuries, pain, suffering, monetary loss, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of his 

life. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., by his 

Guardian and Independent Administrator, prays for judgement against the Defendants, P.O. 

ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA 

OROZCO #15419, jointly and severally for reasonable compensatory damages, punitive damages, 

plus attorney’s fees and costs.

COUNT II – MONELL POLICY/INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1-18. The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates his allegations of Paragraphs 1-18 

of Count I as his respective allegations of Paragraph 1-18 of Count II as though fully set forth 

herein.

19. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff initially filed this action to name the proper defendant 

in this action.

20. The Plaintiff issued a subpoena to determine the identity of the officers. (Exhibit I).

21. Rather than comply with any subpoena, the CITY OF CHICAGO has refused to 

comply with the subpoena for documents.

22. The CITY OF CHICAGO responded that it was requiring a $45.00 subpoena fee 

for federal cases and $25.00 subpoena fee for state law cases. (See Exhibit II).

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:18
\ 5

23. The City of Chicago has relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P.) 45, 

saying it is entitled to a subpoena fee.

24. F.R.C.P. 45 does not require a subpoena fee unless an appearance is necessary for 

a deponent.

25. No appearance was requested of any deponent, only the production of documents.

26. Irrespective of such, the CITY OF CHICAGO has a practice and policy to request 

a $45.00 fee for non-attendance subpoenas.

27. The CITY OF CHICAGO, through its police department, requests more money for 

federal subpoenas than state court subpoenas to dissuade individuals from filing a federal claim.

28. Most federal lawsuits against the CITY OF CHICAGO are employment 

discrimination actions or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions for police misconduct.

29. Both employment discrimination actions and police misconduct actions are 

lawsuits to exercise an individual’s constitutional rights.

30. Said practice and policy of the CITY OF CHICAGO of charging $45.00 when the 

law does not prohibit it has hindered individuals from access to the courts.

31. Said practice and policy of the CITY OF CHICAGO of charging $45.00 is an action 

by the CITY OF CHICAGO to deprive individuals from exercising and protecting their 

constitutional rights.

32. The Plaintiff in this cause had a statute of limitations which was set to run on August 

17, 2020.

33. Plaintiff, in an effort to save its case before the statute of limitations ran, was forced 

to pay said subpoena fee.

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:19
\ 6

34. Said action in interfering with Plaintiff’s access to the courts constitutes a violation 

of Plaintiff’s constitutional right to access to the courts.

35. Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment that her rights to access to the courts has 

been interfered with and cost her additional efforts and money irrespective of F.R.C.P. 45.

36. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction prohibiting the Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO 

from continued illegal conduct in charging these fees.

37. The Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as to the 

unlawful conduct of the CITY OF CHICAGO, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

38. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law but to file a suit to get $45.00 back plus the

value and costs of their attorney’s efforts.

39. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief to prohibit the CITY OF CHICAGO from 

exercising this unlawful and unconstitutional policy.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays this Court grant a judgment in its favor and award the 

following relief:

a. Enter a declaratory judgment in her favor;

b. Enter an injunction against the CITY OF CHICAGO prohibiting this continued policy;

c. Award attorney’s fees and costs.

COUNT III – CLASS ACTION

1-39. The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges her allegations of Paragraph 1-39 of Count II as her 

allegations of Paragraph 1-39 of Count III as though fully set forth herein.

40. It is quite clear that the CITY OF CHICAGO has a written practice and policy to 

demand $45.00 for documents when a federal subpoena is served upon it.

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:20
\ 7

41. There are numerous individuals who have served federal subpoenas upon the CITY 

OF CHICAGO, and based on the City’s policy, paid $45.00 to the CITY OF CHICAGO.

42. On information and belief, this policy has been in effect for over ten years.

43. These individuals are entitled to return of any such payment made based on this 

unlawful policy.

44. There is a class of potential individuals who have paid $45.00 for a document 

subpoena when in fact, under the law, they were not required to do so.

45. The identity of those individuals are easily ascertainable through records of the 

CITY OF CHICAGO.

46. Plaintiff can adequately represent the Class in that she was required to pay said sum 

to obtain documents despite F.R.C.P. not requiring such a fee.

47. This designated class should cover a period of ten years.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court declare and certify this 

matter as a class action on behalf of those who have paid the $45.00 fee and award attorney’s fees 

and costs.

COUNT IV – INDEMNIFICATION

1-20. The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates her allegations of paragraphs 1-20 

of Count I as her respective allegations of 1-20 of Count IV as though fully set forth herein.

21. Illinois Law provides that public entities are directed to pay ant tort judgment for 

compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment 

activities.

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:21
\ 8

22. The Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA 

#17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, are or were employees of the CITY OF 

CHICAGO Police Department.

23. If the individual Defendants, P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, P.O. 

GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, are found liable for any 

of the acts alleged above, the Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO would be liable to pay the Plaintiff 

any judgment obtained against said Defendants.

WHEREFORE, should the individual Defendants P.O. ADOLFO BOLANOS #16767, 

P.O. GUILLERMO GAMA #17268, and P.O. CAROLINA OROZCO #15419, be found liable for 

any of the acts alleged above, the Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO would be liable to pay the 

Plaintiffs any judgment obtained against the Defendants.

JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff, ESTATE OF STEVEN TYREL ROSENTHAL, JR., Decedent, by 

TERINICA THOMAS, his Guardian and Independent Administrator, hereby requests a trial by 

jury.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Gregory E. Kulis

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Gregory E. Kulis (No. 6180966)

Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd. 

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2140

Chicago, Illinois 60602

p. (312) 580-1830 / f. (312) 580-1830

e. gkulis@kulislawltd.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04323 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:22