62368-LSK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL PENA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO

ORTIZ, STAR #9748; CHICAGO POLICE 

OFFICER MARIBEL ROSARIO, STAR #13512; 

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER RUPERT 

COLLINS, STAR #4430; UNKNOWN CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICERS; and CITY OF CHICAGO, 

a municipal corporation,

 Defendants.

 

 No. 20 CV 03352

 Judge Sara L. Ellis

DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

NOW COME Defendants, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR 

#9748, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER MARIBEL ROSARIO, STAR #13512, and CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICER RUPERT COLLINS, STAR #4430, (“Defendant Officers”), by and through 

their attorneys, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., and for their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Daniel Pena suffered a vicious beating by Chicago police officers while 

handcuffed on the floor of the 20th District police station after being arrested on trumped up 

charged of which he was ultimately found not guilty. Mr. Pena was struck with a baton and 

repeatedly kicked in the face and about the body, leaving him with a disfigured shoulder that still 

has not healed a year later and significantly impacts his ability to earn a living. This attack was 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 1 of 44 PageID #:197
2

entirely unprovoked and unjustified, and intended solely to inflict severe pain and serious injuries 

upon Mr. Pena.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1. Further answering, 

Defendant Officers deny that any wrongful conduct or deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights occurred or 

that Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery in this matter. 

2. As terrible at this incident was for Mr. Pena, it becomes even worse when 

considered in the context of the officers involved and the reasons behind their actions. The primary 

orchestrator of the attack on Mr. Pena, and the officer who disfigured Mr. Pena’s shoulder –

Defendant Officer Wilfredo Ortiz – was empowered to act because the City refused to address his

extensive history of misconduct and allowed him to continue to abuse his police powers with 

impunity. Prior to this incident, Ortiz was not disciplined despite the fact that he: (1) was singled 

out in the Department of Justice’s Investigation of the Chicago Police Department as an abusive 

officer who exemplifies the Department’s Code of Silence; (2) was singled out in the City’s own 

Police Accountability Task Force Report for his inconsistent statements regarding his shooting of 

Michael, Princeton, and Kierra Williamson; (3) has been the subject of multiple media reports and 

lawsuits regarding his misconduct; (4) forced the city to pay out over $8 million after a jury 

returned a verdict against Ortiz and the City in relation to the Williamson shooting; and (5) has 

been the subject of multiple other complaints that should have resulted in discipline or termination 

if they had been legitimately investigated.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of 

Plaintiff’s rights in this case. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the unrelated allegations and conclusions 

regarding Officer Ortiz contained in paragraph 2. Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that he has been 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:198
3

named a defendant in civil lawsuits and that the jury awarded a verdict in favor of the Williamson 

plaintiffs, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations directed at the City contained in paragraph 2. Further answering, Defendant 

Officer Ortiz denies any allegations of wrongdoing.

3. The City’s Code of Silence continues to enable Chicago Police Department 

members like Defendant Officer Ortiz and the other Defendant officers to use and cover up 

excessive force without consequence. Although the Defendant Officers could see a bone 

protruding from Plaintiff’s shoulder and significant swelling and bruising on his face, and lockup 

keepers took a mugshot photo clearing showing these injuries, the Defendant Officers felt no need 

to explain or document Plaintiff’s serious injuries in their police reports. Defendants’ reports are 

utterly silent on how Plaintiff ended up in the hospital with a bone jutting out of his shoulder and 

a seriously swollen face, indicating that they believe their actions will not be subject to any type 

of scrutiny or legitimate review. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3. Defendant Officers 

further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

4. Plaintiff brings this action not only to recover damages for the violation of his 

constitutional rights and his serious injuries, but also for injunctive relief to address the City’s 

enduring policies and practices that allow incidents like this to continue to happen time and time 

again.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks these damages, and 

state that the request for injunctive relief has been dismissed. Defendant Officers deny the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4, and further deny any and all allegations of 

wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:199
4

PARTIES, VENUE, & JURISDICTION

5. Plaintiff Daniel Pena is and was at all relevant times a resident of this judicial 

district.

ANSWER: Upon information and belief, admitted. 

6. Defendant Chicago Police Officers Wilfredo Ortiz, Star #9748; Maribel Rosario, 

Star #13512; Rupert Collins, Star #4430; and Unknown Officers are and were at all relevant times 

residents of this judicial district employed by Defendant City of Chicago as police officers and 

acting under color of law.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that they were residents of this judicial district and 

employed by the Chicago Police Department at all relevant times. Defendant Officers lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this 

paragraph regarding the “Unknown Officers.”

7. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation in this judicial district 

organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation 

in this judicial district organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.

8. The Court has personal jurisdiction and venue is proper, because the parties are 

residents of this judicial district and the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims 

occurred within this judicial district.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that this Court has personal jurisdiction over this matter and 

that venue is proper. Defendant Officers deny, however, any and all allegations of wrongdoing and 

violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:200
5

9. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, because Plaintiff asserts 

constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s state law counts under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter, but deny 

any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

THE JUNE 2019 BEATING OF PLAINTIFF

10. On the evening of June 14, 2019, Plaintiff was walking home when he was 

approached by the Defendant Officers on Lawrence Avenue in Chicago and immediately tackled 

to the ground by Defendant Officer Ortiz.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Plaintiff was approached by Defendant Officers on 

Lawrence Avenue on the evening of June 14, 2019. Defendant Officers lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff was walking 

home. Defendant Officers deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

11. Defendants claimed that they were given a description of Plaintiff in relation to an 

earlier disturbance.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins admit that they were responding to a call of a 

gang disturbance at Loafer’s Bar, located at 2600 W. Lawrence, in which a man was trying to hit 

people and was throwing up gang signs and that Plaintiff matched the offender’s description. 

Defendant Ortiz admits he was traveling to an unrelated call, observed Plaintiff’s conduct and 

stopped to assist officers.

12. The Defendant Officers arrested Plaintiff and transported him to the 20th District 

police station.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:201
6

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Plaintiff was arrested and transported to the 20th District 

police station. Defendant Officers deny that they transported Plaintiff to the 20th District police 

station. Further answering, Defendant Officers deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and 

violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

13. While Plaintiff was awaiting processing at the 20th District, Defendant Officer Ortiz 

and Unknown Officers sat Plaintiff on the ground in handcuffs and proceeded to deliver a sadistic 

beating.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph regarding the “Unknown Officers.”

14. Defendant Officer Ortiz pulled out his baton and struck Plaintiff in the shoulder/ 

collar bone area, splitting Plaintiff’s bone in two. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers 

could see the bone jutting out of Plaintiff’s shoulder area after Ortiz delivered this baton strike.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph regarding the “Unknown Officers.”

15. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers nevertheless continued beating 

Plaintiff despite seeing the serious injury they inflicted upon him. Defendant Officer Ortiz and 

Unknown Officers did not just strike, but kicked Plaintiff multiple times in the face and about the 

body while he was handcuffed and defenseless on the ground.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 6 of 44 PageID #:202
7

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 15. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph regarding the “Unknown Officers.”

16. Plaintiff was in excruciating pain throughout this beating with his hands handcuffed 

behind his back, rendering him unable to cover up his face or protect the bone jutting out of his 

shoulder area.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 16. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

17. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers showed no remorse for their 

conduct and believed they could act with impunity. In fact, after causing Plaintiff serious injuries, 

they all looked at Plaintiff writhing in pain and laughed. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph regarding the “Unknown Officers.”

18. To cover up the serious injuries they inflicted upon Plaintiff, Defendant Officer 

Ortiz and Unknown Officers conspired with Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins to prepare 

false police reports attempting to paper over their egregious misconduct.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 7 of 44 PageID #:203
8

19. Defendant Officer Rosario, who attested to Plaintiff’s arrest report under penalty of 

perjury, conspicuously omitted any mention of Plaintiff’s beating and serious injuries from the 

report. The report does not explain how Plaintiff injuries were incurred.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Officer Rosario attested to Plaintiff’s June 14, 2019 

arrest report under penalty of perjury. Based on information and belief, Defendant Officers deny 

the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 19. Defendant Officers further deny any and all 

allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

20. Rosario’s report merely claims that: “ONCE IN THE DISTRICT, THE 

OFFENDER REQUESTED EMS. AMB 46 ARRIVED AND TRANSPORTED THE 

OFFENDER TO SWEDISH COVENANT HOSPITAL FOR EVALUATION.”

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit the June 14, 2019 arrest report contains the quoted sentence, 

but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20.

21. Defendant Officer Rosario’s report falsely implies – but does not directly state- that 

Plaintiff’s injuries were suffered on scene in the course of allegedly resisting arrest, although 

Rosario was on the scene and saw firsthand this was not true.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

22. Defendant Officer Collins prepared a false case report likewise omitting any 

mention of Plaintiff’s beating or explanation of how his injuries occurred, and grossly 

understanding Plaintiff’s injuries.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 8 of 44 PageID #:204
9

23. Like Defendant Officer Rosario’s arrest report, Defendant Officer Collins’ case 

report falsely implies without directly stating that Plaintiff was injured on scene in the course of 

resisting arrest, although Collins was on scene and knew this was not true.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

24. Defendant Officer Collins’ case report states: “WHILE IN THE DISTRICT CFD 

AMBULANCE #46 WAS CALLED TO SEE THE OFFENDER. THE OFFENDER WAS THEN 

TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL TO BE SEEN (SWEDISH COVENANT) BY DR. 

HAPEMAN. OFFENDER SUFFERED A LACERATION AND SWELLING TO THIS RIGHT 

EYE AND RIGHT SHOULDER INJURY.” 

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Officer Collins’ case report contains the quoted 

sentence contained in paragraph 24.

25. Defendant Officer Collins’ case report falsely describes the extent of Plaintiff’s 

injuries as “Minor” and the type of injury as “None Visible” aside from a “Laceration”:

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit this paragraph accurately reflects a portion of Defendant 

Officer Collins’s Original Case Incident Report, but deny the remaining allegations contained in 

paragraph 25.

26. The mugshot photo taken when Plaintiff was processed demonstrates the patent 

falsity of the Defendant Officers’ reports. The mugshots photo clearly shows the protrusion of a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 9 of 44 PageID #:205
10

bone from Plaintiff’s right shoulder area in addition to significant bruising and swelling around his 

right eye:

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit the booking photograph of Plaintiff depicted in this 

paragraph was taken when Plaintiff was processed, but deny that the photograph “demonstrates 

the patent falsity of the Defendant Officers’ reports.” Defendant Officers lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 26.

27. A number of charges were leveled against Plaintiff to justify his arrest and cover 

up the vicious beating he suffered, including Aggravated Assault and Resisting or Obstructing 

arrest.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:206
11

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Plaintiff was charged with multiple crimes relating to 

his June 14, 2019 arrest on Lawrence Avenue, including Aggravated Assault and Resisting or 

Obstructing arrest, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 27. Defendant 

Officers further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

28. Plaintiff was found not guilty of all charges after the criminal court reviewed the 

body camera footage of Plaintiff’s arrest.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers admit that Plaintiff was found not guilty of all charges, but lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations contained in paragraph 28. Defendant Officers deny any and all allegations of 

wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

29. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff was not only suffered substantial pain and 

suffering and mental and emotional anguish, but also disfigurement of his shoulder that continues 

to cause him pain and suffering and affect his ability to earn a living.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 29. Defendant Officers deny 

any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

30. Plaintiff bone has not healed and the protrusion in Plaintiff’s right shoulder area 

remains, severely limiting Plaintiff’s range of motion. This is especially problematic, because 

Plaintiff is a painter and relies heavily on his right arm to make a living.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 30. Defendant Officers deny 

any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:207
12

THE CITY’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS ORTIZ’S MISCONDUCT

31. The City continually enabled Defendant Officer Ortiz by repeatedly turning a blind 

eye to his use of excessive force and other misconduct since he joined the Police Department in 

2008. The Invisible Institute’s Citizens Police Database shows that Ortiz ranks in the 99.7th

percentile in the frequency of use of force, and has never been disciplined despite multiple 

instances of misconduct. See https://beta.cpdp.co/officer/21455/wilfredo-ortiz/. The City’s failure 

to discipline Ortiz includes the following particularly egregious incidents:

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies any and all allegations and conclusions of wrongdoing. 

Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31.

Jacobs Shooting

32. The City’s now-defunct Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) took no 

action against Defendant Officer Ortiz in relation to the May 25, 2011 shooting, beating, and 

tasering of Stephani Jacobs. After Ortiz’s partner shot five times into Jacobs’ vehicle as she was 

exiting a gas station, striking Jacobs in the left breast and right back, Ortiz and a group of officers 

took Jacobs into custody, threw her to the ground, and tasered her multiple times. In his use of 

force report regarding this incident, Ortiz reported that he delivered multiple “open hand strikes” 

to Jacobs while she was on the ground after being shot and tasered multiple times. IPRA did not 

impose discipline in relation to this incident, and found Jacobs’ shooting justified. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that his partner was involved in a shooting on May 

25, 2011, and that Officers needed to use force reasonable under the circumstances in order to take 

her into custody. Defendant Officer Ortiz further admits that IPRA did not impose discipline in 

relation to the incident and found the shooting justified. Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:208
13

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 32, and further denies any and all allegations of 

wrongdoing. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 32.

Miller Shooting

33. In 2013, Defendant Officer Ortiz discharged his firearm at an individual named 

Samuel Miller. Demonstrating his pattern of patently false police reports, Officer Ortiz claimed 

that Miller took a “tactical stance” and pointed a black object in his direction. Miller was unarmed 

and only carrying a cell phone. Once again, the City did nothing and Ortiz was not disciplined.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that he discharged his firearm at an individual named 

Samuel Miller in 2013, and that he was not disciplined for doing so. Defendant Officer Ortiz denies 

as phrased the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 33, and further denies any and all 

allegations of wrongdoing. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 33.

Stokes False Arrest

34. On November 2, 2015, Defendant Officer Ortiz and his partner falsely stopped and 

arrested Charles Stokes, fabricating a claim that a gun was found during an unlawful search of 

Stokes’ vehicle. Less than three weeks later, Ortiz and his partner unlawfully stopped and falsely 

arrested Stokes again, this time taking Stokes’ car keys, unlawfully searching his vehicle, and 

falsely claiming that they recovered drugs from Stokes.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 34.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:209
14

35. After falsely arresting Stokes for possession of a controlled substance, Defendant 

Officer Ortiz and his partner told Stokes and his co-arrestee Curtis Cooper that they needed to 

come up with a gun to avoid going to jail.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 35.

36. Cooper arranged to purchase a gun to secure Stokes’ release. After a gun was 

tendered, Stokes was released.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that officers learned of the location of multiple 

firearms during the course of a narcotics investigation and that Stokes was released, but denies the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 36.

37. Defendant Officer Ortiz and his partner then told Stokes that he needed to get 

another gun or Cooper would be jailed. Ortiz and his partner ordered Stokes to obtain or buy an 

illegal gun and turn it over to them.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 37.

38. Stokes arranged to purchase the weapon and dropped the firearm in a garbage can 

for Ortiz and his partner to retrieve. Video recorded by Stokes shows the officers retrieving the 

gun from the garbage can to consummate their scheme.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:210
15

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that video recorded by Stokes shows he and his partner 

retrieving a yellow bag from an alley garbage can, but denies the remaining allegations contained

in paragraph 38. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 38.

39. Police reports regarding this incident falsely claim that the officers learned of the 

location of multiple firearms during the course of a legitimate narcotics investigation.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that the case incident report states the officers learned 

of the location of multiple firearms during the course of a narcotics investigation, but denies the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 39. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 39.

40. Defendant Officer Ortiz’s actions were reported on in a media after Stokes filed a 

lawsuit against Ortiz and the City, Case No. 16-cv-10621.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that Stokes filed a lawsuit (Case No. 16-cv-10621) 

against him and the City and that there was media coverage of the lawsuit and Stokes’s allegations, 

but denies any allegations of wrongdoing. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 

40.

41. Officer Ortiz’s conduct in the Stokes case was also highlighted in the Department 

of Justice’s Investigation of the Chicago Police Department, published January 13, 2017. The 

Department of Justice found that the Stokes case was a prime example of how the CPD allows 

abusive officers like Ortiz to set the culture within the Department:

A recording from November 2015 appears to capture part of a “guns for freedom” 

incident on video. The video is part of a case in which an individual alleges that 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:211
16

police coerced him into producing weapons to gain his own release and the release

of a friend. According to the individual who produced the gun, police first required

him to tell them where guns were located, and then demanded that he bring them a 

gun. The man claims he had to buy the gun he brought to the police. The video 

recording appears to show the man placing the gun in a trash bin and police officers

retrieving the gun later than day. The officers’ incident report does not mention any

arrest and instead claims that the man directed them to “the location of multiple

firearms being hidden in the 5th and 22nd district.”

In addition to the likely illegality of this conduct, its impact on community trust 

cannot be overstated. The fear and anger created by these practices was obvious 

when we talked with individuals who reported these experiences. As the attorney

for the man in the November 2015 incident noted during a media interview, “if 

there was any trust that’s built up by officers on the street, that trust is clearly and 

quickly destroyed.” His words underscore what we found more broadly throughout 

our investigation: when practices like this are allowed to persist, CPD allows 

abusive officers to set the culture, undermining the hard work of CPD’s many good

officers 

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding the Department of Justice Report, but denies the 

remaining allegations, including any allegations of wrongdoing, contained in paragraph 41. 

Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 41.

42. Despite Defendant Officer Ortiz’s misconduct not only being made public in a federal 

lawsuit and in the media, but also being singled out by the Department of Justice in its official 

investigative report, the City once again did nothing. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits he was not disciplined in relation to the Stokes case 

and that Stokes’s allegations were the subject of a lawsuit and media coverage, but denies the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 42. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 42.

43. Instead, the City settled the Stokes lawsuit and allowed Ortiz to remain on the street 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:212
17

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that the Stokes lawsuit was settled and that he is 

employed as a Chicago Police Officer. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins admit that Officer 

Ortiz is employed as a Chicago Police Officer, but lack knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43.

Williamson Shooting

44. On January 1, 2014, Defendant Officer Ortiz fired 11 shots indiscriminately into a 

home, striking and seriously injuring brothers Michael and Princeton Williamson and their sister 

Kierra, and grazing Thaddeus Williamson.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that he fired 11 shots in the direction of Michael 

Williamson, whom he observed holding a firearm, and that Michael Williamson, Princeton 

Williamson, and Kierra Williamson were injured and that a bullet grazed Thaddeus Williamson, 

but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 44. Defendant Officers further deny 

any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 44.

45 Michael and Princeton Williamson narrowly escaped death after being shot in the 

abdomen by Defendant Officer Ortiz. They required emergency surgery and extended 

hospitalization to save their lives.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that Michael and Princeton Williamson were shot in 

the abdomen by Officer Ortiz and that they required surgery and hospitalization. Officer Ortiz 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in paragraph 45. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 45.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 17 of 44 PageID #:213
18

46. In order to justify his indiscriminate shooting of four innocent civilians, Defendant 

Officer Ortiz falsely accused Michael Williamson of taking a “tactical stance” and pointing a gun 

at him. This was remarkably similar to Ortiz’s attempt to justify the previous Miller shooting by 

claiming that the victim took a “tactical stance” and pointed a black object in his direction.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46, and further

denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 46.

47. The detective on scene aided in the cover up by fabricating a purported confession 

from Princeton Williamson. The detective claimed that he took the statement from Princeton while 

Princeton was in a hospital bed with an open abdomen and receiving a continuous pump of 

morphine to deal with his excruciating pain. As Princeton’s nurses later testified, he was not able 

to talk while in this condition and could not have possibly given a statement.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 47.

48. As a result of these false claims, Michael and Princeton Williamson were falsely 

charged with multiple felony offenses.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that Michael and Princeton Williamson were charged 

with multiple felonies, but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 48, and further 

denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 48.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 18 of 44 PageID #:214
19

49. Michael Williamson was found not guilty of all charges after spending a year in 

Cook County Jail. The criminal court found Officer Ortiz not credible due to the inconsistencies 

in his version of events, particularly Officer Ortiz’s initial admission that he saw approximately 

five people on the porch and his later claim that the only person he saw on the porch was Michael 

Williamson. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that Michael Williamson was found not guilty of all 

charges, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 49. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 49.

50. The charges against Princeton Williamson were dismissed after the criminal court 

threw out the purported confession obtained from Princeton at the hospital. The criminal court 

called the purported confession “one of the biggest pieces of garbage I ever heard from a 

professional member of law enforcement.”

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that the charges against Princeton Williamson were 

dismissed, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 50. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 50.

51. The Williamson criminal proceedings were reported on in the Chicago Tribune, 

clearly putting the City on Notice of Defendant Officer Ortiz’s misconduct.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 51.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 19 of 44 PageID #:215
20

52. Rather than discipline Defendant Officer Ortiz, however, the City encouraged him 

to continue with his fabricated cover story by conducting an investigation that was deliberately 

designed to clear Ortiz.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 52.

53. During Defendant Officer Ortiz’s IPRA statement, the IPRA investigator allowed 

Officer Ortiz’s counsel to audibly whisper to Ortiz fabricated answers to the investigator’s 

questions.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that his counsel could be heard on the audio recording 

of Officer Ortiz’s IPRA statement, but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53. 

Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 53.

54. The IPRA investigator also turned the recorder off and paused Ortiz’s statement 

multiple times to allow Ortiz and his counsel to manufacture responses to the investigator’s 

questions.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 54.

55. IPRA found the Williamson shooting justified despite the fact that IPRA: (1) did 

not interview any of the17 civilian witnesses at the home, including the Williamsons; (2) failed to 

consider the results of forensic testing, which showed that Michael Williamson did not possess a 

gun; (3) did not consider evidence and sworn testimony from the criminal proceedings; and (4) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 20 of 44 PageID #:216
21

never confronted Ortiz which his inconsistent statements concerning the shooting or the 

discrepancies between Ortiz’s statements and the physical evidence.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that IPRA found the Williamson shooting justified, 

and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in paragraph 55. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 55.

56. The McGuire Woods LLP audit of IPRA, published April 12, 2017, specifically 

highlighted the deficiencies in the investigation of Defendant Officer Ortiz’s shooting of the 

Williamsons, including the failure to address the inconsistencies in Ortiz’s version of events, 

consider physical evidence, or interview civilian witnesses.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 56.

57. Yet, even with another high-profile publication highlighting Defendant Officer 

Ortiz’s misconduct, Ortiz was not disciplined and the glaring problems with the IPRA 

investigation were ignored.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that he was not disciplined, but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in paragraph 57. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 57.

58. On August 9, 2014, Michael Princeton, and Kierra Williamson filed an excessive 

force suit against Defendant Officer Ortiz and the City, Case No. 14-cv-6397.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits the allegations contained in paragraph 58. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 58.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 21 of 44 PageID #:217
22

59. This suit included a Monell policy and practice count asserting that the Chicago 

Police Department’s “Code of Silence” shielded Defendant Officer Ortiz from responsibility for 

his misconduct and caused him to act with impunity in shooting the Williamsons.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that the lawsuit included the above allegations, and 

further states that the Monell claims were dismissed by stipulation. Defendant Officers Rosario 

and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 59.

60. The City chose to again support Defendant Officer Ortiz’s fabricated version of 

events and argue to the jury that Ortiz was justified because he saw Michael Williamson point a 

gun at him.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz denies the allegations contained in paragraph 60. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 60.

61. The jury rejected Defendant Officer Ortiz’s false testimony and returned a $4.75 

million verdict for the Williamsons on September 18, 2017. This included a $500,000 award of 

punitive damages to punish Ortiz and deter from future misconduct.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that the jury returned the verdict amounts contained

in paragraph 61, but denies the remaining allegations and conclusions. Defendant Officers Rosario 

and Collins lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 61.

62. The Williamsons were also awarded nearly $3.5 million in attorneys fees, and the 

City paid substantial amounts to its outside counsel, as a result of the City’s decision to blindly 

defend Defendant Officer Ortiz’s fabricated story.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 22 of 44 PageID #:218
23

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding attorneys’ fees, and denies the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 62. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 62.

63. Even after the jury verdict, and paying out over $8 million for the Williamson 

shooting, the City did not take disciplinary action against Defendant Officer Ortiz and continues 

to allow him to wield police power.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that he has not been disciplined with respect to the 

Williamson shooting and that he remains employed as a police officer. Defendant Officers Rosario 

and Collins admit that Officer Ortiz is a Chicago Police Officer, but lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 63.

64. In fact, the City continues to deny reality and maintain that Defendant Officer Ortiz 

was justified in shooting the Williamsons.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 64. Further answering, Defendant Officer Ortiz 

denies any allegations of wrongdoing.

65. In a subsequent malicious prosecution suit filed by Michael Williamson (Case No. 

18-cv-2028, the City attempts to avoid the effect of the Williamson I verdict by claiming that “the 

Williamson I jury could very well have believed that [Michael Williamson] was holding a firearm 

at the time of the incident.” The City regurgitates the same claims that were rejected by the 

Williamson I jury – that Ortiz saw Plaintiff holding a gun, pointing it in his direction, and refusing 

commands to drop the gun.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 23 of 44 PageID #:219
24

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that Michael Williamson filed a federal unlawful 

pretrial detention case (18-cv-2028), which is being defended, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment attempting to assert the doctrine of collateral estoppel from the Williamson I

case was denied. Defendant Officer Ortiz denies any remaining allegations and conclusions

contained in paragraph 65. Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 65.

THIS MATTER IS EMBLEMATIC OF THE CITY’S WIDESPREAD POLICES

66. This matter is emblematic of the City’s acknowledged and well-documented policy 

and practice of covering up and failing to legitimately investigate officer misconduct and failing 

to discipline officers who engage in misconduct, otherwise known as the Code of Silence.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 66.

67. A number of City officials, including former Mayor Emmanuel, have admitted to 

the Code of Silence. As Mayor Emmanuel told the City Council in a December 9, 2015 speech:

This problem is sometimes referred to as the Thin Blue Line. Other times it is 

referred to as the code of silence. It is the tendency to ignore, deny or in some cases 

cover-up the bad actions of a colleague or colleagues... We cannot asks citizens in 

crime-ravaged neighborhoods to break the code of silence if we continue to allow 

a code of silence to exist without our own police department.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 67.

68. Former Police Superintendent Richard Brzeczek has publicly stated that a code of 

silence “has always existed in the police department.”

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 68.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 24 of 44 PageID #:220
25

69. In 2000, Alderman Beavers submitted an official resolution recognizing that 

“Chicago police officers who do not carry out their responsibility in a professional manner have 

ample reason to believe that they will not be held accountable, even in instances of egregious 

misconduct.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 69.

70. Former Patrol Bureau Chief Eugene Williams has explained as follows:

...The way it is done on the streets is to protect and cover for your partner at all 

cost, even at the expense of sacrificing every ounce of one’s integrity. This culture 

has been all too evident when we investigate thousands of allegations where the 

partner of the accused never sees, or hear[s] of any inappropriate conduct although 

they work in very close proximity of each other during their entire tour of duty. 

Yet, within this culture it is considered righteous to cut corners and embellish on 

the facts in a case report or arrest report to win a case in court.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 70.

71. The operation of the City’s Code of Silence can also be seen in a number of other 

matters involving the City’s failure to legitimately investigate police misconduct, such as Officer 

Jason Van Dyke’s fatal 2014 shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald and a slew of lawsuits 

filed in this district. See, e.g., LaPorta v. City of Chicago, No. 14 C 9665, Cazares v. Frugoli, No. 

13 C 5626; Marcinczyk v. Plewa, No. 09 C 1997; Obrycka v. City of Chicago, No. 07 C 2372; 

Gilfand v. Planey, No. 07 C 2566; Johnson v. City of Chicago, No. 05 C 6545; Klipfel v. Gonzales, 

No. 94 C 6415; Garcia v. City of Chicago, No. 01 C 8945.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 71.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 25 of 44 PageID #:221
26

72. In fact, in LaPorta, a jury determined that the City maintains de facto policies of 

failing to investigate officers accused of misconduct, failing to discipline officers who deserved it, 

and failing to maintain an early warning system to identify and correct problematic behavior.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 72.

73. In Obrycka, a jury likewise determined that the City maintains a widespread 

practice of failing to adequately investigate its police officers and/or tolerating a code of silence 

within the Police Department.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 73.

74. The prevalence of the Code of Silence within the Chicago Police Department was 

summarized in the Department of Justice’s January 2017 report, which found that:

(a) The City, police officers, and leadership within CPD and the police union

acknowledge that a code of silence among Chicago police officers exists, 

extending to lying and affirmative efforts to conceal evidence;

(b) Officers who simply witness misconduct and face no discipline by telling 

the truth choose instead to lie to protect other officers; 

(c) The City treats such efforts to hide evidence as ancillary and unexceptional 

misconduct, and often does not investigate it, causing officers to believe 

there is not much to lose if they lie to cover up misconduct; 

(d) CPD has historically tolerated unconstitutional force, and has developed a 

pattern of practice of unconstitutional force as a result of its failure to hold 

officers accountable;

(e) CPD has failed to hold officers accountable when they use force contrary to 

CPD policy or otherwise commit misconduct, resulting in officers 

remaining with the Department and continuing their misconduct when they 

should have been relieved of duty;

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 26 of 44 PageID #:222
27

(f) CPD’s failure to meaningfully and routinely review or investigate officer 

use of force is a significant factor in perpetuating practices that result in a 

pattern of unlawful conduct;

(g) CPD does not hold supervisors accountable for performing basic 

supervisory tasks, including reporting misconduct. Supervisors generally 

do not conduct any follow-up investigation or request any additional 

information from officers to help understand what happened;

(h) CPD’s documentation of officer use of force is consistently insufficient;

(i) It appears officers have been instructed on the language they should use to 

justify force with others frequently using the same language in their reports;

(j) Those cases that are investigated suffer from serious investigative flaws that 

obstruct objective fact finding, including failure to interview civilian and 

officer witnesses; inappropriate coordination of testimony, risk of collusion, 

and witness coaching during interviews; cursory questioning aimed at 

justifying the officer’s actions rather than seeking truth; failure to review 

and incorporate probative evidence from parallel civil and criminal 

proceedings; ignoring conflicts in testimony or with physical evidence; 

exaggerating evidence favorable to the officer; and extensive investigative 

delays;

(k) As a result of few force incidents being even nominally investigated, and 

the low quality of force investigations that do occur, there is no meaningful, 

systemic accountability for officers who use force in violation of the law or 

CPD policy;

(l) The failure to review and investigate officer use of force has helped create 

a culture in which officers expect to use force and not be questioned about 

the need for or propriety of that use; 

(m) The Stokes case shows the CPD allows abusive officers like Ortiz to set the 

CPD culture;

(n) Due to longstanding, systemic deficiencies in its early intervention 

systems, the CPD does not adequately and accurately identify officers in 

need of corrective action and does not consistently or sufficiently address 

officer behavior even where CPD identifies negative patterns. Because of 

these failures, CPD officers are able to engage in problematic behaviors 

with impunity;

(o) The City paid over a half billion dollars to settle or pay judgments in police 

misconduct cases since 2004 without conducting disciplinary investigations 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 27 of 44 PageID #:223
28

in over half of those cases, and only recommending discipline in fewer than 

4% of the cases it did investigate.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 74.

75. The City’s Police Accountability Task Force Report, published in April 2016, 

similarly found that:

(a) The statistics give real credibility to the widespread perception that there is 

a deeply entrenched code of silence supported not just by individual 

officers, but by the very institution of CPD itself;

(b) The only conclusion that can be reached is that there is no serious embrace 

by CPD leadership of the need to make accountability a core value; 

(c) IPRA failed to perform its work fairly, competently, or with rigor or 

independence, and demonstrated a record of incomplete and botched 

investigations;

(d) The City has sent a clear message that bad police officers are able to act 

with impunity and that police oversight bodies do not hold police officers 

accountable; 

(e) When case after high-profile case results in punishment that does not match 

the gravity of the misconduct, it sends a message that the police can act with 

impunity and leaves those who break the rules emboldened to continue 

doing so;

(f) The City has largely ignored information regarding officer misconduct 

developed in civil rights litigation;

(g) There continues to be an unacceptably high number of lawsuits filed against 

the city and individual officers every year. Despite the persistent problem, 

which results in the outlay of tens of millions of dollars every year, CPD 

does not employ a systematic tool for evaluating risk issues identified in 

lawsuits.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 75.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 28 of 44 PageID #:224
29

76. The McGuire Woods report also echoed the Department of Justice’s findings 

regarding IPRA, including reporting the following deficiencies in IPRA’s investigation of 

Defendant Officer Ortiz’s shooing of the Williamsons:

(a) Failing to create a scene diagram and take measurements in a case involving 

an officer who fired shots that hit multiple individuals, projectiles recovered 

in numerous locations, and bullet holes identified in multiple places on a 

porch and in a residence;

(b) Failing to obtain a trajectory analysis to determine the position and distance 

of the officer at the time of the firing;

(c) Failing to interview witnesses, including an individual with a visible injury; 

(d) Failing to question the officer about inconsistent statements regarding who 

was present around the time of the shooting where the officer had previously 

maintained that multiple people were present, but later stated that only one 

person was present;

(e) Failing to question the officer regarding evidence that the subject’s weapon 

was recovered in slide lock position when the officer’s statement indicated 

that he saw the subject point the weapon at him out of slide lock position;

(f) Failing to confront the officer with photographs contradicting his version of 

events;

(g) Failing to evaluate the potential danger to bystanders or fellow officers;

(h) Failing to consider the excessiveness of the shooting when there was no 

return fire. 

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 76.

77. While the City claims to have implemented reforms in response to the wellpublicized findings regarding the Code of Silence, such as replacing IPRA with the Civilian Office 

of Police Accountability, these measures have not addressed the problem.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 77.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 29 of 44 PageID #:225
30

78. The City has not disciplined Ortiz or reviewed any of the glaring deficiencies in its 

previous investigations, and continues to allow Ortiz to wield a gun and a badge even though 

Defendant Officer Ortiz himself was singled out not only in the Department of Justice report for 

his conduct in the Stokes case, but also in the McGuire Woods report for his conduct in the 

Williamson shooting.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz admits that he has not been disciplined and that he remains 

employed as a police officer. Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 78. Defendant 

Officers Rosario and Collins admit that Officer Ortiz is a Chicago Police Officer, but lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 78.

79. The impunity afforded to officers like Defendant Officer Ortiz is also clearly 

demonstrated by the fact that Ortiz and Unknown Officers openly beat Plaintiff in a police station, 

laughed while doing so, and conspired with Defendant Officers Rosario and Collins to fabricate 

police reports covering up their misconduct.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but deny the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 79, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations 

of Plaintiff’s rights.

80. Far from addressing the problem, the City continues to deny reality and defend 

thoroughly discredited officers like Defendant Officer Ortiz at every turn – telling the public one 

thing, but practicing entirely another.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in paragraph 80.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 30 of 44 PageID #:226
31

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE

(Against Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers)

81. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz incorporates his answers to Paragraphs 1-80 as though fully 

set forth herein. 

82. The acts of Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers in beating Plaintiff were 

a deliberate and malicious deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights against excessive force guaranteed by 

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 82, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

83. As a direct and proximate result of the unreasonable and unjustifiable force used 

by Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including a 

seriously injured shoulder, swelling and bruising, lacerations, disfigurement, pain and suffering 

since June 14, 2019 and continuing into the future, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and emotional 

anguish, and lost wages.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 83, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 31 of 44 PageID #:227
32

WHEREFORE, Defendant, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR 

#9748, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, to 

assess costs and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CONSPIRACY

(Against All Individual Defendants)

84. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers Ortiz, Rosario, and Collins incorporate their answers to 

Paragraphs 1-80 as though fully set forth herein.

85. Defendants reached an agreement and conspired with each other to cover up 

Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officer’s use of excessive force.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but deny the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 85, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations 

of Plaintiff’s rights. 

86. Defendants took overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that included preparing 

false police reports, failing to document and misrepresenting Plaintiff’s injuries, turning a blind 

eye, and failing to report Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers’ misconduct despite a 

duty to do so.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but deny the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 86, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations 

of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 32 of 44 PageID #:228
33

87. This misconduct described in this count was malicious, willful, wanton and/or 

undertaken with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 87, and further deny 

any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants unlawful conspiracy, Defendant 

Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers were enabled to cause Plaintiff serious injuries, including a 

seriously injured shoulder, swelling and bruising, lacerations, disfigurement, pain and suffering 

since June 14, 2019 and continuing into the future, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and emotional 

anguish, and lost wages.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but deny the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 88, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations 

of Plaintiff’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR 

#9748, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER MARIBEL ROSARIO, STAR #13512, and CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICER RUPERT COLLINS, STAR #4430, respectfully request that this Court enter 

judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, to assess costs and for any further relief this Court 

deems just and proper.

COUNT III – ASSAULT AND BATTERY

(Against Defendant Officer Ortiz, Unknown Officers, and the City)

89. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz incorporates his answers to Paragraphs 1-80 as though fully 

set forth herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 33 of 44 PageID #:229
34

90. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers, with intent to do bodily harm to 

Plaintiff, viciously assaulted and battered Plaintiff by striking him with a baton and delivering 

multiple kicks to his face and about his body.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 90, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

91. The conduct of Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers was malicious, 

willful, and wanton.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 91, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers’ 

conduct, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including a seriously injured shoulder, swelling and 

bruising, lacerations, disfigurement, pain and suffering since June 14, 2019 and continuing into 

the future, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and emotional anguish, and lost wages

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 92, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 34 of 44 PageID #:230
35

93. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers engaged in this misconduct in their 

capacities as employees and/or agents of the City of Chicago, rendering the City liable under the 

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers.” Defendant Officer Ortiz admits 

that he was acting within the scope of his employment as a Chicago Police Officer at all relevant 

times and further admits that Illinois law provides that public entities are liable for compensatory 

damages on a tort judgment against an employee who was acting within the scope of his or her 

employment. Officer Ortiz denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 93, and further 

denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR 

#9748, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, to 

assess costs and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Against Defendant Officer Ortiz, Unknown Officers, and the City)

94. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz incorporates his answers to Paragraphs 1-80 as though fully 

set forth herein.

95. The conduct of Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers in beating Plaintiff 

without any provocation or justification while Plaintiff was handcuffed on the ground was extreme 

and outrageous.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 35 of 44 PageID #:231
36

allegations contained in Paragraph 95, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

96. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers intended to cause or were in 

reckless disregard of the substantial probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional 

distress to Plaintiff.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 96, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

97. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers did directly and proximately cause 

severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 97, and further denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

98. Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers engaged in this misconduct in their 

capacities as employees and/or agents of the City of Chicago, rendering the City liable under the 

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Defendant Officer Ortiz lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers.” Defendant Officer Ortiz admits 

that he was acting within the scope of his employment as a Chicago Police Officer at all relevant 

times and further admits that Illinois law provides that public entities are liable for compensatory 

damages on a tort judgment against an employee who was acting within the scope of his or her 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 36 of 44 PageID #:232
37

employment. Officer Ortiz denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 98, and further 

denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR 

#9748, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, to 

assess costs and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V- STATE LAW CONSPIRACY

(Against All Defendants) 

99. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1-80 as though fully set 

forth herein.

100. Defendants reached an agreement and conspired with each other to cover up 

Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officer’s use of excessive force.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations that “Unknown Officers” used excessive force, but deny the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 100, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing 

and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

101. Defendants took over acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that included preparing 

false police reports failing to document and misrepresenting Plaintiff’s injuries, turning a blind 

eye, and failing to report Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers’ misconduct despite a 

duty to do so.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations that “Unknown Officers” engaged in misconduct, but deny the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 37 of 44 PageID #:233
38

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 101, and further deny any and all allegations of 

wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

102. The misconduct described in this count was malicious, willful, wanton and/or 

undertaken with reckless indifferent to Plaintiff’s rights.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations that “Unknown Officers” engaged in misconduct, but deny the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 102, and further deny any and all allegations of 

wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

103. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy, Defendant 

Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers were enabled to cause Plaintiff serious injuries, including a 

seriously injured shoulder, swelling and bruising, lacerations, disfigurement, pain and suffering 

since June 14, 2019 and continuing into the future, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and emotional 

anguish, and lost wages 

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations regarding “Unknown Officers,” but deny the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 103, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations 

of Plaintiff’s rights.

104. Defendants engaged in this misconduct in their capacities as employees and/or 

agents of the City of Chicago, rendering the City liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Defendant Officers lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the allegations that “Unknown Officers” engaged in misconduct. Defendant Officers 

admit that they were acting within the scope of their employment as Chicago Police Officers at all 

relevant times and further admit that Illinois law provides that public entities are liable for 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 38 of 44 PageID #:234
39

compensatory damages on a tort judgment against an employee who was acting within the scope 

of his or her employment. Defendant Officers deny the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph 104, and further deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and violations of Plaintiff’s 

rights.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR 

#9748, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER MARIBEL ROSARIO, STAR #13512, and CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICER RUPERT COLLINS, STAR #4430, respectfully request that this Court enter 

judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, to assess costs and for any further relief this Court 

deems just and proper.

COUNT VI – INDEMNIFICATION

(Against the City)

Defendant Officers Ortiz, Rosario, and Collins make no answer to this COUNT VI of the 

Complaint as this Count is not directed to them. To the extent these allegations are directed 

toward Defendant Officers, Defendant Officers admit that at all times they acted within the 

scope of their employment as Chicago Police Officers, but deny any wrongful conduct and 

violations of Plaintiff’s rights, and further deny Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery.

105. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 104 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER:

106. In Illinois, public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory 

damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment activities. 735 

ILCS 10/9-102.

ANSWER:

107. Defendants were employees of the City of Chicago and acted within the scope of 

their employment in committing the misconduct described herein.

ANSWER:

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 39 of 44 PageID #:235
40

COUNT VII – MONELL LIABILITY

(Against the City)

Defendant Officers Ortiz, Rosario, and Collins make no answer to this COUNT VII of the 

Complaint as this Count is not directed to them. To the extent any such allegations are 

directed to these Defendant Officers, they are denied.

108. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 as though set forth 

fully herein.

ANSWER:

109. The Chicago Police Department is a subsidiary division of Defendant City of 

Chicago. The City maintains and exercises exclusive control over the Department, its policies and 

procedures, as well as the conduct of all of its employees, including Defendants.

ANSWER:

110. At the time of this incident and prior thereto, there existed within the Chicago Police 

Department as widespread and well-documented policy and practice of covering up and turning a 

blind eye to officer misconduct, and failing to legitimately investigate or discipline officers who 

engaged in misconduct, otherwise known as the Code of Silence.

ANSWER:

111. There likewise existed a widespread policy and practice of failing to maintain 

adequate early warning policies or procedures that would identify officers who engage in 

misconduct, like Defendant Officer Ortiz, and divert them to appropriate training and discipline.

ANSWER:

112. These widespread policies and practices are well known to, tolerated by, and/or 

enforced by policymakers throughout all levels of the Police Department and the City 

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 40 of 44 PageID #:236
41

administration, who have yet to take effective measures to address the systemic problems related 

to the Department.

ANSWER:

113. As a result of these policies and practices, the City allows officers to act with 

impunity in using excessive force and otherwise engaging in misconduct, knowing that their fellow 

officers, supervisors, and City officials will turn a blind eye to and cover up their actions.

ANSWER:

114. Otherwise well-intentioned officers who would face no discipline for simply telling 

the truth frequently like to protect officers who engaged in misconduct.

ANSWER:

115. These policies and practices were the direct and proximate cause of, and the moving 

force behind, the vicious beating of Plaintiff and the conspiracy among the Defendant Officers that 

enabled Defendant Officer Ortiz and Unknown Officers to carry out Plaintiff’s beating with 

impunity.

ANSWER:

116. The Defendant Officers engaged in this egregious misconduct knowing they would 

not be questioned or disciplined and that their fellow officers, supervisors, and City Officials 

would turn a blind eye to and cover up their actions.

ANSWER:

117. The City’s failures and refusal to legitimately address officer misconduct, including 

excessive force, demonstrates a deliberate indifference to and tacit approval of the use of excessive 

force by members of its Police Department, including the use of excessive force and conspiracy to 

use excessive force by Defendants against Plaintiff.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 41 of 44 PageID #:237
42

ANSWER:

118. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s unconstitutional policies and 

practices, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including a seriously injured shoulder, swelling and 

bruising, lacerations, disfigurement, pain and suffering since June 14, 2019 and continuing into 

the future, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and emotional anguish, and lost wages.

ANSWER:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Without waiver of any of the denials in the above paragraphs, Defendants CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICER WILFREDO ORTIZ, STAR #9748, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER 

MARIBEL ROSARIO, STAR #13512, and CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER RUPERT COLLINS, 

STAR #4430, by and through their attorneys, QUERREY & HARROW, LTD, assert the following 

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint: 

1. Defendant Officers are government officials, namely police officers, who perform 

discretionary functions. At all times material to the events alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

reasonable police officers, objectively viewing facts and circumstances then confronting 

Defendant Officers during the incident which allegedly provides the basis for the present case, 

could have reasonably believed the actions taken by them were objectively reasonable and were 

within the constitutional limits that were clearly established at the time. Defendant Officers, 

therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity.

2. As to any state law claim, under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendant Officers are not 

liable for any of the claims alleged because the actions of Defendant Officers with respect to 

Plaintiffs were based upon the information and circumstances known to those Defendant Officers 

at the time and were discretionary for which they are immune from liability. 745 ILCS 10/2-201.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 42 of 44 PageID #:238
43

3. As to any state law claim, under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendant Officers are not 

liable for any claims alleged because a public employee is not liable for his or her acts or omissions 

in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute willful and 

wanton conduct. 745 ILCS 10/2-202.

4. As to any state law claim, under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Defendant Officers are not 

liable for any of the claims alleged because a public employee, as such, and acting within the scope 

of his or her employment, is not liable for any injury caused by the act or omission of another 

person. 745 ILCS 10/2-204.

5. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees for his state law claims. See Pennsylvania Truck 

Lines, Inc. v. Solar Equity Corp., 882 F.2d 221, 227 (7th Cir. 1989); Kerns v. Engelke, 76 Ill. 2d 

154, 166, 390 N.E.2d 859, 856 (1979).

6. An award of punitive damages would deprive the Defendant Officers of due process of law 

in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where:

(a) liability for punitive damages has not been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt, or at least by clear and convincing evidence; and

(b) the award of punitive damages is disproportionate to actual damages.

JURY DEMAND

Defendant Officers demand a trial by jury.

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 43 of 44 PageID #:239
44

Respectfully submitted, 

Defendants, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS WILFREDO 

ORTIZ, STAR #9748, MARIBEL ROSARIO, STAR 

#13512, and RUPERT COLLINS, STAR #4430,

BY: /s/ Larry S. Kowalczyk

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

Larry S. Kowalczyk- Special Assistant Corporation Counsel - lkowalczyck@querrey.com

Megan K. Monaghan Special Assistant Corporation Counsel – mmonaghan@querrey.com

QUERREY & HARROW, LTD.

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 540-7000

Email: lkowalczyk@querrey.com

Email: mmonaghan@querrey.com

Counsel for Defendant Officers

Case: 1:20-cv-03352 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 44 of 44 PageID #:240