1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY DENTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CHICAGO POLICE 

OFFICERS DELGADO FERNANDEZ, 

STAR NO. 6261, JERALD WILLIAMS, 

STAR NO. 3317, CESAR ASTORGA, 

STAR NO. 14757, AND UNKNOWN 

AND UNNAMED CITY OF CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICERS, AND THE CITY 

OF CHICAGO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF 

CIVIL RIGHTS and a SUPPLEMENTAL 

STATE CLAIM

JURY DEMANDED

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 

1871 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983). This court has jurisdiction under and by virtue of 28 U.S.C. Sections 

1343 and 1331 and 1367.

2. Venue is founded in this judicial court upon 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 as the acts 

complained of arose in this district.

PARTIES

3. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff Anthony Denton (“Plaintiff”) was and is a 

citizen of the United States and was within the jurisdiction of this court. 

4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants City of Chicago Police Officers D. 

Fernandez, Star No. 6261, J. Williams, Star No. 3317, C. Astorga, Star No. 14757, collectively

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

“individual defendants” or “police defendants” and unknown and unnamed officers were 

employed by the City of Chicago Police Department, were acting under color of state law and as 

the employee, agent, or representative of the City of Chicago Police Department. These 

Defendants are being sued in their individual capacities. 

5. At all times herein mentioned, the CITY OF CHICAGO was a political division of 

the State of Illinois, existing as such under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all relevant times, 

the CITY OF CHICAGO maintained, managed, and/or operated the CITY OF CHICAGO Police 

Department. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff was lawfully located at a friend’s residence at or near 4056 

W. Crystal Street in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, Illinois. 

7. On that day and place, Defendants Williams, D. Fernandez, Astorga, and fifteen to 

twenty unknown officers, along with the SWAT team, broke down the apartment door where Plaintiff 

was located and unlawfully entered and searched the premises. 

8. Defendants did not knock or announce their office prior to forcibly entering the 

residence. 

9. Neither Plaintiff nor any individual at the apartment consented to the entry and search 

of the residence.

10. Defendants never announced they had a search warrant nor presented one to the

Plaintiff or any other inhabitants of the apartment. 

11. There was no legal or probable cause for Defendants to enter the residence or conduct 

a search of the residence other than a search warrant.

12. Plaintiff was not the target of the search warrant nor did he reside at the target location. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

13. Upon entering the residence, Defendants detained Plaintiff and the other individuals 

present and subjected them to an illegal search. 

14. Defendants did not find any contraband on Plaintiff or his friends.

15. An unknown Defendant Officer pulled Plaintiff away from the other individuals 

present. Defendant Officer asked Plaintiff if he knew anybody with a gun. Defendant Officer

threatened Plaintiff he needed to give him something.

16. Plaintiff informed Defendant Officer he did not know anyone with a gun.

17. Upon executing the search of the residence, Defendants falsely claimed to have 

recovered illegal drugs. Defendants further falsely claimed that the illegal drugs were found in 

Plaintiff’s possession. 

18. Plaintiff did not possess illegal drugs on June 12, 2019. 

19. Allegedly and according to police reports, Plaintiff waived his Miranda rights and told 

Defendants Delgado and Fernandez that the alleged contraband belonged to him. 

20. Plaintiff at no point on June 12, 2019 told any Defendant that the illegal drugs 

allegedly found at the residence were his. 

21. On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff had not committed any crimes nor was Plaintiff in 

possession of any illegal drugs and there were no illegal drugs found at the residence. 

22. Defendants did not record their conduct during the execution of the search warrant 

with body worn cameras. 

23. Despite the Defendants knowledge that Plaintiff did not reside at the residence, was 

not the target of the search warrant, and no contraband was found in Plaintiff’s custody or control, 

Defendants charged Plaintiff with possession of a controlled substance. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

24. As a result of Defendant Officers causing Plaintiff to be charged with a criminal 

offense, he was subjected to a legal process, criminal prosecution, pretrial detention, and a deprivation 

of his liberties. 

25. Defendants Officers knew that the criminal prosecution, pretrial detention, and 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s liberties was based solely upon Defendants’ false allegations that they found 

illegal drugs at the residence and that Plaintiff possessed the illegal drugs, and thus Defendants knew 

Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution, pretrial detention, and deprivation of Plaintiff’s liberty was not 

supported by probable cause. 

26. Plaintiff was arrested on June 12, 2019 and remained in custody until June 13, 2019 

when he was released on a I-Bond. 

27. On August 12, 2019, all criminal charges against Plaintiff were dismissed in Plaintiff’s 

favor in a manner indicative of innocence. 

28. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff

sustained injuries, including but not limited to, humiliation and indignities, and suffered great mental 

and emotional pain and suffering in an amount to be ascertained.

29. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive

and done with reckless indifference to and/or callous disregard for Plaintiff's rights and justify the

awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at

the time of trial.

30. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff was

required to retain an attorney to institute, prosecute and render legal assistance to him in the within 

action so that he might vindicate the loss and impairment of his rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

requests payment by Defendants of a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 

1988, the Equal Access to Justice Act or any other provision set by law.

COUNT I

PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL INDIVIDUAL KNOWN AND 

UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT 

RIGHTS THROUGH UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30)

hereat as though fully set forth at this place. 

32. By reason of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was deprived of rights, privileges and 

immunities secured to him by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 

laws enacted thereunder. 

33. The arbitrary intrusion by Defendants, into the security and privacy of Plaintiff’s 

person was in violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and not authorized by law. The 

Defendants Officers violated the Plaintiff’s rights in the following manner: the seizure, search of 

Plaintiff’s person and/or arrest of Plaintiff was without any legal cause. These acts were in 

violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to Plaintiff 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

COUNT II

PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL INDIVIDUAL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS

AND OTHERS FOR VIOLATION OF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS 

THROUGH UNLAWFUL DETENTION

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30)

hereat as though fully set forth at this place.

35. The Defendants and each of them, known and unknown, subjected Plaintiff to 

criminal prosecution, a pretrial detention, and/or deprivation of his liberty without probable cause.

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

36. Defendants did not have probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed an offense 

or cause him to be subjected to any pretrial restriction of his liberty. 

37. Defendants knew that Plaintiff’s arrest, detention, and criminal prosecution were 

based solely upon Defendants’ false allegation that they found illegal drugs at the residence and that 

Plaintiff possessed the illegal drugs

38. All criminal charged initiated by Defendants against Plaintiff were terminated in his 

favor in a manner indicative of innocence on August 12, 2019. 

39. By reason of the conduct by Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff was deprived 

of rights, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution 

of the United States and laws enacted thereunder. 

40. The arbitrary intrusion by Defendants, into the security and privacy of Plaintiff’s 

person was in violation of his Constitutional Rights and not authorized by law. There was no 

probable cause for the detention of Plaintiff. The foregoing was unnecessary, unreasonable and 

excessive, and was therefore in violation of Plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, Defendants are liable to 

Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

COUNT III

PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND THE CITY OF 

CHICAGO FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL STATE LAW CLAIM OF MALICIOUS 

PROSECUTION

41. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) 

hereat as though fully set forth at this place.

42. Defendants were employed by the City of Chicago, and maliciously commenced 

and caused to be continued criminal charges against Plaintiff. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

43. The individual defendants initiated, facilitated, and/or continued this malicious 

prosecution by the creation of false evidence, by giving false police reports, and by preparing and 

signing false criminal complaints. 

44. The underlying criminal charges were terminated on August 12, 2019 in Plaintiff’s 

favor in a manner indicative of innocence. 

45. The individual defendants acted with malice in doing the acts described above. 

46. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of being maliciously prosecuted as he suffered a 

loss of liberty, payment of attorneys’ fees for the underlying criminal case and suffered emotional 

distress in a sum to be ascertained. 

47. The City of Chicago is liable to Plaintiff under the concept of respondeat superior.

48. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants and the City of Chicago are liable to the 

Plaintiff for malicious prosecution. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, 

requests judgment as follows against the Defendants, and each of them:

1. That the individual Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff’s general damages, 

including emotional distress, in a sum to be ascertained;

2. That the Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff’s special damages; 

3. That these same Defendants other than the City of Chicago be required to pay 

Plaintiff’s attorneys fees pursuant to Section 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code, the Equal 

Access to Justice Act or any other applicable provision; 

4. That the Defendants other than City of Chicago be required to pay punitive and 

exemplary damages in a sum to be ascertained;

5. That the Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff’s costs of the suit herein incurred; and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

6. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and 

proper.

BY: s/ Edward M. Fox

Edward M. Fox

ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

300 West Adams, Suite 330

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 345-8877

efox@efoxlaw.com

PLAINTIFF HEREBY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY

BY: s/ Edward M. Fox

Edward M. Fox

ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

300 West Adams, Suite 330

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 345-8877

efox@efoxlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04325 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8