IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

John Brown (B-78939), ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) No. 20-cv-03599 

v. ) 

) Judge John F. Kness 

City of Chicago, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

In an order entered on 12/22/2021, the Court of Appeals vacated in part and remanded the 

Court’s order dismissing this case, finding that Plaintiff has stated a claim for wrongful detention 

under Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois, 903 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2018) [37]. Consistent with the 

Seventh Circuit’s order, the Clerk is directed to reopen this case on the Court’s docket. Plaintiff is 

directed to submit, in compliance with this order, a proposed amended complaint on or before 

1/21/2022, naming proper Defendants to his Due Process claim relating to the use of a coerced 

confession and the planting of a gun in Plaintiff’s car. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order 

by the deadline above, this case may again be dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to send 

Plaintiff an amended complaint form, a blank USM-285 form, and instructions along with a copy 

of this order and the order from the Seventh Circuit [37]. See accompanying Statement for details. 

STATEMENT 

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued an order vacating 

the dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint in part and finding that he may proceed on his 

federal Due Process claim relating to unlawful detention, consistent with Manuel v. City of Joliet, 

Illinois, 903 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2018). The Court of Appeals also found that Plaintiff may 

pursue his state law claims. As noted in the Seventh Circuit’s order, Plaintiff must submit a 

proposed amended complaint. 

 To be held liable under section 1983, an individual must have caused or participated in a 

constitutional deprivation. Kuhn v. Goodlow, 678 F.3d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 2012); Pepper v. Vill. of 

Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). There is no respondeat superior liability under 

section 1983. See Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Supervisors can only be 

held responsible for the constitutional violations of their subordinates if the violation occurred at 

the supervisor’s direction or with his or her knowledge and consent. See Hildebrandt v. Ill. Dep’t 

of Nat. Res., 347 F.3d 1014, 1039 (7th Cir. 2003). If Plaintiff wants to proceed with this lawsuit, 

he must identify the individual or individuals responsible for the complained-of conduct relating 

to using his allegedly coerced confession and planted evidence to obtain an illegal conviction 

Case: 1:20-cv-03599 Document #: 40 Filed: 12/23/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:197
2 

resulting in his detention, list them in the caption of any amended complaint, and explain in the 

“Statement of Claim” what each individual did allegedly to violate Plaintiff’s rights. 

 If Plaintiff cannot name the officers involved in the alleged violation of due process, City 

of Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown is the appropriate nominal Defendant for the 

purpose of identifying unknown Defendants. See Donald v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d 

548, 556 (7th Cir. 1996); Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 789-90 (7th Cir. 

1995). Although Plaintiff may name Superintendent Brown for the purpose of identifying 

unknown Defendants, he asserts no claims against him to hold him personally liable under § 1983. 

See Perkins v. Lawson, 312 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2002). As the Seventh Circuit explained, 

limited discovery might eventually be needed to identify the appropriate defendants for Plaintiff’s 

putative Due Process claim. 

 Accordingly, if Plaintiff wants to proceed with this lawsuit, he must submit an amended 

complaint that states a federal claim against proper defendants. Any amended complaint must be 

submitted on the Court’s required form. See Local Rule 81.1. Any amended complaint also must 

comport with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 11 provides that by signing a 

pleading, a party represents to the Court that his claims are warranted by existing law and that the 

factual contentions have evidentiary support or likely will have evidentiary support after further 

investigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Plaintiff must write both the case number and the judge’s name 

on the amended complaint, sign it, and return it to the Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that an amended pleading supersedes the original complaint and must stand complete 

on its own. All allegations against all defendants must therefore be set forth in the amended 

complaint without reference to the original complaint. Any documents Plaintiff wants the Court to 

consider in its threshold review of the amended complaint also must be attached. Plaintiff is 

advised to keep a copy for his files. 

The Clerk is requested to provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form 

and instructions along with a copy of this order. Failure to submit an amended complaint by the 

date set forth above may result in dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to state a claim. 

SO ORDERED in No. 20-cv-03599. 

Date: December 23, 2021 

 JOHN F. KNESS 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 1:20-cv-03599 Document #: 40 Filed: 12/23/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:198