1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHICAGO FREEDOM SCHOOL, TONY )

ALVARADO-RIVERA, JACQULYN HAMILTON, )

 ) No:

Plaintiffs, )

) 

v. ) Judge

 )

CITY OF CHICAGO; SUPERINTEDENT OF THE ) 

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT DAVID )

O’NEILL BROWN; DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS )

AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION )

INVESTIGATORS JOSEPH W. SNEED, IRA )

NAVARRO, #338, RICHARD ROE AND )

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES, ) JURY DEMAND

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff, the Chicago Freedom School, (“CFS”), is a well-respected and beloved 

youth centered not for profit organization that provides critical support and educational 

programs to young people in the City of Chicago. On May 30, 2020, City of Chicago Officials

—including members of the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) and investigators from the 

City’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (“BACP”) — conducted an 

illegal raid of CFS’s premises in retaliation for CFS’s support of the young people who, on that 

day, were protesting the unrelenting police violence, anti-Black racism and white supremacy in

Chicago and throughout the U.S. Chicago officials then imposed upon CFS an unlawful cease 

and desist order that subjects its employees to the threat of arrest for engaging in legal, 

constitutionally protected activity. 

2. CFS and Plaintiffs Tony Alvarado-Rivera, CFS’s Executive Director, and 

Jacqulyn Hamilton, CFS’s Wellness Director, by and through their attorneys, file this complaint

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
2

against the City of Chicago, Superintendent Brown and individually named CPD officers and 

BACP investigators. This lawsuit seeks to enforce the Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and 

Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 

Illinois state law, including the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, 740 ILCS 23/5. Plaintiffs seek 

declaratory and injunctive relief so that CFS employees can continue their vitally important

work supporting the development of Chicago’s young people without the threat of arrest and 

further retaliatory action. The individual Plaintiffs individually seek monetary damages against 

the City of Chicago and individual City employees for the harm they incurred as a result of the 

City’s unlawful actions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The actions of the Defendants violated the United States Constitution, the Civil 

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as Illinois law. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a) and over the Plaintiffs’ state law 

claims pursuant to the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The parties reside, or, 

at the time the events took place, resided in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to 

Plaintiffs’ claims also occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Chicago Freedom School (“CFS”), inspired by the Civil Rights era

freedom schools in Mississippi, is a youth centered not for profit organization founded in 2007. 

CFS provides a space where young people and adult allies can study the work of past 

movements, deepen their understanding of current social problems, build new coalitions, and 

develop strategies for change. CFS supports new generations of critical and independent 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:2
3

thinking young people who use their unique experiences and power to create a just world. CFS 

has an office at 719 S. State Street, Chicago, Illinois and it has a history of serving as a safe 

space for young people of color in the downtown area. It has frequently opened its doors to 

serve as a warming center, healing space, and a place where young people can decompress and 

rest in times of crisis.

6. Plaintiff Tony Alvarado-Rivera is the newly hired Executive Director of the CFS. 

On May 30, 2020, he was present at CFS’s premises.

7. Plaintiff Jacqulyn Hamilton is the Wellness Director at the CFS. On May 30, 

2020, she was present at CFS’s premises.

8. Defendants Joseph W. Sneed, Ira Navarro and Richard Roe are investigators in 

the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (“BACP”), which is an agency of 

the City of Chicago. These Defendants were on duty and acting under color of law and within 

the scope of their employment with the City of Chicago at the time of this incident. They are 

sued in their individual capacities.

9. Defendant Does were, at the time of this incident, duly appointed Chicago police 

officers. These Defendants were on duty, acting under color of law and within the scope of their 

employment with the City of Chicago at the time of this incident. They are each sued in their 

individual capacities.

10. Defendant David O’Neill Brown is the Superintendent of the CPD. At all times 

relevant to the events at issue in this case, Defendant Brown was employed by the CPD. As such, 

he was acting under color of law. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this case, 

Defendant Brown promulgated practices of the CPD and is responsible for supervising all CPD 

officers and managing all operations at the CPD. He is sued here in his official capacity.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:3
4

11. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation, duly incorporated under 

the laws of the State of Illinois. It is authorized under the laws of the State of Illinois to maintain 

the CPD, which acts as the City’s agent in the area of municipal law enforcement and the BACP 

which acts as the City’s agent in the area of regulation and enforcement of municipal codes. The 

CPD and BACP Defendants are agents of the City of Chicago. The City is ultimately 

responsible for the actions of both the CPD and the BACP. It is the employer and principal of 

the Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe, the Doe Police Officers and Superintendent Brown. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. On May 30, 2020, the Chicago Freedom School was open serving as a drop-in 

center in the midst of the massive demonstrations in Chicago’s downtown area attended by 

thousands of people who were protesting the recent police murders of George Floyd, Breonna 

Taylor, Tony McDade and other Black people in the City of Chicago and across the U.S.

13. The demonstrations on May 30th began early in the day with several thousands of 

people joining car caravans at different locations around the City of Chicago, driving downtown 

to converge at Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois at 2 p.m.

14. Prior to 2 p.m., several hundreds of protestors also gathered at the Federal Plaza 

on foot and shortly thereafter there were several demonstrations throughout the downtown area 

of Chicago, including on Lake Shore Drive, State Street, across from Trump Tower on Wacker 

Drive and along Michigan Avenue in the River North Area.

15. The demonstrations were attended and monitored by a heavy police presence, 

with many officers clad in riot gear and carrying batons. At various points in the demonstration, 

members of the CPD became aggressive and at times violent, hitting people with their batons 

and causing several protestors serious injuries requiring medical attention. CPD injured a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:4
5

number of young people affiliated with CFS. 

16. At 5:30 p.m., CFS announced on Facebook that it was open and providing people

a place for “quick release and restoration,” access to a bathroom, phone chargers, as well as 

pizza, stating it was prioritizing space and services for young people and people of color. CFS 

suggested that if people were interested in donating, they could make a small donation at their 

website to facilitate CFS ordering pizza and bottled water since they were out of stock.1

17. Shortly thereafter, at around 6 p.m., the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”)

suspended both its subway and bus service in the downtown area of Chicago.2

18. Throughout the afternoon and evening, City employees also shut down portions 

and then the entirety of Lake Shore Drive in the downtown area and there were several other 

road closures which resulted in a lack of taxi and ride share drivers driving to the downtown

area.

19. Minutes before 7 p.m. that day, CFS posted again on Facebook thanking people

for helping CFS open up. The post also thanked people for donating which enabled CFS 

employees and volunteers to purchase pizza, snacks and water. The post indicated that CFS was 

committed to remaining open until 9 p.m. 

20. The CFS’s 7 p.m. post also included photos depicting that CFS was serving 

commercially bought take-out pizza in take-out boxes, and that they were offering juice packs, 

Clif bars, bags of peanuts and other snacks. In the background of the food, there were signs 

stating, “Black Lives Matter” and “Free Them All.”

 

1 CFS also announced it was providing individuals with masks and advised people to practice 

social distancing.

2 The Office of Emergency Communications (“OEMC”) announced via tweet that there were no 

CTA trains or buses running in the Chicago Loop or River North area. In order for people to 

access CTA transportation, they would have to walk miles away from the Loop and River North 

areas to 22nd and Wentworth, Grand Avenue and Halstead or North and Clark.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:5
6

21. None of the food items depicted in the pictures or distributed at CFS were 

prepared or packaged at the CFS. 

22. Scores of young people, the majority of whom were Black and Brown participants

in the protests, visited the CFS for rest, services and the supplies being offered by the CFS. A

few of the young people received bandages and antiseptic to tend to wounds they sustained 

during the demonstrations.

23. At approximately 8:20 p.m. on May 30th, Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced at a 

press conference that she was imposing a curfew for the City of Chicago set to begin that very 

same night at 9 p.m. The curfew remained in effect until 6 a.m. the following day.

24. Mayor Lightfoot did not issue a tweet announcing the 9 p.m. curfew until 8:40 

p.m. that same evening. Chicago’s OEMC did not issue a tweet announcing the 9 p.m. curfew 

until 9:04 p.m. that same evening.

25. Many individuals who were present at the protests did not receive any notice of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:6
7

the curfew until after it went into effect.

3

26. At some point in the evening on May 30th, the bridges over the Chicago River on 

Michigan and Wabash Avenues, State and Dearborn Streets were raised, splitting protestors 

from one another and preventing people from being able to get home if they lived south of the 

river. 

27. In light of suspended CTA service, road closures, lack of taxis and ride share 

services transporting people from the downtown area, and the sudden imposition of a curfew,

several people in downtown area, including scores of youth who live on the south and west 

sides, had no viable ways of getting home.

28. In response, CFS reached out to supportive community members and asked for

people to transport youth home from CFS’s premises home. 

29. Young people at the CFS were using social media to inform others that the CFS 

was arranging for such rides, in addition to providing youth access to food, water and other 

supplies.

30. At approximately 11 p.m. that night, individual Defendants from the BACP drove

to 719 S. State with a Chicago Police Squad, whose mars lights were on, and parked next to the 

building. 

31. Upon their arrival at the building, Defendant Does, who were in CPD uniforms, 

armed, and wearing their riot helmets, walked up to Plaintiff Hamilton who was present at the 

front entrance of the building.

 

3 The curfew remained in effect until June 7, 2020. According to the Chicago Sun Times, over 

400 people were arrested for curfew violations and of those 400, 75% of the people arrested were 

Black. See Matthew Hendrickson & Matt Kiefer, Blacks make up 75% of those charged with 

violating city curfew, data shows, Chicago Sun Times (Jun 14, 2020),

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/14/21286741/chicago-city-curfew-african-americanarrest-aclu.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:7
8

32. Defendant Does demanded Plaintiff Hamilton allow them to enter the building 

and into the CFS’s premises. 

33. A Defendant Doe claimed that they received a report that CFS was housing and 

feeding protestors.

34. Plaintiff Hamilton tried to talk with the Defendant Does and explain the services 

provided by CFS and ask why they needed to search the CFS’s premises. 

35. The Defendant Does grew increasingly aggressive, repeatedly demanding to enter 

the building and insisting that Plaintiff Hamilton had to let them in.

36. At one point, Defendant Sneed arrived at the entrance of the building and walked 

in between Plaintiff Hamilton and the Defendant Does and began talking with Hamilton. 

37. Defendant Sneed told the Defendant Does to calm down and that he would handle 

this.

38. As Plaintiff Hamilton was asking questions of Defendant Sneed and continuing to 

refuse the individual Defendants entry, one of the Defendant Does attempted to lunge at 

Plaintiff Hamilton.

39. Plaintiff Alvarado-Rivera joined Plaintiff Hamilton at the front entrance of the 

building and attempted to speak with the individual Defendants.

40. BACP Defendants informed Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton that the 

CFS was violating its business license and they needed to inspect CFS’s premises immediately. 

They also re-iterated that they received reports that the CFS was housing and feeding protestors. 

41. Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton repeatedly tried to explain to the 

individual Defendants that the CFS was a not for profit, and it was not a commercial business, 

to no avail. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:8
9

42. Plaintiff Alvarado-Rivera also tried to explain the purposes of the CFS and the 

fact that the CFS does not house any individuals.

43. The individual Defendants communicated in an insistent, disrespectful and 

intimidating manner. They refused to listen to Plaintiff Alvarado-Rivera’s description of the

CFS’s activities and demanded entry to the CFS’s premises. 

44. The Defendant Does continued their aggressive push to enter the building and the

CFS’s premises declaring words to the effect of let’s go, we need to get moving, and we’ve 

been out here long enough.

45. The individual Defendants did not have a warrant to enter and search the CFS’s 

premises.

46. There was no probable cause, reasonable suspicion or legal justification to 

warrant the individual Defendants search of the CFS’ premises.

47. Neither Plaintiffs Hamilton, Alvarado-Rivera nor any other person present at CFS 

prepared any food or drink that was provided to any individuals present at CFS on May 30th. 

48. BACP defendants, accompanied by Defendant Does, gained access and searched

the CFS’s premises, taking pictures of the interior of the CFS’s premises, including the pizza 

boxes and all the pictures on the wall. 

49. The individual Defendants did not find any evidence that employees or volunteers 

of the CFS were preparing food at the CFS. 

50. Despite the lack of any evidence that food was being prepared at the CFS, 

Defendants Sneed and Navarro, issued an order to “CEASE AND DESIST” to the CFS in which 

they falsely claimed that the CFS failed to comply with Chi. Mun. Code 4-4-10 by “Preparing 

and serving food on the premises not described in the license for which a Retail Food 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:9
10

Establishment Code 1106 is required.”4

51. The order to “CEASE AND DESIST” also threatened that the CFS would be 

charged between $500.00 and $1,000.00 every single day if the CFS continued in the alleged

violations of the Chi. Mun. Code.

52. The “CEASE AND DESIST” order also directed the Superintendent of the Police 

to “arrest any and all agents, and employees of the CFS if found engaging in in the business or 

occupation of Preparing and serving food on premises, not described on license without the 

required Retail Food Establishment license, properly displayed on said premises.” The order 

indicated that “[t]his order shall remain in full force and effect until the required license has been 

procured.”5

53. As the individual Defendants were leaving the premises, a Defendant from the 

BACP threatened Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton that if they returned and found the 

food observed on the premises, which included pizza slices located in the restaurant-bought pizza 

boxes, that Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton would be arrested.

54. The individual Defendants’ actions, including their aggressive behavior, illegal 

search, threats of future arrest and shutting down CFS alarmed, frightened and intimidated 

Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton causing them mental distress, anguish, and anger.

55. As part of the CFS’s programming, it regularly provides food to its youth and 

participants. This food is not prepared and served by the CFS nor is it sold to people who 

 

4Pursuant to the Chi. Mun. Code 4-8-10, a “Retail Food Establishment” is defined as “any . . . 

place or establishment occupied and used as a place of business for the purpose of serving, 

storing, selling, offering for sale . . . any article of food, drink . . . ultimately used for or intended 

to be used for human consumption.”

5 While the individual Defendants were demanding entry into the CFS’s premises, and later 

during the search, individuals down the street were breaking into and removing items from the 7-

11 and Urban Grocers. The individuals Defendants did not nothing to stop them. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:10
11

participate in their programs. Rather, it is purchased by employees and volunteers at restaurants 

and stores and provided to youth and others in the CFS’s space for free. 

56. Distribution of commercially prepared food is a routine practice at youth 

organizations, including at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Chicago, YMCAs, and Boy or Girl Scout 

troops.

57. Upon information and belief, the BACP has not issued cease and desist orders to 

other youth organizations in the City of Chicago for providing their youth commercially 

prepared food even though they do not have a Retail Food Establishment License, nor has the 

BACP required other youth serving organizations to secure Retail Food Establishment Licenses. 

58. While BACP members and other Chicago Health Officials search other 

restaurants and food establishments to ensure they are abiding by the Chi. Mun. Code, they 

frequently do not do it with the threatening and intimidating presence of uniformed, armed 

Chicago Police Officers. Rather, they provide notice to the establishment and set a date and time

when the inspection will occur, none of which occurred in this instance. 

59. Given all these circumstances of the BACP investigators and Defendant Does’

search of the CFS’s premises and the issuing of the unjustifiable “Cease and Desist” order, it is 

evident that the Defendants were retaliating against the CFS for its support of young Black and 

Brown protestors who were demonstrating against racist police violence. 

Allegations against the City of Chicago and the Superintendent of the Chicago Police 

Department

60. As fully described above, on May 30, 2020, the City of Chicago imposed a 

number of restrictions on protestors with the full knowledge that the protesters’ demands 

included an end to racist, repressive, corrupt policing and focused on the anti-Black racism and 

disparities in the use of excessive force—including use of lethal force and arrest rates in the city 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:11
12

of Chicago.

61. Upon information and belief, City of Chicago agents monitor the social media 

accounts of activist organizations that criticize the CPD, including, but not limited to the CFS. 

Many of the groups monitored by the City of Chicago are led by Black and Brown people. 

62. The City’s raid of CFS garnered widespread news coverage.6In addition, through 

counsel, CFS sent BACP correspondence requesting that it rescind the cease and desist order. 

High level City of Chicago Officials—including those at the BACP and the CPD — are 

therefore aware of the cease and desist order imposed against the CFS. The City has failed to 

take any action to rescind the order or otherwise cure the Plaintiffs’ injuries. 

63. Further, CPD Superintendent David Brown, who is directly empowered to enforce 

the cease and desist order, has failed to take any action to prohibit CPD officers from enforcing 

the unlawful cease and desist order imposed upon the CFS. 

Count I

42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment Claim

(Plaintiff CFS against the City of Chicago for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)

64. Plaintiff CFS re-alleges all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in 

this count.

65. Plaintiff CFS was engaged in lawful First Amendment activity when providing 

support and space to protestors who were demonstrating against racist police violence on May 

 

6

Justin Laurence, The Chicago Freedom School Offered Food, Water And Rest To Weary 

Protestors Trapped Downtown – And The City Cited Them For It, Block Club Chicago (Jun 8, 

2020, 8:10 AM CT), https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/08/the-chicago-freedom-schooloffered-food-water-and-rest-to-weary-protesters-trapped-downtown-and-the-city-cited-them-forit/; Tonya Francisco, City cites Chicago Freedom School after they provided meals to protestors 

in Loop, WGN9 (Jun 8, 2020, 6:21 PM CT), https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/city-citeschicago-freedom-school-after-they-provided-meals-to-protesters-in-loop/; Maya Dukmasova, 

Police abolitionists find fuel in the protests, Chicago Reader (Jun 1, 2020), 

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/george-floyd-protests-policeabolition/Content?oid=80349691.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:12
13

30, 2020 and posting about its activities on social media. 

66. The actions of Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does described above violate 

the Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, political expression and assembly guaranteed by the 

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that CFS was abruptly prevented from 

further exercising its rights and suffered retaliation for having exercised its rights. 

67. The Defendant City of Chicago engages in an ongoing violation of the CFS’s

First Amendment rights by leaving the cease and desist order in effect against it thereby 

subjecting CFS employees to the threat of arrest if they engage in activities essential to the 

CFS’s mission and fines against the CFS that could effectively shut the organization down as a 

small not for profit.

61. Unless restrained by order of this Court, the CFS’ First Amendment rights will 

continue to be violated. CFS seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the City to prevent 

the continued violation of its constitutional rights, plus the costs of this action, attorneys’ fees 

and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just

Count II

42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment Claim

(All Plaintiffs against all Defendants for Damages)

68. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in this 

count.

69. Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton were engaged in lawful First 

Amendment activity when providing support and space to protestors who were demonstrating 

against racist police violence on May 30, 2020.

70. The actions of Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does described above violate 

the Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, political expression and assembly guaranteed by the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:13
14

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that Plaintiffs were abruptly prevented 

from further exercising their rights and suffered retaliation for having exercised their rights. 

71. The City of Chicago further infringes on the Plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by the 

First Amendment to the United States Constitution in threatening to shut down CFS and arrest 

Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton for engaging in protected legal activity.

72. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was 

undertaken intentionally, with malice and knowing disregard for Plaintiffs’ clearly established 

constitutional rights.

73. As a result of the unjustified and unconstitutional conduct of the Defendants, 

Plaintiffs suffered damages, including but not limited to, ongoing infringement of their First 

Amendment rights, caused the loss of speech and expression, as set forth more fully above, 

actual damages, humiliation, pain, fear and emotional distress.

74. The actions of these Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the 

violations of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants 

Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does for compensatory damages jointly and severally, and punitive 

damages, plus the costs of this action, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as this Court deems 

equitable and just.

Count III

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment Claim

(Plaintiff Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton against all Individual Defendants for Damages) 

75. Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs 

and incorporate them in this count. 

76. Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does’ search of the CFS’s premises without 

a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion or legal justification to do so, violated the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:14
15

Plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be 

free from an unreasonable illegal search.

77. The aforementioned actions of Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does were 

the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations set forth above.

78. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was 

undertaken intentionally, with malice and knowing disregard for Plaintiffs’ clearly established 

constitutional rights.

79. As a result of the unjustified and unconstitutional conduct of the Defendants, 

Plaintiffs suffered damages, including but not limited to, infringement of their Fourth

Amendment rights, as set forth more fully above, actual damages, humiliation, pain, fear and 

emotional distress.

80. The actions of these individually named Defendants were the direct and 

proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs AlvaradoRivera and Hamilton seek judgment against Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does for 

compensatory damages jointly and severally, and punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, 

attorneys’ fees and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT IV

42 USC §1983 Claim for Conspiracy

(All Plaintiffs against all Individual Defendants for Damages)

81. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in this 

count.

82. The actions of Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does as set forth above 

constituted a conspiracy and/or joint action under the First and Fourth Amendments to illegally 

search CFS, issue a baseless Cease and Desist order to Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:15
16

Hamilton, that threatens their liberty and seeks to prevent them from exercising their 

Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

83. Each of the Defendants, acting in concert with other known and unknown coconspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful 

means. Each of the Defendants named in this count took concrete steps to enter into an 

agreement to unlawfully violate the Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

84. The actions of Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does in conspiring to deprive 

Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton of their rights were the direct and proximate cause 

of the violations of Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton’s rights as set forth above.

85. Each individual Defendant is therefore liable for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights 

by any other individual Defendant. 

86. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiffs suffered 

damages, including mental distress, anguish, humiliation, violations of their First, Fourth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights, and legal expenses, as set forth more fully above.

COUNT V

Illinois State Law Claims for Violations of the Illinois Constitution

(All Plaintiffs against all Defendants for Damages)

(Plaintiff CFS against the City of Chicago for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)

87. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in this 

count.

88. The actions taken by Defendants City of Chicago, Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does

denied Plaintiffs their state constitutional rights to be free from an unreasonable search; to 

expression and assembly in a peaceable manner; to due process and equal protection of the laws, 

as provided by the Illinois Constitution, Article I, sections 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and were a direct and 

proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries as set forth above.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:16
17

89. The actions of these Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the 

violations of Plaintiffs’ Illinois State Constitutional Rights. Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and 

Hamilton seek judgment against the Defendants City of Chicago, Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does 

for declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages jointly and severally, and punitive 

damages, plus the costs of this action, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as this Court deems 

equitable and just.

COUNT VI

Illinois State Law Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton against all Individual Defendants for damages)

90. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in this 

count.

91. The conduct and actions of Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does set forth 

above were extreme and outrageous, were done intentionally, willfully and wantonly, and/or 

knowing that there was a high probability that their conduct would cause Plaintiffs AlvaradoRivera and Hamilton severe emotional distress as set forth above.

92. As a direct and proximate cause of the extreme and outrageous conduct of 

Defendants Sneed, Navarro and Does, Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton were injured and 

experienced severe emotional distress constituting intentional infliction of emotional distress 

under Illinois State law.

93. Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton seek judgment against Defendants 

Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does for compensatory damages plus the costs of this action and such 

other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:17
18

COUNT VII

Illinois State Law Claim for Conspiracy

(All Plaintiffs against all Individual Defendants for Damages

94. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in this 

count.

95. Defendants Sneed, Navarro and Does, together reached an understanding, 

engaged in and continue to engage in a course of conduct, and otherwise jointly acted and/or 

conspired among and between themselves to violate Plaintiffs CFS’s, Alvarado-Rivera’s and 

Hamilton’s rights guaranteed by the Illinois constitution and to intentionally inflict severe 

emotional distress on Plaintiffs Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton.

96. In furtherance of this conspiracy or conspiracies, Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe

and Does, together with their un-sued co-conspirators, committed the overt acts set forth above.

97. The conspiracy or conspiracies were and are continuing in nature.

98. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiffs suffered 

damages, including mental distress, anguish, humiliation, violations of their First and Fourth 

Amendment rights, and legal expenses, as set forth more fully above. 

COUNT VIII

Violation of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, ILCS 23/5

(All Plaintiffs against all Defendants)

99. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in this 

count.

100. The Defendants targeted the CFS and its employees for a regulatory enforcement 

action with the knowledge that CFS serves predominately Black and Brown young people and 

supports the leadership development of organizers and activists who advocate against the 

racially motivated and disparate policies and practices of the CPD. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:18
19

101. The Defendants are aware of the fact that other youth groups throughout the City 

of Chicago—and particularly those youth groups that serve predominately white youth—

provide youth participants with commercially prepared food, pizza and other food items as part 

of their programming. These groups are not subject to any form of enforcement action, searches 

or seizures. 

102. The criteria and methods that the BACP applied to target the CFS with a raid and 

regulatory enforcement action created a disparate impact on Black and Latinx youth and their 

allies, in violation of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2013, section 5(a)(2).

COUNT IX

Illinois State Law Respondeat Superior Claim

103. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing paragraphs 1-63 and 88-102.

104. Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does were, at all times material to this 

complaint, employees of the Defendant City of Chicago, were acting within the scope of their 

employment; and their acts, which violated state law, are directly chargeable to the Defendant 

City under state law pursuant to respondeat superior.

105. Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton demand judgment against the City 

of Chicago for any and all compensatory damages awarded on their state law claims, plus the 

costs of this action and whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT X

745 ILCS 10/9-102 Claim Against Defendant City of Chicago

106. Plaintiffs re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in this 

count.

107. Defendants Sneed, Navarro, Roe and Does committed the acts alleged above 

under color of law and in the scope of employment as employees of the City of Chicago.

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:19
20

108. Pursuant to 745 ILCS § 10/9-102, and otherwise pursuant to law, Plaintiffs CFS, 

Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton demand judgment against Defendant City of Chicago in the 

amount awarded to the Plaintiffs against any and all Defendants as compensatory damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, and for whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable 

and just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs CFS, Alvarado-Rivera and Hamilton demand a trial by jury on all counts, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and the Seventh Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: June 25, 2020 

By: /s/ Joey L. Mogul

Joey L. Mogul

One of the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Joey L. Mogul

People’s Law Office

1180 N. Milwaukee Ave.

Chicago, IL 60642

773-235-0070

joeymogul@peopleslawoffice.com

Sheila Bedi

Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law 

375 East Chicago Avenue

Chicago, IL 60611-3609

312-503-8576

sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu

Counsel for the Chicago Freedom School, Tony Alvarado-Rivera and Jacqulyn Hamilton

Case: 1:20-cv-03718 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:20