IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Elgin Jordan, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

-vs- ) No. 20-cv-4012

)

City of Chicago, Bryan Cox, Peter 

Theodore, David Salgado, and 

Rocco Pruger,

)

)

)

)

)

(Judge Gottschall)

Defendants. )

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by counsel and pursuant to leave of court, files this amended 

complaint * and alleges as follows:

1. This is a civil action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and § 1367.

2. Plaintiff Elgin Jordan is a resident of the Northern District of 

Illinois. 

3. Defendants Bryan Cox, Peter Theodore, David Salgado, and 

Rocco Pruger (“officer defendants”) were, at all relevant times, acting under 

color of their offices as Chicago police officers.

4. Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation.

* Plaintiff repleads his Monell claim in paragraphs 13-22. The remaining paragraphs are identical to 

those contained in the original complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:151
-2-

5. On March 31, 2015, the officer defendants arrested plaintiff in the 

area of West Roosevelt Road and South Springfield Avenue in Chicago

6. At the time of plaintiff’s arrest: 

a. None of the officer defendants had a warrant authorizing 

the arrest of plaintiff;

b. None of the officer defendants believed that a warrant had 

been issued authorizing the arrest of plaintiff;

c. None of the officer defendants had observed plaintiff 

commit any offense; and 

d. None of the officer defendants had received information 

from any source that plaintiff had committed an offense or 

was otherwise subject to arrest.

7. After arresting plaintiff, the individual officer defendants 

conspired, confederated, and agreed to fabricate a false story in an attempt 

to justify the unlawful arrest, to cover-up their wrongdoing, and to cause 

plaintiff to be wrongfully detained and prosecuted.

8. The false story fabricated by the individual officer defendants 

included their concocted claims that they had observed plaintiff selling drugs 

and that they had found drugs on plaintiff person. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:152
-3-

9. The acts of the individual officer defendants in furtherance of 

their scheme to frame plaintiff included the following:

a. One or more of the officer defendants prepared official 

police reports containing the false story, and each of the 

other individual officer defendants failed to intervene to 

prevent the violation of plaintiff’s rights;

b. One or more of the officer defendants attested to the false 

story through the official police reports, and each of the 

other individual officer defendants failed to intervene to 

prevent the violation of plaintiff’s rights; and

c. One or more of the officer defendants communicated the 

false story to prosecutors, and each of the other individual 

officer defendants failed to intervene to prevent the 

violation of plaintiff’s rights.

10. As a result of the above-described wrongful acts, plaintiff was 

deprived of his liberty while a pre-trial detainee, convicted of a felony, and 

then confined in the penitentiary for several years.

11. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed plaintiff’s conviction on 

August 26, 2019.

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:153
-4-

12. On December 13, 2019, the prosecutor dropped all charges 

against plaintiff.

13. At all relevant times,the Chicago Police Department maintained 

official policies, practices, and customs that facilitated, encouraged, and 

condoned the officer defendants’ misconduct.

14. Specifically, defendant City of Chicago has known and encouraged 

a “code of silence” among its police officers that required police officers to 

remain silent about police misconduct. An officer who violated the code of 

silence would be severely penalized by the Department. 

15. At all relevant times, police officers were trained at the Chicago 

Police Academy not to break the code of silence. Officers were instructed that 

“Blue is Blue. You stick together. If something occurs on the street that you 

don’t think is proper, you go with the flow. And after that situation, if you 

have an issue with that officer or what happened, you can confront them. If 

you don’t feel comfortable working with them anymore, you can go to the 

watch commander and request a new partner. But you never break the code 

of silence.”

16. This code of silence facilitated, encouraged, and enabled the 

individual officer defendants to engage in misconduct for many years, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:154
-5-

knowing that their fellow officers would cover for them and help conceal their 

wrongdoing.

17. In the case of Obrycka v. City of Chicago et al., No. 07-cv-2372 

(N.D. Ill.), a federal jury found that as of February 2007, “the City [of 

Chicago] had a widespread custom and/or practice of failing to investigate 

and/or discipline its officers and/or code of silence.”

18. In December 2015, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel 

acknowledged the continued existence of the code of silence within the 

Chicago Police Department; Emanuel, speaking in his capacity as Mayor, 

admitted that the code of silence leads to a culture where extreme acts of 

abuse are tolerated.

19. In April 2016, the City’s Police Accountability Task Force found 

that the code of silence “is institutionalized and reinforced by CPD rules and 

policies that are also baked into the labor agreements between the various 

police unions and the City.”

20. As determined by the United States Department of Justice in its 

official report entitled “Investigation of the Chicago Police Department,” 

January 13, 2017, at 75:

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:155
-6-

a. “One way to cover up police misconduct is when officers 

affirmatively lie about it or intentionally omit material 

facts.”

b. “The Mayor has acknowledged that a ‘code of silence’

exists within CPD, and his opinion is shared by current 

officers and former high-level CPD officials interviewed 

during our investigation.”

c. “Indeed, in an interview made public in December 2016, 

the President of the police officer’s union admitted to such 

a code of silence within CPD, saying ‘there’s a code of 

silence everywhere, everybody has it . . . so why would the 

[Chicago Police] be any different.’”

21. The United States Department of Justice concluded that “a code 

of silence exists, and officers and community members know it.” Report at 75.

22. On March 29, 2019, then-Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie 

Johnson publicly acknowledged the code of silence, stating that some Chicago 

police officers “look the other way” when they observe misconduct by other 

Chicago police officers. 

23. In October 2020, Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown 

acknowledged in public comments that the code of silence continues to exist.

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:156
-7-

24. The same code of silence in place during the time period at issue 

in the Obrycka case and recognized by the Mayor, Superintendent Johnson, 

Superintendent Brown, the Task Force, and the Department of Justice was 

also in place when plaintiff suffered the wrongful arrest, detention, and 

prosecution described above.

25. Before engineering plaintiff’s above-described wrongful arrest, 

detention, and prosecution, the officer defendants had been the subject of 

numerous formal complaints of official misconduct:

a. Cox had been the subject of at least 22 complaints;

b. Pruger had been the subject of at least 23 complaints;

c. Salgado had been the subject of at least 21 complaints;

d. Theodore had been the subject of at least 14 complaints;

26. Despite these many allegations of wrongdoing, and as the direct 

and proximate result of the code of silence none of these allegations of 

wrongdoing resulted in discipline sufficient to deter the continued 

wrongdoing.

27. By maintaining its code of silence, the City caused its officers to 

believe that they could engage in misconduct with impunity because their 

actions would never be thoroughly scrutinized.

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:157
-8-

28. The code of silence gave defendants Cox, Pruger, Salgado, and 

Theodore comfort and a sense that they could violate plaintiff’s rights and not 

be disciplined.

29. The code of silence emboldened defendants Cox, Pruger, 

Salgado, and Theodore to frame plaintiff.

30. The code of silence provided defendants Cox, Pruger, Salgado, 

and Theodore with good reason to believe that they would effectively be 

immune from any sanction for their wrongdoing.

31. The code of silence encourages Chicago police officers to frame 

innocent persons because the officers know they will not be meaningfully 

disciplined, and it encouraged defendants Cox, Pruger, Salgado, and 

Theodore to frame plaintiff.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s code of silence, 

defendants Cox, Theodore, Salgado concocted the false story and fabricated 

evidence against plaintiff.

33. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was deprived of rights 

secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of 

the United States.

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:158
-9-

34. As a supplemental state law claim against defendant City of 

Chicago only: as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was subjected to a 

malicious prosecution under Illinois law.

35. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that appropriate compensatory and 

punitive damages be awarded against the officer defendants, that 

appropriate compensatory damages only be awarded against defendant City 

of Chicago, and that fees and costs be taxed against all defendants.

/s/ Joel A. Flaxman

Joel A. Flaxman

ARDC No. 6292818

Kenneth N. Flaxman

200 S Michigan Ave Ste 201

Chicago, IL 60604-2430

(312) 427-3200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-04012 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:159