The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes on defendants' motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and on the defendants' motion for a more definite statement.
This is a civil rights action instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff requests that a three-judge District
Court be convened under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2281 and § 2284 to
determine the constitutionality of § 206-5 of Chapter 38 of the
Illinois Revised Statutes.
The plaintiff, Martha Ashenhurst, is a minor and a citizen
of the United States of America. The defendants are John Carey
and James J. Stokes, Chicago Police Officers, James B.
Conlisk, Jr., Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department
and Juanita Wood, a Community Unit Director for the Division
of Correctional Services of the City of Chicago's Department
of Human Resources.
In the complaint the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the
1. The defendants, employees of the City of Chicago,
deprived the plaintiff of her civil rights under the color of
2. On May 16, at approximately 10:15 P.M. the defendant
Carey ordered and forced the plaintiff to accompany him to the
21st District Police Station and that the plaintiff was held
incommunicado by the defendants Carey and Stokes until 1:30
A.M. the following morning.
3. The defendants Carey and Stokes, without legal
justification deprived the plaintiff of her right of freedom
from illegal seizure of her person; freedom from unlawful
arrest without evidence in support thereof; freedom from
illegal detention; and freedom from physical abuse coercion,
4. While in the custody of the defendants Carey and Stokes,
the plaintiff was subjected to scurrilous and obscene
5. The plaintiff has not been able to determine the
specifics of the alleged charges which were filed against her,
or whether, if made, such charges are still pending.
6. The defendants James B. Conlisk, Jr. and Juanita Wood
have refused to return to the plaintiff all records incident
to the above arrest.
7. On August 4, 1971, the plaintiff petitioned for return
and expungement of these arrest records. This petition was
8. That the statute dealing with the expungement of arrest
records, Chapter 38 § 206-5 of the Illinois Revised Statutes is
unconstitutional because it requires that the petition for
expungement be accompanied by the petitioner's waiver of any
and all of his claims against the arresting officers.
The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $25,000 plus
the costs of maintaining this action. In addition, the
plaintiff requests a declaration that the defendants' refusal
to expunge violates the plaintiff's 14th Amendment rights, and
a ruling that the statute in question which requires ...