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 the
waiver of all petitioner's claims against the police is
The defendants, Juanita Wood and James B. Conlisk, Jr., in
support of their motion for summary judgment contend (1) that
the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and
parties; (2) from the facts alleged in the complaint,
plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against these two defendants; and (3) that they are
not proper party defendants in this action.
Defendants Carey and Stokes, in support of their motion for
a more definite statement make the following three
contentions. The complaint fails to set forth any unlawful or
illegal reason for the plaintiff's arrest by Officer Carey or
Captain Stokes; plaintiff has failed to sufficiently specify
what occurred at the 21st District Police Station, or how the
defendants Carey and Stokes violated her civil rights; and the
plaintiff's conclusionary and vague allegations prevents the
defendants from properly answering or furnishing other
It is the opinion of this Court that:
1. The plaintiff's cause of action, arising from the alleged
unconstitutionality of Chapter 38 § 206-5 of the Illinois
Revised Statutes, and plaintiff's request for the convening of
a three-judge Court should be dismissed because the plaintiff
has failed to bring an action against the proper defendant.
2. The plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action
against defendants Juanita Wood and James B. Conlisk, Jr.
Thus, summary judgment should be granted in their favor.
3. The plaintiff's complaint is sufficient as to the
defendants Carey and Stokes.
I. NO THREE-JUDGE PANEL SHOULD BE CONVENED BECAUSE THE NAMED
DEFENDANTS ARE NOT PROPER PARTIES TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF § 206-5 OF CHAPTER 38.
It is well settled that the requirements for a three-judge
Court in an action seeking to enjoin a state officer, and to
have a state statute declared unconstitutional cannot be
satisfied by joining as named parties defendant state officers
whose actions, duties and powers are not connected with the
enforcement or implementation of the challenged statute. Moody