Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
BOYDEN v. TROKEN
January 8, 1973
NORMAN BOYDEN, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES TROKEN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action instituted pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Jurisdiction of this
Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The amount in controversy is alleged to exceed the sum of
$10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
The plaintiff, Norman Boyden, is a citizen of the United
States who resides in Chicago, Illinois. The defendant Chicago
police officers are James Troken, Joseph McMahon, H. Berge,
various John Does whose names and identities are presently
unknown, the Chicago Police Superintendent James B. Conlisk,
Jr., and the Commander of the 1st Chicago Police District Paul
In the complaint the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the
1. The defendants are employees of the City of
Chicago who deprived the plaintiff of his
civil rights under the color of state law.
2. On or about August 10, 1970 at Chicago Police
Headquarters, 1121 S. State, the plaintiff
after having been arrested was struck, beaten
pushed, assaulted, and battered by all police
officer defendants except Conlisk and
3. This infliction of summary physical
punishment deprived the plaintiff of due
process and caused him to suffer bodily
4. The plaintiff was denied full and equal
protection of the law. More specifically
plaintiff alleges that he was arrested
without just, probable or lawful cause;
deprived of his liberty until he could post
bond; and was thereby required to defend
himself against such improper charges and
incur the expense of such a defense.
5. That certain unknown Chicago Police officers
referred to as John Does knew of the above
described wrongs but failed to prevent or aid
in the prevention of those wrongs.
6. The defendant James B. Conlisk, Jr. had the
power to then and there prevent or aid in the
prevention of the commission of those wrongs
and either neglected or refused to do so.
7. Two or more of the defendants, including
possibly Conlisk and McLaughlin, conspired to
deprive the plaintiff of the rights,
privileges, and immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
The plaintiff seeks damages totaling over $300,000.
Defendants Conlisk and McLaughlin in support of their Motion
for Summary Judgment contend that there is no question that
they did not personally participate in any of the acts alleged
in the complaint and thus that the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted as to them. Both
Conlisk and McLaughlin have signed affidavits stating that
they did not personally arrest the plaintiff nor did they
direct, participate, or ...
Buy This Entire Record For