Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BOYDEN v. TROKEN

January 8, 1973

NORMAN BOYDEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES TROKEN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause comes on the motion of defendants, James B. Conlisk, Jr. and Paul McLaughlin for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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 McLaughlin.

In the complaint the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the following facts:

  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
      McLaughlin.
  3.  This infliction of summary physical
      punishment deprived the plaintiff of due
      process and caused him to suffer bodily
      injury.
  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 $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.