The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Evangeline Roscom ("Roscom") has sued the City of Chicago ("City") and
certain of its officials (collectively "City defendants") and the County
of Cook ("County") and certain of its officials ("individual County
defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), charging an
allegedly unlawful "strip search." City defendants and individual County
defendants*fn1 have both moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to
dismiss Roscom's Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"). For the reasons
stated in this memorandum opinion and order, City defendants' motion is
granted and individual County defendants' motion is denied. However the
claim for punitive damages against County itself is stricken.
In April 1980 Roscom was arrested on a Chicago streeteorner by Chicago
police officers Demetrio Pascual ("Pascual") and Diane Thompson
("Thompson"). Her arrest was pursuant to a warrant charging her with
deceptive practices (writing dishonored checks).
Roscom was brought to a police station, questioned on the charges,
fingerprinted and placed in a lock-up. Several hours later she
experienced severe chest pains and was taken to a hospital emergency room
for examination. Upon release from the hospital, Roscom was taken to Cook
County Jail, where her admission was processed and she was placed in a
Some time later Roscom was led from the cell with several other female
detainees and placed in a room. There she and the others were told to
remove all their clothing and bend over in a line before an unidentified
sheriff's matron ("Doe").*fn3 Without touching Roscom, Doe conducted a
visual search of Roscom's body while Roscom was naked and bent over in a
squat position. Roscom seeks $100,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive
damages. She does not seek equitable relief.
Complaint ¶¶ 4-5 allege only that Pascual and Thompson arrested
Roscom and Pascual questioned her. Roscom does not challenge the
lawfulness of her arrest. More importantly, Roscom does not connect
Pascual or Thompson in any way to the assertedly unconstitutional strip
search. That gap is fatal to Roscom's claims against City defendants.
In this respect the case is controlled by the principle recently
reconfirmed in Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1005 (7th Cir. 1982):
To recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must establish defendants' personal
responsibility for the claimed deprivation of a
There is no nexus, either directly or inferentially, between Pascual and
Thompson and the claimed constitutional deprivation-the strip search at
the County Jail.*fn4
It necessarily follows Roscom has also failed to state a claim against
Police Captain John Ryle ("Ryle") or Police Superintendent Richard
Brzeczek ("Brzeczek") or City itself. Because no Chicago police officer
has been connected to the strip search, no factual predicate exists for
potential liability of his or her supervisors (Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
371, 96 S.Ct. 598, 604, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976)) or of City (Monell, 486
U.S. at 694-95, 98 S.Ct. at 2037-38).
In sum Roscom's Complaint must be dismissed as to all ...