The opinion of the court was delivered by: Decker, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Craig S. Strauss (Strauss), brought this suit against the
City of Chicago (the City) and an unnamed police officer (Officer Doe).
Strauss alleges that defendants violated his rights under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, the first and fourteenth amendments to the United
States Constitution, and the constitution and statutes of the State of
Illinois. The case is before the court on the City's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a federal claim. Strauss contests the motion only
with respect to count I.*fn1
Count I alleges that Officer Doe arrested Strauss without probable
cause on March 14, 1983. Complaint ¶ 5. Strauss also claims that
Officer Doe struck him in the face. Strauss alleges the following with
respect to the City:
b. Had a custom or practice of allowing Chicago Police
Officers, such as Defendant JOHN DOE, to remain
cloaked with legal authority and employed as Chicago
Police Officers, even though their experience on the
job showed them to be brutal in nature and frequent
violators of civil rights of persons in custody.
c. Had a custom or practice of allowing those in
custody to be silenced by causing them to be beaten
and physically abused.
d. Had a custom and practice of conducting
investigations against police officers, by which said
officers would be exonerated of any fault as a result
of the investigative procedures employed by the police
department; and which would result in the continued
employment and cloak of authority upon brutal officers
such as Chicago Police Officer John Doe.
8. As a proximate result of one or more of the
aforesaid, Plaintiff Craig S. Strauss suffered and
will continue to suffer injuries of a personal and
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must "take [the
plaintiff's] allegations to be true, and view them, together with
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff." Powe v. City of Chicago, 664 F.2d 639, 642 (7th Cir.
1981). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is improper unless "it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
Strauss may not sue the City directly under the U.S. Constitution.
Congress intended § 1983 to be the exclusive federal remedy for the
unconstitutional actions of city officials. Williams v. Bennett,
689 F.2d 1370, 1390 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104
S.Ct. 335, 78 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983); Ward v. Caulk, 650 F.2d 1144, 1147-1148
(9th Cir. 1981); Molina v. Richardson, 578 F.2d 846, 850-854 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1048, 99 ...