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.

Moore v. City of Chicago

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 4, 2016

PHILIP MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, and Detention Aid ANTHONY F. JANTKE, #110620, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

         This action by Philip Moore ("Moore") advances a 42 U.S.C. 1983 ("Section 1983") claim of excessive force against Anthony Jantke ("Jantke"), described in Complaint ¶ 6 as "a Chicago Detention Aide who works for the Chicago Police Department, " coupled with three state law claims advanced under the supplemental jurisdiction provision of 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). One of those state law claims (Count II, sounding in assault and battery) is also advanced against Jantke, while the other two (Count III, sounding in respondeat superior, and Count IV, seeking indemnification) are asserted against the City itself. Jantke and the City have filed a joint Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to Moore's Complaint, and this memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the problematic aspects of all but one of the ADs.

         Although the caselaw applying Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(c) uniformly applies the principle that such defenses must accept as true all of a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations (in that respect, see also App'x ¶ 5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)), this Court all too often finds that responsive pleadings by the Chicago Corporation Counsel's office are not on the same page with that concept in their responsive pleadings. In this instance the most relevant substantive allegations in Moore's Complaint are these:

10. At the 19th District, without any justifiable provocation, Detention Aid Jantke slammed Plaintiff face-down onto the hard floor of the police station while Plaintiff's hands were behind his back.
11. Plaintiff's face hit the ground with such force that he was rendered unconscious and suffered a serious wound to his face that required medical treatment.
* * *
17. The misconduct described in this Count[1] was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and with willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
18. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
* * *
21. In the manner described above, the conduct of Defendant Jantke, acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment, constituted unjustified and offensive physical contact, undertaken willfully and wantonly, proximately causing Plaintiff's bodily injuries.
22. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
23. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness and reckless indifference to the rights of others.

         All of those paragraphs are denied by Jantke and, upon information and belief, by the City.

         Despite the already-stated principles governing the proper use of ADs, AD I purports to advance a qualified immunity ...


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.