United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
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.
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 was objectively
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and with
willful indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional
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.
those paragraphs are denied by Jantke and, upon information
and belief, by the City.
the already-stated principles governing the proper use of
ADs, AD I purports to advance a qualified immunity ...