United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
EDDIE L. BOLDEN, Plaintiff,
CITY OF CHICAGO, MICHAEL BAKER, JOSEPH BARNES, EDWARD HICKS, MICHAEL KILL, JAMES OLIVER, ANGELO PESAVENTO, MICHAEL ROWAN, EDWARD SIWEK, BARBARA TEMPLE and AS-YET UNKNOWN CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendants.
Susan E. Cox Mag.
OF CHICAGO Elan Shpigel John F. Gibbons Greenberg Traurig,
LLP Attorneys for Defendant City of Chicago
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF GUARANTY OF SATISFACTION OF
Milton I. Shadur Judge.
City of Chicago (the “City”), by its counsel of
record, respectfully moves this Court to enter the proposed
“Defendant City of Chicago's Guaranty of
Satisfaction of Judgment, ” (“City's
Guaranty”) attached as Exhibit A, thereby resolving all
matters relating to Plaintiff Eddie Bolden's
(“Bolden”) Monell claims. In support
thereof, the City states as follows:
Bolden brought this lawsuit against the City and current or
former police officers Michael Baker, Joseph Barnes, Edward
Hicks, Michael Kill, James Oliver, Angelo Pesavento, Michael
Rowan, Edward Siwek, and Barbara Temple (the “Defendant
Officers”), arising from Bolden's arrest,
conviction, and incarceration for the murders of Derrick
Frazier and Ledell Clayton, and the attempted murder and
aggravated battery of Clifford Frazier. Bolden brings claims
for violation of due process, failure to intervene,
conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights, false arrest and
imprisonment, federal malicious prosecution, as well as
various state law claims against the Defendant Officers. Dkt.
No. 40 at ¶¶ 63-85, 93-115.
of the theories of liability that Bolden asserted against the
City is under Monell v. Department of Social Servs City
of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), alleging that the
City's policies and practices were the underlying causes
of the constitutional violations purportedly suffered by
Bolden. See Dkt. No. 40 (Pl.'s Compl. at
¶¶ 86-92). Specifically, Bolden predicates his
Monell claim on the City's allegedly
(1) conducting illegal or improperly coercive interrogations
of witnesses, suspects and arrestees; (2) manufacturing,
fabricating, or using improper suggestive tactics to obtain
false witness statements; (3) filing false reports and giving
false statements or testimony; (4) withholding, destroying or
suppressing evidence, including Brady material; and
(5) perpetuating, encouraging, and condoning a ‘code of
silence, ' pursuant to which Chicago Police Officers
refused to report or otherwise covered-up instances of police
misconduct. (Pl.'s Compl. at ¶ 88).
further alleges that the purported Monell violations
occurred because the City “declined to implement
sufficient training and/or any legitimate mechanism for
oversight or punishment of the Chicago Police Officers who
engaged in these practices, ” and largely blames the
existence of so-called “street files” as the
catalyst for these constitutional violations (Id. at
¶ 57 & 60).
During the status hearing on April 19, 2017, when asked by
the Court why Bolden needed to “include Monell
at all, ” Plaintiff's counsel admitted that Bolden
did not “need Monell” and would be
“willing to forego proceeding on the Monell
claim in the instant action.” See Transcript
of Proceedings in Bolden v. City of Chicago et al.,
17-cv-00417, before Hon. Milton I. Shadur, dated April 19,
2017, attached as Exhibit B; Letter from Ronald Safer to
Hon. Milton I. Shadur, attached as Exhibit C.
Based on Bolden's discovery requests to date, the
litigation and defense of Bolden's Monell claims
will involve laborious fact discovery, including costly
expert discovery - threatening to unduly complicate and delay
common-sense, pragmatic approach articulated by the Court,
and agreed to by the parties, favor granting this motion.
Granting the motion will avoid a lengthy and complex trial on
the City's Section 1983 liability, avoid undue prejudice
both to the Defendant Officers and the City, and relieve
Bolden of the burden of establishing the elements to prove
municipal liability if Bolden proves his constitutional
rights were violated by the Defendant Officers. See e.g.
Ackerman v. Allen et al., No. 16-CV-6199 (N.D. Ill. Apr.
27, 2017) (Bifurcating Monell claims was appropriate
because it served the interests of expediting litigation and
eliminating unfair prejudice).
Besides nominal damages not exceeding $1.00, Bolden would not
be entitled to any additional remedies if he prevailed
against the City on his Monell claim. See
745 ILCS 10/9-102; Medina v. City of Chicago, 100
F.Supp.2d 893, 895-96 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (“…a
prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983…case…gets
nothing more from suing the municipality under
Monell than he would get from suing just the
officers…As a result, ...