United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Z. Lee United States District Judge.
Maurice Hawks (“Hawks”) brings this pro
se action against a number of individually named Chicago
police officers (“Defendants”) in both their
official and individual capacities. Hawks alleges that
Defendants unlawfully arrested him, used excessive force,
violated his First Amendment rights, and failed to intervene
to prevent the deprivation of his constitutional rights, all
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also brings state
law claims for battery, false arrest imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution. Defendants move to dismiss the
complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“Rule”) 12(b)(6). For the reasons given below,
the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants'
Hawks, an African-American man, works as a collection agent
for the United States Department of Education, as well as an
ordained deacon and community activist. 2d Am. Compl. at 3,
ECF no. 52. On August 21, 2014, at approximately 9:30 p.m.,
Hawks arrived at 1000 Rush Street in Chicago, together with
his brother Anthony Hawks (“Anthony”) and another
friend. Id. at 4. The three separated and Hawks
began to talk with people there, as he had done many times
twenty minutes later, Hawks noticed a man standing by his
car. The man asked whose car it was, and Hawks walked over,
expecting that the man was curious because Hawks's car
was a “classic car.” Instead, the man asked Hawks
to put his hands on the hood of the car. When Hawks laughed
and asked why, the man brandished a badge, told Hawks to
“put his fucking hands on the vehicle, ” and
handcuffed and arrested him. Id.
turned out to be Defendant Officer Lawrence Gade.
Id. Gade handcuffed Hawks extremely tightly, but
when Hawks requested that he loosen the handcuffs, Gade
tightened them further, lacerating Hawks' arms.
Id. Gade then grabbed the handcuffs and lifted his
arms upward, causing Hawks contusions and abrasions.
Id. Then, in the presence of Defendant Officer
Thomas Goggin, who was also plainclothed, id. at 5,
Gade struck Hawks on the head with a blunt object, severing
his ear and immediately causing Hawks severe pain.
Id. at 4. Hawks briefly lost consciousness.
recalls that Defendants Goggin and Gade pinned him down by
his neck and face on the hood of the car, while uniformed
officers stood nearby. Id. at 5. At that point,
Anthony came from across the street to check on Hawks.
Id. Hawks told Anthony to stay back, and Anthony-who
was unaware that the plainclothes individuals were police
officers-asked Defendant Goggin why Defendant Gade was
hurting his brother. Id. Goggin asked if Anthony was
with Hawks, to which Anthony responded that Hawks was his
brother and asked that Gade stop hurting him. Id.
Goggin then told Anthony that “he should have stayed
where the fuck he was at, you piece of shit, ”
handcuffed Anthony, and placed him under arrest. Id.
Bystanders began videotaping the incident. Id.
point, Defendant Gade handed Hawks over to Defendant Officers
Rivera and John Doe, who drove Hawks to the 18th
District Police Station. Id. On the way, Hawks asked
why Rivera and Doe did not do anything when they had seen
what had happened. Id. Neither officer responded.
Id. When they arrived at the station, Hawks informed
Rivera and Doe that if they did not take action, he would
report them for police brutality as well. Id. at
5-6. Doe then asked Rivera what they should do. Id.
at 6. In response, Rivera stated, “don't worry,
he's just talking shit, he's not going to do
anything.” Id. While Hawks was being
fingerprinted, the fingerprinting technician asked him why he
was bleeding and whether he needed medical attention.
Id. Hawks explained that the police were responsible
and that he needed to go to the hospital. Id. He was
informed that transport would be taking him to the hospital,
but instead he was brought to a holding cell. Id.
in the holding cell, Hawks could hear Anthony being beaten in
a cell nearby. Id. The two brothers yelled back and
forth, with Anthony shouting that they had broken his nose.
Id. The officers nearby began laughing and joking
with one another. Id. One officer, who Hawks thinks
might be Officer Spruhill, shouted to Hawks that he would
make sure that Hawks went away for a while and would never
see his car again. Id.
could then hear the officers as they discussed what to put in
the police report. Id. Hawks asked several times if
he could be taken to the hospital because he was still
bleeding profusely. Id. Several hours later, he was
escorted out of his cell to be transported to the hospital.
Id. On the way, he saw Anthony, his lips swollen and
“busted open, ” and his clothing drenched in
blood. Id. at 7.
was transported to St. Joseph's Hospital. Id. At
the hospital, Hawks refused treatment because his father had
passed away a year earlier due to negligent care at that very
hospital. Id. The attending physician asked if he
could at least treat the injury to stop the bleeding and
prevent the wound from becoming infected, but Hawks continued
to deny treatment. Id. He then became incoherent.
Id. Hawks was transported back to the jail, and
several hours later, brought to Illinois Masonic Hospital for
treatment. Id. at 8.
first complaint was filed on August 2, 2016, against the City
of Chicago Police, Larry Gade, and “John Does.”
See Compl., ECF No. 7. Hawks filed an amended
complaint on January 25, 2017, which included Anthony Hawks
as an additional plaintiff, see Am. Compl. at 1, ECF
No. 37; the Court struck that complaint on March 7, 2017,
see ECF No. 46. Hawks filed a second amended
complaint on March 27, 2017, naming, in addition to Larry
Gade and John Does, the following additional defendants:
Thomas Goggin, Sarlitto M E, B M Rivera, Officer Spruhill,
John J. Jurek, and Nicolaus Orlando (“New
Defendants”). 2d Am. Compl. at 1.
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Additionally, when
considering motions to dismiss, the Court accepts “all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view[s] them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629, 632
(7th Cir. 2013) At the same time, “allegations in the
form of legal conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.” McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc., 694 ...