Catherine Brown Complaint

8/17/2019 Catherine Brown Complaint

1/9

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CATHERINE BROWN )

)Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:15-cv-4127)

v. )

)POLICE OFFICER MICHELLE MORSI, )

POLICE OFFICER JOSE LOPEZ, )

POLICE OFFICER JASON VANNA, ) Jury Demand

P.O. J.R. HICKEY STAR NO. 11523, )P.O. L.F. HILL STAR NO. 16047, )

P.O. J.M. DAISY STAR NO. 10982, )

P.O. NAVIA STAR NO. 7390, )P.O. McMAHON STAR NO. 17102, )

P.O. HO STAR NO. 7995, )

P.O. CHEVELIER STAR NO. 7206, )

POLICE OFFICER JOHN BLAHUSIAK, )DETECTIVE MICHELLE MOORE-GROSE, )

DETECTIVE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, )

DETECTIVE BRYAN NEELY, )SGT. DURHAM STAR NO. 1803, )

SGT. J. BROWN STAR NO. 1133, )

SGT. GREER STAR NO. 1316, )

SGT. R. BLAS STAR NO. 1248, )individually, and the CITY OF CHICAGO, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, CATHERINE BROWN, by and through one of her

attorneys, David S. Lipschultz of GOLDBERG WEISMAN CAIRO, and complaining against

the Defendants, Police Officer Michelle Morsi, Police Officer Jose Lopez, Police Officer Jason

Vanna, Police Officer J.R. Hickey Star No. 11523, Police Officer L.F. Hill Star No. 16047,

Police Officer J.M. Daisy Star No. 10982, Police Officer Michelle Moore-Grose, Police Officer

Navia Star No. 7390, Police Officer McMahon Star No. 17102, Police Officer Ho Star No. 7995,

Case: 1:15-cv-04127 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1


2/9

2

Police Officer Chevelier Star No. 7206, Police Officer John Blahusiak, Detective William

Sullivan, Detective Bryan Neely, Sergeant Durham Star No. 1803, Sergeant J. Brown Star No.

1133, Sergeant Greer Star No. 1316, Sergeant R. Blas Star No. 1248, individually, and the City

of Chicago, as follows.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. §1983

and §1988 (the Civil Rights Act of 1871); and the laws of the State of Illinois, to redress

deprivations of the civil rights of the Plaintiffs, accomplished by acts and/or omissions of the

Defendants and committed under color of law.

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, §1331 and §1367.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as the acts

complained of took place in this district.

PARTIES

4. The Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, is a United States citizen and a resident of the

State of Illinois, County of Cook.

5. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Michelle Morsi

(“Officer Morsi”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. She is

sued in her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer

Morsi was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of her

employment and under color of law.

6. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Jose Lopez

(“Officer Lopez”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. He is

sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer



3/9

3

Lopez was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his


7. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Jason Vanna

(“Officer Vanna”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. He is

sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer

Vanna was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his


8. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer J.R. Hickey Star

No. 11523 (“Officer Hickey”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police

officer. She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this

Complaint, Officer Hickey was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the

scope of his/her employment and under color of law.

9. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer L.F. Hill Star No.

16047 (“Officer Hill”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer.

She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this

Complaint, Officer Hill was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope

of his/her employment and under color of law.

10. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer J.M. Daisy Star

No. 10982 (“Officer Daisy”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police


Complaint, Officer Daisy was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the




4/9

4

11. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Navia Star No.

7390 (“Officer Navia”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer.

She/he is sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this

Complaint, Officer Navia was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the


12. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer McMahon Star No.

17102 (“Officer McMahon”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police


Complaint, Officer McMahon was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the


13. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Ho Star No. 7995

(“Officer Ho”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police officer. She/he is

sued in his/her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint, Officer

Ho was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his/her


14. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Police Officer Chevelier Star No.

7206 (“Officer Chevelier”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police


Complaint, Officer Chevelier was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the


15. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Detective Michelle Moore-Grose

(“Detective Moore-Grose”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police

detective. She is sued in her individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this



5/9

5

Complaint, Detective Moore-Grose was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting

within the scope of her employment and under color of law.

16. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Detective William Sullivan

(“Detective Sullivan”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police detective.

He is sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint,

Detective Sullivan was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of

his employment and under color of law.

17. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Detective Bryan Neely

(“Detective Neely”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police detective.

He is sued in his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this Complaint,

Detective Neely was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the scope of his


18. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant Durham Star No. 1803

(“Sergeant Durham”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.

She/he is sued in her/his individual capacity. At the time of the incident at issue in this

Complaint, Sergeant Durham was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the

scope of her/his employment and under color of law.

19. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant J. Brown Star No. 1133

(“Sergeant Brown”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.


Complaint, Sergeant Brown was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the




6/9

6

20. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant Greer Star No. 1316

(“Sergeant Greer”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.


Complaint, Sergeant Greer was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the


21. At all relevant times relevant herein, Defendant Sergeant R. Blas Star No. 1248

(“Sergeant Blas”) was, and is, employed by the City of Chicago as a sworn police sergeant.


Complaint, Sergeant Blas was engaged in the conduct complained of while acting within the


22. At all times relevant herein, Defendant City of Chicago was and is a municipal

corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is the employer and

principal of Defendants Coleman.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

23.

On or about May 13, 2013, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the Plaintiff, Mrs. Brown,

was driving in her vehicle in the alley behind her residence at 8320 S. Kerfoot, Chicago, Illinois.

24. At that time, Mrs. Brown was not committing any crimes or engaging in any

unlawful activity.

25. Mrs. Brown was assaulted and arrested by Defendant Police Officers.

COUNT I

SECTION 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE

PLAINTIFF BROWN AGAINST DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERS

26. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 25 as his respective allegations of paragraph 26 of Count I.



7/9

7

27. The force used by the Defendant Police Officers was unreasonable, unprovoked,

unnecessary and excessive.

28. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendant Police Officers, Plaintiff

Catherine Brown was injured.

29. Said actions of the Defendant Police Officers were intentional, willful and

wanton.

30. Said actions the Defendant Police Officers violated the Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution as protected by 42 U.S.C. §1983.

31.

As a direct and proximate consequence of said conduct of the Defendant Police

Officers, the Plaintiff suffered violations of his constitutional rights, physical injuries, emotional

anxiety, fear, pain and suffering, and monetary loss and expense.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, prays for judgment, compensatory

damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs against the Defendant Police Officers.

COUNT II

SECTION 1983 FALSE ARREST

PLAINTIFF BROWN AGAINST DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERS

32. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 31 as his respective allegations of paragraph 32 of Count II.

33. The Defendant Police Officers did not have probable cause to arrest Mrs. Brown.

34. The actions of the Defendant Police Officers violated the Mrs. Brown’s Fourth

Amendment Rights and were in violation of said rights protected by 42 U.S.C. §1983.

35. As a direct and proximate consequence of said conduct of the Defendant Police

Officers, Mrs. Brown suffered violations of her constitutional rights, loss of liberty, monetary

expenses, fear, emotional distress, and other injuries.



8/9

8

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, prays for judgment, compensatory

damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs against the Defendant Police Officers.

COUNT III

INDEMNIFICATION PURSUANT TO 745 ILCS 10/9-102

AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO

36. Plaintiff Brown re-alleges and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

35 as their respective allegations of paragraph 36 of Count III as though fully forth herein.

37. The acts of the Defendants were committed in the scope of their employment with

the Defendant City of Chicago

38.

Pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9-402, Defendant City of

Chicago is liable for any judgments for compensatory damages in this case arising from the

actions of the Defendant Police Officers.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Catherine Brown, respectfully asks this Honorable

Court to order the Defendant City of Chicago to pay the Plaintiff any judgments for

compensatory damages against Defendant Police Officers.

JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David S. Lipschultz

David S. Lipschultz

GOLDBERG WEISMAN CAIROOne East Wacker, 38th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 464-1200Atty. No. 6277910



9/9

S 44 (Rev. 3/13) CIVIL COVER SHEET e c v cover s eet an t e n ormat on conta ne ere n net er rep ace nor supp ement t e ng an serv ce o p ea ngs or ot er papers as requ re y aw, excep

rovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for theurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATIOT HE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Pla(For Diversity Cases On y) an One Box or De en an

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6

Foreign Country

V. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act

120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionm

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust

140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking

150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation

151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influence

152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizatio

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit

(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV

153 Recovery of Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodof Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Act

190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts

195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Mat

196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 895 Freedom of Informa

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act

Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 896 ArbitrationREAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Proc

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 510 Motions to Vacate Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appe

220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: 871 IRS—Third Party 950 Constitutionality of

240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes

245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 535 Death Penalty

290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & Other IMMIGRATION

Employment 550 Civil Rights 462 Naturalization Application

446 Amer. w/Disabilities 555 Prison Condition 463 Habeas Corpus -

Other 560 Civil Detainee - Alien Detainee

448 Education Conditions of (Prisoner Petition)

Confinement 465 Other Immigration

Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

1 Original

Proceeding

2 Removed from

State Court

3 Remanded from

Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or

Reopened

5 6 Multidistrict

Litigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing andwrite a brief statement of cause.)

VII. Previous Bankruptcy Matters (For nature of suit 422 and 423, enter the casenumber and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by a judge of this C

Use a separate attachment if necessary.

VIII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

JURY DEMAND: Yes No

X. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

X. This case (check one box) Is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action is a refiling of case number ____________ previously dismissed by Judge ______________

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Case: 1:15-cv-04127 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/11/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:9

Catherine Brown Police Officer Michelle Morsi, et al.

Cook

David S. Lipschultz, GOLDBERG WEISMAN CAIROOne E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3800, Chicago, IL 60601(312) 464-1200

28:1983 Civil Rights

5/11/15 /s/ David S. Lipschultz

Documents

Catherine Brown Complaint