Help -
Help for Webmasters
« back to results for ""
Below is a cache of http://www.courtbriefs.com/pdf_files/USDCNDIL08C3063.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION DANIELLE WADE, 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION DANIELLE WADE, )
Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, Chicago Police ) Officers MAHMOUD SHAMAH and ) RICHARD DORONIUK, and other ) UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, ) ) Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, DANIELLE WADE, (Plaintiff), by one of her attorneys, Jeffrey B. Granich, makes the following complaint against Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO (Defendant City), Chicago Police Officers MAHMOUD SHAMAH and RICHARD DORONIUK, (Defendant Officers), and other UNKNOWN CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS (Unknown Officers): JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of Plaintiffs rights as secured by the United States Constitution. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 1331, 1343 and 1367. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b). All parties reside in this judicial district, and/or the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred within this district. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff is a thirty year-old resident of Chicago, Illinois. 5. Defendant Officers were at all relevant times, Chicago police officers employed by Defendant City, and acted under color of law and within the scope of their employment with Defendant City. Case 1:08-cv-03063 Document 1 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 7 2 6. Defendant City is a municipal corporation and public entity incorporated under the laws of Illinois. FACTS 7. On the evening of November 16, 2003, Plaintiff borrowed a friends car to go to the store. 8. Plaintiff obeyed all traffic laws as she drove to the store, nevertheless, Defendant Officers pulled her over near the intersection of Laramie and Harrison Streets in Chicago, Illinois. 9. Plaintiff produced a valid drivers license to Defendant Officers. One of Defendant Officers then searched Plaintiff in an inappropriate manner, touching her genital area. When Plaintiff protested, one of Defendant Officers told her, shut up bitch, before I put a stiff dick in your mouth to shut you up, or words to that effect. 10. At some point, Defendant Officers then told Plaintiff that the car she was driving had been reported stolen. 11. Plaintiff had the car keys and there was no damage to the vehicle or other visible indications that the car she had borrowed was stolen. 12. Plaintiff told Defendant Officers that she had been at a party and that she had just borrowed the car to run out to the store. She told them she didnt know the car was stolen. 13. Defendant Officers arrested both Plaintiff and her passenger and transported them back to a police station. 14. Defendant Officers then lied to a prosecutor in order to charge Plaintiff with a felony; fabricating a false confession by Plaintiff in which she admitted knowledge that the car was stolen. 15. Defendant Officers created false police reports regarding Plaintiffs arrest and her statement concerning the vehicle. 16. Ultimately, Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be charged with the felony offense of Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle. 17. Prior to trial, the Assistant States Attorney offered to reduce Plaintiffs felony charge to a misdemeanor in exchange for a guilty plea and a sentence of one year in jail. Because the charges were false, Plaintiff refused the offer and went to trial, trusting that the truth would come out. 18. Plaintiff proceeded to a bench trial on April 19, 2005, and was found guilty based on the Case 1:08-cv-03063 Document 1 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 2 of 7 3 testimony of Defendant Officer SHAMAH, who provided the only inculpatory evidence against Plaintiff at her trial. 19. On May 18, 2005, Plaintiff was sentenced to six years imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections. 20. Sometime prior to Plaintiffs trial, on information and belief, Unknown Officers became aware of a pattern of misconduct by Defendant Officers, but this was never disclosed to prosecutors or to Plaintiff. 21. Sometime prior to June 2006, the F.B.I. began investigating the allegedly criminal activities of Defendant Officers. 22. On October 25, 2006, Defendant Officers were indicted in federal court for allegedly stealing thousands of dollars they believed belonged to drug dealers (when in fact it belonged to the federal government and Defendant Officers were caught in a sting operation). 23. On July 27, 2007, having served her entire sentence, Plaintiff was released from prison. 24. Subsequently, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted Plaintiffs motion to vacate her conviction and Assistant States Attorneys dismissed the charges against Plaintiff. 25. Ultimately, Plaintiff spent nearly four years in custody as a result of the false charges placed against her by Defendant Officers. 26. Plaintiff, who had been working two jobs at the time of her arrest, lost them both. 27. Plaintiff was separated from her three-year old daughter while she was in prison causing financial burden on her family and emotional harm to both Plaintiff and her daughter. 28. Plaintiffs brother died three days after she was finally released and her father died one month after her release. Plaintiff spent the last years she had with these immediate family members falsely incarcerated as a result of Defendant Officers misconduct, and separated from her family. 29. Defendant Officers misconduct has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional harm, unjustified incarceration, as well as financial and physical damages. Count I: Due Process Claim 30. Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1-29 as if fully restated here. 31. As described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant and Unknown Officers deprived Plaintiff of a fair trial by withholding material exculpatory evidence in violation of the Case 1:08-cv-03063 Document 1 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 3 of 7 4 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered harm, including physical, emotional, and pecuniary damages which will be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant Officers in a fair and just amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the injuries she has suffered, plus a substantial sum in punitive damages, as well as costs, attorneys fees, and such other relief as is just and equitable. Count II --
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION DANIELLE WADE, 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION DANIELLE WADE, )
Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, Chicago Police ) Officers MAHMOUD SHAMAH and ) RICHARD DORONIUK, and other ) UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, ) ) Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, DANIELLE WADE, (Plaintiff), by one of her attorneys, Jeffrey B. Granich, makes the following complaint against Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO (Defendant City), Chicago Police Officers MAHMOUD SHAMAH and RICHARD DORONIUK, (Defendant Officers), and other UNKNOWN CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS (Unknown Officers): JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of Plaintiffs rights as secured by the United States Constitution. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 1331, 1343 and 1367. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b). All parties reside in this judicial district, and/or the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred within this district. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff is a thirty year-old resident of Chicago, Illinois. 5. Defendant Officers were at all relevant times, Chicago police officers employed by Defendant City, and acted under color of law and within the scope of their employment with Defendant City. Case 1:08-cv-03063 Document 1 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 7 2 6. Defendant City is a municipal corporation and public entity incorporated under the laws of Illinois. FACTS 7. On the evening of November 16, 2003, Plaintiff borrowed a friends car to go to the store. 8. Plaintiff obeyed all traffic laws as she drove to the store, nevertheless, Defendant Officers pulled her over near the intersection of Laramie and Harrison Streets in Chicago, Illinois. 9. Plaintiff produced a valid drivers license to Defendant Officers. One of Defendant Officers then searched Plaintiff in an inappropriate manner, touching her genital area. When Plaintiff protested, one of Defendant Officers told her, shut up bitch, before I put a stiff dick in your mouth to shut you up, or words to that effect. 10. At some point, Defendant Officers then told Plaintiff that the car she was driving had been reported stolen. 11. Plaintiff had the car keys and there was no damage to the vehicle or other visible indications that the car she had borrowed was stolen. 12. Plaintiff told Defendant Officers that she had been at a party and that she had just borrowed the car to run out to the store. She told them she didnt know the car was stolen. 13. Defendant Officers arrested both Plaintiff and her passenger and transported them back to a police station. 14. Defendant Officers then lied to a prosecutor in order to charge Plaintiff with a felony; fabricating a false confession by Plaintiff in which she admitted knowledge that the car was stolen. 15. Defendant Officers created false police reports regarding Plaintiffs arrest and her statement concerning the vehicle. 16. Ultimately, Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be charged with the felony offense of Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle. 17. Prior to trial, the Assistant States Attorney offered to reduce Plaintiffs felony charge to a misdemeanor in exchange for a guilty plea and a sentence of one year in jail. Because the charges were false, Plaintiff refused the offer and went to trial, trusting that the truth would come out. 18. Plaintiff proceeded to a bench trial on April 19, 2005, and was found guilty based on the Case 1:08-cv-03063 Document 1 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 2 of 7 3 testimony of Defendant Officer SHAMAH, who provided the only inculpatory evidence against Plaintiff at her trial. 19. On May 18, 2005, Plaintiff was sentenced to six years imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections. 20. Sometime prior to Plaintiffs trial, on information and belief, Unknown Officers became aware of a pattern of misconduct by Defendant Officers, but this was never disclosed to prosecutors or to Plaintiff. 21. Sometime prior to June 2006, the F.B.I. began investigating the allegedly criminal activities of Defendant Officers. 22. On October 25, 2006, Defendant Officers were indicted in federal court for allegedly stealing thousands of dollars they believed belonged to drug dealers (when in fact it belonged to the federal government and Defendant Officers were caught in a sting operation). 23. On July 27, 2007, having served her entire sentence, Plaintiff was released from prison. 24. Subsequently, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted Plaintiffs motion to vacate her conviction and Assistant States Attorneys dismissed the charges against Plaintiff. 25. Ultimately, Plaintiff spent nearly four years in custody as a result of the false charges placed against her by Defendant Officers. 26. Plaintiff, who had been working two jobs at the time of her arrest, lost them both. 27. Plaintiff was separated from her three-year old daughter while she was in prison causing financial burden on her family and emotional harm to both Plaintiff and her daughter. 28. Plaintiffs brother died three days after she was finally released and her father died one month after her release. Plaintiff spent the last years she had with these immediate family members falsely incarcerated as a result of Defendant Officers misconduct, and separated from her family. 29. Defendant Officers misconduct has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional harm, unjustified incarceration, as well as financial and physical damages. Count I: Due Process Claim 30. Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1-29 as if fully restated here. 31. As described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant and Unknown Officers deprived Plaintiff of a fair trial by withholding material exculpatory evidence in violation of the Case 1:08-cv-03063 Document 1 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 3 of 7 4 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered harm, including physical, emotional, and pecuniary damages which will be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant Officers in a fair and just amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the injuries she has suffered, plus a substantial sum in punitive damages, as well as costs, attorneys fees, and such other relief as is just and equitable. Count II --
download 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ...
