Case: Perez v. City of Chicago

1:13-cv-04531 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: June 20, 2013

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 20, 2013, a man who had been arrested and detained in Chicago’s Homan Square detention center filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued the City of Chicago and Chicago police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by a private firm, the plaintiff asked the court for compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff claimed that the City of Chicago and the individual police officers violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He alleged that they subjected him to secret arrest and excessive force, tortured and sodomized him, and prevented from calling an attorney. The plaintiff claimed that after being questioned and detained without being able to contact an attorney, he was taken to Homan Square, a police warehouse that was not a normal police station, where he was threatened and tortured.

On September 2, 2015, the court (Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland) granted the plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint. 2015 WL 5163165. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that included additional plaintiffs and a request for class certification. The plaintiffs asked for injunctive and declaratory relief in addition to monetary damages, bringing the same claims as the original complaint: they alleged that they had been subjected to unconstitutional police practices at Homan square. The class members claimed that the city of Chicago and the Chicago police department violated their Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights by subjecting them to excessive force and secret arrests, without making a public record of their arrest or allowing them to contact an attorney. The plaintiffs alleged that the Chicago Police Department used Homan Square to hold citizens “incommunicado”—that is, without the formal processing procedures or acknowledgment of the detention—so that police could interrogate citizens and coerce them to cooperate with investigations. The class plaintiffs brought a § 1983 "secret arrest" class claim for alleged policies and practices—including secretly detaining citizens at places like Homan Square, interrogating citizens without advising them of their Miranda rights, attempting to coerce false confessions, denying contact with attorneys or family, and refusing access to food, water, and restrooms—that violated the First and Fourth Amendments. Two of the new named plaintiffs brought a claim for deprivations of adequate accommodations, alleging policies and practices of detaining citizens overnight without providing them minimally adequate accommodations for sleeping. The second amended complaint also included individual claims for excessive force, failure to intervene in excessive force, state law claims, and an indemnification claim against the City.

On January 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Rowland granted the discovery motion from the plaintiffs to inspect the Homan Square facilities where the detainees were kept. This area included detainee cells, bathrooms, bullpen holding cells and interview/interrogation rooms. The plaintiff was also permitted to perform testing in these areas on suspected blood and human excrement.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 18, 2015 on the basis that two of the plaintiffs were time-barred and another plaintiff failed to state a viable claim. On February 15, 2016, the intervenor plaintiff from Mann v. Ramaglia filed a motion to consolidate his case with this one. On March 24, 2016, Judge Mary M. Rowland granted part and denied part of the motion. She directed that pre-trial proceedings be coordinated in this case and Mann v. Ramaglia under her supervision.

On August 26, 2016, Judge Rowland granted the City's motion to dismiss as to some of the named plaintiffs' claims, finding them time barred or failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 2016 WL 4493425. On February 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint with three named plaintiffs, which asserted the same substantive claims seeking to reform the procedures that allowed police to hold arrestees "incommunicado" and in inhumane conditions in order to "squeeze" information out of them.

The parties engaged in consolidated discovery in this case and Mann v. Ramaglia for the next year-and-a-half. On September 8, 2017, Judge Rowland granted the plaintiffs' request to include Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and members of his staff in the City's email search. 2017 WL 3970592.

Following a July 17, 2018 status hearing, the court reported that the plaintiffs had submitted a settlement demand to the defendants. The parties agreed at an August 28, 2018 status hearing that a settlement conference could be productive, but it was unclear whether one of the named plaintiffs would participate, which the City and the court agreed would render settlement unproductive. At a September 28, 2018 status hearing, it was established that the named plaintiff would participate in a settlement conference tentatively set for November 14, 2018. While moving toward a settlement conference the parties were reportedly at odds over whether this would be a class-wide or individual settlement.

After the November 2018 status hearing, Judge Rowland stayed class discovery until the class plaintiffs had filed a motion to certify class. For Perez, the individual plaintiff, Judge Rowland set February 28, 2019 as a non-negotiable and non-continuable date for the close of fact discovery. At this point, the judge's frustration with this plaintiff became apparent from her management of his case, including additional non-continuable deadlines and written admonition of his attorney.

After the scheduled close of discovery for the individual plaintiff's case, the parties continued into a period of contentious expert discovery. The parties brought several disputes to the judge during this time, including: 1) Defendants' claiming that they had never agreed to a motion the plaintiff filed as an agreed motion; 2) Defendants' motions to bar plaintiff from disclosing any expert witnesses/strike individual experts; and 3) a motion for sanctions on the plaintiff for failing to comply with disclosure requirements.

The class plaintiffs filed their motion to certify the class on March 5, 2019. They sought certification for two classes. Class I (Detainee and Arrestee Class) consisted of "All natural persons detained or arrested by a Chicago Police Officer where no public record of the detainment or arrest was created within a reasonable amount of time from the initial detainment (Plaintiffs suggest one hour from the initial detainment) and where no court order existed at the time of arrest or detainment sealing or otherwise making the detainment or arrest confidential, beginning on a date two years prior to the filing of this

Complaint to the present." Class II (Future Detainees and Arrestees Class) consisted of "All persons who may in the future be subject to the secret arrests Described in Class One."

The court denied the motion for class certification on December 27, 2019. 2019 WL 7290848. In an opinion that was critical of the plaintiff's briefing, Judge Robert Dow, Jr. held that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately state the constitutional right that was allegedly violated. Even if this right was properly alleged, though, Judge Dow found that the class failed the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements for class certification.

After a status conference in January 2020, all of the involved parties agreed to participate in settlement conferences. On July 16, 2020, one of the individual plaintiffs and defendants agreed to end settlement talks because of their “widely disparate views as to the settlement value of [the] case.” The other two plaintiffs continued in settlement talks, and on August 13, 2020, they reached a settlement with the city subject to review by counsel for the plaintiffs, which is ongoing.

The case was reassigned to Judge Franklin U. Valderrama on October 11, 2022, because Judge Dow was appointed Counselor to the Chief Justice of the United States.

On December 2, 2022, the remaining plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, and the city filed a response in opposition to the motion on December 23, 2022. The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, which the plaintiff filed on June 9, 2023.

As of December 22, 2023, the court has granted the defendants multiple extensions for filing their motion for summary judgment and this case remains ongoing.

	Document
1:13-cv-04531	Docket [PACER]	May 26, 2020	May 26, 2020 Docket
1 1:13-cv-04531	Complaint Angel Perez v. City of Chicago	June 20, 2013	June 20, 2013 Complaint
132 1:13-cv-04531	Second Amended Complaint	Oct. 5, 2015	Oct. 5, 2015 Complaint
166 1:13-cv-04531 15-cv-09197	Plaintiffs' Motion for Intervention, Reassignment or Consolidation of Related Cases Angel Perez v. City of Chicago	Feb. 15, 2016	Feb. 15, 2016 Pleading / Motion / Brief
186 1:13-cv-04531	Memorandum Order and Order	Aug. 26, 2016	Aug. 26, 2016 Order/Opinion
202 1:13-cv-04531	Third Amended Complaint	Feb. 1, 2017	Feb. 1, 2017 Complaint
330 1:13-cv-04531	Memorandum Opinion and Order	Dec. 27, 2019	Dec. 27, 2019 Order/Opinion 2019 WL 7290848
432 1:13-cv-04531	Memorandum Opinion and Order	May 20, 2022	May 20, 2022 Order/Opinion 2022 WL 1607390

Case: Perez v. City of Chicago

1:13-cv-04531 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details