Case: Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago

1:74-cv-03268 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Nov. 13, 1974

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 13, 1974, eighteen named individuals and fifteen named groups, relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Chicago's mayor and police officials. The plaintiffs claimed that the police defendants engaged in a broad range of activities constituting unlawful intelligence gathering of suspected subversives in violation of the plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Four…

On November 13, 1974, eighteen named individuals and fifteen named groups, relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Chicago's mayor and police officials. The plaintiffs claimed that the police defendants engaged in a broad range of activities constituting unlawful intelligence gathering of suspected subversives in violation of the plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as their rights under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (regarding electronic surveillance). In addition to class action status for their case, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Private counsel and the Cook County Public Defender's Office represented the plaintiffs.

District Judge William J. Lynch, on May 16, 1975, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, rejecting their justiciability, statute of limitations and insufficient pleadings-based challenges to the complaint. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 407 F. Supp. 115 (N.D. Il. 1975). In an unpublished ruling on July 31, 1975, then-District Judge Joel M. Flaum issued a protective order to limit disclosure to plaintiffs' attorneys of documents produced in discovery. In succeeding months, the defense sought to extend the protective order to certain depositions and interrogatories.

Discovery proceedings proved contentious during the following year. On March 5, 1976, District Judge Alfred Y. Kirkland, Sr., denied a defense request for a protective order to shield the mayor from having to provide an oral deposition. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 428 (N.D. Il. 1976). Separately, Judge Kirkland also ruled upon plaintiffs' motion to compel a response to written interrogatories, finding (among other things) that no "informer's privilege" existed to resist disclosure of the identity of persons who participated in intelligence gathering on lawful activities, as opposed to those who provided information on violations of law. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D 430 (N.D. Il. 1975). Later that year, Judge Kirkland revised the protective order to protect the defendants' data gathering system from public disclosure, since it had not yet been shown to be illegal. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 431 (N.D. Il. 1976). Soon thereafter, the judge enjoined the defendants from joining or infiltrating the plaintiffs' legal team, a tactic which the plaintiffs' documentary evidence showed had been employed, earlier, by the defense. The court also enjoined the defendants from using data they or their agents obtained as a result of joining plaintiffs' legal team and by gathering information about plaintiffs' case by means other than orderly discovery procedures. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Il. 1976). In another ruling that day, to sanction the defendants for failure to answer interrogatories in a meaningful way, Judge Kirkland held that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of parts of their complaint, shifting to defendants the burden of showing that they had not engaged in certain activities. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 438 (N.D. Il. 1976).

On October 3, 1975, a second, similar lawsuit, ACLU v. Bell, was filed in the same court by several individual and organizational plaintiffs represented by private counsel and an assistant federal public defender. Over a period beginning in 1977, the FBI, Justice Department, CIA, various officials of these agencies, and the Secretary of Defense were added as defendants. The two cases were consolidated for discovery purposed on July 2, 1976. In mid-1977, discovery battles continued, with Judge Kirkland granting in part the federal defendants' request to stay class discovery pending interlocutory appeal of class certification (he allowed discovery relating to the named plaintiffs), and rejecting defense invocations of the informer's privilege. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 441 (N.D. Il. 1977). Earlier, Judge Kirkland had certified two classes of plaintiffs subjected to the alleged illegal surveillance and intelligence gathering-one of individuals and the other of organizations-with the certification applicable to the declaratory and injunctive relief requests only, excluding the damages aspect of the complaint. The defendants' interlocutory appeals failed, Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 558 F.2d 1031 (7th Cir. 1976) (table) and 565 F.2d 975 (7th Cir. 1977) (Circuit Judge Robert A. Sprecher), and the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to review the class certification. Rochford v. Alliance to End Repression, 434 U.S. 828 (1977). Continued litigation of discovery issues, including objections based upon informer's and state secrets privilege assertions, resulted in judicial suggestions to explore settlement. American Civil Liberties Union v. Brown, 609 F.2d 277 (7th Cir. 1979) (District Judge James E. Noland, by designation); American Civil Liberties Union v. Brown, 619 F.2d 1170 (7th Cir. 1980) (en banc) (Circuit Judge Walter J. Cummings).

Eventually, with trial slated to occur in 1981, the parties reached accord on two settlement documents, one referred to as the FBI settlement and the other as the CIA settlement. Most plaintiffs approved of the settlements. Two dissenting political organizations and a few individual plaintiffs dismissed their claims, rather than settle. On February 13, 1981, the court conducted a fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlements and, afterward, continued to receive input, objections, and clarifying information about the terminology and scope of the settlements. District Judge Susan Getzendanner accepted and approved the two settlements on August 11, 1981. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 91 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Il. 1981). Separately, proposed settlements between most plaintiffs and the City of Chicago and the Defense Department defendants were approved by Judge Getzendanner. Her March 30, 1982, order noted that the settlement with the city provided the plaintiffs with the injunctive relief they requested, barring political spying and harassment and limiting investigative activities based on First Amendment protected conduct except in four specific types of investigations: criminal, dignitary protection, public gatherings, and regulatory investigations, all governed by a commencement standard of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The settlement's restrictions on domestic intelligence gathering activities by the Defense Department prohibited unlawful activity by the agency and its agents. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 561 F. Supp. 537 (N.D. Il. 1982). Appendices to that opinion contain the text of the settlement with the city and related documents. Id.

Despite the settlements, decades of litigation followed. On March 7, 1983, the Department of Justice issued new Guidelines on Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations. Plaintiffs had Judge Getzendanner enjoin the FBI from implementing in Chicago the portion of the new guidelines that gave less protection from investigations based on First Amendment-protected activity than was provided for under the settlement agreement. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 561 F.2d 575 (N.D. Il. 1983). On appeal, a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit deemed the injunction unwarranted, in the absence of any indication of substantial and imminent danger of the FBI violating the decree, and changed the injunction to a declaratory judgment. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 733 F.2d 1187 (7th Cir. 1984) (District Judge Edward Dumbauld, by designation). The court then voted to hear the case, en banc. After re-argument, the court reversed the district court, saying that the new investigative guidelines were not inconsistent with the consent decree. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner).

In an October 24, 1985 unpublished order, Judge Getzendanner sanctioned the city defendants for a years-before non-disclosure of certain files to plaintiffs, ruling that several paragraphs of the plaintiffs' complaint concerning dissemination of information would be deemed true without being subject to rebuttal, and allowing one of plaintiffs' attorneys fees incurred in seeking the files and the sanctions.

By the end of 1985, cross-motions for summary judgment had been filed by the remaining parties (two organizational plaintiffs, three individual plaintiffs, and the city defendant). Judge Getzendanner ruled that the actions of the city police as to lawful speech activities of a retired social worker, a civil liberties organization, and a peace organization violated these plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The court awarded the organizations $20,625 apiece, plus costs, and the individual $10,000, plus costs. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 627 F. Supp. 1044 (N.D. Il. 1985). Related attorneys' fee litigation occurred over the next few years, as discussed below.

Meanwhile, by 1989, the Chicago Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador ("Chicago CISPES") petitioned the district court for discovery under and enforcement of the settlement. They alleged that from March 1983 through June 1985, they were unlawfully investigated as a part of a national CISPES investigation that stemmed from unreliable and unverified informant information. On June 28, 1989, Magistrate Judge Joan Lefkow directed the FBI to provide discovery. Conceding defects in the CISPES investigation, the FBI had disciplined personnel connected with it, segregated and archived away from the FBI records gathered during the investigation, and conducted nationwide training on how to deal with activities protected by the First Amendment. These remedial actions, the FBI said, mooted CISPES' request for relief. In turn, CISPES cross-moved for summary judgment. On October 3, 1991, in an unpublished ruling, Judge Ann C. Williams granted CISPES' motion, finding the FBI had violated the settlement decree and the controversy was not moot, since the FBI had not shown that its misconduct was incapable of reoccurring. CISPES later prevailed in seeking additional discovery from the FBI concerning its interviews of Arab-Americans during the time period surrounding the Persian Gulf War in early 1991, when (in an April 9, 1992, unpublished decision) Magistrate Judge Lefkow ruled that such discovery would be relevant to whether the FBI's training was adequate as contemplated by the consent decree. In an also-unpublished order dated June 26, 1992, Judge Williams denied the FBI's objection to the discovery ruling. On October 14, 1992, Judge Williams directed expunging of data identifying Chicago CISPES members and associates from government records regarding the CISPES investigation. Later unpublished rulings awarded plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees for efforts in monitoring compliance with the court's decree. The award and the finding of intentional noncompliance with the court's decree were reversed by the Seventh Circuit, which ruled that negligent violation of the decree during nationwide efforts in the CISPES investigation did not merit the district court's earlier findings; in turn, the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 119 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1997) (Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans).

Separately, three activist groups filed an enforcement petition under the consent decree. They alleged misconduct by city police in connection with the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1996. Following a hearing, Magistrate Judge Edward A. Bobrick's unpublished October 27, 1999, report recommended granting summary judgment for the city. The plaintiffs' objected. On review, District Judge Joan B. Gottschall sustained the objections, in part. Using the "clear and convincing" standard of proof to determine whether violations of the decree had been established, the judge found that the plaintiffs' evidence failed to meet this standard in most instances; but some testimony, if believed by a fact-finder, could provide clear and convincing evidence that, because of plaintiffs' First Amendment-protected views and activities, police engaged in conduct violating the decree. As to events shown by this testimony, Judge Gottschall's unpublished May 8, 2000, order denied the city's summary judgment motion. Later, a four day bench trial occurred regarding these events. The judge ruled, in an unpublished order on December 22, 2000, that the plaintiffs' evidence failed to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. Earlier, the judge's unrelated, unpublished order of September 21, 2000, rejected a petitioner's claim that police had violated the decree by mistakenly retaliating against him, a police officer, for his supposed leaks to the press during an investigation into police corruption.

By then, Judge Williams had denied the city's motion to modify the nearly twenty year old consent decree. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 66 F. Supp.2d 899 (N.D.Il. 1999). In a different motion, the city submitted a number of hypothetical questions to the court, in hopes of receiving guidance to help avoid violations of the decree. The court ruled in a May 2000, unpublished order that Article III limitations precluded it from providing an advisory opinion. The city appealed Judge Williams' 1999 denial of their modification request. A Seventh Circuit panel, on January 11, 2001, reversed the lower court, directing it to modify the decree as the city had requested. Judge Posner noted that the city had not asked for abrogation of the decree and would still be bound to adhere to its' core protections and enforcement provisions. He observed that changing circumstances since the decree's entry-particularly the increased threat of terrorism-warranted ensuring that the police had the ability to monitor statements, build a file, or plant an undercover agent among a group discussing the desirability of committing acts of violence in pursuit of an ideological agenda. Unless the motives of the police were improper or the methods forbidden by other provisions of federal or state law, other cities' police could perform basic investigative functions inhibited by the decree in Chicago. Because prior misconduct of police should not impair public safety in the present and because the modified decree amply protected First Amendment rights, the appellate court ruled in the city's favor. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2001). On remand, Judge Gottschall's unpublished March 2, 2001, order granted the city's motion and modified the consent decree.

A police union official attempted, in December 2001, to use the decree to sanction police officials who, allegedly, investigated him because of his union-related statements. On February 26, 2003, Judge Gottschall granted the city's motion to dismiss the union official's enforcement petition. (We do not have a copy of the motion or of the order granting it.)

From 1985 through 2004, many rulings addressed denials and awards of attorneys' fees. Litigation centered on the applicability of the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, passed after the lawyers reached the 1981-82 settlements but effective after the court approved the settlements. To track the course of these disputes, review (1) Judge Getzendanner's unpublished orders of October 24, 1985, and September 4, 1986; (2) Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 820 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1987) (Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook); (3) Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 899 F.2d 582 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); (4) Judge Williams' unpublished order of August 9, 1990; and (5) Judge Gottschall's unpublished orders of May 26, 2000, September 21, 2000, and November 2, 2000. In 2000, the district court approved payment of attorneys' fees. Over $1 million in fees were awarded to plaintiffs' counsel for services performed during between 1994 and 2001. (We do not have a copy of the district court's ruling(s) granting these payments.) On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the award. The panel opinion by Judge Posner observed that the legal services provided during the 1994-2001 period involved two failed contempt proceedings; the plaintiffs' failed opposition to the modification of the decree; and efforts to monitor the city's compliance with the decree, which efforts merely led to the failed contempt proceedings and which efforts were entirely uncalled for by the decree (which made monitoring duties a responsibility of a public body rather than of plaintiffs' counsel). Thus, the court could not say the applicant attorneys had represented "prevailing parties" in any of the efforts, nor that they acted pursuant to some obligation imposed by the decree or other law. Even when their services responded to the city's attempt at modification of the decree, the attorneys were not entitled to fee recovery because their opposition to modification "verged on the unreasonable." Judge Posner noted that the absence of a sunset provision or termination date in the decree posed a considerable defect, one not present in more modern decrees. He observed that, after the decree's modification, something of a sunset provision had been provided in that, after the completion of the independent audit in or before 2006, the district judge was to consider whether the decree had outlived its usefulness. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 356 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2004).

On September 30, 2008, the Northern District of Illinois (Judge Gottschall) denied the City's motion to dissolve the modified consent decree. The court found that although the decree was "probably ripe for dissolution," the City had failed to conduct an independent audit that would allow the court to review the City's compliance.

The City appealed to the 7th Circuit, which dismissed the appeal on August 4, 2009. In the meantime, the district court (Judge Gotschall) dissolved the modified consent decrees in related cases (1:74-cv-3268 and 1:75-cv-3295).

On April 13, 2011, Judge Gotschall granted the City's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. According to the order, petitioners were permitted to seek reinstatement of the petition if the City failed to conduct an audit and allow the court to review the results, as required by the modified consent decree. The court (Judge Gotshchall) gave the petitioners 45 days to file a motion to reinstate the petition, after which time the case would be dismissed without prejudice. There was no further court involvement in this case.

Summary Authors

Mike Fagan (6/25/2008)

Priyah Kaul (10/22/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5082787/parties/alliance-to-end-v-rochford/


Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Brown, Geraldine Soat (Illinois)

Coffey, John Louis (Wisconsin)

Crowley, John Powers (Illinois)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Cummings, Walter Joseph (Illinois)

Dumbauld, Edward (Pennsylvania)

Eschbach, Jesse Ernest (Indiana)

Evans, Terence Thomas (Wisconsin)

Getzendanner, Susan Christine O'Meara (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Brown, Geraldine Soat (Illinois)

Coffey, John Louis (Wisconsin)

Crowley, John Powers (Illinois)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Cummings, Walter Joseph (Illinois)

Dumbauld, Edward (Pennsylvania)

Eschbach, Jesse Ernest (Indiana)

Evans, Terence Thomas (Wisconsin)

Getzendanner, Susan Christine O'Meara (Illinois)

Gottschall, Joan B. (Illinois)

Hart, William Thomas (Illinois)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Kirkland, Alfred Younges Sr. (Illinois)

Lefkow, Joan Humphrey (Illinois)

Lynch, William Joseph (Illinois)

Pell, Wilbur Frank Jr. (Indiana)

Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)

Sprecher, Robert Arthur (Illinois)

Swygert, Luther Merritt (Illinois)

Williams, Ann Claire (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Barker, William T. (Illinois)

Bartlett, Shannon P. (Illinois)

Byman, Robert L (Illinois)

Cassel, Douglas W (Illinois)

Deutsch, Michael (Illinois)

Eglit, Howard (Illinois)

FitzSimmons, Joseph Thomas (Illinois)

Freeman, Zachary J (Illinois)

Fritzsche, Sybille C. (Illinois)

Grossman, Harvey (Illinois)

Gutman, Richard M. (New Jersey)

Haddix, Lance (Illinois)

Hassett, Joseph (District of Columbia)

Howard, Robert C. (Illinois)

Jackowiak, Lawrence V (Illinois)

Klink, Val (Illinois)

Koziboski, Edward J (Illinois)

Kraft, Lois Lipton (Illinois)

Lundy, Joseph R (Illinois)

Mathias, John H Jr (Illinois)

Muller, Gerald J (Illinois)

Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois)

Polikoff, Alexander L (Illinois)

Schwartz, Adam D. (Illinois)

Tucker, Robert L. (Illinois)

Vollen, Robert J (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Aguiar, William Macy (Illinois)

Babbitt, Ellen M (Illinois)

Baldwin, Sharon (Illinois)

Burns, James B (Illinois)

Chiphe, Imani (Illinois)

Christenson, Robert C (Illinois)

Coghlan, James L (Illinois)

Daley, James (Illinois)

Daly, John F. (District of Columbia)

Dent, Thomas A (Illinois)

Dobbs, Kenneth Paul (Illinois)

Feldman, Edward W (Illinois)

Fisher, Linda (Illinois)

Fitzpatrick, Peter (Illinois)

Forgue, Thomas (Illinois)

Forrest, Davida Kay (Illinois)

Forti, Michael A (Illinois)

Frey, Scott A (Illinois)

Friedman, Albert B (Illinois)

Garber, Stanley J. (Illinois)

Hiegel, Adrienne L. (Illinois)

Hunger, Frank W. (District of Columbia)

Hutchinson, Roger Sanford (Illinois)

Johnson, Patrick Walter (Illinois)

Jones, Gregory C (Illinois)

Kanter, William (District of Columbia)

Keane, George M. Jr. (Illinois)

Kopp, Robert E (District of Columbia)

Kruse, J. Charles (District of Columbia)

Lipstein, Freddi (District of Columbia)

McGovern, Patrick F (Illinois)

McNamara, John (District of Columbia)

Melton, Bruce William (Illinois)

Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)

Moran, Edward J (Illinois)

Morris, Howard Patrick (Illinois)

Moscovitch, Ruth M (Illinois)

Murtaugh, George Joseph Jr. (Illinois)

Nelson, Harry Joshua (Illinois)

Nereim, Mardell (Illinois)

O'Brien, Richard J. (Illinois)

Ordonez, Edward M (Illinois)

Parkinson, Larry R (District of Columbia)

Quinlan, William R. (Illinois)

Rader, Robert M (District of Columbia)

Rhine, Frederick S (Illinois)

Rosenthal, Lawrence (Illinois)

Royce, Thomas (Illinois)

Shapiro, Howard M. (District of Columbia)

Sher, R. Joseph (District of Columbia)

Siegan, Jerome A (Illinois)

Skinner, Samuel K (Illinois)

Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)

Solomon, Benna R. (Illinois)

Staunton, Thomas M (Illinois)

Suffredin, Lawrence Jr (Illinois)

Sullivan, Thomas P. (Illinois)

Tanzillo, Paul Anthony (Illinois)

Unger, Margaret A (Illinois)

Walsh, Thomas P. (Illinois)

Welsh, Kelly Raymond (Illinois)

Willard, Richard K. (District of Columbia)

Worseck, Andrew W (Illinois)

Zreczny, Myriam (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER) [Consolidated Case 01-9586]

Wilson v. Chgo, Cty of, et al

Feb. 26, 2003 Docket

Docket (PACER)

Alliance To End, et al v. Rochford, et al

May 22, 2007 Docket

Docket (PACER) [Consolidated Case 75-3295]

Amer Civil Liberties, et al v. Chgo, Cty of, et al

June 19, 2007 Docket

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss]

Alliance to End Repression et al v. Rochford et al

407 F.Supp. 115

May 16, 1975 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel]

Alliance to End Repression et al v. Rochford et al

75 F.R.D. 430

March 5, 1976 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Defendants' Motion for Protective Order]

Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford

75 F.R.D. 428

March 5, 1976 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Protective Order]

Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford

75 F.R.D. 431

Oct. 14, 1976 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Impose Sanctions]

Alliance to End Repression et al v. Rochford et al

75 F.R.D. 438

Nov. 10, 1976 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction]

Alliance to End Repression et al v. Rochford et al

75 F.R.D. 435

Nov. 10, 1976 Order/Opinion

[Table of Decisions - United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit]

Alliance To End Repression v. Rochford

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

558 F.2d 1031

March 1, 1977 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5082787/alliance-to-end-v-rochford/

Last updated May 20, 2022, 1:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
2869

MOTION by plaintiff Alliance To End for leave to file supplemental memorandum of ACLU in opposition to FBI objections to the report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge ; Notice of motion. (Temporarily unavailable for docketing) (vmj) (Entered: 05/17/1995)

April 25, 1991 PACER
1

COMPLAINT (Attachments) -Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Joseph Thomas Fitzsimmons as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( Five original and five summons summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: (1-1 through 1-3)) (ntf) Modified on 12/20/2001 (Entered: 12/19/2001)

Dec. 17, 2001

RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 12/17/01 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 10617244. (ntf) Modified on 12/19/2001 (Entered: 12/19/2001)

Dec. 17, 2001
2870

MINUTE ORDER of 4/25/91 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting petitioner ACLU's motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum of ACLU in opposition to FBI objections to the report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge [2869-1]. No notice (Temporarily unavailable for docketing) (vmj) (Entered: 05/17/1995)

April 25, 1991 PACER
2871

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Alliance To End in opposition to FBI objections to the report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Temporarily unavailable for docketing). (vmj) (Entered: 05/17/1995)

April 25, 1991 PACER
4

MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/02 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : City of Chicago's Local Rule 40.4 motion to reassign case number 01C9586 to this court based on a finding that it is related to case numbers 74C3298 and 75C3295 granted. Defendants to answer or otherwise plead on or before 3/18/02. No further extensions will be given. Status hearing is set for 5/2/02 at 9:30 a.m. in case 01C9856 only. This date will become moot, if a dispositive motion is filed. Original motion is filed in case 74C3268. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 03/29/2002)

Jan. 30, 2002
2

REASSIGNMENT ORDER of 1/31/02 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Joan B. Gottschall from Hon. William T. Hart. Case related 1:74-cv-3268 with member cases 1:75-cv-3295 and 1:01-cv-9586. (For further detail see order). Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/01/2002)

Jan. 31, 2002
2803

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (vkd) (Entered: 05/24/1993)

May 21, 1993 PACER
2804

MINUTE ORDER of 5/21/93 by Hon. Joan H. Lefkow : Report and Recommendation regarding Chicago CISPES' request for an order requesting additional training and notification is hereby submitted to Judge Williams. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, these cases are returned to the assigned judge terminating case referral . Mailed notice (vkd) (Entered: 05/24/1993)

May 21, 1993 PACER

MOTION by defendant City of Chicago to dismiss petitioner Jeffrey C. Wilson's enforcement petition under the Alliance consent decree ; Memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice (Original in 74cv3268). (yp) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 18, 2002
3

MINUTE ORDER of 3/27/02 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Answer brief to City of Chicago's motion to dismiss petitioner Jeffrey C. Wilson's enforcement petition under the Alliance consent decree [0-1] due 5/22/02. Reply to answer brief due 6/12/02. Ruling on Respondents' motion to dismiss will be by mail. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 27, 2002
2805

MOTION by defendant FBI for an extension of time to 6/25/93 to seek review of the Report and Recommendation of 05/21/93 (fce) (Entered: 06/16/1993)

June 14, 1993 PACER
2806

MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting motion for an extension of time to 6/25/93 to seek review of the Report and Recommendation of 05/21/93 [2805-1] (This order concerns related case number 75 C 3295). Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1993)

June 17, 1993 PACER
5

MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/03 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall: Respondent City of Chicago's motion to dismiss petitioner Jeffrey C. Wilson's enforcement petition under the Alliance consent decree is granted [0-1]. Case number 01 C 9586 is terminated terminating case . (Entered Order) Mailed notice (air) Modified on 02/27/2003 (Entered: 02/27/2003)

Feb. 26, 2003
2807

OBJECTIONS by defendants to Report and Recommendation [2803-1] of the Magistrate Judge regarding training of FBI agents in Chicago (fce) (Entered: 06/28/1993)

June 25, 1993 PACER
2808

RESPONSE by CISPES petitioners' and plaintiff ACLU's to FBI's objections regarding training; Notice of filing and certificate of service (jmp) Modified on 07/07/1993 (Entered: 07/07/1993)

July 6, 1993 PACER
2809

MOTION by Alliance and ACLU plaintiffs and defendant Chgo, Cty of to amend order concerning disposition of documents (Attachments); Notice of motion. (cdh) (Entered: 12/01/1993)

Nov. 19, 1993 PACER
2810

ORDER regarding motion to amend order concerning disposition of documents [2809-1] (cdh) (Entered: 12/01/1993)

Nov. 19, 1993 PACER
2811

MINUTE ORDER of 11/19/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting agreed motion to amend order concerning disposition of documents [2809-1]. No notice (cdh) Modified on 12/01/1993 (Entered: 12/01/1993)

Nov. 19, 1993 PACER
2812

SUPPLEMENT by plaintiffs' Alliance to attachment a to attorney's fees motion. (cdh) (Entered: 12/17/1993)

Dec. 16, 1993 PACER
2815

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (cdh) (Entered: 12/30/1993)

Dec. 16, 1993 PACER
2816

MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing set for 03/08/94 at 9:30 am. *( this order concerns related case 75 C 3295) Pursuant to memorandum opinion and order, petitioners motion for an order requiring further training and notification is gratned. Telephone notice (cdh) (Entered: 12/30/1993)

Dec. 16, 1993 PACER
2813

TOTAL FEES by plaintiffs' ; Notice of filing. (cdh) (Entered: 12/20/1993)

Dec. 17, 1993 PACER
2814

STATEMENT OF SERVICES by plaintiffs' 3/1/93 through 12/17/93. (cdh) (Entered: 12/20/1993)

Dec. 17, 1993 PACER
2817

12/15/93 ATTORNEY'S FEES CALCULATION by plaintiffs'; Notice of filing. (cdh) (Entered: 12/30/1993)

Dec. 20, 1993 PACER
2818

SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING MATERIALS by respondent FBI (Attachment) (jmp) (Entered: 03/03/1994)

March 1, 1994 PACER
2819

LETTER from respondent FBI to H. Stuart Cunningham dated 02/28/94. (jmp) (Entered: 03/03/1994)

March 1, 1994 PACER
2820

MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held. No notice (jmp) (Entered: 03/09/1994)

March 8, 1994 PACER
2821

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (jmp) (Entered: 03/15/1994)

March 11, 1994 PACER
2822

MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pursuant to memorandum opinion and order, the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is adopted as amended. Plaintiffs motion for an award of attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Acto fo 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 against defendant City of Chciago is granted. Counsel Richard Gutman, is awarded $39,718.82. Draft to follow. Plaintiffs second amended motion for an award of attorney's fees is denied. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 03/15/1994)

March 11, 1994 PACER
2823

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT (jmp) (Entered: 03/25/1994)

March 21, 1994 PACER
2824

MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Enter final order and judgment. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 03/25/1994)

March 21, 1994 PACER
2825

ORDER (Attachment) (jmp) (Entered: 03/31/1994)

March 30, 1994 PACER
2826

MINUTE ORDER of 3/30/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Enter judgment in favor of the ACLU plaintiffs and against the City of Chicago in the amount of $149,303. The City of Chicago is ordered to make prompt payment of that amount to the firm of Futterman & Howard, counsel for the ACLU plaintiffs. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 03/31/1994)

March 30, 1994 PACER
2827

OBJECTIONS by unknown Service List to FBI's draft "final order and judgment"; Notice of filing and certificate of service (jmp) (Entered: 04/05/1994)

April 4, 1994 PACER
2828

LETTER from Robert C. Howard to the Clerk of the Court dated 4/12/94. (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1994)

April 12, 1994 PACER
2829

JUDGMENT (vkd) (Entered: 04/25/1994)

April 21, 1994 PACER
2830

MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant City of Chicago in the amount of $39,718.82. The City of Chicago is ordered to make payment of that amount plus post-judgment interest to the law firm of Richard Gutman, P.c., 54 Parker Street, Carlisle, PA 17013-2818. Mailed notice (vkd) (Entered: 04/25/1994)

April 21, 1994 PACER
2831

OPPOSITION by defendant FBI to the enforcement petition of the American Civil Liberties Union. (vkd) (Entered: 04/25/1994)

April 22, 1994 PACER
2832

MOTION by American Civil Liberties Union and CISPES to alter, or amend judgment (Attachment); Notice of motion (vkd) (Entered: 04/26/1994)

April 22, 1994 PACER
2833

PETITION by American Civil Liberties Union to enforce FBI Consent Decree (Exhibit); Notice of motion (vkd) (Entered: 04/26/1994)

April 22, 1994 PACER
2834

AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding petition to enforce FBI Consent Decree [2833-1] (vkd) (Entered: 04/26/1994)

April 22, 1994 PACER
2835

MINUTE ORDER of 4/22/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Reply to answer brief due 05/02/94 on American Civil Liberties Union's motion to enforce FBI Consent Decree [2833-1]. Pretrial conference set for 06/06/94 at 9:00 a.m. Ruling on motion of the American Civil Liberties Union and of CISPES petitioners to alter or amend judgment to be made by mail. No notice (vkd) (Entered: 04/26/1994)

April 22, 1994 PACER
2836

REPLY by Amer Civil Liberties Union to the FBI's opposition to its petition to enforce FBI Consent Decree [2833-1] (Attachment). (vkd) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994 PACER
2837

REFERRAL ORDER of 05/06/94: Case referred to Hon. Joan H. Lefkow pursuant to General Rule 2.41(b) to conduct hearings and enter appropriate orders on the following pretrial motion/matter: conduct necessary proceedings and enter Order/Report and Recommendation on all nondispositive motions and dispositive pretrial matters through filing of pretrial materials including final pretrial order. Referral made for ruling on American Civil Liberties Union's petition to enforce FBI consent decree. (For further detail see order). Mailed notice (vkd) Modified on 05/11/1994 (Entered: 05/11/1994)

May 6, 1994 PACER
2843

LETTER to Clerk from R Joseph Sher dated 05/27/94 (temporarily unavailable for docketing). (vkd) (Entered: 07/12/1994)

June 1, 1994 PACER
2838

MINUTE ORDER of 6/6/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held; continued to 06/27/94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (vkd) (Entered: 06/07/1994)

June 6, 1994 PACER
2839

MOTION by Alliance plaintiffs to compel respondent FBI to serve a copy of its findings upon Alliance plaintiffs . (vkd) (Entered: 06/24/1994)

June 21, 1994 PACER
2840

BRIEF by in support of Alliance plaintiffs' motion to compel respondent FBI to serve a copy of its findings upon Alliance plaintiffs [2839-1] (Exhibits). (vkd) (Entered: 06/24/1994)

June 21, 1994 PACER
2841

MINUTE ORDER of 6/27/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held; continued to 08/08/94 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (vkd) (Entered: 06/29/1994)

June 27, 1994 PACER
2842

MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/94 by Hon. Joan H. Lefkow : Briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion to compel respondent FBI to serve a copy of its findings upon Alliance plaintiffs [2839-1] is as follows: FBI's brief in opposition is due on or before 07/08/94 and plaintiffs' reply is due on or before 7/29/94. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

July 1, 1994 PACER
2844

OPPOSITION by respondent FBI to motion of the former Alliance plaintiffs to compel the FBI to serve them with filings in this proceeding [2839-1] (Attachments). (vkd) (Entered: 07/12/1994)

July 8, 1994 PACER
2845

MINUTE ORDER of 7/11/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : The Clerk of Court is directed to send all notices on behalf of defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation to R. Joseph Sher, Senior Trial Counsel Torts Branch, Civil Division, P.O. Box 7146 Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044 and to add attorney Sher to the docket to receive notices. No notice (vkd) (Entered: 07/12/1994)

July 11, 1994 PACER
2846

REPLY brief by Alliance plaintiffs in support of their motion to compel respondent FBI to serve a copy of its findings upon Alliance plaintiffs [2839-1] (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vkd) Modified on 07/19/1994 (Entered: 07/19/1994)

July 15, 1994 PACER
2847

MINUTE ORDER of 8/8/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset for 09/09/94 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice (vkd) (Entered: 08/09/1994)

Aug. 8, 1994 PACER
2848

MINUTE ORDER of 9/9/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset for 10/14/94 at 3:00 p.m. Mailed notice (temporarily unavailable for docketing). (vkd) Modified on 09/21/1994 (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 9, 1994 PACER
2849

MINUTE ORDER of 10/14/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held; continued to 11/04/94 at 2:30 p.m. No notice (vkd) (Entered: 10/19/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994 PACER
2850

BRIEF by Alliance plaintiffs brief regarding service (Attachment). (vkd) (Entered: 11/07/1994)

Nov. 3, 1994 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 11/4/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 12/2/94 at 2:30 p.m. Pretrial conference to be held by telephone on 12/2/94. No notice (dl)

Nov. 4, 1994 PACER
2851

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION concerning motion to enforce FBI Consent Decree [2833-1] (vkd) (Entered: 11/30/1994)

Nov. 29, 1994 PACER
2852

MINUTE ORDER of 11/29/94 by Hon. Joan H. Lefkow : Enter Report and Recommendation: It is recommended that the court enter a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of the terms of the consent decree has occured or is occurring. It is further recommended that the parties be permitted to conduct appropriate discovery limited to the issues raised by the petition. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been completed, case is returned to the assigned judge. terminating case referral to Hon. Joan H. Lefkow . Mailed notice (vkd) (Entered: 11/30/1994)

Nov. 29, 1994 PACER
2853

JOINT MOTION by parties for entry of standing order regarding parties to be served ; Notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1994)

Dec. 2, 1994 PACER
2854

MEMORANDUM by parties in support of motion for entry of standing order regarding parties to be served [2853-1] (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1994)

Dec. 2, 1994 PACER
2855

MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Answer brief to joint motion for entry of standing order regarding parties to be served [2853-1] due 12/16/94. Reply to answer brief due 12/23/94 Pretrial conference held; continued to 12/22/94 at 10:30 am. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1994)

Dec. 2, 1994 PACER
2856

OBJECTIONS by respondent FBI to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on 11/29/94 [2851-1] and proposed briefing schedule (Attachment). (vkd) (Entered: 12/23/1994)

Dec. 14, 1994 PACER
2858

MINUTE ORDER of 12/19/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and REcommendation due 01/17/95. Responses to objections due 01/24/95. Mailed notice (vkd) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

Dec. 19, 1994 PACER
2859

BRIEF by respondent regarding service on the original plaintiffs in proceedings to enforce the agreement. (vkd) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

Dec. 20, 1994 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 12/22/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 1/13/95 at 12:00 p.m. by telephone. No notice (dl)

Dec. 22, 1994 PACER
2860

REPLY brief concerning service by Alliance plaintiffs (Exhibits). (vkd) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

Dec. 23, 1994 PACER
2861

REPLY memorandum of ACLU on entry of standing order regarding parties to be served (Attachment). (vkd) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

Dec. 23, 1994 PACER
2862

STATEMENT by respondent regarding the petitioners' motion to alter [2832-1] or amend judgment [2832-2] (vkd) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

Dec. 27, 1994 PACER
2863

MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by respondent in support of respondent's objections to the Magistrate Judge's 11/29/94 report and recommendation [2856-1] (vkd) (Entered: 01/12/1995)

Dec. 30, 1994 PACER
2857

COMMENTS by Alliance plaintiffs regrding plaintiff ACLU's proposed "standing order regarding parties to be served" (ar) (Entered: 01/04/1995)

Jan. 3, 1995 PACER
2865

MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held; continued to 02/03/95 at 11:00 a.m. Date for filing briefs and/or objections is extended to 02/03/95. Pretrial conference to be held by telephone on 02/03/95. No notice (vkd) (Entered: 01/20/1995)

Jan. 13, 1995 PACER
2864

RESPONSE by Alliance plaintiffs to respondent FBI's objections to Magistrate Judge's 11/29/94 Report and Recommendation (Attachments). (vkd) (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 18, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 2/3/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held. Parties directed to present to the court draft orders by 2/10/95. The court will select and enter an order by 2/17/95. No notice (dl)

Feb. 3, 1995 PACER
2866

NOTICE of planned destruction of records. (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1995)

Feb. 17, 1995 PACER
2867

STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing this proceeding. (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1995)

Feb. 17, 1995 PACER
2868

MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Enter stipulation and order dismissing this proceedings. American Civil Liberties Union's petition to enforce FBI consent is dismissed with prejudice. Court retains jurisdiction for a period of one year for the purpose of enforcing this settlement agreement. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1995)

Feb. 17, 1995 PACER
2872

NOTICE by Richard Gutman of change of address. (vmj) (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 15, 1995 PACER
2873

MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: (This order concerns related case number 75 C 3295) Cispes petitioners are given leave to file their motion to determine amount of attorney's fees award and brief in support on 11/22/95. Response to be filed on 11/22/95 and served on 09/22/95. Reply to be filed and served on 11/22/95. Ruling to be made by mail. Said motion received by the court on 08/21/95 returned to petitioners by mail on 08/24/95 with leave to resubmit according to the schedule set above. Briefing schedule is pursuant to agreement of parties. Court notes that the motion has been served on opposing parties by mail on 08/19/95. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 08/25/1995)

Aug. 24, 1995 PACER
2874

AGREED MOTION by defendant FBI to extend time to serve response to CISPES' attorney fee petition ; (jmp) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

Sept. 27, 1995 PACER
2875

MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Agreed motion of defendant FBI to extend time to serve response to CISPES' attorney fee petition [2874-1] to and including 09/29/95 is granted. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

Sept. 27, 1995 PACER
2877

NOTICE of motion by defendant FBI regarding motion to extend time to serve response to CISPES' attorney fee petition [2874-1] (jmp) (Entered: 10/04/1995)

Sept. 27, 1995 PACER
2876

MEMORANDUM by respondent in opposition to the Cispes petitioners' motion to determine the amount of attorney's fee award (jmp) (Entered: 10/03/1995)

Oct. 2, 1995 PACER
2878

NOTICE by unknown Service List of change of address (Attachment) (jmp) (Entered: 11/06/1995)

Nov. 3, 1995 PACER
2879

MOTION by Cispes petitioners to determine amount of attorney's fee award (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)

Nov. 22, 1995 PACER
2880

AMENDED attorney's fee computation (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)

Nov. 22, 1995 PACER
2881

REPLY BRIEF by Cispes petitioners on attorney's fees (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)

Nov. 22, 1995 PACER
2882

ORDER (jmp) (Entered: 04/02/1996)

March 28, 1996 PACER
2883

MINUTE ORDER of 3/28/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : The court grants the joint motion for entry of standing order regarding parties to be served [2853-1] and hereby enters the order proposed by Alliance. (See reverse of minute order) Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 04/02/1996)

March 28, 1996 PACER
2884

MINUTE ORDER of 3/28/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Motion by Alliance plaintiffs to compel respondent FBI to serve a copy of its findings upon Alliance plaintiffs [2839-1] and American Civil Liberties Union's petition to enforce FBI Consent Decree [2833-1] are stricken as moot pursuant to stipulation and order dismissing proceedings [docs #2867 and #2868]. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 04/02/1996)

March 28, 1996 PACER
2885

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT (jmp) (Entered: 04/02/1996)

March 28, 1996 PACER
2886

MINUTE ORDER of 3/28/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Noting that there are no objections, the court grants the motion of American Civil Liberties Union and of CISPES Petitioners' to alter [2832-1] and amend judgment [2832-2] and grants CISPES Petitioners' objections to FBI's draft "Final Order and Judgment" [doc #2827], Stricking final order and judgment entered on 03/21/94 [doc #2823]. Enter attached final order and judgment. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 04/02/1996)

March 28, 1996 PACER
2887

REFERRAL ORDER of 4/3/96: Referring from Judge Ann C. Williams to Hon. Joan H. Lefkow the motion to determine amount of attorney's fee award [2879-1] pursuant to General Rule 2.41(b). (For further detail see order). Mailed notice(yap) Modified on 04/08/1996 (Entered: 04/08/1996)

April 4, 1996 PACER
2888

NOTICE of audit by defendant Police Board of the City of Chicago; Notice of filing. (yap) (Entered: 04/08/1996)

April 4, 1996 PACER
2892

BILL OF COSTS submitted by Richard Gutman on behalf of petitioners Chicago CISPES, et al in the amount of $238.60 (Attachment) (jmp) (Entered: 05/06/1996)

April 10, 1996 PACER
2889

MOTION by Alliance plaintiffs' for attorney fees motion for monitoring compliance with FBI consent decree ; Notice of motion and certificate of service (jmp) (Entered: 04/15/1996)

April 12, 1996 PACER
2890

BRIEF by plaintiffs' in support of Allliance plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees motion for monitoring compliance with FBI consent decree [2889-1] (jmp) (Entered: 04/15/1996)

April 12, 1996 PACER
2891

DECLARATION by Richard Gutman in support of Alliance plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees motion for monitoring compliance with FBI consent decree [2889-1] (Attachments) (jmp) Modified on 04/15/1996 (Entered: 04/15/1996)

April 12, 1996 PACER

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 13, 1974

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individuals or organizations in the City of Chicago who engage or have engaged in lawful political, religious, educational or social activities and have been subjected to or threatened by infiltration, coercion, surveillance, etc, by the defendants

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

US Department fo Justice Drug Enforcement Agency, Federal

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal

City of Chicago (Cook), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1981 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Auditing

Monitoring

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Reporting

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Incident/accident reporting & investigations