Case 1:09-cv-06709
Document 1
Filed 10/23/2009
Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. JERRY SUTTON, ST AR SECURITY AGENCY AND THE CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. Judge:
JURY DEMANDED
COMPLAINT JURISDICTION 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1983 and 1988; 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343(a); and the Constitution of the United States, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Mr. William Edwards is an African American male, a citizen of the United
States and a resident of Evanston, Illinois. 3. Defendant Jerry Sutton is/was a security guard employed by Star Security and Detective
Agency, which was in turn, contracted and certified by the Chicago Transit Authority, and was at all times relevant to the facts alleged in this complaint, acting within the scope of his employment and under color of law.
1
Case 1:09-cv-06709
Document 1
Filed 10/23/2009
Page 2 of 6
4.
The Chicago Transit Authority is a municipal corporation within the State of Illinois, and
at all times material to this Complaint, Defendant security guard Jerry Sutton was an employee or agent of the Chicago Transit Authority.
FACTS 5. In October of 2004 Mr. William Edwards was traveling northbound on the Green Line
Train in Chicago, Illinois near 43rd Street. He began walking through the cars in an attempt to find a seat on the crowded train. 6. At some point, while passing through the cars, he accidentally hit a security dog with one
of the train’s doors. 7. The moment the door hit the dog, Defendant Sutton, who was in control of the dog
became visibly upset and began to harass Mr. Edwards and threatened to throw Mr. Sutton off the train. 8. Defendant Sutton and another security guard detained Mr. Edwards and proceeded to ask
Mr. Edwards if he was in possession of any narcotics. Mr. Edwards explained that he did not have any narcotics. 9. At the next stop, Defendant Sutton took Mr. Edwards off the train and while on the
platform, Mr. Edwards and Defendant Sutton exchanged some harsh words. 10. Next, Defendant Sutton and his fellow security guard performed a search of Mr.
Edwards’ pockets and clothes. Moments after the search, Defendant Sutton showed Mr. Edwards a bag of crack cocaine and marijuana. 11. Defendant Sutton then falsely stated that he had found these drugs on Mr. Edwards’
person, and that he was going to call the police to have Mr. Edwards taken to the police station.
2
Case 1:09-cv-06709
Document 1
Filed 10/23/2009
Page 3 of 6
12.
Mr. Edwards told Defendant Sutton that there was no way that the drugs Defendant
Sutton was holding were found on his person, and that Defendant Sutton was trying to frame him. 13. Mr. Sutton proceeded to call the police and then detained Mr. Edwards in the ticketing
agent’s bathroom for about half an hour until two Chicago Police Officers arrived. 14. At no time, did the Chicago Police officers see the drugs on Mr. Edwards, but only on the
basis of Defendant Sutton’s word, the Police Officers arrested Mr. Edwards and charged him with possession of a controlled substance. 15. Mr. Edwards stayed in pre trial detention at the Cook County jail for seven months until
March of 2005 when he went to trial. At trial, Mr. Edwards was convicted of possession of a controlled substance because a document which contained key evidence that negated Mr. Edwards’ guilt and showed inconsistencies in Defendant Sutton’s testimony was not allowed into evidence. 16. Mr. Edwards was sentenced to thirty months probation, but since he had already been in
jail for seven months, he was given credit for time served and released. 17. Mr. Edwards promptly appealed his conviction. In May of 2008, his conviction was
vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial 18. Mr. Edwards was awaiting his new trial until he was informed by the State’s Attorney in
May of 2009, that the charges were dropped and that the State had decide not to prosecute him. COUNT I (42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983-Due Process Claim) (1-18). Plaintiff William Edwards, alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 18 as fully set forth above.
3
Case 1:09-cv-06709
Document 1
Filed 10/23/2009
Page 4 of 6
19.
The actions of the Defendant Jerry Sutton in fabricating evidence and falsifying reports
and actively using the falsified evidence in criminal complaints against Plaintiff were done in violation of Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment and/or 5th Amendment right of Due Process of Law as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 20. The above acts by the Defendants were done willfully, maliciously, intentionally, or with
reckless disregard, and directly and proximately caused serious injury to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William Edwards, demands compensatory damages against Officer Sutton, and because the Defendant acted intentionally, maliciously, willfully and/or wantonly, Plaintiff demands punitive damages from each individual Defendant, plus costs, attorney’s fees, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II (Malicious Prosecution under Illinois Law) (1-18). Plaintiff William Edwards alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 18 as fully set forth above. 19. The above prosecution was initiated by Defendant security guard Jerry Sutton to cover up
the unjustifiable search and detainment of the Plaintiff. 20. The Defendant security guard Jerry Sutton gave false statements to the prosecution and
signed complaints against Plaintiff which began the prosecution of him. 21. The unjustifiable prosecution was resolved in the Plaintiff’s behalf and, therefore, said
prosecution was in violation of the Illinois law. 22. The unjustifiable prosecution of the Plaintiff was done willfully and wantonly and was
the direct and proximate cause of the physical and mental injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.
4
Case 1:09-cv-06709
Document 1
Filed 10/23/2009
Page 5 of 6
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands compensatory damages against Defendant Sutton because the Defendant acted maliciously, willfully and/or wantonly, Plaintiff demands punitive damages, plus cost and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT III (False Arrest under Illinois Law) (1-18). Plaintiff, William Edwards alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 18 as fully set forth above. 19. As a result of the unreasonable and unjustifiable detainment, Plaintiff William Edwards
suffered both mental and emotional injuries. 20. This unreasonable and unjustifiable detainment of the Plaintiff by Defendant Jerry Sutton
was a direct and proximate cause of his pain, suffering and mental anguish. This act by the above Defendant constituted false arrest under the laws and Constitution of the State of Illinois. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands compensatory damages against the Defendant, and because the Defendant acted maliciously, willfully and/or wantonly, Plaintiff demands punitive damages against the Defendant. COUNT IV (Respondeat Superior under Illinois Law against Star Detective Agency) (1-18). Plaintiff, William Edwards alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 18 as fully set forth above. 19. The aforesaid acts of Defendant security guard Jerry Sutton, in falsely arresting William
Edwards were done within the scope of their employment as contracted security guards for the Star Detective Agency, were willful and wanton, and therefore the Defendant Star Detective
5
Case 1:09-cv-06709
Document 1
Filed 10/23/2009
Page 6 of 6
Agency, as principal, is liable for the actions of its agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William Edwards demands judgment against Defendant Star Detective Agency, plus costs, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT V (Respondeat Superior under Illinois Law against Chicago Transit Authority) (1-18). Plaintiff, William Edwards alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 18 as fully set forth above. 19. The aforesaid acts of Defendant security guard Jerry Sutton, in falsely arresting William
Edwards were done within the scope of their employment as contracted security guards for the Chicago Transit Authority, were willful and wanton, and therefore the Defendant Chicago Transit Authority, as principal, is liable for the actions of its agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William Edwards demands judgment against Defendant Chicago Transit Authority, plus costs, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/Amina Al-Hassan Attorney for Plaintiff The Law Office of Standish E. Willis, Ltd. 39 S. LaSalle, Suite 1210 Chicago, IL 60603 312.750.1950
6