Alvarez v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 09 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85 C 9366.,85 C 9366.
• Citation: 649 F. Supp. 43
• Parties: John ALVAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

649 F. Supp. 43

John ALVAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

No. 85 C 9366.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

December 9, 1986.

David C. Thomas, Chicago Kent Legal Clinic, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Judson H. Miner, Acting Corp. Counsel, City of Chicago by Ira M. Kleinmuntz, Diana J. Larsen, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Robert W. Fioretti, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Sr. Atty. Supervisor, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

Defendants City of Chicago and Rice move to dismiss plaintiffs' Count I request for a preliminary and permanent injunction pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs bring this action against multiple defendants including the City of Chicago and Fred Rice. Plaintiffs allege that defendants deprived plaintiffs of various constitutional rights. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent future harm to plaintiffs and all hearing impaired citizens. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

I. FACTS

Plaintiffs are hearing impaired citizens. Plaintiffs encountered several police officers on two separate occasions. During these encounters, plaintiffs were physically beaten, falsely arrested and imprisoned. Plaintiffs claim their constitutional rights were violated due to the Police Department of the City of Chicago's failure to adopt and implement certain policies, programs and procedures. These policies would be designed to train police officers to address the special problems presented by police encounters with the hearing impaired.

II. DISCUSSION

A district court's jurisdiction is limited by Article III of the Constitution to those complaints that allege an actual "case or controversy." Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1664, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1982). A plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). A plaintiff must show that the plaintiff "has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct." Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1982). In addition, the injury must be real and immediate.

A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief only if he can demonstrate future injury. Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96, 94 S.Ct. 669, 675-76, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). A past injury must be accompanied with continuing adverse effects. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent future harm to plaintiffs and all hearing impaired citizens. In response, defendants argue that plaintiffs' claim must be dismissed because it does not set forth a case or controversy. In particular, defendants contend that plaintiffs are not subject to future injury.

Plaintiffs contest defendants' contention. Plaintiffs believe they will encounter future harm. Plaintiffs allege they were physically abused by the police as a result of plaintiffs' hearing impairments. Next, plaintiffs suggest that future encounters with police officers are inevitable because their physical handicaps subject them to a "continuing condition." Consequently, plaintiffs maintain there is a reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs will be physically abused in the future.

The threshold question before this court is whether plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief sets forth a case or controversy. The existence of a case or controversy depends on whether plaintiffs are likely to suffer future injury from a Chicago policeman's use of excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution.

The United States Supreme Court was confronted by a similar issue in Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1982). In Lyons, Lyons was stopped by the police for a traffic violation. The police officers subjected Lyons to a chokehold without provocation that rendered Lyons unconscious. Lyons brought suit seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief. In his complaint, Lyons alleged that the City had a policy of applying chokeholds in situations that pose no significant danger to police officers.

The Lyons court held that Lyons failed to demonstrate a case or controversy that would justify the injunctive relief sought. Id. at 105, 103 S.Ct. at 1666. The Court reasoned that Lyons' standing to seek injunctive relief depended on whether Lyons was likely to have suffered future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers. The Lyons court reasoned that Lyons could not establish a real and immediate threat that Lyons would again be stopped for a traffic violation, or for any other offense, by an officer who would illegally choke Lyons into unconsciousness. In addition, the Court found insufficient Lyons' additional allegation in the complaint that the police routinely applied chokeholds in situations where they are not threatened by use of deadly force.

The Supreme Court ruled that Lyons was required to have made two additional allegations to establish an actual controversy. First, Lyons needed to argue that he could have had another encounter with the police. Second, Lyons was required to have asserted either (1) "that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter," ... or (2) "that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner." Id. at 106, 103 S.Ct. at 1667. The Supreme Court held that Lyons failed to satisfy these two requirements.

This court believes the facts in Lyons are substantially similar to the facts in the instant case. For example, plaintiffs were physically injured and deprived of their constitutional rights without justification in both Lyons and the instant case. In addition, no plaintiff was injured more than once in either lawsuit. Next, no plaintiff alleges that anyone is presently encountering police officers who are depriving anyone of their constitutional rights. Ultimately, plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive relief....