Rodriguez v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 05 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 17-cv-7248 |
| Parties | VENUS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO; CHICAGO POLICE SGT. JANET COMISKEY; CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER RICARDO VIRAMONTES; CHICAGO POLICE DETECTIVE ANTHONY WOJCIK; CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER GILBERT ESCAMILLA; MR. C'S MIDWAY BAR, INC.; and UNKNOWN CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
In her governing first amended complaint [239] (“Complaint”), Plaintiff Venus Rodriguez (“Plaintiff) brings suit against the City of Chicago (“City”), Chicago Police Sergeant Janet Comiskey (“Comiskey”), Chicago Police Officers Ricardo Viramontes (“Viramontes”) and Gilbert Escamilla (“Escamilla”), Chicago Police Detective Anthony Wojcik (“Wojcik”), Mr. C's Midway Bar, Inc. (“Midway Bar”), and unknown Chicago Police Officer John Doe (“Doe”) (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries arising out of Doe's alleged assault of Plaintiff at Midway Bar in 2015. Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Midway Bar [242] and by the City, Comiskey, Viramontes Escamilla, and Wojcik [246]. For the following reasons, both motions, [242] and [246], are granted. The Court gives Plaintiff until September 3, 2021 to file a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, if she believes she can do so consistent with this opinion and Rule 11. Plaintiff must attach a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint to her motion. If Defendants oppose the motion, they shall have until October 1, 2021 to file an opposition brief and Plaintiff shall have until October 22, 2021 to reply. If Plaintiff chooses not to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint or if the Court denies any such motion, a final judgment will be entered dismissing Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice and dismissing her state claims without prejudice and with leave to refile in state court.
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint. All well-pled facts are presumed to be true for purposes of Defendants' motions to dismiss. See White v. United Airlines Inc., 987 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 2021). At the time of the events detailed in the Complaint, Plaintiff was a police officer employed by the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”). Defendants Viramontes and Escamilla were also CPD officers; Defendant Comiskey was a CPD sergeant; and Defendant Wojcik was a CPD detective. Plaintiff, Comiskey, and Escamilla are still employed by CPD. According to the Complaint, Wojcik has retired and Viramontes was terminated “in connection with [his] role in the cover-up of the murder of Laquan McDonald by fellow Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke.” [239] at 3. Defendant John Doe, whom Plaintiff has yet to identify nearly four years into this litigation, allegedly was also a “sworn Chicago Police Officer” at all times relevant to the Complaint. Defendant Midway Bar is an Illinois corporation operating a tavern at 4654 W. 63rd Street in Chicago.
On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff and a female companion, Terry Bray (“Bray”), visited Midway Bar. Plaintiff was off duty at the time. Bray “became engaged in a verbal confrontation with another patron of the bar” who, according to the Complaint, “had previously identified himself to the Plaintiff and to Ms. Bray as a Chicago Police Officer who worked in the 3rd District.” [239] at 3. Doe was accompanied by an unidentified female. Emmett Ward (“Ward”) was the bartender at Midway Bar at the time of the altercation. Ward allegedly knew that Doe was a CPD Officer and a “regular” at the bar. Ward told Plaintiff and Bray that they had to leave to bar. As they were leaving, “Bray was physically assaulted by several male patrons of the bar, ” including Doe. Plaintiff, attempting to stop the assault, “grabbed a cell phone from the bar and told the assailants that she was recording them and that they were going to go to jail if they did not stop.” Id. at 4. Doe's female companion then “confronted, physically threatened and assaulted Plaintiff.” Id. Plaintiff “ended up on the floor in the back of the bar.” Id. Doe, aided by Ward, assisted Doe's “female companion and held Plaintiff on the floor near a pinball machine in the rear of the bar.” Id. While Plaintiff was restrained, Doe and his female companion “punched and beat … Plaintiff about the head and body.” Id. Ward called 911. After the attack, “Plaintiff was physically led out of the bar where she waited for police to arrive.” Id. Doe and his female companion “fled out the rear door” of the bar “before the police arrived.” Id.
Viramontes and Escamilla arrived on the scene and found Plaintiff standing in front of the bar with visible injuries to her face. They remained in their police vehicle. Plaintiff told the officers that “she was an off-duty CPD officer, ” that she “had just been assaulted and beaten in the bar by an unknown male patron who had identified himself as an off-duty Chicago Police Officer assigned to the 003rd District and his female companion, ” and that “she had sustained injuries and requested to go to the hospital for medical attention.” [239] at 5. Viramontes and Escamilla did not leave their vehicle and “never bothered to enter the ba[r] to see if the offenders were still on the scene.” Id. Viramontes and Escamilla called for a supervisor. Comiskey arrived, along with two other uniformed patrol officers. As Plaintiff was telling Viramontes, Escamilla, and Comiskey that she wanted to press charges against Doe, “multiple witnesses walked [out] of the bar directly past the officers, ” who “completely ignored these witnesses, and never bothered to even enter the bar.” Id. The officers also allegedly “refused to act upon the Plaintiff's requests for medical attention, ” to call an ambulance, or to take Plaintiff to a hospital. Id. Instead, they “repeatedly attempted to persuade Plaintiff not to pursue a complaint against” Doe, telling her to “drop the matter” and “just let it go.” Id. They made no attempt to conduct any investigation at the scene or learn Doe's identity.
According to the Complaint, Ward falsely told the officers that Plaintiff was the aggressor in the altercation with Doe. He did not tell them that Doe and his female companion had fled through the back of the bar. Ward also threatened to press criminal trespass charges against Plaintiff if she sought to press charges against Doe.
Instead of seeking medical attention for her, the Defendant officers transported Plaintiff to the 8th District police station. Plaintiff was interviewed by another (unidentified) Sergeant, who observed her demeanor and noted her injuries. The Sergeant initiated a Criminal Register (“CR”) with the Independent Police Review Authority (“IPRA”) with “Plaintiff as the victim of an assault and battery and an Unknown Off Duty Chicago Police Officer as the accused.” [239] at 7. An evidence technician was also called to photograph and document Plaintiff's injuries. Eventually, Plaintiff's father arrived at the police station and took Plaintiff to the emergency room at McNeal Hospital, where she was treated for her injuries.
CPD assigned Defendant Wojcik to investigate the alleged battery of Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Wojcik failed or refused to conduct an investigation, allegedly “based on the false assertion that the bar video” of the incident “was ‘inconsistent' with Plaintiff's allegations against … Doe.” [239] at 8. Wojcik did not make any effort to identify or locate Doe, such as by showing anyone at the 3rd District a screen shot taken from the bar video of Doe or showing Plaintiff photos of the police officers who worked in the 3rd District. He also failed to prepare a closing report on his purported investigation. When Wojcik retired in 2016, he allegedly took Plaintiffs file home with him.
The complaint further alleges that IPRA conspired to protect Doe and the City by refusing to make any attempt to identify Doe or conduct a legitimate investigation of Plaintiff's complaint. IPRA never took a sworn statement from Plaintiff. Within two weeks of the incident, IPRA, acting through Maria Elena Olvera (“Olvera”) and Andrea Stoutenborough (“Stoutenborough”), reversed the CR and changed Plaintiff from “Complainant” to “Accused.” Olvera and Stoutenborough, along with IPRA employee Kym Reynolds (“Reynolds”), “falsely characterized Plaintiff as the aggressor” and brought four charges against her, including a “Rule 14 Violation” for allegedly making a false police report. [239] at 9. IPRA also allegedly falsely charged Plaintiff with being intoxicated off duty, even though the Sergeant who initiated the CR told IPRA investigators that Plaintiff was not intoxicated. IPRA entered its findings on October 22, 2015, after interviewing only one witness-Ward, who knew Doe as a “regular”-and without watching the entire bar video of the incident. At the time IPRA made its findings, Plaintiff “had not been notified that she had become the ‘Accused' in the CR originally lodged on her behalf.” [239] at 9. Plaintiff was never provided “any justification or reason by IPRA or COPA for the change in her status from Complainant to Accused in the same CR.” Id. at 10.
On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff received a call from CPD's Bureau of Internal Affairs (“BIA”) informing her that she was being stripped of her police powers and instructing her to bring her badge and gun to police headquarters. On January 12, 2016, “IPRA's request to strip Plaintiff of her police powers was rejected by acting Chief of Police John Escalante.” [239] at 9.
IPRA was disbanded in 2017 and replaced with the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”), which according to the Complaint, “employed many of the same individuals.” ...
To continue reading
Request your trial