Walden v. City of Chicago, No. 04 C 0047.

• Citation: 391 F.Supp.2d 660
• Decision Date: 25 April 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04 C 0047.
• Parties: Oscar WALDEN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

391 F.Supp.2d 660

Oscar WALDEN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

No. 04 C 0047.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

April 25, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John Ladell Stainthorp, G. Flint Taylor, Jr., Amber Miller, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Penelope Moutoussamy-George, James Arthur Filkins, Mara Stacy Georges, Jeffrey S. McCutchan, Louis R. Hegeman, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FILIP, District Judge.

Plaintiff Oscar Walden, Jr. ("Plaintiff" or "Walden") has sued Defendants City of Chicago (also "City"), Chicago Police Department ("CPD") Captain William Ryan, CPD Lieutenant Golden, CPD Detective Leon Sweitzer, and CPD Officers Joseph Faculak ("Faculak"), William O'Brien ("O'Brien"), William Murphy ("Murphy"), and Edward Walsh ("Walsh"), in a multi-count complaint with claims alleged under both federal and state law. (D.E. 1.)¹ The case involves Plaintiff's arrest and prosecution in 1952 for rape, which resulted in Plaintiff's conviction by a jury for the charged crime. See generally Illinois v. Walden, 19 Ill.2d 602, 169 N.E.2d 241 (1960) (denying post-conviction petition following jury verdict of guilty). Plaintiff served approximately fourteen years in prison, and he was released on parole in 1965. (D.E. 1 at 12.) Plaintiff received a general pardon in 1978 from then — Governor James R. Thompson, and in 2003, then-Governor George Ryan granted a pardon of innocence to Plaintiff. (Id. at 3.) The consequences of this second pardon are discussed at some length below.

All of the police officer defendants appear to be dead. (The complainant-rape victim also died long ago.) The case appears to be proceeding forward in any meaningful sense only against the City of Chicago, although Plaintiff also seeks to hold the City liable under various theories for the alleged misconduct of the police officers.²

Plaintiff alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning the actions of the individual defendants, which include claims regarding: deprivation of a right to fair trial and wrongful conviction (Count I); false arrest and imprisonment (Count II); torture and physical abuse (Count III); coercive interrogation (Count IV); and an Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985 (Count V). Plaintiff also advances a Monell policy claim against the City of Chicago relating to Counts I-V (Count VI). Walden advances numerous state law claims, including false imprisonment (Count VII); malicious prosecution (Count VIII); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IX); conspiracy (Count X); and a respondeat superior claim and an indemnification claim pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102 ("Section 9-102") against the City (Counts XI and XIII, respectively). This case is before the Court on the City of Chicago's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.E. 20.) As explained below, the Motion is denied in part and granted in part.

BACKGROUND FACTS³

Over a half century ago, on November 24, 1951, Ms. Elsie Anderson was attacked and raped by an African-American man on the South Side of Chicago, on 103rd Street between Wabash Avenue and Michigan Avenue. (D.E. 1 ¶ 15.) On January 11, 1952, CPD Officers Faculak, O'Brien, and Walsh arrested twenty-year old Oscar Walden, Jr., in the vicinity of 106th Street and Torrence in Chicago while Walden was on his way to work. (Id. ¶ 16-17.) At the time of the arrest, Plaintiff had a clean record. (Id. ¶ 17.) He had never been arrested and had no experience dealing with the police. (Id.)

It is not clear from the complaint what prompted the police to arrest Walden, and the complaint alleges that at the time Walden was arrested, he had never been identified, either in person or by photograph, as the person who attacked Ms. Anderson. (Id. ¶ 19.) (The Illinois Supreme Court opinion in Illinois v. Walden, 19 Ill.2d 602, 169 N.E.2d 241 (1960), suggests events that are not included in the Complaint, as discussed briefly below.) After Walden was arrested, the officers took Walden to the Kensington Police Station at 115th Street and Indiana Avenue. (Id. ¶ 18.) On the day of Walden's arrest, police went to Ms. Anderson's home and brought her to the station. (Id. ¶ 20.) As the officers interrogated Walden, Ms. Anderson sat in the same room and watched. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) Ms. Andersen never indicated that Walden was her attacker. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 24.)

After this brief encounter, CPD officers, including Faculak, O'Brien, and Walsh, removed Plaintiff from the room and questioned him further. (Id. ¶ 25.) During this questioning, Plaintiff repeatedly requested counsel and asked for his wife. (Id. ¶ 26.) The officers refused all these requests. (Id.) The police officers then informed Plaintiff that he was being accused of raping Ms. Anderson. (Id. ¶ 27.)

The interrogation continued and the officers began to kick Plaintiff in the shins to attempt to coerce him to confess to the rape. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) After about an hour, Walden was taken to the 11th Street police station, where the police administered a lie detector test before transporting him to the Burnside police station at 91st Street and Cottage Grove. (Id. ¶ 29.) Walden spent the night of January 11, 1952, in custody at the Burnside station. (Id. ¶ 30.)

On the morning of January 12, 1952, police returned Walden to the Kensington police station. (Id. ¶ 31.) Faculak falsely told Walden that he had failed the lie detector test, grabbed Walden's arm, forced him to the back of the police station, and accused him of lying when he denied attacking Ms. Anderson. (Id.) In fact, Plaintiff had not failed the lie detector test; the results were apparently inconclusive. (Id. ¶ 32.) At the back of the police station, Plaintiff was placed in a room and was joined by Faculak, Sweitzer, and several other officers. (Id. ¶ 33-34.) Sweitzer told Walden that if he did not confess, he would be transferred to the 11th Street police station because they treated prisoners brutally there. (Id. ¶ 33.) Golden, Ryan, and Sweitzer then went to lunch, leaving other officers to continue the interrogation. (Id. ¶ 35-36.)

Faculak encouraged Walden to give a confession, and told Plaintiff that if he admitted to the crime he would be treated leniently. (Id. ¶ 38.) When Plaintiff asserted his innocence, Faculak took more proactive measures of interrogation. (Id. ¶ 39-40.) With Sweitzer (who had returned from lunch) sitting in a chair directly in front of Plaintiff, Faculak grabbed Walden's left hand, bent his fingers back, and scratched them until they were bloody. (Id. ¶ 40.) Sweitzer knocked Walden's head back and forth, stating to Walden, "You are lying, nigger," when Walden denied committing the rape. (Id. ¶ 41.) Faculak also at times kicked Plaintiff in the shins. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff continued to deny the accusations against him. (Id. ¶ 42.)

Faculak then ordered another officer to "go get the rope," and he told Plaintiff that they were going to string him up to a high bar, remove his clothes, and whip him with a rubber hose until he confessed. (Id. ¶ 44.) Faculak also told Plaintiff that his failure to confess would result in Plaintiff's father losing his job, his family being evicted, and that the police would put Plaintiff's mother, father, sisters and brothers in different jails. (Id. ¶ 46.) Faculak also told Walden that he would plead for leniency for Walden if Walden confessed, and that Walden would get six months in jail or probation. (Id. ¶ 48.)

While Plaintiff continued to protest his innocence, Faculak instructed him to say that he was walking down the south side of 103rd Street with a knife on or about 10:00 p.m. on November 24, 1951, when he saw a woman coming towards him. (Id. ¶ 49.) Faculak further instructed Plaintiff to say that he grabbed the woman, pulled her into a vacant lot, and raped her. (Id.) Intimidated and coerced, Plaintiff agreed to confess as instructed. (Id. ¶ 50.) Faculak ordered Plaintiff to go with him and apologize to Ms. Anderson, which Plaintiff did. (Id. ¶ 51.)

At some point, certain police officers, including Walsh, went to Plaintiff's house and, without a warrant, seized Plaintiff's hat and coat. (Id. ¶¶ 52-53.) They proceeded to soil the garments to make them look more like the coat and hat Ms. Anderson described her attacker as wearing. (Id. ¶ 54.) In front of Ms. Anderson and several officers, Plaintiff was required to put on the dirty coat and hat and to appear before her. (Id. ¶¶ 55-56.)

O'Brien and Walsh took Plaintiff to another room and ordered him to confess to the attack on Ms. Anderson while Murphy typed up Plaintiff's statement. (Id. ¶ 57.) Fearing for his safety, Plaintiff related a story consistent with the one Faculak had conveyed to him. (Id. ¶ 58.) During the recitation, however, Plaintiff broke down and said that he would not go any further with the untrue story. (Id.) Sweitzer then shoved Walden and told him to continue. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60.) Eventually, Plaintiff related a false confession and signed a false statement because he feared for his safely and for the welfare of his family. (Id. ¶ 64.)

Then an Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) walked into the room and asked Plaintiff to give an oral statement concerning the crime, but Plaintiff refused and said that he had been forced to confess. (Id. ¶¶ 65-66.) The ASA then asked Faculak and Sweitzer whether they had beaten or threatened Plaintiff to obtain his confession, and the officers denied knowledge of any mistreatment. (Id. ¶¶ 68-70.) The ASA, however, examined Plaintiff and saw physical injuries. (Id. ¶ 72.) Various police officers falsely reported that Plaintiff had been positively identified by Ms. Anderson as her attacker during the first encounter between them at the police station, on January 11, 1952. (Id. ¶ 74.)

Defendants reduced Plaintiff's statements to official reports and communicated them to...