Walker v. White
| Decision Date | 19 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 16 CV 7024,16 CV 7024 |
| Parties | JERMAINE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL WHITE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jermaine Walker alleges that a group of Chicago police officers framed him for drug crimes, resulting in his conviction and a 22-year prison sentence. Throughout the state-court proceedings, Walker insisted that a security camera in the alley where he was arrested would expose the officers' misconduct and exonerate him. Before trial, a Cook County investigator took photographs of the alley, and the prosecutor introduced them at trial. None of the photographs showed a camera, and the investigator and two CPD officers testified at trial that there was no camera in the alley. Years later, a reinvestigation revealed that there had been a camera in the alley when Walker was arrested. The state moved to vacate Walker's conviction and sentence, and he received a certificate of innocence. Walker brings claims for fabrication of evidence, unlawful pretrial detention, and malicious prosecution, among others, against the CPD officers, the investigator, Cook County, and the City of Chicago. The defendants move for partial summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, their motions are granted in part, denied in part.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). I construe all facts and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Robertson v. Dep't of Health Servs., 949 F.3d 371, 377-78 (7th Cir. 2020). I need only consider the cited materials, but I may consider "other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
Defendants Michael White, Eric Reyes, Sebastian Flatley, Brian Daly, Raul Baeza, and Thomas Gaynor were Chicago police officers. [285] ¶ 2.1 Defendant Thomas Finnelly was an investigator for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. [285] ¶ 3.
On February 21, 2006, Walker, a student at Fisk University in Tennessee, and his brother, Russell Walker,2 stopped at JJ Peppers before going to their sister's apartment. [294] ¶¶ 1-3.3 Jermaine Walker was in the driver's seat of the car and Russell was in the passenger seat. [285] ¶ 9. Both brothers had been smoking marijuana in the car that day, and there was marijuana in the ashtray of the car. [285] ¶¶ 10, 29.
Reyes, Flatley, Daly, and White were on patrol in a police car, with Reyes driving. [285] ¶ 6. The parties dispute what happened next. According to the officers, around 8:30 p.m., a citizen stopped them and told them that two African-American men in a white car with Tennessee license plates were selling drugs near Lawrence Avenue and Sheridan Road. [285] ¶ 7. The officers saw a car matching that description in the parking lot of JJ Peppers. [285] ¶ 8. According to White, a man later identified as Dewey Brown was standing outside the car talking to Russell, and Russell pointed westbound. [285] ¶ 11. The Walkers then left the parking lot, driving west, and turned into an alley between a hotel, the Lawrence House, and JJ Peppers, while Brown walked into the alley. [285] ¶ 12-13. The Walkers parked near the southend of the alley. [285] ¶ 12. The officers followed in their car, and, once in the alley, White and Reyes saw Brown hand Russell money through the passenger side window of the car in exchange for a small object. [284] ¶¶ 14-15; [278-6] at 116:15-24; [278-15] at 11-12. Flatley saw Brown point to the item in his hand. [285] ¶ 16.
According to Walker, Brown was never in the parking lot of the JJ Peppers, and neither he nor his brother ever spoke to Brown. [285] ¶¶ 11-13; [294] ¶ 5. Walker pulled out of the JJ Peppers parking lot, and the officers activated their police lights. [285] ¶ 14; [294] ¶ 4. In response, Walker pulled into the alley and stopped the car. [285] ¶ 14; [294] ¶ 4. Walker saw Brown talking to another person in the alley, and that person ran away. [285] ¶ 15; [294] ¶ 6.
The parties agree that Brown fled toward the north end of the alley when the officers got out of their car, and that Flatley chased Brown and stopped him at the end of the alley. [285] ¶¶ 17-20. Brown had a small plastic bag containing a rock of crack cocaine, and Flatley handcuffed him and walked him back to the police car at the south end of the alley. [285] ¶ 20. When Brown fled, Daly got back in the police car to follow him; once Flatley radioed that he had Brown in custody, Daly got out of the car and saw Flatley escorting Brown down the alley. [285] ¶ 21.
While Flatley and Daly chased Brown, White and Reyes approached the Walker brothers' car. [285] ¶¶ 22-25; [294] ¶ 7. The parties dispute what happened next. According to Reyes, Walker threw a bag of what appeared to be cocaine out the window as the officers approached. [285] ¶ 26. Reyes asked Walker to get out of the car, then patted Walker down and handcuffed him, while White did the same toRussell. [285] ¶¶ 24, 27. White found cocaine on the front passenger seat of the car. [285] ¶ 24.
According to Walker, there was no cocaine in the car, and he did not throw any drugs out the window. [285] ¶¶ 24, 26; [294] ¶¶ 15, 17-19. Likewise, Russell didn't have drugs on him and never sold Brown drugs. [285] ¶ 15. As Walker remembers it, Reyes approached the car with his gun drawn and asked Walker for his identification. [285] ¶ 27; [294] ¶ 7. Walker complied and asked Reyes why the officers had stopped him. [294] ¶ 7. Reyes didn't answer, and ordered Walker out of the car, but Walker refused and asked to speak to a sergeant [285] ¶ 27; [294] ¶ 7. White came to the door a few minutes later and asked Walker to step out of the car, which he did. [285] ¶ 27; [294] ¶ 8. Reyes searched and handcuffed Walker, then Reyes began to beat him. [285] ¶ 27; [294] ¶¶ 9-10. Walker told the officers that their actions were on "candid camera." [285] ¶ 27; [294] ¶ 9. The officers deny beating Walker and dispute that Walker ever said anything about a camera. [294] ¶ 9.
Gaynor and Baeza arrived at the north end of the alley in response to Flatley's radio report of a chase. [285] ¶ 30. By the time Gaynor and Baeza arrived, Brown and the Walker brothers were already detained and handcuffed. [285] ¶¶ 30-31. Neither Gaynor nor Baeza interacted with either Walker brother in the alley. [285] ¶ 31.
At the police station, Flatley searched Walker and found cocaine in Walker's sock; Walker denies that Flatley found drugs on him. [285] ¶¶ 32-33, 96; [294] ¶ 15, 17-19. Reyes wrote the case report describing Walker's arrest. [285] ¶ 34. Daly didnot write a report and did not communicate with either Walker brother or with Brown. [285] ¶ 35.
On March 15, 2006, a grand jury indicted the Walker brothers together on four charges: possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, and delivery of a controlled substance. [285] ¶¶ 36-38; [294] ¶ 16. The indictment only charged the brothers with possessing and delivering cocaine, not marijuana. [278-16] at 1-6. Russell pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession within 1,000 feet of a school. [285] ¶ 38. In the same indictment, the grand jury charged Brown with, and he later pleaded guilty to, possession of a controlled substance, based on the baggie of crack cocaine found on him in the alley. [285] ¶¶ 39-40. He was sentenced to two years of mental-health probation, and admitted that he committed that crime. [285] ¶ 40.
Walker opted for a trial and chose to represent himself. [285] ¶ 60. In April 2006, in preparation for Walker's trial, an Assistant State's Attorney requested that an investigator photograph the alley, measure to find out if any drug sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a school, and see if there was a camera in the alley. [285] ¶ 42. Finnelly was assigned to that request. [285] ¶ 43; [294] ¶ 22. Walker asked the trial court to appoint him his own defense investigator to investigate whether there was a camera in the alley, but the court denied his request. [285] ¶ 83; [294] ¶ 21.
Twice, once in late April and once in early May, Finnelly took pictures of the alley. [285] ¶¶ 43-46; [294] ¶ 22. He walked north and south through the alley, but focused on the back of the JJ Peppers because that's where he thought the drug deal had occurred. [285] ¶ 44; [278-3] at 48:7-8, 57:2-7, 78:3-5, 82:2:11. Finnelly looked for a camera, but says he did not see one in the alley. [285] ¶¶ 45-46.
Whether Finnelly saw a camera is important. If he did not see one, then Walker's case against him falls apart because the gravamen of the claim is that Finnelly concealed a camera he knew was there. And if Finnelly's testimony is undisputed, then no jury could find that he violated Walker's rights. Walker tries to dispute Finnelly's testimony but does not follow our court's procedures to do so. He cites to his own statement of facts, rather than evidence in the record. [285] ¶ 46; see N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(e)(3). Worse, he cites to additional facts 69, 70, 71, and 74 to controvert the statement. [285] ¶¶ 45-47. Those facts don't exist—Walker's statement of additional facts ends at fact 46. [294]. District courts are entitled to "require strict compliance with local summary-judgment rules." McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 790 (7th Cir. 2019). Courts are not required to scour the record looking for factual disputes. I could deem Finnelly's statement undisputed and end the case against him.
Walker's...
To continue reading
Request your trial