• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentsGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISION
LINDA SHELTON and))Plaintiff)v.)Case Number 06 C 4259)ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA)MADIGAN, individually, JUDGE)KATHLEEN PANTLE, individually, )JUDGE JORGE ALONSO, individually,)STATE POLICE INVESTIGATORS)Honorable Judge Joan H.LefkowWILLIAM D. REIBEL JR. PATRICK )KEENAN and NICHOLAS COZZOLINO, )Magistrate Judge Schenkier individually ASSISTANT ATTORNEY )GENERALS JOHN FEARON AND )PATRICK MURRAY, individually and in )their official capacity, OFFICE OF )INSPECTOR GENERAL MEDICAID )EMPLOYEES JULIA LOVETT AND)CHARLENE WELLS, individually )Filed August 7, 2006)Amended Complaint filedDefendants)January 11, 2010
AMENDED COMPLAINTPRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981
et seq.
Plaintiff seeksdeclaratory judgment and damages against Defendants for depriving her of her civil andconstitutional rights as guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, andFourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including failure to interveneand prevent these violations, due process violations, unlawful arrest and seizure, andconspiracy to violate rights. Plaintiff also seeks damages pursuant to state law tortremedies for malicious prosecution, emotional distress, and civil conspiracy issues.Plaintiff also seeks reasonable costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
 
JURISDICTION
1.Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a) and 1391, theConstitution of the United States; and pendent and supplementary jurisdiction pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendant Pantle’s, Defendant Alonso’s and Attorney General LisaMadigan’s and her assistants Murray and Fearon’s
absolute judicial and prosecutorialimmunity are breached in this case due to their total and complete lack of constitutional or statutory, personal or subject-matter jurisdiction
in Cook CountyCircuit Court case number 04 CR 17571.
PARTIES
2.Defendant Lisa Madigan during the cause of this action was the dulyelected Illinois Attorney General and a resident of Cook County, but acted in this case asan individual without prosecutorial authority.3.Defendants Kathleen Pantle and Jorge Alonso, during the cause of thisaction were duly elected Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County and residents of theCounty of Cook, but acted during the cause of this action without judicial authority asindividuals.4.Defendants Julia Lovett and Charlene Wells, during the cause of this action wereemployees of the Illinois Office of Inspector General for Illinois Medicaid, a state agencyauthorized by statute and they are liable as individuals.5.Defendants Fearon and Murray, during the cause of this action, wereemployed by the State of Illinois in the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. They alsoacted without legal authority as individuals during the cause of this action. Murray acted
 
as an investigator for some time prior to joining the case as an alleged but sham prosecutor.6.Defendants Reibel, Cozzolino and Keenan, during the cause of this action,were employed by the State of Illinois in the Department of the Illinois State PoliceMedicaid Fraud Control Unit (“MFCU”). They acted under color of law in conjunctionand conspiracy with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General’s fraud section outside thescope of their employment as investigators, supervisors and directors in engaging in theactions alleged in this complaint. They also acted without legal authority as individuals.7.Defendant Illinois State Police is a State Government agency authorized by statute of the State of Illinois, and is the employer of Defendants Reibel, Cozzolinoand Keenan. The IL State Police MFCU acts in concert with the Illinois Attorney GeneralMedicaid Fraud Section or Unit and is approved and partially funded as a MFCU by theUnited States Department of Health and Human Services, as authorized by federal law.8.Defendant Office of the Illinois Attorney General is a State agencyauthorized by the Illinois Constitution and statute of the State of Illinois, and is theemployer of Defendants Fearon and Murray.9.Plaintiff, during the cause of this action, was a resident of the State of Illinois and the County of Cook, as well as an employee of RFOM&A, a sole proprietorship, owned by Glass in the County of Cook, IL and registered as a group practice providing psychiatric/psychological services with the State of Illinois,Department of Medicaid.
FACTS – FORMATION OF GROUP PRACTICE AND REVIEW BYOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ILLINOIS MEDICAID
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...