You are on page 1of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS MALEWSKI, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.
)
v. )
) Judge
TONI PRECKWINKLE, in her official capacity )
as President of the Cook County Board of )
Commissioners; THOMAS J. DART, in his ) Magistrate Judge
Official capacity as Cook County Sherriff; )
CARA SMITH in her official capacity as )
Executive Director of the Cook County )
Department of Corrections; COUNTY OF )
COOK, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT AT LAW
NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, by and through his attorneys,
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd., and the Uptown People’s Law Center, complaining against
the Defendants, TONI PRECKWINKLE, THOMAS J. DART, CARA SMITH, AND THE
COUNTY OF COOK in their official capacities.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 MONELL CLAIM OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL CONDITIONS
OF CONFINEMENT (14
th
Amendment Claim for Damages)
1. This action is brought pursuant to the laws of the United States Constitution,
specifically, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, to redress deprivations of the Civil Rights of the
Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI accomplished by the policies and procedures of the
Defendants, TONI PRECKWINKLE, THOMAS J. DART, CARA SMITH, AND THE
COUNTY OF COOK, committed under color of law.
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
2
2. Jurisdiction is based on Title 28 U.S.C. §1343 and §1331 and supplemental
jurisdiction of the State of Illinois.
3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because all of the
events described herein took place in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
4. The Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, was at all relevant times a United States
citizen and resident of the State of Illinois.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant, TONI PRECKWINKLE was the President of the
Cook County Board of Commissioners, which is responsible for authorizing construction and
repairs of the Cook County Jail (“CCJ”) physical plant and for funding all operations and
programs of CCJ. This includes ensuring appropriate resources are provided for such
construction, repair and operations. Defendant, TONI PRECKWINKLE is sued in her official
capacity.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant, COOK COUNTY through the County Board of
Commissioners was responsible for CCJ’s physical plant and had sole responsibility for funding
all operations and programs of the CCJ, this includes ensuring that the CCJ has the sufficient
funding and resources to operate the jail lawfully.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant, THOMAS J. DART was the Sherriff of Cook
County. He was solely responsible for all security, corrections policies and practices at the CCJ.
Defendant, THOMAS J. DART is responsible for the care, custody, and control of each
individual housed in CCJ. Defendant, THOMAS J. DART is sued in his official capacity.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant, CARA SMITH was the Executive Director of the
Cook County Department of Corrections. She reports directly to Defendant THOMAS J. DART
and was responsible for overseeing the implementation of all policies and procedures
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
3
promulgated by Defendant THOMAS J. DART regarding the operations of CCJ. Defendant,
CARA SMITH is sued in her official capacity.
9. On or about May 11, 2014, the Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, was arrested, taken
into custody, and was transferred to the CCJ located 2700 South California Ave, Chicago, IL
60608.
10. On or about May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was escorted with a large group of pre-trial
detainees to be arraigned and to have bond set by a judge sitting in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, located at 2650 South California Ave, Chicago, Illinois. After the arraignment and bond
hearing, the Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were escorted to a relatively new
holding area (initial holding area) at CCJ where they were to remain while being processed.
After they were processed, the Plaintiff and this group of pre-trial detainees remained in this
holding area till approximately 11:00 p.m. of May 12, 2014. None of the pre-trial detainees had
been fed up till this point.
11. After 11:00 p.m. on May 12, 2014, each pre-trial detainee was handcuffed to another
pre-trial detainee and the group was escorted to a smaller and older holding area (“second
holding area”). The second holding area did not have a bathroom and was significantly smaller
than the initial holding area. The Plaintiff and this group of pre-trial detainees were kept in this
second holding area from approximately 11:00 p.m. of May 12, 2014 till 3:30 a.m. of May 13,
2014. During this period, approximately ten to twenty (10-20) pre-trial detainees were taken out
of this second holding area and given division and cell assignments. A guard informed the
Plaintiff and the rest of the pre-trial detainees that the jail only had space to house ten to twenty
(10-20) pre-trial detainees, leaving more than fifty (50) pre-trial detainees, including the
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
4
Plaintiff, without division and cell assignments. The guard also informed the rest of the pre-trial
detainees that he was unable to provide them food.
12. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and the rest of the pre-trial
detainees were taken out of the second holding area to another location within the jail where a
guard took all of the pre-trial detainees’ ID cards and grouped them into three (3) stacks. Then
the guard then gave one (1) of the stacks to a processing guard to scan into the system. However,
when the processing guard refused to scan the ID’s into the system, the guard scanned all of the
ID’s and assigned a division and a cell assignment electronically to the Plaintiff and each of the
remaining pre-trial detainees.
13. At approximately 4:00 a.m. on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and the rest of the pre-trial
detainees were taken to a cell block in Division 6, which at the time was under construction.
After taking off their handcuffs, a guard informed the Plaintiff and the rest of the pre-trial
detainees that since there were no open beds in any part of the jail, that the only available option
was to allow the inmates to stay in this cell block of Division 6. Since the cells in this cell block
were under construction, the pre-trial detainees could not stay in the cells and had to sleep on the
floor in the common area in the middle of the cell block. The Plaintiff and the pre-trial detainees
were not provided mattress pads, pillows, blankets, soap or toilet paper at this time. Since the
construction crews returned at 6:00 a.m., the guard could only allow the pre-trial detainees to
sleep on the floor in the common area for two (2) hours. Finally, the guard said that they could
not give food to the inmates at this time.
14. At approximately 6:00 a.m. on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and the group of remaining
pre-trial detainees were moved to a day room in Division 6 and were allowed to sleep on the
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
5
floor of the day room for approximately an hour. The Plaintiff and the rest of the pre-trial
detainees at this point still had not been fed.
15. At approximately 7:00 a.m. on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial
detainees were handcuffed and transferred back to the initial holding area and stayed there until
approximately 11:00 p.m. of May 12, 2014. Before being transferred, a couple of pre-trial
detainees were escorted away from the group.
16. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on May 13, 2014 the Plaintiff and the remaining pre-
trial detainees were then handcuffed and moved to a third holding area that did not have
bathrooms or running water and stayed there till approximately 4:00 a.m. of May 14, 2014.
17. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were then removed from this
holding area back to the common area in the middle of a cellblock of Division 6. The guard
removed their handcuffs and they slept on the floor in the common area of the cell block in
Division 6 where they stayed until approximately 6:00 a.m. on May 14, 2014.
18. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were then moved back to a day
room in Division 6 until approximately 7:00 a.m. on May 14, 2014.
19. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial Detainees were separated into three (3)
groups: one group was escorted to another area of the jail, and two groups, one of which
contained the Plaintiff, were escorted to two holding areas where they had access to a bathroom.
The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees in his group stayed in this fourth holding area
till approximately 11:00 a.m. on May 14, 2014.
20. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were then transferred back to the
initial holding area. Upon entering the initial holding area, their handcuffs were removed and
they stayed in this initial holding area till approximately 8:00 p.m. of May 14, 2014.
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
6
21. In the middle of the afternoon of May 14, 2014, the guards finally gave the Plaintiff
and the remaining pre-trial detainees a sandwich and a drink. This was the first time that the
Plaintiff was given food for more than two and a half (2 1/2) days of being in custody.
22. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were handcuffed and moved to a
fifth holding area where they did not have access to a bathroom or running water until
approximately 4:00 a.m. of May 15, 2014. While he was being held in this fifth holding area, the
Plaintiff informed the guards that he had to use the bathroom. However, the guards ignored his
pleas. After waiting for a significant period of time, the Plaintiff was unable to contain himself
and urinated in his jumpsuit.
23. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were moved back to Division 6,
where their handcuffs were removed and where they slept on the floor in the common area in the
middle of a cell block until approximately 6:00 a.m. on May 15, 2014.
24. The Plaintiff and the remaining pre-trial detainees were then moved back to the
dayroom of Division 6 and slept on the floor till on or about 10:00 a.m. of May 15, 2014.
25. TThe Plaintiff and pre-trial detainees were then handcuffed and removed back to the
initial holding area where their handcuffs were removed and where they stayed till on or about
11:00 p.m. of May 15, 2014. In the middle of the afternoon of May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff and
the pre-trial detainees had a lunch meal.
26. The Plaintiff and a couple pre-trial detainees were then handcuffed and were removed
to yet another holding area (sixth holding area), where they stayed until approximately 3:00 a.m.
on May 16, 2014.
27. The Plaintiff and a couple of pre-trial detainees were then called out of the holding
area by a guard and given a mattress pad and were escorted to cells in Division 1. The Plaintiff
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
7
and each pre-trial detainee were given a cell to sleep in. This was the first opportunity that the
Plaintiff had since May 12, 2014 to sleep in an actual bed.
28. At some point during the morning of May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was moved to a
different cell. It was at this new cell where the Plaintiff obtained soap and was allowed to take a
shower. This was the first opportunity for the Plaintiff to shower since May 11, 2014. During the
afternoon of May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was given a lunch meal and in the evening he was given
a hot meal.
29. Even though the Plaintiff’s mother came to the jail in the morning of May 16, 2014
with his bond money, the Plaintiff remained in custody till approximately 10:00 p.m. of May 16,
2014.
30. Upon information and belief, Defendants, TOMAS J. DART and CARA SMITH
either instituted policies permitting or directing officers to house prisoners, like the Plaintiff in
temporary holding cells for days on end without food, liquids, adequate bathroom and/or shower
facilities, beds, or any of the other necessities of life; or in the alternative, failed to implement or
enforce policies and procedures prohibiting the actions described herein.
31. By reason of policies and procedures (or lack thereof) described above, the
Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary pain and suffering, and to an unreasonable risk of
harm and injury through barbaric living conditions. These policies and practices have been
implemented by Defendants and their agents or employees in their official capacities, and are the
proximate cause of Plaintiff’s deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution
under the Fourteenth Amendment and protected by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
8
32. Subjecting the Plaintiff to barbaric conditions such as the lack of food and denial of
such basic necessities as a cell, a bed, or access to a bathroom and a shower, as described in this
Complaint, constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
33. Defendants have been aware of all the deprivations complained herein, and have
condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, prays for judgment against the
Defendants, THOMAS J, DART (in his official capacity) and CARA SMITH (in her official
capacity) for reasonable compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell CLAIM OF THE UNDERFUNDING OF COOK COUNTY JAIL
1-33. Plaintiff MARCUS MALEWSKI hereby realleges and incorporates his allegations of
paragraphs 1-33 of Count I as though fully set forth herein.
34. All Defendants have been aware of severe overcrowding at Cook County Jail for
decades.
35. Despite this actual knowledge, Defendants COOK COUNTY and TONI
PRECKWINKLE have failed to provide adequate funding to provide cells and the other basic
necessities of life for pre-trial detainees sent to CCJ by the Courts, or to otherwise reduce the
number of people housed in the jail.
36. As a result of these policies, procedures, and/or customs of underfunding Cook County
Jail, pre-trial detainees have been subjected to barbaric living conditions in direct violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
9
37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ polices, procedures, and/or customs
of underfunding Cook County Jail, the Plaintiff was unconstitutionally subjected to unnecessary
pain and suffering, unnecessarily exposed to an unreasonable risk of serious harm, and has
suffered emotional distress, pain, suffering, fear and other damages.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, prays for judgment against the
Defendants, TONI PRECKWINKLE (in her official capacity) and COOK COUNTY, and for
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
COUNT III
CLASS ALLEGATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PRE-TRIAL DETAINEES
1-32 The Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, realleges and incorporates his allegations of
paragraphs 1-21 of Count I and his respective allegations of paragraphs 1-23 of Count II as
though fully set forth herein.
33. The Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, was housed with and has identified other pre-trial
detainees that were or are currently similarly situated and who suffered similar violations of their
rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Because of the similarity of their experiences, the Plaintiff would like to request that a class of
such individuals be certified who were or now prevented from having cell and division
assignments that have suffered or are suffering similarly to the Plaintiff.
34. The Pre-trial detainees that were housed with Plaintiff were similarly situated for similar
periods of time.
35. Upon information or belief, this pattern of abusive housing of pre-trial detainees has
been conducted during other periods of time
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
10
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, asks that an order certifying a
class of all pre-trial detainees who were, or are now not given cell or division assignments upon
entering Cook County Jail and who are forced to bear barbaric living conditions as a result.
JURY DEMAND
The Plaintiff, MARCUS MALEWSKI, hereby requests a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gregory E. Kulis
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.
Alan Mills (ARDC # 6181054)
Uptown People’s Law Center
4413 North Sheridan
Chicago, Illinois 60640
773-769-1411
alanmills@comcast.net
Gregory E. Kulis (6180966)
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2140
Chicago, IL 60602
312-580-1830
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
(U.S. Government Not a Party) or
and
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
(specify)
(See instructions):
MARCUS MALEWSKÌ TONÌ PRECKWÌNKLE, et al.
Cook
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2140
Chicago, ÌL 60602 (312) 580-1830
ì
ì
42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988
ì
06/06/2014 /s/ Gregory E. Kulis
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:11
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of
Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney
filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the
full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both
name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of
filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the
county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this
section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of
the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution,
an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be
marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the
different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for
each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient
to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the
most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for
removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation
transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is
checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Previous Bankruptcy Matters For nature of suit 422 and 423 enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated
by a judge of this court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.
VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the
actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a
jury is being demanded.
IX. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judge names for such cases.
X. Refiling Information. Place an "X" in one of the two boxes indicating if the case is or is not a refilling of a previously dismissed action. If it is a refiling of a
previously dismissed action, insert the case number and judge.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Rev040913
Case: 1:14-cv-04187 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/06/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:12