DeVore Federal Lawsuit

3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 1 of 21
E-FILED
Friday, 09 August, 2019 08:05:38 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES WALCH and JANIS WALCH, )

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:19-cv-03191
)
AARON MORGAN, individually, in his )
official capacity, and as agent of MONTGOMERY )
COUNTY, SHERIFF RICK ROBBINS, )
individually, in his official capacity, and as agent )
of MONTGOMERY COUNTY, )
MONTOGOMERY COUNTY, SILVER LAKE )
GROUP, LTD., individually and as agent of )
CNB BANK, THOMAS DEVORE, individually )
and as agent of CNB BANK, )
CNB BANK & TRUST, )
N.A. A National Banking Corporation, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
I. Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this Complaint based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question) as this is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. In addition to the original jurisdiction this Court possesses, this Court possesses
supplemental jurisdiction over Illinois State Law Claims and Defendants.
3. Venue is proper in the Central District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the complained
of acts were committed in Montgomery County, Illinois which is within the jurisdiction of
this Court.
II. An Introduction and The Parties
4. The foregoing Complaint alleges a civil conspiracy between Defendants to use the color of
law in depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights and property for the benefit of
Defendant CNB BANK. While Plaintiffs have done their best to illustrate the nature of the
Page 1 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 2 of 21
violations and damages, the extent of the damages cannot be uncovered absent discovery.
Further, this Complaint should not be taken as an exhaustive list of all the wrongs, but
merely, an introduction to the violations. It is verily believed, discovery shall uncover
communications and inferences warranting further claims against these named Defendants
and other individuals not yet named as defendants.
5. That at all times herein relevant, Plaintiffs, JAMES WALCH and JANIS WALCH, resided
in Montgomery County, Illinois.
6. Plaintiff JAMES WALCH is a Federal Firearms License holder. Firearms were stored in a
building (hereinafter “Hatchery Building”) located at 3209 Walch Trail which is adjacent
to Plaintiffs’ home located at 3195 Walch Trail, Raymond, Illinois. Plaintiff JAMES
WALCH, has operated out of the Hatchery Building since 1984.
7. The Hatchery Building is deeded and titled in the name of a trust to which Plaintiff JAMES
WALCH has an interest.
8. Defendant Deputy AARON MORGAN of Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY is and
was during all relevant times a law enforcement officer in Defendant MONTGOMERY
COUNTY Sheriff’s Department and acting under the direction and control of Defendant
Sheriff ROBBINS. During all relevant times Defendant Deputy AARON MORGAN acted under
color of state law.
9. Defendant Sheriff ROBBINS is and was during all relevant times a law enforcement officer
in Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY Sheriff’s Department and a final policy maker
with said agency. During all relevant times Defendant Sheriff ROBBINS acted under color of
state law.
10. Defendant, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, is a county in Illinois organized under the law of
the State of Illinois with a law enforcement agency called MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Page 2 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 3 of 21
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT. During all relevant times Defendant MONTGOMERY
COUNTY acted under color of state law.
11. Defendant SILVER LAKE GROUP, LTD (hereinafter “SILVER LAKE GROUP”) is and
was during all relevant times a law firm with offices in Illinois. Defendant SILVER LAKE
GROUP engages in debt collection and replevin activities for its clients.
12. Defendant THOMAS DEVORE, is and was during all relevant times an owner of
Defendant SILVER LAKE GROUP. Defendant DEVORE is sued in his individual
capacity for actions herein described and is also sued in his capacity as an agent for
Defendant SILVER LAKE GROUP and CNB BANK.
13. Defendant CNB BANK & TRUST, N.A. A National Banking Corporation (herein “CNB
BANK”) is a financial institution duly licensed under the laws of the State of Illinois.
III. Factual Allegations
THE ORIGINS OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
14. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiffs’ son, Vincent Walch filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and
said bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
15. Prior to Vincent Walch filing for bankruptcy, Defendant CNB BANK filed a Complaint
and requested a replevin against certain items of personal property owned by Vincent
Walch.
16. The filing of bankruptcy by Vincent Walch stayed the replevin attempt by Defendant CNB
BANK.
17. Thus, Defendant CNB BANK became one of the creditors to Vincent Walch’s bankruptcy.
18. On or about February 26, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay related to certain items
of personal property of Vincent Walch allowing Defendant CNB BANK the right to secure
Page 3 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 4 of 21
said items from Vincent Walch. A true and correct copy of said Order is attached and
incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A”.
19. With that Order in hand, Defendant CNB BANK acting through its agents, Defendants,
SILVER LAKE GROUP, and DEVORE, went about securing Vincent Walch’s personal
property and the property belonging to Plaintiffs.
20. On May 3, 2019, Defendant Deputy AARON MORGAN accompanied Defendant
DEVORE to a building owned by the bankruptcy estate of Vincent Walch, which sits on
real property adjacent to Hatchery Building. On said date, the two Defendants began
searching for items listed on the Order dated February 26, 2019 (Exhibit “A”) in the
building owned by the bankruptcy estate.
21. The Order did not provide Defendants the right to search or seize any property belonging
to Plaintiffs or even traverse Plaintiffs’ property.
22. While Defendants DEVORE and Deputy MORGAN were searching Vincent Walch’s
property, Vincent Walch volunteered that a couple of the items Defendants sought were on
Plaintiffs’ property, and at that time Vincent Walch agreed to secure those items for
Defendants DEVORE and Deputy MORGAN.
23. Defendant DEVORE and Deputy MORGAN refused to allow Vincent Walch to retrieve
the property by himself and coerced Vincent Walch to allow them entry onto Plaintiffs’
property through threats of legal action.
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST VISIT TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
24. Vincent Walch under duress consented and went to Plaintiff JANIS WALCH to secure a
key to unlock the property.
Page 4 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 5 of 21
25. After securing the keys, unlocking Plaintiffs’ Hatchery Building, and showing Defendant
DEVORE and Defendant Deputy MORGAN around the Hatchery Building, Vincent
Walch locked up the Hatchery Building.
26. Defendant DEVORE and Defendant Deputy MORGAN informed Vincent Walch they
were satisfied and were leaving the property.
27. Soon after Vincent Walch left the property, Defendants DEVORE and Deputy MORGAN
returned to Plaintiffs’ property and the Hatchery Building.
DEFENDANTS’ TRESPASS (THE SECOND VISIT)
28. Soon after Vincent Walch left the property of Plaintiffs, Defendant DEVORE and
Defendant Deputy MORGAN returned to Plaintiffs’ property.
29. Then and there Defendant DEVORE and Defendant Deputy MORGAN broke out a
window in the back of the Hatchery Building to obtain access to said building. Said
Defendants broke a lock securing access to the office of Plaintiff JAMES WALCH. Said
door is clearly marked with an address “3195 Office.”
30. Once inside the office, Defendants proceeded to cut a padlock on a large cabinet and then
cut a padlock from a footlocker with the name “JAMES V. WALCH” printed on said
locker. At that time, they proceeded in taking the property of Plaintiffs.
31. Then and there Defendant DEVORE and Defendant Deputy MORGAN began taking
personal property located at Plaintiffs’ property.
32. At some point during Defendant DEVORE and Defendant Deputy MORGAN’s looting,
Plaintiff JANIS WALCH observed Defendants taking personal property from her property.
33. Plaintiff JANIS WALCH confronted Defendants about the items belonging to her and her
husband.
Page 5 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 6 of 21
34. To which Defendant Deputy MORGAN informed Plaintiff JANIS WALCH that Defendant
DEVORE could take whatever he wanted.
35. The looting became so overwhelming for Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE
that Defendant DEVORE secured the assistance of approximately a dozen other men, the
identities are unknown at this time.
36. All of this looting occurred under the watchful eye of Defendant Deputy MORGAN
ensuring that no one interfered with Defendants raid on Plaintiffs’ property.
37. None of the property seized on this second visit had any indication of ownership by Vincent
Walch. The personal property seized on this visit sat on real property not in the bankruptcy
estate of Vincent Walch.
Personal Property Stolen from Plaintiffs
38. Due to the manner in which Defendants forced themselves on to Plaintiffs, it is unknown
the extent of the personal property seized during the raid.
39. What follows is a non-exhaustive list of items that Defendants removed from Plaintiffs’
property on May 3, 2019:
a. 9 mm Glock 27, Serial # AS194US
b. 9 mm Ruger P-85, Serial # 302-44781
c. 9 mm Taurus GSC, Serial #TLX81662
d. .380 Diamondback DB380, Serial #ZG5952
e. 4,000 Silver Coins with an approximate value of $10,000.
f. Ammunition, which was purchased in bulk and stored at the Hatcher Building
g. AR15 Upper Palmetto State Armory
h. AR15 Palmetto AR 15 Upper 16”
Page 6 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 7 of 21
i. AR15 Palmetto AR 15 Upper 16” (Second)
j. 9mm Glock17, Serial DEK245
k. 44 Cal. Taurus Raging Bull, Serial BM571613
l. 12 GG Remington 870 Classic Trap, Serial D884575M
m. 22 LR Ruger Mark 2, Serial 18-17497
n. 22 LR Rugger 1022, Serial 12485908
o. LAR15 Rock River Arms, Serial 12619
p. Mauser firearm, Serial Z6078
q. Misc. Lower Receiver, approximately 30 units
40. The full extent of the property will likely never be known as Defendants DEVORE and
Deputy MORGRAN took no inventory during the conversion of Plaintiffs’ property.
Since the Theft, Plaintiffs Have Unsuccessfully Tried to Secure Personal Property
41. Without any indication the personal property belonged to Vincent Walch, Defendants were
able to clean out a building on Plaintiffs’ property.
42. After the items were removed, Defendants have refused to provide an accounting of the
items that were stolen from Plaintiffs on May 3, 2019.
43. Defendant DEVORE, acting on behalf of Defendant CNB, refused to provide any
information as items removed, and in addition, invited Plaintiffs to “create a conflict” with
Defendant CNB and Defendant Montgomery County. See Exhibit “B”, email from
Defendant DEVORE dated June 19, 2019.
44. After the raid, Defendants commingled the property owned by Plaintiffs with the property
of the bankruptcy estate of Vincent Walch and represented to a Court in Montgomery
County, Illinois that those items belonging to Plaintiffs were actually Vincent Walch.
Page 7 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 8 of 21
45. A true and correct copy of the pleading filed by Defendants DEVORE and SILVER LAKE
GROUP on behalf of Defendant CNB BANK is attached herein, incorporated by reference,
and labeled Exhibit “C”.
46. It is verily believed that Defendants cannot provide an inventory of which items were taken
from whose property because an inventory was not performed while the items were being
seized, thereby allowing Defendants to commingle property owned by Plaintiffs with
property owned by the bankruptcy estate of Vincent Walch.
47. On May 5, 2019, Plaintiff JAMES WALCH contacted Defendant MONTGOMERY
COUNTY’s Sheriff.
48. On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff JAMES WALCH personally spoke to Defendant Sheriff
ROBBINS, and during that conversation, Defendant Sheriff ROBBINS, requested a list of
the firearms that were illegally seized.
49. On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff WALCH provided Defendant Sheriff ROBBINS, a partial list
of firearms that were illegally seized.
50. On May 7, 2019, Defendant Sheriff ROBBINS responded to Plaintiff in an email admitting
that he witnessed ammunition being taken from Plaintiffs.
51. Defendant Sheriff ROBBINS informed Plaintiffs that he would speak to the Montgomery
County State’s Attorney about criminal charges, but based upon information and belief,
that did not occur or in the alternative was never presented in the manner in which other
crimes would have been presented.
Plaintiff’s Damages
52. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct herein described, Plaintiffs have
suffered tremendous loss of personal property, suffered the embarrassment, humiliation of
Page 8 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 9 of 21
having a State-sponsored raid of their property, Plaintiff JANIS WALCH suffers anxiety
from the incident, and Plaintiffs live in continual fear.
Count I
Federal Claim Pursuant to Section 1983- CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(vs. Deputy MORGAN, Individually, and in his official capacity as an officer of
Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Sheriff RICK ROBBINS Individually, and
as an agent of Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, and MONTGOMERY
COUNTY)
53. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
54. That this matter is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which provides an avenue for
plaintiffs to file for violations of the United States Constitution.
55. Pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff has a right against unlawful
seizure of the person or property.
56. Defendant Deputy MORGAN, acting under color of state law came upon Plaintiffs property
without legal justification, a warrant, or court order.
57. While on Plaintiffs’ property Defendant Deputy MORGAN committed the following:
a. Committed and assisted in the unlawful search of Plaintiffs’ property and seizure of
Plaintiffs’ personal property;
b. Destroyed personal property, such as locks, while on Plaintiffs’ property; and
c. Based upon information and belief, seized document evidencing ownership to prevent
Plaintiffs from proving their ownership in the property.
58. The actions of Defendant Deputy MORGAN were known to Defendants ROBBINS and
MONTGOMERY COUNTY and done pursuant to its policy and practice.
Page 9 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 10 of 21
59. Based upon information and belief, Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY
consented and approved the actions even though it possessed actual knowledge Defendant
Deputy MORGAN committed a civil rights violation.
60. Thereafter, Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY were made aware the
property was illegally seized and refused to take any action, thereby ratifying and condoning
the misconduct.
61. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken
intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights.
62. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of property, constitutional violations,
and emotional harm.
63. Defendants Deputy MORGAN, ROBBINS, and MONTGOMERY COUNTY were the
proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, JAMES WALCH and JANIS WALCH, respectfully requests that
this Court enter an order declaring their rights were violated, a judgment in his favor and against
Defendants, Deputy MORGAN, Sheriff ROBBINS, and MONTGOMERY COUNTY, awarding
compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against each Defendant, punitive damages against
Defendant Deputy MORGAN and ROBBINS, and any other relief this Court deems just and
appropriate.
Count II
42 U.S.C. § 1983- EXCESSIVE FORCE
(vs. Deputy MORGAN, Individually, and in his official capacity as an officer of Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Sheriff RICK ROBBINS Individually, and in his official
capacity as an officer of Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, and MONTGOMERY
COUNTY)
Page 10 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 11 of 21
64. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
65. This matter is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which provides an avenue for Plaintiffs to
file for violations of the United States Constitution.
66. Pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff has a right against unlawful
search and seizure.
67. Defendant Deputy MORGAN’s actions in breaking into the property of Plaintiffs were
excessive given the task Defendant Deputy MORGAN was attempting to achieve.
68. The nature and the quality of the intrusion by Defendant Deputy MORGAN was excessive
given the totality of the circumstances.
69. The actions of Defendant Deputy MORGAN herein described were known to Defendants
ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
70. Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY consented and approved of the
actions of Defendant Deputy MORGAN during all relevant times.
71. Defendant Sheriff RICK ROBBINS allowed the constitutional violations to occur, thereby
condoning those violations.
72. As Defendant Sheriff RICK ROBBINS is a final policy maker with Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY is liable for the
actions of its final policy maker.
73. Here, Defendant Deputy MORGAN’s actions allowed Plaintiff’s rights to be violated.
74. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by Defendant Deputy MORGAN
within the scope of his employment and under color of law such that his employer, Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, is liable.
75. Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY have failed to act to remedy the
Page 11 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 12 of 21
abuse by its officers described in the preceding paragraph, despite knowledge of the same,
thereby causing the ongoing injuries alleged here.
rights.
and emotional harm.
this Court enter an order declaring their rights were violated, a judgment in his favor and against
Defendants, Deputy MORGAN, Sheriff ROBBINS, and MONTGOMERY COUNTY, awarding
compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against each Defendant, punitive damages against
Defendant Deputy MORGAN and ROBBINS, and any other relief this Court deems just and
appropriate.
Count III
42 U.S.C. § 1983- CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
(vs. DEPUTY MORGAN, ROBBINS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DEVORE, SILVER
LAKE GROUP, CNB BANK)
78. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
79. This matter is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which provides an avenue for Plaintiffs to
file for violations of the United States Constitution.
80. Based upon information and belief, Defendants Deputy MORGAN, ROBBINS,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DEVORE, SILVER LAKE GROUP, and CNB BANK acted
in concert with one or more co-conspirators, and reached an agreement or understanding to
Page 12 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 13 of 21
deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.
81. Based upon information and belief, these Defendants conspired to accomplish an unlawful
purpose of taking Plaintiffs’ property, or otherwise to accomplish a lawful purpose by an
unlawful means, namely breaking into Plaintiffs’ property without probable cause, a warrant,
or court order and seizing property owned by Plaintiffs.
82. Further and based upon information and belief, these entities conspired to prevent the
disclosure of the personal property taken by refusing to inventory the property taken from
Plaintiffs’ property which would have allowed a Circuit Court to discover the wrongful taking
of personal property.
83. Moreover, Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY led Plaintiffs to believe
legal recourse was going to befall Defendants DEVORE and CNB, while in truth, Defendants
ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY had no intention of investigating the matter.
84. In furtherance of their conspiracy, one or more of the co-conspirators committed an overt act,
namely the breaking into the property of Plaintiffs and removing personal property. It is verily
believed further acts will be uncovered during discovery to show each was a willful participant
in joint activity.
rights.
and emotional harm.
this Court enter an order declaring their rights were violated, judgment in his favor and against
Page 13 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 14 of 21
Defendants, Deputy MORGAN, ROBBINS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DEVORE, SILVER
LAKE GROUP, and CNB BANK, awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs
against each Defendant, punitive damages against Defendant Deputy MORGAN, ROBBINS,
DEVORE, SILVER LAKE GROUP, and CNB BANK, and any other relief this Court deems just
and appropriate.
Count IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983- Failure to Intervene
(vs. Defendants MORGAN, ROBBINS, and MONTGOMERY COUNTY)
87. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
88. During the constitutional violations described in the preceding Counts and paragraphs,
Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY failed to intervene to prevent the
violations of Plaintiff’s rights, even though they had a duty and opportunity to do so.
89. Further, Defendants MORGAN, ROBBINS, and MONTGOMERY COUNTY had the right
and responsibility to remedy the wrongfully taking of personal property and chose not to.
90. Based upon information and belief, Defendants ROBBINS chose to ignore the constitutional
violation to please Defendants DEVORE and SILVER LAKE GROUP.
intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.
92. The misconduct described in this Count included the actions of final policy makers for
Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, namely Defendant ROBBINS. In this way,
Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY violated Plaintiffs’ rights through the actions of its
final policy makers and are liable to Plaintiffs.
93. As a result of Defendants misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiffs suffered loss of
Page 14 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 15 of 21
property, constitutional violations, and emotional harm.
Defendants, ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY, awarding compensatory damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against each Defendant, punitive damages against Defendant ROBBINS,
and any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
Count V
42 U.S.C. § 1983- Inadequate Training
(vs. ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY)
94. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
95. That this matter is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which provides an avenue for
plaintiffs to file for violations of the United States Constitution.
96. That Defendant ROBBINS’s job duties include training as to the law of the State of Illinois,
probable cause, and the correct use of force.
97. That Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY did not train Defendant
Deputy MORGAN on the laws of the State of Illinois, including probable cause, and the
correct use of force.
98. That failure to adequately train officers in these areas would carry a high risk that an
individual’s rights would be violated.
99. The failure to train officers in the areas of probable cause and use of force is deliberate
indifference.
100. Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY’s action in failing to properly train
its officers and officers it requests to engage in law enforcement duties was the proximate
Page 15 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 16 of 21
cause of Plaintiff’s damages.
101. As a result of Defendants misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiffs suffered loss of
property, constitutional violations, and emotional harm.
Count VI
42 U.S.C. § 1983-Inadequate Supervision and Discipline
(vs. Defendant ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY)
103. That this matter is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which provides an avenue for plaintiffs
to file for violations of the United States Constitution.
104. Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY had a duty to supervise and monitor
police officers acting on behalf of Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
105. Subsequent to Defendant Deputy MORGAN’s use of excessive force and wrongful seizure
against Plaintiffs, Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY failed to correct the actions of its
officer toward Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY
failed to supervise the actions after the wrongful taking.
106. Defendant ROBBINS failed to request or create an investigation into Defendant Deputy
MORGAN’s actions against Plaintiff.
107. In the alternative, Defendant ROBBINS condoned and encouraged Defendant Deputy
MORGAN’s actions against Plaintiffs on May 3, 2019.
Page 16 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 17 of 21
108. Defendant Deputy MORGAN has not been disciplined for his excessive use of force and
unlawful seizure.
109. Defendant ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY’s failure to adequately supervise and
discipline Defendant Deputy MORGAN, created a high risk that an individual’s rights would
be violated.
110. That failure to adequately supervise and discipline Defendant Deputy MORGAN is deliberate
indifference.
111. As a final policy maker for Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Defendant ROBBIN’s
action are imputed upon Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
112. Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNT and ROBBIN’s actions in failing to properly supervise
and discipline its officers were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.
Count VII
Illinois State Law Claim-TRESPASS
(vs. Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE)
114. Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE came upon Plaintiffs’ real property without
legal justification or right.
115. Once upon Plaintiffs’ property, Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE committed the
further tort of conversion.
Page 17 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 18 of 21
intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ property rights.
and emotional harm.
this Court enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants, Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE,
awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against each Defendant, punitive
damages, and any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
Count VIII
Illinois State Law Claim- CONVERSION
(vs. Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE)
119. On May 3, 2019, Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE assumed control over the
personal property of Plaintiffs.
120. Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE removed the personal property from Plaintiffs’
real property, despite Plaintiffs having all right to said property.
121. At the time of the wrongful taking, Plaintiffs had absolute right to the property.
122. Thereafter, Plaintiffs attempted to secure the return of the property and all Defendants have
refused to return or even account for the property which was taken.
intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ property rights.
and emotional harm.
Page 18 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 19 of 21
this Court enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants, Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE,
Count IX
Illinois State Law Claim- Respondent Superior
(vs. Defendants ROBBINS, SILVER LAKE GROUP, CNB BANK, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY)
126. Illinois law holds the actions of an agent in furthering the principal, impute liability on the
principal- even for intentional torts.
127. Defendants Deputy MORGAN and DEVORE were upon the property of Plaintiffs without
legal justification and removed the personal property from Plaintiffs, despite Plaintiffs having
all right to said property.
128. At the time of the trespass and wrongful taking, Plaintiffs had absolute right to the property.
129. Thereafter, Plaintiffs attempted to secure the return of the property and all Defendants have
refused to return or even account for the property which was taken.
130. At the time of the trespass Defendant Deputy MORGAN was acting an agent and in the scope
of his agency for Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
131. The purpose of the activities of Defendant Deputy MORGAN was to further the interest of
his employers, Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
132. As such, Defendants ROBBINS and MONTGOMERY COUNTY are liable for the torts of
their agent, Defendant Deputy MORGAN.
133. At the time of the trespass Defendant DEVORE was acting an agent and in the scope of his
agency for Defendant SILVER LAKE GROUP and CNB BANK.
Page 19 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 20 of 21
134. The purpose of the activities of Defendant DEVORE was to further the interest of his
employers, Defendants SILVER LAKE GROUP and CNB BANK.
135. As such, Defendants SILVER LAKE GROUP and CNB BANK are liable for the torts of their
agent, Defendant DEVORE.
this Court enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants, ROBBINS, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, SILVER LAKE GROUP, and CNB BANK, awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’
fees and costs against each Defendant, punitive damages, and any other relief this Court deems just
and appropriate.
Count X
Illinois State Law Claim- Indemnification
(vs. Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY)
137. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for
compensatory damages for which employees are individually liable within the scope of their
employment activities.
138. Defendants MORGAN and ROBBINS are or were employees of Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, and they acted within the scope of their employment in
committing the misconduct described herein.
this Court enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendant, MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
Page 20 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 21 of 21
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs, JAMES WALCH and JANIS WALCH, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Respectfully Submitted,
JAMES WALCH AND JANIS WALCH,
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Joshua R. Evans #6318288

The Unsell Law Firm, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
69 South Ninth Street
East Alton, IL 62024
Telephone: (618) 259-3728
Facsimile: (618) 259-3783
office@unselllaw.com
ekw@unselllaw.com
Page 21 of 21
3:19-cv-03191
3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1-1 Page 1 of 2
E-FILED
Friday, 09 August, 2019 08:05:38 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
ßßÎÑÒ ÓÑÎÙßÒô ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´´§ô ·² ¸· ±ºº·½·¿´ ½¿°¿½·¬§ô
¿²¼ ¿ ¿¹»²¬ ±º ÓÑÒÌÙÑÓÛÎÇ ÝÑËÒÌÇô ÍØÛÎ×ÚÚ Î×ÝÕ ÎÑÞÞ×ÒÍô
ÖßÓÛÍ ÉßÔÝØ ¿²¼ ÖßÒ×Í ÉßÔÝØ ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´´§ô ·² ¸· ±ºº·½·¿´ ½¿°¿½·¬§ô ¿²¼ ¿ ¿¹»²¬ ±º ÓÑÒÌÙÑÓÛÎÇ
ÝÑËÒÌÇô ÓÑÒÌÙÑÓÛÎÇ ÝÑËÒÌÇô Í×ÔÊÛÎ ÔßÕÛ ÙÎÑËÐô ÔÌÜòô
·²¼·ª·¼«¿´´§ ¿²¼ ¿ ¿¹»²¬ ±º ÝÒÞ ÞßÒÕô ÌØÑÓßÍ ÜÛÊÑÎÛô ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´´§
¿²¼ ¿ ¿¹»²¬ ±º ÝÒÞ ÞßÒÕô ÝÒÞ ÞßÒÕ ú ÌÎËÍÌô Òòßò ß Ò¿¬·±²¿´
Þ¿²µ·²¹ Ý±®°±®¿¬·±²ò
ÓÑÒÌÙÑÓÛÎÇ ÓÑÒÌÙÑÓÛÎÇ
Ö±¸«¿ Îò Ûª¿² ±º Ì¸» Ë²»´´ Ô¿© Ú·®³ô ÐòÝò

êç Í±«¬¸ ç¬¸ Í¬®»»¬ô Û¿¬ ß´¬±²ô ×Ô êîðîì
Ì»´»°¸±²»æ øêïè÷ îëçóíéîè
¨
¨ ¨ ¨
È
ìî ËòÍòÝ ïçèí
Ý×Ê×Ô Î×ÙØÌÍ Ê×ÑÔßÌ×ÑÒ
×Ò ßÒ ßÓÑËÒÌ
ÛÈÝÛÛÜ×ÒÙ üïððôðððòðð
¨
ðèñðçñîðïç ññ Ö±¸«¿ Îò Ûª¿²

3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1-1 Page 2 of 2

DeVore Federal Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DeVore Federal Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3:19-cv-03191-SEM-EIL # 1 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAMES WALCH and JANIS WALCH, )

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

question) as this is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

supplemental jurisdiction over Illinois State Law Claims and Defendants.

II. An Introduction and The Parties

merely, an introduction to the violations. It is verily believed, discovery shall uncover

and other individuals not yet named as defendants.

in Montgomery County, Illinois.

WALCH, has operated out of the Hatchery Building since 1984.

WALCH has an interest.

8. Defendant Deputy AARON MORGAN of Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY is and

color of state law.

in Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY Sheriff’s Department and a final policy maker

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT. During all relevant times Defendant MONTGOMERY

COUNTY acted under color of state law.

Defendant SILVER LAKE GROUP. Defendant DEVORE is sued in his individual

Defendant SILVER LAKE GROUP and CNB BANK.

III. Factual Allegations

THE ORIGINS OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

said bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A”.

property and the property belonging to Plaintiffs.

20. On May 3, 2019, Defendant Deputy AARON MORGAN accompanied Defendant

building owned by the bankruptcy estate.

to Plaintiffs or even traverse Plaintiffs’ property.

Defendants DEVORE and Deputy MORGAN.

property through threats of legal action.

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST VISIT TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY

key to unlock the property.

Walch locked up the Hatchery Building.

were satisfied and were leaving the property.

returned to Plaintiffs’ property and the Hatchery Building.

DEFENDANTS’ TRESPASS (THE SECOND VISIT)

Defendant Deputy MORGAN returned to Plaintiffs’ property.

door is clearly marked with an address “3195 Office.”

locker. At that time, they proceeded in taking the property of Plaintiffs.

personal property located at Plaintiffs’ property.

DEVORE could take whatever he wanted.

identities are unknown at this time.

ensuring that no one interfered with Defendants raid on Plaintiffs’ property.

estate of Vincent Walch.

Personal Property Stolen from Plaintiffs

the extent of the personal property seized during the raid.

property on May 3, 2019:

a. 9 mm Glock 27, Serial # AS194US

b. 9 mm Ruger P-85, Serial # 302-44781

c. 9 mm Taurus GSC, Serial #TLX81662

d. .380 Diamondback DB380, Serial #ZG5952

e. 4,000 Silver Coins with an approximate value of $10,000.

g. AR15 Upper Palmetto State Armory

h. AR15 Palmetto AR 15 Upper 16”

i. AR15 Palmetto AR 15 Upper 16” (Second)

j. 9mm Glock17, Serial DEK245

k. 44 Cal. Taurus Raging Bull, Serial BM571613

l. 12 GG Remington 870 Classic Trap, Serial D884575M

m. 22 LR Ruger Mark 2, Serial 18-17497

n. 22 LR Rugger 1022, Serial 12485908

o. LAR15 Rock River Arms, Serial 12619

p. Mauser firearm, Serial Z6078

q. Misc. Lower Receiver, approximately 30 units

Deputy MORGRAN took no inventory during the conversion of Plaintiffs’ property.

able to clean out a building on Plaintiffs’ property.