Antwon Golatte Lawsuit

Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTWON D. GOLATTE, )
Plaintiff, )
) No._______________________________
vs )
) Judge: _____________________________
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, )
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS JAIME GAETA, ) Magistrate Judge ____________________
STAR# 17317, HARRY MATHEOS, STAR# )
18599, MATT DERCOLA, STAR# 15740, JAMES )
WHIGHAM, STAR# 3462, KATHLEEN )
SCHMIDT, STAR #11387, and DOES 1 through )
100, in their individual capacity, ) JURY DEMAND
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, ANTWON D. GOLATTE, by and through his attorneys,
Danielle A. Pinkston, of the PINKSTON LAW GROUP and L. Chris Stewart, of STEWART,
SEAY & FELTON complaining of Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation,
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS JAIME GAETA, STAR# 17317, HARRY MATHEOS,
STAR# 18599, MATT DERCOLA, STAR# 15740, JAMES WHIGHAM, STAR# 3462,
KATHLEEN SCHMIDT, STAR #11387, and DOES 1-100, stating as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This cause of action is to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution that resulted in personal
injuries, and request damages and prospective injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.
1
JURISDICTION
2. This court has jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
1331, 1343(1)(2)(3)(4), and 1367.
3. The acts or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs claims arose in County of Cook, and
State of Illinois thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1391(b)(2) venue is proper in the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES
4. During all relevant times in this Complaint, Plaintiff, ANTWON D. GOLATTE was and
is a United States citizen, residing in Cook County, Illinois.
5. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is a local government in Illinois created and existing by
virtue of the laws of Illinois. The CITY OF CHICAGO Police Department is a
Department of Chicago. Defendant CITY of CHICAGO employs personnel of its Police
Department and is responsible for its lawful operations, administration, maintaintence,
training, supervising personnel employed, and otherwise controls the City of Chicago
Police Department. Defendant has established policies and procedures for its Police
Department regarding how to conduct traffic stops, the use of force, reporting Police
Officer misconduct, and other relevant provisions. The acts and/or omissions alleged,
were under color of authority, color of state law as well as under color of the statutes,
ordinances, regulations, policies, practices, customs, and usages of the City of Chicago.
Defendant, CITY OF CHICAGO is liable for the actions of its employees.
6. Defendant OFFICERS JAIME GAETA, STAR# 17317, HARRY MATHEOS, STAR#
18599, MATT DERCOLA, STAR# 15740, JAMES WHIGHAM, STAR# 3462, and
KATHLEEN SCHMIDT, STAR #11387 were at all times described, employees of the
2
CITY OF CHICAGOS Police Department and were acting within the course and scope
of that employment. Each Defendant was the agent, employee, servant, partner, and/or
co-conspirator of the other Defendants named in this Complaint. In doing the acts and/or
omissions alleged, Defendants acted under color of law, and is sued in his or her
individual capacity.
7. The true names and identities of Defendant CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS DOES 1
through 100 (DOES) are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff uses the fictitious
name DOES to designate these Defendants until their identities have been ascertained. At
all times described, DOES was employees of the City Of Chicagos Police Department
and were acting within the course and scope of that employment. Each Doe was the
agent, employee, servant, partner, and/or co-conspirator of the other Defendants named in
this Complaint. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged, DOES acted under color of
law, and are sued in his or her individual capacity.
FACTS
8. On February 7, 2015, at approximately 2:02 P.M. Plaintiff was traveling in his vehicle
near 310 West 115th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60628 when Defendant Police Officers
Jaime Gaeta and Harry Matheos notified Defendant Police Officers Matt Dercola and
James Whigham by mobile phone, to conduct a traffic stop on Plaintiff.
9. Defendant Police Officers Jaime Gaeta and Harry Matheos arrived at the scene minutes
later and the Officers without probable cause, or any other lawful basis seized Plaintiff
for an excessive period.
10. In so doing, Defendants Gaeta, Matheos, Dercola, and Whingham were willful
participants in joint activity with one another.
3
11. Plaintiff recognized Defendants Gaeta, Matheos, Dercola, from February 5, 2015, when
they unconstitutionally searched and seized him by dumping his pizza onto the ground,
made him stand barefoot in the snow, placed him in handcuffs, and searched his vehicle
without his consent or a lawful basis.
12. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiff, fearful for his safety, called 911.
13. As a result, Defendant Officers began yelling, using profanity, threatening violence, and
pointed their firearms at Plaintiff.
14. Plaintiff lowered his drivers side window in an attempt to communicate with Defendant
Officers, to no avail.
15. Defendant Gaeta then stood on the running board Plaintiffs car, grabbed the inside of
Plaintiffs driver side window, pulled, and shattered the glass.
16. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was completely unarmed, had not committed any crime,
and posed absolutely no threat to the Defendant Officers, or anyone else.
17. Nevertheless, Defendants Gaeta and Matheos shot at Plaintiff at least five (5) times,
injuring him.
18. Three of the bullets entered Plaintiffs side and pierced his stomach and rib cage, barely
missing his lungs. To this day, bullet fragments remain trapped in Plaintiffs body near
his vital organs.
19. Plaintiff was transported to Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois after being shot, where
he underwent lifesaving surgery.
20. Plaintiff, who had done absolutely nothing wrong, was neither arrested nor charged with
a crime between February 7-10, 2015.
21. While in Christ Hospital, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Independent Police Review
4
Authority (IPRA) against Defendants and on July 14, 2016, IPRA found that Officer
Gaetas and Matheos use of deadly force was therefore objectively unreasonable and a
violation of policy. A copy of the final report is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated
by reference.
22. After realizing the severity of Plaintiffs injuries, the Defendants each conspired to cover
up the unconstitutional use of excessive force by Defendants Gaeta and Matheos.
23. In this manner, Defendants, acting in concert with each other, conspired and acted
together to cover up and prevent disclosure of the misconduct alleged above by
engaging in the following non-exhaustive conduct: completing false, misleading and
incomplete official reports; giving of false statements regarding the circumstances of
their detention of Plaintiff; providing false testimony at trial; and inventing false claims
to justify the use of excessive force.
24. To protect their fellow officer, and pursuant to a code of silence, each Defendant initiated
and/or continued the false and malicious prosecution of Plaintiff although they knew they
lacked probable cause.
25. Defendants sole purpose in causing and continuing the false charges against Plaintiff
was malicious in that it was done to cover up their wrongdoing.
26. Plaintiff was arrested and later incarcerated at the Cook County Jail, from February 14,
2015 until April 1, 2015.
27. On February 14, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered to be on home electronic monitoring with
daily Sheriff Reporting at the Cook County Jail that was terminated on July 30, 2015.
28. Defendants allegations and the subsequent charges against Plaintiff for aggravated
assault on four peace officers with a motor vehicle and criminal damages to government
5
property were false, had no reasonable basis, and lacked probable cause.
29. On January 20, 2017, the prosecution was terminated in Plaintiffs favor when he was
found not guilty on all counts after a trial that lasted three (3) inconsecutive days.
30. Upon information and belief, the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department
failed to adequately investigate the shooting of Plaintiff or impose any discipline on
any of the Defendant Officers until December 2016, almost two (2) years after the
unlawful shooting.
31. Defendant City of Chicago and other supervisory officials within the City, including
within the Police Department, encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and/or ratified
the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of in this Complaint.
32. As a direct and proximate result of one or more acts or omissions of the Defendants,
alleged above, Plaintiff suffered damages including but not limited to pain and suffering,
humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of liberty, lost time, interference
with a normal life, the violation of Plaintiffs rights, and financial loss.
COUNT I: Excessive Force (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

Against All Individually-Named Defendants
33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs as
though fully set forth here.
34. The actions of the Defendant Officers constituted unreasonable, unjustifiable, and
excessive force against Plaintiff, thus violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
35. As a result, Defendants misconduct directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer
injury including severe and excruciating pain; past and future anxiety, medical
expenses pain and suffering shock, extreme emotional distress, and humiliation, lost
6
employment opportunities inconvenience, embarrassment, and mental anguish,
deprivation of ordinary pleasures of life, loss of well-being, and equanimity, and his
overall health, strength, and vitality have been greatly impaired.
WHEREFORE pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendants for:
a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
b. Punitive and exemplary damages against each individual Defendant in an amount
appropriate to punish each individual Defendant and deter others from engaging
in similar misconduct;
c. Costs of suit;
d. Reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 and 28 U.S.C.A.
2412 and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;
e. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and
f. Such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the court may
deem proper.
COUNT II: False Arrest (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

36. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set
forth here.
37. Defendants misconduct violated Plaintiff right to be free from unreasonable seizures as
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States.
injury including severe and excruciating pain; past and future anxiety, medical
7
Defendants for:
b. Punitive and exemplary damages against each individual in an amount appropriate to
punish each individual Defendant and deter others from engaging in similar
misconduct;
c. Costs of suit;
d. Reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 and 2412 and as otherwise
authorized by statute or law;
deem proper.
COUNT III: Failure to Intervene (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

forth herein.
40. Each Defendant knew the other Officers intended to falsely arrest and use excessive force
against Plaintiff, had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the excessive force and false
arrest, but failed to do so.
8
41. Defendants misconduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally,
with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights.
42. Defendants misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the policy, practice, and custom of
the City of Chicagos Police Department.
injury including severe and excruciating pain, past and future anxiety, medical
Defendants for:
c. Costs of suit;
2412 and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;
deem proper.
9
COUNT IV: Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

forth herein.
45. As described more fully above, Defendants reached an agreement amongst themselves to
harm Plaintiff and punish him for a crime he did not commit, and to thereby deprive him
of his Constitutional rights.
46. In so doing, Defendant Officers conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful
purpose by an unlawful means.
47. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts and
was an otherwise willful participant in the joint activity.
injury including severe and excruciating pain, past and future anxiety, medical
Defendants for:
c. Costs of suit;
10
2412, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;
deem proper.
COUNT V: Monell Policy Claim

Against Defendant City of Chicago
forth herein.
50. The Individual Defendants excessive use of force, false arrest, failure to intervene, and
conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights, were all undertaken under
pursuant to the policy, practice, and custom of Defendant City of Chicagos Police
Department.
51. In establishing its procedures, Defendant City of Chicago has a duty under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to refrain from enforcing
or continuing in effect policies and procedures that create a substantial likelihood that
persons, such as Plaintiff, would be subjected to by Defendant City of Chicagos Police
Officers misconduct.
52. Likewise, Defendant City of Chicago has a duty to refrain from enforcing or continuing
in effect policies and procedures that cause persons, such as Plaintiff, to be treated with
reckless indifference by its agents, servants and employees.
53. At all times material to this complaint the Defendant City of Chicago and its Police
Department, Superintendents, LP.R.A., I.A.D., Personnel Division and/or Police Board
11
had interrelated defacto policies, practices, and customs that were the moving force of the
misconduct described in this Complaint.
54. Defendants misconduct was undertaken pursuant to one or more interrelated defacto
policies, practices and/or customs of the City of Chicago, its Police Department,
Police Board, I.P.R.A., I.A.D., Personnel Division, and/or Superintendents are guilty
of one or more of the following wrongfully acts or omissions:
a. failing to properly hire, train, supervise Police Officers;
b. failing to properly train and supervise Chicago Police Officers with regard to
discharging their weapons at civilians;
c. refusing to supervise, reprimand, discipline, transfer, monitor, counsel and/or
otherwise control Police Officers who engage in misconduct contrary to the
laws, rules and regulations, thus condoning the use of excessive force; thereby
leading City Of Chicago Police Officers to believe their actions will never be
scrutinized and in that way, directly encouraging future abuses such as those
affecting Plaintiff; specifically, City Of Chicago Police Officers accused of
excessive force can be confident that the Independent Police Review Authority
will not adequately investigate those accusations and will refuse to recommend
discipline even where the Officer has engaged in excessive force;
d. failing to retrain and/or otherwise control Police Officers who engage in
wrongful excessive force and/or unjustified shootings against civilians;
e. failing to establish appropriate policies and procedures to address and correct the
repeated use of excessive force by Police Officers in traffic stops;
f. inadequately and/or failing to independently and adequately investigate
12
complaints or allegations of excessive force and of other types of misconduct by
fellow Police Officers, including the use of excessive force against civilians to
protect fellow officers from disciplinary, criminal and civil actions in violation of
civilian rights and privileges;
g. covering up the criminal and/or wrongful activities of fellow Police Officers, by
falsely reporting, falsely or improperly investigating, committing perjury and
being dishonest in violation of the rights and privileges of civilians including
Plaintiff;
h. tacitly approving of law enforcement officers using their power and position to
interfere with other citizens rights, including the right to be free of interference
with their right of association with their right to be free in their bodily integrity,
and security in their persons;
i. allowing the continuance in force and effect of policies and procedures which
resulted in the use of outrageous and excessive force against civilians, including
Plaintiff;
j. as a matter of both policy and practice, the City of Chicago Police Department
facilitates the very type of misconduct at issue here by failing to protect civilians
from reckless indifference of defendant citys agents, servants, and employees in
its Police Department;
k. failing to, as a matter of express policy of Defendant City Of Chicago to retain
any records which are more than five years old documenting allegations of
excessive force against police officers, thereby preventing Defendant City Of
13
Chicago from ascertaining any patterns of abuse which might develop over the
course of a police officers career;
l. allowing the policy, practice, and custom of a police code of silence
resulting in police officers refusing to report instances of police misconduct of
which they are aware, including the unjustified discharge of an officer's
weapon, despite their obligation under police regulations to do so, and also
includes police officers either remaining silent or giving false and misleading
information during official investigations in order to protect themselves or
fellow officers from internal discipline, civil liability, or criminal charges, in
cases where they and their fellow officers have used excessive force and/or
engaged in unjustified shootings of civilians;
55. The defacto policies including the police code of silence are interrelated and
exacerbate the effects of each other and said interrelated policies, practices and
customs, as set forth above, both individually and together, were maintained and
implemented with deliberate indifference, and encouraged the subject Defendant
officers to conduct the aforesaid acts against Plaintiff and therefore acted as the
moving force and were, separately and together, direct and proximate causes of the
injuries to Plaintiff.
56. The defacto policies including the police code of silence were carried out with a
conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of
exemplary and punitive damages against each of the individual defendants in an amount
to be determined according to proof at trial.
57. As a result of this unreasonable use of force, Defendants misconduct directly and
14
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer injury including severe and excruciating pain,
past and future anxiety, medical expenses pain and suffering shock, extreme emotional
distress, and humiliation, lost employment opportunities inconvenience,
embarrassment, and mental anguish, deprivation of ordinary pleasures of life, loss of
well-being, and equanimity, and his overall health, strength, and vitality have been
greatly impaired.
Defendant for:
c. Costs of suit;
2412, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;
deem proper.
COUNT VI: Malicious Prosecution (State Claim)

Against All Defendants
58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set
forth herein.
15
59. By the actions detailed above, Defendant Officers knowingly sought to and did in fact
maliciously prosecute Plaintiff on false charges for which they knew there was no
probable cause.
60. Defendant City Of Chicago is sued in this Count pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat
superior, in that Defendant Officers performed the actions complained of while on duty
and/or in the employ of Defendant City Of Chicago, and while acting within the scope of
this employment.
61. As a direct and proximate result of the malicious prosecution, Plaintiff was damaged,
including the value of his lost liberty, exposure to public scandal and disgrace, damage to
his reputation, mental and emotional suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish.
Defendants for:
a. Compensatory damages against each Defendant in an amount to be proven at trial;
b. Leave to amend the complaint at the close of discovery to request punitive and
exemplary damages against each individual Defendant in an amount appropriate
to punish each individual Defendant and deter others from engaging in similar
misconduct;
c. Costs of suit;
d. Reasonable attorneys fees pursuant statute and as otherwise authorized by statute
or law;
Such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the court may
deem proper.
16
COUNT VII: 745 ILCS 10/9-102 Indemnification

Against Defendant City of Chicago
62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set
forth herein
63. Defendant City of Chicago is the employer of the Defendant Officers.
64. The individually-named defendants committed the acts alleged above under color of law
and in the scope of their employment as employees of the City of Chicago.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands that, should any individually-named defendants be
found liable on one or more of the claims set forth above, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, the
Defendant City of Chicago be found liable for any judgment Plaintiff obtains, as well as
attorneys fees and costs awarded.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Danielle A. Pinkston

_____________________________
Danielle A. Pinkston
Atty. No.: 47924

PINKSTON LAW GROUP
55 East Monroe St. Ste. #3800
Chicago, IL. 6060
Office: (773) 770-4771
Fax: (773) 770-4772
dpinkston@pinkstonlawgroup.com
Atty. for: ANTWON D GOLATTE
L. Chris Stewart
(pro hac vice is in process)
STEWART, SEAY & FELTON
260 Peachtree St, suite 1001
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 637-0240 main
(404) 637-0241 fax
cstewart@ssfjustice.com
Atty. for: ANTWON D GOLATTE
17
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:18

Antwon Golatte Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antwon Golatte 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

Antwon Golatte Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, ANTWON D. GOLATTE, by and through his attorneys,

SEAY & FELTON complaining of Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation,

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS JAIME GAETA, STAR# 17317, HARRY MATHEOS,

KATHLEEN SCHMIDT, STAR #11387, and DOES 1-100, stating as follows:

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution that resulted in personal

2. This court has jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

1331, 1343(1)(2)(3)(4), and 1367.

State of Illinois thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1391(b)(2) venue is proper in the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

is a United States citizen, residing in Cook County, Illinois.

5. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is a local government in Illinois created and existing by

virtue of the laws of Illinois. The CITY OF CHICAGO Police Department is a

Department of Chicago. Defendant CITY of CHICAGO employs personnel of its Police

Department and is responsible for its lawful operations, administration, maintaintence,

Defendant, CITY OF CHICAGO is liable for the actions of its employees.

6. Defendant OFFICERS JAIME GAETA, STAR# 17317, HARRY MATHEOS, STAR#

law, and are sued in his or her individual capacity.

James Whigham by mobile phone, to conduct a traffic stop on Plaintiff.

for an excessive period.

participants in joint activity with one another.

without his consent or a lawful basis.

pointed their firearms at Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs driver side window, pulled, and shattered the glass.

and posed absolutely no threat to the Defendant Officers, or anyone else.

his vital organs.

he underwent lifesaving surgery.

a crime between February 7-10, 2015.

up the unconstitutional use of excessive force by Defendants Gaeta and Matheos.

together to cover up and prevent disclosure of the misconduct alleged above by

engaging in the following non-exhaustive conduct: completing false, misleading and

incomplete official reports; giving of false statements regarding the circumstances of

to justify the use of excessive force.

lacked probable cause.

was malicious in that it was done to cover up their wrongdoing.

2015 until April 1, 2015.

failed to adequately investigate the shooting of Plaintiff or impose any discipline on

the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of in this Complaint.

COUNT I: Excessive Force (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

though fully set forth here.

the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

employment opportunities inconvenience, embarrassment, and mental anguish,

overall health, strength, and vitality have been greatly impaired.

WHEREFORE pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, Plaintiff demands judgment against the

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

b. Punitive and exemplary damages against each individual Defendant in an amount

d. Reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 and 28 U.S.C.A.

2412 and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;

e. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and

COUNT II: False Arrest (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

of the United States.

employment opportunities inconvenience, embarrassment, and mental anguish,

overall health, strength, and vitality have been greatly impaired.

WHEREFORE pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, Plaintiff demands judgment against the

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

b. Punitive and exemplary damages against each individual in an amount appropriate to

authorized by statute or law;

e. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and

COUNT III: Failure to Intervene (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)