Williams v. Jenna et al

Filing 13

ENTER MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/5/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRA WILLIAMS, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW GENA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

12 C 9613

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action that charges various Cook County Sheriff’s
officers with violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”)and
related breaches of state law has been met with an Answer to the
Amended Complaint (“AC”) brought by Terra Williams (“Williams”)
both individually and as next friend of her minor daughter
A’Niyah Lewis.

This Court is of course accustomed (though not

really reconciled) to the standard responses by lawyers in public
law offices (those of the Cook County State’s Attorney, the
Illinois Attorney General and the Chicago Corporation Counsel)
that consistently parrot repeated denials of all allegations in
Section 1983 lawsuits, as though none of their officer clients
have ever infringed such rights--responses that often reflect
heedlessness to what is required of counsel by Fed. R. Civ. P.
(“Rule”) 11(b).
This Court does not of course suggest that it possesses
information to confirm the impropriety of any of the repeated
denials contained in the current Answer.

But on occasion

something said in a complaint can raise a red flag in that
respect.

Here at least one allegation in the AC would appear to

be subject to objective verification or refutation, thus calling
for a hard look at many of defendants’ denials.
AC ¶19 alleges that “the navicular bone in Plaintiff
Williams’ wrist was broken,” after which AC ¶21 alleges:
Plaintiff Williams was not arrested, and went to Metro
South Hospital after the officers left to receive
treatment for herself and her daughter.
And Answer ¶11 admits that numerous Sheriff’s officers broke
through the front door and entered plaintiff Williams’ home.
Is defense counsel asserting that plaintiff Williams did not
suffer a broken wrist and go to the hospital (a matter readily
ascertained through brief inquiry)?

Or is counsel perhaps

asserting that if that happened, the injury was self-inflicted?
This would seem to present a prime example of why Rule
11(b)(4) requires that every attorney representing a responding
party:
certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge,
information and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances:
*

*

*

(4) the denials of factual contentions are
warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so
identified, are reasonably based on belief or a
lack of information.

2

This Court will await defense counsel’s response with interest.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

March 5, 2013

3