Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

TAD JOHNSON and CHARLENE JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 18-cv-5946
vs.

CITY OF YORKVILLE, SGT. KLINGEL, and

OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TAD JOHNSON and CHARLENE JOHNSON, by

and through their attorney, Blake Horwitz, of The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd., and

pursuant to this Complaint at Law against the above named Defendants, CITY OF

YORKVILLE, SGT. KLINGEL, and OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON, state as

follows:

I. JURISDICTION

1. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act,

42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343(a); the Constitution

of the United States; and this Court’s supplementary jurisdiction powers.

II. PARTIES

2. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON is a resident of the State of Illinois and a

citizen of the United States.

3. PLAINTIFF CHARLENE JOHNSON is a resident of the State of Illinois

and a citizen of the United States.

1
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

4. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL was at all times material and relevant

hereto employed by and acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT CITY OF

YORKVILLE.

5. DEFENDANT OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON was at all times

material and relevant hereto employed by and acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT

CITY OF YORKVILLE.

6. DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE is a duly incorporated municipal

corporation. At all times material to this Complaint, DEFENDANTS, SGT.

KLINGEL, and OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON, (collectively hereinafter

“DEFENDANT OFFICERS”) were acting under color of state law, ordinance and/or

regulation, statutes, custom and usages of DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE.

III. FACTS

7. The PLAINTIFFS are residents of the City of Yorkville, Illinois.

8. On September 14, 2017, PLAINTIFFS were at their residence on the

2500 block of Overlook Court.

9. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS were summoned to the PLAINTIFFS’

residence pursuant to a call by a neighbor.

10. The neighbor had reported that PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON was

littering.

11. When the DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrived, the PLAINTIFFS were

outside their residence.

12. At no time were the DEFENDANT OFFICERS invited into the

PLAINTIFFS’ residence.

2
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

13. DEFENDANT JOHNSON then watched PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON

through a window of the residence.

14. Prior to watching PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON through the window,

DEFENDANT JOHNSON was advised by PLAINTIFF CHARLENE JOHNSON that

TAD JOHNSON was suffering from a significant emotional condition.

15. After hearing that TAD JOHNSON was suffering from a significant

emotional condition, and after DEFENDANT JOHNSON noticed that TAD

JOHNSON was exhibiting behavior consistent with an emotional problem of some

sort, DEFENDANT JOHNSON yelled at TAD JOHNSON the following: “Come on

out and make me move... you still live with mom.... bring it!” and “Please, finish

yourself off.” to TAD JOHNSON.

16. Ultimately, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS entered PLAINTIFFS’ abode

and the DEFENDANT OFFICER(S) handcuffed TAD JOHNSON.

17. Prior to entering the residence, there was no probable cause to enter the

home, and the DEFENDANT OFFICERS entered the residence absent a warrant.

18. As he previously said he would, DEFENDANT JOHNSON tased TAD

JOHNSON.

19. There was no reason to tase TAD JOHNSON as TAD JOHNSON did

not present a threat to any of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS.

20. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL did not intervene in stopping the use of

a taser on TAD JOHNSON even though he had a reasonable opportunity to do so.

3
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

21. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL was in the proximity to prevent the

tasing of TAD JOHNSON.

22. Prior to tasing TAD JOHNSON, DEFENDANT JOHNSON advised

DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL that he would in fact tase TAD JOHNSON.

23. Prior to entering PLAINTIFFS’ residence, DEFENDANT JOHNSON

stated to DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL that TAD JOHNSON is “getting tased

immediately, just FYI.”

24. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested TAD JOHNSON.

25. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested CHARLENE JOHNSON.

26. There was no probable cause to arrest TAD JOHNSON

27. There was no probable cause to arrest CHARLENE JOHNSON.

28. As a result of the actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, TAD

JOHNSON was injured, including, inter alia, physical injuries, emotional injuries,

loss of freedom, loss of liberty, and other injuries.

29. As a result of the actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS,

CHARLENE JOHNSON was injured, including, inter alia, emotional injuries, loss of

freedom, loss of liberty, and other injuries.

30. In response to the dash cam video and audio of the incident, the

Yorkville Chief of Police, Rich Hart, stated: “I can state that this behavior that is on

the video is completely unacceptable; it does not meet with the mission or the value of

the Yorkville Police Department.”

31. DEFENDANT JOHNSON was suspended from the Yorkville Police

Department for his actions as alleged above.

4
 Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

32. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL was terminated from the Yorkville

Police Department for his actions as alleged above.

COUNT I
§1983 Excessive Force
(DEFENDANT OFFICERS)

33. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the

allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above.

34. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS violated TAD JOHNSON’S clearly

established constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

35. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conduct, as alleged above, violated the

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

36. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ aforementioned actions were the direct

and proximate cause of the constitutional violations set forth above, and TAD

JOHNSON suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, TAD JOHNSON demands judgment against the DEFENDANT

OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT II
§ 1983 False Arrest
(DEFENDANT OFFICERS)

37. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in

the paragraphs alleged above.

38. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested the PLAINTIFFS.

39. No probable cause existed to arrest the PLAINTIFFS.

40. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS violated the PLAINTIFFS’ clearly

established constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures.

5
 Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

41. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conduct as alleged above, violated the

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

42. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the

direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations set forth above, and the

PLAINTIFFS suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFFS respectfully request that this Court enter

judgment against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this

Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT III
State Law False Arrest
(DEFENDANT OFFICERS)

43. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in

the paragraphs alleged above.

44. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS arrested the PLAINTIFFS without

probable cause to believe that the PLAINTIFFS committed a crime.

45. The conduct of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS was in violation of Illinois

law.

46. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the

direct and proximate cause of the arrest of the PLAINTIFFS, and caused the

PLAINTIFFS to suffer damages.

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFFS respectfully request that this Court enter

judgment against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this

Court deems equitable and just.

6
 Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

COUNT IV
§ 1983 Failure to Intervene
(DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL)

47. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the

allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above.

48. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL failed to intervene when DEFENDANT

JOHNSON was using unreasonable force against TAD JOHNSON, as alleged above.

49. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL knew that DEFENDANT JOHNSON was

about to use unreasonable force against TAD JOHNSON and had an opportunity to

prevent the harm to TAD JOHNSON from occurring but failed to do so.

50. DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL’S failure to intervene by stopping

DEFENDANT JOHNSON’S use of excessive force on TAD JOHNSON was a violation

of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

51. The aforementioned actions of DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL were the

direct and proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above, and TAD

JOHNSON’S injuries.

WHEREFORE, TAD JOHNSON demands compensatory damages from

DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL. TAD JOHNSON also demands punitive damages

against DEFENDANT SGT. KLINGEL and whatever additional relief this Court deems

equitable and just.

COUNT V
Malicious Prosecution – State Law Claim
(DEFENDANT OFFICERS)

52. PLAINTIFF TAD JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference the

allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above.

7
 Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

53. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS commenced and/or continued criminal

proceedings against TAD JOHNSON absent probable cause.

54. Upon information and belief, inter alia, TAD JOHNSON was charged

with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

55. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the

direct and proximate cause of the violations of Illinois law set forth above, and TAD

JOHNSON suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, TAD JOHNSON respectfully request that this Court enter

judgment in favor of TAD JOHNSON and against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS,

individually, and award compensatory damages, court costs, and such other relief that

this court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VI
Malicious Prosecution – State Law Claim
(DEFENDANT OFFICERS)

56. PLAINTIFF CHARLENE JOHNSON hereby incorporates by reference

the allegations set forth in the paragraphs alleged above.

57. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS commenced and/or continued criminal

proceedings against CHARLENE JOHNSON absent probable cause.

58. Upon information and belief, inter alia, CHARLENE JOHNSON was

charged with resisting arrest.

59. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were the

direct and proximate cause of the violations of Illinois law set forth above, and

CHARLENE JOHNSON suffered damages.

8
 Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

WHEREFORE, CHARLENE JOHNSON respectfully request that this Court

enter judgment in favor of CHARLENE JOHNSON and against the DEFENDANT

OFFICERS, individually, and award compensatory damages, court costs, and such other

relief that this court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VII
Indemnification Claim pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102
(DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE)

60. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in

the paragraphs alleged above.

61. DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE is the employer of the

DEFENDANT OFFICERS alleged above.

62. The DEFENDANT OFFICERS, as alleged above, committed the acts

under color of law and in scope of employment of the DEFENDANT CITY OF

YORKVILLE.

WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANT OFFICERS be found liable for any of

the alleged counts in this case, the PLAINTIFFS demand that, pursuant to 745 ILCS

10/9-102, the DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE pay the PLAINTIFFS any

judgment obtained against the DEFENDANT OFFICERS as a result of this

Complaint.

COUNT VII
Respondeat Superior Claim
(DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE)

63. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in

the paragraphs alleged above.

9
Case: 1:18-cv-05946 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

64. DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE is the employer of the

DEFENDANT OFFICERS alleged above.

65. The aforesaid acts of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were committed

within the scope of their employment, and, therefore, DEFENDANT CITY OF

YORKVILLE, as principal, is liable for the actions of its agents under the doctrine of

respondeat superior.

WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANT OFFICERS, in their individual

capacity, be found liable for any of the alleged state law counts in this cause, the

PLAINTIFFS demand that, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior,

DEFENDANT CITY OF YORKVILLE pay any judgment obtained against the

DEFENDANT OFFICERS.

JURY DEMAND

The PLAINTIFFS demand trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Blake Horwitz____
Attorney for the Plaintiffs

Blake W. Horwitz, Esq,

The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd.
111 W. Washington St., Suite 1611
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 676-2100
Fax: (312) 445-8741

10