Daniels v. Southfort Daniels v. Southfort

Daniels v. Southfort

C07.40463; 6 F.3d 482 (1993)

    • $9.00
    • $9.00

Descripción editorial

EISELE, Senior District Judge. On December 5, 1990, Appellant filed suit in Federal District Court against named police officers for the City of Chicago, alleging that he and his friends were being harassed by the Chicago police department. Daniels' original complaint alleged that the police arrested, stopped, searched, assaulted, or intimidated his friends, warning them not to associate with Daniels. His request for an injunction against the police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was denied by the district court on December 11, 1990, which concluded that he had an adequate remedy at law. He appealed this denial. While that appeal was pending the District Court permitted plaintiff to file a ""supplement"" to his complaint. The record on appeal was then supplemented with this filing. On August 13, 1991, this Court in an unpublished opinion vacated the district court's decision concluding that Daniels lacked standing to assert the Fourth Amendment claims of others. It remanded the case to the District Court to determine the issues in the light of the allegations in the supplemental complaint. On December 4, 1991, the district court allowed Daniels to file an amended complaint, in which he alleged that one ""T.C.""; Jerry Southfort (hereinafter ""Southfort""); Greg Young; Sgt. Nelson; Officer Parks; Officer Jenkins; Officer Lucas; Officer Gates; and Officer Bosky1 violated Daniels' constitutional rights. Specifically, he alleged a number of false arrests for possession of controlled substances, one of which was effectuated with excessive force when the police officer broke a window and the broken glass cut Daniels; an illegal seizure of Daniels' rental car; an unreasonable search of Daniels' home and the seizure of Daniels' Rock Whiller [sic] puppy dog; another unreasonable search of Daniels' home during which the police destroyed his personal property, including a VCR, cable box, and two telephones; and ""in excess of 100 occasions"" the unreasonable ""stop and frisks"" of Daniels during his summer basketball games. Daniels again sought injunctive relief. All of the defendants except T.C. and Southfort2 filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 19, 1992. The district court granted the Motion to Dismiss on August 27, 1992, and Daniels appealed.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1993
1 de octubre
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
9
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
55.8
KB

Más libros de United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Tempco Electric Heater Corp. v. Omega Engineering Inc. Tempco Electric Heater Corp. v. Omega Engineering Inc.
1987
Nanda v. Ford Motor Co. Nanda v. Ford Motor Co.
1974
Mulholland v. Aaa Food Service Inc. Mulholland v. Aaa Food Service Inc.
1990
Rosenbaum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Rosenbaum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1993
Cannaday v. Gibas Cannaday v. Gibas
1992
Holman v. Lotter Holman v. Lotter
1992