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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7

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)

Against All Individually-Named Defendants

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.

38. As a result, Defendants misconduct directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer

injury including severe and excruciating pain; past and future anxiety, medical
7
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8

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.

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 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;

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

Against All Individually-Named Defendants

39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9

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.

43. 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

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.

9
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10

COUNT IV: Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights (42 U.S.C.A. 1983)

Against All Individually-Named Defendants

44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

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.

48. 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

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;
10
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11

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 V: Monell Policy Claim

Against Defendant City of Chicago

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

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
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12

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
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13

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
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14

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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15

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.

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

Defendant 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 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
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16

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.

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

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;

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

Such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the court may
deem proper.

16
 Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17

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
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:19
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:20
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:21
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:22
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:23
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:24
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:25
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:26
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:27
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:28
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:29
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:30
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:31
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:32
Case: 1:17-cv-00929 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/03/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:33