Case: 1:14-cv-08536 Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:640

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DOROTHY HOLMES, on her own behalf
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
RONALD JOHNSON III, deceased,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER GEORGE HERNANDEZ (Star #16231) )
individually, and THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 14 C 8536

Judge Chang
Magistrate Judge Schenkier
JURY DEMAND

DEFENDANT GEORGE HERNANDEZS MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF
NOW COMES Defendant, GEORGE HERNANDEZ, by and through his attorneys, Steve
Borkan, Timothy P. Scahill, Whitney N. Hutchinson and Graham P. Miller of BORKAN &
SCAHILL LTD., and for his Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiff, states as follows:
1.

This case involves the shooting death of an armed offender (Ronald Johnson aka

RonnieMan) in the early morning hours of October 12, 2014.

2.

On November 19, 2015, Officer Hernandez sat for his deposition in this matter. Also

present during his testimony was Decedent Plaintiffs Special Administrator, Dorothy Holmes.
3.

While Officer Hernandez was testifying, Plaintiff surreptitiously took a photograph

of Officer Hernandez.
4.

Plaintiff subsequently disseminated this photograph. Plaintiff first posted the

photograph on her public Facebook profile with highly charged derogatory comments. Upon
learning that Plaintiff had posted the photograph on her Facebook page, Plaintiffs counsel was
contacted. Counsel then successfully had his client remove the offensive post.
1

Case: 1:14-cv-08536 Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:641

5.

However, dissemination of the photograph with inflammatory comments persisted.

The photograph was posted to Twitter with the following caption: George Hernandez the CPD
terrorist who murdered Ronnieman.Justice (sic.) will be served one day Ins #JusticeforRonnieMan.
Exhibit 1.
6.

The photograph has also been used as a poster at protests with Murderer! and what

appears to be a bloody handprint in the foreground of the image. Exhibit 2.

7.

While this conduct is arguably inappropriate, Plaintiff recently crossed a line with

comments she made at a public protest with numerous news outlets present, including CBS, Fox,
NBC. See id. As part of her speech Plaintiff states, starting at 1:49, when speaking of Officer
Hernandez:
You forgot, I love my kid just as well as he loves his 15 year old and
his 17 year old. What goes around comes around. And he can take
it how he wanna take it. If he wanna take it as a threat, it was a
threat. And I aint backing down.
Id. Plaintiff has now threatened not only Officer Hernandez, but also his minor children. She is
inciting violence against them. And she has also made clear that she does not intend to stop.
8.

Courts have long recognized that there is a delicate balance between the

Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and press and a citizens right to a fair trial. [C]ourts
have the power to take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from
prejudicial outside interferences. Chi. Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 552 F. 2d 242, 248 (7th Cir.
1975) (quoting Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966)). [W]hen irreconcilable conflicts
do arise, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to criminal defendants and to
all persons by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, must take precedence over the

Case: 1:14-cv-08536 Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:642

right to make comments about pending litigation [. . .] if such comments are apt to seriously threaten
the integrity of the judicial process. Id.
9.

In evaluating appropriate limits on such speech, the United States Supreme Court has

recognized that what has emerged from the clear and present danger cases is a working principle
that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high
before utterances can be punished. Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941) (affirming
the Superior Court of Los Angeles Countys decision to adjudicate as guilty and fine parties for
making statements to the press outside the court room which tended to interfere with the fair and
orderly administration of justice in a pending case.).
10.

Here, Plaintiffs most recent statements, juxtaposed with the current political climate,

are extremely serious as they endanger the lives of two minor children, who are not parties to this
lawsuit. It is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. This conduct is egregious as it arguably rises
to criminal conduct under Illinois statutes: Disorderly conduct, 720 ILCS 5/26-1. (A person
commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly: (1) does any act in such unreasonable
manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace [. . .]).
11.

Judicial intervention is necessary to prevent this kind of conduct as it represents an

extremely serious threat for the Hernandez family. Furthermore, Plaintiff has indicated that she is
fully aware that she is make a threat, she has no intention of stopping. Chicago: For Ronnieman,
supra. To that end, she clearly states that she is not going to stop and they can come lock me up
if they feel like he in danger. See Chicago: For Ronnieman, supra. Plaintiff has access to personal
information regarding Officer Hernandez. Without intervention what is to stop her from taking this
a step further and posting photographs of his children, home address, or where they go to school.

Case: 1:14-cv-08536 Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:643

12.

It is well recognized that [c]ertain implied powers must necessarily result to our

Courts of justice from the nature of their institution, powers which cannot be dispensed with in
a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others. U,S, v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34
(1832); see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980) (citing Hudson). For this
reason, Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with
power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful
mandates. Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 227 (1821). These powers are governed not by rule or
statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630631
(1962). [W]hen there is bad-faith conduct in the course of litigation that could be adequately
sanctioned under the Rules, the court ordinarily should rely on the Rules rather than the inherent
power. But if in the informed discretion of the court, neither the statute nor the Rules are up to the
task, the court may safely rely on its inherent power. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50
(1991).
13.

A Court may assess sanctions when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously,

wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-56 (1991) (citing
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 25859 (1975) (quoting F.D. Rich
Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116, 129 (1974)); see also Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S.
1, 5 (1973); Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, n. 4 (1968) (per curiam)).
The imposition of sanctions in this instance transcends a court's equitable power concerning
relations between the parties and reaches a court's inherent power to police itself, thus serving the
dual purpose of vindicat[ing] judicial authority without resort to the more drastic sanctions

Case: 1:14-cv-08536 Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:644

available for contempt of court and mak[ing] the prevailing party whole for expenses caused by his
opponent's obstinacy. Id.
14.

To prevent this conduct from escalating further than it already has, we respectfully

ask this Court to sanction Plaintiff in open court for her threats. We further request that Plaintiff be
ordered not to disseminate personal information regarding Officer Hernandez and his family. And
finally, to warn Plaintiff that should she continue to persist in this manner, that she may further
sanction her under the inherit power of the court, up to and including dismissal of her action.
WHEREFORE, OFFICER HERNANDEZ prays this Court sanction Plaintiff for her actions
and prohibit her from continuing to incite or threaten violence against the Hernandez family, and
for any other relief this Court deems to be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
BORKAN & SCAHILL, LTD.

By:/s/ Steven B. Borkan

Steven B. Borkan

Steven B. Borkan (6193463)

Timothy P. Scahill (6287296)
Whitney N. Hutchinson (6303571)
Graham P. Miller (6290240)
BORKAN & SCAHILL, LTD.
Two First National Plaza
20 South Clark Street
Suite 1700
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 580-1030