Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jeanette S. R. Lipinski, Petitioner v. Yolanda Castaneda, et al.

Supreme Court briefMay 7, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Ca$pTTF3353

Document aa

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOsfnON^°

^* 3

To be died only In accordance with Fed. R, App. P. 32.1

lilntich jBiaics (Court of JVpprals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago Illinois 60&U

Submitted December 7,2020*

Decided December 6, 2020

Before

THANK H, FASTERBROOK, Circuit judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Graiit judge

AMY j. ST. EVE, Circuit judge

No, 19*3395

Jeanette sit upinskl

PfoiTltiJf-Appdtanl,

Appeal from the United State*

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 16 €7153

YOLANDA CASTANEDA,-et si,

Drfcndan is~Appellee*.

Jorge L Alonso,

judge.

ORDER

In thi* suit alleging an unreasonable afreet Jeanette Upinskl lost at summary

Judgment because she failed to comply with a local rule, of which she had notice,

requiring her to dtc evidence supporting her claim. After the defendants moved for

summary judgment the districtcourt applied that rule to deem their facts admitted,

and based on those admissions it entered summary judgment Because district courts

* We have agreed to deride the case without oral argument because the briefe-and

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. Pfd. R. Arp P, 34(a)(2)(C).

AfTCNDIXA r6^lof.l

Cass I&3335

Poqumero 58

*^tfeO U/UOttUtti

I CJUt,d U

PilgC:2

No, 19-3395

may reasonably requirethat even prase litigants strictly comply with local rules, the

district court,did not abuse Its discretion, and therefore we affirm

Upinski was charged in 2014 with poisoning her neighbors1 dog. According to

the defendants, {he neighbors called the police when they smelled bleach and saw dead

grass fn ihdr yard after their dog had become sick. The two police officers who

responded observed the dead grass and an “overwhelming'' bleach smell The

neighbors told the officers that they suspeetf?d that Upinski had poured bleach In thefr

yard and thattt had sickened their do$p who now-had whitened pew$- Upinski

admitted to an officer dial she had poured bleach along the fence between her yard and

iheneighbon?, The officer then arrested her. She was later charged with knowingly

poisoning a domestic animal, sce5i0 JLCS 70/6 (2002), but acquitted after a trial.

After her acquittal, Upinski brought this suit alleging two claims thai she lost at

nummary judgment for lack of proof. The first count,-under 42. U.S.C § T9S3 against the

officer!*, alleges that they arrested her in violation of the Fourth Amendment} the second

Count 1$ a state-law* claim for malicious prosecution against the officers and the

neighbors. (The district court dismissed Li pinskt's other claim**, and she does not

contest those dismissals*) The defendants moved for summary judgmeni and filed a

joint statement ofmaterial facts- Lipinski's response to that statement disputed several

facts, bui she died no supporting evidence and did not offer facte of her own to show* a

genuine dispute. Because the defendants had supported their feds, whldi refuted

liability, with admissible evidence and Upinski offered no evidence to contest those

facte, the court deemed each of the defendant!? facte admitted under Local RuteS&L

Sec N.O lit. L.R. 56,1<b}(3)(B){ttCTVmovani‘s response “shall contain ... specific

references" id the record). The court also noted that* by not filing a memorandum of

Jaw opposing summary Judgment, Upinski had waived opposition. Based on the

admitted facte, the court gf&nted summary judgment for the defendants.

Within the time to do so, tipin^M moved for reconsideration, advancing hvp

arguments: first, she contended that she had tried to file a brief opposing summtny

judgment, but the derk's office never docketed it. Second, she continued to dispute:

several of the defendants' stated facte. The court denied die motion because Upinski

had not shown "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b) for failing to file a memorandum.

In the courts view, because she electronically filed her documents, she needed to check

that her filings were properly docketed, and neglecting to do so was not "escusabfe.*' In:

any evem, the court continued, U rejected Lipm$fcr$ purported factual disputes for the

APPENDIX A T*« 2«f$

CSse 19*3335

Document 58

Bled l2r0B/202D

No. 19*3395

Pegss 3

Page 3

same reason-Kcr noncompliance with the local nil*-retiring her to dte evidencethat it gave in Its summary*Judgment ruling.

Upliwki raises only one argument on appeal: the district court abused Its

discretion when it applied Local Rule 56.1 to deem admitted the defendants’ version of

the fatftfe Site points to her pro sc status, asserts that by disputing tho defendants'

statement of facts under penalty of perjury she acted in good faith, and conclude that

the court should have given her a chance to cumher defective response. Essentially, she

argues that the district court erred by applying Its local rule strictly. But Ve have

repeatedly held that district judges may strictly enforce local summary-judgment

rules " MeGmy v. Kaw Ugistics Sen*,. LLC 942 F.3d 783,787 (7th Gr, 2019), And "pro

se litigants-are not excused from compliance with procedural rules/* Pearlc Vision. Inc v

Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 7SS (7th Gr. 20QS). In light of the "substantial deference" we give to

a Judge's enforcement of local summary-judgment rules, McCurry, 942 F.3d al 787 n.2,

Upnshi has given us no adequate reason to conclude that the district court abused Its

broad discretion.

Furthermore, even if Ignorance of the local rule might lead-3 district court in its

discretion to excuse noocompiianre, Upinskl w*as not ignorant She does not dispute

that she hod twice reedved instructions of her obligation? under the local rule and the

consequences for failing to meet them. Both the neighbors and tile officers served her

the required notices explaining that when a pro se litigant opposes a motion for

summary judgment the party must die evidence disputing the defendants4 facts, and

that failure to do so could lead the court to deem those facte admitted. So* N.D. Ill L.R,

56,2 (providing text for notice that must be served on pro se litigants opposing

summary judgment motion): Vmms-v, Prank, 953 F,2d 231,285 (7th Gr. 1992) (requiring

that pro so litigants opposing summary-fudgtnem motion receive notice with

consequences of inadequate response). Thus for this reason ns well, the district court

permissibly enforced Local Rule 56,1 after Upinski had received notice of its

requirements. See Ottllmn-ti. Nndt/dr, 259 F.3d 833,841-42 (7th Of, 2001).

AFFIRMED

AmsDixA r^3 «fi

Case, 19-339S

Document &1

UNITED STATES COURT OF AFP

Piled 1»23/2020

Pages: 1

EALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

CeVcrtijtf'cJoL

ftw»piJ}<fcssKi

Order

December 23, 2020

By the Court:

Jeanette $.r. upjnski,

Plain Off- Appellant

N0.19-339S

yolanda Castaneda, pul

Defendants—Appellees

Originating Case Information:

Dirtnet Coufi No; I:l6-cv07153

Northfim District of Illinois, Eastern Divfsfah

Dqfrict Judge Jorge L Alonso

”^r^xr.“74N ™

Ft IS ORDERED thatjhemotion is DENIED.

femi a*mer <7_Orderjrn^fcmjj rp; 178)

APPENUlX’liS B PRl ofl

Case* l:l6-cv*07153 Document*: 159 Filed; 09/13/19 Page 1 of 8 PagelD 3-1300

UNITE!) STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

eastern division

JEANETTE &R.UPlNm

Plaintiff.

YOLANDA CASTANEDA.

ALONSO CASTANEDA.

LT. BONNER, ami

OFFICER ANDRIELLU CAP.

Defendants,

)

Cnsc No. lfi-cv-7153

Hon. Jorpe L. Alonso

)

MEMORANDUM opinion and ORDER

After pinintiffjHMCiie S.R. Lipinski* (-Llpinskr) was arrested Tnrnnd acquitted of

poisoning her neighbors1 dog, she sued a long list of defendants, Flaimiffhas two remaining

claims. Jn Count IV, Against defendant Lt, Bonner nod Officer Andricllc Cap ("Officer Cap"*).

plftinUrrsecks relief under 5 tm for false arrest, In Count HI. ploiniiirnsscfisaclaim for

malicious prosecution against defendants Yolanda Castaneda. Alonso Castaneda U. Bonner end

Offocr Cap. For the reasons set forth below, defendants1 motions for summary judgment are

granted.

BACKGROUND

local Rule 56.1 outlines the requirements for the introduction of facts ponies would like

considered In connection with a motion fru summary judgment. Hie Court enforces Toco! Rule

56,1 strictly, 'Where one pony supports « fact with Admissible evidence and the Other part)- fails

to controvert the fact with citation to admissible evidence, the Court deems the foci admitted.

Sec Curtis v. Cftstcn Wholesale Co/77.. SO? FJd 215,21S-16 <7th Cir. 3015); A nvitanx v.

APPENDIXES C Pgslafft

Cfiss, l!i£-cv*07i53 Document#; 159 Wed: 09/i3tt9 Page J of 8 PagcfD &J3Q1

A*i,mrk Uriifitrtn Sms„ teu.. 36$ F.3dm K) 7-!« (7th eir.2004), This docs not however,

iibsolvc lite party pulling forth the fhcwu’the duly to support the fact with ndmisslhle, evidence.

See Jferar \\ Momln&tar, Inc,. W PJd 877.880 (7th Cir. 2012), The Court does not consider

nny feats Out parties foiled to include in iheir stntcmepte of fact, because to do so would mb the

other party of the opportunity to show that the fact is disputed

fn this case, defendants put forih-a Joint statement of facts. PlnlnitfT (ms filed

a response.

m Which piaintiffagrees that many ofthe fhci* are undisputed. PluiniifT states that other fhets are

disputed, but She does not cite any evidence to support her assertions iitai such facte are disputed,

Tims, the Court has deemed admitted those facte that defemimite have supported with admissible

evidence, because plaintiff failed to controvert those facte with citaiinn to evidence The

following facts arc undisputed unless otherwise noted.

In July 2014. plaintiffand the Castanedas were nexHlopr neighbors, ilicir backyards

were trepanned by a fence.

On die afternoon of July 14,2014. Yolanda Castaneda was in her backyard when she

noticed an area of dead grasi along her side or the fence that separated her yard from plaintiffs,

She Also noticed t hat the area smelled like bleach. A few days before, the Castanedas* dog had

been vomiting, and. after Yoltmdn Cfistwredn noticed the smell ofbleneh, she also noticed her

dog's paw pads were white, rather than black. When her husband. Alonso Castaneda, arrived

home. He inspeded thc. backyard find the dog. Kc, too, ob^ed dead patches of grass, smelled

the bleach imd .noticed the discolored paw-pads on the dog Yolnnda Castaneda telephoned 911.

She informed the operator that someone had poured blench in her yard.

Soon, two officers, Li. Homier and Ofliccr Cap, arrived at the Castanedas* huu.se. The

Castanedas told the.Officers that bleach had been poured into their yard. The Castanedas also

AFTENDIJmsC PgSlaM

Case i:t$’CV'Q7l53 Document#: 159 Piled:09/13/19 Page 3 of8 Panel D ^.1302

i»ld the officers that they suspected their neighbor, plaintiff; hrul poured the blench, because the

bleach was along their shared fence line end because plaintiff hnd expressed her dislike of the

Castanedas* dog. The Castanedas told the officers that the dog hnd been ill and that its paw pads

u-ere white. It is undisputed that everything the Castanedas told the officers was true.

Tltc officers proceeded to the Castanedas' backyard to investigate* U. Bonner and

Officer Cap noticed the dead grass along the fence line, ami each also noticed the

"overwhelming" smell of bleach.

The officers returned to the Police Station, where Officer Cap began writing an Incident

report. Lt. Bonner, for his part, telephoned plnimiffand invited her for an Interview at the

Station, where she admitted to having poured bleach along the fence line.

The State of Illinois brought charges against plnintilTrorpoisonmgn domestic animal.

Yolanda Castaneda wns subpoenaed and testified truthfully. She also tendered to the Stale's

Attorney nbill.shc had paid for veterinary care, as well ns a letter from a veterinarian, who staled

the dog had exhibited symptoms Ofexposure in a chemical. PlaintHT was acquitted and filed this

Suit.

li.

standard on a motion for summary judgment

Summary judgment shall be granted ‘if the movnnt show; that there Is no genuine dispute

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled lo judgment os a mutter of law.” Pcd.R.Civ.P,

56{a>. When considering t> motion for summary judgment, the Court must construe the evidence

and make all reasonable mlefcnces in favor of the non-moving party. Hutchimn t\ FUz&raM

Efittlp, Cxi,, Inc,, 910T,3d 1016.1021 (7th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate when

the non-moving party *Tai!sto make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of on element

essential to the party's cafee and on which that parly will hear, the burden of proof ot trinl;*

AFTENDIxn.se Pa* Soffi

Case: U*cwJ7l53 Document »; 1S9 Riod: 090309 Page 4 ol g Pagan *1303

r,/W„ , Catron. 47? U.S, 317,322, 106 S.Ct, 2548,0! Uid.2d 2,i (1 W„. -A genuine W

ofmaierial fact Sri*, ontylTR,fflelcmevidence favoring the mmmovlng ptmy «**,« jwtmh a

m- io return a verdict for that party." Brummca v. Sinclair BrmBcost Croup. Inc.. 414 VJd

68M92(7iflCir.2005>.

DISCUSSION

-n.c Court notes that white piaimiiffded a respon* to thesurtement of taels (without

citation to evidence), she did not tile a memorandum oflmv in opposition to defwdams'

or otherwise cite any legal authority. Thus. anyarguments rite might have

motion*!

made are waived. See

tJuh v, Mitsubishi Motors Worth Amcr., fnc.. 26t Fed. Appv. 001.903 (7th Cir. 2008) (failure

'to present facts or develop any legal arguments" in response to motion for summary judgment

constituted abandonment of claims); sec aho Burton v, Boor,! efRegents of,he Vnh-. offip.

851 f.3d 690.695 (7(h Cir. 2017, (“Pit i, a vvell-seuled rule that a party opposing a

summitry judgment motion must inform she trial judge ofthe reasons, legal or Tactual, why

summary judgment should twh tic entered, If die fnanmovimt party] docs not do so, and loses die

motion, it cannot raise sutii reasons on Appeal.**) (citations omitted).

Plainliirs claims against the officers

Against i.t, Bonner and Officer Cop, plawdffasserts ft claim for false rarest under g. 19gj

find « Claim for maiicimis prosecution. As defendant p«im out bath claims fall for the same

reason: defendants hud probable cause to nrrest plaintiff,1

“To prroll on ft fal^mtesi claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that there

was no

probable cause for his arrest.** Bata V. City ofCl,I., 83(1 F Jd 494.497 (7th Cir. 2016). Probable

APPENDIXESC f*gs4<jfs

case* 1:16^07153 Document * 159 filed: 09/13/19 Page 5 ol 8 PagelD *1304

cause, likewise, defeats a claim for malicious prosecution. Martin v. Murintz. 934 F.3d 594,

__ . 3019 WL 377361 nt *3 (7th Cir. 3019) (**|T|hc existence of prohnhlc cause for the until

"ould also bar recovery on a theory of malicious prosecution."); Coleman v. City of Peariu, 925

F.3J 336,350 (7th Cir. £0 19j (“Although [false arrest | is n fedcml constitutional claim and

[malicious prosecution] is a stnte tort the existence of probable cause defeats both/*).

“Probable cause exist? where the police officer is nwnre of facts and circumstances

* sufficient to wnrmnt a prudent man in believing that the petitioner bad committed or was

committing an ofTensc.*" Coleman, 925 FJd at 350 (quoting Berk \\ Ohio. 379 IJ.S. 89.91

(1964)), The crime with which plaintiff was charged was poisoning a domestic animal, Illinois

law makes it a crime to “knowingly poison or cause to be poisoned any dog or other domestic

animal/* 510ILCS 70/6. U. Bonner and Officer Cap had probable cause to think plaintiff had

caused the Casumedas* dog to be poisoned. These defendants were told by the Castanedas: (!)

that someone had poured bleach in their backyard; (2) that the bleach had affected their dog in

thai bis paw pads had become white and he had vomited: ami (3) that they suspected ihc culprit

was their neighbor. who had expressed her dislike rtf their dog and whh wtorm they shared the

fence line along which the bleach had been poured. The officers then in\ estimated the backyard

nntl witnessed both the dead grass ntong the fence line ami the smell of bleach. If that were not

enough, when Lt. Bonner interviewed plaintiff. she told him she had poured bleach along the

fence line. Lt. Bonner and Officer Cep had probable cause, as a matter of law.

Thus, It. Bonnet and Officer Cap ore entitled to judgment fts n matter of law on Counts

III and IV, Their motion for summary judgment is granted, and they arc granted summary

judgment on Counts III and IV,

A1TENOJXES C J'g* 5 ftt 8

Case: l:i&-cv-07i53 Documentor 159 Filed. 09/13/lS Page hot 8 Pageto & 1305

Plaintiffs claim against the Castanedas

Plaintiff also brings Cornu (It for malicious prosecution against the Castanedas,

As the Illinois Supreme Court has explained repeatedly, “suits for malicious prosecution

are. not favored fa she, law." Beaman v. Freesmeyce.__N.E.?dfc,2919 IL 123654 si* 24 (tit,

2019) (citing' Joiner v, Benmn Community Bank. #2 HUd40.44 (Hi. 1980);fcto«wrt*v.

&7mw/r. 366 111, 247.250 (til, (9371; ShcHd v. Patterson, 302 pi, 355.35940 (III. 1922)); see

aLxo Logon tv CaiiTfiillar, l,\c.. 246 FJd 912.921 (7th tin 2001) ("At the outset, we note Ural

malicious prosecution suits are disfavored by law because of the potential deterrent dTcct on (he

reporting of crime.-), The reason the Illinois Supreme Court disfavors malicious prosecution is

UiBt public policy "favors the exposure of crime, and Ihe Cooperation of citizens possessing

knowledge thereof!* essential to effective implementation of that policy." ht

10 prevail on Ibis claim. plaintiffmust establish: “(I) the commencement or continuation

of an original criminal or civil Judicial proceeding by the defendant: (2| the termmation of the

proceeding In favnrofdtc plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable eau.se for such proceeding: (4)

the presence ofmalice; and (5) damages.*' Johnson tv Savllhu 575 K3d 656.659 (7ih dr. 2009).

In Illinois, '-criminal proceedings arc commenced by the filing of a complaint, an imlidnteni.or

on information, fatgan, 246 F.3d at 922. '* Hurt, n private citizen does not commence n criminal

action merely by reporting information to the police-even If the information later rums out to

be ittewrect. htgan, 246 F,3d at 922. Instead, u private citizen commences or continues a

prosecution "only ifihepIamrifTcan demonstrate that the defendant (I) instituted the

proceedings against the ptnimilT; (2) knowingly made false statements to the police; or (3)

requested, directed, or pressured the officermto swearingout the complaint for the phimlifTs

ferrestr lagan, 246 FJd at 922,

APPENDIXES C I*** 6 dl *

Case I:l£>-cv-(l7153 Document **• 159 Red: 09/13/19 Page 7 of 8 PageiD ^:1306

Here, phiinliffhaispul forth no evidence that the CnsUmedax Hied a complrdnt ngnitis!

plaintiff or otherwise pressured the police or prosecutor to (mraue criminal chafes against

plaintiff In iidUition, it IS undisputed that the Castanedas gave only truthful information to the

•police. In any ««c, os explained above. pltdntHT* tutesi ww supported by probable cause.

Accordingly. the Castanedas we entitled to judgment ns e matter ol law on Count 111,

Their motion for summary judgment is granted, and they arc granted summary judgment as lo

Count 111.

Castanedas'remaining claims

iXdcndams Yolanda Castaneda and Alonso Castaneda filed against plaintiff two

counterclaims for negligence (Counterclaim T) and trespass (Counterclaim II). The Castanedas

tUlVc noi movcd for summary judgment on those claims. Because the Court has resolved all of

the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion to

dismiss without prejudice the Castanedas' counterclaims, which they may pursue in state court.

If they choose. ,1/ :< Service O, t\ BP Product* (V«r/h Amir,, he.. 599 P.3d 720. 727 (7th Cir.

2()t0> ("When fill federal daimsin a suit in federal cmm nrc dismissed hefnre trial, the

presumption \x that the cram will rdimg.ish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-low

claims, which the plaintiff enn then prosecute instate courO finternal citations omitted),

Accordingly, the counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice.

IV,

CONCIAISION

For nil of these reasons, (be Court grants the Castaneda^ motion [ 13Q) for summary

judgment. Yolandn Castaneda nnd Alonso Castaneda are grrmlcd summary judgment on Count

III. 7110 Court also grants die motion (134) for summaryJudgment filed by U. Bonner and

OfTicer Cap. I.t, Bonner and Officer Cap are granted summary judgment tin Counts HI mid IV,

APTEND1XESC VffiTatH

Case; i;i6^V’07i53 document & 159 Ned; 09/13/19 page 8 of 8 Pa$e!D

•Ttic Court relinquishes jurisdiction over the C;istijncdos‘ coumerclaimsfmd dismisses

Couriterclaims.l and 1) without prejudice. Civil cdS'clcftninMcd>

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED; September 13* 2019

HON.dOHOE ALONSO

Unfttd Slater District Judge

ATFCN»IXES C p£i fi'nf fi

Cast* \ 0*3395

Document 0071374012ft

Bled ? 2/30/2020

Faces 1

(4 of 6)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Isanti

f,Mm UriMSl, (oCkoDmiw

fc*oZ723

IfcwfeiiSb**

chnin KkaBtttAi

< *1X9 nf »Kr IVrt

1W (3n)4K4«0

FINAL JUDGMENT

CERTIFIED COPV

December 8, 2020

Before;

| 4.

\ Tpi». ('up\

FRANK R EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judgr

TfO'

DANIEL A. M ANION. Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

• .H,r*

!;♦ \h.r

JEANETTES R.UPINSKt

Plaintiff-Appellant

No. W3395

YOLANDA CASTANEDA, *t dv

Defendant* • Appellee*

Originating Case Infonnalton:

Distort Coun N«» | J6<V"07I53

Northern Distort of Illinois. Extern Division

Distort fudge Jorge L Alonso

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED, with costs, in accordance with

the decision of this court entered on this date.

%•

APPENDIXES t> I’filofl

Case119*3395

Document* CG?t3f40l29

Filed 12/3GE020

Pages.2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

O&t* */4W <3*1

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

December 30/ 2020

Tot

Thomas G, Bruton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois

Chicago, IL6O6OWWQ0

JEANETTE S.R UPINSKJ,

Plaintiff -Appellant

N* 194385

YOLANDA CASTANEDA, ei aL,

Defendants - Appellees

Originating Case Information:

District Court.No: i:1fr-cv«07l53

Northern District of [Hlnais, Eastern Division

District Judge Jorge l>. Alonso__________

Herewith Is themandate of this court in this appeal, along with the* Bill of Costs, if any. A

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to

costs shall constitute the mandate.

RECORD ON APPEAL STATUSl

No record to be returned

NOTE TO COUNSa:

If any physical and large documentary exhibits have been filed in the above-entitled came, they are

to bo withdrawn ten ft 01 day* hum the date of this notice. Exhibits not withdrawn during this period

will bo disposed of.

APPENDtXUS U i*ft» J of 2

(5 0! 6)

Case: 19*3395

Document 00713MG12P

Filed 1?,30/2020

Pages: Z

iPkase acknowledge receipt of these documents an the eftdosrd copy of this notice,

Received above mandate and record, H any, from the Clerk, LLS. Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit.

Date:

Received by;

form-name; c7_M wwlale/form ID; 135)

APPENDIXES E Pg* 2 of 2

ISO) 5)

Cft$&l.l£.cv'0?tf»3 Document« iaZFPed* 06/22/20 Pa^e i ot 2 Pagel0.r5423

f/$

Monday* June 1$. 2020

RKCORD ON APPKAI.

CASE NAME: Upfnskf v. Castaneda et a!

CASE: p S;I<J-CV'07153 Northern District of Illinois

CASE: # 19*3395 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Pear Clerk of Northern District of Illinois Circuit Court,

\ respectfully request you to prepare the Record on Appeal for mv cnsefri;!6cv-071 S3, for Appeals case # 19-3395

Tlusnk You,

Jeanette S.R, Lipinski

1412! S. Greetibay Avc;

Burnham, (L 60633

sJiOshana3@inc.C0fn

FILED

JUN23 28191A

THOMAS a BRUTON

CLERK, US, DISTRICT COUR1

APraNntvEs'F

of 4

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.

o o

APPENDIXES F Pft*2«M

.U6-CV-07153 Document a: 184 Piled; 05/29/20 Page j oil PagefO sa47J

.ft

United States District Court

Northern Otetrict of Illinois

218 South Dearborn Street

Chfeago, Illinois 60004

Thomas S. Bmton

312-435*5670

Cter*

Drue: 06/29/2020

Case Number: 1:16*ev-071$3

Ca«c Hilo: UninsKi v.C&stanedaet at

Judge: Jorge l, Afonso

NOTICE OP CORRECTION

Fhe following emtr$/defitfoncie$ hnvc been identified tn document ft (

182.

D I Itc document is on the tncoirect ca*ie. Ofthlx is it muilbit I he docket Clerk ha* twined tin:

motion*

□ ITie document U on tlte correct ease but ihc ease number and title do not match.

□ The meoncct document (pdf] was linked to the miry.

□ Ihc incorrect file date was entered.

D The incorrect event was uscd.The title of the document docs-not match the text of ihc cniry.

□ 'Hie entry is a duplicate of entry |

•B Other: File Stamped With incorrect date.

Corrective action taken by the. Clerk:

ft 'flic text of the entry has been replaced w ith tottered hi ftnir.

O Ihc following notation has been added to the text of die entry; Linked ducumm has thi*

htcorrcvf ease tUfc, or, linked dttvmteni hatt die fneorrni tmv number«

D The correct document (pdf] has been tv-filed.

P The file date fins been corrected,

□ ‘ flie text of the entry' has been edited to reflect

□ The text of tire entry’ has been edited to read, Ouplictifejiihif: ofdocument number / }.

□ Other:

Correclive action required by cite filer:

□ Counsel ntuskl re-file the document

O Other:

Thomas Ci. Ilrutnn« Clerk

&y. /»/ Robert6 Cornejo

Deputy Clerk

vu is

ATPUNDIXfiS F Tp 3 of 4

CMtcr iSVt,

0 3 5 • VS 0*sW« Ceuir, Nwtfur* !H«of?

8/WJI. S U AW

(See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Conntcr Defendant

Jeanette &.tt. Uplnckf

Date Filed

# . I>nckct THi

| JM ^ NOTICE of Correction regarding letter IK2 . (re,) (Entered; 06/29/2020)

06/29/2020

tlM | LETTER regarding record on appeal from Jeanette S.R. Upinsfci dated 6/15/2020.

06/23/2020

I (Envelope postmarked 6/16/2020) (Jma,) (Entered; 06/26/2020)

liS2 IfEntered in Error. Modified on 6/29/2020 (re,). (Entered: 06/25/2020)

106/23/2020

+■ i

03'10/2020

| JSil ORDER: Plaintiff has notified the Court that she is unable to appear at the hearing

on her motion due to illness. PluintifTs motion i?3 for waiver of fees for transcripts

• on appeal is denied. Signed by the Honumhlc Jorge L. Alonso on 3/3/2020. Notice

1 mailed by judge’s staff (If.) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/03/2020

]

LSI ORDER: Plaintiffs motion |7K for appointment of counsel is denied. Signed by the j

Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 3/10/2020. Notice mailed bv judge's staff (If.)

(Entered: 03/10/2020)

■f-

03/03/2020

103/02/2020

k u

120 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: In light of Plaintiff

| informing the Court she is unable to attend today's hearing, motion hearing date of J

3/3/20 is stricken. Defendants' motion to withdraw ns counsel for Defendants* jjb is !

granted. Attorney James A. Garfield Is given leave to withdraw as counsel for

Defendants Lt. Bonner #79 and Officer Andrielie Cap. Notice mailed bv judge’s

staff (If.) (Entered: 03/03/20201

!2£ MOTION by Plaintiff Jeanette S.R. Lipin$ki for attorney representation: (Exhibits). |

—i-------+

(smm.) (Entered: O.V02/202Q)

— •

— —

-•

------- — —^

02/27/2020

122 NOTICE of Motion by Christina Vi Chen for presentment of motion to withdraw

j7.fi before Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 3/3/2020 at 09:30 AM. (Chen, Christina) *

i (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/27/2020

176 i MOTION by Defendants Lt Booner #79. Andrielie Cap to withdraw Attorney James

A. Garfield(Chen, Christina) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/27/2020

1125 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants U Booner #79, Andrielie Cap by

Christina Vi Chen (Chen. Christina) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/26/2020

174 NOTICE of Motion by Jeanette S.R. Lipinski fur presentment of Amended Motion |

’ for Waiver ot Hccs for Transcripts for Appeal before Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on *

: 3/3/2020at 09:30 AM. (ec.) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

-A

—■ ~-

M*;MV«ro#w»-*MM«yfl*»i>eifcrtS*gCM*fH7P1'VcaN*i/Ooc*m»rt ;0*3

WT0:>t*trKlH2©C<.m1,*70?4*f

APPENDIXES F P*s4o(«

PA** * of J*

Case: l:lft*cV'07i53 OocuRTRf'!5* 1W fifed: 1Z/03U3 Pm l Ot 1 PafpID

Mmi Rate at Apptf.it Pm*d«* Pom ». Notko of App*l to i Coort of Api**fa

from a Isd^sail or Order of i District Cflsrt.

FILED

United States District Court for the District of

NOA

n: «n~/g icT

~Tt_! \aJa {.5

OEC - 3 aot?

THOMAS G.BKltfe..

rtPStt US.eHSTRtCTcount

Zjep/Jtftt* ■$■1? Li PiLs^-i

F&ffl#

)

ypLAA^O/?

Notice of Appc*J

)

<2T)

Defendant.

)

* (pontiffs)

action on the

^g.

4*y oC

e&o n .

tdTcAAJelfe*- *&aas/i i /

<T^AAJ/f7T£ Z/

•fht—

Atfoncvfor /ACtS*"

, ■■ ,

Aikfewa: /?/*/ S* G#hhAJKK?A\J£

SfiueAJHA vr\{~r~>£- c>L~3^

04F^&-tvi £h

g^ p.oi ^

(^0 tout*/&rs: ffyoa ore an imm confined (nan fwtfflrffon

f**

o/F«£ & /4#>. R ^<U complete Farm 7 (Dedarmfon of Inmate Filing) andfile that

dedaretfon along with this Notice afAppcal)

♦SodlUde 3(cVfarpcnntdbJe w*y* of idfisdrying ippdlims

APPENDIXES'<5 Pft 1 of t

Gas’s: UM>*cv'0?153 Document tr 165 Filed. 12/03/13 Page 1 of 1 PagelO #;1345

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORTHE NORTHERN DISTRCIT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Jeanette S.R. LtpJnskl,

Plaintiff, Counter Defendant

Com no. l:16‘tv-07!53

Judge Jorge L. Alonso

Yolanda Castaneda,

Alonso Castaneda,

U. Bonner, and

Officer AndrieHe Cop,

dec - 5 209

Defendants.

Docketing Statement

Plaintiff Jeanette S.R. Upinsld hereby files ber Docketing Statement pursuant to Circuit Rule

3(c):

District Court Jurisdiction: The United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois had Jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C, §1331 based on the existence ofa federal

question.

Appellate Court Jurisdiction: The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

hasjurisdiction over (his cam under 28 U.S.C. §1291. Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment

ottered on November 5,2019 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal was filed on December 3* 2019.

Respectfully submitted*

/. /p/UssA /

MA/S.

8ti&tsHAXn ,n:L- ^4 33

AITEKDIXESH

l oft

Cass; i;i6<v^7iS3 0ocumeni *r m Fiteo: u/06/19 Fage l of i Pooe*D ^1370

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C^URT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEANETTE S R, LlPINSKi,

Plftintim

YOLANDA CASTANEDA*

ALONSO CASTANEDA.

LT. BONNER, and

OFFICER ANDRIELLECAP,

Defendants.

)

Case No l6-cv*7l$3

Hon. Jorge I» Alonso

)

ORDER

PUBiiffTs BUrtiOall 63] fof lew (O proceed mforma pffi/pem on appeal is granted

STATEMENT

PuntiianuoRiile 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a’“party Who was

permitted to proceed in fftrmq pauperis in the district-court action .. may proceed on appeal In

forms pauperis without further authorization. unless" the district court "certifies that the appeal fa

not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in fofmn

pauperisM Fed RApp.P 24(a)(3),

in this case, pUintifT was granted leave to proceed informs pauperis- in the district-court

■action [Docket Of This Court has not certified (and does not intend to) that the appeal is ms

taken in good faith Nothing in plaintiffs affidavit suggests she is not otherwise eniiUcd to

-proceed inform pauperis Accordingly, plaintiff* motion to proceed wftmruiptnifierkm

appeal is granted.

Dale: 12/6/2019

Joige L.- Alonso

United Stales District Judge

APPENDIXES I PR 1 <>f 7

Cgsq: i;I$'Cv*07l53 Document * 172 Filed- 12/12/19 Rage 1 of 2 PagelD £-.1381

United states district court

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEANETTE SLR. LIPINSKL

Piuimirr.

YOLANDA CASTANEDA.

ALONSO CASTANEDA*

LT. BONNER, and

OFFICER ANDRJELLftCAP,

Defendants.

)

Case NO, l6-cv«7iS3

Hon. Jorge I.. Alonso

ORDER

Plaint!IT s motion J17Q| for waiver pi fcc$ for transcripts iin appeal is denied without

prejudice.

STATEMENT

}

Pursuant to statute. "Fees for transcripts furnished In other proceedings jn persons

pemilped to appeal it)forma puufHrl* shall also l?e paid by ihe United States if the trial judge or

n circuit Judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question):* 2ft

11S.C. § 753(f). "An appeal raises a 'substantial question* If it presents *n ‘close* question or

one that very well could he decided the other way.414 UnMtoam »• Kttken, 905 F.3d 740.741

(7th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Shnfjne^ 791 K2d 586.589 (7th Cir, 1986)), Courts

also consider “whether the requesting party Iras demonstrated a particular need for the requested

transcripts,** Westhmik v. BoySeatifrofAm,. Case No, 10 C 4161.2013 WL 2936488 at U

(N.D. 111. June 13. 2014),

Plaintiff asks that transcript fees be waived, which is to soy she asks that the United

Stales pay fpr her transcripts. The request is denied without prejudice for two primary raisons

First, plnmttfTdOes not say which transcripts she 1$ requesting and does not snv why the

transcrirts arc necessary for her appeal. She appears to he appealing the Court's decision to

grant swirmutv judgment in fovor of defendant. hut the Court did not hold n hearing on lira!

motion. Tims, it »s not obvious what trnnscripis plalmtlT believes arc necessary for her appeal.

NcxL plaintiff docsriot explain-why her appeal presents u substantial question

Arm-ivnixF.st pgsiofi

£as® tlfi-cv.QTa53 document-l?: 172 Rtetfc 12/12/18 Page Z of 2'tPageiO *?;J38t

Accordingly. the* Court dries' without prejudice plolmiifs motion for waiver of fees for

transcript ori npjKjai;

..•*

One:- ia/i2/261?

JorgeX. Alonso

United Stales District Judge

Al’PENblXfiSj Pfis3<ite

C3f*c I J&cv*07i53 Document * it51 Ned* 03/10^20 Pa'jrtlfll l PngeiD^ld**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OFILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEaKETTE SH LIPfNSKJ,

)

WnmiHT,

Hon Jorge L Alonsto

yolanoa Castaneda,

ALONSO CASTANEDA,

LT BONNER, nod

OFFICER ANQRIELUCAP.

Case No I6-CW7153

)

Defendants

ORDER

FimntiTT$ motion j 178] for appointment of counsel is denied

STATEMENT

On September 13,2019. the Court entered judgment in this case against plnimHTiwt iti

favor of defendants On December ?. 2019. plaintiff Tiled a notice of appeal.

Plaintiff has now filed with this Court > motion for appointment of counsel, presumably

to represent her on appeal Ordinarily, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of

jurisdiction Ameritteh t'i*p v. fn/cmmnnal flhtl office, Workers. /.<*»/ 2J% 543 F.3d 4Mt

4|g (7th Cir 2008) (‘This rule conserves judicial resources by preventing overlapping and

potentially inconsistent decisions; whipsawing litigants between two courts is just as

Inconvenient for court* as it is for panics**) Thus, the Court lacks Jurisdiction over plaintiff's

motion

In any case, plaintiff has already asked the Court of Appeals far appointment of counsel,

and the Court of Appeals he$ denied the motion This Court will not jccond-guCs# that decision

Accordingly. the motion is denied

Date 3/10/2020

Jorge L Alonso

United States District Judge

APPENDIXES K PfjJirfi

No.

JNTHE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Jeanette S.R. Upinski— PETITIONER

VS.

Yolanda Castaneda ct at.— RESPONDENTS)

ON PETmON FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARlTb

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Jeanette S'R. Lrpmski

14111 S. Green bay Avenue

Burnham, IL 60633

773^240-7701

AfTENDJXESl, I*r1 of1

Cnse:l:16‘cv*07i53 Document * 161 Filed. aOUUlSPageJ of 27 FageJD3,l309

4?I]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEANETTE S.K. UPINSK1

)

Plaintiff:

)

V< tUINDA CASTANEDA, an individual: i

ALONSO CASTANEDA, an individual; j

i X. BONNER 79. in hi? individual: and

)

officer capacity:

OFFICER ANDRIELLK CAP, W: in her )

individual and officer capacity:

find VILLAGE OF BURNHAM, a

municipal corporation.

)

Defendants.

)

Cjuw No, If»*cv-7I53

Honorable: Jorge I.. Afonso

Magistrate; Judge Susan Cox

filed

OCT 1 i 2013 i/

THOMAS G DRUTON

CLERK. US.DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGEMENT

Now comes Plaint iff* Jeanette Mpinski Pro Sc (Liptnski) moves pursuant to FRCP 59 for

the Court to Reconsider Its September 13,2019 memorandum opinion nod September 13,

2019 judgement and in the alternative moves dun the Court gram her relief from dial

order and judgement pursuant to FRCP 60 (bH I) based upon mistake, inadvertence and

excusable neglect or in die alternative pursuant to FRCP 00 (h)(6) based upon reasons

that justifies relief,

Pegs 1 of 12

APPENDIXES M Pfp1of27

Case; i:l&-cv.07153 Docunismi«' 151 Filed: 10111 US Page 7<st 27 PagelD «:1310

Hicrc were manifest emirs of low and fact.

ITie Vcicrinofian rep* dated WISH4 wa previously submitted to the Court said nothing

about poisoning. A cop> in attached hereto as ({shihit A-2

Judicial notice can he taken of certain scientific facts, See IVR. Evidence 201.

ftplnskl luid attempt«l to file a response to the Castaneda?' et &J, motion for summary

judgement. the Castanedas' Jhipporfing memorandum dvnt end joint statement olmatcrfnl facts,

A eop> ?s anached hereto as Exhibit

2 Pgsdstcd lOttO.'Ui, mis Response whoever

docketed b> the clerk norprestimabfv rend by die Court, On j 0*3 I'18 docket £140, Response by

Plaintiff Jcnnettc S.R, Upinsfci tn motion forsimiTnnry judgement ^i^Q.niytion for yumtnnry

judgement *134 (Upmski. Jeanette) (Rmered:10/3l/|8j: but not the Plaintiffs RESPONSE to

Castaneda?fit AL, Motion For Summary Judgement Roth documents were submitted together.

The slmrtihm before the court also constitutes ntisiafce, inadvertence mtd excusable

neglect or other reason justifying relief under FRCP 60(b),

On 10/1 ft8 usdc^cefjlndrfiinUaJScoiirts.gov. sends Ten deemmlcemnils fhtm the

Defendants to Plaintiff, That amount ofinfornuUion is over* helming for Pro Se PlnintifT.

U!^c-ccfJlndiffiiftd.usccHiTl5.-gvv. and the Hihblcr Pm Sc help desk. Service

appointmenfs are only every two weeks for45 minutes, and only if an appointment is

available, which 1$ often unavailable due mu enough attorney volunteers'. The I Hhbler Pm

be Help desk 45 minute limit availability (o service Pro Se vllcnts.is not adequate enough

Page 2eM2

APPENDtX'ES M

Casa J:i6*cv-07i53 Document»* ifil filed. 10/U/19 Page 3 ot 27 PagslO ^I3n

lime to service Inrgc Amounts of information in one vjsii.Thcy arc very limited to their

attorney sen ices to the many Pro Se clients that need their services to meet their needs.

I he bcdentl Court system tails to help Pro Se clients case': properly and Adequately

overwhelming their cmplo\ ces. clients, and judges with large work loads. Which Ism

humane to accomplish their tasks properly and accurately. This Is also n well known

unethical attorney misconduct maneuver to overload work to the clients ofPro Se cases

who are not lawyers. Refusing to represent clients professionally for political, religious,

nationality* or other unethical motives.. Reference: < uvt I :Q7-cy-W)739 Document

Durham Counts, NC prosecutor. Mike Nifrtng. gained national infamy for A pattern of

attorney misconduct: 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal,

ERRORS

the decision on 9/13/19 wits in error primary because It stntcd that the Defendant's dog

wns allegedly' poisoned, when In fact it w as not. nnd PlnlmifTadmitted she poured lull

■ strength bleach into the yard of Defendants vhen in fact she did not-hcr only admittance

was a very small diluted solution outside by Plaintiffs g.tmge in alley put on concrete

cleaning unhealthy dog urine odor w hen she was doing her yearly garuce maintenance

and removing her vehicle oil from her garage floor.

11k* veterinary letter and bill was never entered into Markham Court as evidence of

poisoning ofthe dog. it was only provided to this honorable court as evidence of no

Page 3 oM 2

-o r*f

\j a (jtr» r\

APPENDIXES M I*|>««3nf27

Case 1.16-CV-07153 Document *• WlPtteti; 10/11719 Pegs 4 of 27 PngalD t?J3X3t

poisoning ofDelta dog. Ural in case. Delendnms simply made false allegations. and

repeated than to die police and then had PlaimiffJcancite IJpinxki falsely arrested, ilic

Castanedas and H V police made no small claims on how much they htiled their neighbor

Pfamtlft When a Handicap sign w as put In front of Plaint ift's house for her and her

mother. Yolanda Castaneda angrily > died at Plmnitfrin Spanish who could noi

undentamtl her nor hear her very well. The Castmtedtis resented they had 1<> move one of

ihdr three cars, non-working white car parked in front oftheir house into their brand new

two car garage. Injured PlnrntilVwiih a broken right heel and broken left wrist shoveled a

path to the sued lo get her mother on her own street walkway fo he picked up logo the

doctor. safely in the Arctic Pall-Spring 2013-2014 for her second wrist sufgety- Plaintiff

put a friendly nmc on Dcfl. Alonso's car to please be considerate to move his car that was

in from of Plaintiffs walkway so her elderly mother can get to the doctor. Shceon't walk

threw the deep snow. Deft. Alonso did nut comply even after the Handicap sign w-meput

up and (he police also ignored Heft, violating Plaintiffs I iixndieap sign..A RV police

ofttcer went to school with peft. Yolanda Ousiancdn and was her friend, h is-bdieved that

PfamthTsThlsc arrest was n conspiracy to hurt Plaintiff JEANETTE UPINSKI. Psalm

142:3 When my-spirit was overwhelmed within me. Then You knew- my path, hi the w tt>

In which 1 walk. They have secretly act a snare fur me. With nil due respect m the court

there is complete absence of any logical analysis of the '‘Castaneda Evidence** or "Ihcis,”

Many points are just plain inconceivable. 1) Ha- allegation that bleach poured on a luwn

Pagf 4 of 12

£j

AmiNDIXESM rgs4of2?

Cas« X:l6-cv-0Vi53 Document * ten FtloU. Ki/U/19 Page 5 ot 27 PagelD *:1313

will turn block dog paws white, Bleach docs not mm dork skin white. Paws find skin

vomain a pigment melanin which is not affected hv bleach. Domg laundry is not the same

ns putting bleach on dark or black skin. African Americans have known for > ears you

cannot bleach block skin. 2) As brought up by this court before. Defendants again make

outragetms claims not supported by any science that blench create* w hite dry paws on

their dog. its pointed out in Vets letter. Dog urine is acidic and kilts grass Yellow. 3)

Reach if used for killing weeds in grass takes one m three days io turn brow n. not yellow,

which is tlie color of their dog urine in their grass.

! Defendants Castanedas recently provided « vet bill, hut it was dearly for an illness and not n

poisoning. The bill does not mention poison or bleach and it notes a high temperature in the dog

and the. vet prescribed antibiotics nnd not n poison antidote.

"llydroquinonc is n popular *Ykta bleaching product.” It is mu chlorine bleach and what it dues

is decrease production of melanin in human skin (Chlorine blend) works in a completely

dilTereni fashion by actually destroying dyes, grease and din molecules on contact. Therefore i!

is an outrageous lie on the pan of Defendants that die black j»w pads of their dog suddenly

They

turned white. hftpsi//w\vw.bcirithlinf.com/scafth?q I^HydroquInonf-should be,sanctioned for making outrageous and impossible lies.

J Mow to kill grass with bleach' homc^ultles.sfEatc.com. *3 Wait otic to three days and when

the grass turns BROWN and dry. pull it up to mnwu. It doesn’t turn yellow

Clearly no dng/mrimnl vs ns poisoned, ilte police either knew or should have known these

fact* nnd that the Castanedas were dearly l> tag about the entire matter to hurt the

Plaintiff.

Page 5 ol 12

P *7

Al’FKN'OIXES M P*sSof27

Casa: Ll$*cv«07I53 Document s; 161 Plied- 10/11/19 Page 6 ot 27 PnQcfD* 1314

IMnintilTmadc It clear that Dell. Yolanda Castaneda took Iter dog. a large yd loo Labrador

retriever for a walk (he very next morning at 5a. and at the criminal trial IMaintUT Jeanette

told the judge shout the Defendant walking her dog the very next day and the criminal

ease, was dismissed because the Castanedas did not produce the Veterinary letter and bill.

it xvasnU hcar-say.

While the court argues (hfii Plaintiff failed to (Tie » Response includingmgument an the

facts and Legal Argument* she did m fact prepare a Response, and filed it. hut It got lost

m the system. It h attached hereto as Exhibit B-12 Pgs dated 10/30/20! #.

This is rite second time a citdHkk happened hy the court feMCfti* Hie Plaint! R’hrntigbt to

your Honor's Alonso's auemfon ofthe missingHett, ANDRIF.LLECAP name from the

Docket.Your Honor searched his computer and saw it was: missing. «nd it was returned 10

the Docket,This newly discovered evidence of error, missing Response dated I0'3Q/I6

by the Plaintiil'wjLS not notice until your Honorable judges recent order.

PtointUTIW.1 repeatedly moved this honorable court to appoint her counsel In UiTs case to

help Iter with her case because she is elderly, indigent, disabled, end under great distress.

She is now requesting that this court allow her us file this document ui this time. PInimifV

hopes and believes (his error was inadvertent and unintentional.

"Pages ot 12

4 */?£?

apthnuixesm ra«6©t2?

Case- i:lfrctf*07153 Document * m Fiiaci 10/UUS Pnge Tol.27 Pageib #:131S

LEGAL ARC 1JM ENT

Plaintiffreiterate that Defendants are clearly not entitled to Summary Judgment os a

matter oflaw against am of the DefcndnmvThc Castanedas dearly mmlc false

statements of facts, und the police repeated these false statement of facts of bleaching

dark dog skin pads white with bleach. It is their dog urine that killed the grass yellow.

The cotin, with rill due respect, stated thm Plaintiff Jeanette hated dogs: she does not hate

dogs and is very friendly with them nnd concerned about animals; the Castanedas' should

walk their dog around the block every day and pot just mm it out for mmutcsliours in

their small yard by itself without lood and water. Plaintiff raised her Pedigree Toy

Poodles for seventeen years with three liners. She loves dogs.

The Castanedas never tendered tm> vet letter or bill to the Mntc at the criminal trial, nor

did they $hmv,any evidence the dog was sick. Iwcrythmg was hearsay by them nnd

police. Why didn't the police check the Castaneda's outside yard security cameras faring

the backyard and alley. In fact. Plaintiff Jeanette has video tape footage on her outside

security cameras of the very next day at 5a showing Yolanda Castanedas happily walking

her dog for the first lime ever seen, with the dog happily walking with her and was

perfect!) fine. And PkiiniifTshows no crime hy her on her backyard security camera.

Page? of 12

7 *F 27

APPENDIXES M J'fls7G!Z7

Case: 1 -lS^v-07153 Document161 filed: 10/11/19 Page 8 of 27 PagelD£;i3l£J

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Stimmaiy judgment is an extreme!* drastic remedy, 3 Barron it f Munir, fedent!

Praaicc and Procedure $ 1231 (Wright ed.|. quoted in Hoffman v, Hahhltr Bros, trading

Co,. 203 P.2d 636.63? m 1 (9th Cir. 1953). Accordingly, summary judgment should he

rendered only If the pleadings, depositions, answers to the interrogatories. and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits. if any, sJtmv that there is no genuine issue

as to any material foci and that the moving pans is entitled to a Judgment as a matter or

law / Fcd.R,Civ.K 56(c). Sec also Consolidated Klectric Co.

United States. 355 f-\2d

437 (9th Cir, 1966). A. Chemey Disposal Co, v, CHICAGO & SLU RKPUSt- DlS.

ASS*N,484 l'.2d 751 (7th Cir* 1973).

A genuine dispute or material (act exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nunmoving pony/' Anderson v. t.ihcrtv I obhv. Inc.. 4 77

IJ.S. 242.24R. 106 S.CX 2505.91 L.l".d.2<j 202. (1986). We "consider nit of the evidence

in the record in the light mo:>i favorable to the mm-mm ing party. and wc draw all

reasonable intereiiccs from that evidence in favour of ihc party opposing summon*

judgment." f'diherty v. Kemper Corp,. 98 K3d 274.276-77 (7th Cir. 1996), SMtal v. III.

Cent. H.R. Co. 884 P.3d 708 (7th Cir.. 2018)

In rltk case. Defendants have not shown that Summary Judgment if warranted. The

Castanedas alleged a number of obvious untrue st elements and facts which were then

repeated by ihc police. It simply is well known, ur die Defendants should have known

Page 8 of 12

AtTEKDfXCS M I>£s6of 27

Cnse 116-CV-071S3 Document r 151 Filed .IOUX'19 Page g ot 27 Page ID #:I317

lhai. I.) bleach does noi (um hlack paws white. 2.) (heir dog urine killed the grass veilow.

fhe police repeated there uniruc stotcmcMs and facts and treated Plaintiff ruddy and in n

hostile manner. Lies should never substitute for “probable cause* Plaintiff Jeanette

never said she hated or even disliked their dog; in foci she was very concerned that the

dog was never walked by the Castanedas and all they did was let the dog out into their

backyard for niinmcs*'hoUT$ unattended with no food or water outside. She believed that

the dog deserved a daily walk for si leoSi 15 minutes around the block. She was also, as a

Christian minister, perfectly willing to clean up the dog urine and feces of her neighbors

and other neighbors. There is no evidence she ever complained about that. She was

loving her neighbors. Matthew 22: King James Version (KJV) 36 Master, which is the

great commandment in the law? 37 Jesussoid unto him. Thou shall love the Lord |hv

God with alt thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 Tins is the Hrsl

find great commandment,39 And the second is tike unto it. Thou shah love thy neighbour

ns thyself. Exodus 20:16 Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

FIRST AMENDMENT

The freedom ofreligion is a cherished liberty protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Onid noted, in Lee v* Wiseman, that (he First Amendment's two religion

clauses “mean that religious bcltcfcjmd religious expression Ore ton precious to be either

proscribed or prescribed by the State."

ar r< /

APPENDIXES M Vp 9 of 27

Ppge 9 of 12

Case: l:iG’Cv*07i53 Document a igi pied; jomyis Page ip of ti PageiD n;i3is

To honorable Judge. Altmi from PifitmiiTMintsicr Jeanette MpinsM. h is her and God's

decision to bring theDefendonis to proper Justice in this earthly court. So that when they

stand in His Heavenly Ohm on their judgement day; ihm fn this ease, those vvhn have

.sfnned will stand before him justified nnd that the sin will not be mode bigger heron: Him

tmm » wrong judgement decision on earth. For He will rightlv and justly Judge the

Defendants and punish, either greater or lesser based on this courts earthly decision ■t She

Prays in the words on the coun mom wall. IN CK)I> SVKTRt fSi; To do the right

judgement in Cod's eye's and mind. Amen. Proverbs 19:2001 KJV Hcarwtmscl. and

receive instruction. that thou ntnyest he wise in ihy latter end, there arc nurny devices in

a man's Horn: nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand.

For all ofihe foregoing reasons. PlaimitTJeanette Lipiuski respectfully requests

rceoasidcroiion of the Court's September 13, 20 J 9 Order, and the rase set tor trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBM ITTED*

By; ts^jenncnelipinski PlniniffT* Pro se

Prepared by:

Jeanette UpinskS. Plaimifi; Pro Sc t-4 i 21 S. Greenbay Avc, Burnham. N. 60633

708*933-036? dittshanrt3iflclnud.com

Page 10 of 12

AitPENIlIXES M FfetJOistt?

Cflsu 11*8*07153 Document *• Ul Filed KMMO Page 11 ol 27 PageiD *J319

VERIFICATION

J hereby vcniv Out ull .ibittmiaite mode Itctcin ure inn; nnd correct Hi die bcM of im

knowledge am! memory. Where based upon information and belief are belies ed 10 he true

ai the lime the Matemcnis wen? made.

•Vjeancnc!ipim>ki^

■*

Jeanrtic Uplnski. Plaintiff Prose

CERT IF! CaT£ OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Friday (Xtoher 11. 20|Q. [ served via email n copv ofik

foregoing pleading to all entities who have filed an appearance bv email to the addressee

noted below.

John William Patton, Jr,

it*

' T

James A, Garfield

Joseph T. Kasink

‘ » ,

Jerome fCWcUxcl

ir ••

t * ..»

• % V '1

• tin

Jessica Frickc Garro

-Hi- -./ i -

ik* 1 * ;

Page nor 12

r? 7

APPENDIXESM P*s11of27

Case; l:16*eV‘07i53 Document r 161 riled 10/13/ig Page 12 of 2.7 PagelD 3J320

Lurry J. Lipka

I || U.4 ■« t* » I: J. |h > Cl

% *•»»

Justin Ddbclc

"f" mV I"

•t <

i- itiK'l i -

Paul D. Mm

H ••

> ( h|Ii< Kt rv ><1 (,,,11

Michael R, Luchsingcf

o< < *

jr **■,.

NOTICE OF FILING

/v^eafteuciiprnskV. pin inti ti: IVo $e

I herewith emiry ihsifln Friday October IL 2W, I caused the above documcnUu he

filed with the Clerk nfCoun h> hand delivery to the Clerk's ofiice m219 S4 Dearborn.

Chicago, IL 60603

tejcmicueltpfnski/

♦'Ut, Vt. 'w

^O.IV f i_*-i

. * 9

Jeanette l.lplnsiri

Page 12 of 12

/ <>

^ >cT

*1 ~

<-* /

AWENUIXESM PfiSl2of27

✓ Case iae-e*07iS3 Ooamn»n«: m r=iie(( io/uyi0 pm l3 Dt 27 P(1(JOJO a.J3?1

Tuesday, July 15.2014

LANSING VETERINARY LETTER -

EXHIBIT A - 3 PAGES

Re. "Rex*\ male, yeitow lab. Bom n-30*2006. Belonging to Alonso Castaneda of 14119

GreenbayAve. Burnham, til,

Rex was examSned by me today Due to a complaint that he has vomffling and diarrhea

pff and on (or over the past, month He has also been coughing and sneezing the past

tew days.

On exam his temperature was 104 4 f (norma! is 101.5 f.) oral exam and atxkmial

palpation were normal Exam of his paw pads showed they are dry with the surface

white instead of black. His heart and lungs are normal.

Recommended treatment consists of antibiotics and a liquid to give by mouth that is a

protectorant to sooth the lining of the stomach and bowel

Sincerely.

Lany W, Booher, D.V, M,

J3 oF 57

APFEN1?1X£5M r^i3 ofi7

^Cain; l:tg-cv.Q7i53 Doomifn! r iGJ filed, iq/u/jj) Pam.- Mot 27 p

. Lansirvo

ft Animal Hospital

ttr

,n»? ‘l «~o- 4 m.

co;j

I, •'?' 4 *4 f?s I r

Li ^ •.<

•Wtit! »dh

Cff-

•?-ir~iu

** tftr*1

r ^/■wtp

*■

''*’■** *fcP('«n..^K.

i *=

Wfl®*

<$-*

Afir

4<-r-

ru.

rtirf *

tA+.n^. erf)

Co *v o*. »

C^f*

*>«*r

*A* t)

4-*-*

THh

?*cT

*****

l?^n»

^rfu?

<4^5

•

/M? Ai.so

rx#= A*«t- *3r.^

n+C^t

€*****«_

**-*>

//<7i*i*t-,

/^c

UJSTfY*.

C^A.

#***

31+* i^rn

rHe* Su-u-m-tj/’

//^SMur- /?,-v<\

/? * l4r

r*”A, e*A-r“

*“

TXf

.jLm, f*-4~J-

d>r, ft/*

A.r&u±^

TT}

«a

*****

C*-

T*~'

A^nt#jriJre^

TJm <»f~

/)*vf

*r^r t-TfMyi—

v*- <? f. ^

■^rTV~* CS'V^c ^ *^

*■

fHc^TH

Tr^ F#* &ruptr

Q*/h-

t/*** rrrvt-o

4^0

/*/.* F,)

&LU-

cT-t*- /?” Xr- ^i*,» ,

CASTANEDA 0017

f¥ *F 2 7

AITPENT31XES M IfeHArz?

Case; 1.16-CV-07153 Document # 161 FllC-cf 10/11/19 Pays 15 0127 PagelD «1323

• *

UfMHng Anfrrm HotplM

PapWI

QmiQ 1501

14UOO<**it*yA**

li. «<»3J

Irrvoeep ttidQI

Oete

*Na»f^o vto

IMm Cm

**43*

&*e Ptoiia urn**

TnStfou

Staff Wjmy

Eomratw^ Phyt^

Gvw!** (SucrtffMft) *gu0 p« ML

S*nc*o*f JOO mg t*b*1

"70 p*ft»

ami#T tiofk-j-30#

Qams&f

ur?¥ Bofttef 0 VM

1 00

30 oft

200

SuOteo!

2£S*I51i

* .

•■

N»‘-

F*i4,.,}|,

‘t*~i

►

5** Mia

Tow

*44 .'6

110 00

*29 ?i

*0546

’ iy?0i& Erjwrura'kC^ **>■)•«

Nty^oaToW:

I»3jM

TOttl

$83 50

Oatanos Dye

$0350

p7*wou* fl*4wK*

MOO

6*»fca Dim

m 50

C***

L«i **irm>afit

15^00 OPt

Tiiooooi

to 50

Cntnp&Gfytn

Saiirt©* OtM-

1040

CASTANEDA 0018

/ S' eF A7

Am-NDIXESM r^s is of37

Case: «frcW»7153Document«; 161 Fifed. 10/mo Pm,e »ot 27 PagelO *1324

EXHIBIT 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN OlSTRlCT OF ILLINOIS

eastern division

JEANETTE LIPINSKI

Plaintiff

No, 16 CV 7163

Non, Jofge L Atonso

YOLANDA CASTANEDA, an Individual"

ALONSO CASTANEDA, an individual; ' L.T.

BONNER #78, In his individual and officer

capacity; OFFICER ANDRIELLE CAP #77;

in her individual and officer capacity; and

Susan E. Cox

VILLAGE OF BURNHAM, a municipal

corporation

Magistrate Hon, Susan Cox

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

RESPONSE TO CASTENAOA S ET AL MOTION FOR SUMARY JUDGMENT

This is in response to The Castaneda's Motion for Su

rttmary Judgment Against

.Upirtskr doct # 130 filed on 10/1/18, and the ‘Castanedas' Memorandum In Support of

their Motion for Summary Judgment against Upinsfcr doct #133 filed 10/1/18 and

‘Defendants' Joint Statement of Material Facts Entitling Them to Summary Judgment

Against Lipinskr. Doct No, 132 fifed 10/1/18, At the outset K is somewhat confusing that

the Castanedas filed a Motion for SummaiY Judgment against Upfnski. and submitted a

Memorandum of Law ifi Support of the Mot?ion. but the Statement of Material fact Is fifed

by all the defendants, the Castanedas, and Officers Cap and Bonner, Nonetheless; the

Motion should be dented because there are numerous allegations of material fact which

are disputed, including the Castaneda's assertions that Plaintiff Jeanette Llpinskr tried to

Pbmitff UpinsfeTfi Answers to the inrerregatoffesof the C*snmed*’s

■pjgetofIT

AFPENPIXESM P*Sl6ofJ7

Case: U.6-CV-07153 document

101 Filed * 20/li£9 PageoxxOLffaneiD tv:1325____

polsofl their dog. but In reality she was trying to dean the alley of dog urine smell

, sod

also Whether the Castanedas lied to the police maliciously and told them the dog had

died, and whether the Officers Bonner and Cap changed police records from 'the dog

hed died* and removed that from their records. These and other claims should be eel

tor s jury trfel on the moms.

A. Response to Motion tor Summery Judgment (Doct #133)

VWh respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Cratened^ argue 1) that

there is no dispute of any material fact and that in doct, #52. the court dismissed aft of

RatmftFT Jeanette's claims except for Malicious Prosecution. Plaintiff Jeanette will be filing

a Fourth Amended complaint soon to correct those errors. In the meantime the

Castanedas argue that PlaintiffJeanette only suffered *4.500 in damages and summary

judgment should bo granted for that amount However. Plaintiff Jeanette also suffered

emotional ami physical damages in an amount to be determined by a' Jury trial,

B. The Castanedas’ Memorandum of Law In Support of thefr Motion for Su mmary

Judgment

In their Motion tor Summary Judgment,« should be noted at the bottom of page

i, Deft* Castanedas admit that the State was unable to prove their case against Plaintiff

Jeanette Upmski. a Christian minister. ("Plaintiff Jeanette") for poisoning of an animal, (it

should be noted that the statue regarding animal poisoning does not Include the word

"maltcious”) Whfto the Castaneda# assert that they told the police the truth, Plaintiff

Jeanette disputes that assertion. The pofice wore toid that the dog had to bo taken to

the vet end that it had died. None of this was true, U turned out,

Ptifntft# UptnjU’s Response to Castaneda? Motion for Summary Judgment

£7

APi*CNUixrs m Pfis 1? of27

Page 2 of 12

Case: t:ie-cu-07l53 Document161 Filed; iofli/19 Pane 18 of 27 PageiD *£326"

At the top of page 2 of their Motion for Summary judgment, the Defts,

Castanedas assert that Plaintiff Jeanette’s only claim remaining is for Malicious

Prosecution and against the Officers for False Arrest Plaintiff Jeanette disputes that

and believes she has claims pending against the Castanedas for Malicious Prosecution,

Abuse of Process and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress She further believes

she has standing a 42 USC1983 claim for deprivation of rights under color of authority,

as well as False Arrest. Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process arid Intentional

Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiff Jeanette believes she has plenty of evidence

that the Castanedas lied to the police about the condition other dog. that shedefibermety tried to harm a dog (Plaintiff Jeanette fe an animal lover) and alt she was

doing was her dvil duty of cleaning the alley way of strong dog urine smells during the

summer. She denies she stepped on the Castaneda property, and She further denies

she poured pure bleach anywhere The solution she used was dilute.

With respect to the Castanedas' Argument at the bottom of page 4. Plaintiff

Jeanette believes that she will be able to show a jury that 1) the Castanedas

commenced and continued a criminal proceeding,* 2) H Is established by court records

that the Criminal charges were terminated in favor of Plaintiff Jeanette and there was no

probable cause to support the proceedings; 3) that the hostility shown to Plaintiff

Jeanette over a period of time and the fabrications told to the police ai the time of the

arrest showed malrce and 5) Uptnsfei suffered actual damages, and emotional damages

Plaintiff Uptnsfci'i Answers to the Interrogatories of the Castaneda's Page 3 of 12

/ 8 a? 27

ATPEND1XES M Tgl l8of27

Cuss. I:l6.ev4>7i53 Document # 1S1 Filed

Page 19 ot 27 Pagein 4r,&32f

fn an amount to proved at trial, It Is not true that Plaintiff Jeanette doesnot have a

shred of evidence that she can prove the essential elements of Malicious Prosecution,

With respect to the Cetanodas* Argument at page 3 regarding "tegel causation",

Plemtiff Upinski believes she can show a jury that that Defendant Castanedas

knowingly made numerous false statements to a police officer that their dog was

poisoned and ft died, end they suffered vet bills. None of this Is true because the dog

was seen the very next day, healthy and happy on a walk. In addition, the Castanedas

produced no vet records at trial and It 1$ presumed they have none White people am

free to file police reports, the police reports must not be filled wHh lies and

misrepresentations.

With respect to the statement at the top of page A, it fc not true that what the

Castanedas, said to the police was merely factual reporting; it was more onerous than

that, and the police report shows that the Castanedas Knew t) Plianfiff Jeanette had

been regularly cleaning ihe alley {for yearn?) with dilute bleach; 2) the dog was kept in

the yard, away from the bleach solution; and Z) the bleach solution was only applied to

Ihe pavement Again, these appear to be disputed facts which should be heard by Jury

during trial and must not be dismissed on Summary Judgment

At the bottom of page 4, the Castanedas assert that they never told the police

that the dbg had died; Plaintiff Jeanette has an early report (Exhibit A, hereto) that

shows the Castanedas told the police the dog had died later, a appears; after the fifing

of this lawsuit, the records were changed.

upload's Response to Castanedas* Motion for Summary lodgment

l*t

APPENDIXES M P^19 of 17

P*ge4 of 12

Case: 13£-cv0n33 Document k 161 Filed: lOttl/lB Page 20 ol 27 Paged

At the top of page 5, the Castanedas assert that Plaintiff Jeanette testified that

she never heard them say their dog had died. However, H is explained later in the

deposition that Officer Kus told her later In a conversation that Officer Kua said It had

hecn reported mat the dog had died end It was in the police report too. (Oepn of Fftf.

Jeanette, p 4$).

With respect to the allegation that only Plaintiff Jeanette has a copy of her court

testimony, she has none and H is not required. The police records she has speak for

themselves. Exhibit A hereto.

At the bottom of page5, Defendants basically admit that Pltf, Jeanette was told

by Officer Kus that thelCastanedas told the Officer that their dog had died,

With rasped (6 the allegation that die Catanedss made the statement long after

the trial, this is apparently not true, since Plaintiff Jeanette has a police report with this

Information on It from die date ot the incident*

Next at the top of page ?, the Defendants appear to make the fairly preposterous

claim that the 5/5/16 report is a scrivener's error It is hard to believe that The dog later

died from Ingesting bleach* t% some type of error. If the dog had in feet died, this would

have been a most salient point of the case. The reality is, everyone agrees the bleach

was In the alley, the dog was In the yard. No one walked the dog into the alley.

Next, at the top of page 5, Defendant* make the allegation that grass 'along the

Castanedas’ property line and smelled (he bleach while observing the area," First. If the

PlaintifftfolnsIsPS Answers to the mtofrogitortei of the Gislaneda’s

pages of»

go t>P 37

appendixhs m pr* id of n

‘

Case 1.16^-07153 Dneument ff 161 Fiteti: 10/1U1Q

«t 77 panaip mX32$

grass went dead, that would have likely h&ve been firom

neighborhood dogs repeatedly

urinating on H. If Pitff Lfplnski within the hour put bleach on the grass. It likely would nol

be dead within minutes. That would likely take a day or two.

In tact, the makers of

CWorox claim * does not kill m and most ordinary soil has a good deai of chlorine In

H already, htipsj/www:hhnvpr rn

Chtorox claims you

can wash your boat or sidewalk with Chlorox and It will not kill your grass.

However,

everyone knows, and has observed, that dog pee does kilt grass and It makes It difficult

or near Impossible to grow back in that area, Ureic add is very damaging to grass and

soil.

However, dog urine will kill grass easily. From y&ta&teoteGax

Because dogs are carnivores and eat a high level of protein in their diet, they

break the pratem down and excrete ft as nitrogen In the urine. The result is a

Wiling of the grass from an overload of nitrogen. You will get the same kind of

bum ff you put a concentrated handful of fertilizer in one spot

White the police made some tort of an Investigation, they never talked to plaintiff

Jeanette about the dakn of dog poisoning before arresting her. and ft was the

Castanedas' numerous f«s that appeared to have direetty instigated an arrest and then

continued many tong months of endless court calls for Plaintiff Jeanette until she was

eventually acquitted. She was arrested on 7/14/14ana men acquitted on 7/23/1$. No

where have the Castanedas shown any vat Mils, any vet examination. The entire event,

according to the Castaneda' M&norsnditfn of taw on page.1 was based on them and

Ptaintlff Uplntfcl'i Response to Castanedas* Motion for Summary lodgment

A i oF 27

APPENDIXES M Pgs 21 at Y)

efiz

Cri$eM:l$-cv-07i53 Document *; 161 Fifed; 10/11719 Page 22 of 27 PagelD #0330

the officers ‘observing an illness' but an illness that apparently never required any vet

cere or blits.

Accordingly, It would appear thot all the defendants worked together to falsely

criminally charge Plaintiff Jeanette based on falrty outrageous claims that bleach kills

grass, when in fad it does not, white dog urine would not be the cause of dead grass,

when everyone knows dog urine kills grass easily.

At the bottom of page 8f Defendants cite Lindsey v. Offend (citation omitted) for

the proposition that *there is ot liability where the person merely appears as a witness

nd thereby aides In the prosecution of the charges which he knows to be groundless *

But this rs hot what happened. All of the defendants worked from the beginning to claim

a dog had died when ft did not, there were no vet bills as proof Of Illness. just

observations-of lay people- the Castanedas and the police, who were not licensed

vets, and finally a claim that bleach killed some grass, when H is well known that dog

urine can kill grass, whHeChtorox claims Its product does not kill grass. This would0

appear to be Issues for the jury.

On page 9, Defendant argues that ‘probable cause' Is a complete defense to

malicious prosecution. However, here we have a case, where no one saw Plaintiff

Jeanette apply bleach to the alley concrete, there were no direct witnesses, there was

an observation of a ’sick dog' which was never examined by a vet, there was dead

.grass allegedly caused by bleach, when In fact bleach does not kill grass, dog urine

does. Plaintiff Jeanette explains that she was cleaning the alley of dog urine with a

fWrrtlfTiJpfrrtkfs Answers to du* Interrogatories of the Castaneda's:

Page 7 of 12

3 A G i* <27

)

APPENDIXES M I*$s22 of-J7

Case: IMG-cv-07153 Document

161 Filed; 10/11719 Page 23 ol 27 Page] 0*0331

l *

dilute bleach solution, but no one asked her prior to the arrest. There fe a definite issue

of whether or not the police should be arresting elderly disabled women for merely

cleaning an alley with bleach and water. Plaintiff Jeanette in her deposition testified that

the water was not enough that day to clean up dark brown smelly urine states so she

resorted to some bleach mixed with water. This is riot unreasonable and tn no manner

shape or form would anyone want the police to arrest good honest citizens for cleaning

up yueky stinky dog urine on hot summer days And H begs the question, what about

janitors cleaning up bathrooms with bleach, pool caretakers, etc.? The list is endless of

people using bleach to dean up unsanitary messes. There is most assuredly no

probable cause for cleaning up anything with bleach, especially when the.'Castenada

dog rarely went for a walk or left the backyard, and the bleach was used in the alley

On paget 0, Defendants want to limit Plaintiff Jeanette's damages to her actual

damages because she is disabled. However, Plaintiff is .entitled to her emotional

damages for depression, anxiety, etc In addition. It may appear to the jury that there

Was a high degree of malice and a complete lack of probable cause for arresting 3

Christian Minister who frequently cleaned her alley of the smell of dog urine and feces,

but when on one partieutarty miserable hot day, she found that water was not enough so

she added in some bleach: This does appear to be particularly vindtiveand malicious.

On page 11, while Plaintiff Jeanette is disabled, she does work from home setting

glow in the dark crosses and stuffed baby Jesus lambs for infants. The arrest and its

■{

Pag* 8 of U

Plaintiff tiptaskt'a Response to Castanedas' Motion for Summary Judgment

£3

AFPENDIXESM

£7

case; l:l6*cv*07153 Document «• 1CJ Plied; JO/11719 Page 24 pt 2? Po^iD ^1332

emotional toil has prevented her from performing these functions to supplement her

income.

A Response to Defendant*’ Statement of Undisputed Facts k also provided

herewith.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

summary Judgment is an extremely drastic remedy. 3 Barron & Hoftzciff, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1231 (Wright ed,). quoted in Hoffman v. Babbitt Bros, trading

Co* 203 F_2d 636,637 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1953). Accordingly, summary Judgment should be

rendered only 'if the-pleadings, depositions, answers to the interrogatories, and

admissions on fife, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there fs no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is erttttied to a Judgment as a

matter of law,* Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See afso Consolidated Electric Co, v. United States,

355 F^d 437 (9th Cif, 1$66). A. Chefney Disposal Co, V, CHICAGO & SUB. REFUSE

DIS. ASS*N, 484 F,2d 751 (7th Cir„ 1973).

A genuine dispute of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a

reasonablejury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.1' Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, IriCi, 477 U.$. 242; 248.106 S.Ct. 2505. 91 LEd.2d 2G2 (1986). Wa "consider

ad of the evidence In the record in the HgHt most favorable to the norwnoving party, and

we draw atl reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the party opposing

Plaimrff Uptake Arnwer* id the int*rrof,*tftrtei of rhe Cisranedi'i

?*/ *F £7

APPENDIXES M PfliMaft*

Pig* 9 of 13.

C*53P~l.t6-cv*071S3 Document n 161 Filed j XOtlins Pnge 25 of 27 PogefD #;J333

summary judgment * FeHberty v Kempor Corp , 98 R3d 274,276-77 (7th Cfr. 1996),

SH»ba v. I!!, Cent, R.R, Co., 884 F,3d 708 (7th Cir.. 2018)

In this ease, defendants have not shown that Summary Judgment is warranted.

The Castanedas alleged a number of Obvious lies which were then repeated by the

police, It simply is well known, or the defendants should have known that 1) bleach

does not turn black paws white; and 2) that bieaeh kills grass, father dog urine kills

grass. The police repeated lies and treated Plaintiff rudely and in a hostile manner.

Lies should nevef substitute for “probable cause- Plaintiff Jeanette never said she

hated of even disliked the dog; In fact she was very concerned that the dog was never

walked by the Castanedas and all they did was turn die dog out into their backyard for

hours unattended. And when they did walk me dog It was only behind theif garage in

the: alley. She believed that the dog deserved a daily walk for at least 15 minutes

around the block. She was also, as a Christian minister, perfectly willing to clean up the

dog urine and feces of her neighbors and other neighbors. There is no evidence she

ever complained about that

Conclusion

Piainliff Lrpinsk) b entitled to her jury trial on the causes of-action remaining, and

she will be amending her complaint to add in facts to support her Abuse of Process

claim and a second false arrest. Summary Judgment should be denied because

Defendants ere not entitled to ralfef as a matter of taw and there are many disputed

WainUfi Upini*t‘> totponseto Castanedas' Motion for Summary Judgment

APrENDIXESM Pgs2S6f.Z7

Page* ip of 12

CfiSCL l.lG'Cv*07153 Document d; 161 Filed; 10/11719 Page*26 of 27 PfigelD ^.1334

facts entitling Plaintiff to a jury trial on toe issues of liability presented to her Complaint.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Plaintiff. Pro se

Prepared by.

Jeanette Llpiftski, Plaintiff, Pro Se

14121 S, Greenbay Ave.

Burnham, IL 60633

709-933-0367

shdshana3@tdoud«ccm

VERIFICATION;

I hereby Verify that all of the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are tfu&and

correct to the best of my knowledge and memory. Where based upon information and

belief are believed to be true at the time the statements were made, t declare under

penalty of perjury under the laws of the US that the foregoing fa true end correct as of

the date shown below

/s/jeanettolrpinski/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

(Hatntfff UplnsklS Answers to the fntsrrogatones of the Castaneda'S

Pago nor 12

36 ^ gy

AITEN'OIXES M

Case*346^cv*071S3 Document#- 1G1 Filed; i.om/19 Page27of 27 RftgeiD^-1335

■?

I hereby certify that on Oct. 30,20181 served via email a copy ofthe foregoing

pleading to alj entities who have filed an appearance by email to the addresses noted

below

John William Patton, Jr.

Michael Robert Luchslnger

Paul Donald Motz

PATTON & RYAN, UC

330 North Wabash Avenue, Ste, 3800

Chicago. IL 60611

fe/jeaneflelipln$Ktf, plaintiff, Pro Se

Jerome R. Wefctel

Jessica Fridre Carro

KOZACKY WEITZEL MCGRATH P.C.

55 West Monroe Street, 24th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312)696-0900

JGarro@kwmlawyers.com

NOTICE OF FILING

You are hereby notified that on Od 30,2016,1 caused the foregoing Response to Defts

Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed with the ND III Clerk of Court

/s/Jeanertetlpfnski/

Jeanette Ltpinski, plaintiff, pro se

Patp 12 of 12

PlaintiffiiptnskTs Response ta Castanedas* Motion fat summary lodgment

£7 oF P7

APTCNUIXESM Pjptf.oftf

DW M»,*rM , .4 i BMjw Cot

*/W0, 1J.J5 fly

ll'fftSOM

*________

111712/2018

IW5U/201#

- , „ '-^^^=*^5S25S=^®?>

_ . AjxiricIlcCapJU?tin)(g^dM™56 *’ U

i<J/M/20tS

-i

m-mSu ***” i****

> io:mm\H

|l&W20tfl

»i«

}

rr?

i0‘0i/20?8>

,u ;aa;a5»i>«<*i,t_i5g--iJi [MEMORANDirM b\ Defendants Vutandn Castaneda, Alno^ CtolaiK^ fiff ^ntm.-jrT~

'/A f-^HLn SUf**? ^ Modon fi>r Summary Judgment nprfnst Umnski

•*^525 * i^“W< Ai # 2 Kxhlbil B*

Kshihii C# inhibit DK Gam)

T”‘M,Knrwd ^ loa,2°18 ** ac^Offi«j <**%

hovinoiH * *“* A°iSSSfTI

HtiW mawwa1 B,

^ C iACTl b> Dfr«™ta« Yahwh Gwaneda.

f ^ Andficlle Cnpcmiifing them to>umrnmy judamcm

'• *1 ExMW'*•** E*M«0> 1 E?MKt

7**.5 *™"s- '& Bjhtbff 6, # ^ Exhibit 7. # at ExhfWi 8, # «> &dribft 9* Gam*. *

iotwoiw^w^isfcj a«k‘sOffice) («* mbwmI!

ioVal/2otis

KMII0M8

W\5QQ]Hs

v?n^EJ>> Akxwt Castartotfa. Vofamfa QtManeda re MOTION by Defcndim-?

; P"™ CastaneAn, Alonso Castaneda Tor summaryjiniimcnt L*» AVtrfr? to Pm V*

/itfgon/(Garm,Jesslea>(Entered: IQ4H/20I8)

' mV

f liil * MOrriOS fay Defendant-t Ydnmbt Castaneda, Afpibss Castaneda rorsUmm.uv

Judgment (Garm, JesstptU Entered: 10^1/2018)

Ui'

entry fae^TTc the Honorable Jtifge LAion^y. Samis hearinglield arU

APPFNOIXV-SM PftiGfV

CmSCF UVF. V«r 6.3.3.0.5 Dtilrfel Court, Morthttn W>noK-e*«it<f

9ftn\ ii

«*

Warning! 'Ilielink to i«5 page m»y noi have onglnawd from within CM/ECF. *

!' If.ygu click lh'e G«lihue irnk-. you will be billed for the infbrmatitm provided.

h"ta

wMe«rr|*.QSi/90et/!I8?l3t«<Bae

AfTTPflJIXESM PrsIOII

r*y* i sf 1

Cos#; JJl,^*cv^0?iS3 Document **:

162 Filed* worm Page 1 of 2.PsgelD ff:i33fi

««S^SBSSSK»»,

astern division

JEANETTE S.R, tiPiNSKL

)

Plnmiim

Case No. I(k*v*7153

)

v«

Hftn. Jorge L Alonso

Yoi*ANDA Castaneda.

ALONSO CAS fANHD/V

LT.RONNER.ond

Officer andrieu.Iicap*

)

D*fcridam&

ORDER

PtoimifTs motion 1161] for relief from judgment Is denied,

statement

fnifTi judgment.

‘ '* * UpIniSkl

,ias r,,taJ 11 m01'"n for nrconsideratlon and relief

A court my Alter Of amend a judgment ifthe movant -demnnsiratcfsl manifest error of

araf^rirh51

d;scovcwd

^«*w«/ JA 762 Ldi, m

r^3SHS?SSMp?i

gsssasassswssEw^

a post-judgment

£?£ filed

nof

API'CNDIXESN Vfifilotl

Case J:l6-cy.07iS3 Document a 102 Filed' 11/05/19 PaGe 2 o! 2 PagsiD ,‘1337

not'nW.'rfenr^^f,

^ fw"!C ** tha' her «*!*«»brief

file the document In die clerk's offlee but wns ht'rtL

!* M m,cmp,cd ,n

an decimate filer, and i. fc clear fam the

: r

™

wbM b»W*ned. Plaintiff «

elcctmnieally filed her

I Mm

dneumems were "euhmi.ted tofethci ” which mcora h

"j *?cls’ J^tunUfTmlmits both

Tne. dm. her brief was no. filed. Ar.rm electronic

ntafnl ITl' h ■t* * re',po"siblc «*

tier brief and nrdiceklng Ihcdockc. 10 make vurel^rfillal

a !h°

of filing

Case No. 2;i7~cw|2-JIIM.20IO VVL \ Wliiild *. olvnV'f d(n*clc<l- Major v, Intlhnui,

lu reconsider where party had Tailed J file brier cNoSh^n of Apn*29,20'9) {dcnyin^ motion

making sure his docimeL were Pm£rlv’jR*ptT#

"rf rcsrmnsib,e **

■neglect, but it is nut excusable ncglccl. ’

* P*umlIfr* ^I,Uri’i0,1,c *>er brief qualifies us

summary judgmcni.

to file, which brief site

ourt that It erred In grunting the motion for

dom-e.c^mirJ’mtb?"5 “*""•fltt'

«* *«■»"»>< bpropria,«.,heC.

Hate; 11/5/2019

"AD*

Jorge L Alonso

United Stmcs District Judge

AfTENOIXCSN V&ioft

win

Case: IO6-CV-073S3 Document-*/: 120 Filed' 05/07JL8 Page 1 of 10 PageiO #;98i

IN THE UNITED STATE t) I STRICT COOT’

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN J) l Vl SlO S

. i

CwNo, 16 CV 7153

)

JEANETTE SJL UPINSKI.

Plaintiff.

YOLANDA CASTANEDA, an individual:

ALONSO CASTANEDA, an Individual;

LT. BONNER ^70, in his Individual and

Officer capHefiy;

OFFICER ANDRIELLE CAP* in

her individual capacity amLofficer capacity.

eUl.

)

Judge Jorge L Alonso

Jurj Trial Demanded

)

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF .TEANETTF- S,R LtPIVSKi ANSWER TO VOTANDA AND ALONSO

CaSTAVTPA-S COUNTERCLAIMS

NOW COMES Plaintiff. JEANETTE SR. L1PINSKL PRO SE hereby submits this

Answer to Defendant's Yolanda and Alonso’s Caslancda’s Countefdsims, Pursuant to Rules 26

and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

CoumerclahnsParagraph 1-21 alleges.

Yolanda and Alonso Castaneda state their Counterclaims egafost Jeanette S.R< Upinski

as follows.

Parties

Yolanda Castaneda is an individual residing at 1-11 \ 0 Crreenbsy Ave..

Burnham. |L, 60633 (the "Property T

ANSWER: Admit?.

•1

appendixes © p& i of 16

Case: I;i6-cv-07l$3 Document m 120 Ned: 05/07/18 Page 2 of 10 PagelD #:982

Alonso Castaneda ts an Individual residing m the Property.

ANSWER; Admits,

The Cftinmedn'5 arc ronnied and jointly o""n the property,

«**

ANSWER: plmmjff Incks knowledge and information sufficient to form 3

belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph.

Jeanette $. R, Lfplnskl is the next-door neighbor of the Castaneda’s end

an individual residing it 14121 S, Orcenbay Ave* Burnham. 11*. 60633

ANSWER: Admit.

Jurisdiction And Venue

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this counterclaim pursuant

To2eu.S,C.$l?6?t

ANSWER: Admits.

Venue U appropriate in the Nonhem District of Illinois a* Lipmskt

resides within the district.

ANSWER: Admits.

facts Common to All Counterclaims

On Or about July 14,201- Upin$kl intentionally poured a large tmtmmi

of sodium h\ pocholnrite (bleach) omo n grassy area of the Property' adjacent to Lipinski’s home

where the Castaneda4* dog. Rex frequently relieves himself.

ANSWER: Deny ir part; as to where the water and small amount ofhlesch

h-u

wax poured. Admit, on July 14. 2014 a smalt amount ofwater and bleach

ArriiNDtXFS o Pg*2ono

Case, a:i6-cv-07l53 Document £, 120 Filed: 05/07/18 Page 3 of 10 FagetD #:983.

ih*totccwrti wits poured onto a 3 Inch sizc crack on the concftie block in the alley adjacent to the

Castaneda'S and UpinsktVpropCft). Vvlicit ihftCcstancda'sdof! frequently urinate? through the

fence onto the alley concrete Slock crack. And where titan;, locnl dag walker*: let their dags

urinate on the same cracked spot as the Castaneda's dog urinates. Creating an obnoxious

uirirealthy odor from the heat of tire summer, that is Harmful to ouf health, her mother's, and

many children who walk to school and play in the alley.

As a result of Upfnski'sacUouS. the Castanedas' dog began vomiting

and suffered from loss stool. The dog's paws ait' became discolored due h> exposure to the

bleached.

ANSWER: Locking knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief about

the troth of the allegations In thbrpragrcph. But. observed on My 15; 2GU arSa.M$ Uplnski’s

from yard security camera captured Yolanda Castaneda happily walking her dog for the first time

and the dog looked perfectly normal and happs to be walked.

The Ctwtinredti* took their dog to the vet for treatment of these

symptoms.

ANSWER: Lacking knowledge or Information sufficient to form a.beliefabout

the noth of the allegations in this paragraph.

lO.

Also bi m retult arUpmski's Buttons. th« Grass

the ojvs nf ihe

property* where the bleach was poured turned brown and died.

awknoixpso rptsaofto

Cas6: id6-cv-07i53 Documenttf; 120 Filed: OS/07/18 page 4 of 10 PagelD 4:984

ANSWER: 0eny, no blench d.* "Lvum was pouted on the Castaneda's property

grass. Tire CesfanccUfs gmss ant! Ms, Lipmski’*

aimed brawn and died from the

Castaneda's dog feces and frequrtnly urinating on it through (heir property fence. And the

neighborhood does urfn&tfoe through the Cosiancda‘s*llcy fence adjacent to the umiontied

concrete block m the alley.

II.

LipinsU W. expressed animus regarding the Castanedas and iheir

neighbors In tight of their Latin American decern.

ANSWER: Deny, Ms Upinsklis a. minister of the Gospel ofJesus Christ, called

by God. not by man.Me. Lrpinski Love? ail nationalities. Ineludihg Latin American. God would

never have culleihtrif die was prejudice, Ms Liplfiski timer expressed animus regarding the

Castaneda fbiuJ neighbors in light of their Lerin American decern. She believes she wa3 obeying

God in His First and Greatest Commandment. to lose the Lard ihy God with oil thy heart, and

Second to U\e Ihy neighbor at th) self. M* Lipinski in fact is frequently harassed, property

damaged, and xundnliyed by the Hispanic?; from rite false allegations the Castaneda's-have told

them, Ma Liplnskf v\*s falsely arrested mice and acquitted by Hispanic neighbors on both sides

ofher house and daily despised by them. Ms. Upins-ti prays. God forgive them for they know

not what they are doing.

A1TENDIXES 0 Pjjs4 «flO

Cass: HI6-CV‘07153 Document £• 120 Filed; 05/07/ie Page s of 10 PagelDtf;28S

COCVT?

NEGLIGENCE

lie Castanedas incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 11 of their

13.

In her use ofhlirach-Uinnski owed a duty of care to the Castanedas

tfcumsmliiinH.

insofar as her use therefore \vas required to not harm the Castanedas or their property.

Answer:

Deny. Ms Upin$i:l was not negligent of the law in duty of care to the

Castaneda’s or their property, Duty of care is a requirement that a person act toward others and

the public with the watchfulness, attention, camion and prudence that a reasonable person in the

rirnnnstuncci would use. MiUptoskl acted with much can; to protect her mother and neighbors

from the Castaneda's negligence to clean up after their dog and prevent harmful odors, germs

and disease. And acted in the fear of God to obey Bis commandment to lov e 4h> neighbor.

Uninski Incaelied such duty when she failed to use this noxious liquid In a

reasonable manner by sfttumtflilng a pared of Property with the chemical, knowing full well the

Castanedas* dog walked and grass grew in that area.

1 ;

Answer;

Deny, Ms Liplaski breathed no such dtny, norirnled io use

cleaning liquid disinfectant Itvan unreasonable manner* sad never saturated a parcel of

Castaneda’s property with the cleaning liquid disinfectant, to hamuhe CastanedaV dog or grass.

MsUpmski was dfiininc her .garage when she saw that the Castaneda's where setting ready to

APPPNOiXES O PgsStrfld

Case; 1:16^07153 Document * 120 Piled 05/07/18 Page 6 of 10 PagsiO =:986

cut their backyard grass, anti that they put their dog in ihe house, Ms LIp'mskt felt ft w as the best

time 10 helplove herheichbenby defining the obnoxious dogs urine odor in the alley. Note,

thereTs no grass to the alley except on Ms UpinsM's property, and the deg it ne'er talked In the.

alley or elsewhere,

L5.

Uptnskl knew o; should have known of the danger to the

Castaneda's dog and their property pf the pouring ofthe noxtout liquid onto the property.

A'NJPfc'ERt Bern, pouring Noxious liquid to Castaneda's property. Nor pui

lhetr dog in danger. Ms, Lipinski knew there was no danger to the dog Or proper^ because the

dug was in the house and not of their property. Ms Upinski 100V every precaution as to not harm

the dog or their property, but only 10 help prevent harm to them. Her concern was for the health,

safety, and concern for her neighbors and loved ones->1s. Uptoski loves dogs fmd raised tw.»

generations of toy poodles Tor 17 yn. h Is the Milage ofBumhom alley1« property. It is our

responsibility to maftticin the area around our home* according to the Village ordinances, set.

3-30 * l”» keep the rifeitv aiduHow*! the ullage gleaft^ind free «f oftetnaU'W*. the h*y. tfriju*

KatuTUtrd^fNreKttiihattlley w.i*«nc%«*r

k hAiitii fcraaaJ inlb? tiukuig. Mr L»pw>k*

whewe ?nm>iy *0 present harm Oym huppenmg

In lad. it.e v .irttic?4 tv’ lUKcd u* buule* v Hcedt Uemirtc*iV

^wbutNv-* d* Cv»tnA*j,»e jad

j-itt

It iitrihca

*A,h» f

fcdjtv mu fuvd with hica-h ir.il i.t *.«nuu.r «r jn«* r. l.pitiiJ wenU*rimmedl;itv*k.

■

APPENDIXESO PflffinflO

Case-. l:l5-cv-07lS3 Document #: 120 filed; 05/07ttfi Page 7 of 10 PagelD .\J:5S7

■a

\NM\vi;R:

liv

tiwiabet orlJt'irtfevii^ ii-w

Do fM

fUtl

MJtlkcv NSw aims with noicMruil} muctviilunrctthbihv

l»*r

nruliin^nl u>c. we# tlouv Dbimco' mJ. nviiroiuw >uri^^ -n^t. vaim.^ib. ertUTKit,

'■mfHy* Intovdi' .tu*vuvt*<h?rlfc'hifl *vll Oir^ilP :i*U tnthviva \ Ufiwk Hi well 1> »*! vv^ y^cjl in

ihc '4iw*Jr> *M!w* ;L^rn_-i »uits Ms l *pi»T>Vf tv 4 tK dirvtUim* nnJ lolloped ^hc '*simetufnv

UplnvU VrOMfHw^rAOlUil. nanton, M nullrto>J*

,\\s\\TR: Deny. ms.,levy* kv vau?v’ hartnH* 4*>y or ptvpetty Vhwiv wllllut to

pmtect Ihi*health «md

trfher wi^Nn**I'tsr ttMhe? on4 *dt‘. IXmy*. witUii1 wannw hi

harmrlher- l or U i* u *tn m ddthcratfK hnnr. Miner* ih;i would con ben her whyWrt and

;

-.•MZfTSii tjH'

!*.

*»u* proMnf.ilii' c*iuk‘4

ibt i^un i nlte Ctvuiu-C.. i prt’jS’nj.tuiiKk tMr Jwa«*l thaf gn*«LiphuU** fwvnh^ oi blench orun ihcpci'petty.

r\\SWKR, Dec* \H 1 iplttvki *l;d twi pour Mcarii onto Ittc iVutvdo'* pmpeni

frM w hunn »'T!C;iurc tbctf do£

»*»

Hu*

uctv iLm.ii.vd Ini!<r»t*VMm of the «eterm4tn NIL

jjjcumM Mr wjtm.'nw-tf ifcdr«!og onc5 Kidding pweha-.«d 4*> f :pJHrUwlr eiu*s

WSWIU* Derry. there wj*

MrihsaitEtfniiiftfcdrtki;:

tyin^ ptiUoncd presented in comi And sviditv tva* n?»er-lw»Huh«» prorvny

APPENDfXnS.O t’gs 7of 10

Case; I:i$.cv-0?153 Document #■ 120 Filed; 0S/07/13 Page flol lOPagefD #3S3

< 01 M It

fRF.FW* TU l'Kt»riW

The Cftsumcdas jrtcoiporatc

* ■

«fer«fvcc jinfagmfihir t through li of their

couuterelaTms.

In her use ofbfeach, Lfrimki owed a duly of care to the Castanedas

Insofar U her sat thereof v\tts required to not harm the Castanedas or their property

ANSWER.: Deny. Plaintiff Mx Jeanette S.R, Liplnsfci **aa found not guilty of

poisoning iherniog ot harming.there property by a ^landing Judge. Ms lipitvkl did not tue

bleach on the Castaneda's prOpcm. pnr to harm their due. She only eared for others, exen the

Castaneda's, and their dog.

Lip fasti's waions ww* v-lflfuL wattem and malicious

ANSWERtDcnx. Ms. LipirtsU*$ ficnonswcre dpi willful. xvamofl. nndmalidoue.

But pnlj to please God and her neighbors, and to obex God's Greatest commandment ‘ol-ovc

Him andthy neighboras oneself.

23.

As a result of Ltpinsti's trepass. the grass tm the Cosumedif: Proper^

ss as damaged

ANSWER. Deny, the Castanedasproperty grasswasdamaged bvMs.

UpmeUi. The true facts Mrs that ihch grass was damaged only from (heir dog urinauon and feces.

APPENDIXESO Pp«.8of i0

Case: l:l5-cv-07153 Document #; 12Q Filed: 05/07/fS Page 9 of 10 PagelD#:9B$

snd neighborhood doer. And fcfe UpinskT* pcopertj \vns Severely damaged trom their dog

Uduafiog through their fence connected to Ms tipmskl'* propeny. and &wn not ptcfcfajup their

Uoi ftccs. add letting U rod down into Mi Lipin«ki‘s backyard and gomge when It t*in8.

TVHEREFO&E. Plaintiff M* Jcancte S.R. UjVmsUi prays that (his Court enter

judgement in her favor end against Yolanda Cfisrnncda and Alonso Castaneda, and dismiss their

C'oiinlcretflhns w ith prejudice; and award Plaintiff Ms, Upinski's.for damages caused to her

property together w-UH imemsucosts. punitive damages *nd vehatever further reliefibis Court

.deems agpropriaie.

Respectfully Submitted*

it it

Pro$e

Jeanette S.R, Ltp'mskJ

W\2\ S. Qteefttsay Ave.

Burnham, ii, 60633-i6H

. i

•i

APPENDIXES 0

Case: U16-CV-07153 Document». 120 Hied: 05/07/18 Page 10 ot 10 PaoeiD *390

CERTIFICATE OF SFRVICT-

Tlw undefined Pris SeJfcmcUr Lipinski, on Ofltfw tatsfiw ihur on Mac 07,201L she!

served Yolanda and Alonso Cfistarteda's Motion ft>; entry id Dismiss ihdr Counter

Claimants;

Respectful!) Schmiiied,

jcanenelipimk) _

Pro'Se

i :

Jerome R, UcJoel

Jessies Prickc Quito

RQ2ACKY ^’EITZEL McGRATH P.C.

fo West Monme Streeu 24th Floor

Chicago. illtitofs 00603

John Ws Pution. Jr.

Paul D. Metz

Michael R, J*uchshtgcr

PATTON & RYAN. LtC

550 North Wabssh Avenue, Suite 3SQ0

Cfeiniyo, Illinois 60611

Tet (31T) 261*5104

Fas t3 12) 261-5161

ml uctXtnger3_|iafton7jmj ctrtrr

AritHNOlXt-SO P*ilO nMO

Case;

Document #; 140 Piled;

10/31/18 Pagei of SPageib*a253

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEANETTE LIPINSKI

Plaintiff

No. 16 CV 7153

Hon. Jorge l. Alonso

YOLANDA CASTANEDA, an individual;

ALONSO CASTANEDA, an Individual, LX

BONNER #79, In his individual and officer

capacity; OFFICER ANDRIELLE CAP #77;

in her individual and officer capacity; and

Susan E< Cox

Magistrate Hon. Susan Cox

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VILLAGE OF BURNHAM, a munfcfcal

corporation

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S JOINT STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

ENTITLING THEM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is in response to “The Castaneda's Motion for Summary Judgment Against

Lfpinskr doct #130 filed on 10/1/18, and the 'Castaneda's* Memorandum In Support of

thefr Motion for Summary Judgment against Upinskr doct #133 filed 10/1/18 and

•Defendants* Jotnl Settlement of Material Facts Entitling The to Summary Judgment

Against Liplnski," Doct No.132 filed 10/1/18.

STATEMENTS:

Statements 1 to Bare not disputed,

9. Plaintiff disputes and demands stria proof thereof;

WfllntlfnJpInskJ's Answers to me fnterrogaiprfes of me Castaneda's

Page ! of $

APPENDiXl-SP rwtofs

Cte® la6^v'0??53 Document K 140 Wed-10/31/19 Page 2 of 5 PagcID m&d

10, disputed (he grass died from bleach Agreed the dbg relieved himself in that

approximate area,

11, Disputed.

12, Disputed. Plaintiff had not used bleach in the area “a few days earlier,

13, Disputed that bleach caused any discoloration of paw pads or death of g

rass.

14, Disputed. Plaintiff disputed she poured bleach in the Castaneda's yard or that

bleach kills grass; dog urine kljis grass.

15 Disputed. Plaintiff never expressed a dislike of the dog. She is an animal lover.

She admits that she did not like the fact the Castaneda's never walked their dog

she never blamed the dog for what the Castaneda's failed to do to

, but

properly care for their

dog. The Castaneda's have a large dog which should be walked eve.y day and they

never walk their dog. Plaintiff Jeanette in the past often cleaned the alley of dog

urine

and feces and she never complained because she fell she was doing something good

for the community and on that basis she was glad to do rt. It was her Christian duty to

do this with a joyful heart because she Knew she was helping others.

16. Disputed, Office Kus said this and so did a police report,

17.D>spuied that there was a “strong smell of chemicals" or that someone's throat

“would bum* from bleach. Bleach Is used all the times in public bathrooms, swimming

pools, and in clothes laundry, it is considered a safe effective disinfecting agent, ft is

iikety the smell was from the bleach and dog urine combined.

Plaintiff Llplnsk!'* Response to CastanerfaV Morion for Summary Judgment

ArPENIJiXES P r*fci2of$

toge 2 of s

Case: lUii-cv.Q7j.S3 Doeurnem *. 140 Wed: 10/31/16 Page 3 of 5 Pago® *12$S

18. Denied that any complaints Plaintiff Jeanette filed were unfounded,

But Plaintiff

objects to this statement as overly vague. What 'unfounded complaints?"

19. Disputed as to what happened after the officers returned to the station and Plaintiff

demands strict proof thereof.

20. Not In dispute.

21. Disputed as fo taking the dbg to a vet, and what was said, and Plaintiff demands

sfnct proof thereof. Antibiotics are not prescribed (or poison, They are prescribed fora

bacterial illness. if the dog had been poisoned, the vet would have given the dog a drug

to.produce vomiting or pumped the dog's stomach. A stomach soothing agent would

have been prescribed for a sick dog {bacterial infection) that had been vomiting,

22. Undisputed.

23. Disputed as to Yolanda Castaneda being subpoenaed to court. Plaintiff demands

strict proof thereof.

24. Disputed as to what Deft. Yolanda Castaneda handed to the States Attorney,

25. Undisputed as to the trial, disputed or unknown as to what Deft Yolanda Castaneda

wassubpoenaed.

26. Disputed as to whai Deft. Yoianda Castaneda testified to, PlafntfffJeanette did not

record the trial, does not remember, and the court reporter told her the transcript for

some mason fs not available.

Plaintiff UptnsW’s Answers to the interrogatories of the Castaneda’s

Page 3 of 5

Al'PENtiitfESr PftslofS

Case: I:i6*cv-07153 Document r< wo Piled: 30/31/18 Pbge d of 5 PageiD *:iz56

27. Not disputed.

28. Not Disputed except for the court fife and records being destroyed. Plaintiff has no

idea what happens with expunged files: she believes they ore still there but not

available to the public without further court order,

29. Not disputed, The dog Is alive and heallhy and Was at all times.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Plaintiff. Pro se

Prepared by;

Jeanette Upinski, Plaintiff, Pro Se

14121 S. Greenbay Ave.

Burnham. IL 60633

708-933-0367

shoshana3@ictoud.com

VERIFICATION;

I hereby verify that all of the loregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and memory. Where based upon information and

belief are believed to be true at the time the statements were made. I declare under

penalty of perjury under the laws of the US (hat the foregoing is true and correct as of

the date.shown below,

/s/jeanettelipinski/

Page 4 dfs

Plaintiff Upinsfci's Response to Ca$tant?d»Y Motion for Summary Judgment

APPENDIXES P Pgv4 nf'$

Cass: l:16*cv-Q7l$3 Document ir 140 Fried* I0f3i/i8 Page 5 of 5 PagelD #$.t57

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify (hat on Oct. 31 ( 20181 served via email a copy of the foregoing

pleading to all entities who have filed an appearance by email to the addresses noted

below,

PATTON 8 RYAN. ILC

John William Patton, Jr.

jpatton@pattonryan .corn

Justin Dobek

jdobek@pattonryan.com

Paul Donald Mote’

/s/jeaneftefipinsk?/, plaintiff. Pro Se

pmOlz@pHttonryan,com

330 North Wabash Avenue, Ste. 3800

Chicago, It 60611

KOZACKY WEITZEL MCGRATH P.C.

Jessica Fricke Garro

Jgarro@lwlawyefs.cpm

55 West Monroe Street, .24th Floor

Chicago. Jlirnofs 60Q03

(312) 696*0800

NOTICE OF RUNG

You are hereby notified that, on Oct, 31, 2018,1 caused the foregoing Response to

Deft's Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed with the ND III. Clerk of Court

/s/JeartetteUpinski/

Jeanette Upinskt, plaintiff, pro se

plaintiff Upfnsfcl's Answers to the Ihteffogaldrtes of1 the Caitoneda's

Page 5615

APPENDIXES P PtytStifS

Case: l:16-cv-07l53 Document ft 31-2 Hied; 10/12/16 Page lot 2 PagelD £174

?a$e ooi

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CF COOK COUNT/, ILLINOIS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

NUMBER 145C3SS89C1

S LIP3S3KT

CERTIFIED STATEMENT CF CONVICTION / DISPOSITION

I, DOROTHY SHOWN, Clark of. the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,

* and keeper of the records and seal thereof do hereby certify that the

electronic records of the Circuit Court of Cock County skov; that:

The States Attorney of Cock Ccunty/Lccsi Prosecutor has filed a complaint

with the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

Charging the above ransd defendant wtths

510 70/6

PCISIONG OF ANIMAL

The following dispositions) was/were rendered before the Honorable Cudgels)?

03/18/14 BOND SET BY RULE Or COURT

05/1C'24 APPEARANCE FILED

HATES. ELIZABETH MARY

05*15 14 CONTINUANCE 3Y AGREEMENT

KOI DISCO G. CWX. STATUS

HAYES. ELIZABETH MARY

10/17 14 CONTINUANCE BY AGREEMENT

DI5C0V TEND. STATUS

CARROLL, THOMAS J.

11/25/14 CONTINUANCE•BY AGREEMENT

STATUS

CARROLL. THOMAS J.

31*13/15 CONTINUANCE 3Y AGREEMENT

WrV

C'HARA THOMAS 2.

01* 13/15 TRANSFER INSTANCES

CARROLL, THOMAS C.

04'20,15 CONTINUANCE SY AGREEMENT

5?F3

CARROLL, THCKAS J.

01t 21 .'15 PLEA CF NOT GUILTY

CARROLL, THOMAS J.

0T/23/15 JURY WAIVED

CARROLL, THOMAS J,

07<23/15 FINDING CF NOT GUILTY

CARROLL. THOMAS 2.

05/10/14 0680

10/17/14 0550

21/25/14 0580

01/13/15 0580

04/20/15 0477

01'15 15 0677

57 23 IS 0680

coo:

APPENDIXES Q P**lof2

case: 1:16-0/47153 Document #: 3i-2 filed: 10/12/16 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:175

Zil THE CIRCUIT COURT OE COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

PEOPLE Of THE STATE- OF ILLINOIS

XOK3E?. 14ECC558901

S L1P1NSKI

rpartprsfl 5TATEMSKT OF COtjVXCTZOK / DISPOSITION

t, DOROTHY BROWN. Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

and X»eosr of the records and seal thereof do hereby Certify that the

electronic records of the Circuit Court of Cook County show that;

The States Attorney of Cook County/LoC*al Prosecutor has filed a complaint:

with the Clark: Of the Circuit: Corrt ►

)

t hereby certify ehav the foregoing has

been, entered of record on the shove

captioned case.

Date

*4 *

•'

-^DCRO

i ^ Vv-Tl tSN|rQW;

ii■0

“7r/£ '/

CLERK

c:, ...

• a

T*iE CIRCUIT COURT/of COOK CCLTCr?

APrENDixesO. Pga.iafa

Case: 1:16-^-07153 Document * 132-7 Filed: Knows Pago IS «,(44 Pa0Rid

•;

Jeanette S.R, Lipinslci - 0/7/2018

0 C#ii>‘«jien.mf*t»ulihrinridrtif«

» M»>of20i6?

A I’m tiylnp to think back. ! uvutd tvjw tr*

6 have the police report m irwa r-rmp. uhfch (j

*> hove iiopaatfs. Rm the roJJwutn: oJI<4 l‘m*

ft nf* u«r exactly why, It vita something jh* the

7 <'K««t^h»d<lt)w. AmlKuumdanothefonfar

* mTi{mefBTKltoacd«!tftthwn,£md(}»cr>hecamehjdc

5 anJ nld me that the tk«a had died l»tdnn,thc

10 dog dldtt dtc.ihcn' w** hrthwiLutrwg wth the dn-.

Q Ms. Uphuki, when **t the latt ilmt j*u saw

U thednRT

U A Yesterday,

H 0 Ms.

dW riibrr Yolanda or

13 Atoaw Catlaerda give yon ftfnnhiiott h) ponrhtrarb

«t* fin to (hHf hathyarri?

A I didn't potr Meach hi thorhacVyank

1* O Th*t wasn^ tty qtttsiton, UK l.tjyinUJ,

A Nt>.

Uph»«.}&* jmiTtfd earlier <h*t

51 thf-ihjtntwwerelnshofideMnthpfjh^

?3 irmtj

?5 A Yes.

Mj-UpIittkUwwrftBiBrt tp

5 fS|p2, Atom hatfway cfctwn.ltjnys VtaeftlaChavee,

ft >iHi(ivtHlft<Bndehtmr,«toin»th9wk«!teofr*hr

7 nrmt rharjjei *ad raMes at Chat addrm thtoJ

8 Tttfrr?

A Yea.

*•0 Q Wb&fe Vwala Clave*.

A She's the <Jjlighter of Inna Cfmvex. tny

13 majhbor.

0 Okay. Sd yoor boose, jn* have fWftM4cbbAf»

14 «n eHtierildr, rtsht?

A Y«*.

O Or nft«f mr. OoeaeiobtxwonfhhfrxMf?

A IJh^Mu

Q And Ibf ChsvftfsoreA Smith side.

Q SotjihshJe.

And the

tite.fiortb aide

Berbery?

ivnriimi i:xamnation

l*j BY MR OOHEK:

0 M*. Uplmkl-wf’re-nT'ruhnMtdom-. I

11 jtsi warn toco thmue)i yoor Rote36ta^MfeUial

11 rtheloacrrts. Okay?

‘«

A Oko>’29

iWliKtupon Upnteti Depihillnn

5 Okay?

A Olay,

1 matt of rhU trial?

5 A Yev

3 Q C:*b >tm plea* fell me whit tho* dmntpo

4 are?

A I anY Kcwt me.

O cMs. Upin.1.1, If yr>o BrT«-t «t,l* to eipami

1 Bn) Airtfter, fh*t «ai mv only qumton I h*d today.

« Mb) hr w« eookl take * bretUYiorci^^uhiE.

lHrV1WtK)HAlin:H. Wc^pvi^yirihrfernrda

10 l;0l p.m.

tUcccM Wirt taken.)

*,f ^irVjlMXKJRAhlH^: Good ftftcrmwn, Wciue NO'

11 on the video record at 1c0ft jun.

!• l.tj&isw Exhibit y tt'sftrojtyQfv&tir dltdossm.

'*w» rawied ft*^hlmlTnafadnJ

23 f)VMk.pom^in O Mhai r™ ft>lnc to hand y&ii — SS'hai thf Cfmrt

24 '7<|wwtff*j eeingro haad wm b-golnpto hr narked as

-3

A Yes,

Q Why mroM Yrsenlt Chave* have kntmletf^t of

? thr fahearrest?

A Ucwuftc Yolanda Uostoneda |pld her.

Q l!a* doyw tarn* that VaUitdi Castaneda 4*M

4 Y«uoiiCtflVftt}

A iltraupo oc were friends until Yolanda talked

c wthem.

Q Tl»e nett neighbor 1* Edward and

I SWrtt) Uwli7

u A CYmvd.

t*l g W*o are Edward ntd Shirk) ftrm-k?

A IheyVr the scumd tewie fxxih of me not to

15 the CattftMfdts.

O And nhy wnuld thty tuvckMmlrdgrofthe

H fahearresiehargH?

A Because |hcj hiiked to each other oil the

Irmo,

Q Old yon evtf hear them ovee ^OMynserer

J# cnerbaeihemutklnewftoiitH?

1-9

A N«», I Itnmvihci urrehalingngncnaUam.

hut, m.^ (ctwid am mate *,nd what then- owe

71 rj>ing.

O Timtlnjtftihf thlrdps^r,ma*tim. t<looks

23 Hfcc<wn«rJ»ioAvlta,*ewooW|iisvf Umr»wlge24 nr he*< an ofTtrer of the pollec— Oamham Polfc*

id (Pagsti 53 eg 50)

Zpig Court Importing Solutions * Chicago

312.306*2000

ArrENDDfESR rRtftfi

l-lG-cv.07153 Document

161 Filed. 10IWIS Page 13-012? Pag„IO «13a

Tuesday, July 15« 2014

LANSING VETERINARY LETTER ~

EXHIBIT A - 3 PAGES

Re: "Rat", mate, yellow lab, Bom 11 -30-2008, Belonging ,0 Alonso Castaneda of 14119

Green bay Ave. Burnham, III,

Re* was examined by me today Due to a complaint mat he has Emitting and diarrhea

™,of •»•»!» "»*>• He has also been coughing and sneezing the past

On exam his temperature was 104.4 f (normal is 101.51.) oral exam and abdontal

!!f.«!6''W!r,n?,rmf!-<Exam 01 ** paw pads showed #iey are dry with the surface

white Instead of black. His heart end lungs are normal.

Recommended treatment consists ol antibiotics and a liquid to oive by mouth that is

orotectomnt to sooth the lining of the stomach and bowel.

Sincerely,

Lany W, Booher, O.V. M,

ATPEIVDIVTS S fg<J 1 of 3

Case. HG*cv-07l53 Document ff-161 Filed* 10/11/15 Page 34 of 27 PagelD# 1322

La n sin a

■>U, m "rncr J,«*

*-«'

spital

, /*'**•*

r-ij l|

If* '.1*

t S.f I C1

Ht-CiFx^.

fZr* />r£r

Cc^-4^ ATA.r

A»*-«

6?p

ff***

Tf4Ar

jJt

t>ur 7%*

t/r*N

P#Wr

i7?Cyw»7>^

£*?>*.»>flr

G** &\

H* M4*t

TH^ &+* r

^Ar(*h ■» C Kv.

*****

/*/• $ f)

«*****..

&**'■

A*.*-

OP*

5u.*/

UiX T*fy»

^ ^ rr

“7>*/*p

/?^vr\

4iv/*44

W»?

/XJ’-^TVi-

(Zt'<

!-“ir A

7>**

C**^*A~

4*#t

t^rupcr

twi

//cn-si ^ t

77fP-v

r*Mv-

*^V

VHP

r>*

-»

/SO

?ft.& T<e-^T'0X^^jj~

A, t“*S Wi. 5

$r***\Ay+

Tpe O-x-^r'-

C»'**rp

e-L

„

^A4X.,

6«T(v Cf^ t A. V

j:^

/?r.^ b^" ■

gtiVirfcH

."bMrt—-

CASTANEDA 0017

/y OF 2 7

APIT.NT51XB&S Pg* itif3

j.*

ijnx«»9ps|vo: »orj|

, yfuo^.

* P

C0;1

4,‘^

' *

U<«4ivAnfcMJHo^»«(a(

p«wm i

lo-wia.tLS^x

freMH^CJI

AJorooCestitetia

o^tfd ms

^'10 Gf**n tMyAvc

C*£*0O H OOM3

otSGT

0OM 7flS60f4

*•***10 MM

tilum (m

PMI’YNmv Atr

TMSQ0t4

*"8*

Lib-w*

0—c/fctfan

BanwKw.PnyM«

Stiff H*m»

Cvwmt ^SuyMSM*) ftauid p*Mt

Qma&L

Uny Boohar ovi*

30 00

700

m® t*&6<

ftgmyrtb«

,4,».v?pi> fc*»

a&n*

WMHOM

*o**»

B&f

u*n

tiooo

123?^

p*0*m

133,59

ToMT

3d^» IX*

Pr»vwus &**$*

;BMhw«CM

in so

st**

«*

, r

11160

Cma

U*»

193 60

5000

583 SO

tffOOOOl

<5100 00)

S8&0

ItaMne* thm

S040

ttywfrm.nl

•A «wr«*fT *» .MatfM

CASTANEDA 0018

i s' „r= 37

•i

APPENDIXESS Pfis30f3

Case 1.9*339$

Document'Q07i37-fl0i2S

HemM 2/20/2020

Pages 1

(* o< G)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

(taiillIWimI'ni*—rl'iifififluirtmUn

OwWOwlkt,

Own (Jl j)i»*eV5

^^w^T.oiswtm

R.«a37a-2HS rVi/tonSr^

Oik*g\ I!fcto»£fe0«

FINAL JUDGMENT

»-’• ■

December 8,2020

CI5RTJ PIED COPY

•

• *.

Vl'niH^uFRANK H. EASTERBROOK Circuit Judge

TVOi-

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST, EVE, Circuit judge

*4 ihwf. nif. il Aiim* ^ ^

* -MU

ft*J*f*l* l>T itfi'

S Mnif* ('ihullf

JEANETTE S.ft, UPINSKI,

Plainrt fT—A ppetlan!

No, 19*3395

YOI-ANDA CASTANEDA, et «1„

TVfcndanu.- Appellee

OriglAtiiAg Case Information:

District Court No; U16-cv*07t53

Ntwjbrm District of Minot* Eastern Division

Dtstrici Jiitigr Jorge,L, Alonso

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED, with costs, in accordance with

the dedsion of this court entered on this date.

i'!

Arn-NDixtST rRi on

z PegeJD'#:£?£ I *f4

sta

ll.LINOlS STATE I'OUCE

ctHLU unnrNTirtCKTiov

2m north i mcACo sthcet

JOUEX. II.M VJlfc tfMJMlTf

itSSCrtEUns^Kf

m: is GREEV HAY WG

BLHNMAM.il. WJ

:i;

DcarSe M*tam.

A<*wturiertia*beenMruanletf*AcIIRamM**Police ilSMi (Jesuit «tt!d«mff<alwiIre^erM'i#A*

.mfi>iM Wd beio« n» Win**Crtmlwl Uetrtsrtealtwi 4tt defmn i!« ip*vlltc-ctei«t>iaflc*»ender which a pnrnrnal

twonI>f JirreH t-ecoulsMeontaiiJrJ in Ace.’ur**Mefh.nl*?*npnv.*>Kd fc*ftd oil tfc« sealing

.tmleMrnngsmcm tuoifshfitt CimPtlnn! in the IWiroii CrimntwIdentification Act; The poxessA? esticfaran appear* in fee

Rf<l,!_r fold tasted tr. dm..Wcntnkm yMion be,.w,

jfiha remit In.licalCi'emripUed'. We an?M ftfvtnUtiluubeen seated oeeNpcuged fHirmanl to the court

Ifllse

ftiuh iiiqtotei fefcireif. the ISP ohfecivto me oxn onict tmd ha* referred Ihe matter to the CM Her of-Ae lllmotp Atrontej

Ctctwta! la hat rite voutl order \aeauii. (learn rst'rr to the

page of Wh e.vresn.mdrrice in get a «om Mallei

aptotutufii of ihe-reason Arthc referral lime re«iitAdicausKc<nxt\Xiwrtn ofxheAl** ofArUst’ Duresu cl

Lirmifkituss faiJrJ innKui am rrcoKknoiThc court ordered octrf,

■

•!i.

tt>rty Hi\e ati), qufsfiam ri&arrttrf the reiiiii ofvwcv^n «*r*ict-opque’nftm'KOn$efrtici.flfty o(hertnfsmi&n\>h

ConttAidIdtfuccfte^ijBwJente,pleasefiWttctIteHIMuJiSt.ue ih-fif eatbri ethiomcf snpporiV?hp,«atr.ft.tis«*ecall

»Xl«t M0.<toC» 1h4nL)0Ufin aUmvfn^ t»>*n opfOTimmj JrtaJdfe<t jonr«e<is.

;

mcvnnnus

tC-S? COftjSSOLS 15Si*40

SUl.MlSMOSYVrL: l\t*iL

Samri LrFJSSkl.^\^tTTE

*>e\ CVnietT

RCSCLTt eOVPWEO -<Ql/RT QF.DPP,

Hot* Cede; '*-•

OOfl;hi.A$ 1«W.

>?nTE USE OSLY

NV.VU.VtNOt IMiM.i «i »,.!■ i>*«» >lh«n

I U*:i H

* <•» rffTotiv* w*

rH*rtf*ruinwi

.rt*

AiTESDIXES V Prs I cfl

npp chrtfiPrfisl »WUrpvl<«.il Trr-pi*4^nnqbhrtcfiprn.kerp»Tn*<KepmT;*,l I

Q R l *..* 0 L X13S*i" l ^£l__

l^lutSUIA

srvniL <&se? 'J.fl.fcwcii'ss

W 2 Pogera

01J

F\Pl \CK'1KNT»Sf.Atil,KTmOV REST LI

REStXT: FL m .\\ t TO H I ISO!? COMPILED* TAU TEN 2M ILESZOJO JJL THE ILLINOIS ^17. POLICE

ms rVPTVfiHi THE RECrtROfS* LIFTED BEI Oiv

DECISION 0\IT:HI302*H6

ipESTmcRS

Chartn POISON DOMESTIC AMM M\rr**,i T>si««iT t« 2HN

InclmaR Older

\rrnl \tene>: 0L.RNHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT

C< >i litnifrfJSflol

Vacpi-v Cm* **:

Name LII INSIvU SHOSH \N AH

j04«

ST AT ELSE ONLY

R \RN|V<5:

iH •<".* *• WtuiMfi •..HI ,Ulli«W-V.i4 •nJlWjual* »n if.!**** •* «»"*••<

t W i: i m. "**>;

u> enmraf fci*s*v #n<uKi*m'>i

I i*

»La»J5*cH \»w>*xi

Bin* <hfier4hl Hst.ytUx* <1—“f»K*.imraf Mt^pm Rr*Pon^H^MmiXTCN«CORlWl..ll)««

AmrNDIXES U Vtlfl2Oil

oyos :oib

Cese: lu*cv-07iS3 Document <r 133-Z Red; 10/01/is Page 2 01 5 PagetD k!X2U

BURNHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT

• M

* >f*» *

U4*<*>

*.✓*. - W

• ,j|| *!«fTS!UV .ttr

OV«>H*-VI *t *****

OftMtCtiH ”7M

U>*-**U

hnfiil^OrWt U.» I rtc^u*- r

fci III rw Odlrvn fcyt %

»fc—tSfrmi-

V'HI

w*,ft »> 1

Jr »y »**K ''

A*“ — ., *J :i «PV t +

MM&%4 T»

(>i «»

«»n>* IM«’ »* •• n

iflU

,fr~

****** i*

h*or \ut**ri»

(twptl*

••

• • ••

* *****

i**» cnV-*u

tw>» fT^' -*

k*.t

nit

Mtt »

.« ? nto^SAM v\i

CTiyi R*.*SHAV \ ftr .r

&<strn

t» i Hi

UJHH

OITrs**

<>»***• *4

tWft.l OOwt*

«4

Gmmntattn

Oftcfn1

t:wtt

ra<

t'*

fiawctf

otatr cm

n««*tv«4 tv uxpviz

III* ImM' f tX |JUI

«Im1Uv«m tijiOOaj

hfMtent

V(ir r«n

Lui R*A« Ur M •• M iMt ••

citiHutv itmM

rn^wtwi xntDMtt e&cut

••4* |*JS4**J*VI*

Dmnulwf

\U«w4|

t*>ilwrai>

D*W

T*»

DCKffettM

FUUli&niMp

r»j»

aitcnuixcsv rpiaii

Case*. i:16*cv*07153 Document *: 133-2 FtleiJ; ib/01718 Page 4 oi s PageiD *.1130

Palo'S

Weoarl tor

8 * 4^ 7?

Ntrrsdu

„itatw w: «t .«.***>

s»««*»»

i» wig w *y ******* ISi1** 1** mows w** *«» »' «

•ttw amasss# it *** **:»»**•

«MAT *A» M»nviN •*«

•mat sw

‘O*

r?I ISSriS*

^ ***

tvt rUUT? tl AtASfiC **4* *30

*»*i<»ca uw that sic ra-^

ESS crnmt rrp« put

sh£ tmmstc iuo rct***.

»tr» VW* TJ**

rkiir

„ iTWt *** « ^ ^1"‘ IS £«^ ^

Si S& « « «

fin t«rt is tni fwc or W

ri||

wm vcr it ‘ #,J2JUr*,,,!*J ^n«*ncf)

jhj

w r** *e« riuatoc

w»

•ttntut *m> a r32?jr "lLfTi!!ir5»c *Joe t**m m «p «»»•»• i»

f^or: ?t tw ow »» ***«= ** LlI«« *J «I* 22 St aa vlacpw no mat

AS *TT»-r! TO wm MM-TO «t "f

ISxsffltlw^A* fT*Tt« tM

cm «> nsmtr o* itatcj that w*

m #/rt L»** ■par an* ttt *ctv*s.

«U»nt *m o«m> PfT» i in txxr vs m.**»"*Lr~ iSL-ita in

an cowla:***? *tw nu»«a fa * ® **>? m ArrVL:___:____ —n ^ m

«* PUT

^ MSSPBH.m»

.km awtubwaw^^

arc. m*ic« ivcu td t*s cactutsiAT* «taww*v to m# MW « ~,J2t,>^Mf

tun as? K«c*i ou-t*. s/o utn ir twt has as? w::sa rtwu

n**

cowymwr aw rwu mns put pet a» tw» aitfits is rw ww*

T3 Slftvn TVS CWftAllPJfT StCWSt SNt HA* COTJUIMO *«B «* CMILCSgS KAtlW

es tax uun c* too iwolt« n® aiw rr*T*« put not tu **® ail* tcs

C9*tumw at nsvtsjw to* t*> *w cn:» on «*w scr cc wt rm

comtostssl* talumo to m. c*t- none* also cw «rru toujca cactmba wo

tivM a m *ar» at uui «m»T. */o witt? **t. arrmsA or tws

n»Ull7« Of VASCAL2S1 MS BJOUMWpfT THAT K0 MianSS* «8U -UI1WCT, HM HAOf

A3Acm mm mo mm waremo, «a camofUA rrxrw w T*n» J® w rtm »m

^SKrUWtt. MS AIM rmto T«T IW OOM tCT OOWTA»T«8» CW»UtH7f WHW

«s> aw mss sssmw rta. haamvs* st tsi •*«. ttsiMAi «m, CAmwaA s**t«a

t**

.-rf'

TMT MM TWt AM 9t% l* TWli MW THAT «*. U»tSUI TAMt PJCTTMfl CS'TMM,

ra «ico r?*Tw vox cb w. LmttTi amiitouwtni oo*< ssud&j*??

snwt Aiw, un io.uiuui oouuio Aaorr w*

^■ms-Mar

_________

'“mJdHja tlUB WJlfS'pTTscrr cr ss saei m tman nn tiouaa *rm

tn;mw mo csa. mas. cutpusa m:& put put mats ixctalus tu«ui cm txb

nsua cr TMts mow ts rcAS mr fis» u»:?fu miow tat wo rajm vais poo os

wca^aRBim m at this rm

P«Kni3Twt>’tt IEO;

A9p&*<I fa*.

V>Z/

, w;

-> .*y4-

mM.m

k.v>

I • ;»

>.•.

• ■*‘>

**&*:::V*.- ’..

APFENDiXtS V Pra 2 of 2

)

Case in.G-cv-onss Oopumem tf: 132-8 Riecf- 1Q/01/1B Page 1 o! 5 PagejD #'4104

EXHIBIT 8

)

Appendixes w prs-ioCc

Case; l:l&-cv-07153 Document*: 132-8 Piled. 10/01/18 Page 2 of 5 PagelD tf.1105

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEANETTE S.R. L1PINSKL

Plaintiff.

YOIjANDA CASTANEDA, on individual:

ALONSO CASTANEDA, m individual;

LT, BONNER #7*), in his individual and officer

capacity: OFFICER ANDR1EI.LE CAP *77:

in her individual and officer capacity; and

VILLAGE OF BURNHAM, n municipal

corporation

Defendants.

)

No,

I6-CV7I53

Hon. Joijsc L. Alonso

Hon. M&g. Stisaii E. Cox

Juiy Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFF LIPINSKI’S ANSWERS TO

YOLANDA AND ALONSO CASTANEDA'S

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO JEANETTE LlPINSKI

Pursuant to Rules 26. and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Yolanda and Alonso Castaneda {jointly the “Castanedas*) hereby submit the following

requests for admission to Jeanette Liplnski and request that each be separately

answered under oath Within 30 days;

Instructions

If you fall to respond or object to any request within 30 days of the service

of these requests, the matter m such request shall be deemed admitted under Rule 36,

As is more fully set out in Rule 36(a), you must admit or deny each

request, and. where necessary, specify the parts of each request to which you object or

cannot in good faith admit or deny. If you object 10 only part of a request, you must

UpmsM's answer* 10 Castenddfl Requests for Admission

APPSNOtXFSW Pjp'aoYft

t 0f5

Cssc;l:16-oV'07i53 Document#: 132-B Filed: 10/01/18 Pogo 3 of 6 PageiD«;U06

T«i

admit or deny the remainder of the request In the event you object to or deny any

requestor portion of a request, you must state the reasons for such objection or denial

These requests for admission shall be deemed continuing, and

supplemental answers shall be required rf you directly or indirectly obtain further

information after your initial response as provided by Rule 2$(e).

Each request solicits all information obtainable by youf Including

information currently in the possession of your counsel, investigators, agents,

employees and representatives. If you answer a request on the basis that you lack

sufficient information to respond, you shall describe any and all efforts made to inform

yourself of the facts and circumstances necessary to answer or respond.

Definitions

The terms ‘you." ‘Your* and “yours" as used In this discovery

request, shall refer to Jeanette Upinskl,

The term “Property" as used in this discovery request, shall refer to

the Castaneda’s residence at 14119 Greenbay Ave,, Burnham, Illinois 60631

First Set of Admissions

Admit that the you poured bleach onto the Property on or around

July 14,2014.

GENERAL OBJECTION

The Castaneda's keep asserting that Ms, Uplnskl has stepped on their

property or poured bleach on “their property*; however, they have not provided a Plat of

Survey by a licensed Surveyor, nor have they had a Surveyor mark the boundaries of

PsgelofS

Uptake answers io Casienadn Requests for Admission

APPENDIXES W Pjp3oH

Cost. i jg-cv-07153 Documeni »: 132-8 Filed: 10/01(18 Page./! ol 6 PaaelD *0107

their property with any type of marker or flag Therefore, Plaintiff Jeanette reserves the

right to update these answers whir* such a task has been complete, The court should

order rt to make sure the answers are correct. Why the Castenedas are asserting

Trespas* without having pone so is a complete mystery.

RESPONSE: Denied, Jeanette poured a dilute bleach solution at all times

not

directly onto the Castaneda's property, but only on the adjacent concrete slab.

Without a survey, t do not believo this is part of the “Castaneda's property.*'

The

Castaneda's must provide a diagram from their actual plat of survey to determine

what portion of the alley belongs to Burnham Village (“Burnham Village") and

what Portion they actually own.

Admit that Yolanda and Alonso Castaneda's dog had access to the

area on which you poured bleach on or around July 14,2014,

RESPONSE: Denied. Jeanette only cleaned up BV Property.

Admit that Yolanda Castaneda never told the police that her dog

had died as a result of any alleged bleach poisoning.

RESPONSE: Denied, tt was Yolanda Castaneda that told the police her dog died.

Admit that Alonso Castaneda never told the police that his dog had

died as n result of any alleged bleach poisoning,

RESPONSE; Denied Jeanette has a copy of the unaltered original police report

Someone altered the original police report.

Admit that you never heard Yolanda Castaneda teil the police that

her dog had died as a result of any alleged bleach poisoning,

UplfKlciYnnswefS lo Costtitada Requests for Admission

A1THNDSXESW r#A*1b

higcsors

Case: Lrl6*cv-D7iS3 Document v; 132*8 Filed: I0/0l/i8 Page 5 of 6 PagelD d:U08

RESPONSE: Admitted, Jeanette did not Near it, but the police officor said it and

H*s in the original police report

Admit that you never heard Alonso Castaneda tell the police that

hiS dog had died os a result ofany alleged bleach poisoning,

RESPONSE: Admitted,

Admit that no one ever told you that Yolanda Castaneda told the

poiioe that her dog had died as a result of any alleged bleach poisoning.

RESPONSE: Denied.

Admit lhai no one ever totd you that Alonso Castaneda told the

police that fils dog had died as a result of any alleged bleach poisoning.

RESPONSE: Vague and contains hearsay, Nonetheless denied to the extent H Is

understood dial both the police and In their report said the dog died.

Admit that the Castanedas did not give you permission to enter the

Property on or around July 14.2014,

RESPONSE: Admitted the Castanedas did not give Jeanette permission to enter

their property 7/14/14 and Jeanette did not do so.

10.

Admit that the Castanedas did not give you permission to pouf

bleach onto the,Property on Or about July 14, 2014.

RESPONSE: Admitted the Castanedas never asked Jeanette to pour bleach on

their property and Jeanette never did that regardless;

i.iptnski*5 answer* to Casaiaifa Request* far Admission

APTENOlXES tV

PAjwJ of 5

Case i J6-cv-{??i53 Documents 132-8 Filed: 10/01/18 Page Oof 6 PaqeiD - U09

Respectfully submitted.

Bv; /s/ teanetteltoinski/

Pro Se Plaintiff

•?

■\

Prepared By

Jeanette Upirtskl, Pro Se

14121 S. GreenbayAve.

BumbamJL 60633

708-933-0367

shoshana3@ictoud.com

VERIFICATION:

I hereby certify that the foregoing Answers are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and memory. Where based upon Information and belief are believed to

be true at the time the statements are made.

/S/Jeanettelipinskl/

}

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I serve a copy via email of my Answers on all parties

who have filed an appearance in the above captioned cause of action on this

March 30, 2018.

John William Patton, Jr.

Michael Robert Luchsmgar

Paul Donald Motz

PATTON & RYAN, LLC

330 North Wabash Avenue, Ste. 3800

Chicago, IL 60611

!T‘lu£h5jocief^pa.ij,onfyi?a,c^.m

/s/Jeanettellpfnskl/. plaintiff, pro

Jerome R. Weltzel

Jessica. Frfcke Garro

KOZACKY WEITZEL MCGRATH P.C.

66 West Monroe Street, 24th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 696-0900

JGarro@kwmlawyers.coni

I .ipinski'x answers to Caslensda Requests for Admission

APPEND! X£S WPgs 6 6f 6

Page;?

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.