IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Download this document as a PDF

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Claimant, through his attorneys, Rapoport Weisberg Sims & VanOverloop, P.C. and
WILLENS LAW OFFICES, P.C., states:

NATURE OF THE CIAIM

1. This is a tort claim alleging negligent conduct by the Illinois State Police (“ISP”) that caused the claimant personal injuries and emotional distress for which compensatory damages are sought.

JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction is asserted under § 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act, 705ILCS § 505/8(d) (2018).

FACT ALLEGATIONS

3. In 1994, Gary Montez Martin was indicted in Marshall County, Mississippi, for physically abusing his girlfriend Chyreese Jones, including hitting her with a baseball bat and stabbing her several times with a kitchen knife.
4. At one point, Mr. Martin held Ms. Jones and her three-year-old daughter hostage inside her apartment and threatened to kill Ms. Jones with a box cutter.
5. On February 27,1995, Mr. Martin entered a plea of guilty, admitting the facts in the indictment and that he was guilty of aggravated assault, a felony in Mississippi. This offense against his girlfriend was substantially similar to a domestic battery.
6. Mr. Martin was convicted of this felony and he remained incarcerated as a result until April 18, 1997.
7. In approximately May 2003, Mr. Martin moved to Aurora, Illinois, where he resided until his death on February 15, 2019.
8. On February 15, 2019, Mr. Martin utilized a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun with a laser aim sight to commit a mass shooting rampage that started at approximately 1:25 p.m. at the Henry Pratt Company facility in Aurora, Illinois, initially killing five people and grievously wounding a sixth, the claimant Timothy Williams.
9. Mr. Martin shot the claimant three times, once in his right arm and twice in his back.
10. As first responders began to arrive at the Henry Pratt Company facility in response to the mass shooting, a running gun battle ensued between Mr. Martin and law enforcement officers.
11. During the gun battle, five police officers were struck by gunfire or otherwise wounded by shrapnel. A sixth police officer was indirectly injured during the melee.
12. According to Aurora Police Department Chief Kristen Ziman, quoted at a news conference following the mass shooting, “Absolutely he [Gary Montez Martin] was not supposed to be in possession of a firearm.”
13. Mr. Martin would have never possessed the firearm he used at the Henry Pratt Company mass shooting had the Illinois State Police properly followed and implemented their internal protocols intended to keep firearms out of the hands of citizens who meet certain criteria deemed by the legislature in the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to be unfit for ownership of a firearm.
14. The Illinois legislature, in passing the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act of 2013 declared:
    • [A]s a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24’3.I of the Criminal Code of 2072, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
15. In the State of Illinois, unlawful possession of a handgun is a Class 4 felony.
16. Approximately five years before committing the mass shooting, on January 9, 2014, Mr. Martin signed an application with the ISP for a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card.
17. There is no evidence Mr. Martin owned a firearm before 2074.
18. In Illinois, a valid FOID card is required to own a firearm.
19. When someone tries to buy a firearm from a dealer, the status of the purchaser’s FOID card must be checked by the dealer and approval is required through the Firearm Transfer Inquiry Program prior to the release of a firearm after a 72-hour delay.
20. When someone tries to buy a firearm from someone who is not a dealer, the seller must check the validity of the buyer’s FOID card on the ISP’s website before making the sale.
21. The ISP received Mr. Martin’s application for a FOID card on January 17,2014.
22. Answering the first question on the application, Mr. Martin stated he was born in Mississippi.
23. The second question on the application asked: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” Mr. Martin answered this question “No.”
24. This “No” answer was false.
25. The ISP knew or should have known, Iong before January of 2014, that some applicants do not reveal their felony convictions in their FOID card applications.
26. Such lack of candor is one of the reasons that the ISP conducts criminal history background checks on all FOID card applicants, as opposed to taking applications on an honor system.
27. The ISP did not contact Mississippi and failed to discover Mr. Martin’s violent felony conviction in the criminal history background check it performed for Mr. Martin’s FOID card application.
28. Because of this failure, the ISP issued Mr. Martin a FOID card, enabling him to purchase and own a firearm even though he was statutorily ineligible to own one.
29. After this, on March 8, 20L4, Mr. Martin completed 16 hours of concealed carry training given by an ISP approved instructor, as required bV SS 75(b) and (c) of the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act.
30. Three days later, Mr. Martin used his FOID card to purchase the Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun from a local dealer that he used in his mass shooting rampage at the Henry Pratt Company.
31. After the three’day waiting period, on or about March 14, 2014, Mr. Martin took possession of the gun he later used to murder five people and wound seven others on February 15, 2019.
32. On March 16, 2014, Mr. Martin applied to the ISP for a Firearm Concealed Carry License.
33. As in his application for a FOID card, Mr. Martin once again revealed to the ISP he was born in Mississippi.
34. The first question on the application asked: “Have you ever been found guilty of a felony?” Mr. Martin answered this question “No.”
35. This answer was false.
36. To expedite processing of his application for a concealed carry permit, Mr. Martin provided his fingerprints.
37. This time the ISP contacted law enforcement in Mississippi and an email string between the ISP and Mississippi law enforcement on March 26, 2014, reveals the ISP discovered and confirmed Mr. Martin’s Mississippi violent felony conviction that day. The email string and associated documents are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.
38. Mr. Martin’s concealed carry application was denied on March 26,2014. But this was not communicated to Mr. Martin until April I5, 2014. Exhibit B, incorporated by reference.
39. In Exhibit B, besides the ISP telling Mr. Martin his application for a concealed carry license was denied under Illinois law because he is “no longer eligible to possess a” FOID card due to his Mississippi felony conviction; and because his Mississippi felony conviction is a “federal prohibitor;” the ISP told Mr. Martin “a letter concerning your FOID revocation will be forthcoming.”
40. There is no evidence the ISP sent Mr. Martin the letter concerning his FOID card revocation that ISP promised “will be forthcoming.”
41. In Exhibit B, the ISP also told Mr. Martin “you are responsible to surrender your FOID card and weapons under your possession,” requesting that he “visit the Illinois State Police website at www.isp.state.il.us” for details. In this letter the ISP did not explain to Mr. Martin when he was supposed to surrender his FOID card and weapons in his possession, or mention anything at all about his false answers on his application for a FOID card and concealed carry license.
42. In the applications for a FOID card and concealed carry license, the ISP informed Mr. Martin about the potential legal consequences of providing false information:
    • The FOID card application contained a warning: “entering false information on an application for a FOID card is punishable as a Class 2 felony in accordance with Section 14(d’5) of the FOID Card Act.”
    • Next to the signature block on the FOID card application, the ISP form stated the applicant signs “under penalties of perjury.”
    • The FOID card applicant also certifies by signing he “examined all the information provided for my application” and, “to the best of my knowledge, it is true, correct and complete.”
    • The concealed carry application contained a warning that “entering false information on this form is punishable as perjury under Section 32’2 of the Criminal Code of 2012.”
43. ISP records indicate the ISP may have revoked Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April I7 , 2014. But this is not clear, because the ISP has produced no letter to Mr. Martin on or after April I7, 20L4, addressing the revocation of Mr. Martin’s FOID card. On information and belief, no such letter was ever sent.
44. The ISP’s procedure in 2014 was to notify local, county, and state law enforcement of the revocation, where the FOID card holder resides, electronically with the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS).
45. Prior to 2014, the Aurora Police Department had entered into a LEADS Agreement with the Illinois State Police, intending to enhance and foster the exchange of criminal justice data to assist officers and enhance public safety.
46. ISP records contain no copy of an electronic notification sent to law enforcement about Mr. Martin’s FOID card revocation, if it was in fact revoked as the situation required.
47. ISP records contain no copy of an electronic notification sent to law enforcement for Mr. Martin’s failure to surrender his firearm, a Class A misdemeanour.
48. ISP records contain no copy of an electronic notification sent to law enforcement for Martin’s likely continued illegal possession of his .40 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun, a Class 4 felony.
49. Mr. Martin had subsequent encounters with law enforcement agencies in the years between the revocation or supposed revocation of his FOID card and the Henry Pratt Company mass shooting, including numerous encounters with the Aurora Police Department and the Oswego Police Department.
50. Had the ISP properly entered the information into the LEADS system regarding Mr. Martin’s revoked FOID card, failure to surrender his firearm (a class A misdemeanor), and/or ongoing illegal ownership of a handgun (a class 4 felony), this information would have been known to the law enforcement officers who encountered Mr. Martin prior to the mass shooting at the Henry Pratt Company; as would his previous felony conviction.
51. As of March 16, 2015, notification to law enforcement regarding FOID revocations is made via a typed letter sent through the United States Postal Service.
52. Once an individual’s FOID card is revoked, Illinois law requires a revoked FOID card holder to both surrender their FOID card and complete a Firearm Disposition Record within 48 hours of receiving notice of the revocation.
53. ISP paper and electronic records contain neither Mr. Martin’s FOID card nor a related Firearm Disposition Record.
54. The FOID Act requires the ISP to notify local law enforcement when an individual’s FOID card has been revoked.
55. The ISP has produced no evidence showing the ISP notified the Aurora Police Department, the Kane County Sheriff, or any other unit of local law enforcement, about the revocation of Mr. Martin’s FOID card.
56. A revoked FOID card holder can lawfully transfer their firearm(s) to a valid FOID card holder or to the local law enforcement agency in the area in which the revoked FOID card holder resides. Such transfers must be reported to the Illinois State Police.
57. The Firearm Disposition Record requires that the revoked FOID card holder must obtain a signature from the local law enforcement agency receiving the Firearm Disposition Record. The local law enforcement agency must mail the completed form to the Illinois State Police.
58. Mr. Martin kept the handgun, never surrendered his FOID card, and provided no one with a Firearm Disposition Record for the handgun.
59. The Illinois State Police knew or should have known that Gary Martin likely continued to illegally possess his .40 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun, which Mr. Martin ultimately used in the mass shooting rampage on February 15, 2019.
60. It was the duty of the ISP in performing ministerial acts, at all times, to use ordinary care for the safety of the claimant and other members of the public.
61. Notwithstanding this duty, the lllinois State Police, through its agents and/or employees, were negligent in one or more of these ways:
    • Conducting inadequate criminal history background checks regarding Mr. Martin’s FOID card application;
    • Issuing a FOID card to Mr. Martin when they should have known he was a convicted felon legally disqualified from firearm ownership under both state and federal law;
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April I7 2014, 2014, by failing to properly notify Mr. Martin of his duties and responsibilities associated with the revocation;
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April L7, 2014, by failing to properly inform Mr. Martin he would not be prosecuted if he promptly turned in his FOID card and properly disposed of his firearm(s);
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April I7,2014, to notify the Aurora Police Department of the revocation;
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April 17, 2014, to notify the Kane County Sheriff’s office of the revocation; and
    • Failing to follow up after no local law enforcement agency mailed a completed Firearm Disposition Record concerning Mr. Martin’s firearm(s) to the ISP.
62. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these negligent acts or omissions by the ISP, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature, including gunshot wounds to his right arm, left upper back and right upper back. The bullet passed through claimant’s right arm, destroying bone, tissue, vessels and skin, and the two bullets remain in claimant’s back. The claimant has experienced, and will experience, pain, suffering, disability, loss of a normal life, medical expenses, iost earnings and a loss of earning capacity, all because of the injuries suffered due to the ISP’s negligence. Many of claimant’s losses are permanent.
63. It was also the duty of the ISP to refrain from engaging in willful and wanton conduct in exercising its obligations to conduct law enforcement operations and to protect the safety of the claimant and other members of the public.
64. Notwithstanding this duty, the Illinois State Police, through its agents and/or employees, acted willfully and wantonly in one or more of these ways:
    • Conducting inadequate criminal history background checks regarding Mr. Martin’s FOID card application;
    • Issuing a FOID card to Mr. Martin when they should have known he was a convicted felon legally disqualified from firearm ownership under both state and federal law;
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April t7,2014, by failing to properly notify Mr. Martin of his duties and responsibilities associated with the revocation;
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April 77, 20L4, by failing to properly inform Mr. Martin he would not be prosecuted if he promptly turned in his FOID card and properly disposed of his firearm(s);
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April I7,2014, to notify the Aurora Police Department of the revocation;
    • Failing to follow proper procedures in and after revoking Mr. Martin’s FOID card on April 17, 2014, to notify the Kane County Sheriff’s office of the revocation; and
    • Failing to follow up after no local law enforcement agency mailed a completed Firearm Disposition Record concerning Mr. Martin’s firearm(s) to the ISP.
65. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these willful and wanton acts or omissions by the ISP, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature, including gunshot wounds to his right arm, left upper back and right upper back. The bullet passed through claimant’s right arm, destroying bone, tissue, vessels and skin, and the two bullets remain in claimant’s back. The claimant has experienced, and will experience, pain, suffering, disability, Ioss of a normal life, medical expenses, lost earnings and a loss of earning capacity, all because of the injuries suffered due to the ISP’s negligence. Many of claimant’s losses are permanent.
66. The claimant was treated foliowing the shooting at Presence Mercy Medical Center in Aurora, Illinois and Valley West Medical Center in Aurora, Illinois, undergoing inpatient and outpatient care through Jamil Jacobs-El, M.D and Jose Trevino, M.D.

HISTORY OF CLAIM

67. This claim has not been presented to any State department or officer, nor has it been the subject of administrative proceedings.
68. Notice is not required pursuant to 705ILCS 505122-1 because a claimant “is not required to file the notice required by this Section if he or she files his or her claim within one year of its accrual.”

OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENTS

69. The claimant is the sole owner of this claim and there have been no assignments or transfers of the claim or any part thereof.

ENTITLEMENT

70. Claimant is justly entitled to the amount claimed from the State of Illinois or the ISP after allowing all just credits

VERIFICATION

71. The facts stated in this complaint are true.

CONCLUDING REQUIRED ALLEGATIONS

72. Neither this claim nor any other claim arising out of the same occurrence (against any person, firm or governmental agency other than the State of Illinois or any of its officers or agencies) has been presented to any person, firm, court or administrative tribunal other than the state of lllinois.
73. No state officer or agency or department of the state is sued in a capacity as holder, administrator or trustee of a fund, or as executor or administrator of a trust or estate, or as a guardian, conservator or any similar capacity.
74. A bilI of particulars, stating each item of damages, and the amount claimed, is difficult to provide at this time because the injury is less than one month old. However, the following are the expected categories of claimed damages:
    • Medical expenses;
    • Medical expenses reasonably certain to be incurred;
    • Lost earnings;
    • Loss of future earning capacity;
    • Pain and suffering in the past;
    • Pain and suffering in the future;
    • Disability and/or loss of a normal life;
    • Disfigurement;
    • Emotional distress in the past;
    • Emotional distress in the future.
75. Each of these losses cannot be stated with reasonable certainty. What can be stated is that the $2,000,000 limitation on recoverable damages is believed to be inadequate to cover all of plaintiffs damages, because the noneconomic damages alone already exceed $2,000,000.
76. Since personal injury damages are claimed, the foilowing information is included in this bill of particulars:

a. Hospitalizatlon and Medical Providers :

Presence Mercy Medical Center
1325 N, Highland Avenue

Dates: Admitted February 15, 2019 and discharged February 16, 2019.

Jamil Jacobs’El, M.D.
1221 N. Highland Avenue
Aurora, Illinois 60506

Jose Trevino, M.D.
Valley West Medical Center, SC-Aurora
143 S. Lincoln Ave., Ste. H
Aurora, Illinois 60505

b. Employer and time off:

Henry Pratt Company
401 S. Highland Avenue
Aurora, Illinois 60506

Lost time from work: February 15, 2019 through the present and
continuing.

WHEREFORE, for the stated reasons, the claimant requests an award in his
favor for $2,000,000.

Counsel for the Claimant:
David E. Rapoport
Matthew S. Sims
Melanie J. VanOverloop
Rapoport Weisberg Sims & VanOverloop, P.C
20 North Clark St., Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (912) 327’9880
Facsimile: (312) 327’9881
drapoport@rapoportlaw.com
msims@rapoportlaw.com
mvanoverloop@rapoportlaw.com

Matthew L. Willens
David A. Baez
Willens Law Offices
30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3450

Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (atz) 957′ 4166
mwiliens@willenslaw.com
dbaez@willenslaw.com.