Overview of Case 16-cv-7621: Rhoads v. City of Chicago

Case details

Full case name: Timothy Rhoads v. City of Chicago, et al.
Docket number: 1:16-cv-07621 (sometimes shortened as “16-cv-7621”).
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division).
Presiding judge: Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
Nature of suit: Federal civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), including Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims; alleged Monell liability.
Filing date: October 2016.
Status: Resolved via settlement; no trial verdict.

Note: The “116” in some references likely denotes the filing year (2016).

Allegations

Failure to assist after assault: Plaintiff alleges CPD officers declined to file a report or provide aid after an assault at a bar.
Station encounter: At a district station, an officer allegedly threatened and insulted the plaintiff, refusing assistance.
Follow‑up abuse: In a subsequent status call, another officer allegedly used homophobic slurs, issued threats, and appeared at the plaintiff’s home.
Discrimination & retaliation: Claims include bias based on perceived sexual orientation, retaliation for seeking police services, and failure to investigate.
Monell claims: Alleged pattern/practice within CPD, including inadequate training/supervision.

Timeline of key events

Approximate sequence based on public summaries and filings
Date / Event	Description
Early 2016 (Birthday)	Assault at bar; responding officers allegedly do not assist or take a report.
~1 hour later	At a CPD station, officer allegedly threatens/insults plaintiff.
~5:30 a.m. (same night)	Report ultimately taken at plaintiff’s apartment.
~2 months later	Status call with another officer; alleged slurs, threats, and intimidation follow.
Oct. 2016	Federal lawsuit filed (1:16-cv-07621).
2016–2017	Discovery; City disputes liability.
2017	Case resolves via settlement (no admission of liability).

Outcome & settlement

Resolution: Settled out of court; amount not publicly itemized.
Criminal charges: None reported against involved officers.
Discipline: No public discipline identified in connection with this case.

Context & resource allocation

The case fits within a period of heightened scrutiny of CPD practices, broader civil rights litigation, and discussion about investigative resource allocation. Comparisons have been drawn between routine victims’ cases and high‑profile investigations that consumed significant time and overtime budgets.