Joliet loses key motion to dismiss federal lawsuit over Eric Lurry in-custody death

A federal judge found the claims in a lawsuit over the Joliet police in-custody death of Eric Lurry in 2020 were strong enough for trial.

On May 7, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings issued a ruling that sided almost entirely against attorneys for the City of Joliet. The attorneys had filed a motion for summary judgment requesting a dismissal of the case in lieu of a trial based on legal grounds and the evidence.

The lawsuit filed in August 2020 by Lurry’s widow, Nicole Lurry, alleged several officers caused him to die while he was in their custody by failing to provide him prompt medical care and subjecting him to excessive force.

While Cummings dismissed some claims in the case, he allowed the majority of the lawsuit to remain standing.

The judge’s decision likely means the case will move toward a settlement or a trial.

City officials declined to comment on the judge’s decision because it is pending litigation.

What led to lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed roughly a month after CBS2 Chicago revealed the January 2020 police squad video of Lurry following his arrest in a narcotics investigation.

In the video, Joliet Police Sgt. Doug May is seen slapping a handcuffed Lurry in the face. May said, “Wake up, [expletive]!” and pinched Lurry’s nose shut to get him to open his mouth.

At the time, Lurry, 37, was suffering from an overdose of the drugs he put in his mouth after his arrest.

The video led to more protests and controversy in the city during the summer of 2020. The summer began with controversy over former Joliet Mayor Bob O’Dekirk‘s scuffle with two protestors during a Black Lives Matter rally that turned into a riot.

O’Dekirk faced no charges over the incident but it did lead to calls for his resignation, including from former Joliet City Council member Bettye Gavin, who was part of a council faction that often opposed O’Dekirk.

After learning of the Lurry video, O’Dekirk sought another investigation into the incident even though one had been done by the Will-Grundy Major Crimes Task Force.

O’Dekirk’s allies on the council joined him in requesting an investigation by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.

But instead of re-investigating the Lurry incident, the attorney general’s office launched a civil investigation of the police department in 2021.

The three-year investigation led to a Dec. 12, 2024, report that found the Joliet Police Department has a pattern of unlawful policing enabled by the department’s “broken accountability systems.”

Medical delay claims

The officers in the Lurry incident were cleared of wrongdoing by the Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s Office. His office based its decision on a ruling from the Will County Coroner’s Office that Lurry died from an accidental drug overdose.

A toxicology report indicated Lurry had fatal levels of heroin, fentanyl and cocaine in his system and the “levels or concentrations were over 10 times the fatal range,” according to the coroner’s office.

But the May 7 ruling from Cummings found there was sufficient evidence for a trial on whether the officers’ delay in seeking medical care for Lurry caused him harm. He also ruled a jury could find officers’ unlawful force toward Lurry was recklessly unsafe.

In the ruling, Cummings said Lurry died not just from a “mixed overdose” of drugs but from asphyxia as well. He based that on the “admissible opinion” of Dr. Judy Melinek, a medical expert for Nicole Lurry’s attorneys.

Cummings said the plaintiff’s attorneys presented evidence that Officer Jose Tellez, who arrested Lurry, knew the latter had placed “dope baggies” in his mouth and knew he may “overdose on the drugs he put in his mouth and then die.”

Cummings said it is “well-settled” that an officer can search an arrestee’s mouth for drugs “where there is probable cause to do so.”

He said the city’s attorneys do not argue it would have been burdensome to take Lurry to the hospital instead of the police station.

Cummings said there was evidence May was told by Tellez that Lurry put some drugs in his mouth and Joliet Police Lt. Jeremy Harrison saw signs of Lurry in medical distress.

“Harrison did not call for paramedics until roughly three minutes after McCue and Tellez transported Lurry to the police station and none of the officers administered Narcan to Lurry,” Cummings said.

Narcan is an anti-overdose medication. Cummings said Tellez and Harrison were trained on Narcan and Harrison had Narcan in his vehicle at the time of the incident.

Battery claims

Cummings ruled a reasonable jury could find the actions of May and Officer Andrew McCue toward Lurry constituted a battery that showed a “reckless disregard” for his safety.

May was seen on the video pinching Lurry’s nose shut and putting pressure on his neck to get him to open his mouth. McCue then stuck a baton in Lurry’s mouth to pull out plastic baggies.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence that May “exacerbated Lurry’s asphyxia,” by pinching his nose and putting pressure on his neck, according to Cummings.

The attorneys also presented evidence McCue’s use of the baton in Lurry’s mouth could have obstructed his airway or caused a bag of drugs to obstruct his airway, the judge said.

Cummings said a jury must determine whether the May and McCue acted with “willful and wanton conduct.” He did not find their conduct “objectively reasonable.”

May admitted his strike to Lurry’s face was “unwarranted,” and Tellez “intentionally turned off the squad camera” after seeing the strike because he “knew it was inappropriate to strike someone in handcuffs,” according to Cummings’ ruling.

Neither May nor Tellez were charged by Glasgow’s office for those actions. They received roughly a weeklong suspension from the department for those violations.

Evidence spoliation claim

One of the claims that Cummings did dismiss from the lawsuit was one that alleged there was a failure to preserve dash-cam audio from the squad vehicle and video from outdoor cameras.

In Cummings’ ruling, he said he found there’s been sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to reach a favorable verdict for Nicole Lurry at trial even without the “evidence that she claims that defendants lost or destroyed.”

Nicole Lurry’s lawsuit alleged surveillance video from a camera affixed to the outside of the police department was “intentionally destroyed for the purpose of hiding incriminating evidence.”

Cummings said the city’s attorneys offered evidence the video had no “evidentiary value” because the camera’s line of sight was blocked and Lurry was not “visible on the footage.”