Darrell Cannon v. Jon Burge, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9719

Cannon, an El Rukn general on parole for a 1971 murder, was tortured by Area 2 police officers including Burge in 1983 and falsely confessed to a 1983 murder.
Cannon settled his 1983 civil suit in 1988 under a broad release (the 1988 Stipulation) stating finality of all claims arising from the incident and indemnifying the City of Chicago and its employees.
Post-settlement, Cannon pled guilty to lesser charges in 2001; the Illinois Prisoner Review Board later denied parole release consistent with the plea terms, prompting further litigation about parole effects for the 1971 conviction.
In 2005 Cannon filed §1983 and state-law claims against the City and officers for rights violations, false arrest, torture, and related theories, which were dismissed as barred by the 1988 Stipulation.
The district court held the 1988 Stipulation barred the current claims and declined to reopen the case, adopting Illinois contract-law analysis and noting Bell v. City of Milwaukee as a potential exception but distinguishing it.
On appeal, Cannon argues the settlement was procured by fraud and unconscionable bargaining; the court ultimately affirms the district court’s reliance on the unambiguous release and rejects Bell-based exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the 1988 release bar Cannon's current claims?	Cannon asserts fraud/cover-up voids the release.	Release unambiguously bars all claims arising from the incident.	Release bars current claims.
Is there a triable issue for fraudulent inducement of the settlement?	Defendants lied to induce the settlement; Cannon relied on those lies.	No actionable fraud; Cannon knew of possible broader issues and could have sought more discovery.	No genuine issue of material fact; fraud claim fails.
Is the 1988 Stipulation unconscionable (procedural or substantive)?	Settlement was obtained under unequal bargaining power and is thus unconscionable.	Cannon was represented by counsel; settlement terms were negotiated; not unconscionable.	Not unconscionable; final and binding.
Should Bell v. City of Milwaukee relieve Cannon from the release under a Bell-based exception?	Bell applies where a fraud/concealment undermines access to courts; Cannon’s case is analogous.	Bell is distinguishable; no broad cover-up that prevented timely litigation at settlement.	Bell is distinguishable; no exception to release.

Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984) (fraudulent concealment may nullify a settlement under extraordinary circumstances)
Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 536 F. Supp. 462 (D. Wis. 1982) (early discussion of concealment and settlement impact)
Vasquez v. Hernandez, 60 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 1995) (denial of access to courts can support §1983 claim when cover-up hinders redress)
Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 1994) (personal knowledge and timeliness affect Bell distinctions)
Rakowski v. Lucente, 472 N.E.2d 794 (Ill. 1984) (unambiguous release bars unknown future claims unless contrary intent appears)
Hurd v. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, 707 N.E.2d 613 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1999) (parol evidence limits when contract language is unambiguous)
Whitlock, 581 N.E.2d 667 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1991) (unambiguous contracts are enforced as written)