1 - Complaint - RICHARDS, et al, v. City of Detroit, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MEKKEL RICHARDS, and ADAM MALINOWSKI,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

-vs- Honorable:

Magistrate:

CITY OF DETROIT, Assistant Chief

STEVE DOLUNT, [F.N.U.] GADWELL (#3611),

[F.N.U.] REIZIN (#3545), D. LOPEZ,

[F.N.U.] PETROFF, Sgt. [F.N.U.] BRANNOCK (#S-284),

jointly and severally, and in their official and

individual capacities.

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

Godwin Legal Services, PLC

Shaun P. Godwin (P74500)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

450 W Fort St, Ste 200

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-288-2826/Fax: 313-457-1670

[email protected]

Constitutional Litigation Associates, PC

Hugh M. Davis (P12555)

Cynthia Heenan (P53664)

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

450 W. Fort St., Ste. 200

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 961-2255/Fax: 313-922-5130

[email protected];

[email protected];

[email protected]

_____________________________________________________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, MEKKEL RICHARDS (“RICHARDS”) and ADAM MALINOWSKI

(“MALINOWSKI”), through their attorney Shaun P. Godwin of Godwin Legal Services, PLC,

for their complaint state as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution. These rights are enforceable against state actors, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 1 of 23 Pg ID 1

2

2. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 USC 1331 (federal question), 28 USC § 1343 (civil

rights), and 28 USC § 1367 (pendent jurisdiction over state law claims).

3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

4. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 USC § 1391

inasmuch as the acts complained of occurred there and all of the parties reside there.

5. The rights of Plaintiffs, under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment,

to document the public actions of government officials free from interference, retaliation,

unreasonable searches and seizures, including excessive force and false arrest, and destruction of

property without due process, were clearly established at the time of the acts complained of on

June 23, 2014, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

JURY DEMAND

6. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of the above-entitled cause of action.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff MEKKEL RICHARDS is a citizen of the State of Michigan, who was a

22-year-old student studying journalism at Oakland University at the time of the events

complained of and resided in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne.

8. Plaintiff ADAM MALINOWSKI is citizen of the State of Michigan, who was a

20- year-old student studying political science at Eastern Michigan University at the time of the

events complained of and resided in the City of Ypsilanti, County of Washtenaw.

9. Defendant CITY OF DETROIT (“DETROIT”) is a municipal corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Michigan that is located in the County of Wayne in the

Eastern District of Michigan, which operates the Detroit Police Department (“DPD”) as a part of

its responsibilities and services. At all times relevant herein, this Defendant acted under color of


3

regulation, usage, custom, and law and pursuant to its policies and practices, as did the individual

Defendants herein.

10. Defendant Assistant Chief of Police STEVE DOLUNT (“DOLUNT”) is, or was

at the time of the matters complained of, a police officer and supervisor employed by the City of

Detroit who on information and belief is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan and who at all

times was acting within the course and scope and of his official duties and under color of state

law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.

11. Defendant [F.N.U.] GADWELL (#3611) (“GADWELL”) is, or was at the time of

the matters complained of, a police officer and supervisor employed by the City of Detroit who

on information and belief is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan and who at all times was

acting within the course and scope and of his official duties and under color of state law. He is

sued in his individual capacity and official capacity.

12. Defendant [F.N.U.] REIZIN (#3545) (“REIZIN”) is, or was at the time of the

matters complained of, a police officer employed by the City of Detroit who on information and

belief is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan and who at all times was acting within the course

and scope and of his official duties and under color of state law. He is sued in his individual

capacity.

13. Defendant D. LOPEZ (“LOPEZ”) is, or was at the time of the matters complained

of, a police officer employed by the City of Detroit who on information and belief is a resident

of Wayne County, Michigan and who at all times was acting within the course and scope and of

his official duties and under color of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.

14. Defendant [F.N.U.] PETROFF (“PETROFF”) is , or was at the time of the matters

complained of, a police officer employed by the City of Detroit who on information and belief is


4

a resident of Wayne County, Michigan and who at all times was acting within the course and

scope and of his official duties and under color of state law. He is sued in his individual

capacity.

15. Defendant Sgt. [F.N.U.] BRANNOCK (#S-284) (“BRANNOCK”) is, or was at

the time of the matters complained of, a police officer and supervisor employed by the City of

Detroit who on information and belief is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan and who at all

times was acting within the course and scope and of his official duties and under color of state

law. He is sued in his individual capacity and official capacity.

16. The acts of Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF,

and BRANNOCK were undertaken intentionally, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, sadistically

and with callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, health and well-being, entitling them to punitive

damages under federal law.

17. Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and

BRANNOCK acted in concert to violate Plaintiffs’ civil rights.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

18. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI watched the “Ford

Fireworks” display from a public viewing area on Woodward Avenue near Jefferson Avenue in

downtown Detroit.

19. When the fireworks finished, RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI walked north on

Woodward Avenue towards Grand Circus Park.

20. When RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI walked past the east corner of Witherell

Street at Woodward Avenue (the corner of Grand Circus Park), they saw police officers push a

man to the ground and strike him repeatedly.


5

21. RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI heard the man yell for help.

22. RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI saw blood on the man’s face.

23. RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI walked into the east side of Grand Circus Park

to observe the incident.

24. RICHARDS stopped about twenty-five feet from the incident and used his cell

phone to record video and audio of the incident.

25. MALINOWSKI stood about fifteen feet further back from RICHARDS and used

his cell phone to record the incident.

26. Neither RICHARDS nor MALINOWSKI were verbally engaging the officers nor

the unidentified man.

27. RICHARDS nor MALINOWSKI were merely observing the incident and not

interfering.

28. RICHARDS was rapidly approached in an aggressive manner by Defendants

GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK, and was told by the officers “Get

the fuck back,” “Put your phone away, you can’t be videotaping,” “You can’t be here,” and

“You’re interfering.”

29. DOLUNT was present and watching his fellow Defendant officers.

30. RICHARDS took several steps backwards and continued to record video on his

phone.

31. GADWELL shoved RICHARDS backwards with both hands, which caused

RICHARDS to fall backward over a patio chair and onto his back.

32. RICHARDS picked himself up from the ground and reached down in attempt to

pick up his hat.


6

33. At this time, GADWELL stated “I told you to get the fuck away.”

34. In the same breath, GADWELL made a fist with his right hand and punched

RICHARDS in the face.

35. GADWELL’s punch caused RICHARDS to tumble onto the paved walkway.

36. RICHARDS, while lying on pavement, shouted to MALINOWSKI “Are you

recording this?”

37. MALINOWSKI, who had moved back twenty additional feet from RICHARDS,

responded “Yes!”

38. GADWELL ran toward MALINOWSKI grabbed him and placed him in a

headlock, before slamming him to the ground.

39. GADWELL grabbed MALINOWIKI’s hands, pulled them behind his back and

put him in handcuffs.

40. GADWELL smashed MALINOWSKI’s phone against a tree.

41. GADWELL grabbed MALINOWSKI by the arm and lead him toward Witherell

Steet and leaving his smashed iPhone cell phone on the ground.

42. RICHARDS, still laying face down on the walkway, was placed in handcuffs.

43. Defendants sat RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI on the curb on Witherell.

44. Defendants told RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI that they were a "couple of

faggot tree huggers that take the whole rights thing too seriously."

45. Defendants had a discussion regarding what to do with RICHARDS and

MALINOWSKI.

46. Defendant Assistant Police Chief DOLUNT stated that RICHARDS and

MALINOWSKI were “fucking idiots that are going to jail tonight” and that “they need to be

taught a lesson.”


7

47. Defendants searched RICHARDS cell phone without consent and erased several

videos.

48. RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI were arrested and taken to the Detroit

Detention Center where they were placed in a filthy holding cell.

49. RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI were released the following day, June 25, 2014,

at approximately 5:00 p.m., after they each posted a $100.00 bond on charges of “interference”

and were given criminal citations ordering them to appear at 36th

District Court in the City of

Detroit

50. Defendants and the CITY OF DETROIT brought criminal charges for interfering

with a city official, pursuant to city ordinance Section 38-2-2, against RICHARDS and

MALINOWSKI in the 36th District Court for the State of Michigan.

51. RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI retained a criminal defense attorney to

represent them.

52. MALINOWSKI entered into a plea agreement in which he received a deferred

sentencing date and with an agreement to dismiss the case against him upon successful

completion of a term of probation.

53. The criminal case against MALINOWSKI’s was dismissed after a term of

probation.

54. RICHARDS refused to enter a plea because he had committed no crime and there

was no probable cause for Defendants to arrest him or charge him with a crime.

55. RICHARDS appeared on the morning of his scheduled jury trial with his attorney

and prepared to go to trial.


8

56. However, Defendants failed to appear for trial and the case against RICHARDS

was dismissed.

57. Defendants DOLUNT, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK failed to

intervene and stop the violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and loss of property, even though they

had ample opportunity to intervene.

58. The acts complained of above by the Defendants, and each of them, proximately

caused damage to Plaintiff RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI, including, but not limited to:

a. Seizure;

b. Loss of liberty;

c. Psychological harm, past and future;

d. Degradation, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, loss of enjoyment of

life, and past and future mental anguish;

e. Pain and suffering due to physical injury;

f. Legal fees;

g. Loss of personal property; and

h. Destruction exculpatory evidence contained on their cell phones.

COUNT I

(Violation of First Amendment – 42 USC § 1983)

First Amendment Right to Record the Police / Gather News

59. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs,

as if fully set forth herein.

60. Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI had a right, protected by the First

Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to engage in

freedom of speech, expressive conduct and to record the actions of the government officials,

including its police officers, in public spaces without interference or retaliation.


9

61. At all times while recording, Plaintiffs were more than 25 feet from the incident,

acting as observers and not attempting to engage the unknown male or officers in conversation,

and did not interfere with or pose any danger to Defendants’ laws enforcement activities.

62. The actions of Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF,

and BRANNOCK, directly violated RICHARDS’ right to freedom of speech by stopping him

from recording, assaulting him, falsely arresting him, using excessive force against him,

unreasonably seizing him, unreasonably searching his phone and destroying his video

recordings.


and BRANNOCK, directly violated MALINOWSKI’s right to freedom of speech by stopping

him from recording, by assaulting him, using excessive force against him, by unreasonably

smashing his phone for the purpose of destroying his video recordings.

64. DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment

rights by their failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants, who had known histories

within DPD of preventing and stopping individuals engaged in protected activity and of arresting

individuals in retaliation for engaging in such activity. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and

BRANNOCK’s failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of

the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.


rights by their failure to train Defendants to know that recording police activity is not

interference and that arresting persons for doing so is a violation of the person’s First

Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to train

Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.


10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI pray that this Honorable

Court enter judgment against Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ,

PETROFF, and BRANNOCK, jointly and severally, in whatever amount that is fair, just and

equitable for the injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, for the violation of their

right to record, together with interest, costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT II

(Violation of First Amendment – 42 USC § 1983)

First Amendment Retaliation



67. Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI had a right pursuant to the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to record the actions of the

government officials, including its police officers, in public spaces without interference or

retaliation.


BRANNOCK, retaliated against RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI for exercising their First

Amendment right to record DETROIT police officers in public places by ordering them not to

record, assault, arrest them, destroy their phones and erase their video, and causing them to be

charged with interference with a police officer without probable cause.


BRANNOCK were substantially motivated to take the actions complained of due to RICHARDS

and MALINOWSKI’s recording of them and their fellow officers.


rights by their failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants, who had known histories


11

within DPD of retaliating against individuals engaged in protected activity and of arresting

individuals in retaliation for engaging in such activity. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and

BRANNOCK’s failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of

the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.


rights by their failure to train Defendants to know that recording police activity is not

interference and that arresting persons for doing so is retaliatory and a violation of the person’s

First Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to train





equitable for the injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, for the violation of their

right to record, together with interest, costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT III

(Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment – 42 USC § 1983)

Deprivation of personal property



73. Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF and

BRANNOCK intentionally deleted most of RICHARDS’ video recordings of the incident

without due process of law in violation of Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

74. Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF and

BRANNOCK intentionally smashed MALINOWSKI’s cell phone and caused his cell phone to


12

be left at the scene, depriving him of his phone, the videos he took of the incident and other data

without due process of law in violation of Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

75. DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by their failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants, who had known

histories within DPD of depriving individuals of their personal property without due process of

law. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to supervise, train, and

discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

76. DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by their failure to train Defendants to know that depriving a person of their

personal property without due process of law is a violation of the person’s Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to train



Court enter judgment against Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT, GADWELL REIZIN, LOPEZ,


equitable for the injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, for damage to their

property interests, together with interest, costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT IV

(Violation of Fourth Amendment - 42 USC § 1983)

Excessive Force and Unreasonable Seizure

77. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as

though fully restated herein.

78. The acts of Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and

BRANNOCK in the actual physical violence and/or in the toleration of and failure to stop the


13

unconstitutional physical violence against Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI and their

arrest constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution in the form of excessive force because Defendants had no need to use

the level of force applied.

79. The actions of Defendants and/or in the toleration of and failure to stop the use of

excessive force against Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI was a proximate cause of the

injuries.

80. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth

Amendment right to be free from excessive force by their failure to supervise, train, and

discipline the Defendants who had a known history within DPD of using excessive force.

Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to supervise, train, and discipline


81. DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

rights by their failure to train Defendants to know that using levels of force such as pushing

persons on the ground, punching them in the face and placing in headlock is excessive force in

violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment right, when the person has not physically resisted or

been given any lawful order. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to

train Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.




equitable for the injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, for the use of excessive

force against them, together with interest, costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.


14

COUNT V


False Arrest



83. The acts of the individual Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ,

PETROFF, and BRANNOCK in arresting Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI without

probable cause of the commission of a criminal act was a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantees against unreasonable seizures

and false arrest.

84. The actions of the Defendants was a proximate cause of the injuries.

85. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK also violated Plaintiffs’

Fourth Amendment rights to be free from arrest without probable cause by their failure to

supervise, train, and discipline the Defendants who had a known history within DPD of arresting

individuals without probable cause. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s

failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

86. DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

right by their failure to train Defendants to know that arresting a person without probable cause

is a false arrest in violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment right, where the person is

standing a distance away and observing a police incident and not otherwise interfering with law

enforcement activities. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK’s failure to train



15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff s RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI pray that this Honorable



equitable for the injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, along with interest,

costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT VI


Malicious Prosecution



88. The acts of the individual Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ,

PETROFF, and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiff RICHARDS’ right to be free from the initiation

of criminal prosecutions without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

89. The acts of the individual Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL REIZIN, LOPEZ,

PETROFF, and BRANNOCK in arresting and charging or causing Plaintiff RICHARDS to be

charged for interfering with a city employee was without probable cause.

90. The institution of criminal charges against the Plaintiff RICHARDS by

Defendants resulted in a deprivation of his liberty and injury to his property interests because he

was forced to pay a bond to be released, he was deprived of his bond money for a period of time,

he was subjected to supervision and restrictions on his movements while on bond, caused him to

incur legal fees, caused him miss work to attend court proceedings, and caused him to suffer

from mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, and other injuries described in this

complaint.


16

91. Defendants’ actions in causing Plaintiff RICHARDS to be falsely prosecuted for

criminal charges was malicious, intentional and taken to cover up their violations of Plaintiff

RICHARDS’ civil rights.

92. The actions of the Defendants was a proximate cause of the injuries.

93. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiff’s Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from the initiation of criminal charges without

probable cause by their failure to supervise, train, and discipline the Defendants who had a

known history within DPD of initiating prosecutions against persons without probable cause.

Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL and BRANNOCK’s failure to supervise, train, and

discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

94. DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiff’s Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights by their failure to train Defendants to know that initiation of

criminal charges without probable cause is malicious prosecution and a violation of the person’s

Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and

BRANNOCK’s failure to train Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RICHARDS prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment

against Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and

BRANNOCK, jointly and severally, in whatever amount that is fair, just and equitable for the

injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, along with interest, costs and attorney

fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT VII

Civil Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Civil Rights - 42 USC § 1983

Civil Conspiracy


17



96. The individual Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF,

and BRANNOCK acted in conspiracy and with concerted effort in the violation of Plaintiff

RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI’s First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in that

they conspired to write false police reports or failed to author any reports at all regarding their

observation, participation and complacency, in the incident, arrest and prosecution. Thus, the

individual Defendants, and each of them, are liable for a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff

RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI’s civil rights.

97. The actions of the Defendants in conspiring to write false reports of the incident

or no reports at all were malicious and intentional and done in order to cover up their violations

of PLAINTIFFS’ rights under the U.S. Constitution and violations of state law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI pray that this Honorable

Court enter judgment against the individual Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN,

LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK, jointly and severally, in whatever amount that is fair,

just and equitable for the injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, along with

interest, costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT IIX

(42 USC § 1983)

Monell Claim




18

99. At all times herein, Defendant DETROIT, through its supervisors, including but

not limited to DOLUNT and BRANNOCK , and/or policymakers, established, promulgated,

implemented, and/or maintained the following customs, policies, and/or practices:

a. To infringe upon and punish expressive activity protected by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution by condoning and/or acquiescing in

the arrests and prosecutions of persons who take or attempt to record video of

police officers in public places;

b. To inadequately and/or fail to train, supervise, and/or discipline police officers

and supervisors, with regard to the fact that recording video of police officers in

public places is protected by the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution and therefore cannot be a basis for arrests, prosecutions, and/or the

use of force;

c. To inadequately and/or fail to train, supervise, and/or discipline police officers

and supervisors, with regard to the fact that excessive and unreasonable force is

prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

d. To inadequately and/or fail to train, supervise, and/or discipline police officers

and supervisors, with regard to the fact that arresting persons without probable

cause to believe criminal violation occurred is prohibited Fourth Amendment to

the United States Constitution;

e. To inadequately and/or fail to train, supervise, and/or discipline police officers

and supervisors, with regard to the fact that false, malicious, and improper

initiation of criminal charges without probable cause is prohibited Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

f. To hire and/or retain as police officers and supervisors certain persons when the

aforementioned Defendant DETROIT knew and/or should have known, or had

actual notice, that these persons employed excessive and unreasonable force;

g. To hire and/or retain as police officers and supervisors certain persons when the


actual notice, that these persons undertook and engaged in arrests that lacked

probable cause;

h. To hire and/or retain as police officers and supervisors certain persons when the


actual notice, that these persons undertook and engaged in false, malicious, and

improper initiation of criminal charges that lacked probable cause;


19

100. Each of the aforementioned customs, policies, and/or practices, i.e., the failures to

train, supervise, and/or discipline the individual Defendants and other nonparty employees, was

known to Defendant DETROIT as being highly likely and probable to cause violations of the

constitutional rights of members of the public, in particular the Plaintiffs herein. Each such

custom, policy, and/or practice was a moving force in the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional

rights, as set forth herein.

101. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipal Defendants are “persons” liable for their

unconstitutional policies, customs, and practices.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment against the

Defendants CITY OF DETROIT in whatever amount that is fair, just and equitable for the

injuries and damages, both compensatory and punitive, along with interest, costs and attorney

fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT IX

Assault and Battery – State Law




and BRANNOCK were an intentional use of unnecessary and unwelcome physical force against

Plaintiffs, which constituted an assault and battery.

104. Plaintiffs RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI suffered physical injuries as a result

of the assault.

105. The injuries described in this complaint were proximately caused by said assault

and battery.


20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment against the

Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK in such

amount as the Court shall find just for their damages, both compensatory and exemplary, along

with their attorney’s fees, costs and interest.

COUNT X

False Imprisonment – State Law

106. Plaintiffs restate and incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs

as though fully restated herein.

107. Plaintiff RICHARDS was falsely and intentionally imprisoned, against his will,

by Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK when

he was jailed and deprived of his personal liberty and freedom of movement.

108. Defendants Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF,

and BRANNOCK accomplished the imprisonment by actual physical force or by an express or

implied threat of force.

109. Plaintiff RICHARDS’ imprisonment was unlawful insofar as there was no

probable cause that he had committed a criminal violation.

110. Plaintiff RICHARDS suffered injuries as described above.

111. The injuries described in this complaint were proximately caused by said false

imprisonment.


against the Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK

in such amount as the Court shall find just for their damages, both compensatory and exemplary,

along with their attorney’s fees, costs and interest.

COUNT XI


21

Common Law and Statutory Malicious Prosecution M.C.L. § 600.2907 – State Law



113. The acts of the individual Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL REIZIN, LOPEZ,

PETROFF, and BRANNOCK in arresting and charging or causing Plaintiff RICHARDS to be

charged for interfering with a city employee was without probable cause.

114. The criminal case terminated in favor of Plaintiff RICHARDS after Defendants

failed to appear at trial and the Court dismissed the case.

115. The institution of criminal charges against the Plaintiff RICHARDS by

Defendants resulted in a deprivation of his liberty and injury to his property interests because he

was forced to pay a bond to be released, he was deprived of his bond money for a period of time,

he was subjected to supervision and restrictions on his movements while on bond, caused him to

incur legal fees, caused him miss work to attend court proceedings, and caused him to suffer

from mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, and other injuries described in this

complaint.

116. Defendants’ actions in causing Plaintiff RICHARDS to be falsely prosecuted for

criminal charges was malicious, intentional and taken to cover up their violations of Plaintiff

RICHARDS’ civil rights.


against the Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF, and BRANNOCK

in such amount as the Court shall find just for their damages, both compensatory and exemplary,

along with their attorney’s fees, costs and interest.

COUNT XII

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – State Law


22



118. These concerted acts of Defendants complained of were done with the intent to

cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress, or alternatively, with reckless disregard for the

likelihood that such acts would cause Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.

119. These concerted acts directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs severe emotional

distress.

120. The concerted acts of Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ,

PETROFF, and BRANNOCK, and each of them, constituted extreme and outrageous conduct

where Defendants conspired and committed the acts described in this complaint.

121. These concerted acts were done with the intent to cause the Plaintiffs severe

emotional distress, or alternatively, with reckless disregard for the likelihood that such acts

would cause the Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.

122. These concerted acts directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs severe

emotional distress.

123. As a direct and natural result of those acts of the above-named Defendants,

Plaintiffs did suffer serious personal injuries, general and specific, compensatory and exemplary,

damages recoverable at law.


Court enter judgment against Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF,

and BRANNOCK in such amount as the Court shall find just for their damages, both

compensatory and exemplary, along with their attorney’s fees, costs and interest.


23

Respectfully submitted,

By:__/s/ Shaun P. Godwin_________

Shaun P. Godwin (P74500)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Godwin Legal Services, PLC

450 W Fort St, Ste 200

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-288-2826/Fax: 313-457-1670

[email protected]

Dated: June 18 , 2015


Documents

1 - Complaint - RICHARDS, et al, v. City of Detroit, et al