Uber Driver Ferndale Lawsuit

Case 2:18-cv-12973-DML-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 09/21/18 PageID.
1 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID EDWARD SHAW,
Plaintiff, U.S. District Court No.:

HON.:
vs.
CITY OF FERNDALE, CHIEF TIMOTHY D. COLLINS,

DETECTIVE JOHN THULL, OFFICER JAMES FARRIS,
OFFICER JASON WHITE, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WIACEK,
SERGEANT DAVID SPELLMAN, OFFICER HEATHER THIBODEAU,
LINDSAY MARIE MARACLE, KATHERINE CAROLINE JOHNSTON,
SHAWN MACQUILLAN, EMILY LYNNE SZEWC,
JENNIFER LYNN TRAINOR, and ALLISON E. MARACLE,
in their individual and official capacities, jointly and severally,
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
_____________________________________________________________________/
The Law Office of Pamela M. Sossi, PLLC
PAMELA M. SOSSI (P75251)
Counsel for Plaintiff
400 Monroe Street, Ste 280
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 962-0000 (office)
(313) 318-5992 (cell)
(313) 962-0766 (facsimile)
_____________________________________________________________________/
THERE ARE NO OTHER PENDING OR RESOLVED CIVIL ACTIONS

ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION OR OCCURANCE
ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
NOW COMES Plaintiff, DAVID EDWARD SHAW (“Mr. Shaw”), by and through his legal
counsel, THE LAW OFFICE OF PAMELA M. SOSSI, PLLC, and for Plaintiff’s Complaint
against the CITY OF FERNDALE, (“Defendant Ferndale”); CHIEF TIMOTHY D.
1|Page
Case 2:18-cv-12973-DML-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 09/21/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 31
COLLINS, (“Defendant Collins”); DETECTIVE JOHN THULL, (“Defendant Thull”);
OFFICER JAMES FARRIS, (“Defendant Farris”); OFFICER JASON WHITE, (“Defendant
White”); OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WIACEK, (“Defendant Wiacek”); SERGEANT
DAVID SPELLMAN, (“Defendant Spellman”); OFFICER HEATHER THIBODEAU,
(“Defendant Thibodeau”), (collectively “Defendant Officials”); LINDSAY MARIE
MARACLE, (“Defendant Lindsay Maracle”); KATHERINE CAROLINE JOHNSTON,
(“Defendant Johnston”); SHAWN MACQUILLAN, (“Defendant MacQuillan”); EMILY
LYNNE SZEWC, (“Defendant Szewc”); JENNIFER LYNN TRAINOR, (“Defendant
Trainor”); and ALLISON E. MARACLE, (“Defendant Allison Maracle”), (collectively
“Defendant Individuals”), states the following to the Honorable Court:
1. Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Oakland, in the State of Michigan.
2. Defendant Ferndale is a municipal corporation and governmental subdivision
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.
3. Defendant Collins is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale
Police Department and was acting under color of law, in his individual and
official capacities, and within the course and scope of his employment at all
times mentioned herein.
4. Defendant Thull is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale Police
Department and was acting under color of law, in his individual and official
capacities, and within the course and scope of his employment at all times
mentioned herein.
5. Defendant Farris is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale Police
2|Page
mentioned herein.
6. Defendant White is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale Police
mentioned herein.
7. Defendant Wiacek is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale
8. Defendant Spellman is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale
9. Defendant Thibodeau is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lindsay Maracel is a resident of the
County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Johnston is a resident of the County of
Oakland, State of Michigan.
3|Page
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant MacQuillan is a resident of the County
of Oakland, State of Michigan.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Szewc is a resident of the County of
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Trainor is a resident of the County of
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Allison Maracel is a resident of the
County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
16. All relevant events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within the City of
Ferndale, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
17. This lawsuit arises out of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s federal
constitutional rights as secured by the Fourth Amendment as it applies to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
and the Fourth Amendment Due Process Clause, and consequently, Plaintiff
has a viable claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985.
Plaintiff also has viable state law claims.
18. Jurisdiction and venue are both proper in the Court pursuant to the Revised
Judicature Act, as amended, as all causes of action set forth herein accrued
within the County of Oakland, in the State of Michigan.
19. Jurisdiction and venue are also both proper in the Court because it is a court
of general jurisdiction and there is no cause of action contained herein that
entails exclusive federal jurisdiction, and therefore the Court may address all
of Plaintiff’s asserted federal claims.
4|Page
20. Jurisdiction is also proper in the Court because the amount in controversy,
excluding interest, costs and fees, exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
21. Plaintiff restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation set
forth above in paragraphs 1-21.
22. On or about January 24, 2016, Plaintiff was working as a driver for the
company, “Uber.”
23. While working the night of January 24, 2016, Plaintiff received an uber request
from Defendant Johnston to be picked up at the bar, Rosie O’Grady’s, in
Ferndale, Michigan.
24. After receiving the request, Plaintiff drove to Rosie O’Grady’s to pick up
Defendant Johnston.
25. Shortly after receiving the request from Defendant Johnston, Plaintiff arrived at
Rosie O’Grady’s, and began waiting for Defendant Johnston.
26. When Plaintiff initially arrived at Rosie O’Grady’s, he accidently stopped his
vehicle at a “no-standing zone.” When a local police officer pulled behind
Plaintiff to notify him of being in a “no-standing zone,” Plaintiff momentarily
moved his vehicle from the spot to comply with the officer and the traffic laws.
5|Page
27. At this time, Defendant Johnston called Plaintiff on his cell phone and began
belligerently screaming at Plaintiff to “get your ass back here!”1 Plaintiff then
explained the situation regarding the “no-standing zone to Defendant Johnston.
28. Defendant Johnston thereinafter got into the front passenger seat of Plaintiff’s
vehicle, and Defendants Lindsay Maracle and Alison Maracle got into the
backseat of Plaintiff’s vehicle.
29. Once in Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendants Johnston, Lindsay Maracle and Alison
Maracle began belligerently screaming and yelling at Plaintiff to “not leave the
bar yet” because all of their friends had had not yet gotten into Plaintiff’s vehicle.
30. Thereinafter, Defendants MacQuillan, Szewc and Trainor also jumped into the
back of Plaintiff’s vehicle with Defendants Johnston, Lindsay Maracle and
Alison Maracle (collectively “Defendant Individuals”).
31. Upon information and belief, Defendant Individuals were all highly intoxicated
while in Plaintiff’s vehicle on the night in issue.
32. With seven total (7) people in his vehicle, Plaintiff left Rosie O’Grady’s and
began to drive Defendant Individuals to their selected destination.
33. While Plaintiff was driving, however, Defendant Individuals began screaming
and yelling profanities at Plaintiff; including screaming racial profanities such
as “nigger” and “black son of a bitch” at Plaintiff.
34. As a result of the belligerent behavior of Defendant Individuals, Plaintiff pulled
his vehicle off to the side of the road and told Defendant Individuals that he was
1DefendantJohnston had Plaintiff’s cell phone number because she was given the
number when she requested the ride through Uber.
6|Page
ending the ride. Plaintiff then instructed Defendant Individuals to exit his
vehicle.
35. Visibly upset, Defendant Individuals exited Plaintiff’s vehicle and then began
banging and kicking on the back of Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing damage to the
vehicle.
36. When Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to tell Defendant Individuals to stop
damaging his vehicle, the Plaintiff then exited his vehicle to assess the damage
being done by Defendant Individuals.
37. Upon exiting his vehicle to assess the damage done by the Defendant
Individuals, Plaintiff was punched in the face by Defendant Alison Maracle.
38. Defendants Lindsay Maracle and Johnston then joined Defendant Alison
Maracle and also began physically assaulting Plaintiff. Defendants MacQuillan
and Szewc also joined in the physical assault of Plaintiff.
39. Plaintiff defended himself against the physical attack of Defendant Individuals
(Exhibit 1, Video of Incident.)
40. While Plaintiff defended himself, Defendant Individuals continued to scream
and physically assault Plaintiff. (See id.)
41. Specifically, Defendant Lindsay Maracle ran after Plaintiff and choked Plaintiff
by the neck with her hands. (Id.)
42. During the assault, Plaintiff attempted to call 911 for help on his cell phone.
43. While Plaintiff tried to contact 911, Defendant Lindsay Maracle continued to
attempt to physically assault Plaintiff. Other Defendant Individuals attempted to
7|Page
restrain Defendant Lindsay Maracle from continuing to physically attack
Plaintiff at this time. (Id.)
44. Before Plaintiff could get through to 911 to explain his emergency, Defendant
Individuals contacted the police, stating that they were being attacked by their
Uber driver/the Plaintiff.
45. Shortly after 911 was contacted, Ferndale Police Department police officers
arrived at the scene with Plaintiff and Defendant Individuals.
46. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek of the Ferndale Police Department were
the responding police officers to the scene with Plaintiff and Defendant
Individuals.
47. Once Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek arrived at the scene, Plaintiff
attempted to explain to the police what had transpired with the Defendant
Individuals. Specifically, Plaintiff attempted to explain to the responding officers
that the Defendant Individuals: (a) were drunk and belligerent; (b) had damaged
Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (c) had physically assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff went on to
tell Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek that he had to defend himself from
the physical assault of the Defendant Individuals. (See Ex. 2, Case Report at
9.)
48. Instead of listening to Plaintiff while at the scene, Defendants Farris, White and
Wiacek focused their interactions with Defendant Individuals; taking written
statements from all of the Defendant Individuals. (See id. at 6-8.)
49. Specifically, Defendant Johnston interrupted the Plaintiff and lied to Defendants
Farris, White and Wiacek, about what had transpired with Plaintiff; specifically
8|Page
telling Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek that she was a personal
investigator and that Plaintiff had attacked her and her friends. (See id. at 7.)
50. Defendant Lindsay Maracle also lied to Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek,
when he stated that Plaintiff struck her in the head three (3) times before the
police arrived. (Id. at 8.)
51. Defendant Alison Maracle also lied to Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek,
when she stated that she witnessed Plaintiff had struck her sister, Defendant
Lindsay Maracle, multiple times in the face before the police arrived on the
scene. (Id. at 8.)
52. Defendant MacQuillan also lied to Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek, when
he stated that he witnessed Plaintiff strike Defendant Lindsay Maracle in the
head. (Id. at 8.)
53. Defendant Trainer also lied to Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek, when he
stated that Plaintiff pushed her during the incident (Id. at 8.)
54. Defendant Szewc also lied to Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek, when she
stated that she: (a) witnessed Plaintiff swinging at Defendant Lindsay Maracle;
and (b) she herself was struck down by Plaintiff when having to defend
Defenday Lindsay Maracle from Plaintiff. (Id. at 8.)
55. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek then surrounded Plaintiff and began
interrogating Plaintiff based on the information received from Defendant
Individuals.
56. Instead of listening to Plaintiff about just being physically assaulted by six (6)
individuals, Defendant Farris put Plaintiff in handcuffs and transported Plaintiff
9|Page
to a holding cell at the Ferndale Police Department. Defendant Farris, however,
failed to: (i) communicate to Plaintiff that he was in-fact under arrest; (ii)
communicate to Plaintiff the charges the Plaintiff was being arrested for; and
(iii) read Plaintiff his Miranda Rights.
57. Despite Plaintiff informing Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek that he had
just been physically assaulted by six (6) individuals, none of said Defendants
police officers offered or provided Plaintiff with any medical attention or
treatment.
58. Plaintiff was then booked by Defendant Farris and was placed in a holding cell
for many hours without ever being informed as to why he was being held in the
first place.
59. Thereinafter, Plaintiff’s vehicle was impounded by Defendant White. (See Ex.
2 at 9.)
60. After many hours of being held in lock-up and after repeated requests from
Plaintiff as to why he was being held, Plaintiff was finally told that being
criminally charged with assault and battery and possession of marijuana for the
incident with Defendant Individuals.2
61. Thereinafter, Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek, falsified their police reports
regarding their interrogation of Plaintiff by claiming Plaintiff reported that he was
alone in his car on the night of the incident and “felt” the need to “defend”
2While in lock-up, Plaintiff gave Defendant Farris his valid Michigan Medical Marijuana
Cards.
10 | P a g e
himself when he felt his car was kicked and decided to engage the Defendant
Individuals. (See id. at 8.)
62. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek also falsified their police report by failing
to document any details given to them by the Plaintiff about the physical assault
that Plaintiff had sustained from Defendant Individuals. (See id. at 8-9.)
63. A few days following the incident, Plaintiff was officially criminally charged for
the assault that had occurred on him, and was charged for possession of
marihuana; despite having valid Michigan Medical Marijuana cards.
64. Specifically, Plaintiff was ultimately charged with: (a) one (1) count of Assault
and Battery, as against Defendant Lindsay Maracle, in violation of MCL §
750.81; and (b) one (1) count of possession of marihuana, in violation MCL §
333.7403(2)(D).
65. Plaintiff was prosecuted in the Ferndale District Court on the two (2) fabricated
charges. (See Ex. 3, Misdemeanor Complaint.)
66. As he was innocent, Plaintiff fought the criminal charges in the Ferndale
District Court for approximately ten (10) months.3
67. Plaintiff took the fabricated criminal charges to a jury trial on September 21,
2016, and was subsequently acquitted by the jury of the criminal charge of
assault and battery.
68. Despite the acquittal of Plaintiff’s criminal charges, Defendants violated
Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights, state constitutional rights and civil rights:
3The possession of marijuana charge was ultimately dismissed against Plaintiff during a pre-trial
conference at the Ferndale District Court. The possession of marijuana charged was dismissed against
Plaintiff because Plaintiff had valid Michigan Medical Marijuana cards.
11 | P a g e
a. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek had no probable cause to arrest
Plaintiff on or about January 24, 2016.
b. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek assaulted and battered Plaintiff
when they forcefully grabbed him and handcuffed him, without any
cause, and arrested Plaintiff on false, trumped up charges.
c. While at the scene, Plaintiff told Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek
that he had just been physically assaulted by six (6) intoxicated
individuals and that he was not okay.
d. Despite being physically assaulted, none of the Defendant Officials
offered or provided Plaintiff with any needed medical treatment or
assistance.
e. Defendant Officials knew that Plaintiff had not committed any crime and
knew they had no justification to arrest Plaintiff, and conspired to falsely
arrest and detain him, and imprison Plaintiff.
69. Defendant Officials continued violating Plaintiff’s civil rights by failing to provide
him with needed medical treatment and with pursuing the false arrest, false
imprisonment, and denying Plaintiff medical treatment, all while knowing that
Plaintiff had not committed any crimes.
70. Instead of being given medical treatment, Plaintiff was handcuffed, and was
taken to the Ferndale Police Department.
71. Defendant Collins and Defendant Thull knew that Defendants Farris, White and
Wiacek had no probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for any crime, and knew that
Plaintiff had not committed a crime, but allowed the continued detainment of
12 | P a g e
Plaintiff at the Ferndale Police Department, without any authority and without
providing him with medical assistance or treatment.
72. Plaintiff was not offered any medical treatment while detained at the Ferndale
Police Department.
73. Although Plaintiff had not committed any crimes, all Defendant Officials
conspired to falsely charge Plaintiff with Assault and Battery and Possession
of Marijuana.
74. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek then conspired to, and did falsify the
police report by stating that when Plaintiff “felt that his car was kicked, he exited
his car and engaged the others,” all of which was false. (See Ex. 2 at 8.)
75. Such charges were fabricated and brought without probable cause in order to
cover up the Defendants’ wrongful actions, as described above, and in
furtherance of a conspiracy and vendetta against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s
race.
76. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights and of state law,
including the bringing of unjustified and fabricated charges, Plaintiff suffered
significant physical and emotional injuries and damages, including, but not
limited to physical injuries, emotional injuries, fright, shock, financial damages,
humiliation, embarrassment and pain and suffering, which continue today.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, 42 U.C.S SECTION 1983,
FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT
(Defendants Ferndale, Collins, Thull, Farris, White, Wiacek,
Spellman and Thibodeau)
13 | P a g e
78. The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides for civil liability for the
deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, while committed under color of law.
79. Defendant Officials, by virtue of their purported authority unlawfully and without
probable cause, and all the while knowing that no crime had been committed,
falsely arrested, imprisoned and detained Plaintiff, although Plaintiff had
committed no crime and was clearly the victim of a crime.
80. Defendant Officials lacked probable cause and intentionally falsified the police
reports in order to falsely arrest and imprison Plaintiff.
81. Defendant Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because Defendant
Officials continued the seizure, detainment and imprisonment of Plaintiff, when
they knew or should have known that they lacked probable cause to arrest,
detain and/or continue to detain and imprison Plaintiff, which was all in violation
of clearly established law.
82. The actions of Defendant Officials described above were also intentional.
83. The Defendant Officials’ intentional seizure, restraint, detention, confinement
and imprisonment of Plaintiff deprived him of his personal liberty and/or
freedom of movement against his will.
84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officials’ actions, Plaintiff was
confined and imprisoned against his will.
14 | P a g e
85. Defendant Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity as Defendant Officials’
actions, in addition to being in violation of clearly established law, were
objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
86. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officials subjecting Plaintiff to
deprivation and violation of his rights, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer mental and emotional anguish, physical and emotional pain and
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, degradation, fright, shock,
economic and consequential damages, financial damages, and physical
injuries and other damages that may be discovered throughout the course of
this lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by and through its legal counsel, respectfully
requests the Honorable Court to enter a judgment in its favor and against the
Defendants, CITY OF FERNDALE, CHIEF TIMOTHY D. COLLINS, DETECTIVE
JOHN THULL, OFFICER JAMES FARRIS, OFFICER JASON WHITE, OFFICER
CHRISTOPHER WIACEK, SERGEANT DAVID SPELLMAN and OFFICER
HEATHER THIBODEAU, in their individual and official capacities, jointly and
severally, for injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, in an amount in
excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest,
costs, and attorney fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
15 | P a g e
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, 42 U.C.S
SECTION 1983, DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS,
WRONGFUL DETENTION AND UNCONSTITUTIONL CONDITIONS
88. As an arrestee prior to arraignment, Plaintiff can be considered to be under the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as he was subject to a
continuing seizure.
89. As a pre-trial detainee, Plaintiff can be considered under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution as a person possessed of certain
due process rights.
90. Defendant Officials violated Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights imposed
on the State of Michigan by the Fourteenth Amendment by:
a. Ignoring Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by showing deliberate
indifference and callous disregard thereto;
b. Failing to give Plaintiff necessary medical treatment;
c. Failing to allow Plaintiff to be conveyed to a hospital for his medical
needs;
d. Failing to record and document Plaintiff’s injuries; and
e. Wrongfully detaining Plaintiff in a holding cell while isolated from his
family and while suffering from the aftermath of a physical assault.
16 | P a g e
91. Defendant Officials deprived Plaintiff of his right to medical care by subjecting
him to cruel and unusual punishment and unconstitutional conditions pursuant
to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
92. Defendant Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity as Defendant Officials’
actions, in addition to being in violation of clearly established law, were
objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officials subjecting Plaintiff to
deprivation and violation of his rights, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer mental and emotional anguish, physical and emotional pain and
economic and consequential damages, financial damages, physical injuries
and other damages that may be discovered throughout the course of this
lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by and through its legal counsel, respectfully requests
the Honorable Court to enter a judgment in its favor and against the Defendants,
CITY OF FERNDALE, CHIEF TIMOTHY D. COLLINS, DETECTIVE JOHN THULL,
OFFICER JAMES FARRIS, OFFICER JASON WHITE, OFFICER
17 | P a g e
COUNT III
CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S
CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
95. Defendant Officials acted in conspiracy, and with concerted effort, in violation
of Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by:
a. Refusing to acknowledge that they detained, arrested and imprisoned
Plaintiff without justification;
b. Intentionally fabricating and falsifying criminal charges against Plaintiff;
c. Failing to provide Plaintiff with needed and requested medical treatment;
d. Unjustifiably detaining Plaintiff in a holding cell for many hours; and
e. Prosecuting Plaintiff on two (2) fabricated charges in the Ferndale
District Court.
96. All of the Defendant Officials have conspired to lie and acted in the manner set
forth above intentionally, maliciously and sadistically, and in part due to the
race of Plaintiff.
97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officials’ civil conspiracy to
violate Plaintiff’s civil rights, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
mental and emotional anguish, physical and emotional pain and suffering, loss
of enjoyment of life, humiliation, degradation, fright, shock, economic and
consequential damages, financial damages, and physical injuries and other
damages that may be discovered throughout the course of this lawsuit.
18 | P a g e
COUNT IV
MALICOUS PROSECUTION
100. As a result of the acts of Defendant Officials, as described above, Plaintiff
was charged with two (2) misdemeanor counts and was prosecuted in the
Ferndale District Court for approximately 10 months, without justification.
101. Defendant Officials did not have probable cause to believe that Plaintiff
committed any crime.
102. Defendant Officials purposely submitted inaccurate, misleading, and
deceitful information to the prosecutor’s office in an effort to have Plaintiff
prosecuted.
103. Plaintiff had a right to both substantive and procedural due process but was
denied his rights by Defendant Officials.
19 | P a g e
104. Defendant Officials had an ulterior purpose in arresting and filing the
charges against Plaintiff; that is to cover up their illegal, unlawful and unjustified
actions.
105. Plaintiff fought the criminal charges against him for approximately 10
months. Plaintiff was acquitted by a jury in the Ferndale District Court in
September 2016.
106. By engaging in the above described conduct, Defendant Officials violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and state law rights not to be maliciously
prosecuted.
107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officials acts or omissions,
Plaintiff suffered a loss of freedom, legal costs, invasion of privacy, physical
and mental pain and suffering, loss of social pleasure and enjoyment, fright,
shock, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and
embarrassment.
20 | P a g e
COUNT V
CITY OF FERNDALE’S CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
(Defendant Ferndale)
108. Plaintiff restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation
set forth above in paragraphs 1-107.
109. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures, forbids police officers from arresting
lawful abiding citizens without probable cause, and protects individuals from
unreasonable force.
110. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that
pre-trial detainees receive immediate medical treatment for serious medical
needs.
111. Plaintiff was denied medical care without any justification.
112. Defendant Ferndale permitted customs, practices, and/or policies that
resulted in violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as articulated/complained
of herein.
113. These customs, practices and/or policies included, but were not limited to,
the following:
a. Failing to adequately train and/or supervise its police officers so as to
prevent violations of citizens’ constitutional rights;
b. Failing to adequately train and/or supervise police officers regarding the
arrests of individuals, specifically, the arrest of African American
individuals;
21 | P a g e
c. Failing to adequately train and/or supervise police officers regarding
providing medical treatment to injured arrestees;
d. Failing to adequately train and/or supervise police officers regarding
proper basis for arrests and pursuing criminal charges;
e. Failing to adequately supervise, review, and/or discipline police officers
whom Defendant Ferndale knew, or should have know, were violating,
or were prone to violate, citizens’ constitutional rights, thereby permitting
and/or encouraging its police officers to engage in illegal conduct,
including but not limited to, arresting individuals without probable cause,
fabricating charges, attempting to bribe arrestees and family members,
and acting in a revengeful manner; and
f. Failing to adequately train and/or supervise its police officers in the
proper policies and procedures for establishing probable cause to arrest
and the proper policies and procedures for effectuating an arrest and
providing medical treatment.
114. Defendant Ferndale’s conduct was so reckless so as to demonstrate a
substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.
115. Defendant Ferndale’s acts and/or indifference and/or omissions were the
direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
116. The facts as set forth above in the preceding paragraphs constitute a
violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983 and 1985, Plaintiff has a viable claim for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
22 | P a g e
COUNT VI
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
(Defendants Defendants Farris, White, Wiacek, Lindsay Maracle, Johnston,
MacQuillan, Szewc, Trainor and Allison Maracle.)
118. The acts of named Defendants were not undertaken in good faith and were
not discretionary, but were undertaken with malice and for the purpose of
physically and emotionally harming Plaintiff.
119. At all material times herein, Defendants, including Defendants Lindsay
Maracle, Johnston, MacQuillan, Szewc, and Allison Maracle, threatened,
conspired, and/or caused Plaintiff to be threatened with involuntary,
unnecessary and/or unwanted physical contact.
Maracle, Johnston, MacQuillan, Szewc, and Allison Maracle, intentionally
23 | P a g e
caused imminent fear and apprehension of contact and harm to Plaintiff, as
described in the above paragraphs.
Maracle, Johnston, MacQuillan, Szewc, and Allison Maracle, had the apparent
present ability to accomplish the contact with Plaintiff, and did in fact make
unpermitted contact with Plaintiff.
122. Plaintiff did in fact experience imminent fear and apprehension of harm
because of Defendants’ actions.
123. At all material times herein, the physical contact and/or threat of physical
contact referred to herein was inflicted upon Plaintiff by the named Defendants.
124. The physical contact and/or threat of physical contact exerted upon Plaintiff
by Defendants was unnecessary and excessive, and was without any legal
justification.
125. The actions of all named Defendants were so egregious and so outrageous
that Plaintiff’s damages were heightened and made more severe.
126. Defendants Farris, White and Wiacek are not entitled to governmental
immunity as their actions were not in good faith, and were done with a
substantial lack of concern as to whether an injury and/or further injury resulted
to Plaintiff.
127. As a direct and proximate result of the assaults and batteries, and failure to
intervene and stop the unnecessary threat and/or use of force as described
above that was inflicted upon Plaintiff by the named Defendants, Plaintiff
sustained serious injuries and damages as are described above.
24 | P a g e
128. Defendants Lindsay Maracle, Johnston, MacQuillan, Szewc, and Allison
Maracle, are liable, jointly and severally with the other named Defendants, for
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
CHRISTOPHER WIACEK, SERGEANT DAVID SPELLMAN, OFFICER
HEATHER THIBODEAU, LINDSAY MARIE MARACLE, KATHERINE CAROLINE
JOHNSTON, SHAWN MACQUILLAN, EMILY LYNNE SZEWC, JENNIFER LYNN
TRAINOR, and ALLISON E. MARACLE, in their individual and official capacities,
jointly and severally, for injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, in an
amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of
interest, costs, and attorney fees.
COUNT VII
FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT
130. The wrongful arrest of Plaintiff, as well as the imprisonment, detention and
search of Plaintiff was without probable cause and without reasonable
suspicion that Plaintiff had or was about to engage in any criminal act.
25 | P a g e
131. The search, arrest and detainment of Plaintiff physically restrained him and
deprived him of his personal liberty and freedom of movement for an
unreasonable period of time.
132. Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested, as he was arrested without proper
probable cause, and transported by Defendants to police headquarters, where
Plaintiff was searched, photographed, subjected to interrogation, and detained
for an unreasonable and unjustified time.
133. The arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff was unreasonable and against
Plaintiff’s will.
134. The acts and conduct of the named Defendants, acting individually and as
employees of Defendant Ferndale, and acting in the course of their
employment as police officers, constituted false arrest and/or imprisonment of
Plaintiff.
135. The named Defendants are not entitled to governmental immunity as their
actions were not in good faith and were done with a substantial lack of concern
as to whether a lawful arrest and lawful imprisonment took place.
136. As a direct and proximate result of the named Defendants’ acts and/or
omissions, Plaintiff suffered a loss of freedom, invasion of privacy by manner
and method of search, physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of social
pleasure and enjoyment, fright, shock, fear, mental anguish, emotional
distress, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by and through its legal counsel, respectfully requests the
Honorable Court to enter a judgment in its favor and against the Defendants, CITY
26 | P a g e
OF FERNDALE, CHIEF TIMOTHY D. COLLINS, DETECTIVE JOHN THULL,
CHRISTOPHER WIACEK, SERGEANT DAVID SPELLMAN, and OFFICER
costs, and attorney fees.
COUNT VIII
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(All named Defendants)
138. All named Defendants intentionally caused extreme, outrageous, harmful,
offensive and unpermitted direct contact with Plaintif.
139. All named Defendants intentionally caused imminent fear and apprehension
of contact and harm to Plaintiff, as described in the above paragraphs.
140. All named Defendants had the apparent present ability to accomplish the
contact with Plaintiff, and did in fact make unpermitted contact with Plaintiff.
141. Plaintiff did in fact experience imminent fear and apprehension of harm
because of Defendants’ actions.
142. Defendants’ unjustified and illegal use of force on Plaintiff was utterly
intolerable, atrocious, horrific and shocking in a civilized community.
27 | P a g e
143. Defendant Officials are not entitled to governmental immunity as their
actions were not in good faith, and were done with a substantial lack of concern
as to whether an injury and/or further injury resulted to Plaintiff.
144. Defendants Lindsay Maracle, Johnston, MacQuillan, Szewc, and Allison
Maracle, are liable, jointly and severally with the other named Defendants, for
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has
suffered and continues to suffer from mental and emotional anguish, pain and
economic and consequential damages, physical injuries and other damages
that may be discovered throughout the course of discovery.
CHRISTOPHER WIACEK, SERGEANT DAVID SPELLMAN, OFFICER
HEATHER THIBODEAU, LINDSAY MARIE MARACLE, KATHERINE CAROLINE
JOHNSTON, SHAWN MACQUILLAN, EMILY LYNNE SZEWC, JENNIFER LYNN
TRAINOR, and ALLISON E. MARACLE, in their individual and official capacities,
jointly and severally, for injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, in an
amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of
interest, costs, and attorney fees.
28 | P a g e
COUNT IX
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
147. The named Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to act prudently and with
reasonable care, and to otherwise avoid grossly negligent conduct.
148. The named Defendants breached the above duties in a grossly negligent,
willful, and reckless manner, and demonstrated a substantial lack of concern
for whether harm or injury would result to Plaintiff. More specifically, the named
Defendants breached the duties owed to Plaintiff in one or more of the following
ways:
a. Failure to use reasonable care in the identification and apprehension of
a suspect, according to common and accepted police policy, guidelines
and procedure;
b. Failure to cease an unlawful detention, seizure, arrest, and
imprisonment, when Defendants knew or should have known, that they
did not have probable cause to continue and no crime had been
committed by Plaintiff;
c. Failure to provide medical treatment to an injured arrestee;
d. Failure to document truthful facts in the police report and instead
conspiring to falsify such reports;
e. Any and all additional acts of gross negligence and/or willful and wanton
misconduct as may become known throughout the course of discovery.
29 | P a g e
149. The named Defendants’ gross negligence was the direct and proximate
cause of Plaintiff’s damages and injuries.
150. Governmental immunity is not available to the named Defendants because
their conduct described above amounts to gross negligence that was the
proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
151. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ gross negligence, Plaintiff
has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and emotional anguish, pain and
economic and consequential damages, physical injuries and other damages
that may be discovered throughout the course of discovery.
costs, and attorney fees.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Pamela M. Sossi
By: Pamela M. Sossi
Attorneys for Plaintiff
400 Monroe St., Ste. 280
Dated: August 12, 2018 Detroit, MI 48226
30 | P a g e
PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Plaintiff, DAVID EDWARD SHAW, by and through her attorney,
THE LAW OFFICE OF PAMELA M. SOSSI, PLLC, and hereby demands a trial by jury
on all issues of fact related to the Complaint lawsuit.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Pamela M. Sossi
Law Office of Pamela M. Sossi, Pllc
By : Pamela M. Sossi (P75251)
Attorney for Plaintiff
400 Monroe Street, Suite 280
Detroit, MI 48226
Dated: August 12, 2018
31 | P a g e
Case 2:18-cv-12973-DML-EAS ECF No. 1-1 filed 09/21/18 PageID.32 Page 1 of 1
Plaintiff’s Exhibits to Complaint
1. Video of January 2016 Incident.
2. Case Report.
3. Misdemeanor Complaint.
Exhibit 1
(Available via Discovery/Upon Request)

Uber Driver Ferndale Lawsuit

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Uber Driver Ferndale Lawsuit

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Case 2:18-cv-12973-DML-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 09/21/18 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DAVID EDWARD SHAW,

Plaintiff, U.S. District Court No.:

CITY OF FERNDALE, CHIEF TIMOTHY D. COLLINS,

Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THERE ARE NO OTHER PENDING OR RESOLVED CIVIL ACTIONS

against the CITY OF FERNDALE, (“Defendant Ferndale”); CHIEF TIMOTHY D.

COLLINS, (“Defendant Collins”); DETECTIVE JOHN THULL, (“Defendant Thull”);

OFFICER JAMES FARRIS, (“Defendant Farris”); OFFICER JASON WHITE, (“Defendant

White”); OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WIACEK, (“Defendant Wiacek”); SERGEANT

DAVID SPELLMAN, (“Defendant Spellman”); OFFICER HEATHER THIBODEAU,

(“Defendant Thibodeau”), (collectively “Defendant Officials”); LINDSAY MARIE

MARACLE, (“Defendant Lindsay Maracle”); KATHERINE CAROLINE JOHNSTON,

(“Defendant Johnston”); SHAWN MACQUILLAN, (“Defendant MacQuillan”); EMILY

LYNNE SZEWC, (“Defendant Szewc”); JENNIFER LYNN TRAINOR, (“Defendant

Trainor”); and ALLISON E. MARACLE, (“Defendant Allison Maracle”), (collectively

“Defendant Individuals”), states the following to the Honorable Court:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Oakland, in the State of Michigan.

2. Defendant Ferndale is a municipal corporation and governmental subdivision

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.

3. Defendant Collins is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale

times mentioned herein.

7. Defendant Wiacek is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale

times mentioned herein.

8. Defendant Spellman is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale

times mentioned herein.

9. Defendant Thibodeau is and/or was a police officer employed by the Ferndale

times mentioned herein.

County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

Oakland, State of Michigan.

of Oakland, State of Michigan.

Oakland, State of Michigan.

Oakland, State of Michigan.

County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

Ferndale, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

17. This lawsuit arises out of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s federal

constitutional rights as secured by the Fourth Amendment as it applies to the

States through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,

Plaintiff also has viable state law claims.

within the County of Oakland, in the State of Michigan.

of general jurisdiction and there is no cause of action contained herein that

of Plaintiff’s asserted federal claims.

excluding interest, costs and fees, exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars

forth above in paragraphs 1-21.

from Defendant Johnston to be picked up at the bar, Rosie O’Grady’s, in

Rosie O’Grady’s, and began waiting for Defendant Johnston.

vehicle at a “no-standing zone.” When a local police officer pulled behind

Plaintiff to notify him of being in a “no-standing zone,” Plaintiff momentarily

explained the situation regarding the “no-standing zone to Defendant Johnston.

backseat of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

back of Plaintiff’s vehicle with Defendants Johnston, Lindsay Maracle and

Alison Maracle (collectively “Defendant Individuals”).

while in Plaintiff’s vehicle on the night in issue.

began to drive Defendant Individuals to their selected destination.

and yelling profanities at Plaintiff; including screaming racial profanities such

as “nigger” and “black son of a bitch” at Plaintiff.

34. As a result of the belligerent behavior of Defendant Individuals, Plaintiff pulled

36. When Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to tell Defendant Individuals to stop

being done by Defendant Individuals.

Individuals, Plaintiff was punched in the face by Defendant Alison Maracle.

Maracle and also began physically assaulting Plaintiff. Defendants MacQuillan

and Szewc also joined in the physical assault of Plaintiff.

(Exhibit 1, Video of Incident.)

40. While Plaintiff defended himself, Defendant Individuals continued to scream

and physically assault Plaintiff. (See id.)

by the neck with her hands. (Id.)