1 - Complaint - RICHARDS, Et Al, v. City of Detroit, Et Al.

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MEKKEL RICHARDS, and ADAM MALINOWSKI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.
Honorable:
Magistrate:
-vsCITY 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
Constitutional Litigation Associates, PC
Shaun P. Godwin (P74500)
Hugh M. Davis (P12555)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Cynthia Heenan (P53664)
450 W Fort St, Ste 200
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
Detroit, Michigan 48226
450 W. Fort St., Ste. 200
313-288-2826/Fax: 313-457-1670
Detroit, MI 48226
shaun@godwinlegal.com
(313) 961-2255/Fax: 313-922-5130
Davis@ConLitPC.com;
Heenan@ConLitPC.com;
Info@ConLitPC.com
_____________________________________________________________________________/
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.
Pg ID 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
2
Pg ID 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
Pg ID 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.
Pg ID 5
21.
RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI heard the man yell for help.
22.
RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI saw blood on the mans 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 cant be videotaping, You cant be here, and
Youre interfering.
29.
DOLUNT was present and watching his fellow Defendant officers.
30.
RICHARDS took several steps backwards and continued to record video on his
31.
GADWELL shoved RICHARDS backwards with both hands, which caused
phone.
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.
Pg ID 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.
GADWELLs 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 MALINOWIKIs hands, pulled them behind his back and
put him in handcuffs.

40.
GADWELL smashed MALINOWSKIs 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.
6
Pg ID 7
47.
Defendants searched RICHARDS cell phone without consent and erased several
48.
RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI were arrested and taken to the Detroit
videos.
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 MALINOWSKIs 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.
56.
Pg ID 8
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.
61.
Pg ID 9
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.
63.
and BRANNOCK, directly violated MALINOWSKIs 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
BRANNOCKs failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of
the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
65.
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 persons First
Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCKs failure to train
Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
Pg ID 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
66.

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.
68.
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.
69.
BRANNOCK were substantially motivated to take the actions complained of due to RICHARDS
and MALINOWSKIs recording of them and their fellow officers.
70.
rights by their failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants, who had known histories
10
Pg ID 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
BRANNOCKs failure to supervise, train, and discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of
the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
71.
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 persons
First Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCKs 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
72.

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 Plaintiffs Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
74.
Defendants DOLUNT, GADWELL, REIZIN, LOPEZ, PETROFF and
BRANNOCK intentionally smashed MALINOWSKIs cell phone and caused his cell phone to
11
Pg ID 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 Plaintiffs 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 BRANNOCKs 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 persons Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCKs 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
12
Pg ID 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 BRANNOCKs 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 persons Fourth Amendment right, when the person has not physically resisted or
been given any lawful order. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCKs 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.
13
Pg ID 14
COUNT V
False Arrest
82.

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 BRANNOCKs
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 persons 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 BRANNOCKs failure to train
14
Pg ID 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
87.

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.
15
91.
Pg ID 16
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 Plaintiffs 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 BRANNOCKs failure to supervise, train, and
discipline Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
94.
DETROIT, DOLUNT and BRANNOCK violated Plaintiffs 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 persons
Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants DETROIT, DOLUNT and
BRANNOCKs failure to train Defendants was a proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs
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 Plaintiffs Civil Rights - 42 USC 1983
Civil Conspiracy
16
95.
Pg ID 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 MALINOWSKIs 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 MALINOWSKIs 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
98.
17
99.
Pg ID 18
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;
18
100.
Pg ID 19
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
102.

103.
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.
19
Pg ID 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 attorneys 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 attorneys fees, costs and interest.
COUNT XI
20
Pg ID 21
Common Law and Statutory Malicious Prosecution M.C.L. 600.2907 State Law
112.

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 attorneys fees, costs and interest.
COUNT XII
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress State Law
21
117.
Pg ID 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 attorneys fees, costs and interest.
22
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
shaun@godwinlegal.com
Dated: June 18 , 2015
23
Pg ID 23

1 - Complaint - RICHARDS, Et Al, v. City of Detroit, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Complaint - RICHARDS, Et Al, v. City of Detroit, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-vsCITY OF DETROIT, Assistant Chief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant CITY OF DETROIT (DETROIT) is a municipal corporation

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 3 of 23

Defendant Assistant Chief of Police STEVE DOLUNT (DOLUNT) is, or was

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

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

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 4 of 23

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

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

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

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

BRANNOCK acted in concert to violate Plaintiffs civil rights.

When the fireworks finished, RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI walked north on

Woodward Avenue towards Grand Circus Park.

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 5 of 23

RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI heard the man yell for help.

RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI saw blood on the mans face.

to observe the incident.

phone to record video and audio of the incident.

his cell phone to record the incident.

the unidentified man.

RICHARDS was rapidly approached in an aggressive manner by Defendants

DOLUNT was present and watching his fellow Defendant officers.

GADWELL shoved RICHARDS backwards with both hands, which caused

pick up his hat.

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 6 of 23

RICHARDS in the face.

GADWELLs punch caused RICHARDS to tumble onto the paved walkway.

RICHARDS, while lying on pavement, shouted to MALINOWSKI Are you

GADWELL ran toward MALINOWSKI grabbed him and placed him in a

headlock, before slamming him to the ground.

put him in handcuffs.

GADWELL smashed MALINOWSKIs phone against a tree.

Defendants sat RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI on the curb on Witherell.

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

Defendants had a discussion regarding what to do with RICHARDS and

Defendant Assistant Police Chief DOLUNT stated that RICHARDS and

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 7 of 23

RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI were arrested and taken to the Detroit

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

RICHARDS and MALINOWSKI retained a criminal defense attorney to

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

The criminal case against MALINOWSKIs was dismissed after a term of

and prepared to go to trial.

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 8 of 23

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

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

as if fully set forth herein.

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

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

2:15-cv-12211-LVP-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 9 of 23

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

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

and BRANNOCK, directly violated MALINOWSKIs right to freedom of speech by stopping