United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division

Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BERNARD YOUNG,
Plaintiff, Case No.

v. Hon.
SHELLEY FOY, individually and in

her official capacity as a public safety
officer; and CITY OF DETROIT, a
municipal corporation;
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)

EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, Michigan 48033
(866) 939-2656
sradner@excololaw.com
_________________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COME the Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, by and through his
attorneys, SOLOMON M. RADNER and EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, and files his
Complaint against the Defendants in this civil action, stating unto this court as
follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 1988, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution against Defendants, SHELLEY FOY, in her individual

Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 2 of 21 Pg ID.2
capacity, and in her official capacity as a public safety officer, and CITY OF
DETROIT, a municipal corporation.
2. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims presented
in this Complaint based upon the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1343.
3. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand
($75,000.00) Dollars, excluding interest, costs and attorney fees.
4. The unlawful actions alleged in this Complaint took place within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
5. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and based on the situs of the incident, which occurred in the
City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
6. At all pertinent times Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, was a United
States citizen, domiciled in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of
Michigan.
7. At all pertinent times, Defendant, SHELLEY FOY (FOY), was
employed as a Sergeant by the Detroit Police Department (DPD), a department
of the CITY OF DETROIT (DETROIT), and was acting under color of law.
8. At all pertinent times, DETROIT was a municipal corporation
formed under the laws of the State of Michigan, and was the employer of FOY.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
-2-
9. In 1988, Anthony and Thomas Tadlock lived with their mother,
Linda Tadlock, their sister, Lakeisha Clark, and their mothers boyfriend,
William Clark. Early that year, Anthony, who was six (6) years old, and Thomas,
who was five (5), started acting out at home and in school.
10. Later that year, Linda Tadlock made a disturbing discovery: she
found the boys performing oral sex on each other in their bedroom. Concerned
by the boys behavior, Linda Tadlock called the Childrens Center in Detroit and
had the boys attend counseling on an out-patient basis. The counseling proved
ineffective, and Anthony and Thomas were referred to the Aurora Hospital for
residential treatment, Anthony was admitted to the hospital on July 19, 1988, and
Thomas was admitted on September 2, 1988.
11. One of Anthony and Thomass primary caretakers at the Aurora
hospital was a clinical in-patient therapist named Margareta Olsson. Ms. Olsson
began suspecting the boys had been sexually abused when she saw them
performing sexual acts with dolls. Ms. Olsson immediately asked the boys
whether they had been sexually abused, but they both denied any abuse. Later, on
April 7, 1989, Anthony and Thomas told Margareta Olsson they had been
sexually abused by Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG (hereinafter Mr. Young).
12. Ms. Olsson contacted the police, and the Detroit Police Department
initiated an investigation. Defendant Sergeant SHELLEY FOY of the Detroit
Police Department was assigned as officer in charge of the investigation into the
alleged abuse by Mr. Young. On April 14, 1989, Defendant FOY interviewed
-3-
Anthony and Thomas at the Aurora Hospital and took written statements from
them. In his statement, Anthony told Defendant FOY that Mr. Young used to
babysit him and Thomas when their mother was at work and their mothers
boyfriend, William Clark, was at the store. He told her that one-day Mr. Young
didnt babysit us right.
13. According to Anthony, they were sitting on the couch waiting for
William Clark to come home when Mr. Young came in, pulled his pants down,
and told them to suck his penis. He also told Defendant FOY that Mr. Young
sucked his penis, told him to suck Thomass penis, told Thomas to suck his penis,
and told Thomas to put his penis into his butt. Anthony stated he was six (6) years
old when Mr. Young allegedly did these things to him.
14. Thomas described similar sexual abuse allegedly by Mr. Young in
his written statement to Defendant FOY. Thomas stated that Mr. Young sucked
his penis, put his penis in his behind, put his penis into Anthonys mouth, and put
his penis into Anthonys behind. He also stated that Mr. Young made him put his
penis into Anthonys mouth and into Anthonys behind. According to Thomas,
he was five (5) years old when Mr. Young allegedly did these things to him.
15. On April 16, 1989, Defendant FOY conducted a live line-up at a
Detroit Police station. There was a total of 7 people in the line-up, including Mr.
Young and his brother, Baxter Young, who lived next door to the Tadlock boys.
William Clark was not in the line-up. Anthony Tadlock identified Mr. Young out
of the line-up as his abuser. Thomas Tadlock did not identify Mr. Young or
-4-
Braxter Young as his abuse, but rather identified someone else.
16. On April 18, 1989, Mr. Young was charged with 10 counts of first
degree criminal sexual conduct and 6 counts of second degree criminal sexual
conduct for the alleged sexual abuse of Anthony and Thomas Tadlock, which,
according to the criminal complaint, occurred between January 1, 1988, and July
1, 1988. Kelly Ramsey of the Wayne County Prosecutors Child Abuse Unit was
assigned as the assistant prosecutor on the case. On April 27, 1989; a preliminary
examination was held in the 36th District Court, and the district court bound Mr.
Young over to the Detroit Recorders Court on 7 counts of first degree criminal
sexual conduct. The remaining counts were dismissed.
17. About one week after Mr. Youngs preliminary examination,
Anthony and Thomas told Margareta Olsson that they had been sexually abused
by their mothers boyfriend, William Clark. Ms. Olsson once again contacted the
Detroit Police, and the Detroit Police initiated an investigation into the alleged
sexual abuse by William Clark. Defendant FOY was also assigned as officer in
charge of this investigation. On May 17, 1989, Defendant FOY interviewed
Anthony and Thomas and took statements from them about the alleged abuse by
William Clark. These statements and the fact that the boys had accused William
Clark of sexual abuse were never disclosed by Defendant FOY to Mr. Young
before his trial.
18. Mr. Youngs case proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Michael
Talbot of the Detroit Recorders Court on August 4, 1989. The prosecution called
-5-
a total of four (4) witnesses at trial, Anthony Tadlock, Thomas Tadlock, Linda
Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson. Anthony testified that when he used to live on
Hendricks Street, Mr. Young, who lived nearby, would babysit him and his
brother while his mom was at work and William Clark was not home. He stated
bad things would happen when Mr. Young babysat them. According to Anthony,
Mr. Young touched his penis, sucked his penis, and made him put his penis where
Mr. Young sat. He also stated Mr. Young put his penis where he sat and told him
to suck Mr. Youngs penis.
19. Anthony further stated that Mr. Young forced him to suck his
brothers penis and forced him to put his penis where his brother sat. According
to Anthony, Mr. Young did these things to him the previous summer, before he
went to the hospital. On cross-examination, Anthony acknowledged William
Clark had hit him but stated he was not afraid to go home to William Clark.
Neither the prosecution nor Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel asked Anthony if
it was William Clark who had sexually abused him or whether he had also
accused William Clark of the sexual abuse.
20. Thomas also testified that Mr. Young used to babysit him and his
brother when they lived on Hendricks and that bad things would happen when
Mr. Young babysat them. He stated that Mr. Young put his penis where Thomas
sat and made Thomas suck his and Anthonys private parts. He stated that Mr.
Young did these things to him before he went to the hospital, when he was five
(5) years old. Thomas identified Mr. Young at trial, but had difficulty doing so.
-6-
On re-cross, Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel impeached Thomas with his
failure to identify Mr. Young at the line-up.
21. Again, neither the prosecution nor Mr. Youngs criminal trial
counsel asked Thomas whether it was William Clark who had sexually abused
him or whether he had also accused William Clark or anyone else of the sexual
abuse.
22. Linda Tadlock testified that in 1988 she lived on Hendricks Street
in Detroit with her boyfriend, William Clark, her daughter, Lakeisha Clark, and
her sons, Anthony and Thomas. She stated that when she went to work she would
leave her children with William Clark and that to her knowledge, no one but
William Clark babysat Anthony and Thomas. She did, however, state that the
boys had told her that either Baxter or Bernard Young had been babysitting them.
Linda Tadlock also stated that William Clark had physically abused Anthony and
Thomas, using quite a bit of force.
23. After the prosecution rested, Mr. Youngs trial counsel moved for
a directed verdict on all counts. Judge Talbot granted the motion for count 7, first
degree criminal sexual conduct against Anthony Tadlock, but denied the motion
for the remaining counts. Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel called two
witnesses, Braxter Young and Mr. Young himself.
24. Braxter Young testified that he lived next door to William Clark
and Linda Tadlock, that he was close friends with William Clark, and that he
would go to their house practically every day. He also stated that to his knowledge
-7-
his brother Bernard never babysat Anthony and Thomas, but that he himself had
babysat the boys between January 1988 and July 1988. He further testified that
Berndard Young did not have any interaction with Linda Tadlock or William
Clark after an incident that occurred in 1986 in which Clark alleged to Braxter
that Bernard Young had stolen something from him. Braxter Young additionally
testified that Bernard Young moved away at some point prior to January of 1988
and lived with his wife on the west side of Detroit during the entire time the
alleged sexual abuse took place.
25. Bernard Young testified that he used to live in a red and white house
on Hendricks Street, across the street from William Clark and Linda Tadlock. He
stated that he and his wife moved away from that house during the fall of 1987
and that he did not visit the home of William and Linda Tadlock between January
1, 1988, and July of 1988 because William Clark had accused him of breaking
into his house. He further testified that he never babysat Anthony and Thomas,
and he vehemently denied any sexual abuse whatsoever. At the conclusion of
trial, Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel argued Anthony and Thomas had falsely
accused Mr. Young because they were afraid of leaving the hospital and returning
to William Clark, who had physically abused them. Judge Talbot ultimately
rejected trial counsels theory and found Mr. Young guilty of 6 counts of first
degree criminal sexual conduct.
26. On September 8, 1989, Judge Talbot sentenced Mr. Young to
consecutive terms of 60 to 100 years imprisonment for each count of first degree
-8-
criminal sexual conduct.
27. On November 11, 1989, about two (2) months after Bernard Young
was sentenced, William Clark was charged with eight (8) counts of first degree
criminal sexual conduct for the sexual abuse of Anthony and Thomas Tadlock
which, according to the complaint, occurred between January 1988 and July
1988. Charges were brought against William Clark based on the evidence that
Defendant FOY had obtained and failed to disclose to Mr. Young. Kelley
Ramsey, who prosecuted Mr. Young, was also assigned as the prosecutor on the
William Clark case. On December 4, 1989, a preliminary examination was held
in the 36th District Court. At the conclusion of the examination, William Clark
was bound over to the Detroit Recorders Court, where his case was assigned to
Judge M. John Shamo.
28. On August 16, 1990, William Clark pled guilty to two counts of
second degree child abuse against Anthony and Thomas Tadlock. On September
26, 1990, Judge Shamo sentenced William Clark to three years probation, with
the last six months to be served in the Wayne County Jail. All of the criminal
sexual conduct charges were dismissed.
29. Mr. Young appealed his convictions and sentences by right. On
February 24, 1992, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants
convictions but remanded for resentencing because Judge Talbot had not
articulated the reasons why he departed from the sentencing guidelines and had
not completed a written sentence departure statement. At Mr. Youngs
-9-
resentencing on April 29, 1992, Judge Talbot imposed the same sentence of 60 to
100 years imprisonment for each count of first degree criminal sexual conduct.
Judge Talbot also completed the sentence departure form.
30. Mr. Young once again appealed his sentences, and on October 17,
1995, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Mr. Young filed a delayed application for
leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Michigan Supreme Court
denied the application on October 29, 1996. Mr. Youngs case was eventually
assigned to Judge Deborah Thomas. On August 22, 2003, Mr. Young filed a
motion for relief from judgment. On September 21, 2004, Judge Thomas denied
that motion. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Young filed a second motion for relief
from judgment. On April 2, 2010, Judge Thomas denied that motion. On April
11, 2011, Mr. Youngs case was reassigned from Judge Thomas to Judge Edward
Ewell, Jr. On January 2, 2014, Mr. Youngs case was reassigned from Judge
Ewell, Jr., to Judge Qiana Lillard.
31. On May 11, 2016, Mr. Young filed a third motion for relief from
judgment, claiming (1) there was newly discovered evidence that exonerates him;
(2) the prosecution and Defendant FOY suppressed evidence in violation of his
right to due process; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (4)
there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
32. In support of his motion, Mr. Young attached an affidavit of Linda
Parker (formerly Linda Tadlock), an affidavit from Anthony Tadlock dated May
4, 2015, and an affidavit from Thomas Tadlock dated April 4, 2013. In their
- 10 -
affidavits, Anthony and Thomas state they falsely accused Mr. Young because
they were afraid of their real abuser, William Clark who had threatened to kill
them both if they told the truth.
33. The trial court held evidentiary hearings on three days, September
22, 2016, October 28, 2016, and November 21, 2016, during which the Court
heard testimony from eight (8) witnesses, Linda Parker, Thomas Tadlock, H.J.
Corvin, Mary Novrocki, Claudia Whitman, Joyce Holman, Kelly Ramsey, and
Defendant FOY.
34. At the September 22, 2016 hearing, Thomas Tadlock testified, as
he stated in his affidavit, that he falsely accused the Defendant because he was
afraid of William Clark, who was now deceased. At the time of the hearings,
Anthony Tadlock resided in Florida. Despite efforts to have Anthony participate
via video conference, Anthony was either unwilling or unable to participate.
35. At the October 28, 2016, hearing, non-redacted copies of the police
jackets from Bernard Young and William Clarks criminal cases were admitted
as exhibits. The police jacket for the William Clark case includes an illegible
investigators report, two (2) preliminary complaint records (police reports)
completed by Officer Marlene Jacobson, a preliminary complaint record
completed by Officer Keith Henderson, a constitutional rights form for William
Clark dated November 10, 1989, two polygraph examination reports for William
Clark, a written statement taken from Lakeisha Clark on November 9, 1989, and
the written statements Defendant FOY took from Anthony Tadlock, Thomas
- 11 -
Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson on May 17, 1989. Of particular relevance here
are the preliminary complaint records completed by Officer Marlene Jacobson
and the written statements Defendant FOY took from Anthony Tadlock, Thomas
Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson.
36. The first preliminary complaint record of Officer Marlene Jacobson
states the following: DESC: William Clark B/M/45 D.O.B 03-31-43 3648
Hendricks Not In Custody Complts Stated that the Def-While Babysitting them
would force them to perform fellatio and would insert his penis into their anus.
The preliminary complaint record indicated the complainants were Anthony and
Thomas Tadlock, the offenses occurred between July 1, 1987 and July 19, 1988,
and the abuse was reported to the police on May 8, 1989.
37. The trial court ultimately entered an Opinion and Order granting
Mr. Youngs Motion for Relief from Judgment on February 3, 2017 based on two
extremely exculpatory pieces of evidence that were suppressed by Defendants
until several years after Mr. Young was wrongfully convicted. Namely: (1)
Affidavits signed by the victims indicating that Mr. Young did not sexually abuse
them but that ONLY their step-father, William Clark did; and (2) written police
statements taken from the victims prior to the 1989 trial but never made available
to Mr. Young or his attorneys until August 2016 these victim statements
implicate William Clark, thereby supporting the affidavits recently signed by the
victims.
38. On November 9, 2017, in an unpublished opinion, the Michigan
- 12 -
Court of Appeals Affirmed the circuit courts decision to grant Mr. Youngs third
motion for relief from judgment.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and omissions
of Defendant FOY and the CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff sustained damages.
40. Defendant FOY, as a sworn police officer, had taken an oath, the
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, that stated, in pertinent part: As a sworn police
officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and
property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression
or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the
constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.
41. Defendant FOY, knowing that overwhelming exculpatory evidence
existed before Mr. Youngs criminal trial, conspired with CITY OF DETROIT
Police Department members and/or prosecutor(s) to suppress the exculpatory
evidence and ensure that Mr. Young, an innocent man, was sentenced to 60 to
100 years imprisonment.
42. Defendant FOY, an experienced, well-trained police officer who
took an oath to protect citizens constitutional rights, conspired to knowingly
deprive Mr. Young of his constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment, which
guarantees [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation
- 13 -
43. Defendants FOY and CITY OF DETROIT knew their decision to
suppress exculpatory evidence from Mr. Young ran afoul to the United States
Supreme Courts recognition of the fundamental value determination of our
society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go
free. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 372; 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1077; 25 L.Ed.2d 368
(1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). See also T. Starkie, Evidence 956 (1824) (The
maxim of the law is that it is better that ninety-nine offenders should escape,
than one innocent man should be condemned).
44. FOY also made a conscious, knowing, and intentional choice not to
reveal exculpatory evidence to Mr. Young or to urge the prosecution to redirect
its focus from Mr. Young to William Clark.
45. Prosecutor Kelly Ramsey had a constitutional Brady obligation
to provide Mr. Young with the exculpatory evidence Defendant FOY obtained.
46. Defendant FOY either did not bring the exculpatory evidence to
Prosecutor Kellys attention, or FOY conspired with prosecutors to suppress the
evidence from Mr. Young.
47. Since Defendant FOY knew that the written statements she took
from Anthony Tadlock, Thomas Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson on May 17, 1989
definitively proved that Mr. Young was an innocent man, FOY made a conscious,
knowing, and intentional and/or reckless choice to ensure the statements were not
revealed to Mr. Young before his trial.
48. But for Defendants conduct, there would have been no probable
- 14 -
cause for Mr. Young to be charged with criminal sexual conduct.
49. As a result of Defendants conduct Mr. Young spent 27 years and
179 days wrongfully imprisoned for a crime he did not commit.
DETROITS CUSTOMS AND POLICIES THAT LED TO PLAINTIFFS

WRONGFUL CONVICTION
50. In and before April 18, 1989, the date Mr. Young was charged with
10 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct and 6 counts of second degree
criminal sexual conduct, the City of Detroit, by and through its policymakers, had
a custom and policy to authorize, condone, tolerate and approve illegal and
unconstitutional actions by Detroit Police Department officers and command
staff.
51. The illegal and unconstitutional actions and practices included but
were not limited to:
a. Conducting inadequate investigations into serious felony cases, such

as criminal sexual conduct, in order to expeditiously close cases, and
affirmatively choosing not to develop or pursue actual leads or
evidence;
b. Knowingly and deliberately suppressing and/or fabricating evidence
in order to manufacture probable cause to arrest and/or strengthen a
case for conviction;
c. Knowingly and deliberately choosing not to conduct formal tests and
identification procedures because investigators knew that the results
would contradict evidence against their target suspect.
52. Defendant, DETROIT, through its policymakers, further maintained
a custom and policy of failing to adequately train, supervise, and/or discipline
officers concerning proper and constitutionally adequate evidence collection,
- 15 -
analysis, and disclosure, including their duty not to suppress evidence and to
disclose apparent exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
53. DETROITs customs and policies, set forth above, demonstrated
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens, including
Bernard Young, and were the moving force behind Defendant FOYs
constitutional violations.
54. Due to the conduct of Defendants FOY and DETROIT, as set forth
below, Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, suffered the following injuries and
damages:
a. Suffering a deprivation of liberty by being wrongfully incarcerated

and imprisoned for a period of over twenty-seven years;
b. Severe emotional distress for the period from his arrest to the
present, including, but not limited to: the emotional distress of being
charged with 10 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct and
6 counts of second degree criminal sexual conduct, facing a sentence
of 60- to 100-years in prison; and being wrongfully convicted of
crimes the Defendants knew he did not commit;
c. Physical manifestations of emotional distress including, but not
limited to, sleeplessness, irritability, loss of appetite, headaches, and
other symptoms;
d. Fright, shock, indignity, humiliation, outrage, indignity and
embarrassment of being wrongfully charged and imprisoned for
criminal sexual conduct;
e. Loss of enjoyment of daily activities including, but not limited to,
seeing his children grow up;
f. Not being able to attend the funerals of family members, including
his beloved wife;
g. Physical injuries suffered in prison;
h. Loss of employment opportunity, past income and future earning
capacity;
- 16 -
i. Loss of his close relationship with his minor children;

j. Restricted and/or complete loss of all forms of personal freedom and
physical liberty, including but not limited to diet, sleep, personal
contact, educational opportunity, vocational opportunity, personal
fulfillment, sexual activity, family relations, recreational activities,
and personal expression;
k. Many of Plaintiffs injuries and damages are likely to be permanent;
l. Other damages which may be revealed through discovery.
55. Due to the conduct of Defendants, FOY and DETROIT, as set forth
below, the true child abuser, William Clark, was never adequately convicted and
retained his freedom while Mr. Young spent over 27 years in prison.
COUNT I
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY ALL DEFENDANTS
56. Plaintiff incorporates herein all the prior allegations.
57. Defendant FOY was under an unwavering legal duty (Brady duty)
to disclose to the prosecutors all material evidence where its exculpatory and
impeachment value was apparent, including, but not limited to, the evidence that
she willingly suppressed, revealing that William Clark not Bernard Young
committed the criminal sexual conduct. Defendant FOYs failure to disclose the
above-referenced evidence to the prosecutor, or Defendant FOYs conspiracy
with the prosecutor to keep the evidence suppressed, resulted in material
exculpatory and impeachment evidence not being turned over to Plaintiffs
defense counsel, in violation of the States Brady obligations.
- 17 -
58. Defendant FOY was under a further duty to make truthful statements
to the prosecutor and magistrate judge to establish probable cause for an arrest
warrant.
59. Defendant FOY was under a further duty to make truthful statements
in the investigative reports she knew would go to the prosecutor to establish
probable cause for an arrest warrant.
60. Defendant FOY violated BERNARD YOUNGS constitutionally-
protected rights, including his right to liberty protected by the Due Process clause
of the Fifth Amendment, as applicable to the States via the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment, as well as his right to be free from continued unlawful
detention without probable cause as a result of suppressed evidence, guaranteed
by the Fourth Amendment, by the following conduct:
Brady Violations
Defendant FOY deliberately and knowingly, or with reckless disregard

for the truth, chose not to disclose material exculpatory and
impeachment evidence in her files to the prosecutor in violation of her
constitutional obligation under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963)
and its progeny, which would have resulted in no arrest warrant being
issued, or a finding of lack of probable cause at the preliminary exam
or an acquittal at trial; such conduct constitutes a claim for a Brady
violation under the Fifth Amendment;
Malicious Prosecution
Defendant FOY influenced or participated in the initiation of criminal

prosecution when she deliberately and knowingly supplied false
- 18 -
evidence by suppressing written statements which revealed that

William Clark committed the crimes which Bernard Young was
charged with, and supplied false information and/or omitted material
information which showed a reckless disregard for the truth in
requesting an arrest warrant and swearing to facts in support of probable
cause, which was material to a finding of probable cause. Such conduct
constitutes a claim of federal malicious prosecution under the Fourth
Amendment;
Fabrication of Evidence
Defendant FOY deliberately and knowingly presented fabricated

evidence to create probable cause, including written statements
implicating Bernard Young after receiving information proving those
statements false. The fabricated evidence was material to a finding of
probable cause that Plaintiff had engaged in criminal sexual conduct,
and would otherwise have been lacking; such conduct constitutes a
claim of fabrication of evidence under the Fourth Amendment;
Detroits Monell Liability
Defendant, DETROIT, created policies, practices and customs,

including a failure to provide adequate training to its police officers,
including Defendant FOY, in the manner set forth above, which
demonstrated deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its
citizens, and was the moving force behind Defendant FOYs violation
of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
61. Bernard Youngs right not to be deprived of liberty based upon
fabrication of evidence by a government official acting in an investigatory
capacity was clearly established before 1989.
62. Bernard Youngs right to be provided with material exculpatory and
impeachment evidence (Brady evidence), was clearly established before 1989.
63. Bernard Youngs right not to be seized and continuously detained
without probable cause, based upon a police officers deliberate and knowing
suppression of exculpatory evidence, advancement of false evidence, and false

- 19 -
statements and/or material omissions to prosecutors and magistrate judges,
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, was clearly established before 1989.
64. Defendant FOYs Brady violations resulted in Plaintiff not receiving
a fair trial, described as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Kyles
v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995).
65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants willful violations
of his constitutionally-protected rights, Plaintiff was detained without probable
cause, charged with crimes he did not commit, wrongfully convicted and
imprisoned for over 27 years, and deprived of his liberty, causing him to suffer
the injuries and damages set forth above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, demands judgment and
prays for the following relief, jointly and severally, against all Defendants:
a. Full and fair compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by

a jury;
b. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;
c. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action; and
d. Any such other relief as appears just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
- 20 -
Respectfully submitted,
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC

By: /S/ Solomon M. Radner
SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)
Attorney for Plaintiff
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, Michigan 48033
Dated: December 13, 2017 (866) 939-2656
- 21 -

United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division

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

United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, Case No.

SHELLEY FOY, individually and in

SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COME the Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, by and through his

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983

States Constitution against Defendants, SHELLEY FOY, in her individual

DETROIT, a municipal corporation.

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims presented

1331 and 1343.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand

($75,000.00) Dollars, excluding interest, costs and attorney fees.

5. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to

City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.

6. At all pertinent times Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, was a United

States citizen, domiciled in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of

7. At all pertinent times, Defendant, SHELLEY FOY (FOY), was

employed as a Sergeant by the Detroit Police Department (DPD), a department

8. At all pertinent times, DETROIT was a municipal corporation

9. In 1988, Anthony and Thomas Tadlock lived with their mother,

Thomas was admitted on September 2, 1988.

11. One of Anthony and Thomass primary caretakers at the Aurora

sexually abused by Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG (hereinafter Mr. Young).

initiated an investigation. Defendant Sergeant SHELLEY FOY of the Detroit

didnt babysit us right.

old when Mr. Young allegedly did these things to him.

14. Thomas described similar sexual abuse allegedly by Mr. Young in

15. On April 16, 1989, Defendant FOY conducted a live line-up at a

Braxter Young as his abuse, but rather identified someone else.

sexual conduct. The remaining counts were dismissed.

17. About one week after Mr. Youngs preliminary examination,

charge of this investigation. On May 17, 1989, Defendant FOY interviewed

before his trial.

to suck Mr. Youngs penis.

went to the hospital. On cross-examination, Anthony acknowledged William

accused William Clark of the sexual abuse.

failure to identify Mr. Young at the line-up.

Thomas, using quite a bit of force.

witnesses, Braxter Young and Mr. Young himself.

alleged sexual abuse took place.

and he vehemently denied any sexual abuse whatsoever. At the conclusion of

degree criminal sexual conduct.

26. On September 8, 1989, Judge Talbot sentenced Mr. Young to

criminal sexual conduct.

William Clark case. On December 4, 1989, a preliminary examination was held

Judge M. John Shamo.

sexual conduct charges were dismissed.

29. Mr. Young appealed his convictions and sentences by right. On

February 24, 1992, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants

not completed a written sentence departure statement. At Mr. Youngs

Judge Talbot also completed the sentence departure form.

Ewell, Jr., to Judge Qiana Lillard.

there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.

32. In support of his motion, Mr. Young attached an affidavit of Linda

them both if they told the truth.

34. At the September 22, 2016 hearing, Thomas Tadlock testified, as

Anthony Tadlock resided in Florida. Despite efforts to have Anthony participate

via video conference, Anthony was either unwilling or unable to participate.

investigators report, two (2) preliminary complaint records (police reports)

completed by Officer Marlene Jacobson, a preliminary complaint record