Haman J.T.
New member
I would also recommend keeping it in the public eye(news-paper/tv etc.) as much as possible to educate our fellow citizens! CARRY ON Sean!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Sean combs lawsuit
- Thread starter ken243
- Start date
Small_Arms_Collector
Regular Member
Small_Arms_Collector
Regular Member
Same here, I wouldn't have gone for less than 10,000,000.
Lawsuit documents
This is the actual lawsuit filed. From what I gather is he is going over $75k. Sorry had to copy and paste....
SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM,
a municipal corporation,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT,
in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS,
in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally,
Defendants. ________________________________________/ Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net ________________________________________/
Case No. Hon.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby complains against the above-named Defendants as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1) This is an action for monetary damages brought by the Plaintiff, Sean Combs (“Mr.
1
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 2
Combs”), against the above-named Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 1988.
2) This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Combs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.
3) Venue is properly brought in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the
Defendants all reside in, and the claims all arose in, the Eastern District of Michigan.
4) The amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive
of costs, interest, and attorney fees.
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS
5) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
6) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Combs was and is a resident of the State of
Michigan.
7) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Birmingham was and is an
organized municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.
8) At all times relevant to this Complaint, the City of Birmingham Police Department was
and is a subdivision and/or department of the City of Birmingham.
9) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant Michael Albrecht
(“Defendant Albrecht”), Defendant Police Officer Rebekah Springer (“Defendant Springer”), and Defendant Police Officer Gina Potts (“Defendant Potts”), collectively (“Defendant Police Officers”), were employees of the City of Birmingham through the City of Birmingham Police Department.
10) All Defendant Police Officers were acting within the scope and course of their employment and under color of law.
11) All Defendant Police Officers are being sued in their individual and official capacities.
2
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 3
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
13) The incident complained of in this lawsuit occurred on or about April 13, 2012 in the
City of Birmingham, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
14) On that date Mr. Combs and his girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, were walking on South Old
Woodward Avenue in Birmingham, MI.
15) Mr. Combs was exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by openly
carrying a vintage rifle on his back.
16) Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old, and met all other legal requirements to possess
and openly carry a firearm in the State of Michigan.
17) Mr. Combs was stopped while walking on South Old Woodward Avenue by Defendant
Springer and Defendant Potts, who were on duty and in full Birmingham Police uniform.
18) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts stopped and detained Mr. Combs against his
will, and demanded that he provide identification.
19) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts called for their supervisor, Defendant Albrecht,
to come to the scene.
20) Defendant Albrecht arrived on the scene and also demanded that Mr. Combs provide
identification.
21) Defendant Albrecht became loud and belligerent, and threatened Mr. Combs with arrest.
22) Mr. Combs complied with the Defendant Police Officers’ request to provide his
identification.
23) Mr. Combs took his Michigan driver’s license out of his wallet and handed it to
Defendant Springer.
3
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 4
24) After Mr. Combs provided his identification to Defendant Springer, Defendant Albrecht immediately arrested and handcuffed Mr. Combs, confiscated his rifle, and placed him in the back seat of a police car.
25) Defendant Springer informed Defendant Albrecht that Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old.
26) Defendant Albrecht nevertheless ordered that Mr. Combs be taken to the Birmingham Police Department and jailed.
27) Mr. Combs was booked and locked in a jail cell for several hours before posting bond.
28) Mr. Combs did not commit any crime, and the Defendant Police Officers did not have
probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime.
29) Based upon the actions of the Defendant Police Officers and the information they
provided to the Birmingham City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Combs was charged with violating the following Birmingham City ordinances: brandishing a firearm (Section 74- 211), breach of the peace (Section 74-156), and resisting a police officer (Section 74-27).
30) Defendant Police Officers provided knowingly false testimony against Mr. Combs at his
jury trial in the 48th District Court.
31) Specifically, the Defendant Police Officers falsely testified that Mr. Combs never
provided his identification to them, and that he was acting in a loud and unruly manner.
32) At the close of the city attorney’s case 48th District Court Judge Marc Barron directed a
verdict of not guilty on the charge of obstructing a police officer.
33) The jury thereafter acquitted Mr. Combs of the remaining two charges of brandishing a
firearm and disturbing the peace.
4
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 5
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Arrest
34) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
35) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false arrest, as guaranteed by Amendments IV and
XIV of the United States Constitution, by arresting him without probable cause to
believe that he had committed any crime; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as
guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Imprisonment
36) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
37) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false imprisonment, as guaranteed by Amendments
IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by unlawfully imprisoning him against
his will and without probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as
5
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 6
guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution
38) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
39) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from a malicious prosecution, as guaranteed by
Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by causing criminal proceedings to be initiated against him without probable cause to believe that he committed a crime, and by providing false testimony against him at trial; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Second Amendment Violation
40) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
41) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
6
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 7
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendments II and XIV of
the United States Constitution; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as
guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Municipal Liability
42) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of improperly training, re-training, instructing, supervising, disciplining, and/or allowing its police officers to enforce ordinances and state law without regard to the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.
43) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of inadequately and improperly investigating complaints of police misconduct when it was known or apparent to the City of Birmingham that its police officers have violated the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals in the manner complained of in this lawsuit.
44) Due to the above-described practices, policies, and/or customs, acts of police misconduct were tolerated by the City of Birmingham, and its police officers believed that they were
7
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 8
free to perform their duties without regard to the rights of individuals and without fear of
any consequences or discipline.
45) The above-described practices, policies, and/or customs demonstrate deliberate
indifference by the City of Birmingham towards the rights of individuals in general, and
Mr. Combs in particular.
46) The above-described practices, policies, customs, and deliberate indifference of the City
of Birmingham were the moving force that directly and proximately caused Mr. Combs’ damages.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
DAMAGES
47) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
48) As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of all Defendants as stated
within this Complaint, Mr. Combs suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to:
a. Loss of liberty and cherished constitutional rights;
b. Emotional distress, humiliation, outrage, indignity, anguish, and shock;
c. Unwanted and offensive physical contact;
d. Damage to his reputation;
e. Lost wages;
f. Attorney fees and costs;
g. Other damages currently unascertainable.
8
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 9
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
49) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and
severally, for compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net
Dated: October 12, 2012
9
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 10
SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM,
a municipal corporation,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT,
in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS,
in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally,
Defendants. ________________________________________/ Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net ________________________________________/
Case No. Hon.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
10
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH
Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 11
Dated: October 12, 2012
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340 Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696 mattkolo@comcast.net
This is the actual lawsuit filed. From what I gather is he is going over $75k. Sorry had to copy and paste....
SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM,
a municipal corporation,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT,
in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS,
in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally,
Defendants. ________________________________________/ Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net ________________________________________/
Case No. Hon.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby complains against the above-named Defendants as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1) This is an action for monetary damages brought by the Plaintiff, Sean Combs (“Mr.
1
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 2
Combs”), against the above-named Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 1988.
2) This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Combs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.
3) Venue is properly brought in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the
Defendants all reside in, and the claims all arose in, the Eastern District of Michigan.
4) The amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive
of costs, interest, and attorney fees.
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS
5) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
6) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Combs was and is a resident of the State of
Michigan.
7) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Birmingham was and is an
organized municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.
8) At all times relevant to this Complaint, the City of Birmingham Police Department was
and is a subdivision and/or department of the City of Birmingham.
9) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant Michael Albrecht
(“Defendant Albrecht”), Defendant Police Officer Rebekah Springer (“Defendant Springer”), and Defendant Police Officer Gina Potts (“Defendant Potts”), collectively (“Defendant Police Officers”), were employees of the City of Birmingham through the City of Birmingham Police Department.
10) All Defendant Police Officers were acting within the scope and course of their employment and under color of law.
11) All Defendant Police Officers are being sued in their individual and official capacities.
2
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 3
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
13) The incident complained of in this lawsuit occurred on or about April 13, 2012 in the
City of Birmingham, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
14) On that date Mr. Combs and his girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, were walking on South Old
Woodward Avenue in Birmingham, MI.
15) Mr. Combs was exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by openly
carrying a vintage rifle on his back.
16) Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old, and met all other legal requirements to possess
and openly carry a firearm in the State of Michigan.
17) Mr. Combs was stopped while walking on South Old Woodward Avenue by Defendant
Springer and Defendant Potts, who were on duty and in full Birmingham Police uniform.
18) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts stopped and detained Mr. Combs against his
will, and demanded that he provide identification.
19) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts called for their supervisor, Defendant Albrecht,
to come to the scene.
20) Defendant Albrecht arrived on the scene and also demanded that Mr. Combs provide
identification.
21) Defendant Albrecht became loud and belligerent, and threatened Mr. Combs with arrest.
22) Mr. Combs complied with the Defendant Police Officers’ request to provide his
identification.
23) Mr. Combs took his Michigan driver’s license out of his wallet and handed it to
Defendant Springer.
3
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 4
24) After Mr. Combs provided his identification to Defendant Springer, Defendant Albrecht immediately arrested and handcuffed Mr. Combs, confiscated his rifle, and placed him in the back seat of a police car.
25) Defendant Springer informed Defendant Albrecht that Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old.
26) Defendant Albrecht nevertheless ordered that Mr. Combs be taken to the Birmingham Police Department and jailed.
27) Mr. Combs was booked and locked in a jail cell for several hours before posting bond.
28) Mr. Combs did not commit any crime, and the Defendant Police Officers did not have
probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime.
29) Based upon the actions of the Defendant Police Officers and the information they
provided to the Birmingham City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Combs was charged with violating the following Birmingham City ordinances: brandishing a firearm (Section 74- 211), breach of the peace (Section 74-156), and resisting a police officer (Section 74-27).
30) Defendant Police Officers provided knowingly false testimony against Mr. Combs at his
jury trial in the 48th District Court.
31) Specifically, the Defendant Police Officers falsely testified that Mr. Combs never
provided his identification to them, and that he was acting in a loud and unruly manner.
32) At the close of the city attorney’s case 48th District Court Judge Marc Barron directed a
verdict of not guilty on the charge of obstructing a police officer.
33) The jury thereafter acquitted Mr. Combs of the remaining two charges of brandishing a
firearm and disturbing the peace.
4
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 5
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Arrest
34) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
35) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false arrest, as guaranteed by Amendments IV and
XIV of the United States Constitution, by arresting him without probable cause to
believe that he had committed any crime; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as
guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Imprisonment
36) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
37) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false imprisonment, as guaranteed by Amendments
IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by unlawfully imprisoning him against
his will and without probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as
5
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 6
guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution
38) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
39) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from a malicious prosecution, as guaranteed by
Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by causing criminal proceedings to be initiated against him without probable cause to believe that he committed a crime, and by providing false testimony against him at trial; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Second Amendment Violation
40) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
41) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and
6
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 7
intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:
a. Mr. Combs’ right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendments II and XIV of
the United States Constitution; and
b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as
guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Municipal Liability
42) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of improperly training, re-training, instructing, supervising, disciplining, and/or allowing its police officers to enforce ordinances and state law without regard to the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.
43) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of inadequately and improperly investigating complaints of police misconduct when it was known or apparent to the City of Birmingham that its police officers have violated the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals in the manner complained of in this lawsuit.
44) Due to the above-described practices, policies, and/or customs, acts of police misconduct were tolerated by the City of Birmingham, and its police officers believed that they were
7
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 8
free to perform their duties without regard to the rights of individuals and without fear of
any consequences or discipline.
45) The above-described practices, policies, and/or customs demonstrate deliberate
indifference by the City of Birmingham towards the rights of individuals in general, and
Mr. Combs in particular.
46) The above-described practices, policies, customs, and deliberate indifference of the City
of Birmingham were the moving force that directly and proximately caused Mr. Combs’ damages.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory
and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
DAMAGES
47) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
48) As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of all Defendants as stated
within this Complaint, Mr. Combs suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to:
a. Loss of liberty and cherished constitutional rights;
b. Emotional distress, humiliation, outrage, indignity, anguish, and shock;
c. Unwanted and offensive physical contact;
d. Damage to his reputation;
e. Lost wages;
f. Attorney fees and costs;
g. Other damages currently unascertainable.
8
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 9
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
49) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and
severally, for compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net
Dated: October 12, 2012
9
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 10
SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM,
a municipal corporation,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT,
in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS,
in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally,
Defendants. ________________________________________/ Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net ________________________________________/
Case No. Hon.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
10
2:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH
Doc # 1 Filed 10/12/12 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 11
Dated: October 12, 2012
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340 Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696 mattkolo@comcast.net
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/arti...cops_and_courts/doc4ffeffc3765fa963291362.txt
Here you can see the Lt. who let this whole "injustice" take place. I attended the trial and it was truly heart breaking to see these sworn officers being jovial about violating a honest citizens rights while the court was in recess. They even went as far to joke about the pay they receive for appearing in court. Makes one wonder if some bad apples don't just sling spaghetti charges at anyone that annoys them to get an "easy paid day(s) in court"?
Here you can see the Lt. who let this whole "injustice" take place. I attended the trial and it was truly heart breaking to see these sworn officers being jovial about violating a honest citizens rights while the court was in recess. They even went as far to joke about the pay they receive for appearing in court. Makes one wonder if some bad apples don't just sling spaghetti charges at anyone that annoys them to get an "easy paid day(s) in court"?
B
Bikenut
Guest
As long as those in authority cannot be held accountable and will not suffer any meaningful personal repercussions... those in authority will eventually abuse that authority if for no other reason than... they aren't held accountable and will not suffer any meaningful personal repercussions.http://www.theoaklandpress.com/arti...cops_and_courts/doc4ffeffc3765fa963291362.txt
Here you can see the Lt. who let this whole "injustice" take place. I attended the trial and it was truly heart breaking to see these sworn officers being jovial about violating a honest citizens rights while the court was in recess. They even went as far to joke about the pay they receive for appearing in court. Makes one wonder if some bad apples don't just sling spaghetti charges at anyone that annoys them to get an "easy paid day(s) in court"?
Oh... Another "Hi" to you my friend.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
I big HOWDY to you, kind Sir.
Here you can see the Lt. who let this whole "injustice" take place. I attended the trial and it was truly heart breaking to see these sworn officers being jovial about violating a honest citizens rights while the court was in recess. They even went as far to joke about the pay they receive for appearing in court. Makes one wonder if some bad apples don't just sling spaghetti charges at anyone that annoys them to get an "easy paid day(s) in court"?
Do you get to testify to this in the civil lawsuit? Seems relevant to me.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
G22
Regular Member
Can you shed any more light on the training requirement for Warren?
I understand that all the information for a training class was supplied to your lawyer but nothing has happened yet?
Is this his responsibility to make sure it's carried out?
Was the training mandated by the court decision?
Sorry for all the questions, but I am very curious.
A PM is fine if you don't wish to answer publicly.
Thanks!
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Lively discussion, or troll fest?
TheQ
Regular Member
You say pa-ta-toe, I say pa-tat-oe...
F350
Regular Member
My response if it happens to me
On top of civil I would also try to get 18 USC 241 & 242 charges filed by the US Attorney's office.
On top of civil I would also try to get 18 USC 241 & 242 charges filed by the US Attorney's office.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
I have made myself available to the complaintant.
Complainant ... sp correction (wow, that's the kettle calling the pot black I know!):banana:
Keep the Faith!