ARNOLD BLACK DET. RANDY HICKS, ET AL ANDREA F. ROCCO CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas New Case Electronically Filed: April 28, 2014 23:44 By: ROBERT F. DICELLO 0072020 Con?rmation Nbr. 116753 CV 14 826010 Judge: JOHN D. SUTULA Pages Filed: 19 Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirmation Nbr. 116753 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ARNOLD BLACK CASE NO: 5168 Camden Maple Heights, Ohio 44137 JUDGE: JOHN D. SUTULA Plaintiff, -V (JURYDEMAND ENDORSED HEREON) DETECTIVE RANDY HICKS 14340 Euclid Ave. East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 and OFFICER JONATHAN 14340 Euclid Ave. East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 and 14340 Euclid Ave. East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 and CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND c/ 0 Ronald Riley, City of East Cleveland Law Director 14340 Euclid Ave. East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 and JOHN DOES NO. 1-10, Individually and in Their Of?cial Capacity as Police Of?cers/ Detectives Supervisors In-Charge Of?cers/ Commanders Of?cers in Booking/ Of?cers Managing the ail With the City of East Cleveland Whose Exact {00034054CHIEF RALPH SPOTTS, l- Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirn?lation Nbr. 116753 Identities Cannot Be Ascertained at the Present Time Defendants INTRODUCTION Now comes Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and for his Complaint against Defendants, state as follows: 1. In the above-?captioned re?filed action, Plaintiff alleges, including but not limited to, that Defendants maliciously prosecuted him and falsely imprisoned him. VENUE 2. Venue is proper in this Court as at least one of the Defendants resides in Cuyahoga County, the county where the balance of the underlying wrongdoing was conducted. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Arnold Black states that he is/was a resident of the City of Maple Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, at all times relevant to this action. 4. Defendant City of East Cleveland is a municipal corporation located in the county of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio, and at all times relevant to this action employed Defendants Hicks, O?Leary, Spots, and/ or Defendants John Does 1?10 named herein as police offiers, and has for its address 14340 Euclid Ave., East Cleveland, Ohio 44112. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants acted both inside and outside the course scope of their employment as police officers for the City of East Cleveland. 6. Redress is being sought from Defendants in their official and individual {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirngation Nbr. 116753 capacities, and it is further alleged that all Defendants were acting under and or outside of color of law and/ or pursuant to the policies, customs and/or usages of the City of East Cleveland and/ or Cleveland, Ohio, respectively. 7. At all times relevant herein, Defendant(s) John Doe Nos. 1 through 10, (Name and addresses unknown) are believed to be officer Ruth, Steadman, Gardner, and or Heglaw, and/ or other supervisors, commanders, police officers and/ or other administrative and/ or police department or other employees of Defendant City of East Cleveland whose identity(ies) or involvement with this case, despite reasonable diligence, cannot be ascertained and/ or discovered by the Plaintiff at the present time, but whom, through written discovery and/ or deposition, may become known as being persons properly included as Defendants in this case. 8. In addition to any other theory of liability that might pertain to Defendant police officers, any and all misconduct of Defendants is asserted to be a violation of the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and is enforceable against Defendants per the dictates of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 9. Redress is being sought from the City of Cleveland for: a. Its pattern of failing to adequately investigate Defendant Hicks? and Defendant O?Leary?s misconduct and/ or the misconduct of other officers and/ or its official condonation of that misconduct, to wit: at all times relevant to this action, the City knew or had reason to know that officers and detectives were being mismanaged and/ or inadequately investigated regarding this and other cases and failed to rectify the situation; and {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirr?dation Nbr. 116753 b. Its custom of officers mistreating prisoners confined in the City jail and/ or covering up for fellow officer misconduct and/ or making false grand jury presentations all with impunity, without meaningful supervisory oversight, and thus without real accountability. FACTS 10. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re?written herein. 11. On or about Saturday, April 28, 2012, at approximately 12:00am Plaintiff was driving through the city of East Cleveland, Ohio. 12. At that time, Plaintiff was driving his green Chevrolet Silverado with a female passenger in the passenger seat when he was stopped by Officer O?Leary. 13. The basis for the traffic stop: Defendant Detective Hicks told Officer O?Leary to stop Plaintiff so Hicks could question and search Plaintiff?s vehicle and because Hicks had been drinking and could not safely perform a traffic stop. 14. Hicks mistook Plaintiff 5 vehicle for a vehicle that was known to Hicks to be carrying drugs. 15. During the traffic stop Officer O?Leary removed Plaintiff from his car, patted Plaintiff down, and handcuffed Plaintiff. 16. Plaintiff was then ordered to sit on the back bumper of Plaintiffs truck, facing O?Leary?s patrol car which was parked behind Plaintiff?s truck. 17. O?Leary?s lights, sirens, and dash?cam Video camera were active at the time. 18. Defendant Hicks approached Plaintiff to question Plaintiff, asking Plaintiff with {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirrflation Nbr. 116753 slurred speech who sells drugs in East Cleveland. 19. Plaintiff stated he didn?t know. 20. Defendant Hicks also told Plaintiff that he was looking for a kilo of cocaine and a green truck like the one driven by Plaintiff. 21. Defendant Hicks said, ?Since we pulled you over, they?re going to see that I pulled over a green truck, and now they?re not going to come through my city. I was at a bar with friends. You messed up my night.? 22. Then Defendant Hicks punched Plaintiff in the temple region of his face head. 23. When he was punched, Plaintiff was handcuffed and in the custody of Defendant O?Leary and Defendant Hicks. 24. Defendant O?Leary did nothing to protect Plaintiff, to intervene and stop Defendant Hicks, or in any way enforce the law against Defendant Hicks. 25. Instead, Defendant O?Leary just watched as Defendant Hicks continued his belligerent behavior towards Plaintiff, threatening to incarcerate him for 18 months if he didn?t produce information about drug deals in East Cleveland. 26. For a second time, Defendant Hicks punched Plaintiff, in the temple region of Plaintiff?s face head. 27. Defendant O?Leary did nothing to help Plaintiff or enforce the law against Defendant Hicks at any time following both attacks on Plaintiff by Hicks he only caught Plaintiff and stopped Plaintiff from falling to the ground. 28. Throughout the assault on the handcuffed Plaintiff, Defendant Hicks smelled of an alcohol beverage, had slurred speech, glossy blood?shot eyes, and a noticeable lack of {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirn?ation Nbr. 116753 coordination. 29. Defendant O?Leary transported Plaintiff to the East Cleveland Police Station but never placed Plaintiff in a holding cell. 30. Instead, Plaintiff was imprisoned in a back room/ storage area along with changing storage lockers. 31. For at least 2 of the 4 days Defendants held Plaintiff in the locker room/ storage area, Defendants afforded Plaintiff no phone calls, food, water, bedding, wash, or toilet facilities during his incarceration in the storage room. 32. Because he was not given access to a bathroom, in order to relieve himself Plaintiff actually had to urinate in a locker, rather than wet his pants. 33. Defendants made Plaintiff sleep, sit, and stand on the bare tile floor. 34. Defendants kept Plaintiff in that location and under those conditions for approximately four days before transporting him to the Cuyahoga County Correctional Center in Cleveland, Ohio. 35. During his confinement in the storage area, Plaintiff was discovered by a heretofore unknown officer who asked, ?How long have you been in here? Does any of your family know you?re here?? 36. Although the surprised officer, one of Defendant John Does 1-10, let Plaintiff use his cell phone to call a family member, he did nothing to remove Plaintiff from the storage area where Plaintiff was imprisoned. 37. When Arnold used the officer?s phone he called his fianc?, Eryca, saying: ?I?ve been laying on the floor. I peed in a locker. I?m just coming to. I?ve been here a couple {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirn?ation Nbr. 116753 of days. I see lockers. An officer punched me when I was handcuffed. Another officer came to me here and asked if any of my family knows where I am. I said no. He let me use his phone. I?m in a room with no bathroom. I?m just sitting here. I don?t know what?s happening.? 38. Eryca assured Plaintiff, ?I?m on my way.? 39. When she arrived at the East Cleveland Police Department, Plaintiffs fianc? told the male officer behind the window, want to see Arnold Black.? 40. As if seeking permission to allow her to see Plaintiff, the male officer at the window repeated Eryca?s request, ?She wants to see Arnold Black,? as he turned towards a female officer in the back left corner of the room. 41. Looking down at a piece of paper, the officer responded, ?He?s under investigation, you can?t see him. You can?t see people that are under investigation.? 42. Eryca left, sensing that something was wrong. 43. Later, Plaintiff used a wall phone in the station and called Eryca, saying: ?The phone might get cut off. I snuck on this phone. They?re gonna try and keep my money and my phone. This is bogus. Something?s wrong. Come and get my stuff.? 44. Eryca returned to the station and retrieved Plaintiff personal things. Again she was turned away when she asked to see him. 45. She was told, ?The jailer is on vacation. Callback on Monday at 8 o?clock.? 46. On Monday, April 30, 3012, Plaintiff was visited by a councilwoman from the City of East Cleveland. 47. Plaintiff was handcuffed and escorted by the Chief of Police and officer John Doe for the City of East Cleveland to meet with the councilwoman, because a tipster had e? {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirnfation Nbr. 116753 mailed her, objecting to the way he was being treated. 48. The councilwoman asked Plaintiff what happened. 49. With Defendant Chief of Police in the room, Plaintiff told the councilwoman what happened, stating the allegations as re-stated here in this Complaint. 50. The council woman explained that she just needed to see Plaintiff and hear his side of the story, given the emails she had received. 51. Plaintiff was also put before Sgt. Ruth, for Internal Affairs. 52. Sgt. Ruth advised Plaintiff that the room was equipped with Video and audio recording devices. 53. Sgt. Ruth asked about the events of April 28, 2012, involving Detective Hicks. 54. Plaintiff told Sgt. Ruth what happened, stating the allegations as re-stated here in this Complaint. 55. Sgt. Ruth then got up from his seat and told Plaintiff that he was going to watch the video of what transpired with Plaintiff and Detective Hicks on April 28, 2012. 56. When he returned to talk with Plaintiff, Sgt. Ruth offered Plaintiff his card and asked Plaintiff to stay in touch with him when he gets out of jail. 57. On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff was transported to the City of Cleveland Jail. 58. Defendants planned, with no supporting evidence of any kind whatsoever, to falsely charge Plaintiff with having cocaine. 59. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff never had cocaine on or about his person. 60. On or about May 4 thru June 4, 2012, Defendants wrote baseless allegations in {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirngation Nbr. 116753 police documents and offered false testimony before the grand jury for the purpose of protecting Defendant Hicks, Defendant O?Leary, Chief Spotts, and the reputation of their department. 61. Every representation regarding Plaintiff having cocaine on his person on or about April 28, 2012 and that was told to the grand jury by Defendants and/ or Defendants John Does 1?10 was completely baseless, not rooted in truth, and only intended to protect the reputation and/ or careers of Defendant Hicks, Defendant O?Leary, and Chief Spotts. 62. Defendants worked together and crafted and inserted false allegations about Plaintiff?s conduct on into police documents. 63. Repeating and/or restating the false statements contained in the aforesaid police documents, Defendants went before the grand jury and intentionally misled the grand jurors. 64. On June 4, 2012, Plaintiff was indicted on the basis of Defendants? false allegations, Cuyahoga County Case No. 65. On July 19, 2012, the case against Plaintiff was dismissed in Plaintiffs favor. COUNT I (Malicious Prosecution) 66. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re?written herein. 67. On or about June 4, 2012, Defendants instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, and said proceedings terminated in Plaintiffs favor: to wit, the charges brought by and/ or through the assistance or actions of the Defendants were dismissed by the trial court. 68. At all times, all Defendants identified herein, including John Doe Defendants 1? {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 ConfirnQation Nbr. 116753 10, made and/ or in?uenced and/ or participated in the prosecution of Plaintiff. 69. On April 28, 2012, at the initiation of the investigation and or the continuation of the case against Plaintiff, Defendants proceeded without probable cause. 70. The continuation of their efforts to prosecute Plaintiff was done with malice, to wit: it was done to punish or injure Plaintiff for not being the drug dealer or user that Defendant Hicks expected him to be. 71. At all times said prosecution lacked probable cause as it was based on lies, not valid or lawful evidence justifying the charges. 72. And said prosecution caused Plaintiff damage as stated in the Damages section of this Complaint herein below. COUNT II (Abuse of Process) 73. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re?written herein. 74. In the alternative, Plaintiff avers that Defendants instituted a legal proceeding against Plaintiff that was in the proper form and with probable cause; 75. However, Defendants instituted the proceeding in such a way that it was perverted, to wit: it was instituted to justify and therefore shield Defendants from civil liability for the wrongful arrest and detention of Plaintiff, and thus was an attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed. 76. The process was abused when Defendants fabricated the cocaine charges against Plaintiff when it became apparent to Defendants that Defendant Hicks was intoxicated and unlawfully struck Plaintiff while handcuffed. {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirri-?lgtion Nbr. 116753 77. And as a result, Plaintiffs have been damaged as stated in the Damages section of this Complaint herein below. COUNT (Spoliation) 78. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re?written herein. 79. On or about and since April 28, 2012, Defendants were on notice to preserve all evidence related to the injury sustained by Plaintiffs. 80. At all relevant times Defendants knew that a lawsuit involving Plaintiff was probable. 81. At all relevant times Defendants were in possession of video data/ electronic data recordings and/ or recording devices that were operational and recording at the time of the aforementioned events the spoliated materials also included written records, and/ or reports and/ or files but are now missing, destroyed, and/ or edited to cover up the wrongdoing of Defendant Hicks and Defendant O?Leary. 82. At all relevant times Defendants joint and/ or several conduct in causing the above information to be unavailable was intentional, knowing, willful, wanton and malicious. 83. Defendants? actions constitute willful destruction of evidence for the purpose of disrupting the plaintiff's ability to prove claim(s) in the pending and/ or probable lawsuit. 84. As a direct and proximate result of the knowing, willful, wanton and malicious conduct by all Defendants as stated above, the Plaintiff has been harmed as stated in the Damages section of this Complaint. {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirrl-"llation Nbr. 116753 COUNT IV (Battery) 85. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re?written herein. 86. Defendant Hicks acted with the intent to cause an offensive touching of Plaintiff?s person when he punched Plaintiff while Plaintiff was handcuffed on April 28, 2012. 87. Plaintiff was subjected to offensive touching against his will and without privilege in that regard while he was searched, and/ or handcuffed, and/ or punched and/ or delivered to jail, and/ or processed in jail by Defendant Hicks and/ or O?Leary and/ or John Does 1?10. 88. The contact with Plaintiff by Defendants as a result of the actions of Defendants via handcuffing him and placing hands about his body to strike him or handle him for processing violated his sense of personal dignity, as Plaintiff did nothing to warrant being struck but was still subjected to this sort of bodily contact and limitation of movement. 89. As a proximate result of the offensive touching, manifested by a wanton, willful, reckless and/ or negligent disregard for the rights of Plaintiff as aforesaid by all Defendants, Plaintiff was damaged as detailed below in the Damages section of this Complaint. COUNT (False Imprisonment) 90. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re?written herein. 91. Defendant Hicks, O?Leary, and Spotts and John Does 1-10 intentionally placed Plaintiff in a changing/ storage area within the East Cleveland Police Department and/ or the East Cleveland City Hall on April 28, 2012, and held him there under cruel and unusual circumstances without probable cause until he was shipped to the Cuyahoga County {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirri1%ti0n Nbr. 116753 Correctional Center where he sat until he posted bond on May 4, 2012. 92. Plaintiff? bond was excessive, as it too was unlawful and not issued against her on the basis of a valid prosecution. 93. The actions of Defendants and John Does 1?10 in this count and regarding every other count were without lawful privilege and against Plaintiff?s consent. 94. Plaintiff detention was punitive, unlawful, without privilege, and against his consent because it was created through the false and misleading statements of the Defendants, and was not accompanied by a proper Gerstein hearing. 95. Defendants Hicks and O?Leary and Spotts and John Does 1?10 knew that there was no valid reason justifying keeping Plaintiff in a storage changing area at the time they imprisoned him there. 96. As a proximate cause of this unlawful arrest and imprisonment, Plaintiff was damaged as stated in the Damages section of this Complaint herein below. COUNT VI (Supervisory Liability) 97. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re-written herein. 98. Defendant Spotts and John Does 1-10 were the direct supervisors of Defendant Hicks and O?Leary and had supervisory authority over the East Cleveland Police Department. 99. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Spotts knew or reasonably should have known of and/ or participated in, and/ or condoned, and/ or ratified: a. Defendant Hicks prior and current inappropriate police conduct that created a serious risk that Defendant Hicks would hurt himself someone else or otherwise break the law while on duty; and/ or {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirri-??ltion Nbr. 116753 b. The officers? custom of destroying evidence, modifying police reports, ignoring or thwarting the proper chain of command, and/ or furthering improper personal agendas and/ or facilitating and or hiding and/ or covering up police misconduct, including destruction of evidence and excessive force; and/ or c. Defendants? unsupervised presentations to the grand jury that resulted in individuals being indicted on misinformation and/ or lies; and/ or d. Defendants? habit and/ or custom of producing grand jury documentations and/ or police reports designed to cover-up for fellow officer misconduct and/ or to pursue inappropriate goals unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives, such as in this case: falsely alleging that Plaintiff did illegal acts regarding cocaine. 100. Defendants Spotts and John Does 1?10 knew or reasonably should have known that these acts and/ or failures to act of the Defendants would likely cause Defendants to inflict the constitutional injury that befell Plaintiff, to wit: Plaintiff was prosecuted by Defendants on the basis of misinformation and intentional omissions and/ or without probable cause and/ or for reasons other than a legitimate law enforcement objective. 101. Defendants Spotts and John Does 1?10 had a duty and/ or were required by his /their training to take action to discipline and/ or otherwise prevent Defendants from engaging in the above-stated conduct. 102. Despite his /their knowledge of the Defendant officers? misconduct, as stated above, Defendants Spotts and John Does 1?10 took no action, failed to impose reasonable {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirrif?tion Nbr. 116753 discipline, failed to follow chain of command, failed to document the instances of misconduct, and/ or otherwise abandoned his/ their supervisory duties. 103. As a result of his their failures and/ or abandonment of his their supervisory duties, as stated above, Defendants Spotts and John Does 1?10 created an environment that condoned misconduct and perpetuated and/ or facilitated and/ or aided Defendants in the baseless arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff. 104. Defendants Spotts and John Does 1?10 engaged in acts and omissions that were the product of a reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights. 105. By their acts and failures to act as stated above, Defendants Spotts and John Does 1?10, in fact, caused Plaintiffs constitutional deprivation: to wit, he was prosecuted without probable cause by a grand jury that was lied to and/ or from whom material exculpatory facts were withheld in Violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and or for reasons other than a legitimate law enforcement objective, to wit: to cover up the drunken attack that Defendant Hicks visited upon Plaintiff, an attack that Defendant O?Leary did nothing to stop and which was followed by a period of unjust and inhumane incarceration that was deliberately indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff. 106. As a consequence of Defendants actions as aforesaid, Plaintiff was damaged as detailed in the Damages section of this Complaint. COUNT VII (Reckless, Wanton, or Willful conduct R.C. 2921.52) 107. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re-written herein. {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirrl-??tion Nbr. 116753 108. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants wantonly and willfully committed reckless violations of the law, including but not limited to arresting, confining, and prosecuting Plaintiff without probable cause. 109. All Defendants knowingly infused and/ or facilitated the presentment of false charges against Plaintiff and later tried to cover up for the wrongdoing of Defendant Hicks. 110. In wanton and willful disregard for the laws of the State of Ohio and City of East Cleveland, and in wanton and willful disregard for the training that Defendants received in their capacity as law enforcement employees for the City of East Cleveland, and/ or Cuyahoga County, Defendants created, perpetuated, passed along, and/ or disseminated a series of falsehoods and misstatements against Plaintiff that laid a false foundation for the prosecution of Plaintiff as stated above. 111. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff to follow and obey Ohio law and/ or obey their police training and/ or prosecutorial policies. 112. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants showed a reckless, willful and/ or wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff. 113. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants knowingly broke Ohio law, caused injury to Plaintiff including but not limited to anxiety, fear, a period of detention in jail, and caused her to incur court costs and attorney?s fees for which he has a right to reimbursement. {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confird-?l?tion Nbr. 116753 114. As a proximate result of Defendants? wanton, willful, reckless and/ or malicious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff as aforesaid, Plaintiff was damaged as detailed below in the Damages section of this Complaint. COUNT (Civil Conspiracy) 115. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully re-written herein. 116. All of the Defendants identified herein and/ or John Does Number 1~1o worked together in a malicious combination to bring charges against Plaintiff without probable cause and without disclosing the true facts to the grand jury as detailed above. 117. All of the Defendants participated in a custom of toleration of officers being excessively violent with arrest persons; condoning and toleration of officers submitting altered and/ or false police reports and departmental documentation to cover?up for rule? breaking and other misconduct; officers not properly tracking or monitoring the use of police equipment (car video); condoning and toleration of officers submitting incomplete and/ or woefully deficient and/ or false grand jury packages; condoning and/ or tolerating officers covering up for each other?s rule breaking and other misconduct; and toleration for officer deceit and falsehoods in the investigation of and or participation in law enforcement?related activities. 118. All Defendants were part of the aforesaid malicious combination. 119. All Defendants worked together to commit an act wholly independent of the conspiracy itself, to wit: malicious prosecution, false arrest, abuse of process, and/ or instituting, issuing, and advancing baseless charges against Plaintiff on bogus allegations in order to protect fellow officers from punishment or the City from ridicule. {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirri-igtion Nbr. 116753 120. All Defendants caused injury to Plaintiffs person and property as stated in the Damages section of this Complaint. DAMAGES 121. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if fully reewritten herein. 122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, as set forth above, Plaintiff has been damaged, including but not limited to: intense physical pain, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, feelings of powerlessness, harm to self esteem, emotional distress, fear, anxiety, loss of sense of personal safety and dignity, and legal fees and costs. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for not less than $3,000,000.00, including but not limited to: A. Compensatory and consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the Court in excess of the Court?s jurisdictional amount; B. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for the willful, reckless, and malicious conduct of Defendants; C. Equitable relief, including, without limitation, that Defendant City of East Cleveland be made to adopt an appropriate policy to prevent future instances of the type of misconduct described herein; D. Attorneys? fees and the costs of this action and other costs that may be associated with this action; and E. Any and all other relief that this Court deems equitable, just and proper. {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirri-??tion Nbr. 116753 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff respectfully demand a trial by jury of the within matter. Respectfully submitted, Robert F. DiCello Robert F. DiCello, Esq. (0072020) The DiCello Firm 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, Ohio 44060 PI 440-953-9138 E: rfdicello@dicellolaw.com Counsel for Plainti? {00034054} Electronically Filed 04/28/2014 23:44 CV 14 826010 Confirrl-"gtion Nbr. 116753