UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DANIEL BLACK
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00156

v.
DAVID CLARKE,
in his personal capacity,
JOHN DOE ONE,
in his personal capacity,
JOHN DOE TWO,
in his personal capacity,
JOHN DOE THREE,
in his personal capacity,
JOHN DOE FOUR,
in his personal capacity,
JOHN DOE FIVE,
in his personal capacity,
JOHN DOE SIX,
in his personal capacity,
And
COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

[1 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 13 Document 1

 COMES NOW Plaintiff Daniel Black, by his attorney, William F. Sulton,
Esq., of the law firm of Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., and files this complaint
against Defendants David Clarke, John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three,
John Doe Four, John Doe Five, John Doe Six, and the County of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
INTRODUCTION
1.

This civil action seeks a declaratory judgment and an award of money

damages against defendants for the unlawful stop and arrest of Plaintiff Daniel
Black, in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
THE PARTIES
2.

Plaintiff Daniel Black (“Black”) is an adult and resides in the County of

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
3.

Defendant David Clarke (“Sheriff Clarke”) is the elected Sheriff of the County

of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is being sued in his personal capacity.
4.

Defendant County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (“Milwaukee County”) is a county

government in the State of Wisconsin.
5.

Defendant John Doe One, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is

being sued in his personal capacity.
6.

Defendant John Doe Two, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is

being sued in his personal capacity.

[2 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 13 Document 1

 7.

Defendant John Doe Three, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is

being sued in his personal capacity.
8.

Defendant John Doe Four, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is

being sued in his personal capacity.
9.

Defendant John Doe Five, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is

being sued in his personal capacity.
10.

Defendant John Doe Six, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is

being sued in his personal capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11.

This court has jurisdiction over the claims in this complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 because the claims in this complaint arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
12.

This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) because the

claims in this complaint seek relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and the laws of
the United States.
13.

This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) because the

claims in this complaint seek relief under acts of Congress.
14.

This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) because this

complaint seeks a declaratory judgment.

[3 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 13 Document 1

 15.

This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 because this

complaint seeks further necessary and proper relief based on the request for a
declaratory judgment.
16.

Venue in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the

defendants reside within the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
17.

Venue in this court is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the

events giving rise to this action occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
18.

On January 15, 2017, Black was at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

(“DFW”) in Texas.
19.

Black boarded a flight that was departing for General Mitchell International

Airport in Milwaukee.
20.

While boarding the flight, Black saw a man that looked like Sheriff Clarke

wearing clothes emblazoned with the logo and colors of the Dallas Cowboys football
team.
21.

Black asked the man if he was Sheriff Clarke, and Sheriff Clarke responded

that he was.
22.

Black moved towards the rear of the airplane and shook his head.

23.

Sheriff Clarke asked Black if he had a problem. Black shook his head no and

continued walking and took a seat in the rear of the airplane.
24.

There was no interaction between Black and Sheriff Clarke during the flight

to Milwaukee.

[4 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 13 Document 1

 25.

When Black got off the airplane, Sheriff Clarke was in the waiting area by

the gate.
26.

Sheriff Clarke motioned to John Does One through Six and John Does One

through Six walked over to Black and stopped him.
27.

John Does One and Two then arrested Black and escorted him to an

unoccupied waiting area.
28.

John Does One and Two interrogated Black in the waiting area.

29.

During the interrogation, Black was questioned about his political opinions.

30.

John Does One and Two interrogated Black for about fifteen minutes and

then escorted him out of the airport.
31.

A reasonable Milwaukee County sheriff would not have ordered his deputy

sheriffs to stop, arrest and interrogate a citizen for shaking his head.
32.

A reasonable Milwaukee County sheriff would know that his deputy sheriffs

do not have jurisdiction over events that occurred in Texas.
33.

A reasonable sheriff deputy would know that they do not have jurisdiction

over events that occurred in Texas.
34.

A reasonable sheriff deputy would have refused Sheriff Clarke’s unlawful

order to stop, arrest and interrogate Black.
35.

A reasonable sheriff deputy would have intervened and prevented John Does

One and Two from arresting and interrogating Black.
36.

A reasonable sheriff deputy would have known that it is unlawful to stop,

arrest and interrogate a citizen to investigate their political opinions.

[5 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 13 Document 1

 37.

Black filed a complaint with Milwaukee County about Sheriff Clarke’s

misconduct.
38.

Sheriff Clarke responded to the complaint by threatening Black on social

media:

39.

Sheriff Clarke published the above statements to give a false impression of

what occurred on the airplane and to damage Black’s reputation.
40.

Sheriff Clarke also published the above statements to incite violent verbal

assaults against Black, which has happened.
41.

Black has experienced racial and other threats against his person on social

media as a direct result of Sheriff Clarke’s statements.
42.

Sheriff Clarke’s continuing misconduct is designed to intimidate and

dissuade Black from complaining and to impede accountability mechanisms
available to other citizens.
[6 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 13 Document 1

 43.

Sheriff Clarke has publicly stated that he will not cooperate with Milwaukee

County’s investigation.
44.

Sheriff Clarke has also publicly stated that he ordered his deputies not to

cooperate with Milwaukee County’s investigation.
45.

Sheriff Clarke has also publicly stated that Milwaukee County has no

authority to investigate him or to enforce any sanction against him.
CLAIMS AGAINST SHERIFF CLARKE:
46.

Black incorporates here all other paragraphs in this complaint.

47.

At all relevant times, Sheriff Clarke was acting under color of law.

48.

At the time that Sheriff Clarke ordered John Does One through Six to stop

Black, Sheriff Clarke knew that the order was unlawful and without reasonable
suspicion.
49.

At the time that Sheriff Clarke ordered John Does One and Two to arrest and

interrogate Black, Sheriff Clarke knew that the order was unlawful and without
probable cause.
50.

At the time that Sheriff Clarke made the knowingly unlawful orders, Sheriff

Clarke did so to single out Black for reasons that were irrational and unrelated to
any legitimate government purpose.
51.

Sheriff Clarke singled out Black because of his opinions.

52.

Sheriff Clarke’s misconduct was designed to cause and did cause emotional

distress and damage to Black’s reputation.
CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN DOES ONE AND TWO
53.

Black incorporates here all other paragraphs in this complaint.
[7 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 13 Document 1

 54.

At all relevant times, John Does One and Two were acting under color of law.

55.

At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarke’s order to

stop Black, John Does One and Two knew that the order was unlawful and without
reasonable suspicion.
56.

At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarke’s order to

stop Black, John Does One and Two knew they had a duty to intervene and prevent
the unlawful stop of Black. John Does One and Two failed to intervene.
57.

At the time that John Does One and Two stopped Black, John Does One and

Two knew that the stop was unlawful and without reasonable suspicion.
58.

At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarke’s order to

arrest and interrogate Black, John Does One and Two knew that the order was
unlawful and without probable cause.
59.

At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarke’s order to

arrest and interrogate Black, John Does One and Two knew they had a duty to
intervene and prevent the unlawful arrest of Black. John Does One and Two failed
to intervene.
60.

At the time that John Does One and Two arrested and interrogated Black,

John Does One and Two knew that the arrest was unlawful and without probable
cause.
61.

At the time that John Does One and Two interrogated Black about his

political opinions, John Does One and Two knew that it was unlawful to stop, arrest
and interrogate Black about his political opinions.

[8 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 13 Document 1

 62.

John Does One and Two singled out Black because of his opinions.

63.

John Does One’s and Two’s acts and omissions were designed to cause and

did cause emotional distress to Black.
CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN DOES THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX
64.

Black incorporates here all other paragraphs in this complaint.

65.

At all relevant times, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six were acting under

color of law.
66.

At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six received Sheriff

Clarke’s order to stop Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew that the
order was unlawful and without reasonable suspicion.
67.

At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six received Sheriff

Clarke’s order to stop Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew they had a
duty to intervene and prevent the unlawful stop of Black. John Does Three, Four,
Five and Six failed to intervene.
68.

At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six stopped Black, John

Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew that the stop was unlawful and without
reasonable suspicion.
69.

At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six saw John Does One

and Two arrest Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew that the arrest
was unlawful and without probable cause.
70.

At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six saw John Does One

and Two arrest Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew they had a duty to

[9 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 13 Document 1

 intervene and prevent the unlawful arrest of Black. John Does Three, Four, Five
and Six failed to intervene.
71.

John Does Three, Four, Five and Six singled out Black because of his

opinions.
72.

John Does Three’s, Four’s, Five’s and Six’s unlawful acts and omissions

caused emotional distress to Black.
CLAIMS AGAINST MILWAUKEE COUNTY
73.

Black incorporates here all other paragraphs in this complaint.

74.

At all relevant times, Sheriff Clarke was acting under color of law and as the

final-decision maker for his office and Milwaukee County.
75.

Sheriff Clarke diverted significant law enforcement resources designed to

protect the public from terrorism at the airport to mete out punishment against
Black for shaking his head.
76.

It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarke’s office and Milwaukee County

to single out citizens that they perceive express displeasure with Sheriff Clarke or
his deputies for disparate treatment.
77.

It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarke’s office and Milwaukee County

to stop without reasonable suspicion and to arrest without probable cause citizens
that they perceive to express displeasure with Sheriff Clarke or his deputies.
78.

It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarke’s office and Milwaukee County

to intimidate and dissuade citizens from complaining about misconduct by Sheriff
Clarke and his deputies.

[10 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 13 Document 1

 79.

It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarke’s office and Milwaukee County

to threaten citizens that complain about misconduct by Sheriff Clarke or his
deputies.
80.

It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarke’s and Milwaukee County’s policies and

practices would result in violent verbal assaults against Black, whom they publicly
derided.
81.

It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarke’s and Milwaukee County’s policies and

practices would result in the unlawful stop and arrest of Black.
82.

It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarke’s and Milwaukee County’s policies and

practices would result in the deprivations of equal protection of the laws stated in
this complaint.
83.

It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarke’s and Milwaukee County’s policies and

practices would deter sheriff deputies from intervening when they observed
misconduct by Sheriff Clarke and other deputies.
84.

Milwaukee County lacks an effective mechanism for disciplining Sheriff

Clarke and his deputies for violating citizens’ civil and constitutional rights.
85.

It was foreseeable that without an effective mechanism for discipline, Sheriff

Clarke and his deputies would violate Black’s civil and constitutional rights.
86.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Sheriff Clarke’s and

Milwaukee County’s intentional acts, Black has suffered injuries, damages and
other losses, without limitation to emotional distress and damage to his reputation.

[11 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 13 Document 1

 These injuries, damages and other losses continue into the present and will
continue into the foreseeable future.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Wherefore, Daniel Black respectfully requests that the court enter judgment
for him and provide the following relief:
A.

A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) stating that defendants

unlawfully stopped Black in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
B.

A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) stating that Sheriff

Clarke, John Doe One and John Doe Two unlawfully arrested Black in violation of
the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
C.

A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) stating that defendants

deprived Black of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
D.

An order awarding Black damages for emotional distress and other

compensatory damages.
E.

An order under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) awarding attorneys’ fees to Black.

F.

An order under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(c) awarding experts’ fees to Black.

G.

An order under Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and its progeny,

awarding punitive damages to Black.
H.

An order under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 taxing the costs of this action against

defendants.

[12 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 12 of 13 Document 1

 I.

An order under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 providing further necessary and proper

relief based on the declaratory judgment.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Black hereby demands a trial by jury on each of his claims under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b).
Dated at the law offices of Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, this 2nd day of February, 2017.
PETERSON, JOHNSON & MURRAY, S.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel Black

/s/ William F. Sulton, Esq.
William F. Sulton, Esq.
State Bar No. 1070600
788 N Jefferson St Ste 500
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3763
Phone: 414-278-8800
Fax: 414-278-0920
Email: wsulton@pjmlaw.com

[13 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 13 Document 1