Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 59

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
GEORGE MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, a municipal
corporation; COUNTY OF MOBILE,
ALABAMA; THOMAS CALHOUN, in his
capacity as a former Mobile officer and in his
individual capacity; WILBUR WILLIAMS, in
his capacity as a former Mobile officer and in
his individual capacity; DONALD PEARS, in
his capacity as a former Mobile officer and in
his individual capacity; CHARLES BAILEY,
in his capacity as a former Mobile officer and
in his individual capacity; MARK NENO, in
his capacity as a former Mobile officer and in
his individual capacity; STATE OF
ALABAMA; DONALD VALESKA, in his
capacity as a former Alabama officer and in his
individual capacity; WILLIAM DILL, in his
capacity as a current Alabama officer and in
his individual capacity; and GERRILYN
GRANT, in her capacity as a former Alabama
officer and in her individual capacity.
Defendants.

- PAGE 1

CIVIL ACTION NO. __________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 59

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff GEORGE MARTIN for Complaint against Defendants, and each
of them, for violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and
false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and outrage, and states
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff has been judicially found by the courts of the State of Alabama to have

been wrongfully convicted of the capital murder of his wife, Hammoleketh Martin
(“Mrs. Martin”), as a result of multiple instances of willful and intentional misconduct by
Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA (through the actions of the investigators and the prosecutors
in the criminal case against Plaintiff, and each of them) in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights. Plaintiff now brings this Complaint against the CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, and the
COUNTY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA (collectively, “MOBILE”), one or both of which has
ultimate authority, responsibility, and control over the investigators involved in the willful and
intentional misconduct found by the Alabama courts and/or the law enforcement agency, the
Mobile Police Department (“MPD”), that trained and employed the investigators and that
oversaw the investigation into the criminal case against Plaintiff; the MPD law enforcement
officers, THOMAS CALHOUN, WILBUR WILLIAMS, DONALD PEARS, CHARLES
BAILEY, and MARK NENO (the “MPD DEFENDANTS”), that led or conducted the
investigation into the criminal case against Plaintiff; the STATE OF ALABAMA; and the
Alabama Assistant Attorneys General, DONALD VALESKA, WILLIAM DILL, and
GERRILYN GRANT (the “AG DEFENDANTS”), that prosecuted the criminal case against
Plaintiff. As set forth in this Complaint, each of Defendants, separately and severally, engaged

- PAGE 2

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 3 of 59

in intentional misconduct causing the unconstitutional and wrongful arrest, prosecution,
conviction, sentence of death, and lengthy imprisonment of Plaintiff. In the alternative,
Defendants with their co-conspirators, jointly and severally, acted in concert and conspiracy with
one another to commit intentional misconduct causing the unconstitutional and wrongful arrest,
prosecution, conviction, sentence of death, and lengthy imprisonment of Plaintiff.
2.

After an extensive and heavily litigated post-conviction proceeding under Rule 32

of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure spanning more than a decade (“Rule 32 Proceeding”),
the Alabama Circuit Court of Mobile County (“State Circuit Court”) found in 2013, and the
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) later affirmed, that Defendant STATE OF
ALABAMA (through the actions of the MPD DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and the
AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the criminal case against Plaintiff) had suppressed
multiple pieces of evidence favorable to the defense in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights and that there was a reasonable probability that, had this evidence been disclosed to the
defense, the result of the criminal proceeding against Plaintiff would have been different. Based
on these findings, a new trial was ordered in Plaintiff’s criminal case (“New Trial Order”).
3.

Plaintiff then moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice based on his

demonstration of systematic, deliberate, and willful misconduct by Defendant STATE OF
ALABAMA (through the actions of the MPD DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and the
AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the criminal case against Plaintiff) causing prejudice
that cannot be remedied by a new trial. In 2016, the State Circuit Court granted Plaintiff’s
motion and ordered dismissal of the indictment with prejudice (“Dismissal Order”), opining that
Plaintiff had been the victim of willful and intentional misconduct, and that a new trial was
insufficient to remedy the prejudice caused by the misconduct.

- PAGE 3

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 4 of 59

4.

In the New Trial Order, the State Circuit Court found that Defendant THOMAS

CALHOUN, a non-lawyer and the lead investigator into Mrs. Martin’s death, was given sole
responsibility over deciding what to produce and what not to produce to Plaintiff’s criminal trial
counsel pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the open-file discovery order
issued by the trial judge in Plaintiff’s criminal case. The AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
delegated these Brady duties to CALHOUN without any oversight and, in doing so, relinquished
their prosecutorial duties under Brady to CALHOUN. With the assistance of Defendant MARK
NENO, CALHOUN intentionally withheld the multiple pieces of material, exculpatory evidence
that later formed the basis of the New Trial Order and the Dismissal Order (“Brady Material”)
and, in at least one case, edited a document to remove the material, exculpatory evidence
contained therein and then produced only the edited version to Plaintiff’s criminal trial counsel.
In addition, by the actions of Defendants WILBUR WILLIAMS, DONALD PEARS and
CHARLES BAILEY, and each of them, and the now deceased officers Matthew Thompson and
Frank Woodard, additional exculpatory evidence was lost or contaminated.
5.

CALHOUN and the AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew of the

existence of the exculpatory evidence and other evidence undermining probable cause for an
arrest, prosecution and conviction of Plaintiff. Nonetheless, CALHOUN and the AG
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, caused a grand jury to issue an indictment of Plaintiff for the
capital murder of his wife. Further, when the criminal case reached trial in 2000 (“Criminal
Trial”), the AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, used the absence of the withheld exculpatory
evidence as a sword to obtain a conviction against Plaintiff by making false arguments to the jury
that would have been negated or undermined by the withheld evidence.

- PAGE 4

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 5 of 59

6.

As a result of the misconduct of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was

unconstitutionally and wrongfully arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced to death, and
imprisoned in near-isolation at Holman Correctional Facility for fifteen years, resulting in
extreme mental anguish and physical suffering and the loss of freedom, livelihood, privacy,
family, friends, and precious years of life. Plaintiff now seeks his just compensation for the
suffering and loss that he has endured.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.

This Action arises under the laws of the United States, and jurisdiction is

conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Supplemental
jurisdiction of the Court over the claims arising under state law is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367.
8.

Venue in the Southern District of Alabama is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b), because it is the district in which many defendants reside, and because a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of
Alabama.
THE PARTIES
A.

Plaintiff
9.

Plaintiff GEORGE MARTIN is a resident of Mobile, Alabama. Prior to his

unlawful conviction and death sentence, Mr. Martin was an Alabama State Trooper with an
outstanding record, and was recognized by his fellow officers for his calm demeanor and for
having never drawn his service weapon while on duty. He had no prior criminal record and
served in the Coast Guard. He attended college on a partial football scholarship. He was

- PAGE 5

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 6 of 59

married to his wife, Hammoleketh Martin, for more than eight years when she unexpectedly died
on October 8, 1995.
B.

Entity Defendants
10.

Defendant CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, is a municipal corporation and is the

county seat of the COUNTY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA. Either the CITY OF MOBILE or the
COUNTY OF MOBILE, separately and severally—or both the CITY OF MOBILE and the
COUNTY OF MOBILE, jointly and severally—has ultimate authority, responsibility, and
control of, and for the oversight over, decisions affecting and funding of the MPD, which trained
and employed the MPD DEFENDANTS at relevant times; the Mobile Fire-Rescue Department
(“MFRD”); the Mobile County Sheriff’s Department; and the Mobile County Metro Jail.
11.

Defendant COUNTY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, is a political subdivision of the

STATE OF ALABAMA. Either the CITY OF MOBILE or the COUNTY OF MOBILE,
separately and severally—or both the CITY OF MOBILE and the COUNTY OF MOBILE,
jointly and severally—has ultimate authority, responsibility, and control of, and for the oversight
over, decisions affecting and funding of the MPD, which trained and employed the MPD
DEFENDANTS at relevant times; the MFRD; the Mobile County Sheriff’s Department; and the
Mobile County Metro Jail.
12.

Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA (also referred to herein as “ALABAMA”) is

one of the states of the United States of America and is the entity having ultimate authority,
responsibility, and control of, and for the oversight over, decisions affecting and funding of the
Alabama Attorney General’s Office, which trained and employed the AG DEFENDANTS.

- PAGE 6

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 7 of 59

C.

Individual Defendants
13.

Defendant THOMAS CALHOUN (also referred to herein as “CALHOUN”) is a

resident of Mobile, Alabama. He was a major in the MPD and assumed the position of
commander of the MPD criminal investigation division several months after Mrs. Martin’s death.
In that capacity, he personally led and participated in building a criminal case against Plaintiff
prior to, and subsequent to, the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Plaintiff. He had primary
responsibility over what evidence to produce and what evidence not to produce to Plaintiff’s
criminal trial counsel and was present in the courtroom throughout the Criminal Trial. He retired
from the MPD in 2004. CALHOUN is being sued as a MOBILE officer acting under color of
state law as well as in his individual capacity.
14.

Defendant WILBUR WILLIAMS (also referred to herein as “W. WILLIAMS”) is

a resident of Andalusia, Alabama, and was the chief of detectives of the MPD criminal
investigation division at that time of Mrs. Martin’s death. In that capacity, he oversaw the initial
investigation into the death and was a MPD police major until 1998. W. WILLIAMS is being
sued as a MOBILE officer acting under color of state law as well as in his individual capacity.
15.

Defendant DONALD PEARS (also referred to herein as “PEARS”) is a resident

of Mobile, Alabama, was the lead MPD investigator during the initial investigation into
Mrs. Martin’s death, and purported to collect evidence from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s home in
connection with the initial investigation. He testified against Plaintiff at the Criminal Trial and
resigned his position at the MPD in 2014. PEARS is being sued as a MOBILE officer acting
under color of state law as well as in his individual capacity.
16.

Defendant CHARLES BAILEY (also referred to herein as “BAILEY”) is a

resident of Irvington, Alabama, and was an MPD identification officer at the scene after

- PAGE 7

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 8 of 59

Mrs. Martin’s body was found in her burned car during the late night/early morning hours
between October 8–9, 1995. In that capacity, he purported to collect and identify evidence from
the scene and to prepare reports regarding his observations. He left the MPD in 1996, joined the
Mobile County Sheriff’s Department, and testified against Plaintiff at the Criminal Trial.
BAILEY is being sued as a MOBILE officer acting under color of state law as well as in his
individual capacity.
17.

Defendant MARK NENO (also referred to herein as “NENO”) is a resident of

Colorado Springs, Colorado, and was a policer officer for the MPD at relevant times. Under the
leadership of CALHOUN, he personally participated in building a criminal case against Plaintiff
and assisted CALHOUN in carrying out what evidence to produce and what evidence not to
produce to the defense. MARK NENO is being sued as a MOBILE officer acting under color of
state law as well as in his individual capacity.
18.

Defendant DONALD VALESKA (also referred to herein as “VALESKA”) is a

resident of Montgomery, Alabama, and was an Assistant Attorney General for the STATE OF
ALABAMA at relevant times. He personally participated in causing the transfer of the criminal
case against Plaintiff from the Mobile County District Attorney’s Office (“DA’s Office”) to the
Alabama Attorney General’s Office (“AG’s Office”) after the DA’s Office indicated reluctance
to prosecute the case. He was the lead prosecutor that prosecuted Plaintiff and presented the
STATE OF ALABAMA’s case at the CRIMINAL TRIAL. VALESKA is being sued as an
ALABAMA officer acting under color of state law as well as in his individual capacity.
19.

Defendant WILLIAM DILL (also referred to herein as “DILL”) is a resident of

Mathews, Alabama. He was an Assistant Attorney General for the STATE OF ALABAMA at

- PAGE 8

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 9 of 59

relevant times and personally participated in the prosecution of Plaintiff. DILL is being sued as
an ALABAMA officer acting under color of state law as well as in his individual capacity.
20.

Defendant GERRILYN GRANT (also referred to herein as “GRANT”) is a

resident of Montgomery, Alabama. She was an Assistant Attorney General for the STATE OF
ALABAMA at relevant times and personally participated in the prosecution of Plaintiff.
GRANT is being sued as an ALABAMA officer acting under color of state law as well as in her
individual capacity.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A.

Mrs. Martin’s Death and the MPD’s Initial Investigation
21.

Mrs. Martin’s body was found in her burned-out black Ford Escort near Willis

Road and Highway 90 in the late night/early morning hours between October 8–9, 1995. Shortly
after the investigation into her death began, MPD officials and investigators, including
Defendants WILBUR WILLIAMS, DONALD PEARS, and CHARLES BAILEY, decided that
the investigation would focus on Plaintiff as a suspect. This focus is evidenced by, among other
things, early public statements by the MPD chief of detectives at the time stating that Plaintiff
was a suspect and suggesting that there were no other suspects and early police reports labelling
Plaintiff as the “Defendant” at a time when Plaintiff had neither been charged nor arrested and
the investigation was supposed to be ongoing. This focus resulted in the MPD DEFENDANTS
losing and contaminating evidence and failing to meaningfully investigate other suspects, other
evidence, and alternative theories.
22.

Shortly after Mrs. Martin’s body was discovered, MPD investigators determined

that the burned car belonged to Plaintiff and/or his wife, Mrs. Martin. After determining to
conduct a homicide investigation into Mrs. Martin’s death, MPD investigators, including

- PAGE 9

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 10 of 59

Defendant CHARLES BAILEY, were supposed to collect and identify evidence from the scene
of the car fire and then prepare reports detailing their observations in accordance with procedures
and policies that the MPD was supposed to establish. However, BAILEY failed to properly
collect, identify, and/or prepare reports regarding multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence,
including, but not limited to, the following:
a)

During the morning of October 9, 1995, BAILEY and the chief MPD
identification officer, Lieutenant Frank Woodard (now deceased), found a piece
of melted plastic which they discussed could have been the remains of a plastic
gas can. Defendant PEARS and other MPD officers and employees observed this
discovery. Although this finding corroborated Plaintiff’s repeated statements to
MPD investigators that his wife carried a plastic gas can in her car, BAILEY and
Woodard, as well as PEARS and the other MPD officers and employees, omitted
this finding from their reports, the melted plastic was not preserved, and no entry
in any record concerning this finding was made or, if made, was subsequently
deleted or destroyed.

b)

BAILEY and Woodard also omitted from their reports that earlier that morning of
October 9, 1995, at a time when the car fire scene was said to have been secured
until daylight, Woodard removed two burned objects from the burned car without
gloves and examined them. Other MPD officers and employees observed this
discovery. These objects were not preserved and no entry in any record
concerning these findings was made or, if made, was subsequently deleted or
destroyed.

- PAGE 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 11 of 59

c)

In the days following Mrs. Martin’s death, BAILEY and other MPD investigators
participated in a search for bike tracks in the proximity of the scene of the car fire.
That search was made to try to establish that there was a means of transportation
from the scene of the fire to Plaintiff’s house, which was several miles away. No
bike tracks were found. The search and its negative results were never recorded
or, if recorded, were subsequently deleted or destroyed.

d)

All of the foregoing collection, identification, and reporting activities,
individually and collectively, either violated MPD procedures and policies or
resulted from the MPD’s failure to have proper procedures or policies or proper
training, enforcement or discipline for the same.

23.

From the beginning of the investigation, Plaintiff cooperated with investigators,

submitted himself to hours of interrogations, and signed waivers for the search of his residence,
including for a search on the evening of October 9, 1995. Investigators conducting the search,
including Defendant DONALD PEARS, were supposed to collect and identify evidence from the
scene of the car fire and later prepare reports detailing their observations in accordance with
procedures and policies that the MPD was supposed to establish. However, PEARS failed to
properly collect, identify and/or prepare reports regarding multiple pieces of exculpatory
evidence, including but not limited to the following:
a)

Without wearing gloves, PEARS picked up a newspaper that smelled of gasoline
from the bottom of a garbage container outside the utility room where Plaintiff
told him he sometimes kept the gas can for his lawn mower. He placed the
newspaper in an unsealed, brown paper bag instead of a sealed evidence can.

- PAGE 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 12 of 59

b)

Thereafter, without washing his hands or putting on gloves, PEARS collected the
clothes that Plaintiff was wearing the night before and placed them in another
unsealed, brown paper bag instead of a separate sealed evidence can.

c)

PEARS then left both the paper bag containing the newspaper and the paper bag
containing Plaintiff’s clothes in the trunk of his car overnight. Thereafter, when
the forensic lab tested Plaintiffs’ clothes, the result was weakly positive for an
accelerant, which is consistent with cross-contamination.

d)

PEARS did not include his handling of the newspaper and Plaintiff’s clothes or
his use of the paper bags in his reports.

e)

All of the foregoing collection, identification and reporting activities, individually
and collectively, either violated MPD procedures and policies or resulted from the
MPD’s failure to have proper procedures or policies or proper training,
enforcement or discipline for the same.

f)

All of the foregoing collection activities, individually and collectively, resulted in
the cross-contamination of Plaintiff’s clothing with the gasoline contained on the
newspaper.

g)

After Plaintiff’s clothes already had been cross-contaminated, BAILEY,
recognizing that PEARS’ mishandling of the evidence caused cross contamination
of Plaintiff’s clothes, hid that mishandling by removing the newspaper and
Plaintiff’s clothes from the paper bags and then placing these items into their own
sealed evidence cans before they were sent to the forensic lab. PEARS and/or
BAILEY then at some point lost or destroyed the paper bags. The forensic lab

- PAGE 12

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 13 of 59

was never advised that the collection and storage was inconsistent with the way
the items arrived at the lab.
24.

At the time of the initial investigation, Defendant WILBUR WILLIAMS was the

chief of detectives of the MPD criminal investigation and personally oversaw the initial
investigation. Shortly after the discovery of what appeared to be the remains of a gas can in the
burned out car, W. WILLIAMS met with Lt. Woodard (now deceased)—who had discovered
what appeared to be the remains of a gas can—and Corporal Matthew Thompson (now deceased)
and TOM JENNINGS, an MPD public relations employee. During that meeting, W.
WILLIAMS noted that the discovery affected the ongoing investigation and supported Mr.
Martin’s claim that his wife carried a gas can in her car. It was decided at that meeting that the
information relating to the discovery of the gas can should be kept confidential by the MPD, and
it was kept confidential.
25.

MPD investigators also received additional pieces of exculpatory evidence, which

they failed to meaningfully investigate, causing the irretrievable loss of leads. These additional
pieces of exculpatory evidence include, but are not limited to, the following: First, on or about
October 22, 1995, MPD detective Corporal Matthew Thompson (now deceased) received a call
from witness Norma Broach who relayed her observations from the night of October 8, 1995,
while she was near the area where Mrs. Martin’s body was later found that night. In summary,
Mrs. Broach’s observations are:
a)

On the night of October 8, 1995, she and her husband stopped to get gas at the
Texaco station at the corner of Willis Road and Highway 90, which is near the
area where Mrs. Martin’s body and burned car were later found. As their van
approached the service station, with her husband driving, Mrs. Broach saw a

- PAGE 13

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 14 of 59

small black car (which matched the description of Mrs. Martin’s car) and a white
camper truck parked alongside Highway 90 pointing south.
b)

Mrs. Broach then saw a white man (Plaintiff is black) exiting the camper truck
and interacting suspiciously with respect to the small black car: The white man
leaned into the black car before returning to the camper truck, retrieved a large
gas can, and then drove into the Texaco station. When the man opened the back
of the camper, Mrs. Broach was able to see a mattress, a bag of clothes, and a bag
of groceries, and witnessed the man straightening some sheets in the back of the
camper. The man then filled up his gas can and a second gas can from the camper
truck before driving back to the small black car. The man did not put gas from
either of the two cans into the gas tanks of either vehicle, but put them inside the
camper truck. Mrs. Broach saw the man between the two vehicles, backing up
and dragging a heavy object, stooped over, with hands extended.

c)

Mrs. Broach then saw the man push the heavy object into the passenger side of
the cab of the camper truck, get into the driver’s side of the camper truck, make a
U-turn and speed down Willis Road, which is the area where Mrs. Martin’s body
and burned car were found later that night.

26.

Cpl. Thompson handwrote a note referring to Mrs. Broach’s call and

observations, which was placed in the MPD investigation file for the case. Mrs. Broach also
spoke to one or more MPD investigators regarding her observations in the following days or
weeks. In addition, in talking with investigators, PEARS learned that the MPD had received a
report about a witness seeing a camper that pulled into the parking lot of the service station near
where Mrs. Martin’s body was found, and BAILEY also heard conversations about a truck

- PAGE 14

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 15 of 59

having been seen near where Mrs. Martin’s body was found and on the night of her death.
However, the MPD never issued a BOLO or BOL or otherwise attempted to identify or locate
the white man or the camper truck that Mrs. Broach observed.
27.

On November 28, 1995, MPD Cadet W. Jackson received a call at the Police

Records Unit from an anonymous caller who stated that “more people were involved in the case
of Mrs. Martin’s death than the police knew about,” and that “a subject known as Greyline
Williams knows all about the case” (“November 1995 Anonymous Call”). The caller could not
spell the trooper’s name and Cadet Jackson wrote the name phonetically, but the name matched
the name of GRAYLING WILLIAMS, an Alabama State Trooper who, according to Alabama
State Trooper records, was on duty on the day of and scheduled to be on duty on the night of
October 8, 1995, near the area where Mrs. Martin’s body was later found that night.
Cpl. Thompson interviewed Cadet Jackson and memorialized the call in an “Investigator’s
Narrative.” However, the MPD never attempted to trace this phone call, subpoenaed records of
the call or otherwise attempted to identify and locate the caller. The MPD Defendants never
meaningfully investigated GRAYLING WILLIAMS as a suspect or person of interest.
28.

On October 31, 1995, Agent Jonathan Dees of the Alabama Department

of Public Safety (“ADPS”), while on duty, answered the phone to an anonymous caller who
stated that Mrs. Martin was “running around with two white troopers in Baldwin County”
(“October 1995 Anonymous Call”). The caller gave the names “Trooper Bankston and Trooper
Boykin,” and the caller stated that “someone in the State Troopers’ office was arranging the
meetings while Martin was working.” This anonymous call was memorialized in an ADPS
“Agent Investigative Summary” that was signed by Agent Dees and Lt. Ed Odom. However, as
with the other anonymous call, the MPD never attempted to trace this phone call, subpoenaed

- PAGE 15

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 16 of 59

records of the call or otherwise attempted to identify and locate the caller. The MPD Defendants
never meaningfully investigated Trooper Bankston and Trooper Boykin, and each of them, as
suspects or persons of interest.
B.

Defendant Calhoun’s Continuation of the Investigation and Continued Focus on
Mr. Martin
29.

After the initial investigation into Mrs. Martin’s death by MPD investigators

under the command of W. WILLIAMS, Defendant THOMAS CALHOUN was appointed
commander of the MPD criminal investigation division and, in that capacity, learned about the
investigation and its status. Thereafter, in or about January 1997, he took charge over and
personally participated in the investigation at the request of the MPD chief of police at the time.
In conferring with the existing MPD investigators into Mrs. Martin’s death, CALHOUN reached
an understanding that the focus of the investigation was on Plaintiff as the primary suspect to the
exclusion of a meaningful investigation into other suspects and other causes of Mrs. Martin’s
death. This understanding is evidenced by how CALHOUN conducted his investigation.
30.

CALHOUN had access to all of the MPD investigators and the MPD investigation

files that existed at the time when he took charge over the investigation, including, but not
limited to, BAILEY’s reports and observations, PEARS’s reports and observations, the test
results for Plaintiff’s clothes, W. WILLIAM’s observations, Cpl. Thompson’s notes and
observations, and the notes and reports about the anonymous phone calls, and all of the physical
evidence that was collected in connection with the initial investigation. In addition, he had
numerous conversations with the MPD officials and investigators, including, but not limited to,
W. WILLIAMS, PEARS, and Cpl. Thompson, regarding the initial investigation. CALHOUN
also conducted his own investigation, including interviewing witnesses James Taylor and Terri
Jean Jackson, Mrs. Martin’s sister.

- PAGE 16

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 17 of 59

31.

Despite his access to the results of the initial investigation and his personal

participation in the continued investigation, CALHOUN repeatedly ignored or failed to
meaningfully investigate leads pointing to other suspects or alternative theories and away from
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, the following:
a)

On the night of October 8, 1995, James Taylor was driving near the area where
Mrs. Martin’s body was later found. He observed unusual activity by a black
Alabama State Trooper in a trooper car who he described to CALHOUN in
multiple interviews as a “large” black male trooper and as a “big man that filled
up the car.” (In contrast, Plaintiff was 5’6” and probably the shortest trooper in
the area at the time). CALHOUN handwrote Taylor’s observations in his notes.

b)

CALHOUN presented a photo array of the thirteen black Alabama state troopers
in Mobile County (including Plaintiff) to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor drew an arrow
on the photo array to a photo of Trooper GRAYLING WILLIAMS as most
closely resembling the black Alabama State Trooper that he saw. Mr. Taylor then
signed and dated where he had drawn an arrow.

c)

The MPD investigation files included Alabama state trooper records stating that
GRAYLING WILLIAMS was on duty on the day of and scheduled to be on duty
on the night of October 8, 1995, near the area where Mrs. Martin’s body was later
found that night.

d)

The MPD investigation files included inconsistent statements by GRAYLING
WILLIAMS regarding his whereabouts during the night of October 8, 1995.

e)

The MPD investigation files included the report by Cpl. Thompson (who
CALHOUN frequently spoke to) regarding the November 1995 Anonymous Call

- PAGE 17

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 18 of 59

indicating that GRAYLING WILLIAMS was either involved in Mrs. Martin’s
death or had knowledge about her death.
f)

The MPD investigation files included the notes by Cpl. Thompson (who
CALHOUN frequently spoke to) referring to Mrs. Broach and her observations
regarding suspicious activity by a white man with a camper truck in relation to a
car matching the description of Mrs. Martin’s car, on the night of her death and
near where her body later was found.

g)

The observations of BAILEY included that Lt. Woodard had discovered what
they believed could have been the remains of a gas can in Mrs. Martin’s burned
car but this was not recorded; that Lt. Woodard had removed two burned items
from the burned car but this was not recorded; and that investigators were unable
to locate bike tracks by which Plaintiff could have timely left the scene without
being noticed and before MPD investigators met him at his home.

h)

The observations of PEARS (who CALHOUN frequently spoke to) included that
he had collected, without gloves, a newspaper that smelled of gasoline and
Plaintiff’s clothes and left these items overnight in papers bags in his trunk. His
observations also included the discovery of what could have been the remains of a
gas can in Mrs. Martin’s burned car.

i)

The observations of W. WILLIAMS (who CALHOUN necessarily spoke to given
their MPD positions) included that he and other MPD investigators had discussed
the discovery of the remains of a gas can from Mrs. Martin’s burned out car and
decided that the discovery should not be made public.

- PAGE 18

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 19 of 59

j)

Terri Jean Jackson, Mrs. Martin’s sister, told CALHOUN during an interview that
she observed Mrs. Martin carry a gas can in her car in the weeks before her death.

32.

The above pieces of evidence undermined probable cause for an arrest and

prosecution of Plaintiff.
33.

Despite the efforts by Defendants THOMAS CALHOUN, WILBUR WILLIAMS,

DONALD PEARS, and each of them, to build a criminal case against Mr. Martin, the DA’s
Office never obtained a grand jury indictment against Plaintiff. The DA’s Office was
“uncomfortable” going forward with a prosecution of Plaintiff and, after the AG’s Office took
over the case in 1999, made clear in a letter to the AG’s Office that the DA’s Office “will not be
involved in this case.”
34.

On October 9, 1997, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against, among others, Defendants

WILBUR WILLIAMS and DONALD PEARS, as well as Cpl. Thompson, for accusing him of
killing Mrs. Martin. This lawsuit, among other things, caused Defendants THOMAS
CALHOUN, WILBUR WILLIAMS, DONALD PEARS, and each of them, and possibly others
at the MPD to press for a prosecution of Plaintiff despite the lack of probable cause for an arrest
and prosecution as some type of revenge.
35.

CALHOUN and others at the MPD, and each of them, sought and obtained the

transfer of the criminal case in its entirety from the DA’s Office to the AG’s Office, which was
completed on or about June 10, 1999. The AG’s Office took the case because, in conferring with
CALHOUN and the other MPD investigators, the AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
reached an understanding that Plaintiff was the only suspect in Mrs. Martin’s death.

- PAGE 19

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 20 of 59

C.

The AG Defendants’ Prosecution of Mr. Martin, and Defendants Calhoun’s, Neno’s,
and the MPD’s Suppression and Manipulation of Evidence
36.

After the case was transferred, on June 15, 1999, the AG DEFENDANTS, and

each of them, obtained an indictment against Plaintiff. The AG DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, were able to secure a true bill from the grand jury by failing to present multiple pieces of
exculpatory evidence that undermined probable cause and by making false arguments, which
they would repeat at the Criminal Trial. Plaintiff was arrested on July 23, 1999 in Houston,
Texas (a location which was not concealed from law enforcement in Mobile) at his then place of
work and waived extradition and voluntarily returned to Alabama.
37.

The AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had a constitutional obligation to

disclose evidence favorable to Mr. Martin to his criminal trial counsel under Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963). In addition, Circuit Court Trial Judge Ferrill McRae issued an order for
“open-file” discovery (“Open-File Discovery Order”).
38.

The AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, delegated their prosecutorial duties

under Brady to Defendant THOMAS CALHOUN, a non-lawyer. CALHOUN was solely
responsible for determining what to disclose and what not to disclose to the defense under Brady
and the Open-File Discovery Order. Despite the existence of exculpatory evidence within the
possession, custody or control of the AG DEFENDANTS and the MPD DEFENDANTS, no
exculpatory evidence was ever produced to Mr. Martin’s criminal trial counsel.
39.

CALHOUN claimed during the Rule 32 Proceeding that this was his first time

overseeing document and evidence production to defense counsel. Although CALHOUN
claimed during the Rule 32 Proceeding that he was given no guidance and no training with
respect to the handling of exculpatory evidence, he admitted that he was fully aware of his
obligation to produce all potentially exculpatory evidence to Mr. Martin’s criminal trial counsel,

- PAGE 20

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 21 of 59

and he was familiar or should have been familiar with the criminal discovery process because
open-file discovery was frequently ordered in Alabama criminal cases.
40.

As judicially found, Defendant THOMAS CALHOUN unconstitutionally

withheld numerous pieces of evidence favorable to the defense, including but not limited to:
a)

Mr. Taylor’s statements to CALHOUN that the black Alabama State Trooper who
he saw was “large” black male trooper and a “big man that filled up the car”;

b)

the photo array on which Mr. Taylor drew and signed (in the presence of
CALHOUN) an arrow to a photo of GRAYLING WILLIAMS as most
resembling the black Alabama State Trooper that he saw;

c)

the November 2015 Anonymous Call (which was in the MPD file that
CALHOUN controlled);

d)

the October 2015 Anonymous Call (which was in the MPD file that CALHOUN
controlled);

e)

Mrs. Broach and her observations of the suspicious activities of the white man at
or near the gas station (which was referenced in the MPD file that CALHOUN
controlled); and THOMPSON’s note of his conversation with Mrs. Broach.

f)

Terri Jean Jackson’s statement to CALHOUN that she observed Mrs. Martin carry
a gas can in her car in the weeks before her death

(collectively, the “Brady Material”). In addition, CALHOUN also withheld additional pieces of
exculpatory evidence. Among other things, CALHOUN:
g)

failed to disclose the observations of W. WILLIAMS, BAILEY, PEARS, and
other MPD officers and employees having seen or been told about the finding of

- PAGE 21

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 22 of 59

what appeared to be the remains of a gas can in Mrs. Martin’s burned out car (and
then failed to record and preserve that evidence);
h)

failed to disclose that Lt. Woodard had removed, and BAILEY and other MPD
officers and employees had seen him remove, two burned items from the burned
car when the scene was supposed to have been secured until daylight (and then
failed to record and preserve that evidence);

i)

failed to disclose BAILEY’s and other MPD officers’ search for, and the failure to
find, bike tracks; and

j)

failed to timely disclose PEARS’s improper collection of Plaintiff’s clothing and
then the deception practiced on the forensic lab by removing the improperly
collected items from the paper bags, losing or destroying the paper bags, and
sending of the items to the lab in separate evidence cans

(collectively, the “Additional Exculpatory Material”)
41.

The Alabama Circuit Court already has found that the suppression of the Brady

Material was willful and intentional. In addition, CALHOUN testified during the Rule 32
Proceeding that he did not turn over any investigator’s notes, regardless of whether or not they
contained exculpatory evidence, and despite his obligation to produce the entire file.
CALHOUN also produced a version of a document to Mr. Martin’s criminal trial counsel only
after removing the exculpatory evidence which appeared in the un-produced document.
Specifically, his handwritten notes of his interview with Mr. Taylor included the exculpatory
description that the trooper he saw was “large,” but CALHOUN created a typewritten version of
the notes that removed this exculpatory information, and he only produced the typewritten
version and not the handwritten version.

- PAGE 22

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 23 of 59

42.

CALHOUN’s suppression of evidence was done with the assistance of Defendant

NENO, who served as an intermediary between CALHOUN and Plaintiff’s criminal trial
counsel. The evidence that NENO told Mr. Martin’s trial counsel was available was far less than
what was obtained years later by Mr. Martin’s Rule 32 counsel and contained none of the
exculpatory evidence that was also obtained years later by Mr. Martin’s Rule 32 counsel. Given
that he worked closely with CALHOUN in connection with building a criminal case against
Plaintiff and the decisions regarding what to produce and what not produce, NENO knew or had
reason to know that the Brady Material had been suppressed and the Additional Exculpatory
Material had not be disclosed.
43.

In addition to the above misconduct, CALHOUN and NENO (and the AG

DEFENDANTS) also participated in the fabrication of evidence in the months leading up to the
Criminal Trial. Among other things, CALHOUN and NENO and the AG DEFENDANTS, and
each of them, manufactured or encouraged and facilitated the manufacturing of a false claim by
jailhouse snitch CLIFFORD DAVIS—someone who considers CALHOUN a “very close
friend”—regarding a purported confession made by Plaintiff while Plaintiff was housed at the
Mobile County Metro Jail (“Jail”) awaiting his criminal trial. DAVIS claimed that four inmates
in wedge 1002 of the Jail, including Plaintiff, confessed to him, and that Plaintiff demonstrated a
purported chokehold that he used on his wife. Although DAVIS claimed that he reached out to
the MPD three days after the alleged confession by Plaintiff, it was CALHOUN who conducted
the MPD’s preliminary interview with DAVIS and in violation of practice, CALHOUN failed to
record his preliminary interview with DAVIS.
44.

Both CALHOUN and NENO further were present during a subsequent interview

of DAVIS by Defendants VALESKA and GRANT. Although this subsequent interview was

- PAGE 23

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 24 of 59

videotaped, there were repeated stops in the videotape during which CALHOUN, NENO,
VALESKA and/or GRANT manufactured for DAVIS or facilitated DAVIS’s manufacturing of
his testimony against Plaintiff. Neither CALHOUN, NENO, VALESKA, GRANT nor anyone
else at the MPD or the AG’s Office made any attempt to preserve the relevant surveillance
videotape of wedge 1002 or collect and preserve the Jail’s files on DAVIS or any official records
regarding DAVIS’s claim. The surveillance videotape would have confirmed that Plaintiff did
not demonstrate any chokehold and would have negated other aspects of DAVIS’s fabricated
story.
45.

After these interviews with DAVIS, CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them,

suppressed from the defense evidence damaging DAVIS’s credibility and indicating
CALHOUN’s (and possibly also the AG’s Office’s) complicity in DAVIS’s false claim: An
MPD incident report demonstrates that DAVIS was the subject of a complaint of domesticrelated harassment and that, during the incident, DAVIS told responding police officers
“numerous times that he would ‘fix’ them because he was very close friends with Maj. Calhoun
[and] the State Attorney General.” This report was dated less than a month before the Criminal
Trial but was not disclosed to the defense.
46.

The foregoing actions by CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, among other

actions, regarding jailhouse snitch CLIFFORD DAVIS, individually and collectively, either
violated MPD procedures and policies or resulted from the MPD’s failure to have proper
procedures or policies or proper training, enforcement or discipline for the same. The State
Circuit Court indicated that the intentional placement by detectives in Mobile County of a snitch
into a jail with a defendant was not uncommon. During a hearing in the Rule 32 Proceeding, the
following exchange took place between the judge and CALHOUN:

- PAGE 24

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 25 of 59

THE COURT: And are you surprised – would it surprise you that someone with
law enforcement had intentionally placed a snitch in with Mr. Martin, that that’s
not something that's commonly done?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, that's not done at all. That’s on television. I’ve never
heard of that being done.
THE COURT: Well, would you be surprised that this Court had heard that in this
courtroom by detectives?
THE WITNESS: I would be surprised, Your Honor. I just – I’ve only seen it on
television.
47.

In addition, the foregoing actions by VALESKA and GRANT, and each of them,

among other actions, regarding jailhouse snitch CLIFFORD DAVIS, individually and
collectively, either violated the procedures and policies of the AG’s Office or resulted from the
failure by the AG’s Office to have proper procedures or policies or proper training, enforcement
or discipline for the same.
48.

During the morning of October 9, 1995, Lt. Woodard had collected and identified

a portion of partially burned pages of a phone book in the car. Other MPD investigators also
noted in their reports or in testimony that burned pages of a phone book had been found. It was
believed that if the fire was intentionally set the phone book could have been used for ignition.
The pieces of the phone book were placed in an evidence can, sealed and stored by the MFRD.
Later, in late 1999, with the assistance of Larry Hansen, an arson investigator for the MFRD, and
possibly others at MFRD and/or MPD, CALHOUN opened that evidence can and removed the
phone book pages. Thereafter, either CALHOUN or another MPD or MFRD officer under his
instructions replaced the remains of the phone book with pages from a Galls catalog, which is a

- PAGE 25

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 26 of 59

publication that law enforcement officers like Mr. Martin subscribe to. Thereafter, a separate
MPD evidence form was created on November 4, 1999, that for the first time claimed that the
paper was “[b]urnt pages from can #9 items #1 thru 11 (from Galls catalog).” The evidence form
omitted the fact that it was CALHOUN who had opened the evidence can and removed its
contents.
D.

The AG Defendants’ Knowledge and Use of the Suppression of Evidence and False
Arguments to the Jury at the Criminal Trial
49.

The AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew that CALHOUN had

suppressed, among other things, the Brady Material. The AG DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, also knew that the defense did not know, among other things, that investigators had
discovered what appeared to be the remains of a gas can; that investigators had removed two
burned items from the burned car; that investigators were unable to find bike tracks; and that
DAVIS believed that he had a “very close friend[ship]” with CALHOUN. As the State Circuit
Court found: “Experienced trial lawyers, including these prosecutors, know that they must be
prepared to address weaknesses of their case.” The Brady Material, the Additional Exculpatory
Evidence, and other exculpatory evidence were the weaknesses in the criminal case against
Plaintiff. Nonetheless, the AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, proceeded to the Criminal
Trial without any attempt to produce or disclose the foregoing evidence and then made
arguments to the jury that the State Circuit Court described as “untruths” and “partial truths”—
arguments that would have been unavailable or would have been undermined by the suppressed
and undisclosed evidence.
50.

As judicially found, the suppression of the Brady Material resulted in an unfair

trial in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Specifically:

- PAGE 26

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 27 of 59

a)

First, at the criminal trial, the AG DEFENDANTS presented James Taylor’s
testimony that he had seen a black Alabama state trooper in a trooper car on the
night of October 8, 1995, in the area where Mrs. Martin’s body later was found
but did not ask Taylor whether he could identify Plaintiff as being the trooper he
saw. The AG DEFENDANTS later argued that the jury could infer that Plaintiff
was the man who Mr. Taylor saw, which was the AG DEFENDANTS’s only
attempt to place Plaintiff near the scene of the later car fire. CALHOUN (who
was present in the courtroom throughout the Criminal Trial) and the
AG DEFENDANTS (and possibly others at the MPD or the AG’s Office), and
each of them, knew that this argument was false based on the suppressed photo
array and interview notes, and that the man Mr. Taylor saw could not possibly
have been Plaintiff.

b)

The AG DEFENDANTS and CALHOUN, and each of them, made no mention of
witness Norma Broach’s observations of an alternative suspect.

c)

The AG DEFENDANTS attacked Plaintiff’s credibility by ridiculing his
testimony that his wife carried a gas can in her car, which would have provided an
alternative explanation for the presence of gasoline in the burned car. The
AG DEFENDANTS argued that the only evidence supporting Plaintiff’s
testimony was biased testimony from his relatives. CALHOUN and the AG
DEFENDANTS (and possibly others at the MPD or the AG’s Office), and each of
them, knew that this argument was false based on the suppressed observations of
Mrs. Martin’s sister Terri Jean Jackson.

- PAGE 27

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 28 of 59

d)

The AG DEFENDANTS and CALHOUN, and each of them, made no mention of
GRAYLING WILLIAMS or the other potential suspects and persons of interest
referenced in the November 2015 Anonymous Call and the October 2015
Anonymous Call.

51.

In addition to the judicially found suppression of evidence, Defendants engaged in

further misconduct to obtain a conviction against Plaintiff, including, but not limited to:
a)

The AG DEFENDANTS argued to the jury, without evidence, that Plaintiff had
fled the scene of Mrs. Martin’s death using a bicycle. However, CALHOUN and
the AG DEFENDANTS (and possibly others at the MPD or the AG’s Office), and
each of them, knew that investigators were unable to find bike tracks in the soft
dirt surrounding the burned out car. The bike argument would have been
implausible had Plaintiff’s criminal trial counsel been told that tracks were
searched for and not found.

b)

The AG DEFENDANTS presented the testimony of DAVIS regarding the
purported confession and chokehold demonstration by Plaintiff. However,
CALHOUN and the AG DEFENDANTS (and possibly others at the MPD or the
AG’s Office), and each of them, knew or had reason to know that the testimony
was false and that evidence demonstrating the falsity of the testimony was not
disclosed or preserved.

c)

The AG DEFENDANTS argued that remains of a gas can were not found in
Mrs. Martin’s burned out car. However, at least five law enforcement officers or
employees, including Defendants WILBUR WILLIAMS, DONALD PEARS,
CHARLES BAILEY, Lt. Woodard (now deceased), and Tom Jennings of the

- PAGE 28

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 29 of 59

MPD and Michael Hulak of the Alabama State Troopers (and possibly others at
the MPD) had seen or discussed with investigators the recovery of the remains of
what they believed to be a gas can but that investigators determined that this
finding should not be shared with the public. Those observations were never
made known to Plaintiff’s criminal trial counsel.
d)

Because of the observations that the remains of a gas can were found in
Mrs. Martin’s burned car were not made known to the defense, the
AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were able to convince the jury that the
fire was undoubtedly set intentionally since gasoline was found inside the car and
that there was no evidence that the gasoline was introduced accidentally. That
argument could not have been made had the observations of the gas can by the
law enforcement officers and the observation of Mrs. Martin’s sister not been
withheld. Expert analysis would agree that in the absence of a gas can, the
presence of gasoline in the interior of the burned out car would demonstrate that
the fire was intentionally set. However, expert analysis would conclude that the
presence of a gas can in the burned out car would make the possibility that the fire
was accidentally caused at least the equal of it being deliberately set.

e)

The withholding of the identity of Mrs. Broach and her observations and the
withholding of the anonymous calls implicating GRAYLING WILLIAMS in
Mrs. Martin’s death were also used as a sword at trial. The jury was given only
one claimed suspect when the MPD DEFENDANTS and the
AG DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were aware of at least one or two other
suspects, but Mr. Martin’s criminal trial counsel were not made aware.

- PAGE 29

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 30 of 59

52.

On May 10, 2000, a jury in the State Circuit Court—without the benefit of the

significant exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from Plaintiff by the MPD (through
Defendants THOMAS CALHOUN and MARK NENO and others at the MPD) and without the
benefit of the results of an unflawed and unbiased investigation by the MPD—convicted Plaintiff
of capital murder, and sentenced him to life in jail without parole. State Circuit Court Judge
Ferrill McRae overrode the jury and sentenced Plaintiff to death. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal
of his conviction and sentence. On December 10, 2004, Plaintiff lost his direct appeal, and was
resentenced, again to death on June 17, 2005. The CCA affirmed his sentence on appeal on
November 23, 2005.
E.

Mr. Martin Uncovered the Suppression of Material, Exculpatory Evidence and
Successfully Obtained the Overturning of His Conviction
53.

On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff, aided by new counsel Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,

filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition in the State Circuit Court. After years of pursuing
discovery of the original prosecution file, and of consistent opposition from and repeated appeals
by the STATE OF ALABAMA regarding the same, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld in 2011
the State Circuit Court’s order requiring production, and the STATE OF ALABAMA ultimately
produced over 14,000 pages of materials to Plaintiff, which is thousands of pages more than had
been produced to his original defense counsel. Included in those 14,000 pages were some of the
Brady Material that had been withheld from Plaintiff’s criminal trial counsel.
54.

Despite the production to Plaintiff’s Rule 32 counsel, the State continued to

withhold a substantial amount of material on the basis of privilege or work product. The
State Circuit Court conducted an in camera review in response to the State’s privilege log and
Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and ordered the State to produce additional documents, including
certain “investigator’s notes” containing exculpatory material that was ultimately among the

- PAGE 30

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 31 of 59

Brady Material at the heart of the New Trial Order. In opposing Mr. Martin’s motion to compel,
the STATE OF ALABAMA took the position, much like Defendant THOMAS CALHOUN, that
investigator’s notes are privileged and do not have to be produced regardless of whether or not
they contain exculpatory evidence. By ordering the production of certain exculpatory
investigator’s notes, the State Circuit Court disapproved this view of the law.
55.

The State Circuit Court held three weeks of evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s

Rule 32 claims in April and July 2012, during which over 25 witnesses provided testimony and
over 100 exhibits were entered into evidence. During the evidentiary hearing, Defendant
THOMAS CALHOUN repeatedly provided false and misleading testimony in violation of his
oath. The State Circuit Court found, and the CCA affirmed, that CALHOUN’s testimony was
not credible. One of the many reasons that CALHOUN was found not credible came from his
testimony about certain “Document Affidavit Sheets” that were found in the prosecution file by
Plaintiff’s Rule 32 counsel. One such “Document Affidavit Sheet” referred to the “Investigator’s
Narrative” of CALHOUN’s May 8, 1997 interview of Mr. Taylor during which Mr. Taylor
identified Grayling Williams as being the size of the trooper he saw on Willis Road the night of
Mrs. Martin’s death. The Document Affidavit Sheet stated: “This exhibit is investigative work
product and disclosure would interfere with a capital murder investigation. Disclosure would
allow a defendant to tailor his testimony to fit the evidence in this case.” After denying any
knowledge of this Affidavit Sheet or any similar one, CALHOUN was confronted with a
document that he gave in a related civil case in which he recited, under oath, the same language
used in the Affidavit Sheet. CALHOUN then admitted that his prior testimony was false and
that these forms were both widely used by the MPD, and were also regularly used by
CALHOUN himself.

- PAGE 31

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 32 of 59

56.

Further, Defendants WILBUR WILLIAMS, DONALD PEARS and CHARLES

BAILEY also provided testimony during the evidentiary hearing that was directly contradicted
by their previous sworn and detailed affidavits and/or deposition testimony. In the prior
deposition and affidavit testimony these MPD DEFENDANTS had testified that they observed
or were part of discussions regarding the remnants of what appeared to be a gas can discovered
in the burned out car. At the evidentiary hearing, after some were prepared by CALHOUN, all
three of these MPD DEFENDANTS attempted to walk back or recant their prior sworn
statements. (Two other law enforcement officers or employees, Tom Jennings and Michael
Hulak, never walked back their testimony.) In addressing these improper efforts, the State
Circuit Court stated:
This Court is most dismayed over the testimony that was produced in this part of
the hearing. Never has the Court seen such casual treatment of the oath used in
affidavits allegedly setting forth certain facts, only to see these affidavits and facts
recanted at the Rule 32 hearing.
57.

On August 30, 2013, the State Circuit Court issued the New Trial Order vacating

Plaintiff’s conviction and death sentence and granting him a new trial based on multiple
violations of Brady during the investigation, prosecution and trial of Plaintiff. The State
appealed the New Trial Order. On December 12, 2014, the CCA unanimously affirmed the
Order. The ASC unanimously denied the State’s petition of certiorari on April 17, 2015.
F.

Defendants Valeska and Dill Have a History of Violating Alabama Citizens’
Constitutional Rights under Brady and Other Constitutional Rights
58.

Mr. Martin’s was not the only case that involved the suppression of exculpatory

evidence perpetrated by Defendants VALESKA and DILL. In State v. Moore, 969 So. 2d 169 at
173–74 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), Defendants VALESKA and DILL were found to have violated

- PAGE 32

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 33 of 59

Brady by withholding the findings of an exculpatory FBI report. In response to direct
questioning from the Alabama circuit court about the existence of the alleged FBI report,
VALESKA falsely told the court that “[t]here ain’t no such thing as an FBI report.”
59.

Before Moore, VALESKA was found to have knowingly withheld critical,

exculpatory evidence in Gibson v. State, 580 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990), although the
court ultimately found no Brady violation. VALESKA was also responsible for retrying a
criminal defendant four separate times after the CCA and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed
that he had committed prosecutorial misconduct in each of the first three trials.
60.

VALESKA was involved in the criminal prosecution of Tieco, Inc., and the

parallel federal civil action brought by Tieco’s competitor, United States Steel, LLC (f/k/a the
USX Corporation) (“USX”), which were both dismissed with prejudice. The case was dismissed
when the Northern District of Alabama found that “Plaintiff . . . engaged in a civil conspiracy
with the Office of the Attorney General” to “intentionally deprive Defendant Tieco of its federal
constitutional rights.”
61.

Upon dismissing USX’s claims against Tieco, the district court noted that the

Alabama circuit court had previously dismissed the criminal prosecutions after finding that the
prosecutors’ misconduct had “far surpasse[d] in both extensiveness and measure the totality of
any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously presented to or witnessed by this court.” The
Alabama circuit court based its dismissal on misconduct that included: “(1) the Attorney
General’s [including VALESKA] repeated refusals and failures to produce exculpatory evidence;
(2) the Attorney General’s repeated denials of the very existence of exculpatory evidence
subsequently discovered by the Defendants; (3) the flagrant disregard of the constitutional rights
of the accused; (4) the completely incredible and deceptive testimony of so many witnesses this

- PAGE 33

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 34 of 59

court treated as officers of the court (some of whom were either assistants or agents for the
Attorney General); and (5) the very patterns of prosecutorial misconduct which exist in this
case.”
62.

A review of the Alabama circuit court’s dismissal in the Tieco prosecution

indicates that these “patterns of prosecutorial misconduct” also included VALESKA’s thwarting
of the Court’s “open-file” discovery order by picking and choosing which grand jury testimony
to record (and thereby produce) and which testimony not to record (and thereby not produce); by
“delegating” control of the prosecutor’s files to investigators to independently decide what to
produce and what not to produce, including all exculpatory material; and by those same
investigators editing previously redacted calendar entries after being ordered by the court to
produce them. The dismissal was not appealed.
63.

VALESKA has been found to have committed prosecutorial misconduct in a

number of other cases as well, including Britain v. State, 533 So. 2d 684, 691 (Ala. Crim. App.
1988); Sawyer v. Alabama, 693 F. Supp. 1036 (S.D. Ala. 1988); and Jennings v. State, 588 So.
2d 540 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
G.

Mr. Martin Demonstrated that the State of Alabama (Through the Investigators and
Prosecutors) Committed Willful and Intentional Misconduct and Successfully
Obtained a Dismissal of the Indictment
64.

On May 7, 2015, after a two-hour hearing, the State Circuit Court granted

Plaintiff release on bond, and after nearly fifteen years on death row, Plaintiff was allowed to
return home but remained subject to the underlying indictment issued against him back in 1999.
On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice pursuant to the State
Circuit Court’s authority to sanction discovery and disclosure abuse. The motion was fully
briefed by the parties, and the State Circuit Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on

- PAGE 34

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 35 of 59

November 9 and 10, 2015, and after which further briefing and argument was scheduled and
completed.
65.

On March 14, 2016, the State Circuit Court dismissed the indictment against

Plaintiff with prejudice, finding that the STATE OF ALABAMA (through the investigators and
prosecutors) had acted willfully and intentionally in depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional right
to a fair trial. The State Circuit Court noted that “if the Martin case is not one which is
appropriate for dismissal, there may never be one.”
66.

With respect to CALHOUN, the State Circuit Court stated:

Calhoun was present throughout the trial of Martin in 2000. He heard the opening
statements of Assistant Attorney General Grant, who stated that there would not be
an iota of evidence concerning a gas can. Calhoun had taken the statement from
Hammoleketh’s sister Terry Jean Jackson that she had observed the gas can in the
hatchback car that was ultimately burned, and this observation was made just a few
weeks before that event. He also heard Assistant Attorney General Valeska make
strong argument in closing that there was no gas can and that it was simply a
creation of certain Martin family members. Calhoun certainly knew, based on his
own investigation, that this was not true. Also Calhoun heard Assistant Attorney
General Grant argue that an inference could be drawn from the testimony of James
Taylor that Martin was a black State Trooper close to the scene before the event in
question. Calhoun knew that a photo spread had been presented to Taylor and that
Taylor identified a physically different State Trooper as being like the one he saw.
Martin’s picture was in the photo spread and not identified by Taylor. The
description “he filled up the car,” and the fact that Taylor identified Trooper
Graylon [sic] Williams as that trooper, destroyed any such inference. Yet Calhoun
testified at the Motion to Dismiss hearing he felt no obligation to intervene, correct,
or suggest to the attorneys that their arguments were not only incorrect, but untrue.
67.

As for the AG DEFENDANTS, the Circuit Court stated:

Experienced trial lawyers, including these prosecutors know that they must be
prepared to address weaknesses of their case. The greatest weakness in the
prosecution’s case in the Martin trial was the identification by James Taylor of a
different trooper as being the one who looked like who he saw on the night of the
event. Another weakness was the admission by the sister of the deceased that
Hammoleketh carried a gas can in her car . . . . The affirmative use by the
prosecutors of partial truths and untruths with knowledge satisfy the element of the
prosecution’s willful misconduct in this case.

- PAGE 35

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 36 of 59

68.

Finding both willful misconduct and prejudice to Mr. Martin, the State Circuit

Court dismissed the indictment.
69.

The STATE OF ALABAMA appealed the dismissal on March 16, 2016, and filed

its appellant brief on August 4, 2016. Plaintiff submitted his appellee brief on September 27,
2016, and briefing concluded with the STATE OF ALABAMA’s reply brief on October 10,
2017. Plaintiff requested oral argument even though the STATE OF ALABAMA opposed oral
argument, the CCA has not yet scheduled any argument or issued a decision in the appeal.
COUNT I
Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the CITY OF MOBILE
and the COUNTY OF MOBILE
70.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
71.

Prior to Plaintiff’s unlawful trial and conviction, Defendants CITY OF MOBILE

and COUNTY OF MOBILE, and each of them, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional
rights of individuals charged with felonies and awaiting trial, implemented, encouraged, tolerated
and/or ratified plainly inadequate policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training,
supervision, and/or discipline concerning:
a)

the handling of exculpatory evidence;

b)

the handling of exculpatory evidence under open-file discovery orders;

c)

the collection, identification, and recording of evidence in connection with an
investigation of a possible crime scene involving fire;

d)

the preservation of evidence collected in connection with an investigation of a
possible crime scene involving fire;

- PAGE 36

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 37 of 59

e)

the recording and preparation of reports containing observations in connection
with an investigation of a possible crime scene involving fire;

f)

the avoidance of the contamination of evidence in connection with an
investigation of a possible crime scene involving fire;

g)

the obligations of law enforcement officers and employees to provide truthful,
accurate or complete information to prosecutors about evidence or lack of
evidence relating to a prosecution;

h)

the obligations of law enforcement officers and employees to provide truthful,
accurate or complete testimony under oath;

i)

the obligations of law enforcement officers and employees regarding
manufacturing or encouraging and facilitating the manufacturing of witness
testimony; and

j)

the obligations of law enforcement officers and employees regarding the editing
or other manipulation of evidence.

72.

As a result of the CITY OF MOBILE’s and the COUNTY OF MOBILE’s, and

each of their, wrongful actions, the misconduct of the MPD DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
set forth in this Complaint occurred. The CITY OF MOBILE and the COUNTY OF MOBILE,
and each of them, had notice of the need to properly instruct, train, supervise and/or discipline
employees with regard to their aforementioned constitutional obligations because:
a)

the misconduct alleged in this complaint occurred repeatedly under the leadership
of two different leaders of the MPD criminal investigation division;

b)

there was a policy or practice at the MPD of not producing investigators’ notes,
regardless of whether they contained exculpatory evidence; and

- PAGE 37

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 38 of 59

c)

there was widespread use at the MPD of the Document Affidavit Sheets reflecting
a policy or practice of not producing evidence that, in the investigators’ opinion,
would allow a defendant to tailor his testimony to fit the evidence in this case.

73.

The aforesaid constitutionally inadequate policies, procedures, regulations,

practices and/or customs (including the failure to properly instruct, train, supervise and/or
discipline employees with regard thereto) were so widespread as to constitute official policy that
made up the CITY OF MOBILE’s and the COUNTY OF MOBILE’s, and each of their, official
policy, custom and/or practice.
74.

The CITY OF MOBILE’s and the COUNTY OF MOBILE’s, and each of their,

actions and the official policy, practice and/or custom resulted directly in the constitutionally
deficient investigation and prosecutions of Plaintiff and abridged his rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
75.

The CITY OF MOBILE’s and the COUNTY OF MOBILE’s official policy,

practice, and/or custom of concealing exculpatory evidence and maliciously prosecuting
individuals, without regard to guilt or innocence, proximately and directly caused Plaintiff
injury, including distress, physical pain, anguish, fear, suffering, reputational harm, loss of
livelihood and monetary damages.
76.

By virtue of the foregoing, the CITY OF MOBILE and the COUNTY OF

MOBILE, and each of them, is liable for having substantially caused the foregoing violations of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his constitutional injuries.

- PAGE 38

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 39 of 59

COUNT II
Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the MPD DEFENDANTS
in their Individual Capacities
77.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
78.

The MPD DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had within their possession,

custody or control exculpatory evidence but suppressed, edited or fabricated, or lost or
contaminated that evidence, including, but not limited to, the following:
a)

CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, did not disclose to Plaintiff’s criminal
trial counsel evidence that Mr. Taylor had identified the black trooper he saw as
most closely resembling Grayling Williams and did not disclose the existence of
the photo array on which Mr. Taylor drew an arrow to Mr. Williams and did not
disclose statements given by Mr. Taylor that identified the trooper he saw as a
large man who filled up the car;

b)

CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, suppressed from Plaintiff’s criminal
trial counsel each and every one of the pieces of material, exculpatory evidence;

c)

CALHOUN edited out exculpatory evidence from at least one document and
produced only the edited version to Plaintiff’s criminal trial counsel;

d)

CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, did not disclose to Plaintiff’s criminal
trial counsel that MPD investigators were unable to find bike tracks;

e)

CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, fabricated or encouraged and
facilitated the fabrication of DAVIS’s claim regarding a purported confession and
chokehold demonstration by Plaintiff;

- PAGE 39

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 40 of 59

f)

CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, did not disclose to Plaintiff’s criminal
trial counsel that DAVIS had told law enforcement officers that he was “very
good friends” with CALHOUN and the AG’s Office in an attempt to influence
those law enforcement officers;

g)

CALHOUN replaced the burned pages of a telephone book with the burned pages
of a Galls catalog;

h)

BAILEY and PEARS, and each of them, failed to report or record (or, in the
alternative, deleted any recording) what they discussed or overheard regarding
Mrs. Broach’s observations;

i)

W. WILLIAMS, BAILEY, PEARS, and CALHOUN, and each of them, failed to
meaningfully investigate Mrs. Broach’s observations, resulting in the loss of
leads;

j)

W. WILLIAMS, BAILEY, PEARS, and CALHOUN, and each of them, failed to
meaningfully investigate Grayling Williams or the other potential suspects and
persons of interest referenced in the November 2015 Anonymous Call and the
October 2015 Anonymous Call, resulting in the loss of leads;

k)

BAILEY, PEARS and W. WILLIAMS, and each of them, failed to report or
record (or, in the alternative, deleted any recording) that they had observed or
discussed the discovery of what appeared to be the remains of a gas can from
Mrs. Martin’s car;

l)

BAILEY failed to properly collect and preserve (or, in the alternative, caused the
loss or destruction of) what appeared to be the remains of a gas can;

- PAGE 40

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 41 of 59

m)

BAILEY failed to report or record (or, in the alternative, deleted any recording)
that he had observed the removal of two burned objects from Mrs. Martin’s car
when the scene was said to have been secured;

n)

BAILEY failed to properly collect and preserve (or, in the alternative, caused the
loss or destruction of) the two burned objects;

o)

BAILEY failed to report or record (or, in the alternative, deleted any recording)
that MPD investigators searched for bike tracks but were unable to find any; and

p)

PEARS failed to properly collect Plaintiff’s clothes, causing the crosscontamination of those clothes with gasoline from a newspaper.

79.

Thereafter, CALHOUN, W. WILLIAMS, BAILEY, and PEARS, and each of

them, tried to cover up their misconduct by destroying or losing, or causing the destruction or
loss, of evidence demonstrating their misconduct or fabricating evidence against Plaintiff by,
among other things:
a)

CALHOUN repeatedly provided false testimony under oath during the Rule 32
Proceeding;

q)

CALHOUN and NENO, and each of them, failed to collect and preserve the
relevant surveillance videotape of wedge 1002 or collect and preserve the Jail’s
files on DAVIS or any official records regarding DAVIS’s claim;

b)

CALHOUN lost or destroyed the burned pages from the telephone book;

c)

BAILEY, PEARS and W. Williams provided false testimony under oath during
the Rule 32 Proceeding regarding the discovery of the gas can;

d)

PEARS and/or BAILEY lost or destroyed the paper bags evidencing his crosscontamination.

- PAGE 41

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 42 of 59

80.

The aforementioned exculpatory evidence, individually and collectively, proved

Plaintiff’s innocence of the alleged crime or at least created more than reasonable doubt as to
Plaintiff being its perpetrator. The aforementioned exculpatory evidence, individually and
collectively, also negated probable cause to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff.
81.

The MPD DEFENDANTS knew they had duties, under the United States

Constitution, to refrain from suppressing, editing, fabricating, losing or contaminating
exculpatory evidence. Notwithstanding their awareness of their duties, the
MPD DEFENDANTS, and each of them, intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, and/or with
deliberate indifference to their legal obligations and Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, suppressed,
edited, fabricated, lost or contaminated exculpatory evidence. The MPD DEFENDANTS did so
with the knowledge and intention that their conduct would result in the wrongful arrest,
prosecution, trial, conviction and death sentence against Plaintiff, and their conduct did result in
the same.
82.

The foregoing violations of Plaintiff’s rights amounted to Constitutional torts and

were effected by actions taken under the color of State law.
83.

The MPD DEFENDANTS’ wrongful acts directly and proximately caused

Plaintiff injury, including distress, physical pain, anguish, fear, suffering, reputational harm, loss
of livelihood and monetary damages.
84.

By reason of the foregoing, all the MPD DEFENDANTS are liable to Plaintiff,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for compensatory and punitive damages.

- PAGE 42

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 43 of 59

COUNT III
Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the MPD Defendants
85.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
86.

DEFENDANTS acted in concert with other individuals, including, but not limited

to Non-party Co-Conspirators MATTHEW THOMPSON, FRANK WOODARD, LARRY
HANSEN, CLIFFORD DAVIS, and GRAYLING WILLIAMS, and conspiring amongst
themselves and with others, intentionally, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for, and
deliberate indifference to, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United
States:
a) improperly handled and/or lost evidence, created misleading or false evidence against
Plaintiff, and left out material exculpatory information in investigation reports;
b) withheld exculpatory evidence and made false arguments to the courts and to the jury
in order to ensure the illegal conviction, incarceration, and execution of Plaintiff; and
c) imprisoned and continually detained Plaintiff for fifteen years, without probable
cause or other legal justification, on the basis of the unlawful conviction and
sentencing.
87.

In conducting these acts, DEFENDANTS were acting under the color of State

88.

DEFENDANTS’ conspiracy amongst themselves and with the NONPARTY CO-

law.

CONSPIRATORS directly and proximately caused Plaintiff injury, including distress, physical
pain, anguish, fear, suffering, reputational harm, loss of livelihood and monetary damages.

- PAGE 43

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 44 of 59

COUNT IV
Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the STATE OF ALABAMA
89.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
90.

Prior to Plaintiff’s unlawful trial and conviction, Defendant STATE OF

ALABAMA, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals charged with
felonies and awaiting trial, implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate
policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline
concerning the following, among others:
a)

the handling of exculpatory evidence under Brady;

b)

the handling of exculpatory evidence under open-file discovery orders;

c)

the obligations of prosecutors to provide truthful, accurate or complete
information about evidence or lack of evidence relating to a prosecution when
seeking an indictment and conviction;

d)

the obligations of prosecutors to provide truthful, accurate or complete testimony
under oath; and

e)

the obligations of prosecutors regarding the fabrication of evidence or of witness
testimony.

91.

As a result of the STATE OF ALABAMA’s wrongful actions, the misconduct by

each and every one of the AG DEFENDANTS set forth in this Complaint occurred. The STATE
OF ALABAMA either had a policy or custom of interfering in criminal defendants’
constitutional rights or, at a minimum, had notice of the need to properly instruct, train, supervise
and/or discipline employees with regard to their aforementioned constitutional obligations based

- PAGE 44

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 45 of 59

upon, among other circumstances, DEFENDANTS VALESKA and DILL’s extensive history of
prosecutorial misconduct and delegation of prosecutorial duties as alleged herein.
92.

The aforesaid constitutionally inadequate policies, procedures, regulations,

practices and/or customs (including the failure to properly instruct, train, supervise and/or
discipline employees with regard thereto) were so widespread as to constitute official policy that
constituted the State of Alabama’s official policy, custom and/or practice.
93.

The STATE OF ALABAMA’s actions and the official policy, practice and/or

custom resulted directly in the constitutionally deficient investigation and prosecutions of
Plaintiff and abridged his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
94.

The STATE OF ALABAMA’s official policy, practice, and/or custom of

concealing exculpatory evidence and maliciously prosecuting individuals, without regard to guilt
or innocence, proximately and directly caused Plaintiff injury, including distress, physical pain,
anguish, fear, suffering, reputational harm, loss of livelihood and monetary damages.
95.

By virtue of the foregoing, the STATE OF ALABAMA is liable for having

substantially caused the foregoing violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his
constitutional injuries.
COUNT V
Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the
AG DEFENDANTS in their Individual Capacities
96.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
97.

Despite having within their possession exculpatory evidence that proved

Plaintiff’s innocence of the alleged crime or at the very least created substantial reasonable doubt

- PAGE 45

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 46 of 59

as to Mr. Martin being its perpetrator, the AG DEFENDANTS, including Defendant VALESKA
as the head prosecutor, oversaw an investigation of Mrs. Martin’s death that led to the indictment
and prosecution of Mr. Martin for capital murder.
98.

As alleged, prior to Plaintiff’s conviction in 2000, and continuing thereafter, the

AG DEFENDANTS, acting individually and in concert and conspiracy with one another, and
despite having within their possession and control exculpatory evidence that proved Plaintiff
innocent of the alleged crime or at the very least created substantial reasonable doubt as to
Plaintiff being its perpetrator, covered up, lied about, and withheld knowledge from Plaintiff of
the Brady Material, in violation of clearly established constitutional law.
99.

Defendant VALESKA completely abdicated the prosecutor’s duty to produce

material to the defense to non-lawyer Defendant CALHOUN, an untrained and unskilled
investigator with respect to Brady obligations.
100.

The AG DEFENDANTS knew they had duties, under the United States

Constitution to: (a) disclose the Brady Material to the defense so that Plaintiff would not be
convicted based upon false, misleading, or incomplete evidence and argument; and (b) to
disclose the existence of the Brady Material to not cause or continue Plaintiff’s unconstitutional
conviction and resultant injuries caused by lying about such evidence.
101.

Notwithstanding their awareness of their duties, the AG DEFENDANTS, prior to,

during, and following Plaintiff’s trial, intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, and/or with
deliberate indifference to their legal obligations and Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, concealed
the Brady Material from, lied about, delegated their duties to untrained individuals, and
otherwise failed to the disclose the Brady Material to Plaintiff.

- PAGE 46

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 47 of 59

102.

The AG DEFENDANTS did so with the knowledge and intention that their

conduct would result in the jury being provided a false or misleading picture about the strength
of the prosecution’s case against Mr. Martin. Had the Brady Material been considered and
evaluated, there would have been no probable cause to proceed against Plaintiff on the charges.
The foregoing resulted in the substantial increase in the likelihood of Plaintiff’s conviction, in
violation of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.
103.

In investigating and prosecuting Plaintiff for murder, the AG DEFENDANTS,

including Defendant VALESKA as the head prosecutor, acted against Plaintiff with malice.
104.

The actions of the AG DEFENDANTS constitute malicious prosecution in

violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
105.

After the State Circuit Court ordered production of the prosecution file in

February 2008, the AG DEFENDANTS sought to cover up and perpetuate their individual and
collective wrongdoing, causing the unnecessary prolongation and continuation of Plaintiff’s
illegal imprisonment on death row and resultant damages, by intentionally withholding the
prosecution file and trial exhibits used in Plaintiff’s original trial on the basis of work product or
privilege—documents that were ultimately relied on as a basis for the State Circuit Court’s New
Trial Order.
106.

The aforesaid conduct operated to deprive Plaintiff of his rights under the

Constitution and Laws of the United States to timely disclosure of all material evidence
favorable to the defense pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, and
to not be convicted or punished based upon the government’s knowing use of false or misleading
testimony or argument, all in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

- PAGE 47

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 48 of 59

107.

The foregoing violations of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights by the

AG DEFENDANTS directly, substantially, proximately, and foreseeably brought about
Plaintiff’s conviction, his illegal imprisonment on death row until such time as his conviction
was vacated, and his other injuries and damages.
108.

The foregoing violations of Plaintiff’s rights amounted to Constitutional torts and

were effected by actions taken under the color of State law.
109.

The AG DEFENDANTS committed the foregoing violations of Plaintiff’s rights

knowingly, maliciously, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, negligently, and/or with deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or to the effect of such misconduct upon Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights.
110.

The AG DEFENDANTS’s wrongful acts directly and proximately caused

Plaintiff injury, including distress, physical pain, anguish, fear, suffering, reputational harm, loss
of livelihood and monetary damages.
111.

By reason of the foregoing, all the AG DEFENDANTS are liable to Plaintiff,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for compensatory and punitive damages.
COUNT VI
Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against the AG DEFENDANTS
112.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
113.

DEFENDANTS acted in concert with other individuals, including, but not limited

to, the MPD DEFENDANTS and NONPARTY CO-CONSPIRATORS LARRY HANSEN,
CLIFFORD DAVIS and GRAYLING WILLIAMS, and conspiring amongst themselves and
with others, intentionally, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for, and deliberate

- PAGE 48

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 49 of 59

indifference to, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States,
including, but not limited to:
a)

intentionally and completely delegated prosecutorial duties under Brady and
concocting a fabricated scenario leading to an unsupported and unsupportable
conclusions that Mr. Martin was guilty;

b)

improperly handled and/or lost evidence and created misleading or false evidence
and testimony against Plaintiff;

c)

withheld exculpatory evidence and made false arguments to the courts and to the
jury in order to ensure the illegal conviction, incarceration, and execution of
Plaintiff; and

d)

imprisoned and continually detained Plaintiff for fifteen years, without probable
cause or other legal justification, on the basis of the unlawful conviction and
sentencing.

114.

In conducting these acts, DEFENDANTS were acting under the color of State

115.

DEFENDANTS’ conspiracy amongst themselves and with the MPD

law.

DEFENDANTS and NONPARTY CO-CONSPIRATORS directly and proximately caused
Plaintiff injury, including distress, physical pain, anguish, fear, suffering, reputational harm, loss
of livelihood and monetary damages.
COUNT VII
Claim Under Alabama State Law for False Arrest Against AG DEFENDANTS, STATE OF
ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, CITY OF MOBILE, and COUNTY OF MOBILE
116.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.

- PAGE 49

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 50 of 59

117.

The AG DEFENDANTS maliciously and without probable cause caused the false

arrest of Plaintiff on July 23, 1999, in Houston, Texas, at his place of work:
a)

without probable cause, persuaded a Mobile County grand jury to return an
indictment charging Plaintiff with capital murder for pecuniary gain;

b)

omitted key exculpatory evidence from the grand jury’s consideration;

c)

used those omissions to obtain an indictment on June 16, 1999, which caused the
arrest of Plaintiff.

118.

Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA, with deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals under investigation for felonies, implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified
plainly inadequate policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision,
and/or discipline. As a result of these actions, the AG DEFENDANTS sought and obtained an
indictment without probable cause, and Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause.
119.

The MPD DEFENDANTS maliciously and without probable cause caused the

false arrest of Plaintiff on July 23, 1999, in Houston, Texas, at his place of work:
a)

inadequately investigated Plaintiff for the murder of Mrs. Martin where there was
no evidence linking Plaintiff to the crime and other evidence affirmatively
showing Plaintiff did not commit the crime;

b)

provided the evidence from the inadequate investigation to the AG
DEFENDANTS, who relied upon the evidence in obtaining a grand jury
indictment, which resulted in the false arrest of Plaintiff.

120.

Defendant CITY OF MOBILE, with deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals under investigation for felonies, implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified
plainly inadequate policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision,

- PAGE 50

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 51 of 59

and/or discipline. As a result, the MPD DEFENDANTS conducted an improper investigation
without probable cause that was the basis for the grand jury indictment, and Plaintiff was
arrested without probable cause.
121.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the AG DEFENDANTS,

STATE OF ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, and CITY OF MOBILE, Plaintiff suffered
damages, including, but not limited to: lost wages, physical illness and distress, mental and
emotional anguish, bail bonding fees, court proceeding costs, attorneys’ fees, humiliation and
embarrassment, and damage to reputation.
COUNT VIII
Claim Under Alabama State Law for Malicious Prosecution Against AG DEFENDANTS,
STATE OF ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, CITY OF MOBILE, and COUNTY OF
MOBILE
122.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
123.

As alleged in the foregoing paragraphs, on June 15, 1999, nearly four years after

Mrs. Martin’s death, and with no new evidence, the AG DEFENDANTS maliciously and
without probable cause persuaded a Mobile County grand jury to return an indictment charging
Plaintiff with capital murder for pecuniary gain. The AG DEFENDANTS maliciously and
without probable cause worked to investigate, initiate, and prosecute charges against Plaintiff.
124.

Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA, with deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals under investigation for felonies or defending against a felony criminal charge,
implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate policies, procedures,
regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline. As a result, the AG
DEFENDANTS investigated and initiated a criminal action and prosecuted that action against
Plaintiff without probable cause.

- PAGE 51

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 52 of 59

125.

The MPD DEFENDANTS lacked probable cause in the investigation of Plaintiff,

which led to the AG DEFENDANTS’ malicious prosecution of Plaintiff and their ongoing
support in the prosecution against Plaintiff.
126.

Defendant CITY OF MOBILE, with deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals under investigation for felonies or defending against a felony criminal charge,
implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate policies, procedures,
regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline. As a result, the MPD
DEFENDANTS conducted an improper investigation without probable cause that was the basis
for the AG DEFENDANTS’ malicious prosecution.
127.

The proceeding terminated in Plaintiff’s favor on March 11, 2016, when the

Alabama Circuit Court dismissed the indictment against Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, will
terminate in Plaintiff’s favor if and when that Dismissal Order is affirmed by the CCA in the
pending appeal.
128.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the AG DEFENDANTS,

STATE OF ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, and CITY OF MOBILE, Plaintiff suffered
damages, including, but not limited to: lost wages, physical illness and distress, mental and
emotional anguish, bail bonding fees, court proceeding costs, attorneys’ fees, humiliation and
embarrassment, and damage to reputation.
COUNT IX
Claim Under Alabama State Law for False Imprisonment Against AG DEFENDANTS,
STATE OF ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, CITY OF MOBILE, and COUNTY OF
MOBILE
129.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.

- PAGE 52

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 53 of 59

130.

The AG DEFENDANTS and MPD DEFENDANTS caused Plaintiff to be

unlawfully imprisoned, held against his will, and deprived of his personal liberty beginning on
July 23, 1999:
a)

AG DEFENDANTS maliciously and without probable cause worked to initiate
and prosecute charges against Plaintiff resulting in his false imprisonment.

b)

MPD DEFENDANTS lacked probable cause to investigate Plaintiff for the charge
of capital murder of Mrs. Martin, maliciously did not consider exculpatory
evidence against Plaintiff, did not pursue leads from evidence pointing to suspects
other than Plaintiff, and failed to adequately investigate the death of Mrs. Martin,
which resulted in the false imprisonment of Plaintiff.

131.

Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA, with deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals under investigation for felonies or defending against a felony criminal charge,
implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate policies, procedures,
regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline. As a result, the AG
DEFENDANTS falsely imprisoned Plaintiff without probable cause.
132.

Defendant CITY OF MOBILE, with deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals under investigation for felonies or defending against a felony criminal charge,
implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate policies, procedures,
regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline. As a result, the MPD
DEFENDANTS conducted an improper investigation without probable cause that was the basis
for the false imprisonment of Plaintiff.
133.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the AG DEFENDANTS, the

STATE OF ALABAMA, the MPD DEFENDANTS, and the CITY OF MOBILE, Plaintiff

- PAGE 53

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 54 of 59

suffered damages, including, but not limited to: lost wages, physical illness and distress, mental
and emotional anguish, bail bonding fees, court proceeding costs, attorneys’ fees, humiliation
and embarrassment, and damage to reputation.
COUNT X
Claim Under Alabama State Law for Abuse of Process Against
AG DEFENDANTS, STATE OF ALABAMA,
MPD DEFENDANTS, CITY OF MOBILE, AND COUNTY OF MOBILE
134.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
135.

The AG DEFENDANTS, the STATE OF ALABAMA, the MPD

DEFENDANTS, and the CITY OF MOBILE committed the tort of abuse of process against
Plaintiff.
136.

The AG DEFENDANTS had an ulterior purpose and acted willfully and

maliciously to harm Plaintiff when they persuaded a Mobile County grand jury to return an
indictment charging Plaintiff with capital murder while withholding exculpatory evidence
proving that Plaintiff was not the perpetrator of the murder.
137.

Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA had an ulterior purpose and acted willfully

and maliciously to harm Plaintiff and other individuals under investigation for felonies or
defending against a felony criminal charge, implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified
plainly inadequate policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision,
and/or discipline.
138.

The MPD DEFENDANTS had an ulterior purpose and acted willfully and

maliciously to harm Plaintiff when they investigated and assisted the AG DEFENDANTS in
bringing charges against Plaintiff for the charge of capital murder despite exculpatory evidence
showing Plaintiff was not the perpetrator and despite evidence identifying other suspects.

- PAGE 54

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 55 of 59

139.

Defendant CITY OF MOBILE had an ulterior purpose and acted willfully and

maliciously to harm Plaintiff and other individuals under investigation for felonies or defending
against a felony criminal charge, when DEFENDANT CITY OF MOBILE implemented,
encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate policies, procedures, regulations,
practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline.
140.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of AG DEFENDANTS, STATE

OF ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, and CITY OF MOBILE, Plaintiff suffered damages,
including, but not limited to: lost wages, physical illness and distress, mental and emotional
anguish, bail bonding fees, court proceeding costs, attorneys’ fees, humiliation and
embarrassment, and damage to reputation.
COUNT XI
Claim Under Alabama State Law for Tort of Outrage Against AG DEFENDANTS, STATE
OF ALABAMA, MPD DEFENDANTS, CITY OF MOBILE, and COUNTY OF MOBILE
141.

Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated by reference and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
142.

The AG DEFENDANTS, the STATE OF ALABAMA, the MPD

DEFENDANTS, and the CITY OF MOBILE committed the tort of outrage against Plaintiff
because, they, through extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally and recklessly caused
severe emotional distress and bodily harm resulting from the distress.
143.

The AG DEFENDANTS brought a charge for murder against Plaintiff in an

extreme and outrageous manner. The AG DEFENDANTS prosecuted a charge of murder
against Plaintiff where there was no evidence connecting Plaintiff to the crime. Despite
exculpatory evidence in the AG DEFENDANTS’ possession, the AG DEFENDANTS pursued
the charge against Plaintiff and his the exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff and the jury.

- PAGE 55

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 56 of 59

144.

Defendant STATE OF ALABAMA acted in an extreme and outrageous manner

to harm Plaintiff and other individuals under investigation for felonies or defending against a
felony criminal charge, implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified plainly inadequate
policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision, and/or discipline.
These extreme and outrageous actions led to Plaintiff’s wrongful imprisonment and subsequent
loss of years of his life.
145.

The MPD DEFENDANTS investigated and responded to the death of Mrs. Martin

in an extreme and outrageous manner. The MPD DEFENDANTS conducted a cursory
investigation of the crime, allowed some evidence to become cold by not investigating further,
and did not pursue any leads from evidence showing that a suspect other than Plaintiff was
involved in the crime.
146.

Defendant CITY OF MOBILE acted in an extreme and outrageous manner to

harm Plaintiff and other individuals under investigation for felonies or defending against a felony
criminal charge, when CITY OF MOBILE implemented, encouraged, tolerated and/or ratified
plainly inadequate policies, procedures, regulations, practices, customs, training, supervision,
and/or discipline. These extreme and outrageous actions led to Plaintiff’s wrongful
imprisonment and subsequent loss of years of his life.
147.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of AG DEFENDANTS, the

STATE OF ALABAMA, the MPD DEFENDANTS, and the CITY OF MOBILE, Plaintiff
suffered mental and emotional anguish, which resulted in physical manifestations of bodily
harm to Plaintiff.

- PAGE 56

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 57 of 59

DAMAGES
148.

The actions of Defendants, jointly and severally, constituted State and

constitutional torts of malicious prosecution, violation of due process, false arrest, false
imprisonment, abuse of process, and the tort of outrage.
149.

The actions of Defendants, jointly and severally, deprived Plaintiff of his

constitutional and civil rights guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution and committed the following torts: false arrest, malicious
prosecution, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and the tort of outrage.
150.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff served fifteen years

in prison on death row, living with the well-founded fear that he would be executed.
151.

Plaintiff suffered loss of job training, employment, and wages during his fifteen-

year incarceration and thereafter while released on bond.
152.

Plaintiff lost the friendship and companionship of others, including his family.

153.

Plaintiff has suffered physical, mental and psychological anguish, stress, grief and

harm as a result of being publicly and falsely prosecuted for capital murder, and as a result of a
well-founded fear that he would be wrongfully executed for an alleged murder that he did not
commit.
154.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff suffered damages

and injuries for which he is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined
trial.
155.

The non-entity Defendants’ acts were intentional, malicious, deliberate, reckless,

wanton, and/or cruel, such as to justify an award of punitive damages to Plaintiff.

- PAGE 57

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 58 of 59

156.

Plaintiff furthermore suffered other injuries as set forth in the other paragraphs of

this Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff George Martin prays that this Court enter judgment against
Defendants as follows:
A.

An award of compensatory damages to Plaintiff George Martin and against
Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;

B.

An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff George Martin and against the
Individual Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at
trial;

C.

An award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or
any other applicable law; and

D.

Any further and additional relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

George Martin hereby demands trial by jury of all issues properly triable to a jury.

- PAGE 58

  

Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 59 of 59

DATE: April 6 2017

1022659398

- PAGE 59

Respectfully submitted,

GIBSON, DUNN CRUTCHER LLP

  

 

J0hr? H. ShEi?er?k
Zathrina Zasell G. Perez*
Dione Garlick*

*pro hac vice pending

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
GEORGE MARTIN

 

Case 1: 17- cv-00145- CG- MU Document 1- 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2

.IS 44 (Rev. 08/16)

purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filin and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in eptember 1974, rs required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the

ONNEXTPAGE OF 1 OHM.)

 

I. PLAINTIFFS
George Martin

County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Mobile

See attachment

 

IN US PIAINTIFF CASES)

(C) Attorneys (1 Name Address, and I elep/rone Number 
See attachment

NOTE:

 

DEFENDANTS
City of Mobile, Alabama, at al.

Attorneys ([fKnown)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Mobile

 

(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

 

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (P/acean in One BoxOnly)





1 US. Government
Plaintiff

2 US. Government
Defendant

[5 3 Federal Question

(US. Government Not a Party

C1 4 Diversity

(Indicate Citizens/rip ome-n'es in [rem [11)

 

(Fm- Diversity Cases Only)

CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an in One Box-for Plainr?

and One Boxfor' Defendant)

PTF DEF PTF DEF
Citizen of This State 1 CI 1 Incorporated 01' Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State Cl 2 Cl 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 Cl 5
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 12' 6 E1 6

Foreign Country

 

IV OF SUI-T (Place an in One Box Only)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- TORT . . BANKRUPTCTInsurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Ding Related Seizure Cl 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine C1 310 Airplane C1 365 Personal Injury ofProperty 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal l3 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act Cl 315 Airplane Product Product Liability El 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(3))
13 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability C1 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
C1 150 Recovery ovaerpayment Cl 320 Assault, Libel Pharmaceutical C1 410 Antitrust
Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury C1 820 Copyrights Cl 430 Banks and Banking
C3 151 Medicare Act C1 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability C1 830 Patent Cl 450 Commerce
152 Recovery ofDefaulted Liability If] 368 Asbestos Personal C1 840 Trademark Cl 460 Deportation
Student Loans 13 340 Marine Injury Product Cl 470 Racketeer In?uenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability SECURITY - Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards CI 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
OfVeteran's Bene?ts 13 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) CI 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle [3 371 Truth in Lending C1 720 Labor/Management 1:1 863 (405(g)) 850 Securities/Comrnodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Cl 740 Railway Labor Act C1 865 RSI (405(g)) C1 890 Other Statutory Actions
E1 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage {1 751 Family and Medical [3 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act l3 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Cl 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information
1 3 CIVIL 791 Employee Retirement Act
Cl 210 Land Condemnation 1?3 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff I3 896 Arbitration 
220 Foreclosure 1:1 441 Voting C3 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) C1 899 Administrative Procedure
CI 230 Rent Lease Ejectment 442 Employment CI 510 Motions to Vacate Cl 871 Party Act/Review or Appeal of
Cl 240 Torts to Land C1 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
[3 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations CI 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION . State Statutes
Ernpioyment Other: Cl 462 Naturalization Application
Cl 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus Other Cl 465 Other Immigration
Other 15 550 Civil Rights Actions

 

Cl 448 Education

 

E3 555 Prison Condition

13 560 Civil Detainee 
Conditions of
Con?nement

 

 

 

 

V. ORIGIN (Piece an in One Box Only)

P11

Original
Proceeding

CI 2 Removed from
State Court

3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

D4

Reinstated 01? 5 Transferred from 13 6 Multidistrict
Reopened Another District Litigation -
Transfer

8 Multidistrict
Litigation 
Direct File

 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

 

Cite the US. Civil Statute under which
42 U. S. C. 1983; 42 U.S.C. 

Brief description of cause:
Claim for damages for violation of civil rights and personal injury under Alabama tort law

El CHECK IF THIS rs A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, 

RELATED 

(See Instructions):

DEMAND 

10%? filing (Do not cite jurisdictirmrd statutes Rider?s diversity:
9

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

Yes No

 

 

 

    

 

iF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SI URE I EY OF REC RT)
04/06/2017 i -A
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 
RECEIPT AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2

Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet
I.(c) Plaintiff’s Counsel:
John H. Sharer
jsharer@gibsondunn.com
Phone: 213-229-7476
Fax: 213-229-6476
Zathrina Z. G. Perez
zperez@gibsondunn.com
Phone: 213-229-7243
Fax: 213-229-6243
Dione Garlick
dgarlick@gibsondunn.com
Phone: 213-229-7205
Fax: 213-229-6205
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 S. Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071
I.(a) Defendants:
City of Mobile, Alabama; County of Mobile, Alabama; former City of Mobile officer, Thomas
Calhoun; former City of Mobile officer Wilbur Williams; former City of Mobile officer Donald
Pears; former City of Mobile Charles Bailey; former City of Mobile officer Mark Neno; State of
Alabama; former Alabama Assistant Attorney General Donald Valeska; former Alabama
Assistant Attorney General William Dill; and former Alabama Assistant Attorney General
Gerrilyn Grant.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-2 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Charles Bailey
510 South Royal St
Mobile, AL 36603

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-2 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-3 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Thomas Calhoun
4178 Todd Blvd
Mobile, AL 36619

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-3 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-4 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) City of Mobile
c/o Sandy Stimpson, Mayor of Mobile
205 Government St
Mobile, AL 36602

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-4 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-5 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) County of Mobile, AL
John Pafenbach, County Administrator
205 Government St
Mobile, AL 36644

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-5 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-6 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) William Dill
155 Edgewood Ct
Mathews, AL 36052

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-6 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-7 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Gerrilyn Grant
8613 Lenox Way
Montgomery, AL 36116

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-7 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-8 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Robert Neno
7945 Notre Way
Colorado Springs, CO 80951

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-8 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-9 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Donald Pears
2421 Denmark St
Mobile, AL 36617

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-9 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-10 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) State of Alabama
Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General
501 Washington Ave
Montgomery, AL 36130

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-10 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-11 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Donald Valeska
8219 Longneedle Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-11 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-12 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District
__________
District of
of Alabama
__________
George Martin

Plaintiff(s)

v.
City of Mobile, AL; County of Mobile, AL; State of
Alabama; Thomas Calhoun; Wibur Williams; Donald
Pears; Charles Bailey; Mark Neno; Donald Valeska;
William Dill; Gerrilyn Grant; Defendants A-Z
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Wilbur Williams
12392 Timberlake Ct
Andalusia, AL 36421

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: John H. Sharer
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:17-cv-00145-CG-MU Document 1-12 Filed 04/06/17 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

.