Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 1 of 22 PAGEID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Mary M. Laile (as personal representative
and Special Administrator of the Estate of
Donna Gail Castleberry AKA Donna Gail
Dalton, Decedent, and for the exclusive
Benefit of the Estate and for those persons
identified in Ohio Revised Code Section
2125.02 and/or the Next of Kin of
Decedent Donna Gail Castleberry aka
Donna Gail Dalton)
111 Hamilton Park
Columbus, Ohio 43203,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

JUDGE

Plaintiff,
Andrew K. Mitchell
(Individually, personally and in his official
capacity as an employee and police officer
of the City of Columbus in its Department
of Public Safety, Division of Police)
Address – Currently held in federal detention ,
City of Columbus
C/O: Mayor Andrew J. Ginther
90 West Broad Street- 2nd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215,
Kim Jacobs
(Individually, personally and in her official
Capacity as an employee and Chief of Police
of the City of Columbus in its Department of
Public Safety, Division of Police
c/o Columbus Division of Police
120 Marconi Blvd
Columbus, Ohio 43215,
And
Doe 1—25
Unknown Defendant Columbus Police
Officers (all individually, personally and
in their official capacity as employees of the
City of Columbus in its Department of Public
Safety, Division of Police)
1

JURY DEMAND ENDORDED
HEREIN

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 2 of 22 PAGEID #: 2

C/O City Attorney Zack Klein
77 N. Front Street
4th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
Plaintiff Mary M. Laile (as personal representative and Special Administrator of
the Estate of Donna Gail Castleberry AKA Donna Gail Dalton, Decedent, and for the
exclusive benefit of the Estate and for those persons identified in Ohio Revised Code
Section 2125.02 and/or the Next of Kin of Decedent Donna Gail Castleberry aka Donna
Gail Dalton) for her Complaint against Defendant Andrew K. Mitchell, Defendant City of
Columbus, Defendant Kim Jacobs, and Defendants police officers Doe 1-25, does hereby
state, allege and aver that:
I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

Each of the paragraphs in this Complaint incorporates all of the other

paragraphs without repetitious restatement.
2.

The facts upon which this Complaint is based and the claims of Plaintiff

Mary M. Laile against Defendant Andrew K. Mitchell ("Mitchell" and/or "Defendant
Mitchell"), Defendant Kim Jacobs (“Jacobs” and/or “Defendant Jacobs”), and Defendants
police officers Doe 1-25 (“Doe” and/or “Defendant Doe”) and

Defendant City of

Columbus ("City" and/or "Defendant City") [collectively referred to herein as Defendants]
are founded, in part, upon the wrongful death of Donna Gail Castleberry AKA Donna Gail
Dalton which occurred on August 23, 2018 as a proximate result of having been shot
multiple times by Mitchell. Hereinafter, Donna Gail Castleberry AKA Donna Gail Dalton
shall also be referred to as “Donna”, “Deceased” and/or “Decedent”.
2

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 3 of 22 PAGEID #: 3

3.

In part, Plaintiff brings this Civil Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

1988 against former Columbus police officer Mitchell for his use of excessive force which
caused the wrongful death of Donna on August 23, 2018, and relatedly a Monell v.
Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) action against the City,
its former Chief of Police Jacobs and Doe.
4.

This is a Civil Action for declaratory judgment, equitable (including

injunctive) relief and for compensatory and punitive monetary damages for Defendants'
violations of Donna’s rights secured under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth, Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to, and other provisions of the United States Constitution and
comparable provision of the Ohio Constitution, as well as rights secured under the laws of
Ohio.
5.

At all times material hereto, this Civil Action is brought against Mitchell

because on August 23, 2018 he used unlawful excessive force against Donna by shooting
her multiple times and thereby proximately causing her death.
6.

Among other reasons, this Civil Action is brought against the City for its

having employed unconstitutional customs and policies; for its lack of control over its Vice
Unit and its police officer employees; for its failure to supervise and/or train Mitchell and
other members of the Vice Unit; and for having knowledge about wrongdoing by Mitchell
and other police officers in the Vice Unit but taking no action until substantial harm had
been visited on Donna and other members of the community at large.
7.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff avers that Defendants, jointly and/or

severally, acted:
a.

unlawfully, maliciously, deliberately, recklessly, willfully, intentionally, in

bad faith and/or negligently;
b.

wantonly; purposefully; knowingly;
3

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 4 of 22 PAGEID #: 4

c.

without probable cause, legal right or justification;

d.

under color of law, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and/or

e.

with deliberate indifference,

f.

with malicious purpose

g.

and/or with gross negligence.

8.

Also, this Civil Action seeks compensatory and punitive monetary damages

usage;

and equitable relief from Defendants for the commission of acts and/or omission to act
under color of law, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs or usage which
deprived Donna of her life, rights, privileges or immunities secured for Donna by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the Constitution of Ohio; and
further, for singularly and/or acting in concert to deny, and intentionally failing to prevent
and/or neglecting to prevent and/or showing reckless disregard and/or deliberate disregard to
preventing the denial of Donna’s rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal
protection of the laws and her right to be free from excessive use of force and being shot and
killed by Mitchell.
9.

Also, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief and monetary damages from certain

Defendants for their maintenance and enforcement of policies, rules, practices, regulations,
and customs and usage under color of law which operated to cause the death of Donna and
damages to Donna’s next of kin and beneficiaries as set forth herein, all in violation of
federal and Ohio law.
10.

Among other reasons, this action is brought to redress injuries to the liberty,

person and property interests of Donna because of Mitchell’s and some of the other
Defendants’ acts and/or omissions which include but are not limited to: (a) false arrest of
Plaintiff; (b) wrongful detention, kidnapping and killing of Donna; (c) false imprisonment of
Donna; (d) fraudulent and malicious deprivation of Donna's rights to bodily and personal
privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws of the United States of America and
4

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 5 of 22 PAGEID #: 5

the State of Ohio; (e) intentional infliction of serious emotional distress upon Donna; (f)
negligent infliction of serious emotional distress upon Donna; (g) other acts and omissions
of which resulted in injury or losses to Donna; (h) abridgment of Donna's rights secured to
her under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution and similar
provisions of the Ohio Constitution; (i) other acts and omissions, including assault and
battery of which resulted in injury or losses to Donna; and (j) other actions and omissions
under color of law which resulted in the deprivation of rights secured to Donna under the
Constitutions and laws of the State of Ohio.
II.

JURISDICTION
11.

The Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§1331, 1343, 1343

and 1367 and 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988.
12.

The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

and 2202 authorizing any Court of the United States in a case of actual controversy within
its jurisdiction, the authority to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration and to grant further necessary and proper relief based upon a
declaratory judgment or decree.
13.

The amount in controversy exceeds $150,000, excluding interest and costs.

14.

Costs and attorneys' fees are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

15.

The pendent jurisdiction of the Court is invoked as to the State of Ohio

causes of action alleged herein. As this is an action for personal injury and wrongful death, it
is, in part, brought pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §§ 2305.10 and 2125.01 et seq. for the
benefit of Estate and for those persons identified in Ohio Revised Code Sections 2125.02
and 2125.03 and/or the Next of Kin of Donna.
III.

VENUE
16.

This action properly lies in this judicial district because at all times material

to this Civil Action, Plaintiff and Defendants were, and still are, residents and citizens of
Franklin County, Ohio or Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio, the United States of America
5

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 6 of 22 PAGEID #: 6

and of this Court's judicial district. Further, Defendant City maintained, and still maintains
its administrative offices in Franklin County, Ohio and therefore was, and still is, a citizen
and resident of Franklin County, Ohio, and the United States of America and of this Court's
judicial district.
17.

Venue is also proper with this Court for reason that Plaintiff's claims for

relief and causes of action against the Defendants as set forth herein all arose in Franklin
County, Ohio; and all acts and/or omissions of the Defendants upon which Plaintiff's claims
for relief, causes of action and this Civil Action against Defendants are based occurred in
Franklin County, Ohio.
IV.

PARTIES
18.

By Entry, dated August 20, 2019, of the Probate Court of Franklin County,

Ohio, Plaintiff Mary M. Laile is the duly appointed personal representative and Special Administrator of the Estate of Donna Gail Castleberry AKA Donna Gail Dalton, Decedent.
The Estate of Donna Gail Castleberry AKA Donna Gail Dalton has been assigned Case
No. 599688 upon the docket of the Franklin County Probate Court. A copy of the Entry
appointing Plaintiff as the Special Administrator is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Exhibit "A".
19.

Plaintiff’s Decedent, Donna, was only twenty three (23) years of age when

Mitchell shot and killed her. She is was married, and a mother of two. She is survived by her
mother, father and two sisters.

20.

At all times material hereto, Defendant City was and still is a municipality

and a political subdivision of the State of Ohio and owns, operates, manages, directs, supervises and controls the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police. Defendant City's
primary office is located in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio.

6

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 7 of 22 PAGEID #: 7

21.

At all times material to this Complaint, Mitchell, Jacobs, and Doe 1-25 were

employees of Defendant City and directly under its control and/or supervision and/or
authority.
22.

At all times material hereto, Defendant City employed Mitchell, Jacobs, and

Doe 1-25 in its Department of Public Safety, Division of Police as duly appointed and
sworn police or law enforcement officers and acted or failed to act within the scope of their
employment and authority (implied or actual) with the Defendant City.
23.

At all times material to this Complaint, the acts of and/or omissions of

Mitchell, Jacobs and Doe 1-25: committed pursuant to express or implied consent of
Defendant City; ratified by Defendant City; committed within the course, scope and
authority (actual and/or implied) of their employment with Defendant City; committed
pursuant to rules, policies, regulations and custom and usages of Defendant City; and
committed to further the business interests of Defendant City.

24.

Upon information and belief, and at all times material to this Complaint,

Defendant City employed Mitchell its Department of Public Safety, Division of Police as a
sworn police officer. Mitchell is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times
relevant to this case acted under color of law.

Upon information and belief, Mitchell,

was and still is a resident of Franklin County, Ohio and the judicial district of this Court. He
is sued individually and in his official capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.
25.

Upon information and belief, and at all times material to this Complaint,

Defendant City employed Jacobs its Department of Public Safety, Division of Police as the
Chief of Police.
26.

At all times relevant hereto, Jacobs was the Chief Law Enforcement

7

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 8 of 22 PAGEID #: 8

Officer for Defendant City. Chief Jacobs was a final decision maker and policy maker
with respect to the policies of the Columbus Division of Police.
27.

Jacobs is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant

to this case acted under color of law.
28.

Upon information and belief, Jacobs, was and still is a resident of Franklin

County, Ohio and the judicial district of this Court.

She is sued individually and in his

official capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.
29.

Doe 1-25 is fictitious designations for one or more unknown persons

employed by Defendant City as sworn police officers in its Department of Public Safety,
Division of Police and had supervisory authority over Mitchell and other police officers in
the Vice Unit. Upon information and belief, Doe 1-25 were and still are residents of
Franklin County, Ohio and this Court’s judicial district. Doe 1-25 are “persons” under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. They are
sued individually and in his official capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.
30.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff attempted to discover the real name

and/or identity of Doe 1-25 prior to the filing of this Complaint but could not discover the
real name and/or identity of said Doe 1-25. The true identities and/or capacities Doe 1-25
could not be discovered by Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff has accordingly sued these
unknown Defendants under these fictitious names.

Plaintiff has been unable to

determine said named Defendants Doe 1-25. Defendants Doe 1-25 are sued herein
pursuant to RULE 15(D) OF THE OHIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and/or
applicable Federal Civil Rules of Procedure and in that Plaintiff presently do (es) not
know, nor can Plaintiff ascertain the true names and identities of Defendants Doe 1-25

8

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 9 of 22 PAGEID #: 9

after exercise of reasonable diligence. When the true names and identities of Defendants
Doe 1-25 become known to and ascertained by Plaintiff, this Complaint will be amended
and/or supplemented to allege the same.
31.

As required by Rule 15(D) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

aver that after having exercised reasonable diligence, Plaintiff was unable to discover the
real name(s), real identities or real address(es) of Defendants Doe 1-25. When Plaintiff
ascertains the real names, real identities and addresses of Defendants Doe 1-25, Plaintiff
shall amend this Complaint to state the real names of Defendants Doe 1-25.

V.

FACTS
32.

From in or about at least 1988, until early 2019 Mitchell had been

employed as police officer with the Columbus Division of Police, Department of Public
Safety. He was a 30 plus-year veteran. He submitted his letter for retirement sometime in
March or April 2019.
33.

At the time of his commission as a Columbus police officer, Mitchell took

an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, as well as the constitution and laws of
the State of Ohio.
34.

At all times material to this Complaint, Mitchell was assigned as a

detective in the Columbus Division of Police’s Vice Unit, and had been on that
assignment since on or about March 12, 2017. The Vice Unit is a police division
responsible for investigating “moral crimes” such as gambling, prostitution, narcotics,
and illegal alcohol sales.
35.

As a detective of the Vice Unit of the Columbus Division of Police,

Mitchell was authorized by the laws of the State of Ohio and City of Columbus to

9

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 10 of 22 PAGEID #: 10

conduct, among other things, enforcement actions for solicitation or prostitution offenses,
searches and seizures, and arrests.
36.

On August 23, 2018 and at all times material to this Complaint, Mitchell

was on duty (on assignment) as a Columbus Police Vice Officer. He was undercover in
plain clothes and not in his City issued police uniform. Also, he operated an unmarked
police car (not a City marked police car). Neither his clothing nor vehicle identified him
as a police officer.
37.

On August 23, 2018, at some point during his vice investigations, Mitchell

came into contact with Donna in the Franklinton area on Westside of Columbus, in
Franklin County, Ohio.
38.

The reasons and circumstances of why Mitchell and Donna were in each

other’s company are not known to the Plaintiff. What is known is that Donna entered the
front passenger door of Mitchell’s vehicle and sat in the passenger seat next to Mitchell.
Mitchell than drove her to secluded location at or near South Yale Avenue, Columbus,
Ohio in an alley and parked his vehicle in a manner which would prevent Donna from
exiting the vehicle.
39.

What happened between Donna and Mitchell after he parked his vehicle is

not fully known but Mitchell maintains that he attempted to arrest Donna for a
misdemeanor soliciting for prostitution charge.
40.

Upon information and belief, when Donna questioned Mitchell’s “status”

as a Columbus police officer and asked for his badge and identification (“ID”) he was
unable to produce either. Upon information and belief, Columbus Police Department

10

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 11 of 22 PAGEID #: 11

(“CPD”) regulations require an undercover and/or plainclothes officers acting in a covert
capacity to carry their badge and ID at all times.
41.

Upon information and belief, Mitchell did not have his CPD issued walkie

with him. Upon information and belief, CPD regulations require an undercover and/or
plainclothes officers acting in a covert capacity to carry their walkie at all times for
officer safety and to talk with back up. Upon information and belief, Mitchell was
working without backup at the time he was engaged with Donna.
42.

Upon information and belief, Donna who was aware that a law

enforcement officer should have his badge, ID and walkie with him while working
undercover expressed and/or held the good faith honest and reasonable belief that she
was being kidnapped and would be raped rather than be arrested because she did not
believe that Mitchell was a police officer.
43.

Upon information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the

remote/secluded location that Mitchell had selected to transport Donna and his failure to
produce his badge and ID to prove that he was a police officer, Donna experienced severe
fear, fright, anxiety, terror, anguish and concern that Mitchell was going to be physically
assault, rape or kill her.
44.

Upon information and belief, when, despite the lack of a badge or ID

Mitchell attempted to handcuff Donna, Donna’s fear of being a victim of a violent crime
became even more real to her and she most likely resisted being handcuffed by Mitchell
for fear of her safety.
45.

Upon information and belief, an altercation ensued and Mitchell was

allegedly cut in the palm of his hand with a knife. Thereafter, to escape Mitchell, Donna

11

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 12 of 22 PAGEID #: 12

jumped into the back seat of the undercover vehicle where she was locked in by both rear
doors due to child control/safety locks. She could not exit the vehicle. She was Mitchell’s
captive at this point. Upon information and belief Donna’s fear, fright, anxiety, terror,
anguish and concern was so great that it became debilitating.
46.

Upon information and belief, nevertheless, while seated in the front seat

and/or partially outside of the vehicle, Mitchell chose to produce a hand-gun, point it at
Donna, who was unable to escape, and shoot Donna six or more times, causing her
extreme, severe, debilitating fear, fright, anxiety, terror, anguish, concern and pain.
47.

Upon information and belief, Donna was fatally wounded and died shortly

thereafter. On August 23, 2018, Mitchell caused the wrongful death of Donna by using
excessive force.
48.

Upon information and belief, Mitchell was not in danger of any physical

harm from Donna at the time that he shot her.
49.

Upon information and belief, Mitchell’s use of deadly force (shooting

Donna six or more times) was calculated to result in death and was excessive and was not
objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
50.

Mitchell’s use of deadly force under the circumstances violated Donna’s

clearly known and established constitutional right to be free from excessive force which
was known or should have been known to Mitchell.
51.

The right to be free from excessive force is clearly established as a

protection given by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
Amendment 4.

12

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 13 of 22 PAGEID #: 13

52.

Mitchell’s failure to have his badge and walkie to evidence his status as a

Columbus police officer was plainly incompetent.
53.

On or about August 23, 2018, Mitchell, while acting under color of law,

willfully deprived Donna of a right secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of
the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Ohio, namely, the right to
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive use of force. Specifically,
Mitchell, under the guise of arrest, kidnapped and/or attempted to kidnap Donna, and
transported Donna to a location for a yet unknown unlawful reason.
54.

Defendant’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in light of

the facts and circumstances that only he created. It was Mitchell, not Donna, who drove
Donna to a secluded location. It was Mitchell, not Donna, who failed to produce his
badge or ID when requested by Donna. It was Mitchell, not Donna, who did not have his
Walkie. It was Mitchell, not Donna, who failed to have back-up who could have
corroborated that he was a police officer and assisted him with Donna. It was Mitchell,
not Donna, who produced handcuffs to an already frightened and terrified Donna
without ever establishing that he was in fact a police officer. It was Mitchell, not Donna,
who activated the child safety locks preventing Donna from exiting the vehicle further
causing her to reasonably believe that she was about to be kidnapped or sexually
assaulted. Although Mitchell could have safely exited the vehicle and locked the front
doors keeping Donna inside the vehicle, it was Mitchell who shot Donna multiple times
while she was in the back seat of the vehicle.
55.

On August 23, 2018, Mitchell, in violation of Section 2903.02 of the Ohio

Revised Code did cause the wrongful death of Donna as a proximate result of Mitchell’s

13

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 14 of 22 PAGEID #: 14

committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or
second degree, to-wit: Felonious Assault in violation of Section 2903.11 of Ohio Revised
Code and or Kidnapping in violation of Section 2905.01.
56.

On March 7, 2019, Mitchell was indicted and arrested on federal charges.

Among others, he is charged with depriving victims of their constitutional rights while
acting as an officer “ by kidnapping them under the guise of an arrest and forcing them to
engage in sex for freedom”.
57.

On April 4, 2019, Mitchell was indicted on state charges of Murder and

Voluntary Manslaughter for causing the death of Donna. The grand jury determined that
Mitchell’s shooting of Donna was not justified.
58.

The Franklin County Coroner ruled the Donna’s death a homicide.

59.

Prior to August 23, 2018, the City’s Division of Police had an

investigation pending against Mitchell. Other red flags about Mitchell and other officers
in the Vice Unit had been raised and were known to or should have been known to the
City, Jacobs and Doe. By way of illustration and not limitation, the unconstitutional
arrest of Stormy Daniels and others should have caused an immediate review of the Vice
Unit. Unfortunately, that review came way too late for Donna because Mitchell had not
been relieved of his badge and gun and the Vice Unit went unchallenged until Donna’s
death.
60.

The harm visited upon Donna by Mitchell resulted from the failure of the

City, Jacobs and/or Doe to act to relieve Mitchell of his gun and badge when they had a
duty to do so because any reasonable employer or supervisor would have done so. The
failure to relieve Mitchell of his gun and badge was the direct result of the City’s policy

14

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 15 of 22 PAGEID #: 15

or custom of “tolerance of acquiescence of federal and state violations by Mitchell and
other members of its Vice unit”. As a direct and proximate result of this policy, the City,
Jacobs and/or Doe enabled Mitchell to harm and cause the death of the Decedent
61.

The City, by and through Jacobs and Doe, has a policy or custom which

authorizes the use of lethal/deadly force on a person who has a knife as long as the officer
perceived the person as a threat, regardless of the distance between the officer and the
person or other circumstances where the officer clearly is not at risk. This policy or
custom empowered Mitchell and other officers to make unconstitutional decisions to use
lethal/deadly force on a person who was not an immediate threat in violation of United
Constitution, Amend 4; 42 USC § 1983. As a direct and proximate result of this policy or
custom, Mitchell unconstitutionally took the life of Decedent.
VI.

DAMAGES
62.

Plaintiff in her representative capacity as Special Administrator states that

the Estate and those family members identified in Ohio Revised Code Section 2125.02
and/or the Next of Kin of Decedent have lost Decedent’s love, comfort, society and
consortium, parenting and guidance and have sustained serious emotional distress, all in
amounts that will be shown when this cause comes on for trial.
63.

Plaintiff further states that Estate has incurred medical, burial and other

related expenses.
64.

Plaintiff further states that the Decedent sustained general damages,

including pre-death pain and suffering and extreme emotional distress, post death loss of
enjoyment of her life, lost wages and other losses all in amounts that will be shown when
this cause comes on for trial.

15

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 16 of 22 PAGEID #: 16

65.

The conduct of the individual Defendants was willful, malicious,

oppressive and in reckless disregard of the constitutional rights of the Decedent, thus
justifying punitive damages in an amount that will be shown when this matter comes on
for trial.

VII.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AGAINST MITCHELL, JACOBS AND DOE 1-25
COUNT ONE
42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND ORC 2125.01 WRONGFUL DEATH AND
SURVIVAL ACTION
1.

This is an action brought against defendants in their individual and

official capacities, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2125.01 and the United States
Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988.
2.

Defendants Mitchell, Jacobs and/or Doe have, under color of law,

deprived Donna of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to her by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, by, among other
things, subjecting Decedent to a seizure without a warrant or any other legal
justification and subjecting Decedent to excessive force and acting with deliberate
indifference to her right to life and liberty.
3.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful acts of

Mitchell, Jacobs and/or Doe, Donna was killed by Mitchell.
4.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and or omissions

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin lost companionship, love, society, parenting,
comfort , support, guidance, and consortium with Decedent and are entitled to damages for
pain, suffering, loss of support of the Decedent.
16

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 17 of 22 PAGEID #: 17

5.

Decedent’s family and next of kin has ongoing and continuous emotional

and other damages and losses and as such are entitled to recovery, including but not limited
to the following:
a.

compensation for physical and emotional harm;

b.

loss of earnings and other compensatory losses;

c.

past medical bills and expenses

d.

pain and suffering

e.

punitive damages

f.

award of attorney fees on federal 1983 claims
COUNT TWO

EXCESSIVE FORCE AND UNREASONABLE SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
6.

This is an action brought against defendants in their individual and official

capacities, pursuant to the United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988.
7.

Defendants subjected Decedent to unreasonable seizure and excessive

force, depriving her of bodily integrity, liberty, and due process of law
8.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, omissions,

and clearly unreasonable seizure and use of excessive force, Defendants deprived
Plaintiff’s Decedent of the rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, the right to be
free from excessive force and the right to due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
9.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts and omissions,

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin lost companionship, love, society,
17

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 18 of 22 PAGEID #: 18

parenting, comfort , support, guidance, and consortium with Decedent and are entitled to
damages for pain, suffering, loss of support of the Decedent.
10.

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin has ongoing and continuous

emotional and other damages and losses and as such are entitled to recovery, including but
not limited to the following:
a.

compensation for physical and emotional harm;

b.

loss of earnings and other compensatory losses;

c.

past medical bills and expenses

d.

pain and suffering

e.

punitive damages

f.

award of attorney fees on federal 1983 claims

COUNT THREE
ASSAULT AND BATTERY

11.

This is an action brought against defendants in their individual and

official capacities, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2903.11, 2903.12, 2903.13, and the
United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and § 1988.
12.

Defendants knowing caused physical harm to Decedent and placed

Decedent in apprehension of immediate serious physical harm.

13.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts and omissions,

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin lost companionship, love, society,
parenting, comfort , support, guidance, and consortium with Decedent and are entitled to
damages for pain, suffering, loss of support of the Decedent.
18

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 19 of 22 PAGEID #: 19

14.

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin has ongoing and continuous

emotional and other damages and losses and as such are entitled to recovery, including but
not limited to the following:
a.

compensation for physical and emotional harm;

b.

loss of earnings and other compensatory losses;

c.

past medical bills and expenses

d.

pain and suffering

e.

punitive damages

f.

award of attorney fees on federal 1983 claims
COUNT THREE
KIDNAPPING, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT

15.
official

This is an action brought against defendants in their individual and
capacities, pursuant to common law and statutory kidnapping, false

imprisonment and false arrest and the United States Constitution Amendments IV and
XIV in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988.
16.

Defendants knowing held Decedent against her will and deprived her of

her right to liberty and this constituted kidnapping, false arrest and false imprisonment.
all of which resulted in physical harm and death of Decedent
17.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts and omissions,

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin lost companionship, love, society,
parenting, comfort, support, guidance, and consortium with Decedent and are entitled to
damages for pain, suffering, loss of support of the Decedent.

19

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 20 of 22 PAGEID #: 20

18.

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin has ongoing and continuous

emotional and other damages and losses and as such are entitled to recovery, including but
not limited to the following:
a.

compensation for physical and emotional harm;

b.

loss of earnings and other compensatory losses;

c.

past medical bills and expenses

d.

pain and suffering

e.

punitive damages

f.

award of attorney fees on federal 1983 claims

COUNT FOUR
MONELL CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF COLUMBUS
19.

The City of Columbus directly caused the constitutional violations

suffered by Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin, and is liable for the
damages suffered by Plaintiff Decedent’s family and next of kin a n d a s a result of
the conduct of the Defendant Mitchell. The conduct of the Mitchell was a direct
consequence of policies and practices of Defendant City of Columbus as set forth and
described in paragraphs 60 and 61 hereof.
20.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City’s acts and omissions,

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin lost companionship, love, society,
parenting, comfort , support, guidance, and consortium with Decedent and are entitled to
damages for pain, suffering, loss of support of the Decedent.

21.

Plaintiff and Decedent’s family and next of kin has ongoing and continuous

20

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 21 of 22 PAGEID #: 21

emotional and other damages and losses and as such are entitled to recovery, including but
not limited to the following:
a.

compensation for physical and emotional harm;

b.

loss of earnings and other compensatory losses;

c.

past medical bills and expenses

d.

pain and suffering

e.

punitive damages

f.

award of attorney fees on federal 1983 claims

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against these Defendants, proportionately, severally, and/or jointly and severally, for: (1) compensatory and/or general and
special damages, past and future, and including but not limited to those set forth in this
Complaint in an amount of $3,500,000; (2) attorney fees and expenses, court costs,
discovery costs, and investigation expenses incurred in investigating, preparing, bringing
and prosecuting this action; (3) interest at the statutory rate from the date of judgment; (4)
pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of injury; (5) punitive damages in an
amount $3,5000.00; (6) declaration that Defendants’ policy and customs as described in
paragraphs 60 and 61 hereof are unconstitutional and (7) such other relief as may be fair
and equitable.

21

 Case: 2:19-cv-03689-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/23/19 Page: 22 of 22 PAGEID #: 22

Respectfully submitted
s/ John W. Waddy, Jr.
John W. Waddy, Jr.
Sup. Ct. Atty. Reg. No. 0009562
111 Hamilton Park
Columbus, Ohio 43203
(614) 463-9518
FAX 461-1299
E-MAIL JWADDY@EE.NET
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by a jury (with maximum number of jurors allowed by law)
as to all issues presented in this Complaint which are properly triable to a jury.
Respectfully submitted
s/ John W. Waddy, Jr.
John W. Waddy, Jr.
Sup. Ct. Atty. Reg. No. 0009562
111 Hamilton Park
Columbus, Ohio 43203
(614) 463-9518
FAX 461-1299
E-MAIL JWADDY@EE.NET
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff

22