Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION EDDIE MATTHEWS c/o RITTGERS & RITTGERS 12 East Warren Street Lebanon, Ohio 45036 and JERMAINE LOFTON c/o RITTGERS & RITTGERS 12 East Warren Street Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Plaintiffs, v. JEFFREY STAMM Norwood Police Department 4701 Montgomery Road Norwood, Ohio 45212 Individually and in his Official Capacity as an employee of the Norwood Police Department and WILLIAM KRAMER Norwood Police Department 4701 Montgomery Road Norwood, Ohio 45212 In his Official Capacity as Chief of the Norwood Police Department Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. __________________ JUDGE _____________________ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON Now come Plaintiffs, Eddie Matthews (“Eddie”) and Jermaine Lofton (“Jermaine”) (collectively, Eddie and Jermaine will be referred to hereinafter as “Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, and for their Complaint states as follows: Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This suit is filed in order to vindicate the rights of Plaintiffs to engage in activity protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America without fear of reprisal and to seek economic redress for losses suffered by them at the hands of Defendants. PARTIES 2. Eddie is an individual residing in Hamilton County, Ohio. 3. Jermaine is an individual residing in a Chicago, Illinois suburb. 4. Eddie and Jermaine are brothers. 5. Defendant Jeffrey Stamm (“Stamm”) was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Norwood Police Department (“NPD”) as a police officer and acting under color of law. Stamm is a “person” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this action acted under color of law. Stamm is being sued in both his individual and official capacities. 3. Defendant William Kramer (“Kramer”) is the current Chief of the NPD. As the Chief, Kramer is a policy maker for the NPD and is being sued in his official capacity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and (4) because Plaintiffs’ civil causes of action arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 7. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ related state law causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 2 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 3 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because this Court sits in the district where all of the Defendants reside and is also the district where the substantial part of the events or omissions in connection with Plaintiffs’ claims arose. FACTS 9. This action arises out of unlawful stops, seizures, and arrests of Plaintiffs by Stamm on or about September 21, 2019. 10. During the course of the unlawful arrests, Stamm utilized excessive force on Plaintiffs causing significant physical and psychological injuries to them. 11. All of the actions described herein are recorded on video. 12. On or about September 21, 2019, Plaintiffs were patrons at the Taco Bell restaurant at the corner of Montgomery Road and Sherman Avenue in Norwood, Ohio when an argument broke out between another group of patrons and Taco Bell management over an incorrect order. 13. Taco Bell management called the NPD to remove this other group of patrons from the restaurant. 14. Stamm was the NPD officer who arrived on scene to investigate. 15. During the course of Stamm’s investigation, Plaintiffs were standing at the counter waiting on their food order. 16. Almost immediately upon arrival, Stamm’s attention became focused on Plaintiffs rather than the individuals whom Taco Bell management called NPD to remove from the restaurant. 17. Stamm thereafter demanded that Plaintiffs leave the restaurant despite the fact that they were not under order of Taco Bell management to leave and were not committing any crimes. 3 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 4 18. When Plaintiffs justifiably and legally refused Stamm’s demands, Stamm attempted, on several occasions, to forcibly seize Eddie and physically remove him from the restaurant. 19. Stamm thereafter requested additional officers respond to the restaurant and drew his baton. 20. When Eddie justifiably and legally continued to refuse Stamm’s attempts to forcibly seize and remove him from the restaurant, Stamm proceeded to unlawfully strike Eddie multiple times with his baton while pushing him against the restaurant counter and wall 21. During this unlawful use of force, Stamm also ripped chains and several charms from Eddie’s neck. 22. As Stamm continued his use of unlawful force against Eddie, Jermaine attempted to deescalate the situation by pulling Eddie away from Stamm. 23. As Jermaine attempted to deescalate the situation, an unknown officer arrived on scene and tackled him into a set of tables and chairs set up for patrons causing serious physical injuries to him, including but not limited to a broken rib and back injuries. 24. Stamm and other officers thereafter pushed Eddie down into a booth at the restaurant where Stamm repeatedly struck Eddie with his baton at least seven times. 25. All baton strikes are audible on Stamm’s body camera. 26. Video footage from a Taco Bell employee documents the force used by Stamm and others against Eddie. 27. As a result of the baton strikes, Eddie sustained significant physical injuries including but not limited to injuries to his low back, buttocks, and arm. 4 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 5 28. Plaintiffs were thereafter unlawfully arrested by Stamm and charged with a number of criminal offenses, including felony offenses. 29. Following Plaintiffs’ arrests, Stamm’s body camera footage captured a conversation between him and the Taco Bell manager which confirmed that the NPD were not called because of Plaintiffs and that they were not under orders to leave the restaurant at any time. 30. Plaintiffs were thereafter transferred to the Hamilton County Justice Center where their injuries were noted. 31. As a result of Stamm’s unlawful arrest of him, Eddie’s parole was temporarily revoked and he was forced to spend an additional nine days in the Hamilton County Justice Center. 32. Upon review of the body camera footage, all criminal charges were eventually dropped against Plaintiffs, but not before they were forced to expend significant sums on defense counsel in Eddie’s case and take time off of work on multiple occasions to return to Cincinnati from Illinois for court appearances in Jermaine’s case. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs sustained the physical injuries described herein. 34. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs sustained several and permanent emotional injuries, including but not limited to emotional anguish, distress, humiliation, depression, and suicidal ideations. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Unlawful seizure, arrest, and detention - Stamm) 35. Plaintiffs incorporate their previous allegations as if fully rewritten herein. 36. At all relevant times herein, Stamm was acting under color of law as an agent, servant, and employee of Kramer and the NPD. 5 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 6 37. On or about September 21, 2019, Stamm intentionally restrained Plaintiffs against their will and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that they had committed a crime. 38. As a result of Stamm’s intentional acts, Plaintiffs were subjected to a seizure as they were unable to leave and terminate the encounter with Stamm and the NPD. 39. The intentional conduct of Stamm described herein constituted a stop and/or arrest of Plaintiffs amounting to an unlawful seizure within the meaning of the law. 40. The intentional conduct of Stamm described herein was unnecessary and completely unreasonable under the circumstances, not justified according to law, including but not limited to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and deprived Plaintiffs of their federally protected right to be free from unlawful seizure, false arrest, and false imprisonment. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff suffered the serious and permanent injuries and damages described herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force - Stamm) 42. Plaintiffs incorporate their previous allegations as if fully rewritten herein. 43. Stamm, acting under color of law, used force on Plaintiffs. 44. Stamm’s use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances at the time. 45. Stamm knew that using force presented a risk of harm to Plaintiffs, but recklessly disregarded Plaintiffs’ safety by failing to take reasonable measures to minimize the risk of harm to Plaintiffs. 6 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 7 46. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Stamm as described herein, Plaintiffs have sustained the severe and permanent injuries described herein. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Train – Kramer) 47. Plaintiffs incorporate their previous allegations as if fully rewritten herein. 48. At all times relevant to this action, Kramer was responsible for making government policy and for oversight of the functions and duties of the NPD. 49. Kramer failed to establish adequate training programs in order to properly train his officers to carry out their official duties in effectuating lawful seizures, searches, arrests, detentions of its citizens, and for using force on citizens. 50. Kramer’s failure to adequately train his officers amounted to deliberate indifference to the fact that inaction would obviously result in the violation of its citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, and excessive force at the hands of the NPD. 51. Kramer’s failure to adequately train the NPD officers, including Stamm, proximately caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, and excessive force at the hands of the NPD. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, Plaintiffs have sustained the severe and permanent injuries described herein. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Arrest – Stamm) 53. Plaintiffs incorporate their previous allegations as if fully rewritten herein. 7 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 8 54. Stamm intentionally and unlawfully seized and detained Plaintiffs against their consent in violation of Ohio law. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Stamm’s actions, Plaintiffs have sustained severe and permanent injuries described herein. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – All Defendants) 56. Plaintiffs incorporate their previous allegations as if fully rewritten herein. 57. Defendants intended to cause, or knew or should have known that their actions would result in, serious emotional distress to Plaintiffs. 58. Defendants’ conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and can be considered completely intolerable in a civilized community. 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered severe and permanent injuries described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully demands judgment against Defendants in excess of $75,000, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages to be proved at trial, punitive damages because the actions of Defendants were malicious and intended to cause Plaintiff severe harm, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and all other relief to which he may be lawfully entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ryan J. McGraw _____________________________ Konrad Kircher (0059249) Ryan J. McGraw (0089436) RITTGERS & RITTGERS 12 East Warren Street Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Tel.: 513/932-2115 8 Case: 1:20-cv-00462-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 9 Fax: 513/934-2201 konrad@rittgers.com ryan@rittgers.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Laurence O. Haas (0089845) HAAS & HAAS, LLC 114 E. Eighth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel: 513-721-1126 Fax: 513-621-2525 laurence@haasandhaaslaw.com Co-counsel for Plaintiffs Pro Hac Vice Application forthcoming JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by a jury of his peers as to all issues so triable herein. /s/ Ryan J. McGraw _____________________________ Ryan J. McGraw (0089436) 9