complaint cc
DESCRIPTION
Atlanta RED DOG lawsuitTRANSCRIPT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION_______________________________________
)JASON WALKER; KACY DANIEL; )ANTONIO DANIEL; VANCE PERRY; )and TRENTON BOYD )
)Plaintiffs, )
)vs. ) CIVIL ACTION
) FILE NO. __________________KASIM REED, in his official capacity as )Mayor of the CITY OF ATLANTA; )STALONE DAVIS, individually; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDBRANDON JACKSON, individually; )CHRISTOPHER LANIER, individually; )CAYENNE MAYES, individually; )JUAN ORTIZ, individually; )REGINALD PETTIS, individually; )DIMITRI CALDWELL, individually; )ANTONIO BLASINI, individually; )ZOEL MURPHY, individually; )LUCA AMARENA, individually; )VICTOR GUEVARA, individually; )DEREK CHAO, individually; )DARNELL PERRY, individually; and )JOHN DOE 1 )
) Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
COMPLAINT
Page 2 of 60
COME NOW Plaintiffs Jason Walker, Kacy Daniel, Antonio Daniel, Vance
Perry and Trenton Boyd who bring this Complaint seeking damages and
declaratory relief against Defendant City of Atlanta and the individual
Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as relief under Georgia law
against the individual defendants. This action arises from the unlawful searches
and seizures and public strip-searches of the Plaintiffs by the individual
Defendants, pursuant to a custom, policy and/or practice of the Atlanta Police
Department (“APD”).
JURISDICTION
1.
This action arises under the authority vested in this Court by virtue of 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pendent
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court is authorized to grant
declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202.
Page 3 of 60
VENUE
2.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391. The City of
Atlanta, Georgia, (“Atlanta”) is within this judicial district and a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial
district.
PARTIES
3.
Plaintiff Kacy Daniel (“Kacy Daniel”) is a resident of Georgia.
4.
Plaintiff Antonio Daniel (“Antonio Daniel”) is a resident of Georgia.
5.
Plaintiff Vance Perry (“ V. Perry”) is a resident of Georgia.
6.
Plaintiff Trenton Boyd (“Boyd”) is a resident of Georgia.
7.
Kasim Reed is sued in his official capacity as mayor of the City of Atlanta
(“Defendant City of Atlanta”), a City chartered under the laws of the State of
Page 4 of 60
Georgia and subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. The Atlanta
Police Department (“APD”) is a division of Defendant City of Atlanta.
8.
Defendant Stalone Davis (“Davis”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
9.
Defendant Brandon Jackson (“Jackson”) was an officer of the Atlanta
Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
10.
Defendant Christopher Lanier (“Lanier”) was an officer of the Atlanta
Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
11.
Defendant Cayenne Mayes (“Mayes”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
Page 5 of 60
12.
Defendant Juan Ortiz (“Ortiz”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
13.
Defendant Reginald Pettis (“Pettis”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
14.
Defendant Dimitri Caldwell (“Caldwell”) was an officer of the Atlanta
Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
15.
Defendant Antonio Blasini (“Blasini”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
Page 6 of 60
16.
Defendant Zoel Murphy (“Murphy”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
17.
Defendant Luca Amarena (“Amarena”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
18.
Defendant Victor Guevara (“Guevara”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
19.
Defendant Derek Chao (“Chao”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
Page 7 of 60
20.
Defendant Darnell Perry (“D. Perry”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police
Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the
allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.
21.
Defendant John Doe 1 was an officer of the Atlanta Police Department and
acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this
Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. John Doe 1 is an African-
American male, approximately 5' 10", medium-build with short hair, and may be
Officer Rodney Jefferson.
22.
Collectively, the individual defendant police officers named above shall, at
times, be referred to below collectively, as indicated by the attentive fact and
circumstances as the “Defendant Officers”.
Page 8 of 60
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MUNICIPAL LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA
Common to all Plaintiffs
Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, and Practices
Custom, Policy and/or Practice of Public Strip-Searches
23.
At all times relevant to the events described in this complaint the APD,
and in particular its “Red Dog Unit,”had a custom, policy and/or practice to
perform strip searches and body cavity searches in public. Among other
examples to be proven at trial are:
a. The body cavity search of Ronald McNair performed by Defendant
Davis in the field on December 9, 2008, during which Defendant
Davis searched McNair’s “anal cavity”according to his own
statement in APD incident report #083441853;
b. the body cavity search of Chaddrick Hood conducted in the field on
February 19, 2010, during which the officer “conducted a search of
Hood’s rectal cavity”according to the statements in APD incident
report #100501758;
Page 9 of 60
c. The search and touching of the genitals of Clarence Smith, a 23-year
old man, in the dressing room of a department store on November
26, 2007, by APD officers Cayenne Mayes and Reginald Pettis;
d. The strip search of Shawn Venegas conducted on a public street by
Red Dog Officers Cayenne Mayes, Dion Meredith, and Travis Britt
on June 30, 2010;
e. The search and touching of the genitals of 17-year old Olajuwan
Wilson in a convenience store by Red Dog officer Jonathan B.
Cornelius on September 28, 2010;
f. The public strip search of Plaintiff Kacy Daniel on May 20, 2010, as
described herein;
g. The public strip search of Jason Walker on September 30, 2009, as
described herein;
h. The public strip search of Plaintiff Vance Perry on June 29, 2010, as
described herein; and,
i. The public strip search of Plaintiff Trenton Boyd on March 20, 2010,
as described herein.
Page 10 of 60
Custom, Policy and/or Practice of Detention, Search & Seizure WithoutReasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause
24.
At all times relevant to the events described in this complaint the Atlanta
Police Department (“APD”), and in particular its “Red Dog Unit,”had a policy,
custom, and/or practice to stop, frisk, and search persons without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause. Among other examples to be proven at trial are the
following:
a. the unlawful stop, search, and arrest of Kelvin Bryant on October 16,
2008, by Defendant Brandon Jackson, along with Red Dog officers
James Menzoian, William Porter, and Jason Overbaugh, about which
a federal judge found "that the officers did not have probable cause
or even reasonable suspicion to stop [Bryant's] vehicle." (See United
States v, Kelvin Bryant, 1:09-CR-018-JEC, U.S.D.C.-N.D.Ga);
b. the unlawful stop and search of Shawn Venegas and Brian Kidd by
Red Dog Officers on June 30, 2010 (for which the City of Atlanta
eventually paid a settlement of $200,000.00);
Page 11 of 60
c. The unlawful search and seizure of dozens of persons not suspected
of any criminal activity during the “Atlanta Eagle bar raid”in
September, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a
settlement of $1,025,000.00);
d. The unlawful search and seizure of persons not suspected of any
criminal activity during the “Ruby’s Sanabella Restaurant and
Lounge raid” in May, 2010; and,
e. The unlawful seizure of James Hereford on August 5, 2010 (for
which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $50,000.00).
Unconstitutional Policies & Procedures
25.
The searches and seizures of Plaintiffs described herein were conducted pursuant
to unconstitutional official policies of the Atlanta Police Department which authorize
suspcionless seizures, frisks, and searches, including Standard Operating Procedure 3065
(which authorizes and instructs officers to detain and frisk individuals without regard to
reasonable articulable suspicion) and Standard Operating Procedure 3020 Section 4.3.1
(which authorizes officers to perform warrantless searches without probable cause).
Page 12 of 60
Acquiescence & Deliberate Indifference to Unconstitutional Practices
26.
As described herein, the policy of conducting strip and/or body cavity
searches in public was widespread and well-known within the APD and so
widely tolerated that Atlanta Police officers openly described these searches in
their own publicly available incident reports, as described in Paragraph 23. This
policy was tolerated, condoned and acquiesced to by senior policy makers in
APD, and this was a moving force behind the conduct described herein.
27.
As described herein, the policy of conducting unlawful searches and
seizures without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause was
widespread and well-known and widely accepted by APD. This policy was
tolerated, condoned and acquiesced to by senior policy makers in APD, and this
was a moving force behind the conduct described herein.
Page 13 of 60
Failure to Train and Discipline
28.
Prior to the conduct described herein, the City of Atlanta was aware of
pervasive violations of the Fourth Amendment by APD officers. Among other
incidents to be proven at trial are the following:
a. The unlawful search of 1056 Dill Avenue by Sergeant Wilbert Stallings and
other APD officers in October, 2005 (for which Sgt. Stallings was
sentenced to 18 months in federal prison);
b. The unlawful arrest of Deborah Schowalter in January, 2006 (for which the
City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $25,000.00);
c. Various Fourth Amendment violations associated with the death of Kathryn
Johnston in November, 2006 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid
a settlement of $4,900,000.00);
d. The unlawful stop and arrest of Kelvin Bryant on October 16, 2008, by
Atlanta police officers Brandon Jackson, James Menzoian, William Porter,
and Jason Overbaugh, about which a federal judge found "that the officers
did not have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to stop [Bryant's]
vehicle." (See United States v. Kelvin Bryant, 1:09-CR-018-JEC, U.S.D.C.-
N.D.Ga);
Page 14 of 60
e. The unlawful arrest of Minnie Carrie in March, 2009 (for which the City of
Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $20,000);
f. The unlawful search, seizure, and arrest of dozens of innocent bar patrons
during the Atlanta Eagle bar raid (the “Atlanta Eagle Raid”) on September
10-11, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of
$1,025,000.00).
29.
The APD’s lack of training regarding the requirements of the Fourth
Amendment, prior to the incidents complained of herein, is also demonstrated by
the following:
a. On July 14, 2009, the Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”)
recommended that the Atlanta Police Department conduct training
regarding Fourth Amendment issues including “Terry stops.” The
Chief of Police rejected this recommendation.
b. In connection with its investigation of the Atlanta Eagle Raid the
ACRB reviewed “records concerning the department’s in-service
training for officers during 2008 and 2009. There was no indication
officers received training concerning constitutional law.”
Page 15 of 60
c. The ACRB “Study of Supervisory Responsibility” regarding the
Atlanta Eagle Raid also reported that: “It became evident during the
course of the investigation that many officers are unfamiliar with the
constitutional requirements for conducting a search and/or seizure.”
d. Deposition testimony and other statements related to the Atlanta
Eagle Raid by senior APD commanders including former Chief
Richard Pennington, Deputy Chief Carlos Banda, and Major Debra
Williams also suggest a pervasive lack of training regarding basic
Fourth Amendment concepts such as the requirements of a lawful
Terry stop; the requirements of a lawful frisk; and the definition of
an arrest, among other subjects. These statements suggest both the
failure of the Atlanta Police Department to train these employees
themselves, as well as the improper training provided by senior
commanders to the subordinates who look to them for guidance.
30.
Despite knowledge of these pervasive Fourth Amendment violations the
City of Atlanta acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of persons, such as
Plaintiffs, with whom the police would come into contact by failing to provide
Page 16 of 60
appropriate training, guidance and discipline to APD officers regarding the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
31.
The Atlanta Police Department has also demonstrated a pervasive failure
to discipline police officers for unreasonable searches and seizures under the
Fourth Amendment, and other violations of law. Among other examples to be
proven at trial, although the Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) has
sustained complaints against dozens of police officers for unlawful conduct the
Atlanta Police Department has a pattern of not following the ACRB’s
recommendations to impose discipline. Additional factual information about
this pattern is available on the website of the ACRB at http://acrbgov.org ,
including, among other references, http://acrbgov.org/case-10-7-complaint-
brian-kidd/ .
32.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant Officers, as police
officers of the City of Atlanta, were acting under the direction and control of
APD and were acting pursuant to the official custom, policy and/or practice of
the City of Atlanta.
Page 17 of 60
33.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the City of Atlanta as set
forth herein, the Plaintiffs suffered physical injury, mental anguish, lost wages,
and other general and special damages in connection with the deprivation of
Plaintiffs’constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C.
§1983 and are thereby entitled to a judgment against the City of Atlanta for those
damages and injuries suffered.
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF JASON WALKER
34.
Plaintiff Walker incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 33, as if fully set forth herein.
35.
Plaintiff Walker was driving his vehicle along Chappell Road in Atlanta,
Georgia, on September 30, 2009. He observed a marked patrol car belonging to
APD’s Red Dog Unit traveling in the opposite direction.
Page 18 of 60
36.
As he was turning into the Chappell Forrest Apartment complex, Walker
was “blue-lighted”and stopped by the APD vehicle which contained Defendants
Davis, Jackson, and Lanier – all members of the APD’s now-disbanded “Red Dog
Unit.”
37.
Immediately after stopping Walker’s car and without advising Walker
why they had stopped him, one of the Defendants ordered Walker out of the
vehicle and handcuffed him.
38.
Defendant Davis immediately frisked Walker.
39.
Defendant Davis ordered Walker to open his mouth and Davis shined a
flashlight into Walker’s mouth.
40.
With Walker still handcuffed, Defendant Davis pulled down Walker’s
pants to mid-thigh, exposing Walker’s genitals to public view. Several witnesses
unconnected to the incident saw Walker’s exposed genitals during this search.
Page 19 of 60
41.
While Defendant Davis was searching Walker’s person, Defendants
Jackson and Lanier searched Walker’s car.
42.
These Defendants neither requested nor received consent to search Walker
or Walker’s vehicle.
43.
These Defendants did not find any drugs, weapons, or contraband of any
kind on Walker’s person or in Walker’s vehicle.
44.
After searching Walker and his car these Defendants issued Walker a
citation for a malfunctioning tail light and released him.
45.
These Defendants never submitted the citation they issued Walker, and the
charge was never entered into the Atlanta Municipal Court docketing system; the
citation simply “disappeared.”
Page 20 of 60
PLAINTIFF WALKER’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unreasonable Search and Seizure under the United States’ Constitution
(By Plaintiff Walker against Defendants Jackson, Davis, Lanier & City of Atlanta)
46.
Defendants Jackson, Davis & Lanier had no reason to suspect Walker of
any criminal activity when they stopped his vehicle and had neither reasonable
articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize Walker.
47.
The seizure of Walker without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or
probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
48.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Walker without a
warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.
Page 21 of 60
49.
At the time these Defendants frisked and handcuffed Walker they had no
reason to believe that Walker was either armed or dangerous.
50.
The frisk of Walker was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
51.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to frisk Walker without reasonable
suspicion that he was both armed and presently dangerous.
52.
These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Walker was
involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband.
53.
The search of Walker and his vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Page 22 of 60
54.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to search Walker and his vehicle without
consent, a warrant, or probable cause.
55.
The public search of Walker’s genitals, and exposure of Walker’s genitals
to public view, was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
56.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to strip search Walker in public and
expose Walker’s genitals to public view.
57.
In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and
callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff.
Page 23 of 60
58.
These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Walker’s rights as
described above; therefore, the individual Defendants are jointly and severally
liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiff.
59.
Defendants Davis, Jackson and Lanier are each liable to Plaintiff for their
failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiff from the
unlawful conduct of the other officers present.
60.
The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were
the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above.
PLAINTIFF WALKER’S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiff Walker against Defendant’s Jackson, Davis & Lanier)
61.
By unlawfully detaining Walker and depriving him of his personal liberty,
these Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for
damages will lie under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20.
Page 24 of 60
62.
These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful
objective of falsely imprisoning Walker by unlawful means.
63.
The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants
jointly, and the individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the
entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.
64.
These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to
humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and
conspired to falsely imprison Walker and did so under color of legal process.
PLAINTIFF WALKER’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiff Walker against Defendant’s Jackson, Davis & Lanier)
65.
These Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking
contact with Walker. Such acts constitute battery by these Defendants, under the
laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.
Page 25 of 60
66.
These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful
objective of committing a battery on Walker by unlawful means.
67.
These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to
humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and
conspired to commit a battery on Walker and did so under color of legal process.
PLAINTIFF WALKER’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Punitive Damages
(By Plaintiff Walker against Defendant’s Jackson, Davis & Lanier)
68.
The acts of Defendants Jackson, Davis and Lanier, as set forth herein, were
willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Walker to
an award of punitive damages against these individual Defendants.
PLAINTIFF JASON WALKER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
Page 26 of 60
b. Award Plaintiff Walker actual damages, including compensation for
physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;
c. Award Plaintiff Walker general damages in an amount to be
determined by the jury;
d. Award Plaintiff Walker nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights;
e. Award Plaintiff Walker punitive (exemplary) damages against the
individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;
f. Declare that Defendants Jackson, Davis, Lanier, and the City of
Atlanta violated Plaintiff Walker’s rights under the United States
Constitution;
g. Award Plaintiff Walker attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and
any other applicable provision of law;
h. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Page 27 of 60
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL & ANTONIO DANIEL
69.
Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel incorporate the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 33, as if fully set forth herein.
70.
On May 20, 2010, Kacy Daniel and Antonio Daniel, who are cousins, were
sitting in a car belonging to Antonio’s mother in a parking lot of a strip mall on
Oak Street in Atlanta, Georgia, waiting for Antonio’s mother who was getting a
manicure in the mall. The two young men were seated in the front seat, drinking
soft-drinks, eating potato chips and listening to the car’s radio.
71.
Without warning or cause, and APD vehicle containing Defendants Mayes,
Ortiz and Pettis – members of the now-disbanded “Red Dog Unit” - stopped in
the middle of the road in front of the parking lot. The officers quickly exited the
police car, approached Ms. Daniel’s vehicle and pointed their service weapons at
Kacy and Antonio Daniel. The officers instructed the young men to exit the
vehicle or they would shoot the young men in the head.
Page 28 of 60
72.
Kacy and Antonio exited the vehicle as instructed. Once they were out of
the vehicle, the defendant officers began to search them. When Kacy Daniel
asked what they had done wrong, Officer Pettis demanded that he “shut the fuck
up” and change his attitude.
73.
Immediately thereafter, Pettis unbuttoned Kacy Daniel’s pants, allowing
them to fall to the ground. He then pulled down Mr. Daniel’s underwear,
allowing his buttocks and genitals to be exposed in public. When doing so, Pettis
told Daniel that if he moved he would knock his back out (or words to that
effect). During the search, Pettis touched the genitals of Kacy Daniel. The officer
found nothing illegal in Kacy Daniel’s possession.
74.
While Pettis was searching Kacy Daniel, Mayes was searching Antonio
Daniel. As his cousin Kacy had done, Antonio Daniel asked what they had done
wrong. Mayes told him, “don’t worry about it.” As with the search of his
cousin, Mayes found nothing illegal in Antonio Daniel’s possession.
Page 29 of 60
75.
These Defendants neither requested nor received consent to search Kacy or
Antonio Daniel.
76.
After searching the Plaintiffs, the officers then asked to search Ms. Daniel’s
vehicle. Antonio Daniels responded, “no” and that he could not give consent for
the officers to search his mother’s car. He told the officers that his aunt was in
the nail salon a few feet away and that they could ask her. Officer Mayes
responded that he was a man and did not need his mother.
77.
The officers proceeded with the search of the vehicle, without consent. No
drugs or contraband of any kind was found in the vehicle.
78.
The officers did not charge either young man with any offense or even
write an incident report about the encounter, despite their warrantless search of
the vehicle and the two young men and the use of force in drawing their service
weapons and pointing them at Kacy and Antonio Daniel.
Page 30 of 60
PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution
(By Plaintiffs Kacy Daniel and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis, Ortiz and the City of Atlanta)
79.
Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz had no reason to suspect Kacy or
Antonio Daniel of any criminal activity when they approached the vehicle
occupied by the two young men and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion
nor probable cause to seize either of them.
80.
The seizure of Kacy and Antonio Daniel without a warrant, reasonable
suspicion, or probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
81.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Kacy or Antonio Daniel
without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.
Page 31 of 60
82.
These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Kacy or Antonio
Daniel was involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband.
83.
The search of Kacy and Antonio Daniel and the vehicle in which they were
sitting was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
84.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to search Kacy or Antonio Daniel or the
vehicle in which they were seated without consent, a warrant or probable cause.
85.
The public search of Kacy Daniel’s buttocks and genitals, and exposure of
Kacy Daniel’s buttocks and genitals to public view, was unreasonable under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Page 32 of 60
86.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to strip search Kacy Daniel in public and
expose his genitals to public view.
87.
In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and
callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.
88.
These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Kacy Daniel’s and
Antonio Daniel’s rights as described above; therefore, the individual Defendants
are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiffs.
89.
The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were
the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above.
Page 33 of 60
PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL’S & ANTONIO DANIEL’SSECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Excessive Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution
(By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel againstDefendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz)
90.
By the unreasonable conduct described above, the Defendant Officers used
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States of America.
91.
Defendants Mays, Pettis and Ortiz are each liable to Plaintiffs for their
failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiffs from the
unlawful conduct of the other officers present.
Page 34 of 60
PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz)
92.
By unlawfully detaining Kacy and Antonio Daniel and depriving them of
their personal liberty, these Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort
for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20.
93.
These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful
objective of falsely imprisoning Kacy and Antonio Daniel by unlawful means.
94.
The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants
jointly; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for
the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.
95.
These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to
humiliate and harm the Plaintiffs, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and
Page 35 of 60
conspired to falsely imprison Kacy and Antonio Daniel and did so under color of
legal process.
PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz)
96.
These Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking
contact with Kacy and Antonio Daniel. Such acts constitute battery by these
Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-
14.
97.
These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful
objective of committing a battery on Kacy and Antonio Daniel by unlawful
means.
98.
These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to
humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and
Page 36 of 60
conspired to commit a battery on Kacy and Antonio Daniel and did so under
color of legal process.
PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Punitive Damages
(By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz)
99.
The acts of Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz, as set forth herein, were
willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Kacy and
Antonio Daniel to an award of punitive damages against these individual
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL’S & ANTONIO DANIEL’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
b. Award Plaintiffs actual damages, including compensation for
physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;
c. Award Plaintiffs general damages in an amount to be determined by
the jury;
Page 37 of 60
d. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages for violations of Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights;
e. Award Plaintiffs punitive (exemplary) damages against the
individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;
f. Declare that Defendants Mayes, Pettis, Ortiz, and the City of Atlanta
violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution;
g. Award Plaintiffs attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any
other applicable provision of law;
h. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY
100.
Plaintiff Vance Perry incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 33, as if fully set forth herein.
101.
On June 29, 2010, Plaintiff Vance Perry arrived at the home of friends at
Overlook Atlanta apartments located on Donald Lee Hollowell Parkway in
Page 38 of 60
Atlanta, Georgia where he planned to share meal and socialize with friends and
family.
102.
Upon arrival with his two and five year old daughters, he was bringing in
food and other items from his car when he saw an police vehicle operated by
members of APD’s Red Dog Unit, specifically Defendants Blasini, Murphy
Amarena and Caldwell driving slowly into the neighborhood. Plaintiff V. Perry
briefly glanced back towards the police car because he wanted to see if there was
an apparent reason for the police being present in the neighborhood, as his
children and others were playing in the yard. Seeing nothing to cause alarm, he
looked away and headed back towards the apartment.
103.
As Plaintiff V. Perry was about to enter his friends’ apartment, two of these
Defendant Officers (a white, muscular male, approximately 6'0" tall, and a
shorter, dark-skinned, bald African-American male) violently grabbed hold of V.
Perry and pulled him backwards, away from the apartment. V. Perry had to grab
a bannister to avoid hitting his head on the ground.
Page 39 of 60
104.
Before being grabbed, V. Perry did not hear the officers coming towards
him or say anything to him.
105.
The officers described above threw V. Perry to the ground and stepped on
his head to hold him down while they handcuffed and searched him. Still the
officers did not tell V. Perry why they had seized him, searched him or
handcuffed him. No drugs were found on V. Perry’s person.
106.
These Defendant Officers took V. Perry to their police car and threw him
onto the hood of the vehicle, leaving his feet dangling above the ground.
107.
While on the hood, one of the officers (a white male with dark hair,
approximately 6' tall) grabbed the waistband of V. Perry’s pants and pulled his
pants and underwear down in front of all those present, exposing his buttocks
and genitals to those present, including his friends, his girlfriend, and his two
small daughters.
Page 40 of 60
108.
The same officer then spread V. Perry’s buttocks apart in front of those
present, including his children. No drugs or any other contraband was found.
109.
When the officer pulled his buttocks apart, V. Perry looked back to see
why they were doing this. When he looked back, the same officer who pulled
down his pants and underwear told him to “stop resisting,” pulled his pants up
and threw him, face-first, onto the pavement next to the car. V. Perry could not
prevent his face from striking the pavement, as he was handcuffed. V. Perry’s
body struck the ground so hard that he urinated on himself.
110.
V. Perry’s head was held down on the pavement by an officer’s foot (the
shorter, dark-skinned, stocky, bald male), while the same officer asked “what’s
wrong with you” and laughed with the other officers.
111.
When these officers saw that people were witnessing what they were
doing and began asking questions, they put V. Perry in the police car and drove
him down the street to a gas station parking lot.
Page 41 of 60
112.
The officers removed V. Perry from the Red Dog Unit car and made him sit
on the tire of the car while they questioned him about having or using drugs. V.
Perry stated he neither used nor had drugs. V. Perry then asked the officers why
they had beaten him. The officers refused to answer him – one stated, “I’m not
even gonna talk to you anymore” and walked away. V. Perry asked the officers
what he was being charged with, but none of the officers would respond.
113.
Only after seizing, arresting, strip-searching and assaulting V. Perry did
these officers locate V. Perry’s identification and determine his identity. V. Perry
was not wanted for any offense by any jurisdiction.
114.
V. Perry was eventually placed into a prisoner transport van by the officers
and was transported to jail and charged with obstruction of law enforcement
officers and possessing a weapon with an altered identification number.
115.
Soon after being beaten by these Defendant Officers, Plaintiff V. Perry
began experiencing severe headaches and dizziness. When dizzy he fell and
Page 42 of 60
broke his ankle. He was taken to the doctor and found that he had suffered a
concussion when beaten. V. Perry has since been treated for his injuries and is
recuperating.
116.
When hearing of the improper conduct by these officers from numerous
witnesses, reading the officers inconsistent reports and speaking to V. Perry, the
district attorney’s office dismissed all charges against V. Perry and are assisting
V. Perry in having his record expunged regarding his arrest.
PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution
(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena, Caldwell and the City of Atlanta)
117.
Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell had no reason to
suspect V. Perry of any criminal activity when they drove past him or
approached him in the yard of his friend’s apartment and had neither reasonable
articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize him.
Page 43 of 60
118.
The seizure of V. Perry without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or
probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
119.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize V. Perry without a
warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.
120.
These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that V. Perry was
involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband.
121.
The search of V. Perry was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
122.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to search V. Perry without consent, a
warrant or probable cause.
Page 44 of 60
123.
The public search of V. Perry’s buttocks and genitals, and exposure of his
buttocks and genitals to public view, was unreasonable under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
124.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to strip search V. Perry in public and
expose his genitals to public view.
125.
In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and
callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff.
126.
These Defendants combined and conspired to violate V. Perry’s rights, as
described above; therefore, the individual Defendants are jointly and severally
liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiffs.
Page 45 of 60
127.
Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are each liable to
Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect
Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present.
128.
The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were
the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above.
PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Excessive Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena, and Caldwell)
129.
By the unreasonable conduct described above, the Defendant Officers used
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States of America.
Page 46 of 60
130.
Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are each liable to
Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect
Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present.
PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell)
131.
By unlawfully detaining V. Perry and depriving him of his personal
liberty, Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are guilty of false
imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. §
51-7-20.
132.
These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful
objective of falsely imprisoning V. Perry by unlawful means.
Page 47 of 60
133.
The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants
jointly; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for
the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.
134.
These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to
humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and
conspired to falsely imprison V. Perry and did so under color of legal process.
PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell)
135.
Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell intended to make
harmful or insulting or provoking contact with V. Perry. Such acts constitute
battery by these Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under
O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.
Page 48 of 60
136.
These Defendants intentionally caused physical injury to V. Perry in
violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-13.
137.
These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful
objective of committing a battery on V. Perry by unlawful means.
138.
These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to
humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and
conspired to commit a battery on Vance Perry and did so under color of legal
process.
PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Punitive Damages
(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell)
139.
The acts of Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell, as set
forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to
Page 49 of 60
entitle Plaintiff Vance Perry to an award of punitive damages against these
individual Defendants.
PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Vance Perry respectfully prays that
this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
b. Award Plaintiff actual damages, including compensation for
physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress ;
c. Award Plaintiff general damages in an amount to be determined by
the jury;
d. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights;
e. Award Plaintiff punitive (exemplary) damages against the
individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;
f. Declare that Defendants Blasini, Murphy Amarena, Caldwell, and
the City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States
Constitution;
Page 50 of 60
g. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other
applicable provision of law;
h. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD
140.
Plaintiff Trenton Boyd incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs1
through 33, as if fully set forth herein.
141.
On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff Trenton Boyd filed a complaint with the
Atlanta Citizen Review Board regarding a beating he received at the hands of
Atlanta Police “Red Dog”officers including Defendants Guevara and Pettis,
which resulted in severe injuries including two fractures and significant bruising.
142.
On March 20, 2010, Boyd was in front of Chanterelles Restaurant at 646
Evans St., Atlanta, Georgia, 30310.
Page 51 of 60
143.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 were in a “Red Dog”
police vehicle that stopped in front of the restaurant, having apparently
recognized Boyd.
144.
Defendant Guevara exited the police car and ran toward Boyd. Guevara
ordered Boyd to put his hands up and began searching him.
145.
Defendant Guevara frisked Boyd, and searched Boyd’s pants pockets
(turning them inside-out), shoes, and socks, among other parts of Plaintiff’s
Boyd’s clothing and person.
146.
Defendant Guevara placed his hands inside Boyd’s underwear, touching
Boyd’s genital and buttocks.
147.
Defendant Guevara then pulled Boyd’s pants and underwear down to his
knees, exposing Boyd’s genitals and buttocks to public view.
Page 52 of 60
148.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 were present at the
scene and failed to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Boyd
from the unlawful conduct of Defendant Guevara.
PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution
(By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry, John Doe 1 & the City of Atlanta)
149.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 had no reason to
suspect Plaintiff Trenton Boyd of any criminal activity when they stopped him,
and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize
Boyd.
150.
The seizure of Boyd without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable
cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
Page 53 of 60
151.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly
established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to
stop and seize Boyd without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.
152.
At the time Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 frisked
Boyd they had no reason to believe that Boyd was either armed or dangerous.
153.
The frisk of Boyd was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
154.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly
established law; no reasonable officer could have believed it was lawful to frisk
Boyd without reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and presently
dangerous.
Page 54 of 60
155.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 had no probable
cause to believe that Boyd was involved in criminal activity or in possession of
contraband.
156.
The search of Boyd was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
157.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly
established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to
search Boyd without consent, a warrant, or probable cause.
158.
The public exposure and search of Boyd’s genitals and buttocks was
unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
Page 55 of 60
159.
These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer
could have believed that it was lawful to search Boyd’s genitals and buttocks in
public and expose Boyd’s genitals and buttocks to public view.
160.
In all the foregoing, Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1
acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally
protected rights of the Plaintiff.
161.
These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Boyd’s rights as
described above; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally
liable for the entire damages.
162.
Defendants Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 are liable to Boyd for their
failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Boyd from the
unlawful conduct of Defendant Guevara.
Page 56 of 60
163.
The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were
the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above.
PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1)
164.
By unlawfully detaining Plaintiff Trenton Boyd and depriving him of his
personal liberty, Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 are liable
for false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under
O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20.
165.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 combined and
conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning Boyd by
unlawful means.
Page 57 of 60
166.
The false imprisonment was the act of Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry
and John Doe 1 jointly; therefore, these Defendants are jointly and severally liable
for the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.
167.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, with malice and
oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely
imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison Boyd and did so
under color of legal process.
PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery Under Georgia Law
(By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1)
168.
Defendant Guevara intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking
contact with Plaintiff Trenton Boyd. Such acts constitute battery by Guevara
under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.
Page 58 of 60
169.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 combined and
conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on Boyd
by unlawful means.
170.
Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, with malice and
oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a
battery on and/or combined and conspired to commit a battery on Boyd and did
so under color of legal process.
PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Punitive Damages
(By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1)
171.
The acts of Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, as set
forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to
entitle Plaintiff Trenton Boyd to an award of punitive damages against these
Defendants.
Page 59 of 60
PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Trenton Boyd respectfully prays
that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
b. Award Plaintiff actual damages, including compensation for
physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress ;
c. Award Plaintiff general damages in an amount to be determined by
the jury;
d. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights;
e. Award Plaintiff punitive (exemplary) damages against the
individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;
f. Declare that Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry, John Doe, and the
City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States
Constitution;
g. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other
applicable provision of law;
Page 60 of 60
h. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED
Respectfully submitted this 29th of September, 2011.
GLASER, CURRIE & BULLMAN, LLP
/s/ Mark B. Bullman Mark B. BullmanGeorgia Bar No. 0943761455 Lincoln ParkwaySuite 300Atlanta, Georgia [email protected](770) 563-9300
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. GROSSMAN
/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. GrossmanGeorgia Bar No. 313815Law Office of Daniel J. Grossman1579 Monroe Drive, Ste F-138Atlanta, Georgia [email protected](404) 654-0326
Attorneys for Plaintiffs