White V Glenn Complaint

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
:
KHADIJAH WHITE
:
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
CAPTAIN
:
No. #13STEPHEN GLENN (Badge No. 26)
:
Individually and as a Police Officer
:
for the City of Philadelphia;
:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:
POLICE OFFICER
:
EDWARD ASHBURN (Badge No. 4685)
:
:
:
:
POLICE OFFICER
:
CHRISTOPHER PURNELL (Badge No. 6636) :
:
:
:
POLICE OFFICER
:
CHARLES SHELTON (Badge No. 7444)
:
:
:
:
POLICE OFFICER
:
DAWN LYLES (Badge No. 5948)
:
:
:
:
POLICE OFFICER
:
ERICK GARNETT (Badge No. 3021)
:
:
:
:
POLICE OFFICER
:
RHONDA CONGLETON (Badge No. 4657)
:
:
:
MICHAEL RESNICK
:
Individually and as the Director of Public Safety :
:
:
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOES 1-25
:
(Badge Nos. Presently Unknown)
:
Individually and as Police Officers
:
:
:
POLICE OFFICER JANE DOES 1-25
:
(Badge Nos. Presently Unknown)
:
Individually and as Police Officers
:
:
:
and
:
:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
:
:
Defendants
:
COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION
1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is based upon
28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1341 (1), (3) and (4). Plaintiff further
invokes supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1376(a) to hear and
decide claims under state law.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Khadijah White is an adult female who is and was at all material times a
resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant City of Philadelphia is a Municipality of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania that owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the City of
Philadelphia Police Department, which employed Defendant Police Officers at all

times relevant to this action.
4. Defendant Michael Resnick is the Director of Public Safety for the City of
Philadelphia. During the event described herein, he was acting under color of
state law. He is being sued in his individual capacity and as the Director of Public
Safety for the City of Philadelphia.
5. Those Defendant Police Officers who are named in the instant complaint were at
all times relevant to this action Officers of the City of Philadelphia Police
Department. During the events described herein, all of these Defendant Police
Officers were acting under color of state law. Each is being sued in his/her
individual capacity and as a Police Officer for the City of Philadelphia.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Police Officers John Doe 1-25 and Jane
Doe 1-25 were at all times relevant to this action Officers of the City of
Philadelphia Police Department. During the events described herein, all of these
Defendant Police Officers were acting under color of state law. Each is being
sued in his/her individual capacity and as a Police Officer for the City of
Philadelphia.
FACTS
7. During the afternoon of March 15, 2012, Plaintiff, Khadijah White, left her
apartment to go to the Reading Terminal Market, which is located at the northeast
corner of 12th and Filbert Streets in Philadelphia.
8. Ms. White, who was travelling by bicycle, first stopped to see friends who were
outside Philadelphias Municipal Services Building (hereinafter MSB) waiting

for a hearing to begin. The topic of the hearing was Mayor Michael Nutters
proposal to regulate the outdoor feeding of homeless people in Philadelphia.
9. After leaving the MSB, Ms. White went to the Terminal Market. When she had
completed her shopping, Ms. White discovered that a friend from the MSB had
placed flyers in her bicycle pack, but did not retrieve them before Ms. White left.
10. Ms. White did not plan on attending the hearing at the MSB; instead, she intended
to return home immediately, where she was going to entertain friends and family
who had come to visit. These visitors had come to attend a celebration the
following afternoon at which as Ms. White was to be named the Woman of Color
(Graduate Honoree) at the University of Pennsylvania, where she was a doctoral
candidate.
11. Ms. White returned to the MSB, which was only a few blocks away, to deliver the
flyers to her friend. When she arrived, she observed a large group of people
outside still standing outside the entrance to the MSB.
12. The hearing on outdoor feeding of the homeless was public, and officials of
Defendant City of Philadelphia had indicated that anyone who wished to speak
would be permitted entry; however, numerous police officers, including some
and/or all of the defendant officers, had created a barricade with their bodies and
their bicycles to prohibit members of the public from entering the MSB.
13. Ms. White questioned some of the defendant officers about why they were
precluding members of the public from accessing a public hearing.
14. What happened next was captured on video.
15. Police incrementally moved the barricade away from the MSB and into the public
group, which included Ms. White. Some individuals in this group wanted to
access the hearing and some simply wanted to know why police were impeding
public access to a public hearing.
16. Without any justification or other lawful and legitimate reason, Defendant Officer
Edward Ashburn unnecessarily and antagonistically pushed his bike into Ms.
Whites bike and began kicking her bike away from the MSB.
17. Ms. White asked Defendant Officer Ashburn why he was kicking her bike and
asked that he stop.
18. Defendant Officer Ashburn demanded that Ms. White back her bike up. He had
no reason for doing so. Some officers, including some and/or all of the defendant
officers, began yelling, Hold the Line.
19. Ms. White did not attempt -- or encourage anyone else -- to breach the policecreated barricade at any time relevant to the instant matter.
20. Without any lawful justification, defendant Captain Stephen Glenn reached across
the police barricade, grabbed Ms. White and her bike and pushed her backwards.
He then pulled Ms. Whites bike away from her.
21. Ms. White reached for her bike, at which time some officers, including some
and/or all of the defendant officers began calling to bring [Ms. White] in.
22. Ms. White did not commit any acts that justified police detaining and arresting
her.
23. Defendant Captain Glenn, along with other defendant officers, grabbed Ms. White
and pulled her through the police line toward the MSB. In the course of doing so,
Ms. Whites left little finger was bent backward so severely that it broke. Ms.
White repeatedly cried hes breaking my finger, but Captain Glenn and other
defendant officers did not let go.
24. Ms. White was pulled inside the MSB and pushed into a chair. From there, some
of the defendant officers, including Captain Glenn, took her through the MSB to
an exit on Arch St.
25. Ms. White, who had not violated any laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
or any other jurisdiction, was arrested and transported to police districts where she
was arraigned on the following false charges:
a. Resisting Arrest, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 5104;
b. Disorderly Conduct, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 5503(A)(4); and
c. Harassment, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 2709(A)(1).
26. As a result of her arrest and subsequent incarceration, Ms. White did not attend
the ceremony at the University of Pennsylvania where she was to be given the
Woman of Color at Penn (Graduate Honoree) Award, recognizing her as an
individual who increased respect for women of color at the university.
27. In order to effectuate the arrest and prosecution of Ms. White, the Defendant
Officers and other officers gave false statements concerning the incident
described in this complaint.
28. Defendant Resnick made a false statement similar to those of the Defendant
Officers in anticipation of charging Ms. White.
29. To the extent that it shows his presence at all, the video does not show that
Defendant Resnick was in a position to view these events. More importantly, the
available video evidence demonstrates that the events occurred other than the way
described by Defendant Resnick.
30. The Defendant Officers and other officers prepared and caused to be prepared
police paperwork misrepresenting the events that led to the arrest of Ms. White
for the incident described in this complaint.
31. The Defendant Officers were aware of exculpatory information about Ms. White;
they failed to provide this exculpatory information to Ms. White or her criminal
counsel via police paperwork or any other means after her arrest.
32. The exculpatory information known to police that was not provided to Ms. White
included the real facts and circumstances of the incident.
33. The Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick, in anticipation of the charging of
Plaintiff, misrepresented the events that led to the arrest of the Plaintiff. These
misrepresentations were intentional, malicious, in bad faith, recklessly indifferent
and deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs rights.
These misrepresentations
included, but were not limited to, the following false statements:
a. that Ms. White had been using abusive, profane, and derogatory language
toward police;
b. that Ms. White had attempted to incite members of the public to breach the
police barricade;
c. that Ms. White had pushed her bike into Defendant Officer Ashburners bike;
d. that Ms. White had grabbed Defendant Officer Ashburners bike; and
e. that Ms. White had pushed Defendant Captain Glenn.
34. There is no support for these misrepresentations in the available video footage.
This is because the events did not occur as the Defendant Officers described them.
35. Ms. White obtained criminal counsel to represent her.
36. The Philadelphia District Attorneys Office withdrew prosecution against Ms.
White after reviewing the evidence in this case, including the available video
footage, which directly contradicted the Defendant Officers and Defendant
Resnicks statements.
37. All of the aforementioned actions taken by each of the Defendants in this matter
were taken under color of state law.
38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiff Khadijah
White was deprived of rights, privileges and immunities under the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and, in
particular, the right to be free from retaliatory conduct against protected speech
and assembly, the right to be free from excessive force, the right to be free from
unlawful arrest, the right to be free from malicious prosecution, and the right to
due process of law. Ms. White was similarly deprived of the right not to be the
victim of conspiracies of state actors to violate the aforementioned clearly
established rights.
39. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violated the clearly established
federal constitutional rights of Ms. White to freedom from retaliation against
protected speech and assembly, freedom from the use of excessive, unreasonable,
and unjustified force against their person, the right to be free from malicious
prosecution, and the right to due process of law.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants
in this matter, Ms. White has suffered physical pain, substantial and potentially
permanent physical injury, loss of liberty, anxiety, fear, mental harm, and
financial loss.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants,
Ms. White was and is deprived of rights, privileges and immunities under the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as well as parallel provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution and,
in particular, the right to be free from retaliatory conduct against protected speech
and assembly, the right to be free from excessive force, the right to be free from
unlawful arrest, the right to be free from malicious prosecution, and the right to
due process of law. Ms. White was similarly deprived of the right not to be
victims of conspiracies of state actors to violate the aforementioned clearly
established rights.
42. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violated the clearly established
federal and state constitutional rights of the Plaintiff to be free from retaliatory
conduct against protected speech and assembly, the right to be free from
excessive force, the right to be free from unlawful arrest, the right to be free from
malicious prosecution, and the right to due process of law.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. 1983: Excessive Force
Against All Defendant Officers
43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set
forth.
44. Plaintiff was damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs,
violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More
specifically, Defendant Officers intentionally acted to cause a harmful and/or
offensive contact with Plaintiffs persons and such actions were the actual and
proximate cause of Plaintiffs harm.
COUNT II
Supplemental State Law Claim: Battery
forth.
46. Plaintiff was damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that
they intentionally acted to cause a harmful and/or offensive contact with
Plaintiffs persons and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs harm.
10
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. 1983: Assault
forth.
specifically, Defendant Officers intentionally placed Plaintiff in reasonable
apprehension of imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and
Defendants actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs harm.
COUNT IV
Supplemental State Law Claim: Assault
forth.
they intentionally placed Plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of imminent
harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and Defendants actions were the actual
and proximate cause of Plaintiffs harm.
11
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. 1983: Unlawful Arrest
forth.
specifically, Defendant Officers acted with the intent to arrest Plaintiff
unlawfully, without probable cause, and against Plaintiffs will, and such actions
were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs confinement.
COUNT VI
Supplemental State Law Claim: False Imprisonment
forth.
they acted with the intent to confine Plaintiff unlawfully and against Plaintiffs
will, and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs
confinement.
12
COUNT VII
42 U.S.C. 1983: Malicious Prosecution
Against All Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick
forth.
Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick in that they, as described in detail in
preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights while acting under
color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers seized and arrested Plaintiff
and, acting in concert with Defendant Resnick, instituted criminal proceedings
against Plaintiff without probable cause and with malice. These proceedings
terminated in favor of the Plaintiff. Defendants conduct was the direct and
proximate cause of Plaintiffs harm.
COUNT VIII
Supplemental State Law Claim: Malicious Prosecution
forth.
58. Plaintiff was damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers and
Defendant Resnick in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs,
specifically, Defendant Officers seized and arrested Plaintiff and, acting in
concert with Defendant Resnick, instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiff
13
without probable cause and with malice. These proceedings terminated in favor
of the Plaintiff. Defendants conduct was the direct and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs harm.
COUNT IX
42 U.S.C. 1983: Retaliation Against Protected Speech
forth.
color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick took
retaliatory action against Plaintiff that was intended to violate her clearly
established constitutional rights to protected speech and assembly. The actions
taken by Defendants adversely affected Plaintiffs protected speech and assembly.
COUNT X
42 U.S.C. 1983: Conspiracy
forth.

14
color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick,

acting in concert and conspiracy, committed acts in violation of the Plaintiffs
constitutional rights and against the laws of Pennsylvania.
The Defendant
Officers and Defendant Resnick acted in conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs

constitutional rights as stated in the above paragraphs, and made statements
among themselves and others in order to conceal their unlawful and
unconstitutional conduct. Such actions were the direct and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs harm.
COUNT XI
Supplemental State Law Claim: Conspiracy
forth.
64. Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick, acting in concert and conspiracy,
committed acts in violation of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights and against the
laws of Pennsylvania. The Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick made
statements among themselves and others in order to conceal their unlawful and
unconstitutional conduct.
15
COUNT XII
Supplemental State Law Claim:
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
forth.
Defendant Resnick in that they intentionally and/or recklessly caused Plaintiff
severe emotional distress by their extreme and outrageous conduct.
COUNT XIII
Supplemental State Law Claim:
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
forth.
Defendant Resnick in that they negligently caused Plaintiff severe emotional
distress by their extreme and outrageous conduct and where Plaintiffs emotional
distress resulted in the manifestation of physical symptoms.
16
COUNT XIV
42 U.S.C. 1983: Monell
Against Defendant City of Philadelphia
forth.
Defendant City of Philadelphias actions and omissions. Prior to March 15, 2012,
the City of Philadelphia developed and maintained policies and/or customs
exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the City
of Philadelphia, which caused the violation of Plaintiffs rights.
71. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of Philadelphia to cover-up and avoid
detection of improper and illegal police activity, including actions taken to
retaliate against protected speech and assembly, which included actions such as
excessive force, unlawful detention, failure to intervene against other Officers
illegal conduct, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and infliction of
emotional distress.
72. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of Philadelphia to fail to sufficiently
supervise against, train and/or re-train against, and discipline against illegal police
activity described in the preceding paragraph.
73. There has been an extensive history of Philadelphia Police Officers engaging in
illegal conduct against individuals exercising their right to free speech. This
conduct has including illegal activity against individuals including, but not limited
to, excessive force, unlawful detention, failure to intervene against other Officers
illegal conduct, assault and battery, false imprisonment, and infliction of

17
emotional distress.
74. It was the policy and/or custom of The City of Philadelphia to inadequately
supervise and train its Police Officers, including the Defendant Officers, against a
code of silence or blue code of Officers refusing to intervene against or provide
truthful information against constitutional violations and other unlawful
misconduct committed by their fellow Officers. Similarly, it was the policy
and/or custom of Defendant City of Philadelphia to insufficiently supervise and
train its Police Officers, including the Defendant Officers, against a code of acting
in concert and conspiracy to accomplish their goals of engaging in constitutional
violations.
75. As a result of the above-described policies and customs and/or the lack thereof,
Police Officers of the City of Philadelphia, including the Defendant Officers,
believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory
Officers and that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would
be tolerated.
DAMAGES
76. As a result of the above actions and claims, the Plaintiff demands judgment
against all defendants in the amount of all damages, including:
a. compensatory damages;
b. punitive damages;
c. interest;
d. injunctive relief;
18
e. such other relief as appears reasonable and just; and

f. reasonable attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988.
Lloyd Long III, Esq.

KRASNER, HUGHES & LONG, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
1221 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 731-9500
February 25, 2013
19
Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1-1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 1

White V Glenn Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

White V Glenn Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 19

Philadelphia Police Department, which employed Defendant Police Officers at all

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 19

outside Philadelphias Municipal Services Building (hereinafter MSB) waiting

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 6 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 7 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 8 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 9 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 10 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 11 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 12 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 13 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 14 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 15 of 19

color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers and Defendant Resnick,

Officers and Defendant Resnick acted in conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 16 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 17 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 18 of 19

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 19 of 19

e. such other relief as appears reasonable and just; and

Lloyd Long III, Esq.

February 25, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1-1 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1-2 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:13-cv-00984-TON Document 1-3 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 1

You might also like