Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.

30 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

OMAR WASSEL, and

MOHAMED WASEL,
Case No. 4:18-CV-11662-MFL-EAS
Plaintiffs, Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

vs.

CITY OF HAMTRAMCK,
a municipal corporation,
MICHAEL STOUT, ANNE MOISE,
and RYAN YOUNG

Defendants,

______________________________________________________________________________

ALL LAW, PLLC ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC

MARCO MICHAEL BISBIKIS (P79478) JAMES P. ALLEN, SR. (P52885)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LINDSEY R. JOHNSON (P67081)
23629 Liberty St. Ste. 200 Attorneys for Defendants
Farmington, MI 48335-3568 400 Monroe Street, Suite 620
(248) 893-6090 Detroit, MI 48226
(248) 284-1008 Fax (313) 962-7777
marco@alllawpllc.com (313) 962-0581 Fax
JamesAllen@allenbrotherspllc.com
ljohnson@allenbrotherspllc.com
MARK M. KOROI (P44470)
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
150 N. Main St.
Plymouth, MI 48170-1236
(734) 469-4040
(734) 454-4814 Fax
mmkoroi@sbcglobal.net
______________________________________________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.31 Page 2 of 17

Now come the Plaintiffs, Omar Wassel and Mohamed Wasel, by and through their
attorneys, Marco M. Bisbikis and Mark Michael Koroi, and submits the constant First Amended
Complaint to this Honorable Court paragraph by paragraph as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Omar Wassel and Mohamed Wasel are residents of the City of Hamtramck,
County of Wayne, State of Michigan and have been at all relevant times herein.

2. Plaintiffs are both of Yemeni national origin and are adherents of the Islamic religion
who both speak fluent Arabic and who follow dietary laws as Muslims; they are both
individuals.

3. Defendant City of Hamtramck is a municipal corporation, organizing and existing

under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal office located at 3401
Evaline.

4. Defendant Michael Stout, at all times relevant herein, was a police officer of the
Hamtramck Police Department holding the title of “Investigator” and domiciled in the
State of Michigan; Defendant Stout is being sued in his individual and official
capacity; he is an individual person.

5. Defendant Anne Moise, also an individual, at all relevant times herein, served as the
Chief of Police of the City of Hamtramck, pursuant to the express provisions of the
City Charter; she is domiciled in the State of Michigan; Defendant Moise is being
sued in her individual and official capacity.

6. Defendant Ryan Young, also an individual, at all times relevant to his action, had
been a police officer employed by the City of Hamtramck; Defendant Young is being
sued in his individual and official capacity.

7. Michigan Auto Theft Prevention Authority (MATPA) is administered by the

Michigan State Police, and is organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Michigan, with its principal office located at 333 Grand Avenue, Lansing, MI.

8. Upon information and belief, MATPA is privately funded by the insurance industry
and is a supervisory agency for The C.O.B.R.A. Auto Theft Task Force, as well as for
Defendant Stout; MATPA utilizes a $1 per policy insurance premium for the purpose
of funding and supporting the actions of its grantees, of which includes the
C.O.B.R.A. auto theft task force, as well as MATPA Wayne County Prosecutor
Dennis Doherty.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.32 Page 3 of 17

9. Defendant Moise, at all times relevant to this action, exercised general managerial
control over the Hamtramck Police Department.

10. Defendant Stout at all relevant times herein, was a participating officer in the
C.O.B.R.A. unit, which is multi-jurisdictional, as well as serving as a police officer
and holding the rank and title of Investigator.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Moise, the Chief of Police of Hamtramck,
was at all times the supervising authority with personal knowledge as to the conduct
and allegations of misconduct and invidious discrimination of her subordinate
Defendant Stout; Defendant Moise woefully failed to engage in any appropriate steps
in addressing the illicit and discriminatory conduct of City of Hamtramck police
officer Defendant Stout, for which she had a duty, and in fact violated that duty when
she, as chief of police, was observed to be benefitting from the lucrative and illegal
conduct of Defendant Stout and the C.O.B.R.A. unit, resulting in the seizure of
property including motor vehicles, as well as large amounts of cash proceeds.

12. At all times relevant, Defendant Stout, Moise, and Young, as officers acting under the
authority or color of law, had a duty to protect, serve, and ensure the clearly
established constitutional and civil rights of the citizens of the municipalities in which
they policed.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, at all times employed
Defendant Stout and Defendant Moise, both of them, and owed a duty to the citizens
and community of all municipalities in which they policed, to adequately train or
supervise its employees so as to ensure that Defendant Stout and Defendant Moise,
would not intentionally and/or negligently abuse their police power under the color or
authority of law by engaging in actions that would violate the clearly established
constitutional and civil rights of citizens of any municipality in which he or she
policed.

14. The Defendant Stout and the C.O.B.R.A. unit habitually and knowingly falsified
evidence and manufactured arrests without probable cause, extended unjustified
detentions of members of the Arabic culture and Islamic adherents for no other reason
then to rid the Hamtramck community of “ these fucking Arabs” and convert and
illegally hold under color of state law, property from the very “rag heads, sand
niggers and towel heads” they sought to eliminate from the very community they
were obligated to protect.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.33 Page 4 of 17

15. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, knew or should have
known the Defendant Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly
established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all
municipalities in which be policed, as Defendant City of Hamtramck knew or should
have known that the Defendant Stout previously engaged in a pattern or practice or
conducted of filing false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants
based on false or incomplete information and, as in the case of Plaintiffs herein,
causing the false arrests or actually falsely arresting people of Arabic descent or
others minority ethnicity members.

16. Defendant City of Hamtramck’s failure to take corrective action or its tacit
authorization, toleration, ratification, permission or acquiescence of Defendants
Stout’s and Moise’s actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally
protected rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in which they
policed, established a de facto policy of deliberate indifference to individuals such as
Plaintiffs for which Defendant Hamtramck is liable.

17. On March 14, 2014 Mohamed Wasel was served with an appearance ticket by
Defendant Young for an “improper plate”, a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment of not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $100.00 or both,
and Young told Mohamed Wasel that he had a plate belonging to another vehicle, this
was despite Mohamed Wasel showing him the registration for the vehicle, a step van,
matched the plate on the van, Mohamed Wasel, nor his brother Plaintiff Omar
Wassel, had any prior notice, or claim of any problems with the registration or the
plate on the vehicle being void or otherwise improper; the step van in question had
been insured since it was purchased and insurance was valid as of the date of the
encounter with Defendant Young.

18. Young had been dispatched with the report that the van was displaying fraudulent
license plates.

19. Defendant Young impounded the step van on March 14, 2018 at approximately 12:54
p.m. with reason for impounding being listed in an “Incident/Tow Details” document
as “COBRA investigation or recovered stolen” with a declared “Hold Reason” being
“Fraud application or (sic) insurance” with the tow company B&G Towing actually
towing away the vehicle with the license plate purportedly “confiscated” at the scene.

20. B&G told plaintiff Omar Wassel that the van would not be released unless authorized
by Defendant Stout, who in fact, at the time, was, as pled above, an Investigator
assigned to C.O.B.R.A.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.34 Page 5 of 17

21. Both Defendant Moise and the City of Hamtramck had notice as of the date of seizure
of the step van that Defendant Stout had a predilection to harass minority members,
including Arabs, having had received complaints from several U.S. Department of
Justice informants that were working for the Hamtramck P.D. of improper conduct of
Defendant Stout and a second officer with Highland Park P.D. making ethnic slurs;
these slurs including “these fucking Arabs”, “towel heads”, “camel jockeys”, and
“sand niggers” and an expressed intent to “get rid of Sam (Joumaah, an Arab
businessman in Hamtramck), and everybody like him “and repeatedly and habitually
using derogatory invidious epithets to describe Arabs and blacks and engaging in
wrongful detention of Arabs, especially Arab businessmen, and the property they
owned or used in their respective commercial operations.

22. That Defendants Moise and the City of Hamtramck were made aware, upon
information and belief, about Stout, and the C.O.B.R.A. Unit engaging in racially
targeted missions to harass and exploit minorities and defraud and steal from them
and convert their properties due to a series of communications/directed to Moise,
members of City Council and the City Attorney and other relevant officials of civil
rights abridgment and invidious discrimination; said acts of improper behavior were
verified by as sworn statement filed with a civil action complaint in the Wayne
County Circuit Court on April 8, 2016 and assigned case No. 16-004457-CK.

23. Shortly after the seizure of the step van and the confiscation of the license plate,
Plaintiffs obtained “proof of insurance” documentation from State Farm and applied
for and received a new Secretary of State auto registration based upon such State
Farm supplied documentation and proceeded to the Hamtramck Police Dept. to
reacquire possession of the step van but were not successful in securing its release.

24. On Tuesday March 15, 2016 Plaintiff Mohamed Wasel went to the Hamtramck P.D.
and displayed proof of no fault insurance paperwork, however Mr. Wasel was not
successful in obtaining release of the step van.

25. Andrew Robinson of the Hamtramck P.D. entered into a report that he copied the
document presented as proof of insurance and called a customer service
representative at a toll-free number who was unable to verify either the listed policy
number or the presented paperwork or the fact that State Farm had a policy in the
name of Omar Wassel.

26. During the evening of Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Plaintiff Omar Wassel presented to
Hamtramck City Council during the public commentary period his proof of insurance
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.35 Page 6 of 17

documentation from State Farm with the notification on that the ice cream truck in
question was being improperly detained at the behest of the Hamtramck P.D. due to
lack of insurance issues; Mayor Majewski referred him to Chief Anne Moise who
was present in City Council chambers in her official capacity as sergeant-at-arms,
however Moise did speak with Mr. Wassel, who advised him to come back to the
police station to discuss matters, which Plaintiff Omar Wassel did, together the
following morning with his brother, Plaintiff Mohamed Wasel.

27. At approximately late morning Wednesday of March 16, 2016, Omar Wassel and his
brother Mohamed Wasel, both Plaintiffs herein, approached the front desk of the
Police Department with additional documentary proof of insurance; the desk officer
assured them they would have to wait until Defendant Stout returned to make
decisions regarding their step van. At said date and time on Wednesday Plaintiffs
Mohamed Wasel and his brother Omar Wassel provided further State Farm auto
insurance documentation in an attempt to release to the step van.

28. Upon information, a police department employee dialed the same customer service
toll-free number, but gave a different and nonsensical number then was given earlier
and which did not appear on the State Farm documentation as the correct policy
number; the customer service representative (Wanda) indicted the number given was
not a valid policy number and did not contact enough characters and further, Wanda
could not locate any policy in the name of Omar Wassel in her systems; the police
employee in question, tagged the insurance documentation into evidence and attached
a copy to the police report in which he entered his observations, plus the fact he
advised Investigator Stout of his findings, who ordered the arrest of both Plaintiffs.

29. At no time prior to the arrest being initiated did the police employee in question, one
Andrew Robinson, nor Investigator Stout, nor any other police employee make any
attempt to contact Eric Huffman, the State Farm agent who issued the policy
documentation in question and whose address and phone number were conspicuously
displayed upon the proof of insurance paperwork presented at the police station on
each occasion by one or both the Plaintiffs.

30. If Eric Huffman had been contacted prior to the arrest of Plaintiff, he would have
easily and credibly verified the existence of proper State Farm Auto policy coverage
on the step van in question and would have explained that it can take considerable
time - usually several days or even a couple of weeks before bound auto policy
coverage issued via a State Farm agent enters the computer system of the State Farm;
upon information, neither Andrew Robinson, nor Stout, nor any other police
employees questioned State Farm whether a recently issued extension of Michigan
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.36 Page 7 of 17

No Fault Insurance coverage or other proof of policy documentation would

immediately be accessible to a State Farm customer service representative working
their toll-free line.

31. After Defendant Stout ordered the arrest of Plaintiff, Defendant Young and a second
officer, Cpl. Kruse, acting in concert, arrested both Plaintiffs, who were frisked,
fingerprinted, and led to a holding cell in handcuffs where they stayed for almost 1 ½
days without any working phone access, or food certified with the dietary laws of
Muslims.

32. Plaintiff were humiliated by police during their confinement, addressing them as Mr.
Fake, and accusing them of having fraudulent insurance papers.

33. The relevant police incident reports indicated that both Plaintiffs were arrested for
felony motor vehicle fraud with “State Farm Insurance Co.” as the victim.

34. That said police “Case Report” noted that an “Extension of Michigan No-Fault
Insurance Coverage” had a “status” of “Stolen/ Etc. (Bribed/Defrauded/Embezzled
/Ransomed/Etc.)”

35. That on the day of their respective arrests and at all time relevant to this action, the
step van in question had been insured via no-fault insurance coverage through Eric D.
Huffman Insurance Agency, Inc., and Mr. Eric D. Huffman, a licensed insurance
agent that is affiliated with State Farm Insurance; upon learning of the detention of
Plaintiffs the day of their arrests, Mr. Huffman immediately went to the Hamtramck
P.D. and vouched to Defendant Stout that the a no-fault insurance coverage on the
step van was valid and in force as presented by Plaintiffs, and further that the policy
issued for the step van in question that was active at the time of the arrest of Plaintiffs
would not necessarily be appearing in the computer systems of State Farm for
downloading as there was a time lag of several days that is normal before coverage
bound through as insurance agency is accessible to State Farm personnel who may
attempt to verify coverage.

36. Stout replied to Mr. Huffman that he, Mr. Huffman was not an attorney and didn’t
want to speak to Mr. Huffman further; Mr. Huffman proceeded to transmit e-mail
correspondence later to both the Mayor and Chief of Police of Hamtramck to
complain of Stout’s deficient and insolent conduct; due to Stout disregarding Mr.
Huffman’s exonerating information, Plaintiffs spent time in the holding cell overnight
and were not released until the afternoon of Thursday, March 17, 2016.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.37 Page 8 of 17

37. Despite being held for over 24 hours, neither Plaintiff was given Miranda warnings
nor was interrogated during their incarceration by Stout or anyone else relative to
violations of any criminal law.

38. That neither Plaintiff Mohamed Wasel, nor his brother Plaintiff Omar Wassel, would
have had the opportunity to have any reasonable notice of putative Secretary of State
administrative action to cancel the registration of the step van, as the cancellation
notice that was purportedly sent to Mohamed Wasel on June 17, 2016 was in fact,
apparently sent erroneously to “2396 Faber St.” rather than Mohamed Wasel’s correct
address at 2453 Faber St., therefore neither Plaintiff could have reasonably disputed
the attempted cancellation within 20 days of the notice document as set forth in the
notice and consonant with legal requirements of timeliness, Plaintiffs would have
prevented proofs to avoid cancellation as proper no-fault insurance had been procured
at the time they received that van; if Defendant Young and the City of Hamtramck
had made reasonable inquiry prior to seizing the step van and serving an appearance
ticket for improper/fraudulent license plate, they would have been discovered that
service of the June 17, 2016 notice of cancellation was defective and that the grounds
for cancellation were non-existent; upon information, the police department later
acquired a copy of the June 17, 2015 notice of cancellation containing the erroneous
“2396 Faber St.” address and had copious documentation that 2450 Faber St. was the
correct address for Mohamed Wasel at all relevant times.

39. Approximately one week after the seizure of the step van, the vehicle was released by
B & G after Defendant Stout removed the hold on the vehicle; neither Stout nor any
other police personnel questioned Plaintiffs regarding any improper plate or
fraudulent auto insurance documentation that they purported to have custody of after
seizing the items from one or both Plaintiffs.

40. There was no reasonable cause for Defendant Young’s initiation of a criminal charge
relating to fraudulent plates given the denial of Plaintiffs, the display of registration
certificate matching the plate and lack of possession by Young of documentation
from the Secretary of State that would have, in fact, exonerate or verified the theory
that Defendant Mohamed Wasel had knowingly affixed or caused to be displayed
fraudulent or improper license plates on the step van in question; in fact, no proof
whatsoever existed that Plaintiff Mohamed Wasel had any reasonable actual notice of
any fraudulent or improper nature of the plate in question.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.38 Page 9 of 17

41. Plaintiffs, because of their 3/16/2014 arrests were placed on a State Police database
notifying interested parties with access that Plaintiffs had been arrested for vehicle
fraud; at one-point TSA was notified of this entry and delayed Plaintiff Omar
Wassel’s ability to receive a hazardous materials transport permit.

COUNT I – MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

42. Paragraphs One through Forty-One are incorporated herein by reference.

43. Defendant Mohamed Wasel’s misdemeanor criminal charge of improper/fraudulent

and/or switch plate under a local ordinance corresponding to MCL 257.256 of the
Michigan Motor Vehicle Code was instituted by Defendant Young without probable
cause, given Plaintiff’s protestations of innocence and no proof that Mohamed Wasel
was actually aware of any plate cancellation or engaged in any fraudulent conduct as
to either applicable no-fault insurance or plates registered to the step van.

44. The ordinance ticket issued with malice, which can be inferred by the lack of
probable cause and the following conduct of Young:

(A) stated falsely that he displayed certificate of insurance was fake and
fraudulent;

(B) told Wasel “leave before I lock someone up” and other rude and demeaning
comments, in violation of city ordinances mandating courteous treatment by
city staff;

(C) failed to reasonably investigate the facts before issuing the ticket;

(D) recklessly or knowingly made false statements on the incident/tow details

suggesting that a fraudulent insurance application was made and that the
vehicle was “recovered stolen”.

45. The aforesaid misdemeanor criminal charge was terminated in Plaintiff Mohamed
Wasel’s favor when it was voided out of the Court’s computer system.

46. As a direct and proximate cause of said criminal charge, the step van was seized and
Plaintiff Mohamed Wasel was required to attend an arraignment/pre-trial proceeding
at the 31st Judicial/District Court in Hamtramck with a defense attorney.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.39 Page 10 of 17

47. As a direct and proximate cause of said malicious prosecution, Plaintiff Mohamed
Wasel sustained vehicle storing and towing charges, attorney fees in defending the
criminal charge, embarrassment and humiliation, emotional distress and exemplary
damages, further, Defendant Young did not act reasonably or on good faith and
cannot be immune under the Government Tort Liability Act.

COUNT II – CONVERSION

48. Paragraphs One through Forty-Seven are incorporated herein by reference.

49. That Defendant Young, on behalf of the City of Hamtramck, acquired dominion and
control of the step van by contacting B & G Towing to come out and tow, and hold
the van on the basis of being “recovered stolen” or “COBRA investigation” and
fraudulent application for insurance.

50. Defendant Young, on behalf of the City of Hamtramck wrongfully exerted dominion
over the van in the following ways:

(A) intentionally dispossessed Plaintiff of the van;

(B) ordering the towing of the vehicle without requisite authority due to the lack
of factual basis that the van was either stolen or involved in a fraudulent
insurance application;

(C) misdelivering the van to B&G Towing when no basis existed to tow the van;

(D) refusing repeated demands to surrender the van, including after Defendant’s
Young and Stout had been presented cogent proof that no auto theft or
insurance fraud had taken place.

51. Defendants Stout and the City of Hamtramck, in fact, held the van until at least
March 23, 2016, despite having had released Plaintiffs from criminal custody and
having no proof the van was involved in any fraud or theft.

52. As a direct and proximate result of said conversion, Plaintiff Mohamed Wasel
sustained all injury and damage pled, supra; remedies under common law and MCL
600.2919a apply.

53. Defendants Young and Stout did not act reasonably nor in good faith and no
immunity under the Government Tort Liability Act is applicable here.
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.40 Page 11 of 17

COUNT III – FALSE ARREST

54. Paragraphs One through Fifty-Three are incorporated herein by reference.

55. Defendants Stout and Young participated in an illegal and unjustified arrest on March
16, 2016 as to each Plaintiff and said Defendants each lacked probable cause to do so.

56. As a direct and proximate result of said arrests, each Plaintiff sustained damages
including emotional distress, pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, loss
of physical liberty, and other damages as the proofs may show.

57. Defendants Stout and Young did not act reasonably nor in good faith in initiating the
arrest and no immunity under the Government Tort Liability Act is available here.

COUNT IV – FALSE IMPRISONMENT

58. Paragraphs One through Fifty-Seven are incorporated herein by reference.

59. Defendants Stout and Young each committed acts with the intention of confining both
Plaintiffs on March 16, 2016 as pled, supra.

60. Defendant Stout’s acts in ordering the warrantless felony arrest of Plaintiffs as well as
Defendant Young’s role in placing handcuffs on, booking, fingerprinting and/or
placing each Plaintiff in a holding cell resulted in the confinement of each Plaintiff.

61. Further, Defendant Stout was clearly presented with unequivocal and convincing
exonerating proof by Mr. Huffman that the Plaintiffs’ detention was unjustified but
allowed them to remain jailed until the next day.

62. Each Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement.

63. As a direct and proximate result of said false imprisonment, Plaintiffs each sustained
damages including emotional distress, pain and suffering, embarrassment and
humiliation, loss of liberty, and other damages as the proofs may show.

64. Defendant Stout and Young did not act reasonably, nor in good faith in causing the
false imprisonment of Plaintiffs and, therefore, cannot avail themselves of the
immunity contained in the Governmental Tort Liability Act.

COUNT V – VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 BY

DEFENDANTS STOUT AND YOUNG
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.41 Page 12 of 17

65. Paragraphs One through Sixty-Four are incorporated by reference.

66. Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutionally protected rights that the Defendant
officers violated include the following:
67. Their rights to liberty protected in a substantive component of the Due Process Clause
of the 14th Amendment, which includes personal safety, privacy, liberty, bodily
integrity, and freedom from captivity;

68. Their rights to free and equal treatment guaranteed and protected by the Equal
Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment;

69. The right to be secure in their person, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures under the 14th Amendment.

70. Defendants Stout and Young acting under color of authority of law, violated Plaintiffs
above referenced clearly established constitutional rights, when despite the fact that
there was no evidence or probable cause to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had committed
or were committing any crimes, they committed the property seizures and arrests pled
above, based upon a blatantly falsified criminal investigation, knowing false report
entries, and continued wrongful detention of persons and property, despite having
clear awareness by Defendants of the false and baseless nature of such property
seizures and arrests, and despite Plaintiffs being released later from custody without
explanation of the basis of their arrest and two-day captivity.

71. Upon information and belief, Defendant Stout’s egregious conduct was motivated by
Plaintiffs’ ethnicity, national origin and/or religious background.

72. As a direct and proximate result of said actions of Defendants Stout and Young,
Plaintiffs suffer and continue to suffer damages including emotional distress, pain and
suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, loss of physical liberty, exemplary
damages, and other injuries, damages, or consequences related to the incidents pled
above due to the Defendants officers’ conduct.

73. Actions under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 are held to be outside the reach of
qualified governmental immunity under the holding of Gordon vs. Sadasivan, 144
MichApp 113, 373 NW2d 258 (1985).

COUNT VI – FEDERAL CLAIM 42 USC 1983 (MONELL CLAIM) (AGAINST

DEFENDANT CITY OF HAMTRAMCK ONLY)
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.42 Page 13 of 17

74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs One through Seventy-
Three as if fully set forth herein.

75. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, knew or should have
known that Defendant Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly
established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and communities of all
municipalities in which he policed , as Defendant City of Hamtramck knew or should
have known that Defendant Stout previously engaged in a pattern of practice or
conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits, fabricating evidence, obtaining
search warrants upon false or incomplete information and falsely arresting people,
targeting those of Arabic descent, or other minority ethnicities.

76. Defendant City of Hamtramck’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit
authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendant
Stout’s activities, which violated the clearly established Constitutional civil rights of
the citizens and community of all municipalities in which they policed, established a
de facto policy of deliberate indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which
Defendant City of Hamtramck is liable.

77. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant City of Hamtramck, by and through
its police department, pursued de facto policies, practices and customs that were a
direct and proximate cause of the unconstitutional arrest and unreasonable search and
seizure of Plaintiffs and the other deprivations of Constitutional rights alleged herein,
including the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

78. Defendant City of Hamtramck permitted, encouraged, tolerated and ratified a practice
of unjustified, unreasonable, and illegal arrests by police officers in that municipality
and other jurisdictions in which Stout operated as a C.O.B.R.A. member officer, and
failed to properly supervise, monitor, discipline, transfer, counsel or otherwise control
police officers who are known, or should be known to violate their established
department polices, and procedures for arrest management, and where said failure
amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons whom the police come
into contact.

79. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck systemic deficiencies
include but are not limited to:

(A) hiring and/or retaining as police personnel whom the Defendant City of
Hamtramck knew or should have known to conspire with other individuals
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.43 Page 14 of 17

and entities in order to deprive individuals of their clearly established

constitutionally protected civil rights;

(B) hiring and/or retaining as police personnel, whom the City of Hamtramck,
including its Chief of Police, knew or should have known to have proclivities
to detain and falsely arrest individuals without probable cause;

(C) hiring and/or retaining as police personnel whom the City of Hamtramck
including its Chief of Police, knew or should have known to detain and falsely
imprison individuals against their will and without probable cause;

(D) hiring and/or retaining as police personnel whom the City of Hamtramck,
including its Chief of Police, knew or should have known to withhold and/or
suppress evidence that is favorable to them;

(E) inadequate training, supervising, and discipling police personnel whom the
City of Hamtramck, including its Chief of Police, knew or should of known to
conspire with other individuals and entities in order to deprive individuals of
their clearly established civil rights, falsely arrest individuals without probable
cause, withhold or suppress evidence favorable to arrestees without probable
cause;

(F) failing to train police personnel properly on arrest management and applicable
law, where such failure amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of
persons whom the police come into contact;

(G) failing to adequately investigate citizens; complaints as to police misconduct

and pursue proper remedial measures; and

(H) other acts and omissions which will be determined during discovery.

80. The municipal policymakers of the Defendant City of Hamtramck have:

(A) failed to enforce departmental polices regarding, inter alia, the duties of a
public safety officer, abuse of process and conformance to laws;

(B) have acquiesced in or ratified unconstitutional conduct, including ethnic

harassment, violation of constitutional acts occurred, and;
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.44 Page 15 of 17

(C) failing to have reasonably adequate procedures in place to investigate and

train against police misconduct.

81. Each of the aforementioned customs, polices, and practices of failure to train
supervise and discipline the Defendant Stout and others, was known to Defendant
City of Hamtramck as highly likely and probable to cause violations of Constitutional
rights of members of the public, in particular the Plaintiffs herein.

82. As a result of their conduct pled above, Defendants are, also, jointly and severally
liable under 42 USC 1983.

83. As a result of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of liberty,
incarceration, and imprisonment and further suffered emotional distress, pain and
suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, attorney fees and other injuries, damages
or consequences related to the incident and the Defendants unlawful conduct.

COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 AS TO

DEFENDANT ANNE MOISE

84. Paragraphs One through Eighty-Three are incorporated herein by reference.

85. As the Chief of Police at all relevant times herein, Anne Moise, personally had the
duty to supervise both the operation of her department’s involvement in the
C.O.B.R.A unit and further to supervise Defendant Stout, and others in the manner
pled in the preceding count herein (Count VI) and committed acts and omissions pled
supra in said count.

86. Defendant Moise breached the aforesaid duties, directly resulting in the damages
Plaintiffs have sustained as pled above.

COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (ELCRA)

87. Paragraphs One through Eighty-Six are incorporated herein by reference.

88. Police services constitute “public services” under MCL 37.2301(b) of ELCRA.

89. Defendant Stout, as member of C.O.B.R.A., did deny Plaintiffs, each of them, the full
and equal enjoyment of public services because of religion, race, color and/or national
origin by targeting them due to their protected status as Arab Muslims of Yemeni
national origin in committing the violations of their federal Constitutional rights and
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.45 Page 16 of 17

common law counts of conversion, false arrest, false imprisonment and other legal
abridgements pled above.

90. Defendant Stout was predisposed to discriminate against Arabs, Muslims and
adherents of the Islamic religion, and acted upon that predisposition in depriving
Plaintiffs of their liberty, detaining the property used in their ice cream business based
upon there protected characteristics, as set forth in ELCRA and treated Plaintiffs in a
disparate manner compared to other non-protected individuals.

91. As a direct and proximate result of said violations of ELCRA, Plaintiffs, each of
them, sustained all injuries and damage pled supra herein.

92. Defendant Moise and City of Hamtramck received notice of the discriminatory
harassment violations, but failed to take reasonable remedial actions, resulting in the
damage to Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Omar Wassel and Mohamed Wasel respectfully pray that this
Court enter judgement and grant the relief in their favor:

(A) all general and special damages in excess of $25,000.00;

(B) punitive damages for violations of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871;

(C) exemplary damages for intentional tortious conduct;

(D) costs and attorney fees under 42 USC 1983, ELCRA, and MCL 600.2919a statutes;

(E) statutory interest;

(F) any other relief deemed just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

July 6, 2018 /s/ MARCO M. BISBIKIS

Marco M. Bisbikis (P79478)
ALL LAW, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
23629 Liberty St. Suite 200
Farmington, MI 48335-3568
(248) 893-6090
Case 4:18-cv-11662-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/06/18 PageID.46 Page 17 of 17

(248) 284-1008 fax

Marco@alllawpllc.com

/s/ MARK MICHAEL KOROI

Mark Michael Koroi (P44470)
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
150 N. Main St.
Plymouth, MI 48170-1236
(734) 459-4040
(734) 454-4814 fax

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands jury trial on all the issues so triable.

Dated: July 6, 2018 /s/ MARCO M. BISBIKIS

Marco M. Bisbikis (P79478)
ALL LAW, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
23629 Liberty St. Suite 200
Farmington, MI 48335-3568
(248) 893-6090
(248) 284-1008 fax
Marco@alllawpllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on July 6, 2018 he served copies of the First Amended
Complaint and the instant Certificate of Service using the e-filing system established by the
Court.

July 6, 2018 /s/ MARCO M. BISBIKIS

Marco M. Bisbikis