Estate of Tamir Rice Et Al. v. City of Cleveland Et Al.

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 1 of 38.
PageID #: 624
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS WINSTON, as administrator of
the Estate of TAMIR RICE, SAMARIA RICE
on her own behalf, T.R. by her next friend and
parent, Samaria Rice,
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-02670

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, Police Officer
TIMOTHY LOEHMANN in his individual
capacity, Police Officer FRANK
GARMBACK in his individual capacity,
Police Officer WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM in
his individual capacity, Dispatcher
CONSTANCE HOLLINGER in her individual
capacity, Dispatcher BETH MANDL in her
individual capacity, Lieutenant GAIL BINDEL
in her individual capacity, Sergeant EDWIN
SANTIAGO in his individual capacity, Police
Officers JOHN DOES # 15 in their individual
capacities,
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND BY PLAINTIFFS WINSTON, RICE, AND T.R.
WITH JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs Douglas Winston, as administrator of the Estate of Tamir Rice, Samaria Rice,
and minor Plaintiff T.R. by her next friend and parent Samaria Rice (collectively, Plaintiffs)
for their Second Amended Complaint allege as follows:
Page 1 of 38
Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 2 of 38. PageID #: 625
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
This case involves the horrific, tragic, fatal shooting of a young child without any
valid excuse or legal justification. On November 22, 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was playing
in the park. At approximately 3:30 pm, City of Cleveland police officers, Defendants Timothy
Loehmann and Frank Garmback, rushed their police car into the park, right up to where Tamir
was sitting. Loehmann jumped out of the car and immediately fired two shots at Tamir. Tamir
was fatally wounded and died early the next day.
2.
This is a civil-rights case brought by Douglas Winston, the administrator of the
Estate of Tamir Rice, Tamirs mother Samaria Rice, and Tamirs sister T.R., against the City of
Cleveland and its police officers and other employees, for the shooting and wrongful death of
Tamir Rice.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and Ohio law.

4.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 and
42 U.S.C. 3613. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Ohio State claims under
28 U.S.C. 1367.
5.
The acts complained of occurred in the Northern District of Ohio, and venue is
lodged in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2).

JURY DEMAND
6.
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action.
Page 2 of 38
PARTIES
7.
Tamir Rice was fatally shot by City of Cleveland police officers on November 22,
2014, while he was playing in the Cudell Recreation Center park in the City of Cleveland. Tamir
was a U.S. citizen.
8.
Plaintiff Douglas Winston is a U.S. citizen with his domicile in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio. On or about December 22, 2014, Mr. Winston was appointed by the Cuyahoga
County Probate Court to be the Estate of Tamir Rices administrator. Mr. Winston brings this
suit in his capacity as the Estate of Tamir Rices administrator.
9.
Plaintiff Samaria Rice is a U.S. citizen with her domicile in Cleveland, Ohio. Ms.
Rice is Tamir Rices mother.

10.
Plaintiff T.R. is a U.S. citizen with her domicile in Cleveland, Ohio. T.R. is a
minor, Samaria Rices daughter, and Tamir Rices sister and sues hereby and through her next
friend and parent, Samaria Rice.
11.
Defendant City of Cleveland (City) is a city organized under Ohio law and the
county seat of Cuyahoga County. The Division of Police (CPD) is a division of the Citys
Department of Public Safety. The CPD Communication Center is the branch of the Division of
Police that receives 911 calls and dispatches CPD officers to respond.
12.
At all relevant times, Defendant Timothy Loehmann was a CPD police officer,
acting in the capacity of employee, agent, and servant of the City, within the scope of his
employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Loehmann is sued in his
individual capacity.
13.
At all relevant times, Defendant Frank Garmback was a CPD police officer,
Page 3 of 38
employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Garmback is sued in his
14.
At all relevant times, Defendant William Cunningham was a CPD police officer,
employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Cunningham is sued in his
15.
At all relevant times, Defendant Constance Hollinger was a CPD 911 call-taker
and/or dispatcher, acting in the capacity of employee, agent, and servant of the City, within the
scope of her employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Hollinger is
sued in her individual capacity.
16.
At all relevant times, Defendant Beth Mandl was a CPD 911 call-taker and/or
dispatcher, acting in the capacity of employee, agent, and servant of the City, within the scope of
her employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Mandl is sued in her
17.
At all relevant times, Defendant Gail Bindel was a CPD lieutenant acting in the
capacity of employee, agent, and servant of the City, within the scope of her employment as
such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Bindel is sued in her individual capacity.
18.
At all relevant times, Defendant Edwin Santiago was a CPD sergeant acting in the
capacity of employee, agent, and servant of the City of Cleveland, within the scope of his
employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendant Santiago is sued in his
19.
At all relevant times, Defendants John Does # 15 were CPD police officers
(whose complete names Plaintiffs have been unable to ascertain notwithstanding reasonable
Page 4 of 38
efforts to do so, but who are sued by the fictitious designation John Doe) acting in the capacity
of employees, agents, and servants of the City of Cleveland, within the scope of their
employment as such, and acting under color of state law. Defendants John Does # 1-5 are sued
in their individual capacities.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Officer Loehmann Fatally Shoots Tamir Rice
20.
In November 2014, Tamir Rice was 12 years old.
21.
He lived with his mother, Samaria Rice, and his 14-year-old sister, T.R., in the
City of Cleveland.
22.
Tamir and his family are African American.
23.
Tamir had no criminal history and no juvenile court adjudications.
24.
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, both Tamir and his sister T.R. were playing at
the Cudell Recreation Center, near their home.

25.
The following paragraphs are alleged on information and belief.
26.
In the afternoon of November 22, 2014, Tamir was playing in the park beside
Cudell Recreation Center.

27.
Tamir was playing by himself with a plastic toy pellet gun.
28.
At approximately 3:22 p.m., CPD Communication Center Dispatcher Constance
Hollinger received a 911 call from a man in Cudell Recreation Center park.
29.
Defendant Hollinger was assigned that day as a CPD Communication Center call-
30.
It was Hollingers responsibility, as 911 calls came in, to gather all pertinent
taker.
information from the caller and enter that information into the Computer Aided Dispatch system.
Page 5 of 38
After the information is entered into the computer, it is electronically transferred to the CPD
Communication Center dispatcher responsible for the geographic area from which the call
originated.
31.
The 911 caller told Defendant Hollinger that there was a male outside of Cudell
Recreation Center sitting on the swings with a pistol, that the male was probably a juvenile,
and that the gun was probably fake.
32.
Despite the obviously critical nature of the information that the male was
probably a juvenile and that the gun was probably fake, Defendant Hollinger recklessly
failed to include this information in her report summarizing this 911 call.
33.
Hollinger coded the call as Code 1, the highest priority code.
34.
CPD Communication Center dispatcher Beth Mandl received Hollingers report.
35.
At approximately 3:28 p.m., Mandl dispatched the call to two CPD cars, including
the car of Defendant Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback.

36.
Mandl radioed Loehmann and Garmback that: Its Cudell Rec Center . . . in the
park by the youth center, there is a black male sitting on the swing . . . He keeps pulling a gun
out of his pants and pointing it at people. Its a code one . . .
37.
Defendant Mandl recklessly did not include in her radio call the critical
information from the 911 caller that the male was probably a juvenile and that the gun was
probably fake.
38.
Defendants Loehmann and Garmback proceeded towards Cudell Recreation
39.
Garmback was driving and Loehmann was in the front passenger seat.
Center.
Page 6 of 38
40.
In the minutes before they arrived, Tamir was sitting by himself in a gazebo in the
41.
When Loehmann and Garmback got to the park, Garmback drove their car over
park.
the curb, onto the grass. Traveling at about 15 to 22 miles per hour, they drove past the
playground area and swing set.
42.
Tamir was standing alone in the gazebo in the park.
43.
Garmback pulled the car up right next to Tamir, so that the passenger side of the
car was only a few feet away from Tamir.

44.
Loehmann immediately jumped out of the car and, within one to two seconds,
fired two shots at Tamir.

45.
One of Loehmanns bullets struck Tamir in the stomach.
46.
Tamir collapsed to the ground.
47.
Garmback then exited the police car.
48.
For the next minute and a half, Tamir lay on the ground, while Officers
Loehmann and Garmback stood around.

49.
Neither Loehmann or Garmback provided any medical care or assistance to
Tamir.
Officer Garmback Tackles T.R. To The Ground
50.
T.R. was in the Cudell Recreation Center at the time Tamir was shot.
51.
She heard some other children say that the police had shot Tamir outside.
52.
Horrified, she ran out of the Cudell Recreation Center and towards the park.
53.
Less than one minute after Loehmann shot Tamir, T.R. ran towards Tamir, who
was still lying on the ground.
Page 7 of 38
54.
As she ran towards Tamir, T.R. screamed and cried out: my baby brother, they
killed my baby brother.

55.
Defendant Garmback grabbed T.R. and tackled her, forcefully bringing her to the
ground.
56.
Loehmann came over to assist Garmback.
57.
T.R. tried to stand and move away from the officers.
58.
But Loehmann dragged her back to the ground.
59.
Defendant Officer William Cunningham, who was working at the Cudell
Recreation Center that day, arrived on the scene.

60.
Loehmann and Cunningham placed T.R. face-down on the ground and handcuffed
her with her hands behind her back.

61.
Loehmann and Cunningham then forced T.R. into the backseat of the police car.
62.
The police car was still just a few feet away from T.R.s brother, Tamir, where he
lay injured and dying on the ground.

63.
T.R. experienced severe emotional distress as a result of the Defendants actions.
CPD Officers Did Not Provide Medical Care to Tamir

64.
The City recklessly, wantonly, and/or intentionally does not train CPD officers to
provide first aid or any other medical care or assistance to injured people, and/or trains CPD
officers not to provide first aid or any other medical care or assistance to injured people.
65.
In addition, the City recklessly, wantonly, and/or intentionally does not put first-
aid kits or any other medical equipment in CPD police cars.
Page 8 of 38
66.
Neither Cunningham nor Garmback nor Loehmann, nor the other CPD officers
who later arrived on the scene (Defendants John Does # 15), provided Tamir with any medical
care or assistance at any time.
67.
Tamir first received medical care from an FBI agent who happened to be in the
area and who arrived on the scene approximately four minutes after the shooting.
68.
The FBI agent immediately noticed that Tamir was seriously injured, observing
that his intestines were eviscerated and actually coming out of the open wound in his abdomen.
69.
The FBI agent spoke to Tamir, who was conscious. Tamir acknowledged the
agent and responded to his voice.

70.
Tamir turned his head towards the agent and looked at him. He reached for the
agents hand.
71.
Tamir spoke to the agent and told him his name. Tamir also said that he had been
shot and referred to a gun.

72.
During this time, T.R. was still handcuffed in the police car.
73.
She was screaming and crying.
74.
CPD officers on the scene, including Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and/or
John Does #15, heard T.R.s cries.

75.
Approximately twelve minutes after Loehmann shot Tamir, Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) arrived on the scene.

76.
When EMS arrived, Tamir was still conscious. His eyes were open and blinking.
City Officers Force Samaria Rice to Choose Between Her Children

77.
Samaria Rice learned that her son had been shot when some neighborhood
children knocked on her door and told her.
Page 9 of 38
78.
She rushed to Cudell Recreation Center.
79.
When she got there, she found Tamir laying there wounded, and T.R. handcuffed
in the back of the police car of the same officers who had shot Tamir.
80.
Ms. Rice begged Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and/or John Does #1-5 to
release T.R.
81.
They refused.
82.
Instead, Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and/or John Does #15 forced Ms.
Rice to choose between staying with T.R., who was still handcuffed in the police car, and going
in the ambulance with Tamir.
83.
Forced to make a choice no mother should ever have to make, Ms. Rice chose to
go in the ambulance with Tamir.

84.
Ms. Rice and Tamir left in the ambulance.
85.
T.R. was left alone, still handcuffed in the police car of the officers who had shot
her brother.
86.
More than a half an hour later, City police officers took T.R. into Cudell
Recreation Center, where they questioned her without an adult present.

87.
Both Ms. Rice and T.R. experienced severe emotional distress as a result of the
Defendants actions.
Tamir Rice Dies
88.
Tamir was taken to MetroHealth Medical Center in the ambulance.
89.
During this time, Tamir was conscious and responding to pain.
90.
At the hospital, doctors immediately operated to try to save Tamirs life.
91.
Their efforts were unsuccessful.
Page 10 of 38
92.
Tamir was pronounced dead early in the morning of November 23, 2014.
93.
The Medical Examiner ruled Tamirs death a homicide.
The Citys Reckless Hiring and Retention Of Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Mandl, and
Hollinger
94.
The CPD has a pattern and practice and a custom and policy of recklessly: hiring
officers not suitable for their positions, failing to properly train and supervise officers, and
retaining officers unfit for their positions.
95.
The City recklessly hired or retained Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Mandl,
and Hollinger, despite the fact that they were clearly unfit for their duties.
Loehmann
96.
The City hired Defendant Loehmann in December 2013.
97.
Prior to being hired by CPD, from July 2012 to December 2012, Loehmann
worked as a police cadet for the City of Independence, Ohio.

98.
On November 28, 2012, during his gun-range examination for the State of Ohio
gun qualifications, Loehmann began crying, was distracted, and was not following instructions.
The supervising officer was forced to remove Loehmanns gun and secure it in a safe location.
Loehmanns personnel file documented that he could not follow simple directions, could not
communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal.
99.
When the supervising officer attempted to discuss the situation with Loehmann,
Loehmann told his supervisor what I want is for you to just shut up.
100.
A similar incident occurred when Loehmann was in the police academy.
101.
Independence Deputy Chief Jim Polak wrote in Loehmanns file that there were
three other incidents involving Loehmann which, taken together show a pattern of a lack of
maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions.
Page 11 of 38
102.
The past incidents involving Loehmann included two incidents of lying to his
supervisors, including one occasion in which he lied about failing to secure his gun overnight.
103.
Officer Loehmanns employment file further noted: It just appears that he is not
mature enough in his accepting of responsibility or his understanding in the severity of his loss of
control on the range.
104.
Independence police department supervisors ultimately recommended
Loehmanns termination.
105.
Deputy Chief of Police for the City of Independence Jim Polak found: I do not
believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies, and began the
disciplinary process of separation, including informing Loehmann of his intention to terminate
his employment. At this point, Loehmann resigned.
106.
In September 2013, Defendant Loehmann failed the Cuyahoga County Sheriff
Departments written entrance exam, earning only 46 points out of 100, on an exam with a
minimum passage requirement of 70 points.
107.
Upon information and belief, before his employment with CPD, Defendant
Loehmann applied to work in five different police departments, including Akron, Euclid, and
Parma Heights, all of which refused to hire him.
108.
The Euclid police department refused to hire Loehmann after reviewing his file
from Independence as part of their background check process.

109.
By contrast, the City of Cleveland never checked Loehmanns personnel file from
Independence during their background investigation.

110.
The CPD police supervisors responsible for hiring Loehmann, Defendants Lt.
Gail Bindel and Sgt. Edwin Santiago, were found guilty of administrative charges, including
Page 12 of 38
neglect of duty for failing to adequately supervise and review Loehmans application and
background investigation.
111.
Defendant Bindel was suspended for two days and Defendant Santiago received a
written reprimand.
Garmback
112.
The City hired Defendant Garmback in 2008.
113.
During his time with the CPD, Garmback was the subject of four registered
complaints with the Office of Professional Standards and Civilian Police Review.
114.
Garmback was also named as a defendant in the civil- rights lawsuit Eaton v.
Guerra, et al., No. 12 Civ. 3029 (N.D. Ohio), in which the plaintiff alleged that, in 2010,
Garmback placed her in a chokehold, tackled her to ground, twisted her wrist, and hit her, while
his partner punched her in the face multiple times.
115.
In March 2014, over eight months before Garmback and Loehmann killed Tamir
Rice, the City paid $100,000 to settle the case with Ms. Eaton.
Mandl
116.
The City hired Defendant Mandl in 2010.
117.
Prior to being hired by the City, Mandl was employed as a dispatcher by Case
Western Reserve University police department.

118.
In 2008, Mandl was fired from her dispatcher job with Case Western Reserve
Universitys police department.

119.
Around the same time, she was arrested and charged with bringing a gun to a bar.
120.
Mandl resigned from CPD in July 16, 2015, after failing to show up for work
since April 3, 2015.
Page 13 of 38
Hollinger
121.
The City hired Defendant Constance Hollinger in or about 1996.
122.
In February 2014, the City issued Hollinger a letter of re-instruction on call-taking
procedures.
The City of Clevelands Pattern and Practice of Excessive Force
123.
At the time of Tamir Rices death, the City of Cleveland had a long history of its
police officers using excessive force. The City knew about this pattern and practice of excessive
force by its police officers, tolerated it, and sanctioned it.
124.
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (USDOJ) issued
a news report criticizing the City of Clevelands failure to adequately address an ongoing pattern
and practice of police excessive force, despite a prior USDOJ investigation and agreement
between the City and USDOJ.
125.
Analysis of CPD documents revealed that, between 2009 and 2011, six officers
used excessive force on 39 suspects. Only one of these suspects was armed. Out of the cases
investigated by the CPD, the CPD found all of the uses of force justified. All six of these
officers were hired since 2008. One officer in particular, Kevin Smith, had been involved in
over half of the excessive-force incidents, as he reported using force on 22 suspects.
126.
On December 4, 2014, the USDOJ found that there was reasonable cause to
believe that the CPD engages in a pattern or practice of using unreasonable and unnecessary
force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
127.
The USDOJ found a custom and/or policy and pattern or practice of the use of
unnecessary and excessive deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact
weapons.
Page 14 of 38
128.
The USDOJ further found that CPD officers fired guns at people who did not pose
an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others, and that officers used
guns in a careless and dangerous manner.
129.
The USDOJ also noted two cases in which CPD officers engaged suspects
physically while holding a gun in their hand, and the gun inadvertently discharged in the midst of
a physical struggle.
130.
The USDOJ found the following uses of force unreasonable in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. On November 29, 2012, over 100 CPD officers conducted a high-speed
police chase in violation of City policy and fatally shot Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams,
two unarmed African American civilians. Officers initiated the chase when the car drove by a
building and backfired, which some officers mistook for gunfire. During the chase, there was
confusing and contradictory radio traffic that incorrectly indicated that the cars occupants might
be armed and firing from the car. None of the supervisors asserted control over the chase, and
some actually participated. The chase ended in a schoolyard where 13 different officers fired
over 137 shots at the car. Unarmed Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams were both shot over
20 times by CPD officers. The officers fired so many shots that officers assumed the occupants
of the car were returning fire, but evidence later showed that the only shots fired were from
fellow officers.
131.
The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification conducted an
investigation into the incident and issued a report which concluded that this incident raised
serious questions about CPDs policies, training, supervision, communication, and technology.
132.
Ohio Attorney General, Mike DeWine stated that: Command failed.
Communications failed. The System failed. Policy, training, communications, and command
Page 15 of 38
have to be so strong and so ingrained to prevent subjective judgment from spiraling out of
control. The system has to take over and put on the brakes. On November 29, 2012, the system
failed everyone.
133.
On December 27, 2012, Clevelands mayor requested that the USDOJ
review the CPDs use-of-force policies.

134.
Six officers were indicted as a result of the shooting deaths of Timothy Russell
and Malissa Williams.

135.
Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine stated that in the aforementioned case,
CPDs radio transmission network contributed to communication failures and the failure to
properly relay information. These failures included mistaking the cars possible backfiring for a
gunshot, officers firing shots, and the wholesale absence of commands from supervisors to avoid
crossfire or spontaneous shooting, as well as their failure to communicate details to sector
supervisors, all of which contributed to the fatal shooting incident of Timothy Russell and
Malissa Williams.
136.
In 2012, another CPD officer shot a man who was lawfully armed and carrying an
open container of beer. When an officer asked him to stop, he refused and walked to a porch and
sat down with his can of beer. The man then turned toward the police car and walked forward to
speak with the officers, at which point the officer saw a gun in his waistband, yelled gun, and
pointed his weapon at the man. The victim raised his hands above his head, and then lowered
them a bit to ear level, and the officer shot and struck him in the abdomen. The USDOJ found
the officers use of force unreasonable and excessive.
137.
In 2013, a CPD sergeant shot at a victim as he ran from a house where he was
being held against his will by armed assailants. Before responding to the call, officers received
Page 16 of 38
information that a man was being held in his house against his will by two armed men. The
victim eventually escaped. When he ran from the house in his boxers, an officer ordered him to
stop. He continued to run toward the officers seeking safety and refuge, and the sergeant on the
scene shot at him twice. The USDOJ found the use of force unreasonable and excessive.
138.
In 2010, an officer shot a man who was fleeing. The man was seated in a car with
the engine running, and the officer pointed a gun at him and told him to turn the car off. The
man sped away, brushing against the officer with the side of the car as he fled the scene. The
officer shot at him from behind as he left the scene, hitting him in the shoulder. The USDOJ
deemed the use of force unreasonable.
139.
There were several incidents in which officers fired at fleeing vehicles even
though the suspects flight did not pose a threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officers or
others. The USDOJ stated that firing at, or from, a moving vehicle is rarely effective and
presents extreme danger to innocent persons, as it is difficult to shoot at or from a moving car
with accuracy.
140.
In 2013, the Police Executive Research Forum recommended that the CPDs
policy be changed to prohibit the discharge of firearms at, or from, a moving vehicle unless
deadly physical force is being used against the officer or another person present.
141.
The USDOJ further found that the CPD had a pattern and practice and/or custom
and policy of the unnecessary, excessive, or retaliatory use of less lethal force including tasers,
chemical spray, fists, and head and body strikes; a failure to use less lethal force in proportion to
the resistance encountered, including punching people in handcuffs who were already subdued;
and the use of force as punishment for the persons earlier verbal or physical resistance to a
command, not in response to the current threat posed by that person.
Page 17 of 38
142.
In January 2011, CPD officers apprehended Edward Henderson, a mentally ill
African American man, after he fled from police in a vehicle. While Mr. Henderson lay prone on
the ground handcuffed, CPD Officers Smith and Lentz began kicking him and striking him,
breaking his orbital bone and his nose and detaching his retina. A helicopter camera captured the
entire incident, but the officers never filed a use-of-force report, despite the obvious use of force
and the severity of Hendersons injuries. Both officers were charged with assault and the
USDOJ found the use of force unreasonable and excessive.
143.
There were also several incidents in which the USDOJ found that the CPD used
unreasonable and excessive force on minor children. In one incident, an officer punched a
handcuffed 13-year-old boy in the face several times after arresting him for shoplifting. Officers
placed the minor in the back of the police cruiser. While still restrained, the 13-year-old began
kicking the door and kicked an officer in the leg. The officer sat on the boys legs and punched
him in the face three to four times until he was dazed and had a bloody nose. The USDOJ found
the use of force unreasonable and excessive.
144.
In another incident, an officer used a taser on a juvenile twice, as two other
officers held him to the ground. Officers alleged that he matched a description for someone who
had been seen stealing from a store. The USDOJ found the use of a taser on a child otherwise
restrained unreasonable.
145.
The USDOJ also found that CPD officers used excessive force against persons
who are mentally ill or in crisis, including instances in which an individual is not suspected of
having committed any crime at all.
146.
In addition, the USDOJ found that officers subjected individuals to stops, frisks,
and full searches without the requisite level of suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
Page 18 of 38
and that individuals were detained on mere suspicion of having committed a crime, but with no
record of an articulable reason for the detention.
147.
The 2014 USDOJ report also stated that there was a systemic failure to file use-
of-force reports and to comply with departmental policies and protocols of investigating uses of
force that contributed to a pattern and practice and/or custom and/or policy of the use of
excessive and unreasonable force in violation of individuals constitutionally guaranteed rights.
148.
The USDOJ found that the CPD failed to institute proper systems and policies to
provide the supervision necessary for sufficient oversight of officers use of force; failed to
provide consistent and clear policies and/or enforce existing policies on when and how to use
and report force; failed to implement systems to ensure that use of force is consistently reported
and investigated thoroughly and fairly to determine whether the department needs policy,
training, tactical, or other changes for officer and civilian safety; failed to address emerging
problems through the use of aggregate data to determine patterns and trends and institute
corrective measures for unlawful and dangerous behavior that places citizens at risk; and failed
to ensure that officers receive proper use-of-force training, all of which contributed to an
environment of systemic deprivation of citizens constitutional rights.
149.
The USDOJ found a custom and policy and/or pattern and practice that
supervisors tolerated, and sometimes promoted and participated in. This included the use of
excessive force, conducting improper and biased investigations into the use of excessive force,
failing to implement constitutional policies regarding excessive force and/or failing to uphold
policies already in existence, failing to maintain the proper data regarding individual officers
and departmental uses of force, and failing to take corrective measures when identifying
excessive use of force by individuals.
Page 19 of 38
150.
The USDOJ found that, in general, there is a lack of experienced, well-supported,
well-trained supervisors, and that supervisors tolerated the use of unreasonable and excessive
force and other improper and unlawful practices, in some cases even endorsing it. Supervisors
and CPD officials and employees failed to conduct proper and objective investigations into
officers use of force, and failed to identify and respond to patterns of at-risk behavior or provide
officers with the support, training, supervision, and equipment to perform job functions safely
and effectively.
151.
The USDOJ determined that several of the CPDs systems for investigating and
holding officers accountable for the use of excessive force are flawed, including Internal Affairs,
the Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team, and the Tactical Review Committee. Oftentimes,
the investigations were conducted with the intent to justify the officers actions rather than
discern the truth. In fact, numerous investigators admitted to the USDOJ that the quality of the
investigations is compromised by investigators apparent bias in favor of clearing the officer
instead of objectively pursuing all of the available facts. Some investigating officers responsible
for reviewing officers use of deadly force admitted that they investigate with the goal of casting
the officer in the best light possible, and most officers applied the improper beyond a reasonable
doubt evidentiary standard when determining whether the officer used excessive and/or
unreasonable force. The USDOJ report elaborated that: It is almost as if the goal of the chain of
command in many incidents is not to create a complete record of the incident that can be
subjected to internal and external review.
152.
The USDOJ found that the CPD also fails to adequately investigate civilian
complaints of use of excessive force, although they are required to conduct a full and complete
investigation of each civilian complaint under the Charter of the City of Cleveland. In tolerating
Page 20 of 38
supervisors failure to investigate uses of force, the USDOJ found that the CPD misses the
opportunity to correct dangerous behavior, and instead sends the message that there is little
oversight or concern about officers use of force. The admittedly biased investigations that apply
improper evidentiary standards were found to be deeply rooted and emblematic of the type of
practice that justifies a finding under Section 14141 of the Violent Crime and Law Enforce Act
of 1994.
153.
Over the span of three-and-a-half years, the USDOJ concluded that only 51 of the
1,500 CPD officers were disciplined in any fashion related to use of force. Most of the charges
were for procedural issues such as failing to file a report, or charges were deemed unfounded or
dismissed, and a finding of excessive force was exceedingly rare. A Cleveland Office of
Professional Standards employee stated that a deadly force incident had not been reviewed since
2012. Officers were only suspended on six occasions for their use of force.
154.
The USDOJ found that the CPD does not implement appropriate corrective
measures to discipline officers and does not develop training aimed to correct improper and
unconstitutional practices, and that some supervisors actively discouraged officers from
reporting uses of force, instructing them not to complete use-of-force documents in instances
when one was required. The CPD also failed to examine and analyze use-of-force reports that
were generated to detect common patterns and trends.
155.
The USDOJ found that the CPDs failures are such that it cannot timely, properly,
and effectively determine how much force its officers are using and under what circumstances,
whether the force was reasonable, and if not, what discipline, change in policy, training, or other
action is appropriate. The CPD does not use an adequate early-intervention system to help
Page 21 of 38
identify risky and problematic trends in officer behavior before a pattern of misconduct arises
such as the pattern or practice of excessive use of force.
156.
Instead of serving the local community and adopting and enforcing appropriate
policies to implement effective community policing, the USDOJ found that the CPD has instead
fostered an us-versus-them mentality and created an occupying force in the city, as evidenced
by the war-zone sign hanging in the CPD vehicle bay that reads: Forward Operating Base.
157.
The USDOJ found that the CPD has a custom and policy and/or pattern and
practice of failing to properly train officers on appropriate use of force, and that officers lack
basic support, skills, and knowledge required to safely and effectively respond to situations that
commonly arise in law-enforcement encounters. The CPD has a duty to ensure its officers are
properly trained, that training is reinforced through ongoing instruction, and that officers are
consistently held accountable for any failure to abide by their training. The failure to fulfill this
duty has contributed to the pattern and practice of excessive force identified within the CPD that
places the community in danger. The CPD does not devote enough time to training on use of
force, and fails to analyze use-of-force reports to determine what training is necessary to bring
the department into compliance. In particular, officers draw and point firearms at citizens too
often, and do not appear to know how to safely handle firearms and lack confidence in their
ability to control situations, resulting in accidentally discharging weapons or shooting the wrong
individual. Officers do not know how to effectively de-escalate situations before resorting to use
of force, and officers informed investigators that they do not receive enough training, especially
scenario-based training, and training on how to control subjects. Officers too often escalate
incidents instead of using accepted tactics to de-escalate tension, and CPD officers commit
tactical errors that endanger the Cleveland community and themselves. The employment of poor
Page 22 of 38
and dangerous tactics place officers in dangerous situations or create dangerous situations, where
use of force becomes inevitable, placing officers and civilians at unnecessary risk. The tactical
errors may result in the use of additional force and cause constitutional violations, such as firing
weapons in a manner that places bystanders in danger, sometimes accidentally firing and hitting
nothing, or shooting people and seriously injuring them. For example, officers respond to scenes
unsupervised and group together with little or no cover. As a result of these improper tactics,
officers place themselves in harms way and increase the likelihood that they will need to fire
shots.
158.
The USDOJ found that the CPD has no idea how often its officers point guns at
civilians and that when officers point their guns with such frequency at community members,
those members can come to feel as though they are under siege.
159.
The questionable tactics the CPD uses as identified by the USDOJ parallel the
same tactical errors made by the officers here, who drove the police cruiser at high speed directly
up to the table where 12-year-old Tamir Rice was seated, giving the officers little or no cover,
and immediately fired at Tamir within just one to seconds of arriving at the scene.
Plaintiffs Damages
160.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants actions, Tamir Rice suffered
severe physical and emotional injury, pre-death terror, pain and suffering, was deprived of his
life, and lost the enjoyment of his young life.
161.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants actions, Samaria Rice was
deprived forever of her sons love, support, services, care, companionship, advice, guidance,
counsel, instruction, and society, and suffered mental anguish and extreme emotional distress.
Ms. Rice also incurred funeral and other expenses.
Page 23 of 38
162.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants actions, T.R. was deprived
forever of her brothers love, support, services, care, companionship, advice, guidance, counsel,
instruction, and society, and suffered mental anguish and extreme emotional distress. T.R. also
suffered physical emotional harm as a result of Defendants tackling her, dragging her,
handcuffing her, and detaining her in a police car.
163.
Defendants acts were reckless, willful, wanton, and malicious, thus entitling
Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
By Plaintiff Douglas Winston, as Administrator of the Estate of Tamir Rice
42 U.S.C. 1983/ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Excessive Force
(Against Defendants Loehmann and Garmback)
164.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully
set forth at length herein.

165.
By reason of the foregoing, using excessive force, assaulting Tamir Rice, seizing
him, and killing him, Defendants Loehmann and Garmback deprived Tamir Rice of the rights,
remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to be free from gratuitous and
excessive force. Defendants Loehmanns and Garmbacks conduct manifested deliberate
indifference to Tamir Rices constitutional rights.
166.
Defendants Loehmann and Garmback acted under pretense and color of state law
and in their individual and official capacities and within the scope of their respective
employment as CPD officers. Defendants Loehmann and Garmbacks acts were beyond the
scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers. Defendants
Loehmann and Garmback acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive
Page 24 of 38
Tamir Rice of his constitutional rights, secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
167.
As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed
above, Tamir Rice and Plaintiffs sustained the damages stated above.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
By Plaintiff Douglas Winston, as Administrator of the Estate of Tamir Rice, and by
Plaintiff T.R., by her next friend and parent Samaria Rice
42 U.S.C. 1983/Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Excessive Force
(Against Defendant City)
168.

169.
Defendant City, through CPD, and acting under the pretense and color of law,
permitted, tolerated, and was deliberately indifferent to a pattern and practice of excessive force
by CPD officers at the time of Tamir Rices killing and the assault on T.R. This widespread
tolerance of excessive force by police officers constituted a municipal policy, practice, or custom
and led to Tamir Rices shooting and death and to the assault, tackling, handcuffing, and
detention of T.R.
170.
By permitting, tolerating, and sanctioning a persistent and widespread policy,
practice and custom of excessive force under which Tamir Rice was killed and T.R. was
assaulted, Defendant City deprived Tamir Rice and T.R. of rights, remedies, privileges and
immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983,
including, but not limited to, the right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force guaranteed
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
171.
As a direct and proximate result of the policy, practice, and custom detailed
above, Tamir Rice, T.R., and Plaintiffs sustained the damages stated above.
Page 25 of 38
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Ohio Rev. Code 2125/Wrongful Death
(Against All Defendants)
172.

173.
As a direct and proximate result of the reckless, wanton, and/or intentional
conduct of Defendants and their employees as described herein, Tamir Rice suffered conscious
pain and suffering until the moment of his death.
174.
As a direct and proximate result of Tamir Rices death, his beneficiaries suffered,
and will continue to suffer, damages for the loss over his life expectancy, including loss of
companionship, consortium, care, assistance, attention, protection, advice, guidance, counsel,
instruction, training, and education.
175.
conduct of Defendants and their employees as described herein, Tamir Rices beneficiaries have
suffered mental anguish and severe emotional distress and have been deprived of his love,
support, services, care, companionship, advice, guidance, counsel, instruction, and society, and
prospective inheritance, and have sustained potentially other damages as recognized under Ohio
Rev. Code 2125.02(B) and other provisions of law. These losses are expected to be permanent
and ongoing.
176.
Plaintiff Douglas Winston brings this claim in his capacity as administrator of the
Estate of Tamir Rice, for the beneficiaries of Tamir Rice.

177.
above, Tamir Rice and Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged above.
Page 26 of 38
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

By Plaintiffs Douglas Winston, as Administrator of the Estate of Tamir Rice,
and Samaria Rice
Survivorship
(Against All Defendants)
178.

179.
conduct of Defendants and their employees as described herein, Tamir Rice was caused to suffer
severe fright, pain, suffering, and mental anguish from the moment he was shot until the moment
he lost consciousness, including knowledge of his injury and impending death.
180.
conduct of Defendants and their employees as described herein, Plaintiff Samaria Rice and the
Estate of Tamir Rice incurred funeral and cremation expenses and other expenses.
181.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983/ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need
(Against Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and John Does #15)
182.

183.
As alleged above, by denying medical care to Tamir Rice and by failing to
provide medical care or assistance to Tamir Rice, Defendants Loehmann, Garmback,

Cunningham, and John Does # 15 deprived Tamir Rice of the rights, remedies, privileges, and
immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983,
Page 27 of 38
including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution to be free from deliberate indifference to medical needs.
184.
Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and John Does # 15 acted
under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and within the
scope of their respective employment as CPD officers. Said acts by Defendants Loehmann,
Garmback, Cunningham, and John Does # 15 were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction,
without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers. Defendants Loehmann, Garmback,
Cunningham, and John Does # 15 acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to
deprive Tamir Rice of his constitutional rights, secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
185.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983/Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need
(Against Defendant City)
186.

187.
Defendant City, through CPD, and acting under the pretense and color of law,
created, permitted, tolerated, and was deliberately indifferent to a pattern and practice of
deliberate indifference to medical needs by CPD officers at the time of Tamir Rices killing,
including by not training CPD officers to provide first aid or any other medical assistance and by
not equipping CPD police cars with first aid or other medical equipment. This widespread denial
of medical care by police officers constituted a municipal policy, practice, or custom and led to
Tamir Rices death.
Page 28 of 38
188.
By permitting, tolerating, and sanctioning a persistent and widespread policy,
practice and custom under which Tamir Rice was killed, Defendant City deprived Tamir Rice of
rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States,
secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, the right to be free from deliberate
indifference to medical needs guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
189.
As a direct and proximate result of the policy, practice, and custom detailed
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Assault and Battery of Tamir Rice
(Against Defendants Loehmann and Garmback and the City)
190.

191.
In physically assaulting, shooting, and killing Tamir Rice, Defendants Loehmann
and Garmback, acting in their capacity as police officers, and within the scope of their
employment, committed willful, unlawful, unwarranted, and intentional assault and battery upon
Tamir Rice.
192.
The assault and battery by Defendants Loehmann and Garmback was unnecessary
and unwarranted in the performance of their duties and constituted an unreasonable and
excessive use of force.
193.
Defendant City, as employer of Defendants Loehmann and Garmback, is
responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

194.
Page 29 of 38
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Reckless Conduct as to Tamir Rice
(Against Defendants Hollinger and Mandl and the City)
195.

196.
As alleged above, Defendants Hollinger and Mandl failed to exercise due care and
acted in a reckless manner while engaged in police functions and activities, including by not
relaying to CPD officers the critical information from the 911 caller that the person in the park
was probably a juvenile and that the gun was probably fake.
197.
This reckless conduct proximately caused the death of Tamir Rice.
198.
Defendant City, as employer of Defendants Hollinger and Mandl, is responsible
for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

199.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
By Plaintiff T.R., by her next friend and parent Samaria Rice
42 U.S.C. 1983/Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Excessive Force
(Against Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham)
200.

201.
By reason of the foregoing, using excessive force, assaulting T.R., seizing her,
and tackling her, Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and Cunningham deprived T.R. of the
rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to be free from gratuitous and
Page 30 of 38
excessive force. Defendants Loehmanns, Garmbacks, and Cunninghams conduct manifested

deliberate indifference to T.R.s constitutional rights.
202.
Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and Cunningham acted under pretense and
color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and within the scope of their
respective employment as CPD officers. These acts by Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and
Cunningham were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse
of their powers. Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and Cunningham acted willfully, knowingly,
and with the specific intent to deprive T.R. of her constitutional rights, secured by 42 U.S.C.
1983, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
203.
above, T.R. sustained the damages alleged above.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Assault and Battery of T.R.
(Against Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham and the City)
204.

205.
In physically assaulting, tackling, handcuffing, dragging, and forcing into a police
car minor Plaintiff T.R., Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and Cunningham, acting in their
capacity as police officers, and within the scope of their employment, committed a willful,
unlawful, unwarranted, and intentional assault and battery upon T.R.
206.
The assault and battery by Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and Cunningham
was unnecessary and unwarranted in the performance of their duties and constituted an
unreasonable and excessive use of force.
Page 31 of 38
207.
Defendant City, as employer of Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, and
Cunningham, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
208.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Imprisonment of T.R.
(Against Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, John Does # 15 and the City)
209.

210.
In physically assaulting, tackling, handcuffing, dragging, forcing into a police car,
detaining T.R. in a police car and in Cudell Recreation Center, and refusing to release minor
Plaintiff T.R., Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and John Does # 15, acting in
their capacity as police officers, and within the scope of their employment, committed a willful,
unlawful, unwarranted, and intentional false imprisonment of T.R. without her consent and
against her will.
211.
T.R.s false imprisonment by Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham,
and John Does # 15 was without probable cause and was unnecessary and unwarranted in the
performance of their duties.
212.
Defendant City, as employer of Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham,
and John Does # 15, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
213.
Page 32 of 38
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on T.R.
(Against Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, John Does # 1-5 and the City)
214.

215.
In physically assaulting, tackling, handcuffing, dragging, forcing into a police car,
detaining, and refusing to release minor Plaintiff T.R., and in keeping T.R. in a police car right
next to her fatally wounded brother, Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and John
Does # 15, acting in their capacity as police officers, and within the scope of their employment,
intended to cause emotional distress to T.R., or knew or should have known that their actions
would cause T.R. serious emotional distress.
216.
Defendants Loehmanns, Garmbacks, Cunninghams, and John Does # 15s
conduct was extreme and outrageous.

217.
conduct was the proximate cause of T.R.s emotional injury.

218.
As a result of Defendants Loehmanns, Garmbacks, Cunninghams, and John
Does # 15s conduct, T.R. suffered serious emotional anguish.

219.
superior.
220.
Page 33 of 38
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

By Plaintiff Samaria Rice
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on Samaria Rice
(Against Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, John Does # 1-5 and the City)
221.

222.
In forcing Samaria Rice to choose between going in the ambulance with her
fatally injured 12-year-old son, Tamir, and staying with her 14-year-old daughter T.R., who was
handcuffed in a police car in the custody of the officers who shot her son, Defendants Loehmann,
Garmback, Cunningham, and John Does # 15, acting in their capacity as police officers, and
within the scope of their employment, intended to cause emotional distress to Ms. Rice, or knew
or should have known that their actions would cause Ms. Rice serious emotional distress.
223.
conduct was extreme and outrageous.

224.
conduct was the proximate cause of Ms. Rices emotional injury.

225.
As a result of Defendants Loehmanns, Garmbacks, Cunninghams, and John
Does # 15s conduct, Ms. Rice suffered serious emotional anguish.

226.
superior.
227.
above, Ms. Rice sustained the damages alleged above.
Page 34 of 38
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

By Plaintiffs Douglas Winston, as Administrator of the Estate of Tamir Rice, and Plaintiff
T.R., by her next friend and parent Samaria Rice
Reckless Hiring, Training, Supervision, Discipline, Staffing, and Retention
(Against Defendant City and Defendants Bindel and Santiago)
228.

229.
Defendant City failed to exercise due care and acted in a reckless manner in
hiring, training, supervising, disciplining, staffing, and retaining Defendants Loehmann,

Garmback, Hollinger, and Mandl.
230.
Defendants Bindel and Santiago failed to exercise due care and acted in a reckless
manner in hiring Defendant Loehmann.

231.
Defendants Loehmann, Garmback, Hollinger, and Mandl were all unfit for their
positions and duties.

232.
Defendant Citys reckless conduct in this regard proximately caused the death of
Tamir Rice and the injuries to T.R. and Samaria Rice alleged above.
233.
above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged above.

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
By Plaintiff Samaria Rice
42 U.S.C. 1983/ Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process
(Against Defendants Loehmann and Garmback)
234.

235.
Plaintiff Samaria Rice, in her individual capacity as Tamir Rices mother, had a
liberty interest in his familial companionship and society.
Page 35 of 38
236.
Defendants Loehmann and Garmback intentionally deprived Ms. Rice of that
liberty interest without due process of law when they shot and killed Tamir.
237.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Loehmanns and Garmbacks
conduct, Ms. Rice experienced extreme emotional distress, mental anguish, and the loss of
Tamirs love, support, services, care, companionship, advice, guidance, counsel, instruction, and
society.
238.
above, Ms. Rice sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court enter judgment against Defendants and grant the
following relief:
A.
Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
B.
Punitive damages against the individual Defendants only in an amount to be
determined at trial.
C.
An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees, together with the costs of
this action, under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

D.
Such other further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Page 36 of 38
Dated: October 15, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM, LLC
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF

& ABADY LLP
/s/ Jonathan S. Abady
Jonathan S. Abady
Earl S. Ward
Zoe Salzman
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10020
Phone: (212) 763-5000 Fx: (212) 763-5001
jabady@ecbalaw.com
eward@ecbalaw.com
zsalzman@ecbalaw.com
(Admitted pro hac vice)
/s/ Subodh Chandra

Subodh Chandra (OH Bar No. 0069233)
1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113-1326
Phone: 216.578.1700 Fx: 216.578.1800
Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com
FIRMEQUITY
/s/ William J. Mills
William J. Mills
858 West Armitage Avenue, Suite 101
Chicago, IL 60614
(847) 207-9064 Fx: (773) 528-0013
billy@firmequity.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Douglas Winston as

administrator of the Estate of Tamir Rice,
Samaria Rice, and T.R.
Page 37 of 38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 15th day of October, 2015, my office served, via the Courts
Electronic Filing System, the foregoing document on all counsel of record in the ECF system.
/s/ Zoe Salzman

Zoe Salzman
One of the attorneys for Plaintiffs Douglas
Winston as administrator of the Estate of
Tamir Rice, Samaria Rice, and T.R.
Page 38 of 38

Estate of Tamir Rice Et Al. v. City of Cleveland Et Al.

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

Estate of Tamir Rice Et Al. v. City of Cleveland Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 1 of 38.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-02670

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 2 of 38. PageID #: 625

This is a civil-rights case brought by Douglas Winston, the administrator of the

States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and Ohio law.

lodged in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2).

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action.

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 3 of 38. PageID #: 626

Plaintiff Douglas Winston is a U.S. citizen with his domicile in Cuyahoga

Rice is Tamir Rices mother.

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 4 of 38. PageID #: 627

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 5 of 38. PageID #: 628

In November 2014, Tamir Rice was 12 years old.

Tamir and his family are African American.

Tamir had no criminal history and no juvenile court adjudications.

the Cudell Recreation Center, near their home.

The following paragraphs are alleged on information and belief.

Cudell Recreation Center.

Tamir was playing by himself with a plastic toy pellet gun.

At approximately 3:22 p.m., CPD Communication Center Dispatcher Constance

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 6 of 38. PageID #: 629

Hollinger coded the call as Code 1, the highest priority code.

CPD Communication Center dispatcher Beth Mandl received Hollingers report.

the car of Defendant Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback.

Defendants Loehmann and Garmback proceeded towards Cudell Recreation

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 7 of 38. PageID #: 630

Tamir was standing alone in the gazebo in the park.

car was only a few feet away from Tamir.

fired two shots at Tamir.

One of Loehmanns bullets struck Tamir in the stomach.

Tamir collapsed to the ground.

Garmback then exited the police car.

Loehmann and Garmback stood around.

Neither Loehmann or Garmback provided any medical care or assistance to

was still lying on the ground.

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 8 of 38. PageID #: 631

killed my baby brother.

Loehmann came over to assist Garmback.

T.R. tried to stand and move away from the officers.

But Loehmann dragged her back to the ground.

Defendant Officer William Cunningham, who was working at the Cudell

Recreation Center that day, arrived on the scene.

her with her hands behind her back.

lay injured and dying on the ground.

T.R. experienced severe emotional distress as a result of the Defendants actions.

CPD Officers Did Not Provide Medical Care to Tamir

aid kits or any other medical equipment in CPD police cars.

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 9 of 38. PageID #: 632

agent and responded to his voice.

shot and referred to a gun.

She was screaming and crying.

CPD officers on the scene, including Loehmann, Garmback, Cunningham, and/or

John Does #15, heard T.R.s cries.

Approximately twelve minutes after Loehmann shot Tamir, Emergency Medical

Services (EMS) arrived on the scene.

City Officers Force Samaria Rice to Choose Between Her Children

children knocked on her door and told her.

Case: 1:14-cv-02670-SO Doc #: 80 Filed: 11/03/15 10 of 38. PageID #: 633

She rushed to Cudell Recreation Center.

go in the ambulance with Tamir.

Ms. Rice and Tamir left in the ambulance.

Recreation Center, where they questioned her without an adult present.