Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 1 of 24.
PageID #: 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RS, a minor child by his next of friend and : Case No.
legal guardian, VH :
c/o Thomas Law Offices, PLLC :
250 East Fourth Street, Suite 440 : COMPLAINT
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 :
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and :
:
TH :
c/o Thomas Law Offices, PLLC :
250 East Fourth Street, Suite 440 :
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
vs. :
:
LUCAS COUNTY CHILDREN :
SERVICES :
705 Adams Street :
Toledo, Ohio 43604 :
:
and :
:
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO :
1 Government Center, Suite 800 :
Toledo, Ohio 43604 :
:
and :
:
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO :
c/o Board of County Commissioners of :
Lucas County, Ohio: Tina Skeldon :
Wozniak, Pete Gerken, and Gary L. Byers, :
separately and individually and in their :
capacity as Lucas County Commissioners, :
as Defendants and Necessary Parties :
1 Government Center, Suite 800 :
Toledo, Ohio 43604 :
:
and :
:
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 2 of 24. PageID #: 34
KENNETH BUTLER :
Inmate No. 65099-060 :
c/o FCI Elkton :
Federal Correction Institution :
P.O. Box 10 :
Lisbon, Ohio 44432 :
and :
:
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-20 :
Individually and as Agents of Lucas :
County Children Services, who are :
supervisors, managers, case workers, :
screeners, and other employees whose :
identities are unknown at this time, but :
were actors, participants, and parties who :
have acted wrongfully toward R.S. and :
T.H., but shall be ascertained during :
discovery :
:
and :
:
JOHN/JANE DOES 21-40 :
Individually as tortfeasors and abusers :
whose identities are unknown at this time, :
but were actors, participants, and parties :
who have acted wrongfully toward RS and :
TH, but shall be ascertained during :
discovery :
:
and :
:
ALEXIS FORTUNE :
Inmate No. 66239-060 :
c/o FCI Danbury :
Federal Correctional Institution :
Route 37 :
Danbury, Connecticut 06811 :
:
and :
:
MARKUS FORTUNE :
Address Unknown :
:
and :
:
:
2
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 3 of 24. PageID #: 35
ALISA “LISA” HAYNES a/k/a ALISA M. :
STEVENSON :
855 Toronto Avenue :
Toledo, Ohio 43609 :
:
and :
:
ANTHONY HAYNES, SR. :
Inmate No. 64706-060 :
c/o FCI Gilmer :
Federal Correctional Institution :
P.O. Box 6000 :
Glenville, West Virginia 26351 :
:
and :
:
ANTHONY HAYNES, JR. :
Address Unknown :
:
and :
:
CORDELL JENKINS :
Inmate No. 64705-060 :
c/o USP Tucson :
U.S. Penitentiary :
P.O. Box 24550 :
Tucson, Arizona 85734 :
:
and :
:
LAURA LLOYD-JENKINS, individually, :
in her capacity as Lucas County :
Administrator, and in her capacity as :
Board Member to Lucas County Children :
Services :
Inmate No. 65278-060 :
RRM Sacramento :
Residential Reentry Office :
501 I Street, Suite 9-400 :
Sacramento, California 95814 :
:
and :
:
GREATER LIFE CHRISTIAN CENTER :
1330 North Detroit Avenue :
Toledo, OH 43607 :
3
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 4 of 24. PageID #: 36
and :
:
PERFECTING CHURCH TOLEDO :
4609 Glendale Avenue :
Toledo, Ohio 43614 :
:
and :
:
TOLEDO UBF CHURCH :
2841 Dorr Street :
Toledo, Ohio 43607 :
:
and :
:
PILGRIM ASSETS, INC. :
1330 North Detroit Avenue :
Toledo, Ohio 43607 :
:
and :
:
CALVARY CHURCH :
1360 Conant Street :
Maumee, Ohio 43537 :
:
Defendants. :
INTRODUCTION
1. This civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arises from the actions
of various state actors who, on behalf of Lucas County Children Services (“LCCS”), recklessly,
wantonly, and intentionally placed Plaintiffs in the home of known child-abusers and molesters,
ignored readily available information which indicated a real and present danger to Plaintiffs,
continued to detain Plaintiffs in this abusive environment against their will, and failed to report
such abuse to law enforcement authorities.
2. Plaintiffs seek redress for infringements of their civil rights, including, but not
limited to, the deprivation of their right to substantive due process, procedural due process, and
their fundamental liberty interest in familial associations, where the deprivations occurred through
actions taken under color of state law.
4
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 5 of 24. PageID #: 37
3. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
4. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages
for the injuries to each Plaintiff, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees.
JURISDICTION
5. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is invoked
under 42 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), as the claims present questions arising under
the Constitution and laws of the United States and specifically because it seeks to redress the
deprivations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights under color of state law. This Court has pendant
jurisdiction of the underlying state-law claims.
VENUE
6. Venue properly exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of Ohio
as substantially all of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Northern
District of Ohio.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff RS (hereafter “RS”) is a minor, suing through his next friend and legal
guardian, VH.
8. Plaintiff TH (hereafter “TH”) is a United States citizen, residing in Toledo, Ohio.
9. Defendant LCCS is a public children services agency of the State of Ohio. As per
Ohio Revised Code § 5153.16, LCCS is charged with making investigations concerning any child
alleged to be an abused, neglected, or dependent child. At the time of the incidents giving rise to
this Complaint, LCCS was responsible for the placement of Plaintiffs in the abusers’ and
molesters’ household. LCCS was also responsible for ensuring the safety, security, and general
5
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 6 of 24. PageID #: 38
well-being of Plaintiffs. Hereafter, all claims against LCCS shall include by reference Defendants
John/Jane Doe 1-20.
10. Defendant Lucas County, Ohio (hereinafter “County”) is a unit of local government
organized under the laws of the State of Ohio and is responsible within its boundaries for the
exercise of all powers vested in and the performance of all duties specifically conferred under Ohio
law, including but not limited to the provision of a child protection agency within its geographical
boundaries, namely, Lucas County Children Services.
11. Defendant Board of Commissioners of Lucas County Ohio (hereinafter referred to
as “Commissioners”) is a political subdivision organized under the law of the State of Ohio as
defined by R.C. 2744.01(F) and is responsible for the operation of LCCS by and through its
Commissioners, Tina Skeldon Wozniak, Pete Gerken, and Gary L. Byers. Said organization,
persons, employees, and agents acted wantonly, willfully, recklessly, negligently, and in bad faith
in disregard to their duties under the statutory and common law, proximately resulting in injuries to
Plaintiffs.
12. Defendant Kenneth Butler is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant Kenneth Butler is
currently incarcerated at FCI Elkton federal penitentiary, located in Lisbon, Ohio.
13. John/Jane Does 1-20 are individuals and agents of Lucas Count Children Services
who, at the time of the incidents giving rise to this Complaint, were supervisors, managers, case
workers, screeners, and other employees of Lucas Count Children Services in Toledo, Ohio.
14. John/Jane Does 21-40 are tortfeasors and abusers who, at the time of the incidents
giving rise to this Complaint, acted wrongfully toward Plaintiffs in and around Toledo, Ohio.
6
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 7 of 24. PageID #: 39
15. Defendant Alexis Fortune is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant Alexis Fortune is
currently incarcerated at FCI Danbury federal penitentiary, located in Danbury, Connecticut.
16. Defendant Markus Fortune is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant Markus Fortune’s
current address is unknown.
17. Defendant Alisa “Lisa” Haynes a/k/a Alisa M. Stevenson is a United States citizen,
who, at the time of the incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant
Alisa Haynes currently resides in Toledo, Ohio.
18. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant Anthony Haynes is
currently incarcerated at FCI Gilmer federal penitentiary, located in Glenville, West Virginia.
19. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr. is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant Markus Fortune’s
current address is unknown.
20. Defendant Cordell Jenkins is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. Defendant Cordell Jenkins is
currently incarcerated at USP Tuscon federal penitentiary, located in Tucson, Arizona.
21. Defendant Laura Lloyd-Jenkins is a United States citizen, who, at the time of the
incidents giving rise to this Complaint, resided in Toledo, Ohio. At the time of the incidents giving
rise to this Complaint, Defendant Laura Lloyd-Jenkins served as Lucas County Administrator and
as a Member of the Lucas County Children Services Board of Directors. Defendant Laura Lloyd-
Jenkins is currently residing at RRM Sacramento Residential Reentry Management field office,
located in Sacramento, California. Defendant Laura Lloyd-Jenkins is being sued in her individual
7
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 8 of 24. PageID #: 40
capacity, in her capacity as Lucas County Administrator, and in her capacity as a Member of the
Lucas County Children Services Board of Directors.
22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Greater Life Christian Center was an Ohio
not for profit corporation which, at the time of the incidents giving rise to this Complaint, had its
principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Perfecting Church Toledo was an Ohio not
for profit corporation which, at the time of the incidents giving rise to this Complaint, had its
principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio.
24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pilgrim Assets, Inc. is an Ohio corporation
which, at the time of the incidents giving rise to this Complaint, had its principal place of business
in Toledo, Ohio.
25. Upon information and belief, Defendant Calvary Church is an Ohio not for profit
corporation which, at the time of the incidents giving rise to this Complaint, had its principal place
of business in Toledo, Ohio.
BACKGROUND
26. On or around July 2, 2014, RS and TH, along with five other siblings, were removed
from the custody of their mother, VH, by LCCS, County, and Commissioners.
27. LCCS, County, and Commissioners placed Plaintiffs and their siblings in the home
of Defendants Anthony Haynes Sr. and Defendant Alisa Haynes; Defendant Alexis Fortune and
Defendant Markus Fortune also resided with Defendants Anthony Haynes Sr. and Defendant Alisa
Haynes. In total, the home consisted of three adults (Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., Defendant
Alisa Haynes, and Byron Harris), five children and wards of Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and
Alisa Haynes, and Plaintifs and their five siblings. In total, three adults and 12 children occupied
the Haynes’ three-bedroom home.
8
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 9 of 24. PageID #: 41
28. Defendants Anthony Haynes Sr., Alisa Haynes, Alexis Fortune, and Markus
Fortune will be referred to collectively as “The Haynes Family”.
29. LCCS, County, and Commissioners failed to investigate The Haynes Family, as
required by law, in order to ensure the safety, security, and well-being of Plaintiffs. LCCS, County,
and Commissioners failed to conduct a home study or monthly site visits as required by law.
Further, LCCS, County, and Commissioners failed to investigate The Haynes Family in response
to complaints made against them for neglect and abuse. These issues are discussed in greater detail
below.
30. During their time with The Haynes Family, Plaintiffs were subjected to neglect,
abuse, assault, battery, rape, degradation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.
31. Plaintiffs were not removed from the home of The Haynes Family until on or about
November 4, 2015.
First Rape by Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr.
32. In August 2014, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., was a guest of The Haynes
Family. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., forced TH into a bedroom in The Haynes Family’s home,
threatened TH with violence if she fought back, and nonconsensual intercourse with TH.
33. Defendant Alexis Fortune overheard TH’s rape from an adjoining bedroom and did
not intervene. On the day following the rape, Defendants Alexis Fortune and Markus Fortune
teased TH for having nonconsensual intercourse.
Second Rape by Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr.
34. On or about January 24, 2014, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., was a guest in the
home of The Haynes Family. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., approached TH in the kitchen where
Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., proceeded to nonconsensual intercourse with TH. Defendant
9
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 10 of 24. PageID #: 42
Anthony Haynes, Jr., forced TH to perform fellatio on him. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., then
informed TH that he intended to have congress again in the future.
35. TH was a minor when she was compelled to have nonconsensual intercourse with
Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr.; she did not and could not consent to these acts.
First Rape by Defendant Markus Fortune
36. Defendant Markus Fortune resided in the home of The Haynes Family. On or about
January 1, 2015, TH was taking a shower in the basement of the home of The Haynes Family.
Defendant Markus Fortune entered the room where TH was showering. Defendant Markus Fortune
watched TH shower against her will. When TH covered herself with a towel, Defendant Markus
Fortune took it.
37. Defendant Alexis Fortune entered the room, spoke obscenities to TH, and pinned
TH’s hands against the wall. While Defendant Alexis Fortune pinned TH, Defendant Markus
Fortune had nonconsensual intercourse with TH. Defendants Alexis Fortune and Markus Fortune
acted as if the nonconsensual intercourse was funny.
38. Following the nonconsensual intercourse, TH took a second shower to wash the
blood from her body. Once TH finished her second shower, she was attacked by Defendants Alexis
Fortune, Markus Fortune, and other minor children within the Haynes household.
Second Rape by Defendant Markus Fortune
39. On or about March 31, 2014, TH confronted Defendant Markus Fortune for
performing nonconsensual sexual acts on one of TH’s minor siblings. In response, Defendant
Markus Fortune pushed TH down the stairs, causing her to sprain her ankle. Defendant Markus
Fortune then proceeded to slap TH, lift her dress, pull her hair, and compel her to have
nonconsensual intercourse. TH begged Defendant Markus Fortune to stop and threatened to report
him to Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Defendant Alisa Haynes.
10
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 11 of 24. PageID #: 43
Punishment for Reporting Second Rape by Defendant Markus Fortune
40. Following her second nonconsensual intercourse with Defendant Markus Fortune,
TH reported the nonconsensual intercourse to Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr. Defendant Anthony
Haynes, Sr., informed Defendant Alisa Haynes of TH’s allegations against Defendant Markus
Fortune. Defendant Alisa Haynes put on all of her rings and assault TH for telling lies about
Defendant Markus Fortune.
Third Rape by Defendant Markus Fortune
41. On or about November 26, 2014, Defendant Markus Fortune asked TH to walk to
a store with him. Defendant Markus Fortune took TH to an abandoned building where he had
nonconsensual intercourse with her. Defendant Markus Fortune instructed TH to call him “daddy”
and that she should not tell anyone.
Fourth Rape by Defendant Markus Fortune
42. On an unknown day in 2014, TH was washing her siblings’ clothing in the basement
sink of The Haynes Family’s home because they did not have a washing machine.
43. TH noticed blood in the underwear of her brother, RS.
44. TH confronted RS who reported that Defendant Markus Fortune had nonconsensual
intercourse him.
45. RS also reported to TH that Defendant Markus Fortune also forced him to perform
fellatio on Defendant Markus Fortune.
Fifth Rape by Defendant Markus Fortune
46. In March 2014, TH could not find her sibling, RS. TH heard cries coming from a
bedroom. When TH opened the door, she witnessed Defendant Markus Fortune sodomizing RS,
who was crying. Defendant Markus Fortune did not stop sodomizing RS.
11
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 12 of 24. PageID #: 44
47. TH attempted to defend Plaintiff RS using a kitchen knife. In the ensuing
confrontation, TH cut the finger of Defendant Markus Fortune before dropping the knife.
Acts of Rape by Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr.
48. During the entire period with The Haynes Family, from July 2014 until November
2015, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., nonconsensual intercourse TH on a daily basis.
49. Every Wednesday and Sunday, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., forcibly raped TH
in his church office at Defendant Greater Life Christian Center, a property owned by Pilgrim
Assets, Inc. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., called TH to his church office where he had her kneel
on a brown chair. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., would force TH to perform fellatio or have
nonconsensual intercourse with him. If TH refused to perform sexual acts, Defendant Anthony
Haynes, Sr., would punch her in the back of her neck, choke her, bite her back, punch her in the
face, or slap her in the face.
50. In September 2014, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., subjected TH to sodomy twice
on the same day. In the first instance, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., claimed that he sodomized
TH by accident. In the second instance, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., admitted that he
sodomized TH because he liked it.
51. Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., forced TH to submit to his sexual demands by
threatening to handcuff and chain TH outside, regardless of weather.
52. In a separate incident, Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., instructed TH’s siblings to
go into the basement; Defendant Anthony Haynes, Sr., locked them inside. Defendant Anthony
Haynes, Sr., then forced TH to perform fellatio and have nonconsensual intercourse with him in
the living room of the home.
12
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 13 of 24. PageID #: 45
Sexual Battery by Defendant Alexis Fortune
53. One evening, Defendant Alexis Fortune had the girls in the home sleep in her room.
TH slept in a bed while the remaining girls, including Defendant Alexis Fortune, slept on the floor.
While TH was asleep, Defendant Alexis Fortune inserted her finger into TH’s vagina. TH awoke,
stopped Defendant Alexis Fortune, and lain on the floor in order to avoid further sexual contact.
54. Defendant Alexis Fortune forced cunnilingus upon TH and forced TH to perform
cunnilingus upon her.
55. Defendant Alexis Fortune forced fellatio upon RS and forced RS to perform
cunnilingus and other sexual acts upon her.
Acts by Defendant Alisa Haynes
56. Defendant Alisa Haynes was aware of the sexual acts occurring with the minors in
the home and failed to report them.
57. Defendant Alisa Haynes punched Plaintiffs while wearing her rings.
58. Defendant Alisa Haynes instructed Plaintiffs and their siblings that the children of
The Haynes Family were permitted to assault Plaintiffs and their siblings; but Plaintiffs and their
siblings were forbidden to defend themselves.
59. Defendant Alisa Haynes sold cocaine from the home. Defendant Alisa Haynes
forced TH to consume cocaine twice per week for approximately six to eight months. TH became
addicted to cocaine, resulting in her not attending school.
60. Defendants Alisa Haynes and Anthony Haynes, Sr., used cocaine manipulate TH.
They would give TH cocaine as a “treat” in exchange for cooking and cleaning.
Torture by Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Alexis Fortune
61. Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Alexis Fortune chained and handcuffed TH
to the porch of The Haynes Family’s home.
13
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 14 of 24. PageID #: 46
Abuse, Torture, and Neglect by The Haynes Family
62. The Haynes Family, including Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Alisa Haynes,
would threaten Plaintiffs and their siblings in order to compel Plaintiffs and their siblings to do as
The Haynes Family instructed.
63. Plaintiffs and their siblings lived in fear of The Haynes Family calling LCCS,
which, they believed, would result in their separation.
64. TH was beaten by The Haynes Family with a 2 x 4 piece of lumber.
65. Defendants Alexis and Markus Fortune would throw scalding hot water on
Plaintiffs and their siblings.
66. Following incidents of torture, The Haynes Family would tell Plaintiffs and their
siblings that the torture was intended to prepare them for the real world.
67. Plaintiffs were forced to prepare breakfast, lunch, and dinner for The Haynes
Family.
68. The Haynes Family beat Plaintiffs with extension cords, church shoes, and a cane.
69. Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Alisa Haynes purchased tasers for their
children; Plaintiffs and their siblings would be regularly tased on the back, neck, buttocks, or legs
as a source of amusement.
Emotional Damage Caused by The Haynes Family
70. TH tried to commit suicide on eight different occasions, including by jumping into
a river.
71. TH would intentionally try to be arrested by shoplifting in order to avoid being in
the home of The Haynes Family.
14
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 15 of 24. PageID #: 47
Plaintiffs’ Confinement by The Haynes Family
72. Plaintiffs and their siblings, seven children in total, were locked in a small room
with a single toddler-sized bed. Plaintiffs and their siblings were given a single loaf of bread and
a pack of lunch meat. Plaintiffs and their siblings were forced to use a large blue bucket for a toilet.
TH fashioned makeshift diapers for her youngest siblings out of dirty clothes. Plaintiffs and their
siblings would remain locked in this room for as many as five days.
Discovery of Conditions
73. In 2015, TH informed officials at Rosary Cathedral School, where she attended,
that her basic needs were not being met. She did not have clean clothes. She was forced to wash
herself with dish soap. She did not have a toothbrush or deodorant.
74. The Principal instructed TH to bring her and her siblings’ dirty clothes to be washed
at school. TH began taking dirty clothes to school to be washed. Rosary Cathedral School reported
the issues to Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Alisa Haynes.
75. Defendants Anthony Haynes, Sr., and Alisa Haynes confronted Plaintiffs and their
siblings: if the informant confessed, the punishment would be reduced. TH admitted to telling her
school. Defendant Alisa Haynes punched TH in the stomach, hit her face, yelled obscenities, and
told TH that LCCS would be coming to split up her siblings.
76. After Rosary Cathedral School’s discovery of abuse, five employees of LCCS came
to the home of The Haynes Family. Among them was Caseworker Charmaine L. West (hereafter,
“West”). After an interview with Plaintiffs, the LCCS supervisor determined that West never
conducted any required inspections or visits. West falsified her paperwork. West had never met
with the family.
15
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 16 of 24. PageID #: 48
Medical Deprivation and Neglect
77. The Haynes Family denied Plaintiffs access to necessary medical care in order to
prevent the children from reporting their abuse to medical personnel.
78. Upon information and belief, LCCS, County, and Commissioners received and
sustained a complaint for medical neglect concerning Plaintiffs and their siblings. Despite LCCS,
County, and Commissioners acknowledging the validity of the complaint for medical neglect,
LCCS, County, and Commissioners did not remove Plaintiffs and their siblings from The Haynes
Family’s home.
Knowledge of LCCS, County, and Commissioners
79. Upon information and belief, LCCS, County, and Commissioners received multiple
complaints of neglect, abuse, and sexual exploitation of Plaintiffs and their siblings.
80. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs, VH, and Rosary Cathedral School made
complaints of neglect, abuse, and sexual exploitation of Plaintiffs and their siblings to LCCS,
County, and Commissioners.
81. VH witnessed marks indicative of sexual abuse on her children in the home of The
Haynes Family during a supervised visitation. VH reported these marks and made allegations of
sexual abuse to Courtney, an agent of LCCS, County, and Commissioners.
82. Upon information and belief, Courtney sent an e-mail to Sue Kickey, a case worker
for LCCS, County, and Commissioners. Plaintiffs and their siblings, however, were not removed
from the home of The Haynes Family.
CLAIM ONE – VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
83. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
16
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 17 of 24. PageID #: 49
84. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners, as state actors, violated the civil
rights of Plaintiffs by depriving them of life, liberty, and due process as guaranteed by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
85. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners, as state actors, acted under color
of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
86. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners, as state actors, acting under color
of law, conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
87. Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1985. Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that Plaintiffs were being
abused, neglected, raped, and otherwise mistreated in the Haynes’ home. Further, Defendants
knew, or reasonably should have known, that Plaintiffs were being abused, neglected, raped, and
otherwise mistreated on the properties of Greater Christian Life Christian Center, which was
owned by Pilgrim Assets, Inc. and was, upon information and belief, an affiliate of Toledo
University Bible Fellowship, and Perfecting Life Church Toledo, which, upon information and
belief, is an affiliate of Calvary Church. Through common agreement, Defendants conspired to
perform, performed, and failed to report unlawful acts against Plaintiffs which violated their civil
rights.
88. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners, as state actors, acting under color
of law, neglected to prevent the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1986.
89. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and expert fees in asserting their civil rights
claim in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
90. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against LCCS, County, and
Commissioners for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not limited to, extreme
17
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 18 of 24. PageID #: 50
pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation, and unnecessary
loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and all other relief to
which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
91. Defendants LCCS, County, Commissioners, and their officers and employees,
acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner toward Plaintiffs.
Defendants LCCS, County, Commissioners, and their officers and employees are not entitled to
immunity per Chapter 9 of the Ohio Revised Code.
CLAIM TWO – NEGLIGENCE
92. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
93. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners owed a non-delegable duty to
ensure the safety, security, and well-being of Plaintiffs.
94. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners breached that duty by placing
Plaintiffs in the care of The Haynes Family, ignoring past conduct of The Haynes Family which
would indicate their inability to provide adequate care for Plaintiffs, failing to investigate
complaints against The Haynes Family, failing to perform required home inspections and visits,
failing to abide by procedures in place for the protection of Plaintiffs, and failing to remove
Plaintiffs from the home of The Haynes Family.
95. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners’ breach of duty caused Plaintiffs
extreme, significant, and lasting physical and emotion damages.
96. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against LCCS, County, and
Commissioners for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not limited to, extreme
pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation, and unnecessary
18
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 19 of 24. PageID #: 51
loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and all other relief to
which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
97. Defendants LCCS, County, Commissioners, and their officers and employees,
acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner toward Plaintiffs.
Defendants LCCS, County, Commissioners, and their officers and employees are not entitled to
immunity per Chapter 9 of the Ohio Revised Code.
CLAIM THREE – NEGLIGENCE PER SE
98. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
99. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners owed a non-delegable duty to
ensure the safety, security, and well-being of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that LCCS, County,
and Commissioners violated statutory and regulatory duties of care, the violations of which are
actionable as negligence per se.
100. Plaintiffs were injured by the statutory violations of LCCS, County, and
Commissioners and were within the class of persons for whose benefit the statutes were enacted
and who were intended to be protected by these statutes.
101. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners breached that duty by placing
Plaintiffs in the care of The Haynes Family, ignoring past conduct of The Haynes Family which
would indicate their inability to provide adequate care for Plaintiffs, failing to investigate
complaints against The Haynes Family, failing to perform required home inspections and visits,
failing to abide by procedures in place for the protection of Plaintiffs, and failing to remove
Plaintiffs from the home of The Haynes Family.
102. Defendants LCCS, County, and Commissioners’ breach of duty caused Plaintiffs
extreme, significant, and lasting physical and emotion damages.
19
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 20 of 24. PageID #: 52
103. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against LCCS, County, and
Commissioners for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not limited to, extreme
pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation, and unnecessary
loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and all other relief to
which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
CLAIM FOUR – CONSPIRACY
104. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
105. All Defendants acted in malicious combination to cause injury and/or deny civil
rights to Plaintiffs.
106. All Defendants were aware, or through reasonable efforts should have been aware,
of the risk posed by The Haynes Family to Plaintiffs.
107. All Defendants negligently, willfully, wantonly, intentionally, with malicious
purpose, in bad faith, and in a wonton or reckless matter, acted in malicious combination in
furtherance of the unlawful acts of The Haynes Family.
108. All Defendants’ actions in malicious combination resulted in Plaintiffs’ injury
through the perpetration of unlawful acts against Plaintiffs.
109. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against All Defendants for all
compensatory and punitive damages including, but not limited to, extreme pain and suffering,
medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation, and unnecessary loss of personal
dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiffs
are entitled by law.
20
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 21 of 24. PageID #: 53
110. All Defendants and their officers and employees, acted with malicious purpose, in
bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner toward Plaintiffs. Defendants, their officers and
employees are not entitled to immunity per Chapter 9 of the Ohio Revised Code.
CLAIMS FIVE THROUGH TWELVE – CHILD ABUSE, RAPE, GROSS SEXUAL
IMPOSITION, SEXUAL IMPOSITION, SEXUAL BATTERY, UNLAWFUL SEXUAL
CONDUCT WITH MINOR, IMPORTUNING, AND VOYEURISM
111. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
112. The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., conducted acts of child
abuse, rape, gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual battery, unlawful sexual conduct
with minor, importuning, and voyeurism upon Plaintiffs as outlined in Chapter 2305 of the Ohio
Revised Code.
113. Plaintiffs are entitled to civil recovery for criminal violations under O.R.C. §
2307.60.
114. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against The Haynes Family and
Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not
limited to, extreme pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation,
and unnecessary loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and
all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
CLAIMS THIRTEEN THROUGH NINETEEN – FELONIOUS ASSAULT,
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, ASSAULT, NEGLIGENT ASSAULT, PERMITTING
CHILD ABUSE, AGGRAVATED MENACING, AND MENACING
115. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
21
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 22 of 24. PageID #: 54
116. The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., conducted acts of
felonious assault, aggravated assault, assault, negligent assault, permitting child abuse, aggravated
menacing, and menacing upon Plaintiffs as outlined in Chapter 2903 of the Ohio Revised Code.
117. Plaintiffs are entitled to civil recovery for criminal violations under O.R.C. §
2307.60.
118. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against The Haynes Family and
Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not
limited to, extreme pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation,
and unnecessary loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and
all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
CLAIM TWENTY – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
119. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
120. The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., conducted acts extreme
and outrageous conduct, beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct in a civilized society, to
Plaintiffs.
121. The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., intended to, or could have
reasonably foreseen that their actions would, cause a reasonable person serious emotional trauma
to Plaintiffs.
122. The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., caused serious emotional
trauma to Plaintiffs.
123. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against The Haynes Family and
Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not
limited to, extreme pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation,
22
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 23 of 24. PageID #: 55
and unnecessary loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and
all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
CLAIM TWENTY-ONE – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
124. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
125. Plaintiffs were bystanders to one another’s physical trauma and experienced first-
hand trauma at the hands of The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr.
126. Plaintiffs reasonably appreciated the danger and severity of the trauma inflicted
upon them by The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr.
127. Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional destress as a result of witnessing and
experiencing trauma at the hands of The Haynes Family and Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr.
128. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert a claim for judgment against The Haynes Family and
Defendant Anthony Haynes, Jr., for all compensatory and punitive damages including, but not
limited to, extreme pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, degradation,
and unnecessary loss of personal dignity in an amount to be determined by the jury plus costs and
all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled by law.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
129. Plaintiffs adopt and reiterates each and every aforementioned allegation as if set
forth fully herein and incorporates the same by reference.
130. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and/or with flagrant indifference
to Plaintiffs.
131. By acting with oppression, fraud, malice, and/or with flagrant indifference to
Plaintiffs, Defendants caused irreparable harm to Plaintiffs for which punitive damages are
appropriate.
23
Case: 3:20-cv-02791-JRK Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/17/20 24 of 24. PageID #: 56
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a) that Plaintiffs be fully compensated for his injuries and damages as alleged
herein;
(b) that Plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages;
(c) that Plaintiffs be awarded their costs and expenses; and
(d) that Plaintiffs be awarded all other relief to which they may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Louis C. Schneider
Louis C. Schneider, Esq.
Thomas Law Offices, PLLC
250 East Fifth Street, Suite 440
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Ph: (513) 360-6480
Fx: (502) 495-3943
lou.schneider@thomaslawoffices.com
OH Bar No.: 0076588
Attorney for Plaintiff
24
