Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BERNARD YOUNG,

Plaintiff, Case No.

v. Hon.

SHELLEY FOY, individually and in

her official capacity as a public safety
officer; and CITY OF DETROIT, a
municipal corporation;

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)

EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, Michigan 48033
(866) 939-2656
sradner@excololaw.com
_________________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COME the Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, by and through his

attorneys, SOLOMON M. RADNER and EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, and files his

Complaint against the Defendants in this civil action, stating unto this court as

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983

and 1988, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution against Defendants, SHELLEY FOY, in her individual

 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 2 of 21 Pg ID.2

capacity, and in her official capacity as a public safety officer, and CITY OF

DETROIT, a municipal corporation.

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims presented

in this Complaint based upon the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1343.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand

($75,000.00) Dollars, excluding interest, costs and attorney fees.

4. The unlawful actions alleged in this Complaint took place within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan.

5. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and based on the situs of the incident, which occurred in the

City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.

6. At all pertinent times Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, was a United

States citizen, domiciled in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of

Michigan.

7. At all pertinent times, Defendant, SHELLEY FOY (FOY), was

employed as a Sergeant by the Detroit Police Department (DPD), a department

of the CITY OF DETROIT (DETROIT), and was acting under color of law.

8. At all pertinent times, DETROIT was a municipal corporation

formed under the laws of the State of Michigan, and was the employer of FOY.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

-2-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 3 of 21 Pg ID.3

9. In 1988, Anthony and Thomas Tadlock lived with their mother,

Linda Tadlock, their sister, Lakeisha Clark, and their mothers boyfriend,

William Clark. Early that year, Anthony, who was six (6) years old, and Thomas,

who was five (5), started acting out at home and in school.

10. Later that year, Linda Tadlock made a disturbing discovery: she

found the boys performing oral sex on each other in their bedroom. Concerned

by the boys behavior, Linda Tadlock called the Childrens Center in Detroit and

had the boys attend counseling on an out-patient basis. The counseling proved

ineffective, and Anthony and Thomas were referred to the Aurora Hospital for

residential treatment, Anthony was admitted to the hospital on July 19, 1988, and

Thomas was admitted on September 2, 1988.

11. One of Anthony and Thomass primary caretakers at the Aurora

hospital was a clinical in-patient therapist named Margareta Olsson. Ms. Olsson

began suspecting the boys had been sexually abused when she saw them

performing sexual acts with dolls. Ms. Olsson immediately asked the boys

whether they had been sexually abused, but they both denied any abuse. Later, on

April 7, 1989, Anthony and Thomas told Margareta Olsson they had been

sexually abused by Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG (hereinafter Mr. Young).

12. Ms. Olsson contacted the police, and the Detroit Police Department

initiated an investigation. Defendant Sergeant SHELLEY FOY of the Detroit

Police Department was assigned as officer in charge of the investigation into the

alleged abuse by Mr. Young. On April 14, 1989, Defendant FOY interviewed

-3-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 4 of 21 Pg ID.4

Anthony and Thomas at the Aurora Hospital and took written statements from

them. In his statement, Anthony told Defendant FOY that Mr. Young used to

babysit him and Thomas when their mother was at work and their mothers

boyfriend, William Clark, was at the store. He told her that one-day Mr. Young

didnt babysit us right.

13. According to Anthony, they were sitting on the couch waiting for

William Clark to come home when Mr. Young came in, pulled his pants down,

and told them to suck his penis. He also told Defendant FOY that Mr. Young

sucked his penis, told him to suck Thomass penis, told Thomas to suck his penis,

and told Thomas to put his penis into his butt. Anthony stated he was six (6) years

old when Mr. Young allegedly did these things to him.

14. Thomas described similar sexual abuse allegedly by Mr. Young in

his written statement to Defendant FOY. Thomas stated that Mr. Young sucked

his penis, put his penis in his behind, put his penis into Anthonys mouth, and put

his penis into Anthonys behind. He also stated that Mr. Young made him put his

penis into Anthonys mouth and into Anthonys behind. According to Thomas,

he was five (5) years old when Mr. Young allegedly did these things to him.

15. On April 16, 1989, Defendant FOY conducted a live line-up at a

Detroit Police station. There was a total of 7 people in the line-up, including Mr.

Young and his brother, Baxter Young, who lived next door to the Tadlock boys.

William Clark was not in the line-up. Anthony Tadlock identified Mr. Young out

of the line-up as his abuser. Thomas Tadlock did not identify Mr. Young or

-4-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 5 of 21 Pg ID.5

Braxter Young as his abuse, but rather identified someone else.

16. On April 18, 1989, Mr. Young was charged with 10 counts of first

degree criminal sexual conduct and 6 counts of second degree criminal sexual

conduct for the alleged sexual abuse of Anthony and Thomas Tadlock, which,

according to the criminal complaint, occurred between January 1, 1988, and July

1, 1988. Kelly Ramsey of the Wayne County Prosecutors Child Abuse Unit was

assigned as the assistant prosecutor on the case. On April 27, 1989; a preliminary

examination was held in the 36th District Court, and the district court bound Mr.

Young over to the Detroit Recorders Court on 7 counts of first degree criminal

sexual conduct. The remaining counts were dismissed.

17. About one week after Mr. Youngs preliminary examination,

Anthony and Thomas told Margareta Olsson that they had been sexually abused

by their mothers boyfriend, William Clark. Ms. Olsson once again contacted the

Detroit Police, and the Detroit Police initiated an investigation into the alleged

sexual abuse by William Clark. Defendant FOY was also assigned as officer in

charge of this investigation. On May 17, 1989, Defendant FOY interviewed

Anthony and Thomas and took statements from them about the alleged abuse by

William Clark. These statements and the fact that the boys had accused William

Clark of sexual abuse were never disclosed by Defendant FOY to Mr. Young

before his trial.

18. Mr. Youngs case proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Michael

Talbot of the Detroit Recorders Court on August 4, 1989. The prosecution called

-5-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 6 of 21 Pg ID.6

a total of four (4) witnesses at trial, Anthony Tadlock, Thomas Tadlock, Linda

Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson. Anthony testified that when he used to live on

Hendricks Street, Mr. Young, who lived nearby, would babysit him and his

brother while his mom was at work and William Clark was not home. He stated

bad things would happen when Mr. Young babysat them. According to Anthony,

Mr. Young touched his penis, sucked his penis, and made him put his penis where

Mr. Young sat. He also stated Mr. Young put his penis where he sat and told him

to suck Mr. Youngs penis.

19. Anthony further stated that Mr. Young forced him to suck his

brothers penis and forced him to put his penis where his brother sat. According

to Anthony, Mr. Young did these things to him the previous summer, before he

went to the hospital. On cross-examination, Anthony acknowledged William

Clark had hit him but stated he was not afraid to go home to William Clark.

Neither the prosecution nor Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel asked Anthony if

it was William Clark who had sexually abused him or whether he had also

accused William Clark of the sexual abuse.

20. Thomas also testified that Mr. Young used to babysit him and his

brother when they lived on Hendricks and that bad things would happen when

Mr. Young babysat them. He stated that Mr. Young put his penis where Thomas

sat and made Thomas suck his and Anthonys private parts. He stated that Mr.

Young did these things to him before he went to the hospital, when he was five

(5) years old. Thomas identified Mr. Young at trial, but had difficulty doing so.

-6-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 7 of 21 Pg ID.7

On re-cross, Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel impeached Thomas with his

failure to identify Mr. Young at the line-up.

21. Again, neither the prosecution nor Mr. Youngs criminal trial

counsel asked Thomas whether it was William Clark who had sexually abused

him or whether he had also accused William Clark or anyone else of the sexual

abuse.

22. Linda Tadlock testified that in 1988 she lived on Hendricks Street

in Detroit with her boyfriend, William Clark, her daughter, Lakeisha Clark, and

her sons, Anthony and Thomas. She stated that when she went to work she would

leave her children with William Clark and that to her knowledge, no one but

William Clark babysat Anthony and Thomas. She did, however, state that the

boys had told her that either Baxter or Bernard Young had been babysitting them.

Linda Tadlock also stated that William Clark had physically abused Anthony and

Thomas, using quite a bit of force.

23. After the prosecution rested, Mr. Youngs trial counsel moved for

a directed verdict on all counts. Judge Talbot granted the motion for count 7, first

degree criminal sexual conduct against Anthony Tadlock, but denied the motion

for the remaining counts. Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel called two

witnesses, Braxter Young and Mr. Young himself.

24. Braxter Young testified that he lived next door to William Clark

and Linda Tadlock, that he was close friends with William Clark, and that he

would go to their house practically every day. He also stated that to his knowledge

-7-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 8 of 21 Pg ID.8

his brother Bernard never babysat Anthony and Thomas, but that he himself had

babysat the boys between January 1988 and July 1988. He further testified that

Berndard Young did not have any interaction with Linda Tadlock or William

Clark after an incident that occurred in 1986 in which Clark alleged to Braxter

that Bernard Young had stolen something from him. Braxter Young additionally

testified that Bernard Young moved away at some point prior to January of 1988

and lived with his wife on the west side of Detroit during the entire time the

alleged sexual abuse took place.

25. Bernard Young testified that he used to live in a red and white house

on Hendricks Street, across the street from William Clark and Linda Tadlock. He

stated that he and his wife moved away from that house during the fall of 1987

and that he did not visit the home of William and Linda Tadlock between January

1, 1988, and July of 1988 because William Clark had accused him of breaking

into his house. He further testified that he never babysat Anthony and Thomas,

and he vehemently denied any sexual abuse whatsoever. At the conclusion of

trial, Mr. Youngs criminal trial counsel argued Anthony and Thomas had falsely

accused Mr. Young because they were afraid of leaving the hospital and returning

to William Clark, who had physically abused them. Judge Talbot ultimately

rejected trial counsels theory and found Mr. Young guilty of 6 counts of first

degree criminal sexual conduct.

26. On September 8, 1989, Judge Talbot sentenced Mr. Young to

consecutive terms of 60 to 100 years imprisonment for each count of first degree

-8-
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 9 of 21 Pg ID.9

criminal sexual conduct.

27. On November 11, 1989, about two (2) months after Bernard Young

was sentenced, William Clark was charged with eight (8) counts of first degree

criminal sexual conduct for the sexual abuse of Anthony and Thomas Tadlock

which, according to the complaint, occurred between January 1988 and July

1988. Charges were brought against William Clark based on the evidence that

Defendant FOY had obtained and failed to disclose to Mr. Young. Kelley

Ramsey, who prosecuted Mr. Young, was also assigned as the prosecutor on the

William Clark case. On December 4, 1989, a preliminary examination was held

in the 36th District Court. At the conclusion of the examination, William Clark

was bound over to the Detroit Recorders Court, where his case was assigned to

Judge M. John Shamo.

28. On August 16, 1990, William Clark pled guilty to two counts of

second degree child abuse against Anthony and Thomas Tadlock. On September

26, 1990, Judge Shamo sentenced William Clark to three years probation, with

the last six months to be served in the Wayne County Jail. All of the criminal

sexual conduct charges were dismissed.

29. Mr. Young appealed his convictions and sentences by right. On

February 24, 1992, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants

convictions but remanded for resentencing because Judge Talbot had not

articulated the reasons why he departed from the sentencing guidelines and had

not completed a written sentence departure statement. At Mr. Youngs

-9-
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 10 of 21 Pg ID.10

resentencing on April 29, 1992, Judge Talbot imposed the same sentence of 60 to

100 years imprisonment for each count of first degree criminal sexual conduct.

Judge Talbot also completed the sentence departure form.

30. Mr. Young once again appealed his sentences, and on October 17,

1995, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Mr. Young filed a delayed application for

leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Michigan Supreme Court

denied the application on October 29, 1996. Mr. Youngs case was eventually

assigned to Judge Deborah Thomas. On August 22, 2003, Mr. Young filed a

motion for relief from judgment. On September 21, 2004, Judge Thomas denied

that motion. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Young filed a second motion for relief

from judgment. On April 2, 2010, Judge Thomas denied that motion. On April

11, 2011, Mr. Youngs case was reassigned from Judge Thomas to Judge Edward

Ewell, Jr. On January 2, 2014, Mr. Youngs case was reassigned from Judge

Ewell, Jr., to Judge Qiana Lillard.

31. On May 11, 2016, Mr. Young filed a third motion for relief from

judgment, claiming (1) there was newly discovered evidence that exonerates him;

(2) the prosecution and Defendant FOY suppressed evidence in violation of his

right to due process; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (4)

there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.

32. In support of his motion, Mr. Young attached an affidavit of Linda

Parker (formerly Linda Tadlock), an affidavit from Anthony Tadlock dated May

4, 2015, and an affidavit from Thomas Tadlock dated April 4, 2013. In their

- 10 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 11 of 21 Pg ID.11

affidavits, Anthony and Thomas state they falsely accused Mr. Young because

they were afraid of their real abuser, William Clark who had threatened to kill

them both if they told the truth.

33. The trial court held evidentiary hearings on three days, September

22, 2016, October 28, 2016, and November 21, 2016, during which the Court

heard testimony from eight (8) witnesses, Linda Parker, Thomas Tadlock, H.J.

Corvin, Mary Novrocki, Claudia Whitman, Joyce Holman, Kelly Ramsey, and

Defendant FOY.

34. At the September 22, 2016 hearing, Thomas Tadlock testified, as

he stated in his affidavit, that he falsely accused the Defendant because he was

afraid of William Clark, who was now deceased. At the time of the hearings,

Anthony Tadlock resided in Florida. Despite efforts to have Anthony participate

via video conference, Anthony was either unwilling or unable to participate.

35. At the October 28, 2016, hearing, non-redacted copies of the police

jackets from Bernard Young and William Clarks criminal cases were admitted

as exhibits. The police jacket for the William Clark case includes an illegible

investigators report, two (2) preliminary complaint records (police reports)

completed by Officer Marlene Jacobson, a preliminary complaint record

completed by Officer Keith Henderson, a constitutional rights form for William

Clark dated November 10, 1989, two polygraph examination reports for William

Clark, a written statement taken from Lakeisha Clark on November 9, 1989, and

the written statements Defendant FOY took from Anthony Tadlock, Thomas

- 11 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 12 of 21 Pg ID.12

Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson on May 17, 1989. Of particular relevance here

are the preliminary complaint records completed by Officer Marlene Jacobson

and the written statements Defendant FOY took from Anthony Tadlock, Thomas

Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson.

36. The first preliminary complaint record of Officer Marlene Jacobson

states the following: DESC: William Clark B/M/45 D.O.B 03-31-43 3648

Hendricks Not In Custody Complts Stated that the Def-While Babysitting them

would force them to perform fellatio and would insert his penis into their anus.

The preliminary complaint record indicated the complainants were Anthony and

Thomas Tadlock, the offenses occurred between July 1, 1987 and July 19, 1988,

and the abuse was reported to the police on May 8, 1989.

37. The trial court ultimately entered an Opinion and Order granting

Mr. Youngs Motion for Relief from Judgment on February 3, 2017 based on two

extremely exculpatory pieces of evidence that were suppressed by Defendants

until several years after Mr. Young was wrongfully convicted. Namely: (1)

Affidavits signed by the victims indicating that Mr. Young did not sexually abuse

them but that ONLY their step-father, William Clark did; and (2) written police

statements taken from the victims prior to the 1989 trial but never made available

to Mr. Young or his attorneys until August 2016 these victim statements

implicate William Clark, thereby supporting the affidavits recently signed by the

victims.

38. On November 9, 2017, in an unpublished opinion, the Michigan

- 12 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 13 of 21 Pg ID.13

Court of Appeals Affirmed the circuit courts decision to grant Mr. Youngs third

motion for relief from judgment.

39. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and omissions

of Defendant FOY and the CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff sustained damages.

40. Defendant FOY, as a sworn police officer, had taken an oath, the

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, that stated, in pertinent part: As a sworn police

officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and

property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression

or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the

constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.

41. Defendant FOY, knowing that overwhelming exculpatory evidence

existed before Mr. Youngs criminal trial, conspired with CITY OF DETROIT

Police Department members and/or prosecutor(s) to suppress the exculpatory

evidence and ensure that Mr. Young, an innocent man, was sentenced to 60 to

100 years imprisonment.

42. Defendant FOY, an experienced, well-trained police officer who

took an oath to protect citizens constitutional rights, conspired to knowingly

deprive Mr. Young of his constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment, which

guarantees [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and

no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation

- 13 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 14 of 21 Pg ID.14

43. Defendants FOY and CITY OF DETROIT knew their decision to

suppress exculpatory evidence from Mr. Young ran afoul to the United States

Supreme Courts recognition of the fundamental value determination of our

society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go

free. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 372; 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1077; 25 L.Ed.2d 368

(1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). See also T. Starkie, Evidence 956 (1824) (The

maxim of the law is that it is better that ninety-nine offenders should escape,

than one innocent man should be condemned).

44. FOY also made a conscious, knowing, and intentional choice not to

reveal exculpatory evidence to Mr. Young or to urge the prosecution to redirect

its focus from Mr. Young to William Clark.

45. Prosecutor Kelly Ramsey had a constitutional Brady obligation

to provide Mr. Young with the exculpatory evidence Defendant FOY obtained.

46. Defendant FOY either did not bring the exculpatory evidence to

Prosecutor Kellys attention, or FOY conspired with prosecutors to suppress the

evidence from Mr. Young.

47. Since Defendant FOY knew that the written statements she took

from Anthony Tadlock, Thomas Tadlock, and Margareta Olsson on May 17, 1989

definitively proved that Mr. Young was an innocent man, FOY made a conscious,

knowing, and intentional and/or reckless choice to ensure the statements were not

revealed to Mr. Young before his trial.

48. But for Defendants conduct, there would have been no probable

- 14 -
 Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 15 of 21 Pg ID.15

cause for Mr. Young to be charged with criminal sexual conduct.

49. As a result of Defendants conduct Mr. Young spent 27 years and

179 days wrongfully imprisoned for a crime he did not commit.

DETROITS CUSTOMS AND POLICIES THAT LED TO PLAINTIFFS

WRONGFUL CONVICTION
50. In and before April 18, 1989, the date Mr. Young was charged with

10 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct and 6 counts of second degree

criminal sexual conduct, the City of Detroit, by and through its policymakers, had

a custom and policy to authorize, condone, tolerate and approve illegal and

unconstitutional actions by Detroit Police Department officers and command

staff.

51. The illegal and unconstitutional actions and practices included but

were not limited to:

a. Conducting inadequate investigations into serious felony cases, such

as criminal sexual conduct, in order to expeditiously close cases, and
affirmatively choosing not to develop or pursue actual leads or
evidence;
b. Knowingly and deliberately suppressing and/or fabricating evidence
in order to manufacture probable cause to arrest and/or strengthen a
case for conviction;
c. Knowingly and deliberately choosing not to conduct formal tests and
identification procedures because investigators knew that the results
would contradict evidence against their target suspect.
52. Defendant, DETROIT, through its policymakers, further maintained

a custom and policy of failing to adequately train, supervise, and/or discipline

officers concerning proper and constitutionally adequate evidence collection,

- 15 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 16 of 21 Pg ID.16

analysis, and disclosure, including their duty not to suppress evidence and to

disclose apparent exculpatory and impeachment evidence.

53. DETROITs customs and policies, set forth above, demonstrated

deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens, including

Bernard Young, and were the moving force behind Defendant FOYs

constitutional violations.

54. Due to the conduct of Defendants FOY and DETROIT, as set forth

below, Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, suffered the following injuries and

damages:

a. Suffering a deprivation of liberty by being wrongfully incarcerated

and imprisoned for a period of over twenty-seven years;
b. Severe emotional distress for the period from his arrest to the
present, including, but not limited to: the emotional distress of being
charged with 10 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct and
6 counts of second degree criminal sexual conduct, facing a sentence
of 60- to 100-years in prison; and being wrongfully convicted of
crimes the Defendants knew he did not commit;
c. Physical manifestations of emotional distress including, but not
limited to, sleeplessness, irritability, loss of appetite, headaches, and
other symptoms;
d. Fright, shock, indignity, humiliation, outrage, indignity and
embarrassment of being wrongfully charged and imprisoned for
criminal sexual conduct;
e. Loss of enjoyment of daily activities including, but not limited to,
seeing his children grow up;
f. Not being able to attend the funerals of family members, including
his beloved wife;
g. Physical injuries suffered in prison;
h. Loss of employment opportunity, past income and future earning
capacity;
- 16 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 17 of 21 Pg ID.17

i. Loss of his close relationship with his minor children;

j. Restricted and/or complete loss of all forms of personal freedom and
physical liberty, including but not limited to diet, sleep, personal
contact, educational opportunity, vocational opportunity, personal
fulfillment, sexual activity, family relations, recreational activities,
and personal expression;
k. Many of Plaintiffs injuries and damages are likely to be permanent;
l. Other damages which may be revealed through discovery.

55. Due to the conduct of Defendants, FOY and DETROIT, as set forth

below, the true child abuser, William Clark, was never adequately convicted and

retained his freedom while Mr. Young spent over 27 years in prison.

COUNT I
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY ALL DEFENDANTS

56. Plaintiff incorporates herein all the prior allegations.

57. Defendant FOY was under an unwavering legal duty (Brady duty)

to disclose to the prosecutors all material evidence where its exculpatory and

impeachment value was apparent, including, but not limited to, the evidence that

she willingly suppressed, revealing that William Clark not Bernard Young

committed the criminal sexual conduct. Defendant FOYs failure to disclose the

above-referenced evidence to the prosecutor, or Defendant FOYs conspiracy

with the prosecutor to keep the evidence suppressed, resulted in material

exculpatory and impeachment evidence not being turned over to Plaintiffs

defense counsel, in violation of the States Brady obligations.

- 17 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 18 of 21 Pg ID.18

58. Defendant FOY was under a further duty to make truthful statements

to the prosecutor and magistrate judge to establish probable cause for an arrest

warrant.

59. Defendant FOY was under a further duty to make truthful statements

in the investigative reports she knew would go to the prosecutor to establish

probable cause for an arrest warrant.

60. Defendant FOY violated BERNARD YOUNGS constitutionally-

protected rights, including his right to liberty protected by the Due Process clause

of the Fifth Amendment, as applicable to the States via the Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the

Sixth Amendment, as well as his right to be free from continued unlawful

detention without probable cause as a result of suppressed evidence, guaranteed

by the Fourth Amendment, by the following conduct:

Brady Violations

Defendant FOY deliberately and knowingly, or with reckless disregard

for the truth, chose not to disclose material exculpatory and
impeachment evidence in her files to the prosecutor in violation of her
constitutional obligation under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963)
and its progeny, which would have resulted in no arrest warrant being
issued, or a finding of lack of probable cause at the preliminary exam
or an acquittal at trial; such conduct constitutes a claim for a Brady
violation under the Fifth Amendment;

Malicious Prosecution

Defendant FOY influenced or participated in the initiation of criminal

prosecution when she deliberately and knowingly supplied false

- 18 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 19 of 21 Pg ID.19

evidence by suppressing written statements which revealed that

William Clark committed the crimes which Bernard Young was
charged with, and supplied false information and/or omitted material
information which showed a reckless disregard for the truth in
requesting an arrest warrant and swearing to facts in support of probable
cause, which was material to a finding of probable cause. Such conduct
constitutes a claim of federal malicious prosecution under the Fourth
Amendment;
Fabrication of Evidence

Defendant FOY deliberately and knowingly presented fabricated

evidence to create probable cause, including written statements
implicating Bernard Young after receiving information proving those
statements false. The fabricated evidence was material to a finding of
probable cause that Plaintiff had engaged in criminal sexual conduct,
and would otherwise have been lacking; such conduct constitutes a
claim of fabrication of evidence under the Fourth Amendment;
Detroits Monell Liability

Defendant, DETROIT, created policies, practices and customs,

including a failure to provide adequate training to its police officers,
including Defendant FOY, in the manner set forth above, which
demonstrated deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its
citizens, and was the moving force behind Defendant FOYs violation
of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
61. Bernard Youngs right not to be deprived of liberty based upon

fabrication of evidence by a government official acting in an investigatory

capacity was clearly established before 1989.

62. Bernard Youngs right to be provided with material exculpatory and

impeachment evidence (Brady evidence), was clearly established before 1989.

63. Bernard Youngs right not to be seized and continuously detained

without probable cause, based upon a police officers deliberate and knowing

suppression of exculpatory evidence, advancement of false evidence, and false

- 19 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 20 of 21 Pg ID.20

statements and/or material omissions to prosecutors and magistrate judges,

guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, was clearly established before 1989.

64. Defendant FOYs Brady violations resulted in Plaintiff not receiving

a fair trial, described as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Kyles

v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995).

65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants willful violations

of his constitutionally-protected rights, Plaintiff was detained without probable

cause, charged with crimes he did not commit, wrongfully convicted and

imprisoned for over 27 years, and deprived of his liberty, causing him to suffer

the injuries and damages set forth above.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BERNARD YOUNG, demands judgment and

prays for the following relief, jointly and severally, against all Defendants:

a. Full and fair compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by

a jury;

b. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;

c. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action; and

d. Any such other relief as appears just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

- 20 -
Case 2:17-cv-14007-MFL-DRG ECF# 1 Filed 12/13/17 Pg 21 of 21 Pg ID.21

Respectfully submitted,

EXCOLO LAW, PLLC

By: /S/ Solomon M. Radner
SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)
Attorney for Plaintiff
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, Michigan 48033
Dated: December 13, 2017 (866) 939-2656

- 21 -