Acklin v. City of Inkster

Decision Date20 March 2015
Docket NumberCase No. 13–cv–13182.
PartiesDeshawn ACKLIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF INKSTER, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Shawn C. Cabot, Amy J. Derouin, Christopher Trainer and Assoc., White Lake, MI, for Plaintiff.

Rebecca H. Filiatraut, Secrest Wardle, Troy, MI, Sidney A. Klingler, Secrest Wardle, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [# 51]

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

On July 24, 2013, Deshawn Acklin (“Acklin” or Plaintiff) filed the instant Complaint, pursuant to Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code (“Section 1983 ”) and Michigan law. See Dkt. No. 1. In the Complaint, Acklin alleges that seven police officers, employed by the Police Department in the City of Inkster, used excessive force to execute an arrest without probable cause. See id. at 3–4. Initially, Acklin brought this action against the City of Inkster and the following seven police officers: William Melendez (“Melendez”), Shawn Adams (“Adams”), Jeffrey Czarnecki (“Czarnecki”), Allen Lash (“Lash”), Phillip Randazzo (“Randazzo”), Douglas Parson (“Parson”), and Daniel Schewe (“Schewe”).See id. at 1.

In the Complaint, Acklin asserts that the arresting officers violated his federal constitutional rights, as secured by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, by subjecting him to an unconstitutional search and seizure. See id. at 3–4. Acklin asserts the officers acted in the scope of their employment in both their individual and official capacities. See id. at 2. Additionally, Acklin asserts the City of Inkster has a custom and policy of falsely arresting citizens, and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to adequately train, supervise, and review the officers' conduct. See id. at 6–7.

On July 25, 2014, Acklin filed a separate Complaint against Jordan Dotter (“Dotter”), an auxiliary police officer for the Inkster Police Department. See Deshawn Acklin v. Jordan Dotter, No. 2:14–cv–12922. The Court consolidated the case against Dotter with the present action; adding Dotter as a Defendant with the other Defendants in the present action. See Dkt. No. 41.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 51. The matter is fully briefed, and, after reviewing the briefs of the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument will not aid in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the Court will resolve the Defendants' Motion on the briefs submitted. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [# 51].

II. Factual Background

DeShawn Acklin was arrested by police officers from the City of Inkster Police Department on July 26, 2011. After reviewing the briefing on this matter, the details of Acklin's arrest are in dispute. Mr. Acklin's recollection of the arrest differs markedly from the events recounted by the Defendants. However, even the Defendants' recitations of the arrest contain subtle inconsistencies that this Court cannot ignore. In light of the differences between Acklin's version of events, and subtle inconsistencies in the Officers accounts, the Court will provide a summary of the multiple accounts explaining what occurred on July 26, 2011.

A. Acklin's Account

Acklin states he was “just hanging out” and driving his mother's black 2000 Crown Victoria when he picked up his friend Anthony Freeman (“Freeman”) around 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 2011. After picking up Freeman, Acklin states that he and Freeman “cruised around” until 4:00 p.m. listening to music.

After “cruising around,” Acklin recalls picking up four of Freeman's female friends and taking them to Josh Levye's (Levye) house, located at 3574 Isabelle Street in the City of Inkster. Upon arriving at Levye's house, Acklin recalls “hanging out on [Levye's] porch” with Levye, Freeman, and the four females. To his knowledge, Acklin does not recall anyone possessing weapons or drugs. Acklin specifically asserts that he did not have any weapons or drugs on his person. Acklin does recall having “a fifth of Vodka, but it was unopen.” Acklin asserts that he and his friends “didn't get to drink [and] we didn't get to smoke.”

Around 8:00 p.m., Acklin recalls going inside Levye's house to use the bathroom. Acklin is adamant that only he went into the house at this point. He asserts that he was only in the house for a matter of minutes before the police arrived at the home. When Acklin emerged from the bathroom, he asserts that Freeman had entered the house and that there was “a lot of beating on the door,” which Acklin assumed to be the police.

Acklin asserts that he sat in the middle of the house while the police were knocking on the door and did not open the door because it was not his house. Acklin then asserts the police kicked in the side door of the house, came through the kitchen, and turned the corner to encounter him and Freeman. Acklin asserts that he didn't really know any of the officers, but did seem to imply that he knew Defendant Randazzo, who was wearing plainclothes.

According to Acklin, Randazzo's partner fist made contact and directed Acklin to freeze, and Acklin complied. Acklin remembers Randazzo's partner wearing plainclothes and describes him as a muscular white man with a build similar to “the Rock.” After he froze, Acklin says that Randazzo's partner directed him to come to him, and Acklin complied. Acklin states that the officers directed Freeman to get on the ground, whereupon Freeman was handcuffed.

Similarly, Acklin claims that the officers instructed him to get down. Acklin asserts that he complied and put his hands behind his back. Acklin states he was handcuffed halfway on the floor and halfway on top of a mattress in the living room. Upon being handcuffed, Acklin asserts he was punched in the face, a knee was placed into his back, and he was assaulted by Randazzo and Randazzo's partner. According to Acklin, he was choked, punched, and beaten until he defecated on himself and went unconscious. Acklin states that the officers were yelling for him to stop resisting, though Acklin insists he was not resisting. Acklin does not recall much about the assault. He does, however, remember an officer dressed in uniform stopping the assault by tapping Randazzo's partner on the shoulder and saying “that's enough.”

Acklin remembers getting picked up and everyone having “a shocked face expression[.] He asserts he was kept in handcuffs and escorted directly to the hospital in a squad car by “the same officers who jumped on [him.] On the way to the hospital, Acklin claims he asked why he was being arrested. According to Acklin, Defendant Randazzo replied that the officers were looking for a suspect in the neighborhood, and Acklin fit the suspect's description.

At the hospital, Acklin asserts that Randazzo's partner taunted him by asking whether Acklin liked the “wrestling moves when he choked [him].” After leaving the hospital Acklin was taken to jail, where he waited for three days. He was able to change out of his soiled clothing within a few hours of sitting in jail. Upon being told that drugs were found on Levye and two guns were found in the house, Acklin states he was surprised. He stated that Freeman wrongly accused him of owning one of the two guns that was found in the bedroom of the house. Acklin asserts he never entered any bedroom inside the house at any time.

In sum, Acklin maintains that he never saw police officers arrive outside of the house because he was inside. Acklin claims he never ran from the police at any time, never resisted arrest, never attempted to fight the police, never had a gun, never reached into his waistband, never possessed drugs, and never yelled or spit at the police. Following his arrest, Acklin claims he never went to court, was never charged as a result of the incident, and was released after three days out through the back door of the jail.

B. Defendant Melendez's Account

Defendant Melendez claims he was working in an undercover capacity on July 26, 2011, when checking the area around Isabelle for a black male wanted for a shooting. Melendez asserts the police were looking for an individual named “Johny” with a tattoo of a gun on his neck and the phrase “Fuck the world” on his forehead. The officers' investigation led them to conclude that the suspect frequented the area of Isabelle.

According to Melendez, the area of Isabelle was known as a narcotic location. Because of Isabelle's reputation, Melendez claims Defendant Randazzo decided to use the undercover vehicle to conduct surveillance in the area to search for the suspect. Melendez states that he and Randazzo drove southbound past 3574 Isabelle Street in Inkster around 1:54 a.m., with the house on his right-hand side. Notably, Melendez says there were several “runs” to 3574 Isabelle Street for shots fired from the side of the house.

When driving past the location, Melendez states that he saw three males and two or three females conversing in front of a dark colored Ford that was parked in the driveway of the house. Melendez notes that the undercover vehicle had tinted windows, and that he and Defendant Randazzo passed by the house slowly. The individuals outside of the house purportedly looked at the vehicle and stopped their conversation. Given the officers' investigation, and because Isabelle was a high crime area and loud music playing, Melendez indicated that the situation warranted an investigation.

According to Melendez, Randazzo passed by the house, drove down the street, and “immediately” got on the radio to request back up. Randazzo advised the backup of the location, and coordinated the scout cars and how they would approach the house in position. Melendez and Randazzo then drove back to the house and their undercover vehicle was the first in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Slayton v. City of River Rouge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 27, 2021
    ...application of force." Amerson v. Waterford Twp., 562 Fed. Appx. 484, 492 (6th Cir. 2014) ; See also Acklin v. City of Inkster , 93 F. Supp. 3d 778, 797 (E.D. Mich. 2015). Regarding the City of Wyandotte, there is no evidence put forth showing "deliberate indifference." Plaintiff does not s......
  • Ford v. City of Detroit
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • November 15, 2019
    ...cuffs when asked and gratuitously shoved Donnetta, a reasonable jury could find that theyacted maliciously."); Acklin v. City of Inkster, 93 F. Supp. 3d 778, 800 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (reasonable jury could infer officers acted in bad faith when they used excessive force on plaintiff). Defendan......
  • Bradley v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 9, 2019
    ...conduct was objectively unreasonable, it will not grant summary judgment on the assault and battery count. See Acklin v. Inkster, 93 F.Supp.3d 778 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (finding that where officer conduct was objectively unreasonable, the plaintiff could proceed with his assault and battery cla......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT