You are on page 1of 43

Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13

Page
1 of 43
Page
ID#1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EUGENE
POST,
as the Personal
Representative
for the
Estate ofTerri L. Greene
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
V.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
I
MARY T.
WIDENER,
in her official and individual
capacities,
CHARLES
RUFFIN,
in his official and individual
capacities,
TIMOTHY
ALANA,
in his official and individual
capacities,
EATON
COUNTY,
EATON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,
MICHAEL
RAINES,
in his official and individual
capacities,
FRED
MCPHAIL,
in his official and individual
capacities,
J OHN AND J ANE DOES 1
through 10,
in their
official and individual
capacities,
1' and CHRISTOPHER PERRIEN,
Defendants.
Fillipe
Iorio
(P58741)
Kurt Kline
(P7229I)
Attorneys
for Plaintiff
KALNIZ,
LORIO &FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade
Road,
SE
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
Phone:
(616)
940-1911
Fax:
(616)
940-1942
fiorio@kiflaw.com
kklinegkifiaw.com
COMPLAINT AND J URY DEMAND
THERE IS NO OTHER CIVIL ACTION BETWEEN THESE PARTIES ARISING
OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE AS ALLEGED IN THIS
COMPLAINT PENDING IN THIS
COURT,
NOR HAS ANY SUCH ACTION BEEN
PREVIOUSLY FILED AND DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED AFTER HAVING
Law Offices oi
BEEN ASSIGNED TO A J UDGE.
KALANZ,
10R10
FELDSTEIN CO., EPA..
4981 Cascada Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
M14I 49546
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
2 of 43
Page
ID#2
NOW COMES the
Plaintiff, Eugene Post,
as the Personal
Representative
for the Estate
ofTerri L.
Greene, by
and
through
his
attorneys,
the lawoffices of
Kalniz,
lorio &Feldstein
Co., L.P.A.,
and for his
Complaint hereby
states and avers as follows:
J URISDICTION AND VENUE
1,
Eugene
Post is the
duly appointed
Personal
Representative
of the Estate of Terri L.
Greene
("Ms. Greene"),
his
daughter, appointed by
the Probate Court for the
County
of
Eaton,
State of
Michigan,
on October
7, 2011,
Case Number 11-48208-DE,
2. The
Michigan Department
of Corrections
("MDOC")
is a
governmental agency
of the
State of
Michigan,
created
pursuant
to the laws of the State of
Michigan,
and is
charged
with
supervising parolees
and
probationers
released from
prison
and/or
jail,
and is
charged
with
administering
and
supervising
the State of
Michigan's
Work Release
Program.
3. At all times relevant to this
Complaint,
Defendant
Mary
Widener
("Defendant
Widener")
was a
probation agent employed by
the
MDOC,
and was
acting
under color
of lawand
pretense
of the
statutes, ordinances,
regulations,
laws, customs,
policies,
and
usages
of the State of
Michigan
and Eaton
County
and was
acting
in the course and
scope
of her
employment
with the MDOC at the time of the acts and/or omissions
complained
of
herein,
and is
being
sued in her official and individual
capacities.
4. At all times relevant to this
Complaint,
Defendant Charles Ruffin
("Defendant Ruffin")
was a
probation agent employed by
the
MDOC,
and was
acting
under color and
pretense
of the
statutes, ordinances, regulations, laws, customs, policies,
and
usages
of
the State of
Michigan
and Eaton
County
and was
acting
in the course and
scope
of his
2
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
3 of 43
Page
ID#3
employment
with the MDOC at the time of the acts and/or omissions
complained
of
herein,
and is
being
sued in his official and individual
capacities.
5. At all times relevant to this
Complaint,
Defendant
Timothy
Alana
("Defendant Alana")
was
employed by
the MDOC,
and was
acting
under color and
pretense
of the
statutes,
ordinances, regulations,
laws, customs, policies,
and
usages
of the State of
Michigan;
and Eaton
County
and was
acting
in the course and
scope
of his
employment
with the
MDOC at the time of the acts and/or omissions
complained
of
herein,
and is
being
sued
in his official and individual
capacities.
6. Defendant Eaton
County
is a
municipal corporation
formed
pursuant
to the laws of
Michigan,
and one of its functions is to
organize,
maintain,
operate,
staff,
and
supervise:
a sheriffs
department,
7. Defendant Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department
is an Eaton
County agency
believed to
be
responsible
for the
oversight, policy
and
procedure
making, staffing, training,
and
rule enforcement
regarding
sheriff's
deputies
and staff that act in Eaton
County,
Michigan, including specifically,
those law enforcement officers
charged
with
administering
the Eaton
County
J ail and the Eaton
County
Work Release
Program.
8. At all times relevant to this
Complaint,
Defendant Michael Raines
("Defendant
Raines")
was the Sheriff of Eaton
County
and was
responsible
for the
supervision
and
training
of Eaton
County
Sheriff
personnel
and is believed to have been
responsible
for
the
oversight, policy
and
procedure
making, staffing, training
and rule enforcement
regarding
sheriff s
deputies
that act in Eaton
County, Michigan,
and is
being
sued in his
official and individual
capacities.
Law Offices at
KALNIZ, (ORO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
4981 Cascade Rd ST.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
H
3
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
4 of 43
Page
ID#4
9. At all times relevant to this
Complaint,
Defendant Fred McPhail
("Defendant
McPhail")
was the Undersheriff of Eaton
County
and was
responsible
for the
supervision
and
training
of Eaton
County
Sheriff
personnel
and is believed to have been
responsible
for
the
oversight, policy
and
procedure
making, staffing, training
and rule enforcement
regarding
sheriff's
deputies
that act in Eaton
County, Michigan,
and is
being
sued in his
official and individual
capacities.
10. Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1
through
10 are
currently
unknown
probation
and
parole
officers
employed by
the MDOC and/or Eaton
County
sheriff's
deputies charged
with the
supervision
of
inmates, parolees,
and
probationers
within the MDOC and Eaton
County
J ail and whose identities are not known at this time and were not able to be
obtained
through
reasonable efforts and
diligence,
and are
being
sued in their official
and individual
capacities.
11. The MDOC at all times relevant to this
Complaint
was
responsible
for the
hiring,:
training, supervising,
disciplining,
and
instructing
of its
probation agents
in the
performance
of their
job
duties and was
responsible
for
setting policies
and
procedures
for
employees'
and
probation agents'
conduct and enforcement ofthe law.
12. Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Defendant Raines,
and
Defendant McPhail at all times relevant to this
Complaint
were
responsible
for
hiring,:
training, supervising,
disciplining,
and
instructing
their
deputies
in the
performance
of
their
job
duties and were
responsible
for
setting policies
and
procedures
for
employees'
and
deputies'
conduct and enforcement ofthe law.
13.
Christopher
A. Perrien
("Defendant
Perrien")
was at all times relevant hereto an inmate
Latv Offices of
with the
Michigan Department
of Corrections
serving
a 300
day jail
sentence in the
KALMZ, IORIO &;
FELDSTEIN CO.,
EPA..i
4981 Cascade Rd. 5.6.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546.
4
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
5 of 43
Page
ID#5
Eaton
County
J ail,
located in the
County
of
Eaton,
State of
Michigan
and is
currently
serving
two life sentences without the
possibility
of
parole
in the Oaks Correctional
Facility,
in the
County
of Manistee,
State of
Michigan,
for the
September
22,
2011:
murders of Ms. Greene and her husband Michael Greene. Mr. Perrien is also
serving
a
twenty
to
thirty year
sentence for a
September,
2010 home invasion.
14. This Court
possesses original jurisdiction
of this action
pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.
1331
because the Plaintiff's claims arise from violations of Plaintiff's decedent's
constitutional
rights
as
protected by
42 U.S.C.
1983.
15. This Court
possesses supplemental jurisdiction
over the
pending
state-law claims
pursuant
to 42 U.S.C.
1367
because those claims arise from the same case or
controversy
as the federal claims.
16. Venue is
proper
in this Court
pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.
1391 (b)
because at least one
Defendant resides in this
judicial
district, and, additionally,
all of the actions
forming
the basis ofthis
Complaint
arise in this
judicial
district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through
sixteen
(16)
as if
fully
restated herein.
18. On or about
September
22, 2011,
Plaintiff's decedent Ms. Greene and her husband
Michael Greene were murdered at their residence at 7167 Eaton
Highway,
Delta
Township,
Eaton
County, Michigan,
after
sustaining multiple gunshot
wounds inflicted
by
Defendant Perrien.
19. On
September
22, 2011,
Defendant Perrien was a
parolee/probationer
released from the
Law Offices of
Eaton
County
J ail on court-ordered
work release while
serving
a 300
day jail
sentence
KALNIZ, IORIO
FELDSTEIN CO.. L.PA.
4981 Cascade Rd. s.E.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
5
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
6 of 43
Page
ID#6
for
stealing/retaining
a financial transaction device without consent in violation of MCL
750.157NI
(Habitual
Criminal 4th
Offense)
in 56th Circuit Court Case No. 11-99-F111.
20. Defendant Perrien was sentenced in Case No. 11-99-FH on
September
1,
2011 before
J udge
Thomas S. Eveland. Defendant Perrien was sentenced to 300
days
in the Eaton
County
J ail but was ordered
eligible
for the work release
program
between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday
with a 45 minute drive time. At the
time of his
sentencing,
Defendant Perrien was in violation of his
parole.
Additionally,
there was a
parole
violation warrant
type
#2 issued
by
the MDOC-Kent/Grand
Rapids
Office for Defendant Perrien that
disqualified
himfromwork release.
21. At
sentencing,
Defendant Perrien
represented
that he was
employed
with Advanced
Building
Contractors Inc.,
located at 4660 South
Hagadorn
Rd.,
East
Lansing, Michigan
48823-5371 with a
telephone
number of 517-894-6038. Defendant
Perrien
provided
a
letter fipm his
alleged employer, signed by
one
Crystal
Gonzales,
Human Resource
Manager
for Advanced
Building
Contractors, Inc.,
dated
August
8,
2011 that indicated
that Defendant Perrien was
employed
with Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc. The
same was filed with the court on
September
2,
2011.
22. Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc. is a fictitious
company
created
by
Defendant
Perrien that did not exist on
September
1, 2011,
does not now exist,
and has never
existed. The
August
8,
2011 letter
provided by
Defendant Perrien was not on
company
letterhead and a review of
Michigan
business records reveals that Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc. has never existed.
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, IORIO
FELDSTEIN CO.,
LEA.
4981 Ce.s.cde Rd. S.E.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
6
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
7 of 43
Page
ID#7
23. Defendant
Widener was
present during
Defendant Perrien's sentencing
and did not
object
to the court-ordered
work release for Defendant
Perrien, Defendant
Widener
knewor should have known that Defendant
Perrien was not
eligible
for work release.
24. Defendant
Ruffin was the MDOC
probation agent
assigned
to Defendant Perrien's
case.
Mr. Ruffin did not
object
to Defendant Perrien's
court-ordered
work release.
On
September
16, 2011,
Defendant Ruffin and his
supervisor,
Defendant Alarm, approved
Defendant Perfien for work release
by executing
an Eaton
County
Sheriff s Office,
Corrections Division
Work Release
Agreement.
Upon
information
and belief,
had
Defendant Ruffin or Defendant
Alana made
any attempt
to
verify
Defendant
Perrien's
employment
with Advanced Building
Contractors Inc., they
would have learned that the
company
was fictitious and that Defendant Perrien was not
employed
as
required
for
work release.
25.
Upon
information
and belief,
the MDOC and its
employees
and
agents,
including,
but
not limited to,
Defendant Widener,
Defendant Ruffin,
and Defendant Alana,
failed to,
verify
whether Defendant
Perrien was
actually employed
and failed to
verify
whether
Advanced Building
Contractors,
Inc.
actually
existed,
a
cursory
review of which would
have revealed that no such
company
existed.
26.
Upon
information and belief,
Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department,,
Defendant Raines,
Defendant McPhail,
and their
employees
and
agents
failed to
verify
whether Defendant
Perrien was
actually employed
and failed to
verify
whether;
Advanced Building
Contractors,
Inc.
actually
existed,
a
cursory
review of which would
have revealed that no such
company
existed.
Law Offices of
KALMZ, IOR10
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E
Grand RaPds,
MI 49546:
7
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
8 of 43
Page
ID#8
27.
Upon
information and belief,
Defendant Perrien was on
court-approved
work release
on;
September
22,
2011 at the time that he murdered Ms. Greene and Michael Greene.
28. Rather than
going
to work on
September
22, 2011,
Defendant Perrien went to the
Greene residence at 7167 Eaton
Highway,
Delta
Township,
Eaton
County, Michigan.
There Defendant Perrien robbed and imirdered Ms. Greene and Michael Greene
by;
multiple gunshot
wounds.
Following
the murders,
Defendant Perrien sold
belongings
of
Ms. Greene and Michael Greene,
showered at his
girlfriend's
house,
and ate dinner
before
returning
to the Eaton
County
J ail that
evening.
29. Ms. Greene's
body
was found
by
her
parents dumped
in a
pond
located in the Greene's;
backyard.
Ms. Greene had been shot twice in the head. Ms. Greene was found
underneath a wheelbarrow used to move her to the
pond
and a blue
moving
blanket
was
covering
the wheelbarrow.
30.
Following
the
murders,
Defendant Perrien continued to leave the Eaton
County jail
on
work release. Law enforcement officers were able to track Defendant Perrien's
movements via a
global positioning system ("GPS")
in Ms. Greene's cell
phone.
Additional evidence linked Defendant Perrien to the murders and he was arrested
days
later while out on work release.
Subsequent
GPS
reports
established that
Defendant;
Perrien drove
by
the Greene's house
approximately
three times
casing
the location in
the
days prior
to
September
22,
2011 and that his car was located at the Greene's home
on
September
22,
2011 between 11:28 a.m. and 1:40
p.m.,
the time the
investigators
believe the murders occurred.
Law Offices of
KALNE, IOW&
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.1
4981 Cascade Rd. S E
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546,
8
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
9 of 43
Page
ID#9
31. In
April,
2013 Defendant Perrien was tried and convicted on two counts of
first-degree
felony
murder and two counts of
being
a felon in
possession
of a firearm. On
May
9,
2013 Defendant Perrien was sentenced to life in
prison
without the
possibility
of
parole.
32.
Upon
information and
belief, prior
to
September
1, 2011,
Defendant Perrien had a
long
and sometimes violent criminal record that
disqualified
him from the work release
program
which the Defendants knewor should have known about.
33.
Upon
information and
belief, prior
to
September 1,
2011 Defendant Perrien had a
history
of
failing
to
report
to his
probation
officers,
of
violating parole,
of
absconding
from
parole,
and of
failing
to
report
under work release
programs,
a
history
of which
disqualified
him fromthe work release
program
which the Defendants knew or should
have known about.
34.
Specifically, prior
to
September
1,
2011 Defendant Perrien was
charged
and
convicted;
of the
following
criminal offenses of which the Defendants knew or should have known
about:
Breaking
and
entering
of a vehicle to steal
property
in violation of
MCL750.356(A)
&
(B)
and habitual offender status 769.11
(12/16/1997)
Uttering
and
publishing
in violation of MCL750.249 and habitual
offender status 769.11
(5/2/2000)
Illegal
sale of use of a financial transaction device in violation of
MCL750.157(Q)
and habitual offender status
769.11(5/31/2000)
Uttering
and
publishing
in violation ofMCL750.249
(7/19/2001)
Illegal
sale or use of a financial transaction device in violation of
MCL750.157(Q) (8/27/2001)
Stealing
or
retaining
without consent a financial transaction device in
violation of
MCL750.157(N)(1) (8/30/2001)
Lew Offices at
KALN1Z, IORIO
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA,
Larceny by
false
personation
in violation ofMCL750.363
(10/31/2001)
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand RapIds,
MI 49546
9
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
10 of 43
Page
ID#10
Uttering
and
publishing
in violation of MCL750.249 and habitual
offender status 769.12
(9/10/2010)
First
Degree
Home Invasion in violation of MCL750.11082 and habitual
offender status 769.12
(9/1012010)
Defendant Perrien also had the
following
additional
probation
violations:
Issuing
checks without an account or without sufficient funds in
violation of
MCL750.131(A)(1)
and habitual offender status 769.12
(11/18/2010)
Stealing
or
retaining
without consent a financial transaction device in
violation of
MCL750.157(N)(1)
and habitual offender status 769.12
(4/16/2010)
Multiple
failed
drug tests;
Arrested for
driving
under the influence of
drugs
with minors in the
car;
Leaving
the State of
Michigan
without
permission;
Aggravated
domestic assault of
Rayna
Kikos on
August
18,
2006.
35.
Upon
information and
belief, prior
to
September
1,
2011 Defendant Perrien violated his
parole approximately twenty-six (26)
times,
absconded on
parole
at least three times,
failed to
report
on
parole
on
multiple
occasions,
and was
assigned
to work release in
1999 but failed to
go
to
work,
all of which Defendants knew or should have known
about.
36.
Upon
information and
belief, prior
to
September
1, 2011,
Defendant Perrien was a
dangerous
and violent criminal. Defendant Perrien had an assault and
battery
conviction
in
1994,
while on
parole
was sent to the Correction Center for
ninety (90) days
for
assault,
and was ordered to the Technical Rules Violation Center for a domestic
violence situation on
J uly 8, 2007,
all of which Defendants knew of or should have
Law Offices of
KALNIZ,
IOW&
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
known about.
Additionally,
at various
times,
Defendant Perrien was
subject
to nine
(9)
4981 Cascade Rd.
Grand
Rapids,
M1 49546
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
11 of 43
Page
ID#11
separate personal protection
orders,
three
(3)
for
stalking
and six
(6)
for domestic
violence
restraining orders, all ofwhich Defendant knewor should have known about.
37. Had the MDOC and its
employees
and
agents including,
but not limited
to,
Defendant
Widener, Defendant
Ruffin,
and Defendant Alana not
approved
Defendant Perrien for
work release on or after
September 1, 2011,
Defendant Perrien would have been in
jail
on
September
22,
2011 and would not have had the
opportunity
to murder Ms. Greene
and Michael Greene.
38. Had Eaton
County
and/or the Eaton
County
Sherifrs
Department
and its
employees
and
agents including,
but not limited
to,
Defendant Raines and Defendant McPhail
not;
approved
Defendant Perrien for work release on or after
September
1, 2011,
Defendant
Perrien would have been in
jail
on
September
22,
2011 and would not have had
the;
opportunity
to murder Ms. Greene and Michael Greene.
39. Had the MDOC and its
employees
and
agents including,
but not limited
to,
Defendant
Widener,
Defendant
Ruffin,
and Defendant Alana taken
any steps
to
verify
Defendant
Perrien's
employment
such as
attempting
to contact his
alleged employer, requesting
a
weekly pay
stub, requiring
a letter of verification on
company
letterhead,
or searched
public
databases for
company
records,
Defendant Perrien would not have been
granted
work release or his work release would have been
immediately
revoked and Defendant
Perrien would have been in
jail
on
September
22,
2011 and would not have had the
opportunity
to murder Ms. Greene and Michael Greene.
1!,
40. Had Eaton
County
and/or the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department
and its
employees
and
agents, including
but not
limited,
Defendant Raines and Defendant McPhail,
taken
any
Law Offices of
steps
to
verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
such as
attempting
to contact his
KALNIZ, IORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO., L.PA.
4981 Cascada Rd. S.E.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
11
it,
11
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
12 of 43
Page
ID#12
alleged employer, requesting
a
weekly pay
stub,
requiring
a letter of verification on
company
letterhead,
or searched
public
databases for
company
records,
Defendant
Perrien would not have been
granted
work release or his work release would have been
immediately
revoked and Defendant Perrien would have been in
jail
on
September
22,
2011 and would not have had the
opportunity
to murder Ms. Greene and Michael
Greene.
41 On
September
1,
2011 the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department's policy regarding
work
release
provided
in relevant
part
that: "Work schedule, hours, travel,
and
any
other
details are the
responsibility
of the inmate,
court and
probation department,
not the
1
Eaton
County Sherins Office]." "Only
the courts or the
probation
office has the
1
authority
to make
any changes
in the work schedule or hours worked." "All work
release orders established
by
the courts will be followed without
exception."
42.
Upon
information and belief,
on
September
1,
2011 it was the official
policy
of the
Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department
to "assume" that the
judge assigned
to the case and
the defendant's
parole agent,
an MDOC
employee,
had vetted the
parolee's
1
employment
before
releasing
a
parolee
from
jail
for work release.
43. In a statement attributed to Defendant McPhail,
he stated that the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
had "no control" over the work release
program.
Defendant
McPhail was
quoted
as
stating
"If we had
any input
in the
process,
a career felon like
Perrien would not have been
granted
work release."
44. On December
22,
2011 the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
issued a
press
release
concerning
Defendant Perrien. The
press
release
provides
in relevant
part
as follows:
LawOffices of
KALNIZ,
(ORO &
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49548
12
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
13 of 43
Page
ID#13
"Sheriff Raines stated,
"Perrien was
assigned
a Probation/Parole Agent
but his
actual
employment
was never verified. Our
investigation
determined he was
on;
work-release without
actually having
a
job."
Sheriff Raines
immediately
revoked Perrien's work release status
pending
further court action and he remained in our
custody.
Sheriff Raines
said,
"Work release is a valuable tool,
designed
for those
convicted of
relatively
minor offenses to serve their time in
jail,
while
maintaining
their
ability
to
support
their
family.
However,
in
my opinion,
Perrien,
never should have been
granted
the
opportunity
for Work Release,
considering
his
lengthy
criminal
history,
which
began nearly
20
years ago".
i
As a result of Perrien's release without
proper oversight,
Sheriff Raines ordered
a review of ALL work release inmates and took the
following
measures to
address these concerns.
Promptly
contracted with a
private company
to monitor ALL
work release inmates with a GPS ankle tether device. The cost of the
tether will be
directly
billed to and
paid
for
by
the
inmate,
not the
taxpayer.
42
Require
work releasers to
provide
an
original pay
stub each
pay
period
to J ail Staff in addition to
any requirements
ofthe court.
43
Require
work releasers to
provide
verification of
employment
and
work hours on
company
letterhead to J ail Staff in addition to
any
requirements
ofthe court.
Sheriff Raines
stated, "any
violations while on work release will result in the
immediate termination ofwork release
status,
until or unless it is reinstated
by
a
court order"."
45.
Upon
information and
belief,
Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sherifrs
Department
did not have a
policy
and failed to train its
employees
and
agents including
sheriff s
deputies regarding verifying eligibility
and
employment
of a
parolee
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release.
46.
Upon
information and belief,
on
September
1,
2011 the MDOC did not have a statewide
j
policy
for
verifying eligibility
and
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out ot ail tor
LawOffices of
KALNIZ, (ORO &
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P/L!
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand RapVs,
MI 49546
13
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
14 of 43
Page
ID#14
work release. Rather, the MDOC's
policy
was to "assume" that the local sheriff s
office verified
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release.
47.
Upon
information and belief,
the MDOC did not have a
policy
and failed to train its
employees
and
agents including parole
and
probation agents regarding verifying
eligibility
and
employment
of a
parolee
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work
release.
COUNT I COMMON LAW GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin
andAlana
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities)
48. Plaintiffherein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through forty-seven (47)
as
if
fully
restated herein.
49. Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and other MDOC
employees
and
agents
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a. The
duty
to abide
by
the laws ofthe state of
Michigan;
b. The
duty
to
properly
and
adequately
hire, train, supervise,
and
discipline
MDOC
parole
and
probation
officers
acting
in the State of
Michigan
under color of
law;
c. The
duty
to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
ofthe
MDOC;
d. The
duty
to
investigate,
review, report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations in
general
and work release violations
specifically
as
required by
Michigan
law;
e. The
duty
to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same exists;
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, fORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO., L, PA.
4961 Cascade Rd. S.E.
GrandRaptcfs
MI 49545
14
'1 Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
15 of 43
Page
ID#15
f. The
duty
to
verify,
monitor and
supervise parolees
and
probationers
on work
release, including
the
duty
to
verify
that said
parolees
and
probationers
have
valid
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on work release and to
verify
that said individuals maintain valid
employment during
the course of their work
release;
g.
The
duty
to ensure that
parolees
and
probationers
released from
jail
on
work;
release are
eligible
for work release;
h. The
duty
to act as a reasonable
public entity,
state
agency,
or
parole
or
probation
agent
would act under the circumstances then and there
existing;
and
i. The
duty
to have a reasonable
policy
or customconcerning
work release.
50, Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alarm,
and other MDOC
employees
and
agents
breached their
respective
duties owed to
plaintiff
in the
following particular
ways:
a. Failure to abide
by
the laws ofthe State of
Michigan;
b. Failure to
properly
and
adequately
hire, train, supervise,
and
discipline
MDOC
parole
and
probation agents;
c. Failure to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
ofthe MDOC,
and to
specifically
monitor and
supervise
Defendant Perrien;
d. Failure to
investigate,
review, report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations
in
general
and work release violations
specifically
as
required by Michigan
law;
e. Failure to arrest Defendant Perrien for
parole
or
probation
violations where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
f. Failure to revoke Defendant Perrien's
parole
for numerous
parole
or
probation
violations where
probable
cause
supporting
the same exists;
Lew Offices of
KALMZ,
10F110 &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
4981 Cascade Rd. SE
Grand
Rapids,
hi 49546
1 5
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
16 of 43
Page
ID#16
g.
Failure to
verify,
monitor and
supervise
Defendant Perrien, including
the
duty
to
I verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on work
release and failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien maintained valid
employment during
the course ofhis work release;
h. Failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien was
eligible
for work release
prior
to
being
released from
jail;
i. Failure to act as a reasonable
public entity,
state
agency
or
parole
or
probation:
agent
would act under the circumstances then and there
existing;
and
j.
Failure to maintain a reasonable
policy
or
custom
concerning
work release.
51. In
breaching
said duties as set forth
herein,
Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin,
Alana
and other
employees
and
agents
of Defendant MDOC acted
grossly negligent
as that
term is used in MCL 691.1407 because the acts "were conduct so reckless as to
demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an
injury result[ed]"
to
plaintiff's
decedent,
52. In
breaching
said duties as set forth
herein,
Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin,
Alana
and other
employees
and
agents
of Defendant MDOC acted
willfully, wantonly,
maliciously
and in bad faith.
53. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willilil, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts of the Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin,
Alana and
other
employees
and
agents
of Defendant MDOC,
the
plaintiff
s decedent was
murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological, including
shock and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the time ofher death.
Offices of
KALN1Z, fORIO
FFLOSTEIN CO., LP4.!
4981 Cascada Rd. S.E.
Grand Raplds,
M149546
1 6
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
17 of 43
Page
ID#17
54. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts of the Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin,
Alana and
other
employees
and
agents
of Defendant MDOC,
plaintiff
s decedent's
family,
including
her
only
child,
has been
deprived
of the financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri Greene,
and have sustained other
compensable damages,
including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary therapy
and
prescription drug
costs incurred
in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable loss ofa beloved
family
member.
COUNT H COMMON LAW GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
J ohn andJ ane Does 1-10
i
1
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities
as
employees
ofDefendant
MDOC)
55. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through fifty-four (54)
as if
fully
restated herein.
56. Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10,
as
employees
and
agents
of the MDOC, including
but not limited
parole
and
probation agents,
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a. The
duty
to abide
by
the laws ofthe state of
Michigan;
b. The
duty
to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
ofthe
MDOC;
e. The
duty
to
investigate,
review, report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations in
general
and work release violations
specifically
as
required by
Michigan
law;
d. The
duty
to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same exists;
Law Offices of
KALMZ,
10R10 &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L P. A
49Th Cascada Rd. SE.
Grand
Ragds,
MI 49546:
17
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
18 of 43
Page
ID#18
e. The
duty
to
verify,
monitor and
supervise parolees
and
probationers
on work
release under the
jurisdiction
of the
MDOC, including
the
duty
to
verify
that I
said
parolees
and
probationers
have valid
employment
before
being
released
I
from
jail
on work release and to
verify
that said individuals maintain valid
employment during
the course oftheir work
release;
f. The
duty
to ensure that
parolees
and
probationers
released from
jail
on work
I
release under tbe
jurisdiction
ofthe MDOC are
eligible
for work
release;
g.
The
duty
to act as a reasonable
parole
or
probation agents
would act under the
I
circumstances then and there
existing;
and
h. The
duty
to have a reasonable
policy
or custom
concerning
work release.
57. Defendant J ohn and J ane Does 1-10 breached their
respective
duties owed to
plaintiff
in
the
following particular ways:
a. Failure to abide
by
the laws ofthe State of
Michigan;
b. Failure to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
I
ofthe
MDOC,
and to
specifically
monitor and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien;
c. Failure to
investigate, review,
report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations
in
general
and work release violations
specifically
as
required by Michigan
law
d. Failure to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
e. Failure to
verify,
monitor and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien, including
the
duty
to
I
verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on work
I
release and failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien maintained valid
employment during
the course ofhis work
release;
Law Offioes of
KALNIZ, fORID &
FELDSTEIN CO., L, PA.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
GrandRapids, MI 49696
1 8
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
19 of 43
Page
ID#19
f. Failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien was
eligible
for work release
prior
to
being
released from
jail;
g.
Failure to act as a reasonable
parole
or
probation agent
would act under the
circumstances then and there
existing;
and
h. Failure to maintain a reasonable
policy
or custom
concerning
work release.
58. In
breaching
said duties as set forth herein,
Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10 acted
grossly negligent
as that term is used in MCL 691.1407 because the acts
"were conduct
so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an
injury
result[ed]"
to
plaintifPs
decedent.
59. In
breaching
said duties as set forth
herein,
Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10 acted;
willfully, wantonly, maliciously
and in bad faith.
60. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts of the Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10,
the
plaintiff
s
decedent was murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up to;
and
through
the time of her death.
61. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts of the Defendants J ohn and J ane Does
1-10, plaintiff's
decedent's
family, including
her
only
child,
has been
deprived
of the financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri Greene,
and have sustained other
compensable
damages, including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary therapy
and;
prescription drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable loss of a
beloved
family
member.
Law Olfict,s of
KALNIZ, OHIO
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd.
S.E.,
Ciand Rapk/s,
MI 49546
19
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
20 of 43
Page
ID#20
COUNT Hi RESPONDEATSUPERIOR
Michigan Department of
Corrections
62. Plaintiffherein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through sixty-one (61)
as
if;
fully
restated herein.
1
I
;1
63. At all times relevant hereto,
Defendants
Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and other
parole
and
probation agents,
identified herein as J ohn and J ane Does 1-10, were
employed by
the
De;fendant MDOC.
64. Defendant Widener's, Ruffin's,
Alana's and J ohn and J ane Does 1-10's
grossly;
negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts were committed while
acting;
within the course and
scope
of their
agency,
service,
or
employment relationship
with
Defendant MDOC.
65. Defendant MDOC is
vicariously
liable
by
virtue of the doctrine of
revondeat superior
for the
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts committed
by
its;
agents,
servants and
employees including,
but not limited
to,
Defendants Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana and john and J ane Does 1-10.
COUNT IV COMMON LAW GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
CountySheriffs Department,
Raines & McPhail
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities)
66. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through sixty-five (65) as;
if
fully
restated herein.
67. Defendants Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and;
other sheriffs
deputies
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a. The
duty
to abide
by
the laws of the state of
Michigan;
Law Offices of
KALMZ, IORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
20
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
21 of 43
Page
ID#21
b. The
duly
to
properly
and
adequately
hire, train,
supervise,
and
discipline
Eaton
County
sheriff s
deputies
and other
employees acting
in the State of
Michigan
under color of
law;
c. The
duty
to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
ofthe Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department
and Eaton
County
J ail;
d. The
duty
to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
e. The
duty
to
verify,
monitor and
supervise parolees
and
probationers
on work
release under the
jurisdiction
of the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department
and
Eaton
County
J ail, including
the
duty
to
verify
that said
parolees
and
probationers
have valid
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on work
release and to
verify
that said individuals maintain valid
employment during
the
course oftheir work release;
f. The
duty
to ensure that
parolees
and
probationers
released from
jail
on work
release under the
jurisdiction
of the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and
Eaton
County
J ail are
eligible
for work
release;
g.
The
duty
to act as a reasonable
municipal corporation,
sheriff,
or
deputy
sheriff
would act under the circumstances then and there
existing;
and
h. The
duty
to have a reasonable
policy
or custom
concerning
work release.
68. Defendants Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and
other sheriff's
deputies
and
county employees
and
agents
breached their
respective
duties owed to
plaintiff
in the
followingparticular ways:
Law Offices
a. Failure to abide
by
the laws ofthe State of
Michigan;
of
KALNIZ,
ORO&
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
4961 Cascade Rd. S.F..
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546:
21
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
22 of 43
Page
ID#22
b. Failure to
properly
and
adequately
hire, train, supervise,
and
discipline
sheriffs
deputies acting
in Eaton
County;
c. Failure to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
ofEaton
County,
and to
specifically
monitor and
supervise
Defendant Perrien;
d. Failure to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations where
probable
cause
supporting
the same exists;
e. Failure to
verify,
monitor and
supervise
Defendant Perrien, including
the
duty
to
verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on work
release and failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien maintained valid
employment during
the course ofhis work release;
f. Failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien was
eligible
for work release
prior
to
being
released from
jail;
g.
Failure to act as a reasonable
municipal corporation,
sheriff,
or
deputy
would act
under the circumstances then and there
existing;
and
h. Failure to maintain a reasonable
policy
or custom
concerning
work release.
69. In
breaching
said duties as set forth
herein,
Defendants Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department,
Defendant Raines,
Defendant McPhail,
and other sheriff s
deputies
and
county employees
and
agents
acted
grossly negligent
as that term is used
in MCL 691.1407 because the acts "were conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a
substantial lack ofconcern for whether an
injury result[edf
to
plaintiff
s decedent.
70, In
breaching
said duties as set forth herein,
Defendants Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and Defendant
Raines,
and other sheriffs
deputies
and
county
employees
and
agents
acted
willfully, wantonly, maliciously
and in bad faith.
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, fORIO
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P.A.!
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
GrandRapfds,
1!,41 49546
I
22
ic71F4?,
c,
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
23 of 43
Page
ID#23
71. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith
acts of the Defendants Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheri11-s
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and other sheriffs
deputies
and
county employees
and
agents,
the
plaintiff's
decedent was murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the time ofher death.
72. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts of the Defendants Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and other sheriff s
deputies
and
county employees
and
agents, plaintiff
s decedent's
family, including
her
only
child,
has been
deprived
of the
financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri
Greene,
and have
sustained other
compensable
damages, including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary 1!
therapy
and
prescription
drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable '1
loss ofa beloved
family
member.
COUNT V COMMON
LAW GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
J ohn andJ ane Does 1-10
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities
as
employees ofDefendants
Eaton
County
and
the Eaton
CountySheriff's Department)
73. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through seventy-two (72)
as if
fully
restated herein.
74. Defendants J ohn and J ane Does
1-10,
as
employees
and
agents
ofEaton
County
and the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a. The
duty
to abide
by
the laws ofthe state of
Michigan;
LawOffices
of,
KALNIZ, IORIO
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
4981 Cascade Rd. s.E.
Grand Rapids,
Mi 49546
23
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
24 of 43
Page
ID#24
b. The
duty
to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
ofthe Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department
and Eaton
County
J ail;
c. The
duty
to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same exists;
d. The
duty
to
verify,
monitor and
supervise parolees
and
probationers
on work
release under the
jurisdiction
of the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and
Eaton
County
J ail, including
the
duty
to
verify
that said
parolees
and '1
probationers
have valid
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on work
release and to
verify
that said individuals maintain valid
employment during
the
course oftheir work release;
e. The
duty
to
verify
that
parolees
and
probationers
released from
jail
on work
release under the
jurisdiction
of the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and
Eaton
County
J ail are
eligible
for work
release;
f. The
duty
to act as a reasonable
deputy
sheriff would act under the circumstances
then and there
existing;
and
g.
The
duty
to have a reasonable
policy
or custom
concerning
work release.
75. Defendant J ohn and J ane Does 1-10 breached their
respective
duties owed to
plaintiff
in
the
following particular ways:
a. Failure to abide
by
the laws ofthe State of
Michigan;
b. Failure to
supervise
and monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under the
jurisdiction
of Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County J ail,
and to
specifically
monitor and
supervise
Defendant Perrien;
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, IOW&
FELDSTEIN CO,.
4981 Cascada Rd. S.E
Grand Rapids,
MI 49596
24
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
25 of 43
Page
ID#25
1
c. Failure to arrest a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
d. Failure to
verify,
monitor and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien, including
the
duty
to
verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on
work;
release and failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien maintained valid
employment during
the course of his work
release;
e. Failure to
verify
that Defendant Perrien was
eligible
for work release
prior
to
being
released from
jail;
f. Failure to act as a reasonable sheriffs
deputy
would act under the circumstances
then and there
existing;
and
g.
Failure to maintain a reasonable
policy
or custom
concerning
work release.
76. In
breaching
said duties as set forth
herein,
Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10 acted
grossly negligent
as that term is used in MCL 691.1407 because the acts "were conduct
so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an
injury
result[ed]"
to
plaintiff
s
decedent.,
77. In
breaching
said duties as set forth
herein,
Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10 acted
willfully, wantonly, maliciously
and in bad faith.
78. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts ofthe Defendants J ohn and J ane Does
1-10,
the
plaintiff
s
decedent was murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological, including
shock and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up
to
and
through
the time of her death.
Law Offices of
KALNIZ,
lOR10 &
FELDSTON CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd, S E
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
25
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
26 of 43
Page
ID#26
79. As a direct and
proximate
result of the above
grossly negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts of the Defendants J ohn and J ane Does 1-10,
plaintiff's
decedent's
family, including
her
only
child,
has been
deprived
of the financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri Greene,
and have sustained other
compensable damages, including,
but not limited to, extraordinary therapy
and
prescription drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable
loss of a
beloved
family
member.
COUNT VI RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR
Defendants
Eaton
County
andthe Eaton
CountySheriff's Departnwnt
80. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through seventy-nine (79)
as if
fully
restated herein.
81. At all times relevant hereto,
Defendant Raines,
Defendant McPhail,
and other Eaton
County
Sheriff's
deputies,
identified herein as J ohn and J ane Does
1-10,
were
employed
by
the Defendant Eaton
County
and/or the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department.
82. Defendant Raines,
Defendant
McPhail and J ohn and J ane Does 1-10's
grossly
negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts were committed
while
acting
within the course and
scope
of their
agency,
service,
or
employment relationship
with
Defendant Eaton
County
and/or the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department.
83. Defendant Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
are
vicariously
liable
by
virtue ofthe doctrine of
respondeat superior
for the
grossly negligent,
willful,
1
wanton,
malicious and bad faith acts committed
by
its
agents,
servants and
employees
including,
but not limited
to,
Defendants Raines,
Defendant McPhail,
and J ohn and J ane
Does 1-10.
LawOffices of.
KALNIZ, ORO&
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand Hapfds,
MI 49546 i
26
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
27 of 43
Page
ID#27
COUNT VII VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION,
SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS
Michigan Department of
Corrections, Widener, Ruffin,
Alana,
&J ohn andJ ane Does 1-10
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities)
84. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through eighty-three
(83)
as if
fully
restated herein.
85. At all times relevant hereto,
Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and other
employees
and
agents
of Defendant MDOC,
identified herein as J ohn and J ane Does,
were under a
duty
to monitor and
supervise
inmates, parolees
and
probationers
under
the MDOC' s
jurisdiction.
86.
Specifically,
Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and J ohn and J ane Does 1-10
owed a
duty
to the
public,
and
plaintiff's
decedent,
to
verifying
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release,
a
duty
to
verifying
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
after a
parolee
has been released from
jail
on work
release,
a
duty
to
verify
that
only parolees eligible
for work release were released from
jail,
a
duty
to ensure that
ineligible
inmates are not released on work release,
and a
duty
to ensure that violent,
career criminals are not released on work release.
87. The MDOC was under a
duty
to train its
parole
and
probation agents, employees,
servants and
agents.
I..
88.
Specifically,
MDOC owed a
duty
to the
public,
and
plaintiff
s
decedent,
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation agents
in the
procedures
to
verify
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release,
to
verify
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
after a
parolee
has been released from
jail
on work release,
to
verify
Law Offices of
KALMZ, 10R10 &
that
only parolees eligible
for work release were released from
jail,
to ensure that
FELOSTEIN Ca,
L.PA.
4931 Cascade Rd. S.E.
GrandRapids,
Mf 49546
27
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
28 of 43
Page
ID#28
ineligible
imnates are not released on work release,
and to ensure
that violent,
career
criminals are not released on work release.
89. Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and J ohn and J ane Does violated
plaintiff's
decedent's constitutional
rights
under the State of
Michigan
Constitution,
including
Plaintiff's decedent's
right
to life and
liberty protected
in the substantive
component
ofthe Due Process Clause ofArticle
1,
Section 17,
in the
following ways:
a.
By deliberately
maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
to not
verify employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release;
b.
By deliberately
maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
to not
verify employment
after a
parolee
is out of
jail
for work release;
c.
By
deliberately failing
to have a statewide
policy
for
verifying
that
only parolees
eligible
for work release were released from
jail;
d.
By
deliberately failing
to have a statewide
policy
for
verifying
that
ineligible
inmates are not released on work
release,,
e.
By deliberately failing
to have a statewide
policy
for
verifying
that violent,
career criminals are not released on work release.
f.
By deliberately failing
to have a statewide
policy
for
verifying employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work
release;
g. By deliberately failing
to have a statewide
policy
for
verifying employment
after
a
parolee
is out of
jail
for work release
h.
By deliberately
maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
wherein the MDOC and its
employees
"assume" that the local sheriff's office verifies
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release.
LwOftCQJ
KALMZ,
ORO &
FELDSTON CO., L.P.A.:
4981 Cascada Rd. S E
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
28
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
29 of 43
Page
ID#29
i.
By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation
officers in the
process
of
verifying
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
to be
released from
jail
on work
release;
j. By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation
officers in the
process
of
verifying
a
parolee's employment
after a
parolee
has been released
from
jail
on work
release;
lc.
By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation
officers on the
MDOC work release
policies
and
procedures;
I.
By deliberately failing
to maintain
policies
and
procedures prohibiting
the
release of a
parolee
from
jail
on work release before
verifying
a
parole's
employment;
and
m.
By deliberately failing
to maintain
policies
and
procedures prohibiting
a
parolee
to continue on work release once a
parolee
has left
jail
on work
release,
without
verifying
a
parolee's employment.
90. Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and J o1m and J ane Does have
engaged in;
behavior so
arbitrary
and unreasonable as to shock the conscience.
91. As the direct and
proximate
result of the
deliberate,
willful and wanton misconduct of
Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and J ohn and J ane
Does,
and the
violations of
plaintiff
s decedent's
right
to life and
liberty protected by
the substantive
component
of the Due Process Clause of Article
1,
Section 17 of the
Michigan
State
Constitution,
the
plaintiff
s decedent was murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological, including
shock and
fright,
and the fear
Law Offices
of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the time ofher death.
of;
KALNIZ, IORIO &:
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.RA.
49Th CascadeRd, S:
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
29
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
30 of 43
Page
ID#30
92. As the direct and
proximate
result of the deliberate,
willful and wanton misconduct of
the Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and john and J ane Does,
and the
violations of
plaintiff
s decedent's
right
to life and
liberty protected by
the substantive
component
of the Due Process Clause of Article
1,
Section 17 of the
Michigan
State
Constitution,
plaintiff's
decedent's
family, including
her
only
child,
has been
deprived
of the financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri
Greene,
and have
sustained other
compensable damages, including,
but not limited to, extraordinary
therapy
and
prescription drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable
loss of a beloved
family
member,
COUNT VIII VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION,
SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County Sheriff's Department,
Raines,
McPhail
& J ohn andJ ane Does 1-10
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities)
93. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through ninety-two (92)
as
if
fully
restated herein.
94. At all times relevant hereto,
Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's 'I
Department,
Raines,
McPhail and other Eaton
County
sheriff s
deputies,
identified
herein as J ohn and J ane
Does,
were under a
duty
to monitor and
supervise
inmates,
parolees
and
probationers
under the Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department's jurisdiction.
95.
Specifically,
Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department,
Raines,
McPhail,
and J ohn and J ane Does owed a
duty
to the
public,
and
plaintiff's
decedent,
to
verifying
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work
release,
Law Offices of
KALNIZ,
IORIO &,
a
duty
to
verifying
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
after a
parolee
has been
FELDSTEIN CO., L.PA.
9981 Cascade Rd. S.F.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49548
30
=7:g.:
0
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
31 of 43
Page
ID#31
released from
jail
on work
release,
a
duty
to
verify
that
only parolees eligible
for
work;
release were released from
jail,
a
duty
to ensure that
ineligible
inmates are not released
on work
release,
and a
duty
to ensure that
violent, career criminals are not released on
work release.
96. The Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
were under a
duty
to
train its sheriff s
deputies, employees,
servants and
agents.
97.
Specifically,
Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
owed a
duty
to
the
public,
and
plaintiff's decedent,
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation agents
in
the
procedures
to
verify
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for
work
release,
to
verify
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
afler a
parolee
has been
released from
jail
on work
release, to
verify
that
only parolees eligible
for work release
were released from
jail,
to ensure that
ineligible
inmates are not released on work
release,
and to ensure that violent,
career criminals are not released on work release.
98. Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department,
Raines,
McPhail and
J ohn and J ane Does violated
plaintiff's
decedent's constitutional
rights
under the State
of
Michigan
Constitution, including
Plaintiff's decedent's
right
to life and
liberty
protected
in the substantive
component
ofthe Due Process Clause of Article
1,
Section
17,
in the
following ways:
a.
By deliberately maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
to not
verify employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work
release;
b.
By deliberately maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
to not
verify employment
after a
parolee
is out of
jail
for work
release;
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, (ORO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
49Th Cascade lick
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
3
4E."''`'
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
32 of 43
Page
ID#32
c.
By deliberately maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
to follow all work release
orders without
verifying
whether a
parolee
is
eligible
for work release before a
parole
is released from
jail;
d.
By deliberately failing
to have a
policy
for
verifying
that
only parolees eligible
for work release were released from
jail;
e.
By deliberately failing
to have a
policy
for
verifying
that
ineligible
inmates are
not released on work
release;
f.
By deliberately failing
to have a
policy
for
verifying
that violent,
career
criminals are not released on work release;
g. By deliberately failing
to have a
policy
for
verifying employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work release;
h.
By deliberately failing
to have a
policy
for
verifying employment
after a
parolee
is out of
jail
for work
release;
i.
By deliberately maintaining
a custom and/or
policy
wherein the Eaton
County
employees
and Eaton
County
Sheriff
Department
and their
employees 1
"assume" that MDOC
employees verify employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for work
release;
j. By deliberately failing
to
properly
train sheriff s
deputies
and other
employees
in the
process
of
verifying
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
to
1
be released from
jail
on work
release;
k.
By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its sheriff s
deputies
and other
employees
in the
process
of
verifying
a
parolee's employment
after a
parolee
1
has been released from
jail
on work
release;
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, 101310 &,
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P.A.!
4981 Cascado Rd. S E
Grand Rapids,
MI 49596 I I
32
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
33 of 43
Page
ID#33
I.
By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its sheriff's
deputies
and
other;
employees
on the Eaton
County
and Eaton
County
Sheriff
Department's
work
release
policies
and
procedures;
m.
By deliberately failing
to maintain
policies
and
procedures prohibiting
the
release of a
parolee
from
jail
on work release before
verifying
a
parolee's
employment;
and
n.
By deliberately failing
to maintain
policies
and
procedures prohibiting
a
parolee
to continue on work release once a
parolee
has left
jail
on work
release,
without
verifying
a
parolee's employment.
99. Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail and
J ohn and J ane Does have
engaged
in behavior so
arbitrary
and unreasonable as to shock
the conscience.
100. As the direct and
proximate
result of the
deliberate,
willful and wanton I
misconduct of the Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail and J ohn and J ane
Does,
and the violations of
plaintiff
s decedent's
right
to life and
liberty protected by
the substantive
component
of the Due Process
Clause of Article
1,
Section 17 of the
Michigan
State Constitution,
the
plaintiff's
decedent was murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological, including
shock and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up
to
and
through
the time of her death.
101. As the direct and
proximate
result of the
deliberate,
willful and wanton
misconduct of the Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail and J ohn and J ane
Does,
and the violations of
plaintiff
s decedent's
Lew Offices of
KALNIZ, IORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
4981 Cascade Rd, S.E.
Grand FlapkIs, M149545;
33
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
34 of 43
Page
ID#34
right
to life and
liberty protected by
the substantive
component
of the Due Process
Clause ofArticle
1,
Section 17 ofthe
Michigan
State
Constitution, plaintiff
s decedent's
family, including
her
only child,
has been
deprived
of the financial
support, love,
society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri
Greene,
and have sustained other
compensable
damages, including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary therapy
and
prescription drug
costs
incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable loss ofa beloved
thmily
member.
COUNT IX- VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
Michigwi Department ofCorrections, Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana & J ohn andJ ane Does
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities)
102. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through
one
hundred and one
(101)
as if
fully
restated herein.
103. Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and other
parole
and
probation
agents
of
MDOC,
identified herein as J ohn and J ane
Does,
violated
plaintiff
s
decedent's
rights
under the U.S. Constitution.
104.
Specifically,
Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and J ohn and J ane
Does violated
plaintiff
s decedent's
right
to life and
liberty protected
in the substantive
component
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
1
Constitution,
which includes the
right
to
personal safety
and the affirmative
duty
of
parole
and
probation agents
to
protect plaintiff
s decedent from state action that
creates,
or
substantially
contributes to the creation
of,
a
danger
or renders citizens more
vulnerable to a
danger
than
they
otherwise would have been.
105. Defendants
MDOC's, Widener's, Ruffin's,
Alana's and J ohn and J ane Does'
actions constituted a state-created
danger by:
Law Offices of
KALNIZ IORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO., EPA.
49.91 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
34
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
35 of 43
Page
ID#35
a.
Releasing
Defendant Perrien from MDOC's
supervision
and control on court-
ordered work release without
verifying
Defendant Perrien's
employment;
b.
Releasing
Defendant Perrien from MDOC's
supervision
and control on court-
ordered work release
knowing
that Defendant Perrien was not
eligible
for work
release;
c.
Releasing
Defendant
Perrien,
a career criminal with a violent
history,
a record of
absconding
from
parole,
a record
approximately
26
parole
violations,
and a
record of
failing
to
report
to work when
previously
released from
jail
on work
release,
fromMDOC' s
supervision
and control on court-ordered work
release;
d.
Willfully allowing
Defendant Perrien to leave the Eaton
County
J ail on court-
ordered work release without
verifying
Defendant Perrien's
employment;
e.
Refusing
to
implement
a state-wide
policy requiring
that
parolees' eligibility
for
work release be verified before and
during
work release;
f.
Refusing
to
implement
a state-wide
policy requiring parolees
released from
jail
on work release to wear an electronic
monitoring
device;
g. Refusing
to
properly train, supervise
and
discipline
its
employees concerning
verification of
eligibility
of
parolees
for work
release;
h.
Knowing
that Defendant Perrien was a convicted felon and that he was a
danger
to the
public;
i.
Knowing
that
by committing
the actions enumerated in this
paragraph they
were
'1
endangering
the
public generally
and the
plaintiff's
decedent
specifically.
106. Defendants
MDOC's, Widener's, Ruffin's, Alana's,
and J ohn and J ane Does'
affirmative actions in
allowing
a known career
criminal,
with a violent
past,
who was
Law Offices of;
KALNI4 1ORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.!
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49546
35
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
36 of 43
Page
ID#36
not
eligible
for work
release,
and who did not have
eligible employment,
to be released
from the Eaton
County
J ail on
September
22,
2011 on work release constituted a state-
created
danger
that was the direct and
proximate
cause of
plaintiff's
decedent's death on
that date while Defendant Perrien was still in the
custody
and control ofthe MDOC.
L
107. Defendant MDOC had a
policy
of
providing inadequate protection
to the
public
from
parolees
or
probationers
that were under the
custody
and control of the MDOC
and who were not
eligible
for work release.
108. Defendant MDOC failed to train its
parole
and
probation agents regarding
MDOC's work release
program
and the
policies
and
procedures
for
verifying
the
eligibility
ofan inmate for work release.
109. As a result of the Defendants
MDOC's,
Widener's Ruffin's, Alana's,
and J ohn
and J ane Does' conduct as
alleged
herein,
Ms. Greene was murdered
by
Defendant
Perrien while on work release under the MDOC's
custody
and control.
110. Defendants MDOC's,
Widener's Ruffin's, Alana's,
and J ohn and J ane Does'
conduct in
releasing
Defendant Perrien on work release without
verifying
his
eligibility
for work release and without
verifying
his
employment,
and
allowing
Defendant Perrien
to continue on work release without
verifying
whether Defendant Perrien was
employed
and
working,
which was the direct and
proximate
result ofMs. Greene's death.
111. Defendants
MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Adana,
and J ohn and J ane Does have
engaged
in behavior so
arbitrary
and unreasonable as to shock the conscience.
112. As the direct and
proximate
result of the
deliberate,
willful and wanton
misconduct of the Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and other MDOC
employees,
the
plaintiff's
decedent was murdered and suffered conscious severe
pain
Law Offices 0!
KALNIZ, ORO&
FELDSTEIN CO., LPA.
4981 Cascade Rd. s.E.
Grand Rapids,
AS 49546
36
oc411P,
0
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
37 of 43
Page
ID#37
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock and
fright,
and the fear
of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the time ofher death.
113. As the direct and
proximate
result of the deliberate,
willful and wanton
misconduct of the Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and other MDOC
employees, plaintiff's
decedent's
family, including
her
only
child,
has been
deprived
of
the financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri
Greene,
and have
sustained other
compensable damages, including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary:
therapy
and
prescription drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable
loss ofa beloved
family
member.
114. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988, plaintiff
is entitled to costs and
attorney's
fees
against
Defendants MDOC, Widener, Ruffin, Alana,
and J ohn and J ane Does that have
been incurred as a result ofthis
litigation.
COUNT X VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
Eaton
County,
Eaton
CountySheriff's Department,
Raines, McPhail,
J ohn andJ ane
Does
(in
their
official
andindividual
capacities)
115. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through
one-
hundred and fourteen
(114)
as if
fully
restated herein.
116. Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail,
and other sheriffs
deputies,
identified herein as J ohn and J ane
Does,
violated
plaintiff
s decedent's
rights
under the U.S. Constitution.
117.
Specifically,
Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and J ohn and J ane Does violated
plaintiff's
decedent's
right
to life and
liberty protected
in the substantive
component
of the Due Process Clause of the
Lii1V Offices of
KALIVIZIORIO
FELOSTEIN CO.,
1..PA.
4981 Cascade Rd. SE.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49548
37
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
38 of 43
Page
ID#38
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
which includes the
right
to
personal
safety
and the affirmative
duty
of
parole
and
probation agents
to
protect plaintiff
s
decedent from state action that
creates,
or
substantially
contributes to the creation of, a
danger
or renders citizens more vulnerable to a
danger
than
they
otherwise would have
been.
11 8. Defendant Eaton
County's,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department's,
Raines',
McPhail's,
and J ohn and J ane Does' actions constituted a state-created
danger by:
a.
Releasing
Defendant Perrien from the Eaton
County's
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department's supervision
and control on court-ordered work release
without
verifying
Defendant Perrien's
employment;
b.
Releasing
Defendant Perrien from Eaton
County's
and the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department's supervision
and control on court-ordered work release
knowing
that Defendant Perrien was not
eligible
for work
release;
c.
Releasing
from Eaton
County's
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department's
supervision
and control on court-ordered work release Defendant Perrien,
a
1
career criminal with a violent
history,
a record of
absconding
from
parole,
a
record
approximately
26
parole
violations,
and a record of
failing
to
report
to
work when
previously
released from
jail
on work
release;
d.
Willfully allowing
Defendant Perrien to leave the Eaton
County
J ail on court-
ordered work release without
verifying
Defendant Perrien's
employment;
e.
Refusing
to
implement
a
policy requiring
that a
parole's eligibility
for work
release be verified before and
during
work
release;
Law Offices of
KALN1Z, 101310 &
FELDSTEIN CO., L.PA.';
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Giand Flapkis,
MI 49546;
3 8
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
39 of 43
Page
ID#39
f.
Refusing
to
implement
a
policy requiring parolees
released from
jail
on work
release to wear an electronic
monitoring
device;
g. Refusing
to
implement
a
policy requiring parolees
released from
jail
on work
release to
provide weekly pay
stubs
evidencing employment;
h.
Refusing
to
implement
a
policy requiring parolees
released from
jail
on work
release to
provide proof
of
employment
on the
employer's
letterhead;
i.
Refusing
to
properly train, supervise
and
discipline
its
employees concerning
verification of
eligibility
of
parolees
for work
release;
j. Knowing
that Defendant Perrien was a convicted felon and that he was a
danger
to the
public;
k.
Knowing
that
by committing
the actions enumerated this
paragraph they
were
endangering
the
public generally
and the
plaintiff
s decedent
specifically.
119. Defendant Eaton
County's,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department's,
Raines',
McPhail's and J ohn and J ane Does' affirmative
actions,
in
allowing
a known career
criminal,
with a violent
past,
who was not
eligible
for work
release,
and who did not
have
eligible employment,
released from the Eaton
County
J ail on
September
22,
2011
on work release constituted a state-created
danger
that was the direct and
proximate;
cause of
plaintiff
s decedent's death on that date while Defendant Perrien was still in
the
custody
and control of Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department.
120. Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department,
Raines and
McPhail had a
policy
of
providing inadequate protection
to the
public
from
parolees
or
probationers
that were under the
custody
and control of the Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and who were not
eligible
for work release.
Law Offices of
KALNIZ,
ORO&
FELDSTEIN CO, L.P.A.:
4981 Cascade Rd. S E
Grand
Rapids,
MI 40548
39
I Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
40 of 43
Page
ID#40
121. Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines and
McPhail failed to train its sheriff's
deputies regarding
Eaton
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department's
work release
program
and the
policies
and
procedures
for
verifying
the
eligibility
ofan inmate for work release.
122. As a result of the Defendants Eaton
County's,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department's, Raines',
McPhail's and J ohn and J ane Does' conduct as
alleged herein,
Ms. Greene was murdered
by
Defendant Perrien while on work release under the Eaton
1
County
and the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department's custody
and control.
123. Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department, Raines,
and
McPhail and J ohn and J ane Does' conduct in
releasing
Defendant Perrien on work
release without
verifying
his
eligibility
for work release and without
verifying
his
employment,
and
allowing
Defendant Perrien to continue on work release without
verifying
whether Defendant Perrien was
employed
and
working,
which was the direct
and
proximate
result ofMs. Greene's death.
124 Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department, Raines,
h McPhail and J ohn and J ane Does have
engaged
in behavior so
arbitrary
and
unreasonable as to shock the conscience.
125. As the direct and
proximate
result of the
deliberate,
willful and wanton
misconduct of the Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and J ohn and J ane Does the
plaintiff's
decedent was murdered and
suffered conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the time
of her death.
LawOffices of
KALNIZ, 10R10 &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.F.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49548;
40
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
41 of 43
Page
ID#41
126. As the direct and
proximate
result of the
deliberate,
willful and wanton
i
misconduct of the Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriff s
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and J ohn and J ane Does
plaintiff
s decedent's
family, including
her
1
1,
only child,
has been
deprived
of the financial
support,
love, society,
comfort and
guidance
of Terri
Greene,
and have sustained other
compensable damages, including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary therapy
and
prescription drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable loss ofa beloved
family
member.
127. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988, plaintiff
is entitled to costs and
attorney's
fees
against
Defendants Eaton
County,
the Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department,
Raines,
McPhail and J ohn and J ane Does that have been incurred as a result ofthis
litigation.
COUNT XI-WRONGFUL DEATH
Defendant
Perrien
128. Plaintiff herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through
one
hundred and
twenty-seven (127)
as if
fully
restated herein.
129. On or about
September
22, 2011,
Defendant Perrien, knowingly, intentionally,
willfully, unlawfully
and without
justification,
caused the death
of,
or caused
injuries
resulting
in the death
of, plaintiff
s
decedent,
Ms. Greene.
130. As the direct and
proximate
cause of Defendant Perrien's
lulowing,
intentional,
willful,
unlawful and
unjust
actions,
the
plaintiff
s decedent was murdered and suffered
conscious severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological, including
shock
and
fright,
and the fear of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the time ofher death.
131. As the direct and
proximate
cause of Defendant Perrien's
knowing, intentional,
w Mims of
willful,
unlawful and
unjust actions,
plaintiff
s decedent's
family, including
her
only
taKALNIZJ ORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P A..
4981 Cascade Rd. SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546 E
41
i
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
42 of 43
Page
ID#42
child,
has been
deprived
ofthe financial
support, love,
society,
comfort and
guidance of;
Terri
Greene,
and have sustained other
compensable damages, including,
but not limited
to, extraordinary therapy
and
prescription drug
costs incurred in
dealing
with the
tragic
and avoidable loss ofa beloved
family
member.
132. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
damages against
Defendant Perrien as set forth
herein.
WHEREFORE,
Eugene Post,
as the Personal
Representative
ofthe Estate ofTerri
Greene,
requests
a
judgment against
these
Defendants,
and each of
them,
jointly
and
severally,
in an
amount a
jury
deems
just,
in excess of
Seventy-Five
Thousand Dollars
($75,000.00), plus
interests, costs,
and
attorney's
fees.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
Fillipe
Iorio
FILLIPE IORIO
(P58741)
/s/ Kurt Kline
KURT KLINE
(P72291)
KALNIZ,
IORIO &FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
Phone:
(616)
940-1911
Fax:
(616)
940-1942
fioriogkfflaw.com
kkline@killaw.com
Date:
September 19,
2013
AttorneysfinPlaintUf
Law Offices of
KALNIZ, IORIO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA. H
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
Mil 49546
42
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc #1 Filed 09/19/13
Page
43 of 43
Page
ID#43
DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL
Plaintiff
hereby
demands a Trial
by J ury
on all issues so triable.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
Fillipe
lorio
FILLIPE IORIO
(P58741)
/s/ Kurt Kline
KURT KLINE
(P72291)
KALNIZ,
IORIO &FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
Phone:
(616)
940-1911
Fax:
(616)
940-1942
fiorio@kiflaw.com
kkline@killaw.com
Date:
September 19,
2013
Attorneysfar Plaintiff
LawOffices of
KALNIZ, IORIO
FELDSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
4981 Cascade Rd. S.E
GrandRapids, MI 49546,
43

You might also like