Clark Complaint

Case 1:18-cv-01538-LPS Document 26 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 156
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS CLARK, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * C.A. No. 18-CV-01538-LPS
*
SCOTT HURD *
* DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
OFFICER SPICER *
*
and *
*
CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, *
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Thomas Clark, by and through his attorney, Stephen P. Norman, Esquire,
who brings this Amended Complaint against Scott Hurd, Officer Spicer, and the City of Dover,
Delaware.
FACTS
Parties
1. Plaintiff, Thomas Clark, (“Plaintiff”), is a Delaware resident who may be contacted, for
purposes of this litigation through his counsel, Stephen P. Norman, Esquire, at The Norman Law
Firm, 30838 Vines Creek Rd., Unit 3, Dagsboro, DE 19939.
2. Defendant, Scott Hurd (“Hurd”), was a police officer employed by the City of Dover and
its police department and was acting under color of law as an agent or employee of the City of
Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.
1
3. Defendant, Officer Spicer (“Spicer”), was a police officer employed by the City of Dover
and its police department and was acting under color of law as an agent or employee of the City
of Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.
4. Defendant, City of Dover, Delaware (“City” or “Dover”) is a municipal corporation duly
organized, existing and operating under and pursuant to the applicable laws of the State of
Delaware and at all relevant times was the employer of Hurd and Spicer. It has, and at all times
material hereto has had responsibility for hiring, training, supervision, disciplining and retention
of police officers employed by the City including Webster.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5. This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief arising under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, Article
I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution and the statutory and common law of the State of Delaware.
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1331, 1343(a)(3) and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 to entertain
claims arising under state law.
7. Personal jurisdiction is proper since all parties reside in the District, conduct business in
the District, and the unlawful actions giving rise to the claim took place within this District.
8. Venue is properly in this Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the events giving rise
to the suit occurred in this judicial District.
General Allegations
9. On August 15, 2017, in the evening hours, Plaintiff was riding his bike when he
encountered Defendants Spicer and Hurd.
10. Spicer yelled to Plaintiff to “Pull the fuck over”.
2
11. Spicer did not provide a reason to Plaintiff why he should pull over.
12. Due to the aggressive nature of how Spicer initially addressed him, Plaintiff did not
immediately pull his bike over.
13. Officer Spicer then pursued Plaintiff in his police vehicle.
14. Officer Spicer then ran at Plaintiff and tackled him off his bike causing injury.
15. Defendant Hurd assisted Spicer with handcuffing Plaintiff.
16. After Plaintiff was handcuffed Defendant Hurd proceeded to violently punch Plaintiff in
the face.
17. The punching was so forceful that Plaintiff eventually lost consciousness.
18. Hurd searched Plaintiff’s backpack and found nothing except for school books and
massage oil.
19. Plaintiff was a student in massage therapist school at the time of the incident.
20. While Plaintiff was handcuffed and unconscious, Hurd went to his police vehicle.
21. While at his police vehicle Hurd retrieved a handgun.
22. Hurd came back to where Plaintiff laid unconscious and planted the handgun on Plaintiff.
23. Plaintiff was eventually arrested and taken to the Dover Police Station.
24. Although, he had serious injuries, including a facial fracture, he was deprived of medical
care by Hurd.
25. Hurd instead placed Plaintiff in a holding cell where he remained for six hours.
26. When the next tour of day arrived they immediately noticed the seriousness of Plaintiff’s
injuries.
27. Plaintiff was immediately taken to Bayhealth Medical Center, nine hours after the assault,
for treatment where he was diagnosed with multiple injuries.
3
28. Plaintiff had suffered, inter alia, headaches, abrasions to the face, rib pain, bilateral leg
pain, jaw pain, and multiple abrasions to his lips and elsewhere.
29. Plaintiff was charged with multiple crimes.
30. Plaintiff did not prevent or attempt to prevent Hurd or Spicer from effecting an arrest and
did not struggle with either of them.
31. There were no circumstances that justified such a use of force against Plaintiff.
32. Hurd and Spicer’s use of force against Plaintiff was not necessary to effect a detention or
arrest of Plaintiff.
33. Upon information and belief, Defendant City initiated an internal investigation concerning
Hurd and Spicer and their alleged use of excessive force against Plaintiff.
34. Upon information and belief, Defendant City discontinued its internal affairs investigation
concerning the incident described herein without finding that either officer had violated police
department policies or had otherwise done anything wrong.
35. Upon information and belief, neither officer received discipline, punishment, or further
training nor counseling as a result of the incident described herein.
Retaliation Against Plaintiff for Filing the Lawsuit
36. After this lawsuit was filed Plaintiff was pulled over by a Dover police officer for an
arrestable vehicular violation sometime in 2019.
37. The initial arrest was made by other Dover police officers, however, both Hurd and Spicer
came to the scene and made themselves known to Plaintiff.
38. Plaintiff was transported to the police station by other Dover police officers, but both Hurd
and Spicer met Plaintiff at the police station.
39. At the police station Hurd and Spicer took over the handling of Plaintiff.
4
40. Both Hurd and Spicer took Plaintiff to the courtroom for his bond hearing.
41. Both Hurd and Spicer participated in Plaintiff’s bond hearing.
42. Spicer told the magistrate at the bond hearing that Plaintiff was a flight risk.
43. Spicer told the magistrate at the bond hearing that Plaintiff was a menace.
44. As a result of the participation of Hurd and Spicer, Plaintiff was given higher bail.
45. Spicer took Plaintiff and placed him in a cell block away from people that could have helped
Plaintiff make bond by calling his family.
46. Spicer and Hurd also both mocked Plaintiff about his current lawsuit against them.
47. Plaintiff was incarcerated on a Friday, but was not able to pay the higher bail until the
following Tuesday.
48. Spicer also would not allow Plaintiff to make a phone call to see if he could make bail.
49. Spice joked about the fact that he would take Plaintiff to jail and that he would get a phone
call there.
50. Spicer transported Plaintiff to Sussex Correctional Institute (“SCI”) after he could not make
bail.
51. When they arrived at SCI, Spicer told the on duty sergeant not to give him a phone call since
he already had one.
52. Spicer’s comment to the sergeant was false since Plaintiff was not given a phone call prior
to his arrival at SCI.
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983,

4TH AMENDMENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE – DEFENDANTS HURD AND
SPICER
5
53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in this Complaint,
above and below, as though fully set forth herein.
54. Spicer used excessive force when he tackled Plaintiff off his bike without provocation.
55. Hurd used excessive force when he punched Plaintiff while he was handcuffed and, on the
ground, lying unconscious.
56. The force used by both Spicer and Hurd was excessive considering the totality of the
circumstances including, but not limited to the minor nature of any potential offense, and the fact
that Plaintiff did not resist the detention with force.
57. The arrest and the beating violated Plaintiff’s clearly established and well settled
constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution to be free from the unreasonable, excessive and unjustified use of force.
58. Plaintiff is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both Spicer and Hurd.
COUNT II: BATTERY – DEFENDANT HURD AND SPICER
60. Both Hurd and Spicer’s actions described hereinabove were without Plaintiff’s consent.
61. Hurd and Spicer’s actions were unreasonable and unjustified under the circumstances.
62. Hurd and Spicer committed an intentional, willful, and malicious battery against Plaintiff
when he was tackled by violently struck Plaintiff.
63. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against both Hurd and Spicer under the common law of
Delaware for his injuries and losses
COUNT III: FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE-HURD ONLY
6
65. Defendant Hurd planted a handgun on Plaintiff that was material evidence that was critical
to the establishment of probable cause.
66. Hurd falsely stated under oath that Plaintiff was in possession of a handgun.
67. Hurd falsely fabricated a felony charge against Plaintiff for illegal possession of a handgun.
68. Defendant Hurd fabricated the evidence against Plaintiff in bad faith in order to support the
69. Defendant Hurd’s fabrication of charges caused undue hardship on Plaintiff who was
arrested and charged with felonies.
70. As a result, Plaintiff suffered extreme humiliation, physical injuries, lost wages, loss of
reputation, and emotional distress.
COUNT IV: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION-HURD AND SPICER
72. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when he filed this lawsuit against Defendants.
73. The retaliatory actions of Hurd and Spicer in involving themselves in Plaintiff’s subsequent
arrest was sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his rights.
74. Hurd and Spicer, were not the arresting officers, however, they still participated in
Plaintiff’s booking, transport, and bond hearing for a subsequent motor vehicle offense.
75. Spicer participated in Plaintiff’s bond hearing by requesting a higher and more secure bond
than typically would be offered.
7
76. Spicer further retaliated against Plaintiff by transporting him to SCI and informing the on
duty sergeant that Plaintiff had already made a phone call.
77. There was a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity of filing a lawsuit
against Defendants and their retaliatory action against Plaintiff.
78. As a result, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, monetary damage, loss of reputation, lost
wages, and emotional distress.
COUNT V: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983 – MONELL CLAIM AS TO CITY
80. Upon information and belief, City failed to mandate policies, practices, and/or customs
concerning – and adequately and properly supervise and train its police officers in – various
aspects of law enforcement, including but not limited to, the constitutional bounds and limits
concerning the use of excessive force against persons and suspects within the geographic
and jurisdiction limits of Dover, Delaware.
81. Upon information and belief, City had a policy and/or custom of failing to properly
investigate alleged incidents of its officers using excessive force or engaging in other police
misconduct. Therefore, City failed to properly supervise, discipline, punish, train, and
counsel its officers that used excessive force or engaged in other police misconduct,
providing no accountability for City’s police officers. This, in turn, has fostered more
instances of excessive force and other police misconduct, including but not limited Hurd
and Spicer’s use of excessive force against Plaintiff.
8
82. The above-described acts and omissions by City demonstrated a deliberate indifference to
the constitutional rights of the citizens of Dover, Delaware and were the direct and
proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as set forth herein.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures by City, Plaintiff suffered the
damages alleged herein.
84. Plaintiff is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from City for his injuries and losses.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. All lawful general and special damages in an amount to be determined, against all
Defendants.
B. Injunctive relief ordering and mandating that Defendant City create and mandate policies,
procedures, and customs (including training, counseling, and heightened supervision of its
officers) that would provide for robust and proper internal affairs investigations and resulting
discipline, punishments, training and counseling as is and may be necessary to avoid further
instances of excessive force and other police misconduct. Plaintiff seeks an enforcement
mechanism that will enable the public to determine whether Defendant City has taken appropriate
remedial measures and complied with the orders of this Court.
C. Plaintiffs’ cost in this action, including reasonable attorney fees and pre and post-judgment
interest.
D. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
E. Trial by Jury.
Respectfully submitted,
9
Date: February 21, 2020 THE NORMAN LAW FIRM
/s/Stephen P. Norman
Stephen P. Norman, Esquire, Bar I.D. 5497
30838 Vines Creek Road; Unit 3
Dagsboro, DE 19939
302-537-3788
302-732-3045 (fax)
snorman@thenormanlawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
Case 1:18-cv-01538-LPS Document 26-1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 166
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS CLARK, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * C.A. No. 18-CV-01538-
* LPS_____________
SCOTT HURD *
*
OFFICER SPICER * DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
*
and *
*
CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, *
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Thomas Clark, by and through his attorney, Stephen P. Norman, Esquire,
who brings this Amended Complaint against Scott Hurd, Officer Spicer, and the City of Dover,
Delaware.
FACTS
Parties
1. Plaintiff, Thomas Clark, (“Plaintiff”), is a Delaware resident who may be contacted, for
purposes of this litigation through his counsel, Stephen P. Norman, Esquire, at The Norman Law
Firm, 30838 Vines Creek Rd., Unit 3, Dagsboro, DE 19939.
2. Defendant, Scott Hurd (“Hurd”), was a police officer employed by the City of Dover and
its police department and was acting under color of law as an agent or employee of the City of
Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.
1
3. Defendant, Officer Spicer (“Spicer”), was a police officer employed by the City of Dover
and its police department and was acting under color of law as an agent or employee of the City
of Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.
4. Defendant, City of Dover, Delaware (“City” or “Dover”) is a municipal corporation duly
organized, existing and operating under and pursuant to the applicable laws of the State of
Delaware and at all relevant times was the employer of Hurd and Spicer. It has, and at all times
material hereto has had responsibility for hiring, training, supervision, disciplining and retention
of police officers employed by the City including Webster.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5. This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief arising under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, Article
I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution and the statutory and common law of the State of Delaware.
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1331, 1343(a)(3) and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 to entertain
claims arising under state law.
7. Personal jurisdiction is proper since all parties reside in the District, conduct business in
the District, and the unlawful actions giving rise to the claim took place within this District.
8. Venue is properly in this Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the events giving rise
to the suit occurred in this judicial District.
General Allegations
9. On August 15, 2017, in the evening hours, Plaintiff was riding his bike when he
encountered Defendants Spicer and Hurd.
10. Spicer yelled to Plaintiff to “Pull the fuck over”.
2
11. Spicer did not provide a reason to Plaintiff why he should pull over.
12. Due to the aggressive nature of how Spicer initially addressed him, Plaintiff did not
immediately pull his bike over.
13. Officer Spicer then pursued Plaintiff in his police vehicle.
14. Officer Spicer then ran at Plaintiff and tackled him off his bike causing injury.
15. Defendant Hurd assisted Spicer with handcuffing Plaintiff.
16. After Plaintiff was handcuffed Defendant Hurd proceeded to violently punch Plaintiff in
the face.
17. The punching was so forceful that Plaintiff eventually lost consciousness.
18. Hurd searched Plaintiff’s backpack and found nothing except for school books and
massage oil.
19. Plaintiff was a student in massage therapist school at the time of the incident.
20. While Plaintiff was handcuffed and unconscious, Hurd went to his police vehicle.
21. While at his police vehicle Hurd retrieved a handgun.
22. Hurd came back to where Plaintiff laid unconscious and planted the handgun on Plaintiff.
23. Plaintiff was eventually arrested and taken to the Dover Police Station.
24. Although, he had serious injuries, including a facial fracture, he was deprived of medical
care by Hurd.
25. Hurd instead placed Plaintiff in a holding cell where he remained for six hours.
26. When the next tour of day arrived they immediately noticed the seriousness of Plaintiff’s
injuries.
27. Plaintiff was immediately taken to Bayhealth Medical Center, nine hours after the assault,
for treatment where he was diagnosed with multiple injuries.
3
28. Plaintiff had suffered, inter alia, headaches, abrasions to the face, rib pain, bilateral leg
pain, jaw pain, and multiple abrasions to his lips and elsewhere.
29. Plaintiff was charged with multiple crimes.
30. Plaintiff did not prevent or attempt to prevent Hurd or Spicer from effecting an arrest and
did not struggle with either of them.
31. There were no circumstances that justified such a use of force against Plaintiff.
32. Hurd and Spicer’s use of force against Plaintiff was not necessary to effect a detention or
33. Upon information and belief, Defendant City initiated an internal investigation concerning
Hurd and Spicer and their alleged use of excessive force against Plaintiff.
34. Upon information and belief, Defendant City discontinued its internal affairs investigation
concerning the incident described herein without finding that either officer had violated police
department policies or had otherwise done anything wrong.
35. Upon information and belief, neither officer received discipline, punishment, or further
training nor counseling as a result of the incident described herein.
Retaliation Against Plaintiff for Filing the Lawsuit
36. After this lawsuit was filed Plaintiff was pulled over by a Dover police officer for an
arrestable vehicular violation sometime in 2019.
37. The initial arrest was made by other Dover police officers, however, both Hurd and Spicer
came to the scene and made themselves known to Plaintiff.
38. Plaintiff was transported to the police station by other Dover police officers, but both Hurd
and Spicer met Plaintiff at the police station.
39. At the police station Hurd and Spicer took over the handling of Plaintiff.
4
40. Both Hurd and Spicer took Plaintiff to the courtroom for his bond hearing.
41. Both Hurd and Spicer participated in Plaintiff’s bond hearing.
42. Spicer told the magistrate at the bond hearing that Plaintiff was a flight risk.
43. Spicer told the magistrate at the bond hearing that Plaintiff was a menace.
44. As a result of the participation of Hurd and Spicer, Plaintiff was given higher bail.
45. Spicer took Plaintiff and placed him in a cell block away from people that could have helped
Plaintiff make bond by calling his family.
46. Spicer and Hurd also both mocked Plaintiff about his current lawsuit against them.
47. Plaintiff was incarcerated on a Friday, but was not able to pay the higher bail until the
following Tuesday.
48. Spicer also would not allow Plaintiff to make a phone call to see if he could make bail.
49. Spice joked about the fact that he would take Plaintiff to jail and that he would get a phone
call there.
50. Spicer transported Plaintiff to Sussex Correctional Institute (“SCI”) after he could not make
bail.
51. When they arrived at SCI, Spicer told the on duty sergeant not to give him a phone call since
he already had one.
52. Spicer’s comment to the sergeant was false since Plaintiff was not given a phone call prior
to his arrival at SCI.
35. Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Centered, Indent: Left: 0.13", No bullets or
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983, numbering
4TH AMENDMENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE – DEFENDANTS HURD AND

SPICER
5
36.53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in this Complaint,
37.54. Spicer used excessive force when he tackled Plaintiff off his bike without provocation.
38.55. Hurd used excessive force when he punched Plaintiff while he was handcuffed and, on the
ground, lying unconscious.
39.56. The force used by both Spicer and Hurd was excessive considering the totality of the
circumstances including, but not limited to the minor nature of any potential offense, and the fact
that Plaintiff did not resist the detention with force.
40.57. The arrest and the beating violated Plaintiff’s clearly established and well settled
constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution to be free from the unreasonable, excessive and unjustified use of force.
41.58. Plaintiff is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both Spicer and Hurd.
COUNT II: BATTERY – DEFENDANT HURD AND SPICER
42.59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in this
Complaint, above and below, as though fully set forth herein.
43.60. Both Hurd and Spicer’s actions described hereinabove were without Plaintiff’s
consent.
44.61. Hurd and Spicer’s actions were unreasonable and unjustified under the
circumstances.
45.62. Hurd and Spicer committed an intentional, willful, and malicious battery against
Plaintiff when he was tackled by violently struck Plaintiff.
46.63. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against both Hurd and Spicer under the common law
of Delaware for his injuries and losses
6
COUNT III: FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE-HURD ONLY
48.65. Defendant Hurd planted a handgun on Plaintiff that was material evidence that was
critical to the establishment of probable cause.
49.66. Hurd falsely stated under oath that Plaintiff was in possession of a handgun.
50.67. Hurd falsely fabricated a felony charge against Plaintiff for illegal possession of a
handgun.
51.68. Defendant Hurd fabricated the evidence against Plaintiff in bad faith in order to
support the arrest of Plaintiff.
52.69. Defendant Hurd’s fabrication of charges caused undue hardship on Plaintiff who
was arrested and charged with felonies.
53.70. As a result, Plaintiff suffered extreme humiliation, physical injuries, lost wages,
loss of reputation, and emotional distress.
COUNT IV: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION-HURD AND SPICER
72. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when he filed this lawsuit against Defendants.
73. The retaliatory actions of Hurd and Spicer in involving themselves in Plaintiff’s subsequent
arrest was sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his rights.
74. Hurd and Spicer, were not the arresting officers, however, they still participated in
Plaintiff’s booking, transport, and bond hearing for a subsequent motor vehicle offense.
7
75. Spicer participated in Plaintiff’s bond hearing by requesting a higher and more secure bond
than typically would be offered.
76. Spicer further retaliated against Plaintiff by transporting him to SCI and informing the on
duty sergeant that Plaintiff had already made a phone call.
77. There was a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity of filing a lawsuit
against Defendants and their retaliatory action against Plaintiff.
78. As a result, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, monetary damage, loss of reputation, lost
wages, and emotional distress.
COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983 – MONELL CLAIM AS TO CITY
55.80. Upon information and belief, City failed to mandate policies, practices, and/or
customs concerning – and adequately and properly supervise and train its police officers in
– various aspects of law enforcement, including but not limited to, the constitutional bounds
and limits concerning the use of excessive force against persons and suspects within the
geographic and jurisdiction limits of Dover, Delaware.
56.81. Upon information and belief, City had a policy and/or custom of failing to properly
investigate alleged incidents of its officers using excessive force or engaging in other police
misconduct. Therefore, City failed to properly supervise, discipline, punish, train, and
counsel its officers that used excessive force or engaged in other police misconduct,
providing no accountability for City’s police officers. This, in turn, has fostered more
instances of excessive force and other police misconduct, including but not limited Hurd
8
and Spicer’s use of excessive force against Plaintiff.
57.82. The above-described acts and omissions by City demonstrated a deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of the citizens of Dover, Delaware and were the
direct and proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as set forth
herein.
58.83. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures by City, Plaintiff suffered
the damages alleged herein.
59.84. Plaintiff is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from City for his injuries and
losses.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. All lawful general and special damages in an amount to be determined, against all
Defendants.
B. Injunctive relief ordering and mandating that Defendant City create and mandate policies,
procedures, and customs (including training, counseling, and heightened supervision of its
officers) that would provide for robust and proper internal affairs investigations and resulting
discipline, punishments, training and counseling as is and may be necessary to avoid further
instances of excessive force and other police misconduct. Plaintiff seeks an enforcement
mechanism that will enable the public to determine whether Defendant City has taken appropriate
remedial measures and complied with the orders of this Court.
C. Plaintiffs’ cost in this action, including reasonable attorney fees and pre and post-judgment
interest.
D. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
9
E. Trial by Jury.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: February 21, 2020October 4, 2018 THE NORMAN LAW

FIRM
/s/Stephen P. Norman
Stephen P. Norman, Esquire, Bar I.D. 5497
30838 Vines Creek Road; Unit 3
Dagsboro, DE 19939
302-537-3788
302-732-3045 (fax)
snorman@thenormanlawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10

Clark Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clark Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-01538-LPS Document 26 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 156

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Firm, 30838 Vines Creek Rd., Unit 3, Dagsboro, DE 19939.

Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.

of Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.

4. Defendant, City of Dover, Delaware (“City” or “Dover”) is a municipal corporation duly

of police officers employed by the City including Webster.

Jurisdiction and Venue

claims arising under state law.

to the suit occurred in this judicial District.

encountered Defendants Spicer and Hurd.

10. Spicer yelled to Plaintiff to “Pull the fuck over”.

immediately pull his bike over.

13. Officer Spicer then pursued Plaintiff in his police vehicle.

15. Defendant Hurd assisted Spicer with handcuffing Plaintiff.

21. While at his police vehicle Hurd retrieved a handgun.

for treatment where he was diagnosed with multiple injuries.

29. Plaintiff was charged with multiple crimes.

did not struggle with either of them.

department policies or had otherwise done anything wrong.

training nor counseling as a result of the incident described herein.

Retaliation Against Plaintiff for Filing the Lawsuit

arrestable vehicular violation sometime in 2019.

came to the scene and made themselves known to Plaintiff.

and Spicer met Plaintiff at the police station.

41. Both Hurd and Spicer participated in Plaintiff’s bond hearing.

Plaintiff make bond by calling his family.

he already had one.

to his arrival at SCI.

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983,

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.

ground, lying unconscious.

that Plaintiff did not resist the detention with force.

COUNT II: BATTERY – DEFENDANT HURD AND SPICER

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.

when he was tackled by violently struck Plaintiff.

Delaware for his injuries and losses

COUNT III: FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE-HURD ONLY

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.

to the establishment of probable cause.

arrested and charged with felonies.

reputation, and emotional distress.

COUNT IV: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION-HURD AND SPICER

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.

than typically would be offered.

duty sergeant that Plaintiff had already made a phone call.

against Defendants and their retaliatory action against Plaintiff.

wages, and emotional distress.

COUNT V: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983 – MONELL CLAIM AS TO CITY

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.

and jurisdiction limits of Dover, Delaware.

and Spicer’s use of excessive force against Plaintiff.

damages alleged herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

remedial measures and complied with the orders of this Court.

D. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Date: February 21, 2020 THE NORMAN LAW FIRM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Firm, 30838 Vines Creek Rd., Unit 3, Dagsboro, DE 19939.

Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.

of Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.

4. Defendant, City of Dover, Delaware (“City” or “Dover”) is a municipal corporation duly

of police officers employed by the City including Webster.