Post v MDOC

8/12/2019 Post v MDOC

1/43

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

of Terri

L. Greene

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

V.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

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,

JOHN

AND

JANE

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

[email protected]

kklinegkifiaw.com

COMPLAINT

AND JURY

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

JUDGE.

KALANZ,

10R10

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

EPA..

4981

Cascada

Rd. S.E.

Grand

Rapids,

M14I 49546


2/43

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

of Terri

L.

Greene,

by

an d

through

his

attorneys,

the

law

offices

of

Kalniz,

lorio

&

Feldstein

Co., L.P.A.,

and for his

Complaint hereby

states

and

avers as

follows:

JURISDICTION

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,

an d

was

acting

under

color

of

law

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

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


3/43

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

Michiga

and Eaton

County

an d

was

acting

in

the

course

an d

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,

an d

supervis

a

sheriff

s

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,

an d

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

Jail

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

an d

procedure

making, staffing,

training

and

rule

enforcement

regarding

sheriff

s

deputies

that

act

in

Eaton

County,

Michigan,

an d

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


4/43

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

an d

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

John

and Jane

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

Jail

and

whose

identities

are no t

known

at

this

time

and

were

no t

able to

be

obtained

through

reasonable

efforts

an d

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

hirin

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

of

the

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

hirin

training,

supervising,

disciplining,

and

instructing

their

deputies

in

the

performance

o

their

job

duties

and

were

responsible

for

setting

policies

an d

procedures

for

employees

an d

deputies'

conduct

and

enforcement

of

the

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

th

KALMZ,

IORIO

;

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

EPA..i

4981

Cascade

Rd.

5.6.

Grand

Rapids,

MI

49546

4


5/43


6/43

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

750.157N

I

(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

Judge

Thomas

S.

Eve land.

Defendant

Perrien

was sentenced

to

300

days

in the

Eaton

County

Jail

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

him

from

work

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

on e

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

no t exist

on

September

1

2011,

does

not

now

exist,

and

ha s

never

existed.

The

August

8

2011

letter

provided

by

Defendant

Perrien

was

no t

on

company

letterhead

and

a

review

of

Michigan

business records

reveals that

Advanced

Building

Contractors,

Inc. ha s

never

existed.

Law Offices

of

KALNIZ,

IORIO

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

LEA.

4981

Ce.s.cde

Rd.

S.E.

Grand

Rapids,

MI 49546

6


7/43

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

no t

object

to

the

court-ordered

work

release

for

Defendant

Perrien,

Defendant

Widener

knew

or

should

have

known that

Defendant

Perrien

was

no t

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

an d

belief,

had

Defendant

Ruffin

o r

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

an d

that

Defendant

Perrien

was

not

employed

as

required

for

work

release.

25.

Upon

information

and

belief,

the

MDOC

and

its

employees

an d

agents,

including,

but

no t

limited

to,

Defendant

Widener,

Defendant

Ruffin,

and

Defendant Alana,

failed

t

verify

whether

Defendant

Perrien

was

actually employed

an d

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

an d belief,

Eaton

County,

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff

s

Departme

Defendant

Raines,

Defendant

McPhail,

an d

their

employees

and

agents

failed

to

verify

whether

Defendant

Perrien

was

actually

employed

and

failed

to

verify

wheth

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


8/43

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

an d

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

Jail

that

evening.

29. Ms.

Greene's

body

was

found

by

her

parents dumped

in a

pond

located

in

the

Greene

backyard.

Ms.

Greene

ha d

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

ou t

on

work release.

Subsequent

GPS

reports

established

that

Defenda

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.

an d

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


9/43

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 knew

or

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,

an d of

failing

to

report

under

work release

programs,

a

history

of

which

disqualified

him from

the

work release

program

which the

Defendants

knew o r

should

have

known about.

34.

Specifically,

prior

to

September

1

2011

Defendant

Perrien was

charged

and

convicte

of the

following

criminal offenses

of

which the

Defendants

knew

o r

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

an d

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

o r

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

of

MCL750.363

(10/31/2001)

4981 Cascade

Rd.

S.E.

Grand

RapIds,

MI

49546

9


10/43

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

ha d

the

following

additional

probation

violations:

Issuing

checks

without an

account o r

without

sufficient funds

in

violation

of

MCL750.131(A)(1)

an d

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 o r

should have

known

about.

36.

Upon

information

and

belief,

prior

to

September

1

2011,

Defendant

Perrien

was

a

dangerous

and

violent criminal. Defendant

Perrien

ha d

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

July

8, 2007,

all

of

which Defendants

knew of

or

should

have

Law Offices

of

KALNIZ,

W

&

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

L.PA.

known about.

Additionally,

at various

times,

Defendant

Perrien

was

subject

to

nine

(9)

4981

Cascade

Rd.

Grand

Rapids,

M1

49546


11/43


12/43


#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

o r

his work release

would

have

been

immediately

revoked

and

Defendant

Perrien

would have

been

in

jail

on

September

22,

2011

and would

no t

have

had

the

opportunity

to

murder

Ms. Greene

and

Michael

Greene.

41 On

September

1

2011

the Eaton

County

Sheriff

s

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,

no t

the

Eaton

County

Sherins

Office].

Only

the

courts

o r the

probation

office

has

the

authority

to

make

any

changes

in

the

work

schedule

o r 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

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

ha d

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

no t

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:

Law Offices

of

KALNIZ,

(ORO &

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

L.P.A.

4981

Cascade Rd.

S.E

Grand

Rapids,

MI 49548

12


13/43


#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 .

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,

no t

the

taxpayer.

42

Require

work

releasers

to

provide

an

original pay

stub

each

pay

period

to

Jail Staff

in addition

to

any requirements

of

the

court.

43

Require

work releasers

to

provide

verification

of

employment

an d

work

hours

on

company

letterhead to

Jail Staff

in

addition

to

any

requirements

of

the court.

Sheriff

Raines

stated,

any

violations

while

on

work release

will result

in

the

immediate

termination

of

work

release

status,

until

o r unless

it

is

reinstated

by

a

court

order .

45.

Upon

information

and

belief,

Eaton

County

an d

the

Eaton

County

Sherifrs

Department

did

no t

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

ou t of

jail

for

work

release.

46.

Upon

information

and

belief,

on

September

1

2011

the MDOC

did

no t

have

a

statewide

j

policy

for

verifying

eligibility

and

employment

before

allowing

a

parolee

ou t ot

ail

tor

Law Offices

of

KALNIZ,

(ORO

&

FELDSTEIN

CO., L.P/L

4981

Cascade

Rd.

S.E.

Grand

RapVs,

MI 49546

13


14/43


#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

no t

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

ou t of

jail

for work

release.

COUNT

I

COMMON

LAW

GROSS

NEGLIGENCE

Defendants

MDOC,

Widener,

Ruffin

and

Alana

(in

their

official

and

individual

capacities)

48.

Plaintiff

herein

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

of

the

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

an d

probationers

under

the

jurisdiction

of

the

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

o r

probationer

for

parole

o r

probation

violations

where

probable

cause

supporting

the same

exists;

Law Offices

of

KALNIZ,

fORIO

&

FELDSTEIN CO.,

L, PA.

4961

Cascade

Rd.

S.E.

Grand

Raptcfs

MI 49545

14


15/43

1


#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

wor

release are

eligible

for

work

release;

h.

The

duty

to

act

as

a

reasonable

public

entity,

state

agency,

or

parole

o r

probation

agent

would

act

under

the

circumstances

then

and

there

existing;

and

i.

The

duty

to

have

a

reasonable

policy

o r

custom

concerning

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

of the

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

an d

probationers

under

the

jurisdiction

of the

MDOC,

and

to

specifically

monitor

and

supervise

Defendant

Perrien;

d. Failure

to

investigate,

review,

report,

and

respond

to

parole/probation

violations

in

general

an d

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

o r

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


16/43


#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

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;

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

o r

parole

o r

probatio

agent

would

act under

the

circumstances then

and

there

existing;

an d

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 an d

bad faith

acts

of the

Defendants

MDOC,

Widener,

Ruffin,

Alana

and

other

employees

and

agents

of

Defendant

MDOC,

the

plaintiff

s

decedent

was

murdered

an d

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.

Offices

of

KALN1Z,

fORIO

FFLOSTEIN CO.,

LP4.

4981

Cascada Rd.

S.E.

Grand

Raplds,

M149546

1

6


17/43


18/43


#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

said

parolees

and

probationers

have valid

employment

before

being

released

from

jail

on work

re lease and

to

verify

that

said

individuals

maintain

valid

employment

during

the

course

of

their

work

release;

f. The

duty

to

ensure

that

parolees

and

probationers

released

from

jail

on work

release

under

tbe

jurisdiction

of

the

MDOC are

eligible

for

work

release;

g.

The

duty

to act

as a

reasonable

parole

o r

probation

agents

would

act

under the

I

circumstances

then and there

existing;

and

h. The

duty

to

have a

reasonable

policy

o r

custom

concerning

work

release.

57.

Defendant

John

an d

Jane

Does

1-10

breached

their

respective

duties owed

to

plaintiff

in

the


ways:

a. Failure

to

abide

by

the laws of the

State

of

Michigan;

b. Failure

to

supervise

and

monitor

parolees

and

probationers

under

the

jurisdiction

of the

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

o r

probationer

for

parole

o r

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

of

his work

release;

Law

Offioes

of

KALNIZ,

fORID &

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

L,

PA.

4981 Cascade

Rd. S.E.

Grand

Rapids,

MI 49696

1 8


19/43


#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

o r

probation

agent

would

act

under

the

circumstances

then

and

there

existing;

and

h.

Failure to

maintain

a

reasonable

policy

o r

custom

concerning

work

release.

58.

In

breaching

said

duties

as

set

forth

herein,

Defendants

John

an d

Jane

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

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10

acte

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

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10,

the

plaintiff

s

decedent

was

murdered

and

suffered

conscious

severe

pain

and

suffering,

both

physical

and

psychological,

including

shock

and

fright,

an d

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

ba d

faith

acts of

the

Defendants

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10,

plaintiff's

decedent's

family,

including

her

only

child,

ha s

been

deprived

of

the

financial

support,

love,

society,

comfort

and

guidance

of

Terri

Greene,

and have

sustained

other

compensable

damages,

including,

but no t

limited

to,

extraordinary

therapy

an

prescription

drug

costs

incurred

in

dealing

with

the

tragic

an d

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


20/43


#1

Filed 09/19/13

Page

20

of

43

Page

ID#20

COUNT

Hi RESPONDEAT

SUPERIOR

Michigan

Department of

Corrections

62.

Plaintiff

herein

incorporates

by

reference

paragraphs

one

(1)

through

sixty-one

(61)

as

if

fully

restated

herein.

;1

63.

At

all

times relevant

hereto,

Defendants

Widener,

Ruffin, Alana,

and

other

parole

and

probation

agents,

identified

herein as John and

Jane

Does

1-10,

were

employed

by

the

De;fendant MDOC.

64 .

Defendant

Widener's,

Ruffin's,

Alana's

and

John

and

Jane

Does 1-10's

gross

negligent,

willful,

wanton,

malicious

and bad

faith

acts

were

committed

while

actin

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

it

agents,

servants

and

employees

including,

but

no t

limited

to,

Defendants

Widener,

Ruffin,

Alana

and

john

and

Jane

Does

1-10.

COUNT

IV COMMON

LAW

GROSS

NEGLIGENCE

Defendants

Eaton

County,

Eaton

County

Sheriffs

Department,

Raines

&

McPhail

(in

their

official

and

individual

capacities)

66.

Plaintiff

herein

incorporates by

reference

paragraphs

one

(1) through

sixty-five

(65)

a

if

fully

restated

herein.

67.

Defendants

Eaton

County,

Eaton

County

Sheriff's

Department,

Raines,

McPhail,

an

other sheriff

s

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


21/43


#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

of the

Eaton

County

Sheriff

s

Department

and

Eaton

County

Jail;

d.

The

duty

to

arrest

a

parolee

o r

probationer

for

parole

or

probation

violations

where

probable

cause

supporting

the

same

exists;

e. The

duty

to

verify,

monitor

and

supervise

parolees

an d

probationers

on

work

release

under

the

jurisdiction

of

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff

s

Department

an d

Eaton

County

Jail,

including

the

duty

to

verify

that

said

parolees

and

probationers

have

valid

employment

before

being

released

from

jail

on

work

release

an d

to

verify

that

said

individuals

maintain

valid

employment

during

the

course

of their

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

Jail

ar e

eligible

for

work

release;

g.

The

duty

to

act

as

a

reasonable

municipal

corporation,

sheriff,

o r

deputy

sheriff

would

act

under

the

circumstances

then

an d

there

existing;

and

h.

The

duty

to

have

a

reasonable

policy

o r

custom

concerning

work

release.

68. Defendants

Eaton

County,

Eaton

County

Sheriff's

Department,

Raines,

McPhail,

an d

other

sheriff's

deputies

and

county

employees

and

agents

breached

their

respective

duties

owed

to

plaintiff

in the

following

particular

ways:

Law

Offices

a.

Failure

to

abide

by

the

laws

of

the State

of

Michigan;

of

KALNIZ,

ORO &

FELDSTEIN CO.,

L.P.A.

4961

Cascade

Rd. S F

Grand

Rapids,

MI

49546:

21


22/43


#1

Filed 09/19/13

Page

22

of

43

Page

ID#22

b. Failure

to

properly

and

adequately

hire,

train,

supervise,

and

discipline

sheriff

s

deputies

acting

in Eaton

County;

c.

Failure

to

supervise

and

monitor

parolees

and

probationers

under

the

jurisdiction

of

Eaton

County,

and

to

specifically

monitor

and

supervise

Defendant

Perrien;

d.

Failure

to

arrest

a

parolee

or

probationer

for

parole

o r

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

of his 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,

o r

deputy

would

act

under the

circumstances

then and

there

existing;

and

h.

Failure

to

maintain

a

reasonable

policy

o r

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

an d

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

of concern

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

an d

Defendant

Raines,

and

other

sheriff

s

deputies

an d

county

employees

an d

agents

acted

willfully,

wantonly,

maliciously

an d

in ba d

faith.

Law

Offices

of

KALNIZ,

fORIO

FELDSTEIN CO.,

L.P.A.

4981

Cascade

Rd. S.E.

Grand

Rapfds,

1 41 49546

22

ic71F4?

c


23/43


#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

ba d

faith

acts

of

the

Defendants

Eaton

County,

Eaton

County

Sheri

11-s

Department,

Raines, McPhail,

and

other

sheriff

s

deputies

an d

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

of

her 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,

ha s

been

deprived

of

the

financial

support,

love,

society,

comfort

and

guidance

of

Terri

Greene,

and

have

sustained

other

compensable

damages,

including,

but

no t

limited

to,

extraordinary

therapy

and

prescription

drug

costs

incurred

in

dealing

with

the

tragic

and

avoidable

loss

of a beloved

family

member.

COUNT

V

COMMON

LAW

GROSS

NEGLIGENCE

Defendants

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10

(in

their

official

and individual

capacities

as

employees

of

Defendants

Eaton

County

and

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff's

Department)

73.

Plaintiff

herein

incorporates

by

reference

paragraphs

one

(1)

through

seventy-two

(72)

as

if

fully

restated

herein.

74.

Defendants

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10,

as

employees

and

agents

of

Eaton

County

and

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff's

Department,

owed

plaintiff

the

following

duties:

a.

The

duty

to

abide

by

the

laws

of the

state

of

Michigan;

Law

Offices

of

KALNIZ,

IORIO

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

L.PA.

4981

Cascade

Rd.

s.E.

Grand

Rapids,

Mi 49546

23


24/43


#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

of

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff

s

Department

an d

Eaton

County

Jail;

c. The

duty

to

arrest

a

parolee

o r

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

Jail,

including

the

duty

to

verify

that

said

parolees

an d

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;

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

Jail

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

John and

Jane

Does 1-10

breached

their

respective

duties

owed to

plaintiff

in

the


ways:

a.

Failure

to

abide

by

the

laws

of

the

State

of

Michigan;

b.

Failure

to

supervise

and

monitor

parolees

and

probationers

under

the

jurisdiction

of Eaton

County

and

the

Eaton

County

Jail,

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


25/43


#1

Filed 09/19/13

Page

25

of

43

Page

ID#25

c.

Failure

to

arrest

a

parolee

o r

probationer

for

parole

o r

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

ac t

as

a

reasonable

sheriff

s

deputy

would

ac t

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

John

and Jane

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

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10

acted

willfully,

wantonly, maliciously

and

in

bad faith.

78.

As

a

direct

an d

proximate

result of

the above

grossly

negligent,

willful, wanton,

malicious

and bad faith

acts

of

the Defendants

John and Jane 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


26/43


27/43


#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,

&

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10

(in

their

official

and individual

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

John

an d

Jane

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

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10

owed

a

duty

to

the

public,

and

plaintiff's

decedent,

to

verifying

a

parolee's

employment

before

allowing

a

parolee

ou t

of

jail

for work

release,

a

duty

to

verifying

a

parolee's

continued,

valid

employment

after

a

parolee

ha s

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

no t

released

on

work

release.

87.

The

MDOC

was

under

a

duty

to

train

its

parole

an d

probation

agents,

employees,

servants

an d

agents.

88 .

Specifically,

MDOC

owed

a

duty

to

the

public,

and

plaintiff

s

decedent,

to

properly

train

its

parole

an d

probation

agents

in the

procedures

to

verify

a

parolee's

employmen

before

allowing

a

parolee

out of

jail

for

work

release,

to

verify

a

parolee's

continued

valid

employment

after

a

parolee

ha s

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

tha

FELOSTEIN Ca,

L.PA.

49 3

1

Cascade

Rd. S.E.

Grand

Rapids,

Mf

49546

27


28/43


#1

Filed 09/19/13

Page

28

of

43

Page

ID#28

ineligible

imnates

are

no t

released on

work

release,

an d

to

ensure

that

violent,

career

criminals

are

not

released

on

work

release.

89. Defendants

MDOC,

Widener,

Ruffin,

Alana,

an d

John

an d

Jane

Does

violated

plaintiff's

decedent's

constitutional

rights

under

the

State

of

Michigan

Constitution,

including

Plaintiff's

decedent's

right

to

life

an d

liberty

protected

in

the

substantive

component

of

the

Due

Process Clause

of

Article

1

Section

17,

in

the

following

ways:

a.

By

deliberately

maintaining

a

custom

and/or

policy

to

no t

verify

employment

before

allowing

a

parolee

out

of

jail

for

work

release;

b.

By

deliberately

maintaining

a

custom

and/or

policy

to

no t

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

no t

released

on

work

release

e.

By

deliberately

failing

to

have

a

statewide

policy

for

verifying

that

violent,

career

criminals

ar e

not

released

on

work

release.

f.

By

deliberately

failing

to

have

a

statewide

policy

for

verifying

employmen

before

allowing

a

parolee

out

of

jail

for

work

release;

g.

By

deliberately

failing

to

have

a

statewide

policy

for

verifying

employment

afte

a

parolee

is

ou t

of

jail

for work

release

h.

By

deliberately

maintaining

a custom

and/or

policy

wherein

the

MDOC

and

it

employees

assume

that

the

local

sheriff's

office

verifies

employment

before

allowing

a

parolee

ou t of

jail

for

work

release.

LwOftCQJ

KALMZ,

ORO

&

FELDSTON CO.,

L.P.A.:

4981

Cascada

Rd.

S

E

Grand

Rapids,

MI 49546

28


29/43


#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

ha s

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

ha s left

jail

on

work

release,

without

verifying

a

parolee's

employment.

90.

Defendants

MDOC,

Widener, Ruffin,

Alana,

and

Jo

1m

and

Jane

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

John and

Jane

Does,

and

the

violations of

plaintiff

s decedent's

right

to

life

an d

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

of her death.

of;

KALNIZ,

IORIO

:

FELDSTEIN

CO.,

L.RA.

49Th CascadeRd,

S:

Grand

Rapids,

MI

49546

29


30/43


#1

Filed 09/19/13

Page

30

of

43

Page

ID#30

92.

As

the

direct

an d

proximate

result

of the

deliberate,

willful an d

wanton

misconduct

of

the

Defendants

MDOC,

Widener,

Ruffin,

Alana,

an d

john

and Jane

Does,

an d

the

violations

of

plaintiff

s

decedent's

right

to

life

an d

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,

ha s

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

&

John

and

Jane

Does

1-10

(in

their

official

and individual

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

Department,

Raines,

McPhail

and other

Eaton

County

sheriff

s

deputies,

identified

herein as

John and

Jane

Does,

were

under

a

duty

to

monitor

and

supervise

inmates,

parolees

and

probationers

under

the

Eaton

County

an d

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff's

Department's

jurisdiction.

95.

Specifically,

Defendants

Eaton

County,

the

Eaton

County

Sheriff

s

Department,

Raines,

McPhail,

and John

and

Jane

Does owed

a

duty

to

the

public,

an d

plaintiff's

decedent,

to

verifying

a

parolee's

employment

before

allowing

a

parolee

ou t

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


31/43


#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

wor

release

were released from

jail,

a

duty

to

ensure that

ineligible

inmates

are

no t

released

on

work

release,

an d a

duty

to

ensure that

violent,

career

criminals

are

no t

released

on

work

release.

96.

The

Eaton

County

an d

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

ha s been

released from

jail

on

work

release,

to

verify

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	justin-hinkley
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Post v MDOC

Documents