Reed, Deshaya Complaint Final

STATE OF MICHIGAN
FOR THE 30TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

INGHAM COUNTY
DESHAYA REED, Hon.
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 21- -NO
v.
CITY OF LANSING; MIKE YANKOWSKI,

former Chief of Police, in his Official and
Individual Capacities; LINDSEY HOWLEY,
in her Official and Individual Capacities; and
BAILEY UEBERROTH, in his Official and
Individual Capacities,
Defendants.
Elizabeth K. Abdnour (P78203) Karen Truszkowski (P56929)

ELIZABETH ABDNOUR LAW, PLLC TEMPERANCE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
1100 W. Saginaw St., Ste. 4A-2 503 Mall Court #131
Lansing, MI 48915 Lansing, MI 48912
(517) 292-0067 phone (844) 534-2560 phone
(517) 709-7700 fax (800) 531-6527 fax
[email protected] [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff
There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the

transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff DESHAYA REED, by and through her attorneys, ELIZABETH K. ABDNOUR
and KAREN TRUSZKOWSKI, hereby files the following complaint against the Defendants as
captioned above.
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The events giving rise to the within complaint occurred in Ingham County Michigan.
Furthermore, the Lansing Police Department is a public institution located in Ingham
County, Michigan.
2. Defendant City of Lansing is an incorporated municipality located in the City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan.
3. This Court has jurisdiction under MCL 600.605.
4. Venue is appropriate in this Court under MCL 600.1615.
5. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $25,000.00.
THE PARTIES
6. At all material times Plaintiff DESHAYA REED was a resident of Ingham County, State
of Michigan.
7. Plaintiff is Black, African American, and has a disability.
8. Plaintiff is thin and of slight build.
9. Defendant CITY OF LANSING is an incorporated municipality located in Ingham County,
State of Michigan.
10. Defendant City of Lansing, acting through the Lansing Police Department (“LPD”), is
responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LPD
matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LPD
personnel. In addition, the City of Lansing is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LPD
and ensuring that LPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of
Michigan.
2
11. At all material times, Defendant MIKE YANKOWSKI (“Yankowski”), in his official
capacity, worked within Ingham County, State of Michigan as the Chief of Police of the
Lansing Police Department. As Chief of Police, Defendant Yankowski was responsible for
the operation and management of the police department, department personnel, and/or for
the enforcement of laws within the City of Lansing. Upon information and belief,
Yankowski retired from the City of Lansing on July 31, 2019, and began working at
Michigan State University as the Assistant Director of Institutional Ethics and Compliance
within its Office of Audit, Risk and Compliance.
12. During all material times, Yankowski was an agent and/or employee of Defendant City of
Lansing, acting or failing to act within the scope, course, and authority of his employment
and his employer.
13. At all material times, Defendant LINDSEY HOWLEY (“Howley”), in her official
capacity, worked within Ingham County, State of Michigan as an officer of the Lansing
Police Department. As an officer, Defendant Howley was responsible for upholding and
enforcing the law and maintaining the peace in the City of Lansing. Upon information and
belief, Defendant Howley began working with the Lansing Police Department oin June
2018.
14. During all material times, Howley was an agent and/or employee of Defendant City of
Lansing, acting or failing to act within the scope, course, and authority of her employment
and her employer.
15. At all material times, Defendant BAILEY UEBERROTH (“Ueberroth”), in his official
capacity, worked within Ingham County, State of Michigan as an officer of the Lansing
Police Department. As an officer, Defendant Ueberroth was responsible for upholding and
3
enforcing the law and maintaining the peace in the City of Lansing. Upon information and
belief, Defendant Ueberroth began working with the Lansing Police Department in or about
January 2019.
16. During all material times, Ueberroth was an agent and/or employee of Defendant City of
Lansing, acting or failing to act within the scope, course, and authority of his employment
and his employer.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Systemic violations of the rights of young Black women in Michigan: Grace’s story
17. Black youth in Michigan are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.
18. In fiscal year 2019, the juvenile population of the State of Michigan was roughly 70 percent
white and 17 percent Black. Fifty-six percent of juvenile arrests in Michigan involved
white youth and roughly 37 percent involved Black youth.1
19. In the State of Michigan, Black youth are 27 times more likely to be arrested than white
youth.2
20. Young Black girls like Plaintiff are consistently and unfairly viewed as dangerous, both in
Michigan and nationally.
21. Grace, a fifteen-year-old Black girl from Oakland County, Michigan, was deemed a “threat
to the community” and incarcerated for 78 days after falling asleep before class and
supposedly failing to complete one morning's worth of schoolwork.3
1
Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice, Michigan Racial and Ethnic Disparities Data,
<https://michigancommitteeonjuvenilejustice.com/michigan-data/socio-demographic-data.html> (accessed May 18,
2021).
2
Id.
3
Cohen, A Teenager Didn’t Do Her Online Schoolwork. So a Judge Sent Her to Juvenile Detention, ProPublica
(July 14, 2020), available at <https://www.propublica.org/article/a-teenager-didnt-do-her-online-schoolwork-so-a-
judge-sent-her-to-juvenile-detention>.
4
22. The similarities between Grace’s story to Plaintiff Reed’s case are striking and when
viewed together the two illustrate the heartbreaking reality that Black girls are
disproportionally pushed into the juvenile justice system, both in Michigan and nationally.
23. Grace was a high school sophomore in the fall of 2019 when her troubles began. Although
she had periodic conflicts with her mother, as many teenagers do, she had strong
friendships and was active in her school and community. She helped out at church, played
in the school band, and regularly participated in service projects. 4
24. In November 2019, Grace and her mother got into an argument and assault charges were
filed against Grace.5
25. After her arrest, Grace was caught stealing a cell phone. She was charged with larceny and
placed on probation.6
26. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, Grace was attending school online. She was also diagnosed
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”).7
27. Although Grace’s caseworker initially appeared to understand the challenges that Grace
was facing and even stated in her case notes, “Child needs time to adjust to this new normal
of being on probation and doing work from home,” she ultimately filed a violation of
probation against Grace for not doing her school work when she learned that Grace had
fallen back asleep one morning after checking in with her.8 Sadly, the caseworker had not
bothered to ask Grace’s teacher whether Grace was meeting her academic requirements
before she filed this violation. 9
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id
8
Id.
9
Id.
5
28. A probation violation hearing was held on May 14, 2020. Despite evidence that Grace was
working hard and starting to improve, the judge stated that Grace’s probation had “zero
tolerance” and she had Grace removed from the courtroom in handcuffs and sent to
detention.10 This decision was especially shocking since Michigan Governor Gretchen
Whitmer had issued an Executive Order in March 2020 that temporarily suspended the
confinement of juveniles who violate probation “unless a young person posed a substantial
and immediate safety risk to others.”11
29. The local and national outrage that resulted from Grace’s detention ultimately helped to
free her, but not until she had spent 78 days in confinement. The scrutiny that Grace’s case
drew focused a national discussion on the juvenile justice system and systemic racism. 12
Over 300,000 people signed an online petition to release Grace, members of Congress
asked the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to intervene, and multiple protests
were held outside the courthouse. 13
Similarities between Grace and Plaintiff
30. Grace’s story took place less than a year after the events that occurred in Plaintiff’s life,
which are outlined in this complaint, and the relevant facts are sadly similar.
31. Both Grace and Plaintiff are Black female teenagers with educational disabilities and
mental health diagnoses.
32. Both were cruelly deprived of the educational and community support they desperately
needed.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Cohen, Case Closed: Michigan Judge Removes Grace, Black Teen Jailed for Not Doing Online Schoolwork,
From Probation, ProPublica (August 11, 2020), available at <https://www.propublica.org/article/case-closed-
michigan-judge-removes-grace-black-teen-jailed-for-not-doing-online-schoolwork-from-probation>.
13
Id.
6
33. Both were unjustly placed on probation for relatively minor offenses, and both wound up
being taken from their families and placed in detention centers for long periods of time
after minor violations of their probations.
34. In neither case were any attempts made to understand the issues faced by these young
women and their treatment and punishment were inappropriate for their alleged offenses.
Racial disparities in the Ingham County and City of Lansing juvenile justice systems
35. In fiscal year 2019, the Ingham County juvenile population was roughly 60 percent white
and 20 percent Black.14 Fifty-one percent of juvenile arrests in Ingham County involved
Black youth, compared to 34 percent involving white youth. 15
36. In 2018, the City of Lansing juvenile population was roughly 28 percent Black. 16 Black
youth accounted for almost 70 percent of the City of Lansing’s juvenile arrests.17
37. In Ingham County and the City of Lansing, Black youth are at least 4.5 times as likely to
be arrested than their white peers.18
Plaintiff DeShaya Reed
38. Plaintiff is an 18-year-old woman who resides in Lansing, Michigan. Plaintiff is Black and
African American.
39. Plaintiff was a minor at the time of the abuse that is the subject of this complaint.
Plaintiff’s social, academic, and emotional history
14
Supra note 1.
15
Id.
16
Berg, Lansing police at least 4.5 times more likely to arrest Black kids than white peers, Lansing State Journal
(September 16, 2020), available at <https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/09/17/lansing-police-3-
times-more-likely-arrest-black-kids-than-white/3357745001/>.
17
Id.
18
Supra notes 1 and 16.
7
40. When Plaintiff was around five years old, she was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder
(“ADD”).
41. Plaintiff also believes she has dyslexia, although she has never been formally diagnosed.
42. Due to these disabilities, Plaintiff has continuously struggled with reading throughout her
life.
43. Plaintiff describes herself as a “visual learner,” working best when she has in-person, visual
educational services.
44. Despite continuously experiencing academic struggles, Plaintiff was never offered any
special education evaluation or services during her entire twelve-year academic career in
Lansing School District.
45. Plaintiff was also the victim of repeated sexual abuse by her mother’s son when she was
12 years old.
46. Plaintiff has exhibited the typical symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”)
for a number of years, including but not limited to severe anxiety, avoidance, hopelessness,
negative thoughts about the future, detachment, difficulty maintaining close relationships,
feeling emotionally numb, self-destructive behavior, irritability, aggressiveness, and
always feeling on guard.
47. Plaintiffs’ years-long academic struggles and the severe trauma of the sexual abuse led her
to begin acting out as a teenager.
48. Plaintiff was never provided with the tools and supports she needed to learn how to cope
with and process her deep emotional pain, grief, and trauma, and did not know what to do
with her emotions.
Plaintiff’s introduction to the juvenile justice system
8
49. In October 2018, Plaintiff was suspended from Everett High School after a pocketknife
was discovered in her backpack.
50. Plaintiff had put the pocketknife in her backpack for protection and forgot to take it out
before going to school.
51. Plaintiff regularly feels a sense of heightened fear due to her sexual abuse, leading her to
feel she needs as much protection as possible on her.
52. Plaintiff did not take the knife out of her backpack or threaten anyone with it. She simply
forgot to remove it from her backpack before going to school that morning.
53. Plaintiff was then suspended from school for five months.
54. Plaintiff was placed on probation following her suspension from Everett High School. The
terms of Plaintiff’s probation required her to be monitored by a probation officer.
55. During her suspension, Plaintiff told her probation officer that she wanted to go to Ingham
Academy, but she was never enrolled there.
56. During this period, Plaintiff was not provided any tutoring or educational services.
57. Plaintiff was not offered any behavioral or emotional supports or reasonable
accommodations for her disability.
58. Plaintiff was extremely frustrated and upset by missing so much school, and her emotions
became even more overwhelming.
59. Plaintiff returned to Everett High School in February 2019. The day she returned to Everett
she was suspended again for allegedly making a threat on Facebook.
60. Plaintiff was suspended for about a month.
61. Again, during her suspension, Plaintiff was not provided any tutoring or educational
services.
9
62. Again, Plaintiff was not evaluated for special education services or offered any behavioral
or emotional supports or reasonable accommodations for her disability.
63. This second suspension frustrated and upset Plaintiff even more, as she wanted to receive
an education and learn to read, and she was being denied the opportunity to do so.
64. Following the second suspension, Plaintiff believed she would not be able to return to
Everett successfully.
65. Plaintiff decided to enroll at Ingham Academy because her sister had gone there, and her
mother thought it would be a good fit for her.
66. Plaintiff began attending Ingham Academy in March 2019 and was excited to attend school
there.
67. Ingham Academy staff told Plaintiff that she would receive driving instruction and would
be able to graduate early.
68. Plaintiff was ready and excited to have regular educational instruction once again.
69. Plaintiff did not live at Ingham Academy. Plaintiff lived at home with her mother and
traveled to Ingham Academy for instruction each day.
The effect of criminal charges being filed against Plaintiff’s abuser
70. Also in March 2019, Plaintiff’s relative who had sexually assaulted her as a child was
arrested and charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct.
71. Plaintiff was told that she needed to participate as a witness in the criminal matter.
72. Being faced with the prospect of having to testify against her abuser caused Plaintiff
significant stress, anxiety, and emotional turmoil.
73. In late May or early June 2019, Plaintiff developed a cold sore.
74. Plaintiff had suffered from cold sores in the past.
10
75. Plaintiff is extremely insecure about her cold sores. When Plaintiff has a cold sore, she
becomes reclusive and feels like a “ghost.”
76. Plaintiff asked her probation officer, Stephanie Rudleff, if she could take one day off of
school so that her cold sore could heal.
77. Rudleff denied this request and told Plaintiff that she needed to go to school.
78. Extremely embarrassed about the visible cold sore, Plaintiff did not attend class at Ingham
Academy that day or the following day. On the day of her second absence, Rudleff
informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff was considered to be “on the run.”
79. For roughly two weeks, Plaintiff did not attend school. During this time, she remained at
home.
The Lansing Police Department’s abuse of Plaintiff
80. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff was with her then-boyfriend, John Roe, and his sister, Jane
Roe, at Jane Roe’s house.19
81. John Roe, then 15 years old, was also enrolled at but not attending Ingham Academy.
82. A verbal altercation between John Roe and Jane Roe began.
83. During the altercation, Jane Roe began speaking negatively about Plaintiff.
84. Plaintiff then became involved, believing that Jane Roe was trying to start a fight with her.
85. During the argument, Jane Roe called the police on Plaintiff and John Roe.
86. Plaintiff and John Roe fled.
87. John Roe then returned to Jane Roe’s house briefly to retrieve his belongings.
88. When John Roe exited the home, he saw a police officer and told Plaintiff to run.
19
John Roe and Jane Roe are pseudonyms.
11
89. John Roe was quickly apprehended by Defendant Howley, who put John Roe in her patrol
car.20
90. Plaintiff, taking John Roe’s advice, ran, and was pursued by Defendant Ueberroth.
91. Plaintiff was unarmed.
92. After a pursuit that lasted just under one minute, Plaintiff was apprehended and handcuffed
by Defendant Ueberroth.
93. As Defendant Ueberroth walked Plaintiff to his patrol car, one of Plaintiff’s hands slipped
from the handcuffs.
94. Defendant Ueberroth immediately forced Plaintiff to the ground and Defendant Howley
quickly assisted Defendant Ueberroth in re-handcuffing Plaintiff.
95. As she was being handcuffed, Plaintiff told the officers that the handcuffs were too tight.
96. Neither Defendant Ueberroth nor Defendant Howley checked the handcuffs or did anything
to help alleviate Plaintiff’s pain.
97. Defendant Ueberroth and Defendant Howley began walking Plaintiff to Defendant
Ueberroth’s patrol car.
98. While they were walking, Plaintiff tripped and fell to the ground.
99. Defendant Howley picked up Plaintiff’s legs and Defendant Ueberroth lifted Plaintiff by
one arm.
100. The officers then carried Plaintiff to Ueberroth’s patrol car in this position.
101. While the officers carried her, Plaintiff yelled out from pain and cried, “Call my
mom.”
102. Neither officer made any attempt to communicate with Plaintiff’s mother.
20
The entire arrest and attack on Plaintiff is available for viewing online at
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Hdjo-ldFE&t=512s>.
12
103. Defendant Howley attempted to put Plaintiff in the patrol car.
104. Plaintiff stuck one of her legs outside the door to prevent it from closing, because
she was terrified of being taken away without her mother knowing where she was.
105. Defendant Howley attempted to push the car door closed several times, crushing
Plaintiff’s leg.
106. Defendant Howley was aware that Plaintiff’s leg was blocking the door and
continued to attempt to forcefully crush Plaintiff’s leg with the door.
107. Defendant Ueberroth went to the other side of the patrol car in order to pull Plaintiff
into the vehicle.
108. Defendant Howley then began repeatedly punching Plaintiff in the upper thigh.
109. Defendant Howley told Plaintiff, “Break your leg. Put your leg in,” and continued
to punch Plaintiff in the leg.
110. Plaintiff was confused and terrified and thought Defendant Howley was saying that
she was going to break Plaintiff’s leg.
111. Plaintiff kept her leg in place to try to prevent Defendant Howley from breaking
her leg, while screaming and crying out of terror.
112. The ongoing assault and threats triggered Plaintiff’s trauma response and put her in
an overwhelming emotional state of fear, in which she was unable to control her emotions
and responses.21
113. Defendant Howley continued punching Plaintiff’s leg, over and over, without
attempting to understand Plaintiff’s emotions or response.
21
Briere and Lanktree, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine Adolescent Trauma Training
Center, Integrative Treatment of Complex Trauma for Adolescents (ITCT-A) Treatment Guide 2nd Edition (2013),
available at <http://keck.usc.edu/adolescent-trauma-training-center/wp-content/uploads/sites/169/2016/06/ITCT-A-
TreatmentGuide-2ndEdition-rev20131106.pdf>.
13
114. Plaintiff was physically unable to do what Defendant Howley was demanding of
her.
115. Defendant Howley punched Plaintiff at least 17 times in attempting to force her leg
into the vehicle.
116. Upon information and belief, LPD officers are routinely trained in this technique,
known as a “peroneal strike,” which involves a blow to the thigh as a distraction in order
to get a resisting suspect to comply.22
117. According to former Chief of Police Mike Yankowski, officers are permitted to use
force that is “objectively reasonable.”23
118. Throughout the assault, Plaintiff cried and yelled, “Stop punching me.”
119. When Plaintiff did not bring her leg into the car, Howley attempted to slam the door
shut while Plaintiff’s foot was in the hinge-area connecting the door to the body of the
vehicle.
120. As Defendant Howley crushed Plaintiff’s foot between the metal door and the
vehicle body, Plaintiff screamed in pain.
121. Defendant Howley yelled to Plaintiff, “Put your foot in the car,” and continued to
force the door closed on Plaintiff’s foot.
122. As Howley was repeatedly slamming the door on Plaintiff’s foot, Ueberroth
continued to pull Plaintiff in the vehicle from the opposite side.
22
UPDATE: Police report shines light on controversial arrest of teen, Associated Press (June 18, 2019), available
online at <https://www.fox47news.com/news/local-news/update-police-report-shines-light-on-controversial-arrest-
of-teen>.
23
Jacobo, Police officer appears to punch 16-year-old girl during arrest, bodycam footage shows, ABC News (June
16, 2019), available online at <https://6abc.com/5349132/>.
14
123. A concerned bystander exclaimed that the officers were going to break Plaintiff’s
leg or foot.
124. The officers still did not stop their assault on Plaintiff.
125. After roughly two minutes, Defendant Ueberroth was able to reposition Plaintiff’s
foot so that Defendant Howley could close the door.
126. Defendant Ueberroth then drove Plaintiff to Ingham County Youth Center.
127. On the drive to the Youth Center, Plaintiff, still distraught and crying over the
assault, asked Ueberroth to open a window because it was hot.
128. Plaintiff has asthma and was struggling to breathe.
129. Defendant Ueberroth refused to accommodate Plaintiff and said he would roll the
window down only if Plaintiff relaxed.
130. Plaintiff told Defendant Ueberroth that she could not relax because she could not
breathe.
131. Defendant Ueberroth refused to open the window, unnecessarily prolonging
Plaintiff’s terror and suffering.
132. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff would not have been abused in this manner
if she were not Black.
The emotional trauma inflicted on Plaintiff after the assault
133. In a press conference on June 14, 2019, Defendant Yankowski stated that Plaintiff
was apprehended for “probation violations,” “escape from custody,” and “runaway
warrants.”
134. These assertions were factually inaccurate.
15
135. In the June 2019 press conference, Defendant Yankowski said that Plaintiff was not
injured as a result of the assault and did not receive medical care.
136. Again, these assertions were factually inaccurate.
137. Plaintiff sustained several injuries during the assault, including bruising and
scratches on her feet and toes from the repeated slamming in the vehicle’s door.
138. In addition, Plaintiff’s wrists were bruised from the handcuffs, and she had scrapes
on her arms and legs.
139. When Plaintiff arrived at the Youth Center on the day of the assault, she saw a nurse
for her injuries.
140. The nurse documented the injuries in writing and took photographs.
141. Defendant Yankowski later admitted that Defendants Howley and Ueberroth
violated the LPD code of conduct and that they made “mistakes of inexperience.” 24
142. Defendant Yankowski imposed minimal and insufficient discipline on Defendants
Howley and Ueberroth for their mistakes.
143. Defendant Howley was suspended for three days, and Defendant Ueberroth only
received a written reprimand. 25
144. Defendant Yankowski admitted at a press conference that punching a child was
“standard protocol” for LPD officers.26
24
Two Lansing Officers To Keep Jobs After Girl Struck During Arrest, Associated Press (July 31, 2019), available
online at <https://www.wkar.org/post/two-lansing-officers-keep-jobs-after-girl-struck-during-arrest>.
25
Id.
26
Crane, Police are caught on camera repeatedly punching a handcuffed 16-year-old girl in the leg and slamming
her foot in a car door as they arrest her on a runaway warrant, Daily Mail (June 17, 2019), available online at
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7150295/Police-filmed-punching-teen-girl-leg-arrest.html>.
16
145. Despite the slap on the wrist given to Defendants Howley and Ueberroth, who
physically abused an underage child, the City of Lansing opted to pursue maximum
punishment of Plaintiff for resisting arrest.
146. Plaintiff was kept in the Youth Center until being transferred to several other
juvenile facilities.
147. Plaintiff was locked up for six months before finally being released back home to
her mother in December 2019.
148. The time away from her mother caused Plaintiff further emotional suffering, as she
was forced to work through the abuse and trauma she had suffered at the hands of
Defendants Howley and Ueberroth without the one supportive adult she had in her life, on
top of trying to manage the other traumas she carried with her.
149. As soon as Plaintiff returned home, she tried to enroll in Ingham Academy again to
finish high school and receive her diploma.
150. Plaintiff began attending school for a couple of months, but then schools were
closed due to COVID-19.
151. Once classes began electronically, Plaintiff began to have difficulty keeping up
because she was not given the opportunity to take breaks, which she needed as a result of
her ADD.
152. Despite her teachers and probation officer knowing that she needed breaks and that
her ADD impacted her ability to access her education, neither Lansing Public School
District nor Ingham Academy offered Plaintiff any breaks or other reasonable
accommodations for her disability.
17
153. Plaintiff was unable to complete her work because she needed assistance that she
was not given.
154. Soon, Plaintiff’s probation officer told her that Ingham Academy had to “drop” her
because she did not have enough credits.
155. Plaintiff attempted to argue that she should be allowed to continue and complete
her diploma because she was only a few credits short, but her pleas fell on deaf ears, and
she was removed from the Lansing Public School District entirely.
156. During her detention, Plaintiff reflected on the trauma she experienced at the hands
of Lansing police officers.
157. During the assault, Plaintiff needed protection. Plaintiff recognized that the police
were supposed to provide protection. However, she realized that no one could help her
because the police were the ones assaulting her.
158. The City of Lansing implemented and executed policies and customs regarding the
events that resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional, statutory, and common-
law rights.
159. The City of Lansing is responsible for ensuring that all its employees are properly
trained and supervised to perform their jobs.
160. The City of Lansing is responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees.
161. As a result of the assault, Plaintiff is afraid to be around police officers. She feels
nervous and anxious any time she sees a police officer or a police vehicle. Plaintiff has
experienced repeated flashbacks to the attack and continues to feel severe anxiety and stress
as a result. Plaintiff has had nightmares as a result of the attack. Plaintiff’s interactions
with other people have been negatively impacted by the attack. She does not like people
18
to be close to her anymore and flinches when someone tries to hug her. Plaintiff
experiences anxiety whenever she hears a loud noise or a person talking loudly.
COUNT I
Excessive Force
42 USC 1983, the Fourth Amendment,
and the Fourteenth Amendment
(As to Defendants Howley and Ueberroth
in their individual capacities)
162. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
163. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had a right clearly established under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and enforceable against the States through
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from unreasonable
seizures.
164. The actions of Defendants Howley and Ueberroth described herein, taken while
acting under color of state law, intentionally deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional right
to freedom from unreasonable seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, in that the Defendants seized her person by means of excessive
force.
165. By carrying Plaintiff by her arms and legs and repeatedly striking Plaintiff’s leg,
Defendants subjected Plaintiff to excessive force.
166. Defendants’ actions, as described above, were objectively unreasonable in light of
the facts and circumstances confronting them.
167. Defendants’ actions, as described above, were motivated by intent to harm Plaintiff
and were undertaken maliciously, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly.
19
168. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to Plaintiff of
which reasonable law enforcement officers knew or should have known.
169. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff has
sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, physical and emotional
injuries; loss of her fundamental constitutional rights; economic loss; mental and emotional
distress, including anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment; educational
loss; economic loss; psychological damage; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday
life.
COUNT II
Denial of Due Process
42 USC 1983, the Fifth Amendment,
(As to Defendants Yankowski, Howley,
and Ueberroth in their individual capacities)
171. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth acted under color of law in arresting Plaintiff.
172. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth’s use of excessive force in arresting Plaintiff
and their failure to comply with the Fourth Amendment deprived Plaintiff of her liberty
interest in bodily integrity, without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
173. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth’s failures include, but are not limited to,
carrying Plaintiff by her arms and legs and repeatedly striking Plaintiff’s leg.
174. Defendant Yankowski, under color of law, subjected Plaintiff to violation of her
liberty interest in bodily integrity by failing to adequately train and supervise his staff with
respect to the appropriate amount of force necessary to arrest a minor child.
20
175. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have
life.
COUNT III
Denial of Equal Protection –
Discrimination on the basis of Race and Color
42 USC 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment
(As to Defendant City of Lansing and
Defendants Howley and Ueberroth
in their individual capacities)
177. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause commands that no state
shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
178. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff has the right to personal security,
bodily integrity, and equal protection of the law.
179. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class as a
Black person of African descent.
180. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Howley and Ueberroth were acting
under the color of law and, in doing so, deprived Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
181. As detailed previously, Defendant City of Lansing openly, consistently, and
intentionally treats Black youth, such as Plaintiff, disparately as compared to similarly
21
situated youth outside her protected class by arresting and incarcerating Black youth at
disproportionately high rates.
182. In doing so, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s fundamental entitlement to the equal
protection of law regardless of her race and color.
life.
COUNT IV
Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection
Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963
(As to Defendant City of Lansing)
185. The Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Michigan recognizes
the right to due process and equal protection of the laws: “No person shall be denied equal
protection of the laws”27 or “deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of
law.”28
186. Defendant treats Black youth differently than white youth accused of the same
offense, in both rates of arrest and use of force applied during arrests.
187. Defendant’s acts and omissions deprived Plaintiffs of their right to bodily integrity.
27
Const 1963, art 1, § 2.
28
Const 1963, art 1, § 17.
22
life.
COUNT V
Excessive Force
Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963
(As to Defendants Howley and Ueberroth)
190. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had a clearly established right under Article 1 § 11
of the Constitution of the State of Michigan to be free from unreasonable seizures.
191. The actions of Defendants Howley and Ueberroth described herein, taken while
acting under color of state law, intentionally deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional right
to freedom from unreasonable seizures as guaranteed by Article 1 § 11 of the Constitution
of the State of Michigan, in that the Defendants seized her person by means of excessive
force.
192. By carrying Plaintiff by her arms and legs and repeatedly striking Plaintiff’s leg,
Defendants subjected Plaintiff to excessive force.
193. Defendants’ actions, as described above, were objectively unreasonable in light of
the facts and circumstances confronting them.
194. Defendants’ actions, as described above, were motivated by intent to harm Plaintiff
and were undertaken maliciously, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly.
23
195. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to Plaintiff of
which reasonable law enforcement officers knew or should have known.
life.
COUNT VI
Monell Liability for Failure to Train and
Supervise as to Use of Excessive Force
42 USC 1983, the Fourth Amendment,
(As to Defendant City of Lansing and
Defendant Yankowski in his individual capacity)
198. Defendants Yankowski, Howley, and Ueberroth were “state actors” working for
the City of Lansing, a federally funded incorporated municipality.
199. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth acted under “color of law” when apprehending
and arresting Plaintiff.
200. At all times relevant, Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski had a duty to
properly train, supervise, and discipline their employees and agents to ensure those
employees’ compliance with all applicable statutes, laws, and regulations.
24
201. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski acted under “color of law” when
training, supervising, and responding to the actions of LPD police officers, including
Defendants Howley and Ueberroth.
202. Defendants Yankowski, Howley, and Ueberroth failed to preserve Plaintiff’s
constitutional right to equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and
Plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
203. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff has the
right to equal protection of the law, which includes protection of the right to equal access
to liberty, and the right to be free from discrimination.
204. Under the Fourth Amendment, Plaintiff had the right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure, which includes the right to be free from unlawful apprehension and
arrest.
205. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth should have known that their actions in
apprehending and arresting individuals, including Plaintiff, must comply with federal law,
particularly as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
206. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth each violated Plaintiff’s right to equal access by
discriminating against Plaintiff based on her race.
207. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth each violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure by using excessive force against Plaintiff by punching her
multiple times in the thigh and attempting to slam a car door on her leg.
208. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection and Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable
25
search and seizure by failing to properly train and supervise its employees as to these
mandated requirements.
209. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski is liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
for the failure to train their officers not to use excessive force during arrests.
210. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski’s failure to train constituted deliberate
indifference and caused the constitutional violations and injuries complained of herein.
211. It was the policy and/or custom of Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski to
condone the wrongful actions of their agents, servants and/or employees by virtue of their
training, supervision, policies, procedures, and/or directives.
life.
COUNT VII
Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Color
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act
MCL 37.2101 et seq.
(As to all Defendants)
214. LPD is a public service as defined by ELCRA. MCL 37.2301(b).
215. The individual defendants are agents of LPD and persons under ELCRA. MCL
37.2103(3).
26
216. ELCRA prohibits discrimination in public services based on race and color. MCL
37.2102; MCL 37.2302(a).
217. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski’s over policing of Black youth,
including Plaintiff, constitutes discrimination on the basis of race and color.
218. ELCRA prohibits public services from denying an individual the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of
the public service because of race. MCL 37.2302(a).
219. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth’s targeting of and use of excessive force against
Plaintiff because she is Black constitutes discrimination on the basis of race and color under
ELCRA.
220. Through their wrongful acts and omissions, and in violation of ELCRA, Defendants
denied Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of a public service because of her race and color.
221. The actions of Defendants, by their agents, employees, and representatives, were
intentional and in deliberate disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
life.
27
COUNT VIII
Battery
224. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth intentionally touched Plaintiff, using
unreasonable force to arrest her by carrying Plaintiff by her arms and legs and striking
Plaintiff repeatedly in the leg.
225. At no point did Plaintiff consent, acquiesce, or otherwise agree to Defendant
Howley and Ueberroth’s use of force against her.
226. The forcible touching as detailed above was in no other way privileged.
227. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant Howley and Ueberroth’s use of force against
her, which caused her to suffer injuries, including cuts, scrapes, markings on her body, and
pain that persisted for days. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Howley and
Ueberroth’s use of force, Plaintiff also experienced pain, suffering, trauma, worry, anxiety,
humiliation, and embarrassment.
228. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski, as the employer of all LPD officers,
is responsible and liable for torts committed by all LPD officers under the doctrine of
respondeat superior.
28
life.
COUNT IX
Assault
231. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth threatened to subject Plaintiff to a forcible
touching by using unreasonable force to arrest her by carrying Plaintiff by her arms and
legs and striking Plaintiff repeatedly in the leg.
232. At no point did Plaintiff consent, acquiesce, or otherwise agree to Defendant
Howley and Ueberroth’s use of force against her.
233. The forcible touching as detailed above was in no other way privileged.
234. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant Howley and Ueberroth’s use of force against
her, which caused her to suffer injuries, including cuts, scrapes, markings on her body, and
pain that persisted for days. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Howley and
Ueberroth’s use of force, Plaintiff also experienced pain, suffering, trauma, worry, anxiety,
humiliation, and embarrassment.
235. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski, as the employer of all LPD officers,
is responsible and liable for torts committed by all LPD officers under the doctrine of
29
life.
COUNT X
Gross Negligence
238. Government agencies and their employees are immune from most forms of tort
liability in Michigan when acting or reasonably believing they are acting within the scope
of their legal authority and engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function,
unless the employees’ conduct amounts to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of
the injury or damage. MCL 691.1407(2).
239. “Gross negligence” means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack
of concern for whether an injury results. MCL 691.1407(8)(a).
240. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth were aware of the risks and dangers associated
with carrying Plaintiff by her hands and feet while she was handcuffed, and of striking her
17 times in the upper thigh.
241. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth did nothing substantial to protect Plaintiff from
injury during her apprehension and arrest.
242. Defendants Howley and Ueberroth’s failure to comply with the requirements of the
Fourth Amendment by using excessive force in the arrest of a minor constitutes conduct so
reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether Plaintiff was injured.
30
243. Defendants City of Lansing and Yankowski, as the employers of all LPD officers,
are responsible and liable for torts committed by all LPD officers under the doctrine of
life.
DAMAGES
246. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered
general, special, incidental, and consequential injuries and damages, past, present, and
future, in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, an amount that shall be fully
proven at the time of trial. These past, present, and future damages include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a. Physical injury and suffering;
b. Pain, suffering, mental, and emotional distress;
c. Physical manifestations of emotional distress including loss of embarrassment, loss
of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life;
d. Loss of her constitutional rights;
e. Loss of education;
31
f. Economic loss;
g. Loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life;
h. Loss of relationships;
i. All other ordinary, incidental, or consequential damages that would or could be
reasonably anticipated to arise under the circumstances.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against
Defendants as follows:
A. Compensatory damages for Plaintiff’s psychological and emotional distress and damages,
and her family’s unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to these
circumstances, and any other compensatory damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found
to be entitled;
B. Exemplary damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be entitled;
C. Punitive damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be entitled;
D. Statutory interest;
E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing this matter; and
F. Any other legal or equitable relief the Court deems just.
DATED: May 28, 2021 /s/ Elizabeth Abdnour

Elizabeth K. Abdnour (P78203)
ELIZABETH ABDNOUR LAW, PLLC
1100 W. Saginaw St., Ste. 4A-2
Lansing, MI 48915
(517) 292-0067 phone
(517) 709-7700 fax
[email protected]
32
/s/ Karen Truszkowski
Karen Truszkowski (P56929)
TEMPERANCE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
503 Mall Court #131
Lansing, MI 48912
(844) 534-2560 phone
(800) 531-6527 fax
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
33
STATE OF MICHIGAN
FOR THE 30TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
INGHAM COUNTY
DESHAYA REED, Hon.
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 21- -NO
v.
CITY OF LANSING; MIKE

YANKOWSKI, former Chief of Police, in
his Official and Individual Capacities;
LINDSEY HOWLEY, in her Official and
Individual Capacities; and BAILEY
UEBERROTH, in his Official and
Individual Capacities,
Defendants.
JURY DEMAND
Now comes Plaintiff Reed by and through her attorneys, Elizabeth K. Abdnour and Karen
Truszkowski, and hereby demands a trial by jury.
DATED: May 28, 2021 /s/ Elizabeth Abdnour

Elizabeth K. Abdnour (P78203)
ELIZABETH ABDNOUR LAW, PLLC
1100 W. Saginaw St., Ste. 4A-2
Lansing, MI 48915
(517) 292-0067 phone
(517) 709-7700 fax
[email protected]
/s/ Karen Truszkowski

Karen Truszkowski (P56929)
TEMPERANCE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
503 Mall Court #131
Lansing, MI 48912
(844) 534-2560 phone
(800) 531-6527 fax
34
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
35

Reed, Deshaya Complaint Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reed, Deshaya Complaint Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Reed, Deshaya Complaint Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF MICHIGAN

FOR THE 30TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

DESHAYA REED, Hon.

CITY OF LANSING; MIKE YANKOWSKI,

Elizabeth K. Abdnour (P78203) Karen Truszkowski (P56929)

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff DESHAYA REED, by and through her attorneys, ELIZABETH K. ABDNOUR

Furthermore, the Lansing Police Department is a public institution located in Ingham

2. Defendant City of Lansing is an incorporated municipality located in the City of Lansing,

Ingham County, Michigan.

3. This Court has jurisdiction under MCL 600.605.

4. Venue is appropriate in this Court under MCL 600.1615.

5. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $25,000.00.

7. Plaintiff is Black, African American, and has a disability.

8. Plaintiff is thin and of slight build.

9. Defendant CITY OF LANSING is an incorporated municipality located in Ingham County,

within its Office of Audit, Risk and Compliance.

and his employer.

and her employer.

and his employer.

white youth and roughly 37 percent involved Black youth.1

Michigan and nationally.

supposedly failing to complete one morning's worth of schoolwork.3

in the school band, and regularly participated in service projects. 4

filed against Grace.5

with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”).7

before she filed this violation. 9

and immediate safety risk to others.”11

were held outside the courthouse. 13

Similarities between Grace and Plaintiff

mental health diagnoses.

after minor violations of their probations.

Black youth, compared to 34 percent involving white youth. 15

be arrested than their white peers.18

Plaintiff DeShaya Reed

Plaintiff’s social, academic, and emotional history

Lansing School District.

feeling emotionally numb, self-destructive behavior, irritability, aggressiveness, and

always feeling on guard.

to begin acting out as a teenager.

with her emotions.

Plaintiff’s introduction to the juvenile justice system

was discovered in her backpack.

before going to school.

feel she needs as much protection as possible on her.

terms of Plaintiff’s probation required her to be monitored by a probation officer.

Academy, but she was never enrolled there.

accommodations for her disability.

became even more overwhelming.

she was suspended again for allegedly making a threat on Facebook.

60. Plaintiff was suspended for about a month.

or emotional supports or reasonable accommodations for her disability.

mother thought it would be a good fit for her.

be able to graduate early.

traveled to Ingham Academy for instruction each day.

The effect of criminal charges being filed against Plaintiff’s abuser

arrested and charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct.

significant stress, anxiety, and emotional turmoil.