Complaint (FILED)
Complaint (FILED)
Complaint (FILED)
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________
Manvir S. Grewal, Sr. (P48082)
Scott Weidenfeller (P56001)
GREWAL LAW, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
345 E. Cady St.
3rd Floor
Northville, MI 48167
(517) 393-3000
[email protected]
NOW COME Plaintiffs, GRIFFEN LEE JONES, a Minor, by his Next Friend,
Minor, by his Next Friend, April Ventline; JOHN MICHAEL EDWARDS, a Minor,
by her Next Friend, Mark Gillim; ADDYSON LYNN FELTZ, a Minor, by her Next
Friend, Alicia Feltz; GIANNA CRUZ FLEWELLING, a Minor, by her Next Friend,
Friend, Jacklyn Green; JULEAL ALI CANNON, a Minor, by his Next Friend,
Christine Nelson; KAYLA ANN MARIE POBLETTE, a Minor, by her Next Friend,
Jennifer Perez; NATALIE ANNE SOULE, a Minor, by her Next Friend, Scott
Soule; HENRIQUE PORTO VAZ, a Minor, by his Next Friend, Cintia Stoehr;
CHRISTA ANN HULL, a Minor, by her Next Friend, Heather Hull; PAYTON
3
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 06/17/22 Page 4 of 90
WILLIAM DIEM, a Minor, by his Next Friend, Kelli Diem; and JORDAN
NICHOLE BUTLER, a Minor, by her Next Friend, Nichole Butler, by and through
their attorneys, Grewal Law, PLLC, and for their Complaint against Defendants state
the following:
INTRODUCTION
On the morning of November 30, 2021, John Doe (“Doe”), a tenth grader at
Oxford High School, arrived at school in a suicidal state, posing a clear threat to
himself and others. Doe was armed with a handgun and forty-eight (48) rounds of
ammunition, which he kept hidden in his backpack. During Doe’s first hour class,
his English teacher reported to school officials that, during class, Doe had watched
a video depicting a realistic shooting. Shortly thereafter, while in his second hour
class, Doe’s math teacher reported to school officials that, during class, Doe had
drawn disturbing words and violent images onto a paper assignment, including: “The
world is dead.” In the weeks leading up to November 30, 2021, Doe had
demonstrated a concerning pattern of behavior, and, less than twenty-four (24) hours
prior to the school shooting, a teacher had observed Doe searching the internet,
As Doe sat in his second hour math class on November 30, 2021, his assigned
counselor, Shawn Hopkins (“Hopkins”), removed Doe from class, confiscated the
4
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 06/17/22 Page 5 of 90
assignment that contained the disturbing words and violent illustrations, and lead
Doe to the counseling office for a meeting with Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak
(“Ejak”). At some point during that meeting, Ejak walked to Doe’s math classroom,
retrieved Doe’s backpack, and returned to the counseling office with the backpack
in hand.
Ejak and Hopkins, during their meeting with Doe, determined Doe was
suicidal and was exhibiting signs of homicidal ideation. Later in the morning of
November 30, 2021, Ejak and Hopkins met with Doe’s parents and recommended
they take Doe from school. Ejak and Hopkins further advised Doe’s parents to retain
immediate mental health counseling for Doe. Doe’s parents refused to take Doe from
Ejak and Hopkins. At that point, Ejak and Hopkins had the authority to keep Doe
confined in the safety and security of the counseling office. Rather, Ejak and
Hopkins used their authority to return Doe’s unsearched backpack, to grant a hall
pass to Doe, and to allow Doe to attend his remaining class periods unaccompanied.
Less than two hours later, Doe carried his backpack into the boys’ bathroom,
emerged with his loaded handgun, and opened fire, tragically killing four students
and seriously injuring seven others. All Plaintiffs survived the shooting.
Oxford Community School District (“Oxford CSD”) and its officials later
explained to the community that it was adhering to its formal policy of returning
5
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 06/17/22 Page 6 of 90
students to class absent a “disciplinary” issue. Under Oxford CSD’s formal policy,
student or hold a student in the confinement of the counseling office. Oxford CSD
claims that, because Doe presented no such “disciplinary” issue, the only action it
While Oxford CSD has denied knowing Doe was suicidal and harboring
homicidal ideation, in truth, Oxford CSD knew of Doe’s suicidal and possible
homicidal ideation when school officials released him from the counseling office.
cover up its culpability for this avoidable tragedy. As the facts illustrate, however,
school officials escalated the danger to all students by releasing Doe from the
propensity to inflict harm upon himself or others. To date, Oxford CSD seeks to
Doe’s troubled status as a suicidal youth, a student who had explicitly expressed
homicidal ideation, caused and/or increased the risk of violence, destruction, and
By releasing Doe from the safe confinement of the counseling office into the
greater school environment, school officials compounded the danger to all students
6
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 06/17/22 Page 7 of 90
the deadly weapon and ammunition Doe used to carry out his suicidal and/or
homicidal plans, school officials acted with deliberate indifference and created
At least two official policies, practices, and/or customs of Oxford CSD drove
school officials to act as they did: (1) Oxford CSD’s official, misguided policy that,
in the absence of a “disciplinary” issue, Ejak and Hopkins were required to return
Doe back to class, despite having knowledge Doe was experiencing suicidal and
homicidal ideation, and (2) Oxford CSD’s failure to train Ejak and Hopkins to hold
the classroom, where the student is experiencing suicidal and homicidal ideation and
where returning the student to the classroom environment would create and/or
harm. Every day since the tragedy that took place on November 30, 2021, students
at Oxford High School, including Plaintiffs, have entered through the school doors
assuming they will have to defend themselves should another violent attack ensue.
Unable to engage in classes and tackle the daily social and mental hurdles that many
often encounter in high school, students at Oxford High School have been forced to
7
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 06/17/22 Page 8 of 90
uncover a level of resilience and a weight of constant fear that should be expected
of no one.
Due to Oxford CSD’s complete lack of transparency and clear refusal to hold
itself accountable, Plaintiffs, under the most tragic of circumstances, bring this suit
as a final attempt to salvage what time remains of their high school careers. Seeking
transparency and a sense of security as they navigate the unknown, Plaintiffs bring
this action, not for damages, but for prospective equitable and injunctive relief to
restore their right to a full public education, a right that is protected as a property
into the events that lead up to the tragedy on November 30, 2021, and by taking
prospective measures to ensure Oxford CSD, as well as its administrators and staff,
Oxford High School. Such prospective measures include, but are not limited to,
Oxford CSD training its administrators to refrain from releasing suicidal students
back into the classroom when they have probable cause to know that doing so will
8
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 06/17/22 Page 9 of 90
1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and the laws of
the United States, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because all facts alleged in this Complaint took place in
Oakland County, Michigan, and the parties reside in the Eastern District of
Michigan.
PARTIES
4. Griffen Lee Jones is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the tragic
school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a junior at Oxford High School.
5. Mason David Bourgeau is currently 18 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a junior at Oxford High School.
6. Gavin Michael Aldred is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a junior at Oxford High School.
7. Summer Aubrey Aldred is currently 15 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
9
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 06/17/22 Page 10 of 90
8. Lucas Anthony Ventline is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a senior at Oxford High School.
9. John Michael Edwards is currently 15 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
10. Giselle Elisabeth Gillim is currently 15 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
11. Addyson Lynn Feltz is currently 15 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
12. Brooklyn Grier Flewelling is currently 15 years old and, at the time of
the tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
13. Gianna Cruz Flewelling is currently 16 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a sophomore at Oxford High
School.
14. Autumn Willena Green is currently 16 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a sophomore at Oxford High
School.
10
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 06/17/22 Page 11 of 90
15. Juleal Ali Cannon is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the tragic
school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a senior at Oxford High School.
16. Kayla Ann Marie Poblette is currently 15 years old and, at the time of
the tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
17. Natalie Anne Soule is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a junior at Oxford High School.
18. Henrique Porto Vaz is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a junior at Oxford High School.
19. Christa Ann Hull is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the tragic
school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a junior at Oxford High School.
20. Tristan William Diem is currently 14 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a freshman at Oxford High
School.
21. Payton Mackenzie Diem is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a senior at Oxford High School.
22. Jordan Nichole Butler is currently 17 years old and, at the time of the
tragic school shooting on November 30, 2021, was a senior at Oxford High School.
at Oxford High School in the Oxford Community School District, all Plaintiffs have
11
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 06/17/22 Page 12 of 90
Amendment, in a full public education, and they have standing to seek prospective
equitable and injunctive relief from the Oxford Community School District’s
Oxford Community School District’s policies into compliance with the Constitution.
at Oxford High School in the Oxford Community School District, all Plaintiffs have
a clearly established right, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, to be free from danger created and/or increased by state actors, and
they have standing to seek prospective equitable and injunctive relief from the
conduct of all named Defendants to restore this right through court-ordered measures
to implement safety policies and measures that are in compliance with the
Constitution.
Oxford CSD conducts all operations for Oxford High School, including but not
limited to funding; staffing; training; supervising the staff, counselors, and teachers
at Oxford High School; and maintaining the safety and security facilities for the
12
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 06/17/22 Page 13 of 90
1983 for its official policies, practices, and customs, which were the motivating force
and cause-in-fact for the decision to return John Doe from the safety and security of
27. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Ken Weaver (“Weaver”) is and
was a citizen of the State of Michigan and is currently the Superintendent of Oxford
Community School District. Plaintiffs are suing Defendant Weaver in his official
capacity only. Plaintiffs are suing Defendant Weaver pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
official of Oxford Community School District and is responsible for ensuring the
District’s compliance with state and federal laws, including the Due Process Clause
28. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Steven Wolf (“Wolf”) is and
was a citizen of the State of Michigan and was acting under the color of state law
within the course and scope of his employment as Principal of Oxford High School
in the Oxford Community School District. Plaintiffs are suing Defendant Wolf
29. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Nicholas Ejak (“Ejak”) is and
was a citizen of the State of Michigan and was acting under the color of state law
within the course and scope of his employment as Dean of Students of the Oxford
13
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 06/17/22 Page 14 of 90
and was a citizen of the State of Michigan and was acting under the color of state
law within the course of his employment as a Counselor at Oxford High School in
the Oxford Community School District. Plaintiffs are suing Defendant Hopkins
STATEMENT OF FACTS
31. From 2009 to 2019, school shootings occurred in over 177 schools in
the United States, resulting in 356 deaths.1 CNN’s investigation into ten (10) years
of shootings on K-12 campuses uncovered two truths: (1) school shootings are
32. In 2021 alone, there were 202 incidents of gunfire on school grounds,
1
Ten Years of School Shootings, CNN (July 2019)
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/07/us/ten-years-of-school-shootings-trnd/.
2
Gunfire on School Grounds in the United States, EVERYTOWN RESEARCH & POLICY (2021)
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/.
14
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 06/17/22 Page 15 of 90
attempted school shootings found that 91% of the shooters were students or former
students, 98% were males, 87% were in crisis prior to the shooting, and 80% were
shootings and gun violence, has enacted legislation mandating school districts adopt
school safety policies. This legislation includes the Child Protection Law, MCL
(1999); Mandatory incident reporting to state police for certain crimes occurring at
Student Safety Act, MCL §752.911 (2000); Save Our Students Act, MCL §380.1893
3
Maggie Koerth, Can We Prevent Mass Shootings By Preventing Suicide? FIVETHIRTYEIGHT
(Aug. 22, 2019), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-we-prevent-mass-shootings-by-
preventing-suicide/.
4
Key Findings: Analysis of School and Workplace Shootings, THE VIOLENCE PROJECT, (2019
Data) https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database-3/key-findings/.
15
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 06/17/22 Page 16 of 90
37. As a matter of state and federal law, an essential element within the
B. Defendants took affirmative acts that created and increased the danger
of the school shooting at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021.
39. During the months leading up to the day of the school shooting, Oxford
High School and Oxford CSD teachers, counselors, and administrators knew of Doe
because of his various concerning behaviors, including but not limited to a depressed
killing animals, including a bird, which Doe decapitated. Doe proceeded to store the
41. In or around August 2021, Doe videotaped himself holding a gun. Doe
then forwarded the video to an Oxford High School classmate, along with the
16
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 06/17/22 Page 17 of 90
following message: “Now it’s time to shoot up the school! JK JK JK.”5 At that time,
in or around August 2021, the gun, a 22 caliber handgun, belonged to Doe’s father.
42. In or around Fall 2020, Doe’s freshman year, Defendant Hopkins was
maintained the role of Doe’s assigned counselor during Fall 2021, Doe’s sophomore
44. Defendant Hopkins conducted a check-in with Doe, advising Doe that
Defendant Hopkins was available should Doe need to talk to someone. In response,
45. Approximately four (4) weeks prior to the devastating school shooting,
on November 4, 2021, a severed deer head was discovered on the grounds of Oxford
High School.
5
Transcript of Preliminary Examination, Vol. I, The People of the State of Michigan v. James
Robert Crumbley and Jennifer Lyn Crumbley, (Nos. 21-006651-2; 2022-279989-90-FH) at
263:13-15.
at 45:24-46:4.
6
Transcript of Preliminary Examination, Vol. II, The People of the State of Michigan v. James
Robert Crumbley and Jennifer Lyn Crumbley, (Nos. 21-006651-2; 2022-279989-90-FH) at
108:7-11.
7
Id. at 108:21-24.
8
Id. at 109:1-7.
17
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 06/17/22 Page 18 of 90
46. At that time, Defendant Wolf sent an email to parents “to clarify some
of the rumors that [had] started,” advising there was “no present danger at Oxford
High School.” He then explained that, “before school began,” administrators and
staff “identified graffiti” written in “red acrylic paint,” as well as “the head of a deer”
School posted video footage of the red writing and of the deer head as a man,
Defendant Wolf’s email and in large part due to the ambiguity that surrounded the
abandonment of the severed deer head on school grounds, caused a level of concern
and anxiety amongst students, parents, and teachers of Oxford High School.
49. On November 11, 2021, Doe carried to Oxford High School a severed
bird head, stored inside of a jar, and placed said jar inside the boys’ bathroom.9
50. Upon discovery of the above-mentioned jar, students reported the bird
9
Id. at 75:10-18.
18
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 06/17/22 Page 19 of 90
51. Doe wrote an entry in his journal, confirming that he was the individual
who brought the severed bird head to Oxford High School.10 Cell phone records
52. Oxford High School has access to footage from internal surveillance
would have uncovered that Doe was the student responsible for the severed bird’s
head.
54. The next day, November 12, 2021, Oxford High School administration
sent an email to parents of Oxford High School students, stating: “Please know that
we have received every concern shared with us and investigated all information
provided . . . We want our parents and students to know that there has been no threat
Oxford High School and about threats made to students on social media.
10
Id. at 223:8-14.
11
Prelim. Exam. Tr., vol. I, at 264:10-15.
12
Id. at 223:24-224:1.
19
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 06/17/22 Page 20 of 90
know it’s been investigated but my kid doesn’t feel safe at school . . . He didn’t even
58. Both students and parents at Oxford High School shared serious
concerns about the multiple severed animal heads at Oxford High School and about
regarding student safety, many students voiced safety concerns to their parents, and,
out of fear of violence and/or the occurrence of a shooting at Oxford High School,
together students and parents made the decision that those students stay home from
know I’m being redundant here, but there is absolutely no threat at the HS . . . large
20
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 06/17/22 Page 21 of 90
assumptions were made from a few social media posts, then the assumptions evolved
social media, while also reassuring students that there were no threats that posed any
Defendant Oxford CSD, discouraged students and parents from reporting, sharing,
64. At all relevant times, Defendant Wolf, while acting as the Principal of
Oxford High School, directed the teachers and counselors to tell students to stop
reporting, sharing, or otherwise discussing the threatening social media posts and
the violent animal slaughter that was occurring at Oxford High School.
65. Teachers and staff of Oxford High School did tell students to stop
66. At all relevant times, the respective actions of Throne and Defendant
Wolf, in advising all students that there was no credible threat, demonstrated conduct
21
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 06/17/22 Page 22 of 90
resulted.
67. At all relevant times, students at Oxford High School were safer before
Throne and Defendant Wolf respectively took action and advised each and every
student there was no credible threat. By virtue of their respective actions, Throne
and Defendant Wolf each substantially increased the harm to all students at Oxford
High School.
68. At all relevant times, Doe’s social media accounts were set to “public,”
allowing any person on the internet to view the contents, which largely depicted
69. Upon information and belief, the content of Doe’s social media
accounts was known to fellow students, parents, and the Defendants prior to the
71. That same day, on or around November 26, 2021, Doe posted a picture
of the gun to his public Instagram account with the caption: “[J]ust got my new
beauty today [heart eyes emoji] Sig Sauer 9-millimeter. Any questions I will
22
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 06/17/22 Page 23 of 90
answer.”13 This post was readily accessible to any person on the internet, including
all Defendants.
Facebook page of a target at the shooting range with the caption: “[M]om and son
day testing out his new X-mas present.”14 This social media post referred to Doe
firing his handgun. Doe’s mother’s account was also set to “public,” allowing any
person on the internet to view the contents of her account, including the above-
73. On the morning of November 29, 2021, one day before the school
shooting, Doe’s English teacher caught Doe using his cell phone, during school
variety of school rules, procedures and policies, including Defendant Oxford CSD’s
“Technology Policy and Guidelines,” as well as its “Acceptable Use Policy,” which
Oxford CSD’s website, even though, upon information and belief, any individual
13
Id. at 193:10-18.
14
Prelim. Ex. Tr., vol. 1, at 208:16-20.
15
Prelim. Ex. Tr., vol. II, at 109:8-14.
16
Oxford Community Schools Student Code of Conduct, Revised June 2021, page 23,
https://cdn5-ss8.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_733753/Image/2021-
2022%20STUDENT%20CODE%20OF%20CONDUCT.pdf (last visited June 17, 2022).
23
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 06/17/22 Page 24 of 90
was able to publicly access the policy prior to the school shooting on November 30,
2021.
76. On the morning of November 29, 2021, Doe’s Spanish teacher sent an
email to Defendant Ejak and Pam Parker Fine (“Fine”), the Restorative Practices
Coordinator of Defendant Oxford CSD, informing them both that Doe had been
using his cell phone, during school hours, to access the internet to search for
78. Fine called Doe to her office. Fine then called Defendant Hopkins into
79. The duration of the meeting, which began at or around 9:00 a.m. on
80. At that time, Defendant Hopkins and Fine provided limited support
and/or guidance to Doe, as they informed Doe only that accessing the internet to
search for ammunition on his cell phone during school hours was not “school
appropriate behavior.”21
17
Id.
18
Id. at 109:11-14.
19
Id. at 109:16-19.
20
Id. at 109:22-25.
21
Id. at 110:1-11.
24
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.25 Filed 06/17/22 Page 25 of 90
81. In response, Doe explained to Defendant Hopkins and Fine that Doe
had visited a gun range with his mother the previous weekend to shoot guns, that
shooting guns was a hobby within Doe’s family, and that Doe was merely
82. During the meeting, Doe was compliant, calm, understanding, and
84. After the meeting, Fine called Doe’s mother and left a voicemail
85. In accordance with Defendant Oxford CSD’s policy, Fine did not
request a return call from Doe’s mother because the situation did not present a
86. Later that day, Doe’s mother sent a text to Doe, saying: “Seriously??
Looking up bullets in school??” Doe responded: “Oh, yeah. I already went to the
22
Id. at 110:19-24.
23
Id. at 110: 1-15.
24
Id. at 111:21-23.
25
Id. at 111:13-16.
26
Id. at 137:12-17.
25
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.26 Filed 06/17/22 Page 26 of 90
office for that.”27 Doe’s mother then asked: “Did you at least show them a pic of
87. Later that same evening, on November 29, 2021, Doe posted the
following language to his public Twitter account: “Now I am become Death, the
88. On the morning of November 30, 2021, the day of the school shooting,
Doe returned to Oxford High School, carrying his gun and 48 rounds of ammunition
in his backpack. Also in his backpack, Doe carried a personal journal, which
89. In part, the journal stated: “First off, got my gun. It’s an SP2022 Sig
Sauer 9-millimeter. Second, the shooting is tomorrow, I have access to the gun and
ammo.”30 The journal also contained two separate drawings of bullets. One drawing
was labeled “.22,” while the second drawing was labeled “9-millimeter.” Positioned
next to the .22 drawing is the description “kill range, 25M, max”; depicted next to
the 9-millimeter drawing is the description “kill range, 100M.”31 Also largely drawn
within the pages of the journal is what appears to be a cup containing liquid, a
27
Prelim. Ex. Tr., vol. I, at 180: 17-25.
28
Id. at 182: 12-18.
29
Prelim Ex. Tr., vol. II, at 223:2-224:20.
30
Id. at 226:3-6.
31
Id. at 226:10-16.
32
Id. at 226:17-227:1.
26
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.27 Filed 06/17/22 Page 27 of 90
Oxford High School sent an email to Defendant Hopkins, stating Doe was watching
a video on his cell phone, during class time, that depicted a realistic shooting.33
91. Doe’s conduct in watching a video on his cell phone that depicted a
realistic shooting, during school hours, was in violation of a variety of school rules,
review. On his math worksheet, Doe drew a picture of a Sig Sauer 9-millimeter
handgun. Underneath the gun, Doe wrote: “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.” To
the right of those words, Doe drew a person with what appears to be two gunshot
wounds, one placed in the chest and one in the abdomen, with blood coming from
the person’s mouth. On another area of the same worksheet, Doe wrote “blood
everywhere” and drew a shell casing or bullet. On the bottom half of the worksheet,
laughing/crying emoji and wrote: “My life is useless” and “The world is dead.” Upon
33
Id. at 112:18-25.
34
Id. at 112:25.
27
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.28 Filed 06/17/22 Page 28 of 90
seeing these writings and illustrations, Doe’s teacher took a picture of the worksheet
94. Doe’s drawings and statements were clearly violent and disturbing,
were an obvious cry for help, and openly expressed Doe’s thoughts of suicide and/or
homicide.
95. Later that morning, Doe altered his writings and illustrations on the
worksheet. After scratching out the drawings of the gun and of the person with two
gunshot wounds, as well as scratching out the words “Help me,” “Blood
everywhere,” “My life is useless,” and “The world is dead,” Doe added new, equally
his illustrations, Doe wrote: “Video game this is,” “Harmless act,” “I love my life so
9:00 a.m. to inform Defendant Hopkins he had seen a picture of the writings and
35
Id. at 113:7-9.
36
Id.
37
Id. at 113:12-14.
28
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.29 Filed 06/17/22 Page 29 of 90
98. Defendant Hopkins took possession of the math worksheet from Doe’s
desk and escorted Doe to the counseling office, in which Defendant Ejak waited.38
[Doe] because it was a couple of messages in a couple days, and the purpose of the
meeting was to find out what our next steps would be.”39
101. At some point, either before or during the meeting, Defendant Ejak
returned to the math classroom and retrieved Doe’s backpack, which contained
104. During the meeting, Defendant Hopkins questioned Doe about the
38
Id. at 113:21-25.
39
Id. at 115:2-5.
40
Id. at 150:18-25.
29
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.30 Filed 06/17/22 Page 30 of 90
2021. In response, Doe claimed the video he watched was of a video game, not an
actual event.41
105. Neither Defendants Ejak nor Hopkins attempted to watch the above-
106. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins had actual knowledge of a safety threat
and a concern for Doe’s safety and well-being, given the events in the preceding
months and days, which included Doe searching for bullets on his phone, informing
Hopkins and Fine of his shooting hobby, viewing a video of a realistic shooting
during English class, and drawing disturbing words and illustrations on his math
assignment.
107. During this meeting, Defendant Hopkins asked Doe about the
disturbing words and illustrations he drew on his math assignment. Doe explained
the drawings depicted a video game he wanted to design. Doe gave no other
explanation.43
108. Defendant Hopkins knew Doe was not being truthful when Doe
the fact Defendant Hopkins advised Doe that it “[did] not sound like a video game.”44
41
Id at 115:8-16.
42
Id. at 139:8-15; 142:24-25; 153:8-10.
43
Id. at 116:11-15.
44
Id. at 116:15-20.
30
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 31 of 90
109. Doe made no attempt to deny Defendant Hopkins’s assertion that his
drawings and words did not depict a video game. In that moment, Defendant
Hopkins, Doe “became sad . . . He started pausing more in his speech. He then
described some [upsetting] things that had happened recently in his life,” including
the death of a family dog, the death of a grandparent, the effect that COVID and
virtual learning had on Doe, and the loss of a close friend who had to leave school.45
110. At this point, Defendant Hopkins determined Doe was having suicidal
ideations.46
112. Doe simply stated, “I can see why this looks bad. I’m not going to do
anything.”48
appropriately concluded Doe was suicidal and “was a threat to himself in spite of his
statement.”49
45
Id. at 116:22-117:10; 125:7-11.
46
Id. at 117:14-16.
47
Id. at 118:21-25.
48
Id. at 125:1-3.
49
Id. at 148:2-3.
31
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.32 Filed 06/17/22 Page 32 of 90
114. However, Defendant Hopkins failed to “ask any further questions about
a plan.”50
three (3) other students at Oxford High school who were assigned to Defendant
116. Defendant Hopkins then called Doe’s mother, but Doe’s mother did
not answer the call. Defendant Hopkins left a voicemail message for Doe’s mother.52
117. Defendant Hopkins next called Doe’s father, but it “was empty air when
[he] called.” Defendant Hopkins was not given the option to leave a voicemail
message.53
119. When he answered the call, Defendant Hopkins placed the call on
speaker so that Doe, Defendant Ejak, and Defendant Hopkins could all listen to
120. During the call with Doe’s mother, Defendant Hopkins expressed he
50
Id. at 125:16.
51
Id. at 119:5-10.
52
Id. at 120:15-18; 121:7-8.
53
Id. at 121:10-12.
54
Id. at 121:9-14.
55
Id. at 121:15-18.
56
Id. at 122:23-24.
32
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.33 Filed 06/17/22 Page 33 of 90
121. Defendant Hopkins then requested that Doe’s mother come to Oxford
122. Doe’s mother expressed she was at work and would try to get in contact
123. Doe’s mother later called back, stating she would arrive at Oxford High
remained in the counseling office with Doe because Defendant Hopkins knew Doe
125. At approximately 10:30 a.m., Doe’s mother and father both arrived at
126. When Doe’s parents arrived, Defendant Hopkins texted Defendant Ejak
127. Upon their arrival, Doe’s parents did not greet, touch, or hug Doe, and
they did not seem friendly or show care and/or concern for their child, Doe. This
57
Id. at 123: 9-10.
58
Id. at 123:11-13.
59
Id. at 123:20-24.
60
Id. at 124:14-15.
61
Id. at 124:7-13.
62
Id. at 126: 4-5.
33
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.34 Filed 06/17/22 Page 34 of 90
conduct struck Defendant Hopkins as abnormal, as it was different from that of other
like meetings that he had conducted with a student and his or her parents.63
128. During the meeting with Doe and his parents, Defendant Hopkins
parents about Doe’s access to a gun, despite the fact Doe had searched for bullets on
his phone, had discussed his shooting hobby with Defendants, had viewed a video
of a realistic shooting during English class, had depicted a gun and a wounded person
130. Defendant Hopkins provided Doe’s family with a list of resources for
mental health support and emphasized the need for Doe to start counseling
63
Id. at 126:11-22.
64
Id. at 127:13-17.
65
Id. at 128:3-10.
34
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.35 Filed 06/17/22 Page 35 of 90
such a meeting, and deny the counselor’s advice to take the student home as
requested.67
134. Defendant Hopkins then stated to Doe’s parents that, within forty-eight
(48) hours, he wanted Doe to be seen for mental health counseling, explaining that
Defendant Hopkins would follow up to ensure Doe’s parents had followed his
135. Defendant Hopkins warned Doe’s parents that, should they fail to
obtain counseling for Doe, Defendant Hopkins would report Doe’s parents to Child
136. In making this demand, Defendants Hopkins and Ejak evidenced their
awareness that, at a minimum, Doe was a threat to himself and others and that any
66
Id. at 128:17-18.
67
Id. at 129:21-130:6.
68
Id. at 130:4-7.
69
Letter from Superintendent Throne to Oxford Wildcat Nation dated December 4, 2021, page 2,
https://www.oxfordschools.org/for_parents___students/2021-
22_district_communications/december_4__update_from_supt__throne (last accessed June 17,
2022).
35
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.36 Filed 06/17/22 Page 36 of 90
failure to urgently address Doe’s mental health condition was criminal abuse and/or
neglect.
137. Defendant Hopkins testified his “primary concern” was that he did not
want Doe to be alone, but he did not feel confident Doe’s parents would obtain
138. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins knew that the refusal of Doe’s parents to
address this emergent medical need was evidence of child abuse and/or neglect and
was of the kind that needed to be reported immediately under Michigan’s Child
139. Based on the facts and circumstances known to them at the time, as
outlined above, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins knew Doe was suicidal.
140. Further, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins knew or should have known that
Doe had expressed homicidal ideation and that he presented a substantial risk of
“if there was any disciplinary reason why [the] student could not return to class.”72
70
Prelim Ex. Tr., vol. II, at 130:11-18.
71
Id. at 132:1-3.
72
Id. at 132:5-7.
36
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.37 Filed 06/17/22 Page 37 of 90
144. However, Doe's conduct—in using his cell phone during school hours
2021, and in using his cell phone again during school hours to watch a video of a
so.”74
147. Defendant Hopkins testified Doe was “showing signs of needing help,
of needing support,” but that Doe “got the opposite” from him parents.76
149. Despite having spoken with Doe the day prior and having learned of
Doe’s access to firearms and Doe’s shooting hobby, and after also having gained
knowledge of Doe’s suicidal and homicidal ideations, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins,
73
Id. at 132:8-9.
74
Id. at 132:13-14.
75
Id. at 148:18-21.
76
Id. at 132:24-133:2.
77
Id. at 131:4-5.
37
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.38 Filed 06/17/22 Page 38 of 90
upon deliberation on the next course of action, determined Doe could return to class,
which Doe did do, and wrote a “pass back to class” for Doe.78
150. In doing so, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins returned Doe’s backpack to
151. At the time they returned Doe’s backpack, Defendants Ejak and
Hopkins had just cause to either inspect the contents of the backpack or, if they felt
such just cause did not exist, to withhold the backpack from Doe until proper
authority could be provided for them to inspect the backpack themselves or to have
152. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins made the deliberate decision to return
Doe to the classroom with possession of Doe’s unsearched backpack, despite having
knowledge that the meeting with Doe’s parents worsened Doe’s emotional and
psychiatric condition, that Doe was obsessed with firearms and gun violence, that
Doe had recently searched for bullets the day prior, that Doe had watched videos
depicting realistic shootings earlier that same morning, and that Doe’s writings and
illustrations earlier that same morning had depicted graphic gun violence and death.
The deliberate decisions of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins shocks the conscience and
78
Id. at 132:17-18.
79
Id. at 151:20-25; 153:5-7.
38
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.39 Filed 06/17/22 Page 39 of 90
153. Because Defendant Hopkins “wanted to make sure [Doe] was never
alone,” he “checked to make sure that [Doe] was being marked present for his
classes.”80
154. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins knew that threatening to call Child
Protective Services within forty-eight (48) hours, and that threatening to remove Doe
from his parents’ home, without taking any real action, would create the danger
and/or increase the likelihood that, if Doe had violence in mind, Doe would act
155. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins knew that, because Doe was suicidal and
because the facts established probable cause to know Doe posed a threat to himself
and others, Doe should be supervised in a safe setting and should not be left alone.
office based on the disciplinary reason that Doe's conduct—in using his cell phone
during school hours to access the internet to look up information about ammunition
on November 29, 2021, and in using his cell phone during school hours to watch a
80
Id. at 134:2-12.
39
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.40 Filed 06/17/22 Page 40 of 90
counseling office, in which space, and based on the assessment that he was suicidal,
adults could have supervised Doe, and Doe would not have had access to weapons
158. Instead, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins used their authority and
affirmatively acted to return Doe to class with his backpack, despite having
knowledge Doe was suicidal and that Doe posed a substantial threat to himself and
others.
159. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins misused their authority by sending Doe
back through the school to his third period class, alone, and by allowing Doe to
return to class with his unsearched backpack, which contained Doe’s handgun and
160. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins deliberately conducted the meeting with
Doe and his parents to the exclusion of the police school liaison officer, thereby
preventing the police school liaison officer from being present at the meeting and
Hopkins used the school’s attendance reporting system to remotely track Doe
40
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.41 Filed 06/17/22 Page 41 of 90
through the day and to see if Doe had been checked in as “present” for his third and
162. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins, despite knowing Doe was suicidal and
was a threat to himself, despite his statement to the contrary,82 concealed those facts
from Doe’s teachers, as well as from the school’s police liaison officer, and further
concealed from Doe’s teachers and the school’s police liaison officer both the fact
Doe should not be left alone and the threat Doe posed to himself and others.83
163. Less than two hours after Defendants Ejak and Hopkins released Doe
from the safe, secure, restricted environment in the counseling office, Doe carried
164. Doe first shot a student inside the bathroom before emerging into the
hallway of Oxford High School, at which time he began to fire his handgun and
shoot at students.
165. Doe would ultimately kill four students and seriously injure seven
others.
166. All Plaintiffs were present at Oxford High School on the day of
81
Prelim Ex. Tr., vol. II, at 134:2-12.
82
Id. at 148:2-6.
83
Id. at 158:19-22.
41
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.42 Filed 06/17/22 Page 42 of 90
167. All Plaintiffs survived the horrific shooting, by way of hiding in the
classrooms and bathrooms, running through the hallways, and/or fleeing the
169. Upon information and belief, law enforcement halted Doe’s shooting
170. Many students, including several Plaintiffs, were classmates and close
friends with the victims of the school shooting on November 30, 2021.
171. Many students, including several Plaintiffs, who were present in the
hallway in which the tragic massacre took place, witnessed friends and classmates
who were hiding in classrooms and bathrooms as the tragic massacre took place, out
of the building and advised students to stare at the wall as they walked by the bodies
173. All Plaintiffs incurred and continue to live with severe emotional
fright, shock, and terror; conscious pain and suffering; emotional distress; mental
42
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 43 of 90
174. On December 1, 2021, Doe was arraigned and charged as an adult with
one count of terrorism causing death, four counts of first-degree murder, seven
counts of assault with intent to murder, and twelve counts of possession of a firearm
acted to release Doe to the classroom was a status quo of safety, as Doe was safely
and securely restricted to the counseling office, was under the direct supervision of
176. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins had the official authority to act as
“gatekeepers” in deciding whether to release Doe from the safe, secure, and
restricted environment in the counseling office and to return Doe to the classroom
177. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins used their authority to return Doe to the
classroom, causing a departure from the status quo of safety, thus creating and
increasing a risk of violence that did not exist prior to the affirmative acts of
178. The affirmative acts of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins, which departed
from the status quo of safety, rendered the occupants of Oxford High School,
43
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.44 Filed 06/17/22 Page 44 of 90
including all Plaintiffs, more vulnerable to danger than they would have been had
Defendants Ejak and Hopkins not affirmatively acted to return Doe to the classroom
from the safe, secure, and restricted environment in the counseling office.
conducted on the morning of November 30, 2021, worsened the situation and
180. The meetings, which Defendants Ejak and Hopkins conducted on the
morning of November 30, 2021, worsened the situation and were a contributing
cause-in-fact of the shooting because the meetings placed direct pressure on Doe,
who was experiencing a mental health crisis and whom Defendants Ejak and
conducted on the morning of November 30, 2021, directly subjected Doe to the
to ignore, ridicule, and/or embarrass Doe in the presence of Defendants Ejak and
Hopkins, thus increasing the risk of Doe acting with violence upon his release from
the safe, secure, and restricted environment in the counseling office to the greater
school environment.
44
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.45 Filed 06/17/22 Page 45 of 90
182. The decision of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins to conduct the meetings
with Doe’s parents, while in Doe’s presence, was inappropriate and certain to
183. The actions of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins in threatening to call CPS
on Doe’s parents, while in Doe’s presence, and thereby threatening the removal of
Doe from his home, exacerbated Doe’s distress and mistreatment at the hands of
Doe’s parents, which thereby created and increased the danger that Doe would act
on his violent ideations upon the affirmative acts of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins
to release Doe from the safe, secure, and restricted environment in the counseling
184. The affirmative acts of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins to return Doe’s
unsearched backpack, which contained Doe’s handgun and forty-eight (48) rounds
of ammunition, to Doe and to release Doe into the greater school environment placed
the occupants of Oxford High School, including all Plaintiffs, directly in harm’s way
and provided Doe with the weapon and ammunition he used to commit the deadly
shooting.
handgun and forty-eight (48) rounds of ammunition, and by releasing Doe from the
safe, secure, and restricted environment in the counseling office to the greater school
environment, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins affirmatively set into motion the
45
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.46 Filed 06/17/22 Page 46 of 90
shooting that ensued, acting with deliberate indifference to the substantial and
indifference and a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted, either
information by not informing either Doe’s teachers or the police school liaison
officer of the situation, including the fact Doe was suicidal, which thereby created
and increased the danger that Doe would act on his violent ideations.
187. The fact Defendants Ejak and Hopkins took the above-mentioned
affirmative actions, despite their knowledge that Doe was suicidal and was
conscience.
188. Based on the knowledge the Oxford Defendants possessed, prior to the
occurrence of the violent shootings on November 30, 2021, the fact Doe would carry
out acts of violence against all occupants of Oxford High School, including all
shocked the conscience, and placed all occupants of Oxford High School, including
46
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.47 Filed 06/17/22 Page 47 of 90
190. Defendants knew that their actions would endanger the lives of Oxford
High School students, including those of all Plaintiffs, and the lives of other
191. Since the day of this tragic shooting, Defendant Oxford CSD and its
release Doe from the counseling office—where he was safely and securely restricted,
where his movement and actions were restricted, where he was under the direct
supervision of school administrators, and where he did not have access to weapons—
and to allow Doe to return to class, despite having knowledge Doe was experiencing
a mental health crisis, was obsessed with guns and gun violence, had access to
by claiming it has a formal policy and practice of returning students to class unless
193. Under this policy, Defendant Oxford CSD claims that only when a
“disciplinary” issue presents itself can the administrators send a student home or
47
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.48 Filed 06/17/22 Page 48 of 90
194. In the present case, Defendant Oxford CSD alleges that because Doe
did not present a “disciplinary” issue Defendant Oxford CSD had no choice but to
administrators knew to be suicidal and who presented a clear threat, such as Doe, to
196. Furthermore, upon information and belief, even if the school policy
issue when he used his cell phone during school hours to access the internet to look
up information about ammunition on November 29, 2021, and when he used his cell
phone during school hours to watch a video of a realistic shooting on the same day
suggesting that, while the “front office” did have contact with Doe before the attack,
Defendant Oxford CSD and its administrators could not detain Doe because, and in
48
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.49 Filed 06/17/22 Page 49 of 90
accordance with school policy, discipline was not warranted. Specifically, Throne
stated, “I want you to know there’s been a lot of talk about the student who was
apprehended. That he was called up to office and all that kind of stuff. No discipline
was warranted. There are no discipline records [for Doe] at the High School. Yes,
this student did have contact with our front office. And yes, his parents were on
it fails to communicate. Throne knew that, on the morning of the shooting, school
staff and administrators deemed Doe to be suicidal; Throne knew that, upon gaining
acted to release Doe from the counseling office where he was safely and securely
restricted, where his movement and actions were restricted, where he was under the
direct supervision of school administrators, and where he did not have access to
weapons; and Throne knew that staff and administrators of Defendant Oxford CSD
affirmatively acted to return Doe to class, despite having knowledge Doe was
experiencing a mental health crisis, was obsessed with guns and gun violence, had
84
Tim Throne, Superintendent of Oxford Community Schools, December 2, 2021 Message to
Oxford Community, ABC12 (December 2, 2021), https://www.abc12.com/tim-throne-
superintendent-of-oxford-community-schools-december-2-2021-message-to-oxford-
community/video_8b3c9912-5436-11ec-a344-5f875adc8e6e.html (last visited May 27, 2022).
49
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.50 Filed 06/17/22 Page 50 of 90
students at Oxford High School. At this point, Defendant Oxford CSD’s misleading
occurred on the morning of November 30, 2021, while Doe was present in Defendant
Hopkin’s office, Throne stated that at “no time did the counselors believe the student
might harm others based on his behavior, responses and demeanor, which appeared
calm.” At the time he made this statement, Throne knew it was false. Even so,
Throne continued in his letter, stating, “[w]hile both of his parents were present,
counselors asked specific probing questions regarding the potential for self-harm or
harm to others. His answers, which were affirmed by his parents during the
interview, led counselors to again conclude he did not intend on committing either
self-harm or harm to others. The student’s parents never advised the school district
that he had direct access to a firearm or that they had recently purchased a firearm
for him.”85
85
Letter from Superintendent Throne to Oxford Wildcat Nation dated December 4, 2021, page 2,
https://www.oxfordschools.org/for_parents___students/2021-
22_district_communications/december_4__update_from_supt__throne (last accessed June 17,
2022).
50
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.51 Filed 06/17/22 Page 51 of 90
200. Again, the above assertion was false. In stark contrast to the contents of
Throne’s letter, Defendant Hopkins determined Doe was suicidal on November 30,
2021, and was fully aware Doe was experiencing a mental health crisis, was obsessed
with guns and gun violence, had access to firearms, and was a threat to himself and
others. Throne’s above statement was deliberately misleading because, when Throne
201. On page one of Throne’s letter from December 4, 2021, Throne claims
unturned, including any and all interaction the student had with staff and students.”
Towards the end of his letter, Throne reiterated the above statement, claiming,
“[a]gain I have personally asked for a third-party review of all the events of the past
week because our community and our families deserve a full, transparent accounting
of what occurred.”86
86
Id.
51
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.52 Filed 06/17/22 Page 52 of 90
November 30, 2021, and stating her department was the “perfect agency” to conduct
the investigation.87
203. Attorney General Nessel explained she “didn’t want to see the school
district bring in a private law firm … where they are the client,” elaborating that such
204. The next day, on December 6, 2021, Defendant Oxford CSD announced
it was not going to accept Attorney General Nessel’s offer for a complimentary
independent investigation.
205. In or around January 2022, the National Center for School Safety
(“NCSS”), located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, offered to assist Oxford High School.
school violence.”89
206. Despite parents and students at Oxford High School having plead with
administrators and members of the school board to accept offers from programs that
complimentary offer.
87
Nessel offers to conduct AG investigation into Oxford school shooting, The Detroit News,
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2021/12/05/oxford-high-school-
shooting-nessel-ag-review/8878611002/ (last visited June 17, 2022).
88
Id.
89
National Center for School Safety, https://www.nc2s.org (last visited June 17, 2022).
52
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.53 Filed 06/17/22 Page 53 of 90
207. On January 24, 2022, Oxford High School reopened for in-person
learning. In preparation for the return of its students, Defendant Oxford CSD
replaced the carpet, added a fresh layer of paint, and blocked off the boys’ bathroom
Plaintiffs, returned to the same building, passed under the same doors, and walked
through the same hallway in which the tragic shooting took place on November 30,
2021.
209. To date, each time students at Oxford High School attend class, they
return to the same building, pass under the same doors, and walk through the same
hallway in which the tragic shooting took place on November 30, 2021.
210. On April 19, 2022, Attorney General Dana Nessel sent a letter to the
investigation of the events that transpired on November 30th,” the costs of which
90
Letter from Attorney General Dana Nessel to Oxford Board of Education dated April 10,
2022, page 1, https://www.michigan.gov/ag/-
/media/Project/Websites/AG/releases/2022/April/LtrOxfordBdEd41922_751181_7.pdf?rev=462
9422cbadc49858106eed32f24c9ca&hash=15936B35B43CCB9215F09543B6383AEF (last
accessed June 17, 2022).
53
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.54 Filed 06/17/22 Page 54 of 90
211. On or around May 10, 2022, Defendant Oxford CSD rejected Attorney
third-party review “of the tragedy and associated events of November 2021 [would]
not occur until the criminal and civil litigations are complete,” explaining “it would
be ill-advised for [the Oxford school board] to start a third-party review about what
happened that day when [they] don’t know all the facts.”91
212. During the Oxford school board meeting on May 10, 2022, students and
parents voiced their frustrations with Defendant Oxford CSD’s decision to refuse
transparency.92
213. On May 17, 2022, after denying two complimentary offers and hearing
the concerns of its students and parents, Defendant Oxford CSD “agreed upon
outside firms for a third-party review of the events surrounding the Oxford High
hire Varnum, a Grand Rapids-based law firm, and Guidepost Solutions to conduct
the review.”93
91
Oxford school board rejects AG’s 2nd offer to investigate deadly shooting, WXYZ-TV Detroit,
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqNWF91qO5s (last accessed June 17, 2022).
92
Id.
93
Oxford Community Schools hires outside firms for third-party review of shooting, Michigan
Radio (May 18, 2022), https://www.michiganradio.org/education/2022-05-18/oxford-community-
schools-hires-outside-firms-for-third-party-review-of-shooting (last visited June 17, 2022).
54
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.55 Filed 06/17/22 Page 55 of 90
214. Students and parents at Oxford High School join Attorney General
Nessel in her concerns that Defendant Oxford CSD’s decision to hire outside firms,
members” and will, therefore, have “the ability to stop short of full transparency.”94
215. On June 13, 2022, Attorney General Nessel sent a letter to Defendant
Oxford CSD, requesting that it “reconsider its rejections of her offer to review the
events leading up to the” school shooting on November 30, 2021.95 In her letter,
Attorney General Nessel further offered Defendant Oxford CSD “the use of a dog
trained to detect explosives and firearms along with a handler at the high school next
school year.”96
rejected Nessel’s third offer to revive the events leading up” to the school shooting.97
94
Id.
95
Nessel offers Oxford schools weapon-detecting dog, renews effort to review mass shooting,
The Detroit News (June 13, 2022), https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-
county/2022/06/13/nessel-offers-oxford-schools-weapon-detecting-dog-review-
shooting/7614773001/ (last visited June 17, 2022).
96
Id.
97
Michigan AG Nessel: Oxford School Board Rejects Offer To Provide Weapon Detection Dog,
CBS Detroit (June 15, 2022), https://www.detroit.cbslocal.com/2022/06/15/michigan-ag-nessel-
oxford-school-board-rejects-offer-to-provide-weapon-detection-dog/ (last visited June 16, 2022).
55
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.56 Filed 06/17/22 Page 56 of 90
Nessel’s] offer of a free school safety dog, trained and handled by some of the best
217. To date, Defendant Oxford CSD has not fulfilled its pledge of full
transparency to the students and parents at Oxford High School and to the greater
Oxford Community.
219. As citizens and/or legal residents of the United States, Plaintiffs were
entitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities accorded to all citizens and/or legal
enforced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, forbids state actors from depriving any person of
98
Id.
56
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.57 Filed 06/17/22 Page 57 of 90
property interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
that, in accordance with official policy of Defendant Oxford CSD, created the danger
of deadly violence at Oxford High School and that caused the shooting at Oxford
224. All Plaintiffs were students at Oxford High School and were attending
and going about their usual days as students at Oxford High School when the
225. Oxford High School remained closed, and its surviving students,
public education from November 30, 2021, until January 24, 2022.
226. Since the reopening of Oxford High School, on January 24, 2022,
unconstitutional policies and customs that caused the shooting to occur, therefore,
57
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.58 Filed 06/17/22 Page 58 of 90
depriving the students at Oxford High School, including all Plaintiffs, of the full and
227. To date, Defendant Oxford CSD has failed to take any measures to
restore the property right of the students at Oxford High School, including all
Plaintiffs, to the full and equal enjoyment of a public education at Oxford High
School.
228. Defendant Oxford CSD’s failure to fully restore the property right of
students at Oxford High School, including all Plaintiffs, to a public education include
229. Due to the failure of Defendants Oxford CSD and Weaver to restore the
full property interest of students to a public education, Plaintiffs have suffered and
will continue in the future to suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to:
(a) fright, shock, and terror; (b) loss of trust; (c) conscious pain and suffering; (d)
emotional distress; (e) mental anguish; (f) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; (g)
59
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.60 Filed 06/17/22 Page 60 of 90
depression and anxiety; (h) disruption of their lives; and (i) humiliation and/or
mortification.
COUNT II:
PROSPECTIVE EQUITABLE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR
MONELL LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1988
STATE-CREATED DANGER
DEFEDANT OXFORD CSD
232. As citizens and/or legal residents of the United States, Plaintiffs were
entitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities accorded to all citizens and/or legal
Constitution, as enforced under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and at all times relevant to the
Complaint, Plaintiffs had a clearly established right to be free from danger created
234. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD failed
62
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.63 Filed 06/17/22 Page 63 of 90
CSD liable for the constitutional violations alleged herein under Monell v. Dept. of
Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
235. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD knew
or should have known that the policies, procedures, training, supervision, and
discipline of Throne and Defendants Wolf, Ejak, and Hopkins were inadequate for
the responsibility Defendant Oxford CSD owed to the students at Oxford High
236. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD knew
or should have known that the policies, procedures, training, supervision, and
discipline of Throne and Defendants Wolf, Ejak, and Hopkins failed to establish,
counselors, and other staff members did not create or increase the risk to
237. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD failed
regulations to ensure that its teachers, counselors, and other staff members refrain
from taking actions that create or increase a risk of harm to all students at Oxford
63
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.64 Filed 06/17/22 Page 64 of 90
238. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD knew
or should have known of a history, custom, propensity, and/or pattern for Throne
and Defendants Wolf, Ejak, Hopkins, and other employees of Oxford High School
to fail to properly identify a student with suicidal and homicidal tendencies and to
act in such a way that created a risk of harm to students at Oxford High School and/or
counselors, and other staff members as to the strong likelihood that constitutional
violations, such as those apparent in the instant case, would occur, and Defendant
Oxford CSD pursued policies, practices, and/or customs that were a direct and
240. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD knew
student with suicidal and homicidal tendencies would deprive citizens and/or legal
241. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Oxford CSD knew
64
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.65 Filed 06/17/22 Page 65 of 90
student with suicidal and homicidal tendencies to his classroom such that their
actions created a risk of harm and/or an increased risk of harm to the students at
Oxford High School, including Plaintiffs, prior to involving the liaison police officer
and/or other local law enforcement and/or obtaining permission from the same.
and/or patterns that were the moving force behind, and the cause-in-fact of, the
propensities, practices, and/or patterns include but are not limited to the following:
65
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.66 Filed 06/17/22 Page 66 of 90
66
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.67 Filed 06/17/22 Page 67 of 90
m. Any other policy, practice, and/or custom that may become known
throughout the course of this litigation.
constitutional rights of their citizens and/or legal residents and students, Defendant
Oxford CSD encouraged and cultivated the conduct that violated Plaintiffs’ rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiffs would be exposed to
Defendant Oxford CSD, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue in the future to
suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to: (a) fright, shock, and terror; (b)
loss of trust; (c) conscious pain and suffering; (d) emotional distress; (e) mental
anguish; (f) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; (g) depression and anxiety; (h)
67
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.68 Filed 06/17/22 Page 68 of 90
as NCSS, to provide assistance for the return to school and for the
implementation of safety policies and/or procedures before the start
of the coming 2022-2023 school year at Oxford High School;
247. As citizens and/or legal residents of the United States, Plaintiffs were
entitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities accorded to all citizens and/or legal
Constitution, as enforced under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and at all times relevant to the
Complaint, Plaintiffs had a clearly established right to be free from danger created
constitutional right.
established right, and acting in deliberate indifference, violated the right of all
Plaintiffs to be free from violence without due process, as secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, by taking affirmative acts under color of law to
disrupt the status quo and create a danger of severe injury that did not exist in the
70
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.71 Filed 06/17/22 Page 71 of 90
status quo prior to those affirmative state actions, and by taking affirmative acts that
caused severe injuries to Plaintiffs, which would not have happened but-for the
251. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants Ejak and Hopkins
were acting under the color of state law and created or increased a state-created
disregard to Plaintiffs, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiffs would be exposed
252. The actions of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins, under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
§ 1988, were performed under the color of state law and were objectively
unreasonable.
253. The actions of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins, under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
254. Defendants Ejak and Hopkins were acting under the color of state law
as employees of Defendant Oxford CSD, a public school district, when they deprived
71
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.72 Filed 06/17/22 Page 72 of 90
taking affirmative action(s), which resulted in all students at Oxford High School,
including Plaintiffs, being less safe than they were before the actions of Defendants
Ejak and Hopkins. The actions of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins created the danger
and increased the risk of harm that the students at Oxford High School, including
72
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.73 Filed 06/17/22 Page 73 of 90
256. All of the above alleged conduct substantially increased the risk of
harm to Plaintiffs, who were safer before Defendants Ejak and Hopkins took the
Defendants Ejak and Hopkins, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue in the
73
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.74 Filed 06/17/22 Page 74 of 90
future to suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to: (a) fright, shock, and
terror; (b) loss of trust; (c) conscious pain and suffering; (d) emotional distress; (e)
mental anguish; (f) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; (g) depression and anxiety; (h)
74
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.75 Filed 06/17/22 Page 75 of 90
260. As citizens and/or legal residents of the United States, Plaintiffs were
entitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities accorded to all citizens and/or legal
Constitution, as enforced under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and at all times relevant to the
Complaint, Plaintiffs had a clearly established right to be free from danger created
constitutional right.
263. Defendant Wolf, with knowledge of this clearly established right, and
acting in deliberate indifference, violated the right of all Plaintiffs to be free from
Process Clause, by taking affirmative acts under color of law to disrupt the status
quo and create a danger of severe injury that did not exist in the status quo prior to
those affirmative state actions, and by taking affirmative acts that caused severe
injuries to Plaintiffs, which would not have happened but-for the affirmative state
264. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Wolf was acting
under the color of state law as an employee of Defendant Oxford CSD, a public
school district, when he, among other things, acted to maintain school safety; to
investigate violent behavior within and threats of violence directed at the public
school district; to take action and make decisions regarding school practices and
administrator.
the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, were all performed
under the color of state law and were objectively unreasonable and performed
safety of Plaintiffs.
266. Defendant Wolf was acting under the color of state law when he
77
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.78 Filed 06/17/22 Page 78 of 90
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and
267. Defendant Wolf knew that there were active threats of violence that
compromised student safety at Oxford High School throughout the weeks and
months leading up to the school shooting on November 30, 2021, and that those
obligation to maintain school safety and to investigate fully and completely all
violence within the Oxford School District and all threats to the safety of the Oxford
School District’s students, including a full and complete investigation into the
identity of the person who had left severed animal heads on the property and within
substantially increased the danger that Doe’s conduct would escalate to actual
270. The affirmative actions and conduct of Defendant Wolf in the weeks
leading up to the school shooting on November 30, 2021, which created and/or
increased the risk of harm to the students at Oxford High School, including
e. Any and all additional breaches that created or increased the danger
of violence at Oxford High School that may become known through
the course of this litigation.
272. At all relevant times, the actions of Defendant Wolf, by advising all
273. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were safer before Defendant
Wolf took action and advised all students at Oxford High School, including
79
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.80 Filed 06/17/22 Page 80 of 90
Plaintiffs, that there was no credible threat. By virtue of his actions, Defendant
threats of violence made towards Oxford High School and against its students,
including the severed bird head that had been left in the boys’ bathroom,
Defendant Wolf would have found that Doe was the perpetrator of the above-
mentioned threats and was the individual who severed the bird’s head, as such
and pages. At that time, Oxford High School would have removed Doe from
school, and the mass school shooting that took place on November 30, 2021,
would never have occurred and Plaintiffs would not have sustained the severe
that substantially increased the special danger of harm to Plaintiffs and all other
students at Oxford High School, as can be distinguished from a risk that would
to the safety of Plaintiffs, causing all students and occupants at Oxford High
80
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.81 Filed 06/17/22 Page 81 of 90
School to be less safe than they were before Defendant Wolf took the affirmative
277. But for the affirmative acts of Defendant Wolf, Doe would not have
committed the school shooting at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021.
278. The fact Defendant Wolf decided to refrain from reporting the severed
bird head incident to law enforcement and from investigating the active threats of
violence that were made towards Oxford High School and against its students—
sense of security to the students and parents at Oxford High School and, even more
shockingly, to tell the students at Oxford High School they were not to talk about
dangers.
280. In comparison with the public, at large, the students at Oxford High
School, including Plaintiffs, were specifically at-risk and exposed to the dangers
Defendant Wolf, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue in the future to suffer
81
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.82 Filed 06/17/22 Page 82 of 90
irreparable harm, including but not limited to: (a) fright, shock, and terror; (b) loss
of trust; (c) conscious pain and suffering; (d) emotional distress; (e) mental
anguish; (f) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; (g) depression and anxiety; (h)
82
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.83 Filed 06/17/22 Page 83 of 90
83
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.84 Filed 06/17/22 Page 84 of 90
284. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Wolf was the
principal at Oxford High School and, as such, directly supervised and oversaw the
actions of Defendants Ejak and Hopkins and encouraged the specific incident of
to expel, discipline, and/or provide proper supervision for Doe and failing to inform
the liaison police officer or local law enforcement about Doe’s violent plans.
adequately supervise the school shooter, Doe, Defendant Wolf encouraged and
cultivated the conduct that then caused a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the
84
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.85 Filed 06/17/22 Page 85 of 90
Hopkins.
287. As citizens and/or legal residents of the United States, Plaintiffs were
entitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities accorded to all citizens and/or legal
Constitution, as enforced under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and at all times relevant to the
Complaint, Plaintiffs had a clearly established right to be free from danger created
289. The actions and omissions of Defendants Wolf, Ejak, and Hopkins,
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, were all performed under the color of state law and
290. Defendants Wolf, Ejak, and Hopkins were acting under the color of
state law when they deprived Plaintiffs of their clearly established rights, privileges,
85
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.86 Filed 06/17/22 Page 86 of 90
citizen’s right to be free from acts that create and/or increase the risk of harm that an
86
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.87 Filed 06/17/22 Page 87 of 90
Defendant Wolf, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue in the future to suffer
irreparable harm, including but not limited to: (a) fright, shock, and terror; (b) loss
of trust; (c) conscious pain and suffering; (d) emotional distress; (e) mental anguish;
(f) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; (g) depression and anxiety; (h) disruption of their
88
Case 2:22-cv-11360-RHC-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.89 Filed 06/17/22 Page 89 of 90
RELIEF REQUESTED
Constitutional and Federal rights, and the Eastern District of Michigan Southern
1988; and
c. Any further legal and/or other relief that this Court deems equitable
or just.
Respectfully Submitted,
GREWAL LAW, PLLC
90