Marquetta Williams Lawsuit
Marquetta Williams Lawsuit
Marquetta Williams Lawsuit
PageID #: 1
1
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 2 of 24. PageID #: 2
the Estate of James Williams, Deceased, by and through undersigned counsel, and for her Complaint
INTRODUCTION
2
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 3 of 24. PageID #: 3
1. Plaintiff alleges, including but not limited to, that Defendant Robert Huber
(Defendant Huber) used excessive force when he fatally shot James Williams on New Year’s Day,
2. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of
Decedent Williams’ clearly established rights as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
3. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services
of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and its progeny.
JURISDICTION
4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as this action is
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress a deprivation of constitutional rights as set forth herein.
VENUE
5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all incidents, events,
and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District of Ohio and, upon
information and belief, all of the parties reside in this judicial district.
PARTIES
6. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff is/was a resident of the City of Canton,
7. Plaintiff has been appointed by the Stark County Probate Court on February 10, 2022 as
8. Defendant Robert Huber (Defendant Huber) is/was a police officer for Defendant City
9. Defendant Canton Police Lieutenant Lester Marino (Defendant Lt. Marino) is/was a
police officer for Defendant City of Canton, Ohio – and a direct supervisor of Defendant Huber as a CR
3
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 4 of 24. PageID #: 4
10. Along with the duties of all other police officer Defendant’s mentioned below, Defendant
Lt. Marino’s duties are defined in the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department.
11. The Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department are issued by the Director
of Public Safety and the Chief of Police to employees of the Canton, Ohio Police Department.
12. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant Lt. Marino’s
duties include:
a. Being a Commanding Officer in the Canton Police Department, Id. pg. 32;
b. Being responsible for the direction and control of personnel under his command
diligently executing the program within his area of responsibility providing for:
d. Ensuring the proper conduct of roll call assembly during which members are
f. Analyzing crime and incident reports daily to determine trends as a basis for
tactical deployment of resources and direction of police operations, Id., pg. 34.
is/was a police officer for Defendant City of Canton, Ohio – and a direct supervisor of Defendant Huber.
4
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 5 of 24. PageID #: 5
14. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant PSC’s duties
include:
a. Commanding and controlling the Office of Professional Standards, Id. pg. 40;
b. Being responsible for the thorough investigation of all administrative and inter-
c. Having the ultimate responsibility to ensure that all cases assigned to his/her
bureau are carefully and thoroughly investigated to the best of his/her ability and
e. Being observant, discreet and logical in his/her deductions, loyal and impartial in
investigation, Id.;
5
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 6 of 24. PageID #: 6
15. Defendant Patrol Shift Commander/ “Acting in Command”/ Senior Sergeant on Duty
for Defendant Huber’s Shift, Name Unknown, (Defendant Shift Commander) is/was a police
officer/Sergeant/Lieutenant for Defendant City of Canton, Ohio – and a direct supervisor of Defendant
Huber.
16. In the absence of the Patrol Shift Commander, the senior sergeant on duty for that
shift is “Acting in Command” (and is the Defendant Shift Commander referenced herein) for the
17. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant Shift
a. Acting as the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the daily departmental operations when
the Chief of Police and Division Commanders are not on duty, Id., pg. 42;
and/or materials, and inspection of officers for fitness for duty, Id.;
d. Ensuring proper use of radio procedures by all members under his command, Id.;
e. Advising and assisting subordinates in all phases of police work requiring his/her
expertise, Id.;
h. Briefing the on-coming Shift Supervisor on actions occurring during his shift;
6
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 7 of 24. PageID #: 7
l. Being expressly required to see that all complaints and requests for service
anywhere in the City are promptly and properly investigated and that appropriate
m. Counseling subordinate officers in the performance of their duties and shall take
or neglect of duty that may come to his attention. Id., pg. 43.
18. Defendant Canton Police Captain Lisa Broucker (Defendant Captain Brouker) is/was
a police officer for Defendant City of Canton, Ohio – and a direct supervisor of Defendant Huber – and
19. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant Captain
a. Being responsible for the operation of the administrative arm of the Police
c. Being responsible for the firearms training program and preparing and scheduling
d. Closely evaluating the performance and capabilities of all trainees and reporting
e. Reviewing all departmental plans, including operational plans to see they are
7
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 8 of 24. PageID #: 8
g. Being responsible for the proper and effective functioning of the Internal Affairs
Office and their ability to investigate all reports from within or without regarding
h. Being responsible for background investigations of police candidates. Id., pg. 28.
is/was a police officer for Defendant City of Canton, Ohio – and a direct supervisor of Defendant
21. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant
the program within his area of responsibility providing for: Prevention and
use of police manpower, property and equipment, and [p]romoting personnel and
8
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 9 of 24. PageID #: 9
d. Analyzing crime and incident reports daily to determine trends as a basis for
e. Making daily examination of personnel reports and other reports to ensure proper
deployment and control of members and employees under his/her command, Id.,
pg. 30.
22. Defendant Canton Police Captain Dave Davis (Defendant Captain Davis) is/was a
police officer for Defendant City of Canton, Ohio – and a direct supervisor of Defendant Huber –
23. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant Captain
criminal investigations assigned in the Division under his command, Id., pg. 31;
b. Being responsible for the administrative duties which include the planning,
personnel, Id.;
c. Exercising staff supervision over all functions relating to the Police Department's
Police, Id.;
e. Analyzing crime and incident reports to determine trends as a basis for special
9
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 10 of 24. PageID #: 10
f. Being responsible for the communication of information up and down the chain
24. Defendant Canton Police Chief Jack Angelo (Defendant Chief Angelo) is/was a
police officer for the City of Canton, Ohio – acting as Chief of Police and the top decision maker
and policy maker at the City of Canton regarding police procedure and policy at the time of the
25. Per the Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department, Defendant Chief
a. Reserving the right, as chief executive officer of the police department, to alter,
b. Having command, control, and supervisory authority over all members and
c. Being the Chief Executive Officer of the Police Department, Id. pg. 24;
e. Organizing, directing and controlling resources of the Police Department, Id.; and
f. Being responsible for the training of all members of the Department, Id., pg. 24.
26. Defendant City of Canton is a municipal corporation located in Summit County, State
of Ohio, and at all times relevant to this action employed Defendants Huber and/or Defendant Chief
of Police Jack Angelo and/or Defendants John Does 1-10 named herein as police officers, and has
for its address 218 Cleveland Ave. SW, Canton, Ohio, 44702, in Stark County, Ohio.
27. According to its website, Defendant Canton’s Police Department requires its police
10
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 11 of 24. PageID #: 11
28. One of Defendant Canton’s major guiding principles directs officers “To be fair,
29. Plaintiff asserts that, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Huber, Defendant Chief
Angelo and the other individually named Defendants violated at least one of the City’s major guiding
principles and thereby acted both inside and outside the course and scope of their employment as
30. Redress is being sought from all Defendants in their official and individual capacities,
and it is further alleged that Defendants were acting under and/or outside of color of law and/or
31. At all times relevant herein, Defendant(s) John Doe Nos. 1 through 10, (Name and
addresses unknown) are believed to be police officers, and/or other supervisors, commanders, police
and/or other administrative and/or police department or other employees of Defendant City of
Canton whose identity(ies) or involvement with this case, despite reasonable diligence, cannot be
ascertained and/or discovered by the Plaintiff at the present time, but whom, through written
discovery and/or deposition, may become known as being persons properly included as Defendants
in this case.
32. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lt. Marino, Defendant PSC, Defendant Shift
Commander, Defendant Captain Brouker, Defendant Gabbard, Defendant Captain Davis, Defendant
Chief Angelo and John Does 1-10 shall be referred to, from time to time, as the “Supervisory
11
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 12 of 24. PageID #: 12
STATEMENT OF FACTS
34. Defendant Huber’s and the Supervisory Defendants’ alleged misconduct occurred on
35. Based on their experience and knowledge of the city, all Defendants know or have
reason to know that people residing within the city are celebrating the arrival of the New Year by
discharging a firearm with the city limits of Canton at 1810th St. NE, for the
36. And so, as the hour gets closer to midnight, Decedent Williams, age 46, joins in that
activity as he stands on the porch of his home where he lived with his wife, Marquetta Williams, and
Defendant Huber
38. At this point, Defendant Huber, who is in a police car and on the phone with his wife,
39. Defendant Huber drives to the front of Plaintiff’s home and sees the top of a person’s
head near a patio on the side of the house with a privacy fence around it.
40. The privacy fence is about six feet high and made of vertical, wide slats of wood that
41. The fence obscures the view into and out of the porch area.
12
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 13 of 24. PageID #: 13
42. Defendant Huber sees the top of the patio door leading into the house open and close.
44. Defendant Huber turns off his marked Canton Police car.
45. Defendant Huber gets out of the police car and walks up the steps of the porch and
46. Defendant Huber sees a “large male” walking with a full-size rife in the house.
48. Defendant Huber backs off the porch and moves into the street where he activates his
49. Defendant Huber radios dispatch, saying he needs additional officers to respond and
50. A bit later, Defendant Huber hears gunfire coming from the area of the porch.
51. Defendant Huber again approaches the porch with his gun drawn, and at this time:
d. Defendant Huber does not hear threatening words coming from inside the home;
g. Defendant Huber does not smell marijuana or see people consuming drugs or
alcohol;
h. Defendant Huber does not see anyone in the path of any gunfire;
13
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 14 of 24. PageID #: 14
k. Defendant Huber does not see anyone hiding or lying in wait to ambush anyone;
l. Defendant Huber does not see anyone making threats toward the porch;
m. Defendant Huber does not see anyone making threats from the porch to any
person;
p. The fence blocks Defendant Huber’s view of what is happening on the porch;
q. The fence blocks Defendant Huber’s view of the what is happening behind the
t. Defendant Huber does not use any bullhorn to make any warnings or commands;
u. Defendant Huber does not use his radio to call for backup;
v. Defendant Huber does not use his radio to report his location as he approaches
w. Defendant Huber does not radio being confronted as he approaches the fenced-in
porch;
x. Defendant Huber does not radio that another person is being confronted as he
y. Defendant Huber does not use his radio to report “shots fired” at him by
Decedent;
z. Defendant Huber does not use his radio to report being under attack;
14
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 15 of 24. PageID #: 15
aa. Defendant Huber does not wait for officers to set a perimeter, before he
bb. Defendant Huber makes no attempt to de-escalate or announce his presence from
cc. From previous radio traffic, Defendant Huber is aware that Canton residents are
celebrating the arrival of the New Year by discharging their firearms; and
dd. Defendant Huber knows it’s approximately midnight on New Year’s Day.
52. And so, Defendant Huber approaches the fence, getting within a few feet of it.
53. Then, Defendant Huber aims his gun at the wooden fence and shoots multiple times.
54. Defendant Huber’s bullet(s) go through the fence, striking Decedent in the chest.
55. Defendant Huber’s bullet(s) also shatter the glass door behind Decedent which opens
into Plaintiff’s home where Plaintiff and Plaintiff and Decedent’s children are present.
56. Defendant Huber uses his radio, saying “Shots fired, shots fired,” and, “Police! Get
57. After shooting Decedent, Defendant Huber runs to his cruiser and radios dispatch,
58. With blood all over his shirt, Decedent Williams staggers into his house and falls.
59. Decedent dies on the living room floor in the presence of his children.
COUNT I
(Excessive Force)
15
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 16 of 24. PageID #: 16
63. Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 states, in relevant part: “Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .”
64. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in relevant part,
“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
65. For decades, United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution to prohibit a police officer’s use of excessive force during the arrest
66. While acting under color of state law, Defendant Huber deprived Plaintiff of his well-
established right to be free from excessive force, per the authority cited herein.
67. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff asserts Decedent had the well-established
constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive force while being arrested, even if the arrest was
otherwise proper.
68. In other words, on January 1, 2022, Defendant Huber was only permitted to use the
69. At all times relevant to this matter, Defendant Huber is clothed with the authority of
70. In this case, Plaintiff claims Defendant Huber used excessive force when he arrested
16
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 17 of 24. PageID #: 17
a. Defendant Huber shot at Decedent, as stated above, and knowing or having reason
to know that Decedent was celebrating the arrival of New Year’s Day;
b. Defendant Huber intentionally fired his service weapon at Decedent and killed
him with gunfire while Decedent posed no threat of death or serious bodily harm
to Defendant Huber;
Defendant Huber’s view of the scene in front of him, putting at risk the lives of
Decedent, Plaintiff, and their children, and did in fact take the life of Decedent;
d. Defendant Huber fired at Decedent while Decedent was not firing or pointing a
e. The taking of Decedent’s life was not necessary to stop Decedent’s celebration
71. As a result of the actions of Defendant Huber, Plaintiff was damaged as detailed in
COUNT II
(Supervisory Liability)
74. The Supervisory Defendants is/are the direct supervisors of Defendant Huber.
75. The Supervisory Defendants have supervisory authority over the Canton Police
76. At all times relevant to this action, the Supervisory Defendants knew or reasonably
should have known of, and/or participated in, and/or condoned, and/or ratified:
17
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 18 of 24. PageID #: 18
b. Defendant Huber’s use of cover and hide, without announcing his presence or
setting a perimeter prior to using lethal force when no one was in imminent danger
of harm;
c. Defendant Huber’s running to the fenced-in porch area without announcing his
presence or securing the scene, thereby making the scene more dangerous to
d. Defendant Huber’s force tactics against Decedent at the fenced-in porch area;
e. Defendant Huber’s use of lethal force while facing no threat of lethal force;
f. Defendant Huber’s use of lethal force while facing no threat of lethal force in a
previous police shooting and previous use of force in a third incident where the
subject posed no risk of imminent serious physical harm to Defendant Huber that
g. Defendant Huber’s pattern, practice, and/or routine of using lethal force and/or
using force capable of causing serious physical harm to citizens who do not pose
a lethal threat or threat of serious physical harm to Defendant Huber or any other
person.
77. The Supervisory Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their acts
and/or failures to act would likely cause the constitutional injury that befell Plaintiff and Decedent,
to wit: by endorsing, promoting, encouraging, and/or not disciplining Defendant Huber’s actions,
and/or by keeping him employed at the City, and/or by allowing him to continue to use his firearm
as a police officer, Decedent was killed and Plaintiff lost her husband as a result of Defendant
18
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 19 of 24. PageID #: 19
Huber’s reckless, wanton, and/or willful actions which were endorsed, condoned, and/or ratified by
Defendants.
78. The Supervisory Defendants had a duty and/or were required by his/their training to
take action to discipline and/or otherwise prevent Defendant Huber and/or the other Defendants from
79. Despite his/their knowledge of Defendant Huber’s misconduct, as stated above, the
Supervisory Defendants took no action, failed to impose reasonable discipline, failed to follow chain
of command, failed to document the instances of misconduct, and/or otherwise abandoned his/their
supervisory duties.
stated above, the Supervisory Defendants created an environment that condoned the aforementioned
misconduct and perpetuated and/or facilitated and/or aided Defendant Huber in the baseless seizure
of Decedent’s person and the taking of his life when he posed no lethal threat to Defendants or
anyone else.
81. The Supervisory Defendants engaged in acts and omissions that were the product of
subjects in the manner detailed above, i.e., when the subject was not visible to
b. Defendants knew or had reason to know that Defendant Huber and Officer Paris
coordinated their stories of the night of Decedent’s shooting with the assistance
and coaching of their police union leadership and the assistance of Defendants to
19
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 20 of 24. PageID #: 20
82. By their acts and failures to act as stated above, the Supervisory Defendants in fact
caused Plaintiff’s constitutional deprivation: to wit, Decedent was seized/killed with lethal force
while celebrating the arrival of the New Year in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the
COUNT III
(Monell)
86. The Supervisory Defendants are the top policymakers for the City of Canton Police
Department.
87. Defendant City of Canton maintains an armed police force, the Canton Police
88. Defendant City of Canton is aware that each year, on/about New Year’s Eve, citizens
routinely discharge firearms within the city limits to celebrate the arrival of New Year’s Day, to wit:
20
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 21 of 24. PageID #: 21
89. Defendant City of Canton has an unwritten policy or custom of “shoot first and ask
questions later,” in situations where, as here, a citizen has firearms in his possession and is
discharging it.
90. The “shoot first” policy or custom is known to the Supervisory Defendants, to wit:
the Supervisory Defendants approved, ratified, encouraged, sanctioned, and/or promoted this policy
91. Following the death of Decedent, the Supervisory Defendants continue to approve,
ratify, encourage, sanction, and/or promote the “shoot first” policy or custom as they expressed
support for Defendant Huber’s actions regarding the death of Decedent, impose no discipline on
Defendant Huber, and change none of the officer training at the city.
92. Defendant City of Canton also maintains an unwritten policy or custom of allowing
officers to shoot in the direction of citizens when: 1) the officer cannot make out his target or beyond
due to visual obstructions, 2) the officer is not facing an actual threat of death or serious physical
harm, and/or 3) the officer knows or has reason to believe the person is not trying to shoot, injure,
93. The aforesaid unwritten policy or custom put Decedent, Plaintiff, and her children at
94. The aforesaid unwritten policy or custom did in fact cause the death of Decedent.
95. At all times relevant hereto, the Supervisory Defendants initiated, authorized,
96. The Supervisory Defendants worked in the Canton Police Department at the time the
21
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 22 of 24. PageID #: 22
97. The Supervisory Defendants reviewed documents, discussed, and/or received other
information at the Canton Police Department about the manner in which Defendant Huber shot and
killed Decedent while he was celebrating the arrival of the New Year.
99. The Supervisory Defendants were thus on actual and/or constructive notice of these
101. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Canton does not train its police force
on the constitutional limits of the use of deadly force, to wit: Defendant City of Canton never trained
Defendant Huber on how to approach a person who is discharging firearms into the air (and at no
102. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Canton does not train officers, such
as Defendant Huber, to deescalate situations – or not shoot first and ask questions later – where
persons, like Decedent, are discharging firearms to celebrate the arrival of the New Year.
103. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Canton does not discipline officers,
such as Defendant Huber, who shoot and/or kill persons, like Decedent, who are discharging
104. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Canton does not discipline officers,
such as Defendant Huber, who fail to deescalate situations where persons, like Decedent, are
105. The need for said training and discipline, as aforesaid, is so obvious that the failure
of Defendants to conduct said training and discipline establishes Defendants’ objective deliberate
22
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 23 of 24. PageID #: 23
indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and Decedent and all who live in the City of
Canton.
failure to train and discipline as aforesaid, Plaintiff was damaged as detailed in the Damages section
of this Complaint.
DAMAGES
108. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, Plaintiff
has been damaged, including but not limited to: Decedent (Plaintiff’s husband) was shot and killed,
her privacy fence was damaged, the sliding glass door to her home was destroyed, and she has
emotional distress, fear, anxiety, loss of sense of personal safety, dignity, and legal fees and costs.
109. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and
severally, for not less than $1,000,000.00, including but not limited to:
B. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for the willful, reckless, and
C. Equitable relief, including, without limitation, that Defendant City of Canton be made
to adopt an appropriate policy to prevent future instances of the type of misconduct described herein;
D. Attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action and other costs that may be associated
23
Case: 5:23-cv-00655 Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/23 24 of 24. PageID #: 24
E. Any and all other relief that this Court deems equitable, just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Respectfully submitted,
24