Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
GLENN FORD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 5:15-cv-544
v. )
) Hon. S. Maurice Hicks,
The CITY OF SHREVEPORT, DON ) District Judge
ASHLEY, GARY ALDERMAN, )
GARY PITTMAN, EVERETT T. ) Hon. Judge Hayes,
RUSHING, the ESTATE OF BILLY ) Magistrate Judge
LOCKWOOD, FRANK DATCHER, )
GLYNN MITCHELL, R. PRICE, )
POLICE DOES 1-10, ESTATE OF )
GEORGE MCCORMICK, CADDO )
PARISH, PAUL CARMOUCHE, in )
his official capacity as District )
Attorney of Caddo Parish, DALE )
COX, in his official capacity as )
District Attorney of Caddo Parish, )
CADDO PARISH DISTRICT )
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, and ABC ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INSURANCE COMPANIES, )
)
Defendants. )
his official capacity as District Attorney of Caddo Parish, DALE COX, in his official
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 488
INTRODUCTION
Louisiana demonstrates without question that Glenn Ford should never have been
2. Probable cause never existed to arrest and prosecute Glenn Ford for
this crime.
3. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff was finally exonerated more than thirty
years after he was arrested—when he was released, Glenn Ford was the longest-
serving death row inmate in the United States, spending 29 years, 3 months, and 5
days in solitary confinement. Mr. Ford has Stage Four lung cancer and may not
have long to live—Defendants have therefore taken most of Plaintiff’s adult life
concert with one another and others unknown, under municipal and parish policies
1 Pending before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office
based on case law that provides that the District Attorney in his or her official capacity is the proper
party. Plaintiff includes the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office as a party in this First Amended
Complaint to preserve his claims in the event that this Court or an appellate court determines that
the Office itself is the proper party.
2
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 489
that, “the chief goal [of a Shreveport Police investigation] is to identify any suspects,
defendants, and then develop evidence that would support an arrest of those
identified suspects.”
admitted they do—they identified Glenn Ford as the perpetrator and manufactured
evidence against him, in violation of the United States Constitution and Louisiana
law. In addition, the Shreveport Police officers named in this complaint destroyed
and suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have shown Mr. Ford to be
innocent. These police officers did all of this pursuant to the policies and practices of
Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office knew of some or all of the exculpatory
evidence described in this complaint. Instead of turning that evidence over to Mr.
Ford and his defense attorneys prior to Mr. Ford’s criminal proceedings, those
suppressed the evidence, acting pursuant to the policies and practices of the Caddo
Parish District Attorney’s Office, which deprived Mr. Ford of his rights under the
reckless, and deliberately indifferent acts and omissions, Mr. Ford sustained
injuries and damages including the loss of his freedom for almost thirty years,
3
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 490
personal injuries, pain and suffering, severe mental anguish, emotional distress,
and restrictions on all forms of personal freedom including but not limited to diet,
9. This civil action seeks money damages and other relief for these
Defendants.
PARTIES
years of his life in solitary confinement for a crime he did not commit.
Pittman, the Estate of Billy Lockwood, Frank Datcher, Glynn Mitchell, R. Price,
and Police Does 1-10 (collectively “Law Enforcement Defendants”) are present or
former Shreveport Police officers, who are sued in their individual capacities.
was the employer of the Law Enforcement Defendants. In addition, each of the Law
Shreveport is liable for all torts committed by the Law Enforcement Defendants
while employed by the City of Shreveport under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
4
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 491
the District Attorney for Caddo Parish. Defendant Carmouche is being sued in his
official capacity because at times relevant to this Complaint, he was the official
responsible for the prosecution of Glenn Ford and he was a final policymaker
responsible for his own actions and the actions of his subordinate employees of the
the policies and practices of the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office, and the
Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office is responsible for actions taken by its final
policymakers.
14. Defendant Dale Cox is the current District Attorney for Caddo Parish.
He is being sued in his official capacity as the successor in office and liability to
pertinent to this Complaint, the office responsible for the prosecution of Glenn Ford.
who represented himself as an expert in forensic pathology and was then the
5
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 492
the course and scope of his employment and is sued in his individual capacity.
agent of Caddo Parish, which is liable for all torts committed by McCormick while
Caddo Parish is additionally responsible for the policies and practices of the Caddo
insurance companies, who, upon information and belief, have issued and currently
have in effect one or more policies of insurance covering one or more of the
20. At all relevant times herein, each Defendant was and is a “person” for
purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acted under color of law and within the scope of
22. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana law to
redress the Defendants’ tortious conduct and their deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights
23. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C.
6
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 493
1367.23.
of the Defendants reside in this judicial district, and the events and omissions
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
dead in his jewelry and watch repair shop in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was shot
26. To this day, the crime remains unsolved. By focusing exclusively on the
wrong man, Defendants have let the real killer remain at large for three decades.
27. Mr. Ford’s name was allegedly first raised to the Law Enforcement
Defendants by Mr. Rozeman’s neighbors, children who told Shreveport police that
Mr. Ford did yard work for Mr. Rozeman and that they recalled seeing him the day
of the murder.
28. In the middle of the night after the crime, Mr. Ford was told by his
father that the police wanted to talk to him. Mr. Ford voluntarily went to the police
Mr. Ford agreed to be fingerprinted, photographed and tested for gunshot residue.
7
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 494
He also consented to a search of his room. A detective described Ford as being “very
cooperative.”
30. Mr. Ford provided police information despite the fact that he was
afraid to identify anyone because the people responsible would kill him.
discovered pawn shop receipts that they suggested implicated Mr. Ford, the Law
Enforcement Defendants arrested Mr. Ford for receiving (or possessing) stolen
things.
A. Multiple Reports that Corroborate Mr. Ford and Implicate Other Suspects are
Buried
32. Within a week of the Rozeman murder, Sergeant Glynn Mitchell of the
33. The informant told Mitchell that Jake Robinson still had the murder
informant.
8
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 495
36. Defendants Ashley and Alderman contacted Ralph Frazier, who did
confirm that he had been shot, corroborating the informant’s and crimestoppers’
reports.
said that Jake Robinson still had the murder weapon less than a week after the
murder and that Jake Robinson had also used the weapon to shoot Ralph Frazier
shortly before Rozeman was murdered. They also suppressed the reports that
B. Police Suppress a Second Report That One of the Robinson Brothers Had the
Murder Weapon at a Relative’s House
38. After receiving multiple reports about the Robinson brothers, and that
they likely still had the murder weapon, Defendants Ashley and Alderman set out
to find them.
39. Defendants Ashley and Alderman went to the home of Jake and Henry
Robinson’s aunt, uncle, and cousin. Jake and Henry’s cousin, Jeffrey Robinson, told
Defendants Ashley and Alderman that days after the murder he saw Henry remove
the likely murder weapon from under a mattress and put it in his suitcase.
report, but they and other Law Enforcement Defendants failed to disclose that
9
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 496
41. Law Enforcement Defendants also did not disclose that Mr. Ford had
reason to fear the Robinsons and Larry Thompson, who police suspected was
working with the Robinsons. Thompson’s criminal expertise was bank and jewelry
store robberies and Rozeman’s home was also a jewelry shop. Thompson was a
known murderer.
42. Moreover, Detective Ashley recorded, though never disclosed, that the
Robinsons had a reputation for being mean and brutal, and that they were feared
Robinson was arrested in San Diego he was found to have bullet proof vests and
Robinson’s statement (also withheld) that he saw Henry Robinson take something
he thought might be a handgun from under the mattress and put it in his suitcase.
44. Law Enforcement Defendants also did not disclose that San Diego
Police reported that a handgun was likely taken from Henry Robinson in San Diego.
45. From the murder on November 5, 1983 through February 1984, Law
Enforcement Defendants were unable to find physical evidence to tie anyone to the
murder. Instead, they began to manufacture witness evidence against Mr. Ford, the
10
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 497
47. According to Defendants, Ms. Brown said that Mr. Ford had arrived at
her apartment around noon the day of the Rozeman murder and left with the
Robinsons, only to return with a sack containing jewelry. Ms. Brown also allegedly
stated that Mr. Ford carried a .22 pistol and that Jake Robinson had a .38 revolver.
48. This statement was fed to Ms. Brown by Law Enforcement Defendants
to frame Mr. Ford for the crime since he was a convenient target. Marvella Brown
later testified that Law Enforcement Defendants had fabricated some of her
49. Three months later, in May 1984, Marvella Brown recanted her
Donnie L. Thomas, who they claimed implicated Mr. Ford in Rozeman’s murder.
51. This statement, too, was fed to Mr. Thomas by Law Enforcement
Defendants to frame Mr. Ford for the crime since he was a convenient target to
11
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 498
. 53. If Plaintiff had been given access to information that Law Enforcement
Defendants were fabricating evidence against him from witnesses, it would have
been powerful evidence of his innocence and critical evidence by which he could
have impeached the individuals who testified falsely against him and also the Law
Enforcement Defendants who testified that the evidence they had gathered in their
54. Because Mr. Ford was innocent, Law Enforcement Defendants were
forced to contort the facts further to make them fit their suspect.
55. Initial police reports identified that Rozeman was alive at 2:30 p.m.
based on a telephone call between him and Dr. Ebrahim. Mr. Ford had an alibi
defense for a murder happening after that time. At trial, the State’s theory
changed—prosecutors argued that the murder happened between 12:00 p.m. and
1:00 p.m. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed evidence that both Detective
Roy Don Watts and Officer Trant confirmed the report that Dr. Ebrahim spoke with
Rozeman at 2:30 p.m. and not between 12:00 and 1:00. This suppressed evidence
56. Separately, the only physical evidence that purported to tie Mr. Ford to
the crime scene was a whorl pattern fingerprint allegedly taken from a paper bag at
the scene. Whorl patterns are found on approximately 35% of people. Law
Enforcement Defendants failed to disclose to Mr. Ford or his attorneys that three
other suspects had whorl pattern fingerprints. This suppression was especially
12
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 499
detrimental to Mr. Ford because the State argued at trial that no other suspect had
whorl-patterned fingerprints.
evidence. Because the paper bag found at the scene had a porous surface, the only
way to develop a fingerprint from the bag was by using chemicals. And the only way
to preserve such a print is to photograph the print. Billy Lockwood destroyed the
Enforcement Defendants suppressed evidence about whether the victim could have
been the source of the print. Lockwood also failed to disclose where the print was
allegedly found on the paper bag. This destruction of evidence denied Mr. Ford the
opportunity to demonstrate that his fingerprints did not appear on the paper bag
and thus negate the only physical evidence that the State used against him.
Rozeman’s house around 1:00 p.m. on the day of the murder by neighborhood
gathered during interviews with those children, which would have supported Mr.
Ford’s defense and could have been used to impeach State’s witnesses.
children together, which likely led to the children inventing and reinforcing their
claims.
13
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 500
60. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed that J.W. Nash said that he
saw Mr. Ford on the street at 1:00 p.m., which supported Mr. Ford’s defense;
testified that she saw Ford alone in the alley on the day of the crime, and that she
saw no one else. But a police report from right after the murder documents that she
initially told Detective Mitchell that she had seen two individuals in the area the
62. In addition, a witness saw Rozeman, the murder victim, argue with a
man he described as being “Mexican” and “Black” and the witness did not identify
that man as Mr. Ford. The Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed this evidence.
63. The Law Enforcement Defendants also had the names of other people
suspected of the murder, including one known as “sissy boy,” but they suppressed
64. Despite actual and constructive notice that the Shreveport Police
adequately supervise, discipline and train its officers, was reasonably likely to lead
14
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 501
65. Prior to and at the time of the unlawful investigation, prosecution, and
supervisors and policymakers also had actual and constructive notice of their
and failures to supervise and train through numerous cases and investigations that
took place prior to the investigation in this case. The misconduct committed in those
67. Further, upon information and belief, persons with final policymaking
15
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 502
lawful investigative techniques was reflected in the multiple acts of misconduct and
69. The final policymakers, policies, and practices of the Shreveport Police
Department are one and the same as the final policymakers, policies, and practices
70. Despite actual and constructive notice that the Caddo Parish Coroner’s
adequately supervise, discipline and train its officers, was reasonably likely to lead
71. Prior to and at the time of the unlawful investigation, prosecution, and
72. Upon information and belief, the Caddo Parish Coroner’s supervisors
and policymakers also had actual and constructive notice of its policy, custom, or
pattern and practice of investigative misconduct and failures to supervise and train
through numerous cases and investigations that took place prior to the
16
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 503
Parish Coroner staff, including those involved in the investigation of the murder of
73. Further, upon information and belief, persons with final policymaking
authority for the Caddo Parish Coroner’s Office participated personally in the
74. The Caddo Parish Coroner’s policy, custom, or pattern and practice of
75. The final policymakers, policies, and practices of the Caddo Parrish
Coroner’s office are one and the same as the final policymakers, policies, and
and 178-197, below, some or all of the exculpatory and impeachment evidence,
17
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 504
including fabricated evidence, discussed above and below, was known to employees
of the District Attorney at the time of Glenn Ford’s criminal trial and was not
turned over by prosecutors to Mr. Ford and his criminal defense attorneys.
77. This evidence was suppressed by final policymakers for the District
Attorney and also by other prosecutors pursuant to the policies and practices of the
District Attorney.
78. Despite actual and constructive notice, the District Attorney had a
adequately supervise, discipline and train its prosecutors. Despite being aware that
defendants.
79. Prior to and at the time of the unlawful prosecution, the District
District Attorney’s policies and practices include but are by no means limited to the
following:
18
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 19 of 47 PageID #: 505
a. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Palmer, 344 So. 2d 964, 968 (La.
b. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Cass, 356 So. 2d 936, 944 (La.
perpetrator.
rape victim’s statement made to police after she was attacked, in which
the victim described a long conversation she had with defendant prior
(La. Ct. App. 1984), prosecutors for the District Attorney withheld that
(La. Ct. App. 1987), prosecutors for the District Attorney suppressed
19
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 20 of 47 PageID #: 506
g. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Barker, 628 So. 2d 168, 176 (La.
exculpatory evidence that a rape victim and her sister colluded to give
Cir. 8/18/99), 740 So. 2d 240, prosecutors for the District Attorney
750 So. 2d 867, 883, prosecutors for the District Attorney failed to
81. Upon information and belief, the District Attorney’s supervisors and
policymakers also had actual and constructive notice of their Department’s policy,
supervise and train through numerous cases and prosecutions that took place prior
to this case. The misconduct committed in those cases by the District Attorney’s
20
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 21 of 47 PageID #: 507
82. Further, upon information and belief, persons with final policymaking
Plaintiff.
techniques was reflected in the multiple acts of misconduct and illegality committed
84. The case against Glenn Ford at trial was strictly circumstantial.
Exculpatory and impeachment evidence were the weapons that Mr. Ford’s defense
coroner, who never examined the body of the victim in this case, delivered opinions
on two crucial issues: the gunman’s dominant hand and the victim’s time of death.
86. Defendant McCormick fabricated evidence that the victim was killed
21
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 22 of 47 PageID #: 508
87. Defendant McCormick also fabricated evidence that Mr. Rozeman had
been dead longer than an hour and probably two or more hours when paramedics
found the body at 3:30 p.m., and therefore the time of death was “consistent with
testified for the State. Wojtkiewicz stated that using a Scanning Electron
Microscopy (“SEM”) he found, from Ford’s left hand, one particle unique to gunshot
residue and four particles characteristic of gunshot residue; and, from Ford’s right
hand, three particles characteristic of gunshot residue. This evidence was useless
89. The State also relied on the findings of Sergeant Billy Lockwood, a
fingerprint analyst who had never been qualified as an expert prior to Ford’s capital
murder trial. Lockwood testified that he was able to lift a single latent print from
the end of a paper bag left at the scene of the crime, ostensibly used to grasp the
gun that killed the victim. He testified that the latent print contained a “whorl”
type pattern and that Ford had such a pattern, whereas the Robinson brothers did
not. As stated above, this was false, but the defense had not been tendered the
evidence and withholding of exculpatory evidence, Mr. Ford would never have been
convicted.
22
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 23 of 47 PageID #: 509
91. During the penalty phase of the trial, Dr. McCormick (who had not
examined the victim’s body) testified that “it was his expert opinion…that [a] duffel
bag was placed over Mr. Rozeman’s head to muffle the gunshot and to shield the
murderer from blood spatter.” Dr. McCormick proceeded to tell the jury what the
victim was thinking about “when the bag was placed over his head.”
92. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury deliberated for two and
February 26, 1985, Glenn Ford was sentenced to die as punishment for a crime he
93. For reasons still unknown to Mr. Ford, the State dropped related
charges against Henry Robinson, Jake Robinson, and Lorenzo Starks after Ford
was convicted.
94. The Robinson brothers remained free. They are suspected of killing at
Court, though the court clearly was troubled by the adequacy of the State’s
evidence. Ford, 489 So.2d at 1254-57. The Court’s affirmance was not unanimous,
as one justice was “not convinced that a rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”
23
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 24 of 47 PageID #: 510
96. The United States Supreme Court granted Ford’s Petition for Writ of
Certiorari, and remanded for a hearing under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79
(1986). After a hearing in 1989, the state trial court found the use of peremptory
strikes to be legitimate; the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of
review, State v. Ford, 563 So.2d 873 (La. 1990); and the United States Supreme
Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, Ford v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 992
(1990).
98. During this process, Dr. Leroy Riddick, a Board Certified Forensic
time of death, and the alleged placing of the duffel bag over the victim’s head.
99. Dr. Riddick also challenged Dr. McCormick’s opinion that the duffel
bag was placed over Mr. Rozeman’s head when he was shot. Dr. Riddick stated that
“there is evidence that that didn’t happen.” As Dr. Riddick pointed out, the crime
scene photos depicted the bag laying next to the victim’s head, exactly where it was
where the first responders found it. As Dr. Riddick put it, “I don't think the
assailant, after shooting him, would pull the bag off of his head and set it aside.”
Further, there was only a spot of blood on the bag, a point inconsistent with the
victim wearing the bag when he was shot since he would he would have bled inside
24
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 25 of 47 PageID #: 511
the bag. Finally, the victim’s glasses were on the floor instead of being inside the
bag.
100. During the post-conviction hearings, experts also concluded that the
gunshot residue evidence was of no relevance to the question of whether Ford shot
or handled a firearm because of the fact that the sample was collected some 12 to 14
hours after the commission of the crime, and that “with a living subject, the
probability that any residues that are found on the hand [are] related to a shooting
incident, has diminished to the point where it is no longer of any scientific value” –
gunshot residue.
prosecution, showing that because Lockwood was unable to view the center of the
whorl print, it could have been left by Jake or Henry Robinson. The reliability of
protocol for analysis and preservation of latent prints from a porous surface.
102. On October 19, 2009, the state district court denied Ford post-
conviction relief. On February 4, 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the
103. On March 10, 2014, the State filed a Motion to Vacate the Conviction
and the Sentence of Glen Ford, explaining that “credible evidence” had become
known to First Assistant District Attorney Dale G. Cox and Assistant District
25
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 26 of 47 PageID #: 512
Attorney Catherine Estopinal in late 2013 which “support[ed] a finding that Ford
was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore
Rozeman.” In the motion, the State claimed that “if the information had been within
the knowledge of the State, Ford might not even have been arrested or indicted for
this offense.”
104. The Motion to Vacate did not explain what the “credible evidence” is,
105. Judge Ramona Emanuel signed an order granting the State’s Motion
106. On March 11, 2014, Glenn Ford walked out of prison. Upon his release,
Ford was given $20 by the prison authorities. To this date, that $20 is the only
money he has received from the state for his 30 years in prison for a crime he did
not commit.
107. On June 10, 2014, the State dropped all charges against Ford.
CLAIMS
restated here.
McCormick, while acting individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another,
as well as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived
26
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 27 of 47 PageID #: 513
due process.
110. In the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement
evidence from Plaintiff and his criminal defense attorneys and from the District
prosecution of Plaintiff.
fabricated and solicited false evidence, including testimony that they knew to be
false and perjured and fabricated police reports, implicating Plaintiff in the crime,
obtained Plaintiff’s conviction using that false evidence, and failed to correct
fabricated evidence that they knew to be false when it was used against Plaintiff at
destroyed, concealed, and fabricated additional evidence that is not yet known to
Plaintiff.
directly resulted in the unjust criminal conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his
constitutional right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed by the Fifth and
27
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 28 of 47 PageID #: 514
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of
Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and
elicited false and coerced witness testimony, pursued wrongful convictions through
as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish
were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same
allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to
28
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 29 of 47 PageID #: 515
punishment of officers and agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false
118. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the
policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish in that the
knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of
Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final
policymaking authority.
119. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and
restated here.
121. In the manner described above, the Law Enforcement Defendants and
under color of law and within the scope of their employment, accused Plaintiff of
criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and perpetuate judicial
2 Plaintiff recognizes that this Circuit currently holds that malicious prosecution is not
actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Other Court of Appeals have taken the opposite position. Plaintiff
pleads the claim here under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to preserve the issue for
reconsideration in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or review in the Supreme Court of
the United States.
29
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 30 of 47 PageID #: 516
proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of
the fact that they knew Plaintiff was innocent, in violation of his rights secured by
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In their drive to secure Ford’s wrongful
decency and fairness and violated Ford’s substantive due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These
123. Based on the March 10, 2014, exoneration of Plaintiff and the
subsequent dropping of all charges against him, the criminal action has terminated
in Plaintiff’s favor.
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of
30
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 31 of 47 PageID #: 517
Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and
agents regularly subjected suspects to prosecutions for which there was no probable
as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish
were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same
allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to
punishment of officers and agents who subjected suspects to prosecution even in the
128. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the
policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish in that the
knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of
Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final
policymaking authority.
129. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and
31
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 32 of 47 PageID #: 518
130. Louisiana state tort law does not provide Plaintiff with a
law.
restated here.
Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as well as emotional distress. The Law
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, reckless indifference to the rights of
others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
32
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 33 of 47 PageID #: 519
misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, great mental
anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, and
other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth herein.
described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of
Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and
elicited false and coerced witness testimony, pursued wrongful convictions without
as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish
were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same
allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to
punishment of officers and agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false
33
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 34 of 47 PageID #: 520
138. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the
policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parisn in that the
knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of
Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final
policymaking authority.
139. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and
restated here.
reached an agreement among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not
commit and thereby to deprive him of his constitutional rights, all as described in
34
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 35 of 47 PageID #: 521
committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of
Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and
elicited false and coerced witness testimony, pursued wrongful convictions without
as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish
35
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 36 of 47 PageID #: 522
were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same
allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to
punishment of officers and agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false
evidence and witness testimony, and pursued wrongful convictions without probable
cause.
148. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the
policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish in that the
knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of
Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final
policymaking authority.
149. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and
restated here.
36
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 37 of 47 PageID #: 523
152. The criminal case against Plaintiff was caused and continued by the
153. Based on the March 10, 2014, exoneration of Plaintiff and the
subsequent dropping of all charges against him, the criminal action has terminated
in Plaintiff’s favor.
154. At the time of the initiation of the criminal action against Plaintiff,
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
restated here.
Defendants and McCormick and as set forth above were extreme and outrageous.
These actions were rooted in an abuse of power and authority and were undertaken
with the intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability that their
37
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 38 of 47 PageID #: 524
conduct would cause, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged
herein.
and McCormick actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress
and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth herein.
160. Plaintiff realleges all of the above as though fully set forth herein.
162. Due to their professional roles, the Law Enforcement Defendants and
163. These duties were breached by the Law Enforcement Defendants’ and
McCormick’s acts and omissions, including their negligent or grossly negligent acts
trial that was speculative and unsupported by science, negligently hiring and
supervising those under their supervision, and failing to prosecute the actual
murderers.
164. The risks and harms that the Law Enforcement Defendants and
McCormick caused were within the scope of protection afforded by the duties they
owed to Ford.
38
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 39 of 47 PageID #: 525
Defendants’ and McCormick’s negligence, Mr. Ford would suffer the physical,
167. Plaintiff realleges all of the above as though fully set forth herein.
secure in his person and effect from unreasonable seizure, to equal protection of the
law, to due process of law, to be free from discrimination, to be free from cruel,
Cost. Art. I, §§ 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 24.
conduct that violated Ford’s rights under the United States Constitution, the Law
plaintiffs under Article I, §§ 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 24 of the Louisiana
State Constitution.
wrongfully detained and incarcerated for decades at Angola for a crime he did not
commit, and suffer the additional physical, emotional and pecuniary damages as
39
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 40 of 47 PageID #: 526
restated here.
the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick were employees, members, and
agents of the City of Shreveport or the Parish of Caddo acting at all relevant times
restated here.
175. Louisiana law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort
judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable for actions
taken in the discharge of their duties that are within the scope of their employment
activities.
members, and agents of the City of Shreveport or the Parish of Caddo, acting at all
relevant times within the scope of their employment and discharging their duties in
40
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 41 of 47 PageID #: 527
individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of
law and within the scope of their employment, deprived Plaintiff of his
180. In the manner described more fully above, these prosecutors destroyed
and deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff and his criminal
Plaintiff.
including testimony that they knew to be false and perjured, implicating Plaintiff in
the crime, obtained Plaintiff’s conviction using that false evidence, and failed to
correct fabricated evidence that they knew to be false when it was used against
conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his constitutional right to a fair trial and
41
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 42 of 47 PageID #: 528
due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Absent this
misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could not have and would not have been
pursued.
individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of
law and within the scope of their employment, accused Plaintiff of criminal activity
against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of the fact that
they knew Plaintiff was innocent, in violation of his rights secured by the Fourth
and fairness and violated Ford’s substantive due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These
186. Based on the March 10, 2014, exoneration of Plaintiff and the
subsequent dropping of all charges against him, the criminal action has terminated
in Plaintiff’s favor..
42
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 43 of 47 PageID #: 529
prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, even though they had the
opportunity to do so.
among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and thereby to
themselves to protect one another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these
rights.
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, reckless indifference to the rights of
others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
43
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 44 of 47 PageID #: 530
emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
194. The misconduct described in this County and Plaintiff’s injuries were
caused by the policies, practices, and customs of the District Attorney, in that the
as to constitute the de facto policy of the District Attorney were allowed to exist
because the District Attorney’s policymakers with authority over the same exhibited
material evidence, fabricated false evidence and witness testimony, and pursued
196. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the
policies and practices of the District Attorney in that the constitutional violations
44
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 45 of 47 PageID #: 531
persons with final policymaking authority for the District Attorney or were
197. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and
198. Louisiana state tort law does not provide Plaintiff with a
law.
restated here.
belief, have issued and/or currently have in effect one or more policies of insurance
covering one or more of the Defendants named herein. For valuable consideration
received, these policies obligated Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10, jointly
and/or severally, to pay on behalf of their insured Defendant(s) any sums the
insured Defendant(s) for any sums the insured Defendant(s) may become obligated
to pay Plaintiff.
45
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 46 of 47 PageID #: 532
liable to Plaintiff for all damages and injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result.
Upon information and belief, Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 are
10 are liable to Plaintiff for any and all damages incurred by reason of the insured
Defendant(s)’ acts, up to their policy limits, notwithstanding the fact that the
action against Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 to recover any and all
sums they are obligated to pay Plaintiff on behalf of their insureds or to indemnify
their insureds.
Caddo Parish, DALE COX, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Caddo
46
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 47 of 47 PageID #: 533
costs against each Defendant, punitive damages against each of the individual
Defendants, and any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, GLENN FORD, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: June 25, 2015
/s/ Mummi Ibrahim
Mummi Ibrahim, Louisiana Bar No. 34200
Ibrahim & Associates, LLC
4164 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
(504) 327-5289
mibrahim@iandalaw.com
47