2017 10 26 Bell McGrew Complaint Time Stamped

Case: 2:17-cv-00948-GCS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/26/17 Page: 1 of 25 PAGEID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER M. COOPER, ESQ., as Case No.:

Administrator of the Estate of Deaunte
Bell-McGrew c/o Walton + Brown, LLP.
395 E. Broad St., Suite 200 Judge:
Columbus, OH 43215
Plaintiff,
vs. Complaint
CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO; and DOES JURY DEMAND ENDORSED

1-100, UNKNOWN, City of Columbus 911
Operators and Other Employees
c/o City Attorney
77 N. Front St.
4th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
And
MATTHEW BAASE, Officer

Columbus Division of Police
c/o Columbus Division of Police
120 Marconi Blvd.
Individually and in His Official Capacity

as Employee of the City of Columbus,
Ohio
And
JOHN NAREWSKI, Officer

120 Marconi Blvd.
1

Ohio
And
ERIC J. PILYA, Sergeant

120 Marconi Blvd.

Ohio
And
KIM JACOBS, Chief

120 Marconi Blvd.
Individually and in her official capacity

Ohio
Defendants.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This civil rights and wrongful death case challenges the fatal shooting of Deaunte Bell-
McGrew (hereinafter, Decedent, Plaintiff or Deaunte) by Columbus Division of
Police Officers Matthew Baase and John Narewski on October 29, 2015.
2. Deaunte was shot and killed on October 29, 2015 after being approached by Officers
Baase and Narewski while lawfully sitting in a parked vehicle in the Amberly Square
Apartment Complex.
2
3. Deaunte was shot six times by Officers Baase and Narewski, and subsequently died
as a result of the gunshot wounds suffered.
4. Officers Baase and Narewski confronted Deaunte under the pretextual excuse of a
consensual encounter.
5. Officers Baase and Narewski confronted Deaunte in a fashion that unnecessarily
created a dangerous situation, failing to follow well-established constitutional policing
practices including conducting an illegal seizure and using deadly force
inappropriately, excessively and unreasonably, amongst numerous other violations of
policy and law.
6. The Columbus Division of Polices chain of command endorsed the dangerous and
unconstitutional policing tactics that are connected to this incident and that placed
Deaunte and continue to place the public at unnecessary risk of death and/or injury
from not only Officers Baase and Narewski, but from others in the department who
have a similar proclivity to use force unreasonably and inappropriately.
7. During his time as an officer with the Columbus Division of Police leading up to
Deauntes death, Officer Baase had been the subject of at least 14 Internal Affairs
Bureau investigations.
8. During his time as an officer with the Columbus Division of Police leading up to
Deauntes death, Officer Narewski had been the subject of at least 28 Internal Affairs
Bureau investigations.
9. Despite these large numbers of internal investigations, Officers Baase and Narewski
have rarely if ever been disciplined for their behaviors, often failing to have allegations
against them sustained or receiving a reprieve from their chain of command.
3
10. The hiring and retention of Officers Baase and Narewski are examples of a troubling
pattern by the Columbus Division of Police of hiring and retaining officers with a
proclivity to use excessive force and a refusal to rein in their behavior and hold them
accountable. The negligent hiring and retention of Officers Baase and Narewski and
others is a pattern and practice directly related to the death of Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
11. The failure to properly train, supervise and discipline Officers Baase and Narewski is
an authorization of their behavior and reflective of a pattern and practice of behavior
within the Columbus Division of Police.
12. The City of Columbus and Columbus Division of Police failed to properly investigate
the circumstances surrounding Deauntes death, demonstrating a deliberate
indifference to Deauntes right to be free from constitutional violations such as those
committed by Officers Baase and Narewski, and demonstrating a pattern and practice
of failing to investigate and discipline officers for the excessive use of force against
citizens.
13. Plaintiff brings this federal civil rights action to ensure constitutional policing practices
are respected, to secure fair compensation in order to hold the City of Columbus and
its liable employees accountable for their actions and to help end the civil rights
violations carried out by Columbus Division of Police Officers against members of the
community.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. This action is brought pursuant to Ohio statutes, and United States Constitution
Amendments IV and XIV, 1983 and 1988, respectively.
4
III. THE PARTIES
15. Plaintiff Christopher M. Cooper, Esq. is the Administrator of the Estate of Deaunte
Bell-McGrew and was a resident of Franklin County, Ohio, at all times material to the
subject incident.
16. Defendant City of Columbus, Ohio, is a political subdivision of the state of Ohio,
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio, and operating and
conducting business in Franklin County, Ohio. Columbus Division of Police is a
subdivision of Defendant City of Columbus, Ohio.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Columbus, Ohio Division of Police
Officer Matthew Baase is being sued in his individual capacity; to wit, Officer Baase
was a resident of Franklin County at the time of the incident. Officer Baase was at all
times relevant to this action a law enforcement officer employed by the Columbus
Division of Police. Officer Baase is a person under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times
relevant to this case acted under color of law. He is sued individually and in his official
capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.
Officer John Narewski is being sued in his individual capacity; to wit, Officer Narewski
was a resident of Franklin County at the time of the incident. Officer Narewski was at
all times relevant to this action a law enforcement officer employed by the Columbus
Division of Police. Officer Narewski is a person under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all
times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He is sued individually and in his
official capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.
5
Sergeant Eric Pilya is being sued in his individual capacity; to wit, Sergeant Pilya was
a resident of Franklin County at the time of the incident. Officer Pilya was at all times
relevant to this action a law enforcement officer employed by the Columbus Division
of Police. Sergeant Pilya is a person under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant
to this case acted under color of law. He is sued individually and in his official capacity
as an employee of the City of Columbus.
Chief Kim Jacobs is being sued in her individual capacity; to wit, Chief Jacobs was a
resident of Franklin County at the time of the incident. Chief Jacobs is the current
holder of the office of Chief of the Columbus Division of Police, and the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer for Columbus, Ohio. Chief Jacobs is the final policymaker with
respect to the policies of the Columbus Division of Police. Chief Jacobs is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law.
She is sued individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the City of
Columbus.
21. All of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in Franklin County,
Ohio.
22. The actions of the Defendants, as well as their agents and employees, which were
within the scope of their employment, were at all relevant times undertaken with malice
and knowing disregard for the Plaintiffs rights.
23. This is an action seeking damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys fees.
6
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Shooting
24. On October 29, 2015, around 9pm, Deaunte Bell-McGrew was sitting in a legally
parked vehicle in a parking lot in the Amberly Square Apartment Complex, just to the
north of 2764 Brandy Drive, in the City of Columbus, County of Franklin, State of Ohio.
25. Deaunte was sitting in the vehicle speaking with a friend and her boyfriend. No one
was committing any crime.
26. The vehicle was approached by two City of Columbus Police Officers; Officers Baase
and Narewski, under the pretextual excuse of a consensual encounter.
27. Officer Narewski approached the person sitting on the front-drivers side of the vehicle
and inquired as to what the occupants of the vehicle were doing.
28. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, Officer Narewski opened the back-drivers side
door, where Deaunte was sitting, and ordered Deaunte out of the vehicle.
29. Deaunte, as he had a constitutional right to do, repeatedly asked Officer Narewski
what he did, why he was being ordered from the vehicle, and what law he had violated.
30. Instead of answering Deaunte, Officer Narewski replied I know exactly who the fuck
you are, and physically grabbed Deaunte in an attempt to pull him from the vehicle.
31. Again, Deaunte had no active warrants, was committing no crime, and was
approached by Officer Narewski for no lawful reason.
32. Officer Narewski struggled to pull Deaunte from the vehicle, still ignoring Deauntes
request to understand why he was being removed from the vehicle.
7
33. At some point during the struggle, Officer Baase, who was positioned on the
passenger side of the vehicle, yelled gun! Officer Baase then fired a shot into the
vehicle.
34. Officer Narewski backed away from the vehicle while pulling his weapon. Officer
Nareski fired his weapon at Deaunte, who was still sitting in the vehicle, hitting him at
least five times.
35. Deaunte died as a result of his gunshot wounds.
36. Witnesses state that Deaunte went without medical attention for anywhere from 15 to
30 minutes.
The Critical Incident Response Team Investigation
37. The Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) investigates all shootings involving
Columbus Division of Police Officers and other cases at the direction of the
commander of the Crimes Against Persons Bureau, and all facets of those
investigations.
38. Sergeant Eric Pilya was appointed as the CIRT Team Leader in 2011 and has held
the position since.
39. The CIRT consists of 12 homicide detectives that come from various shifts of homicide
investigators, as well as the shift supervisors and the lieutenant over the homicide
section.
40. The CIRT conducts the investigation into all police-involved shootings, forwarding the
results of that investigation to the Franklin County Prosecutors Office to be presented
to a grand jury.
8
41. After the grand jury proceeds with a no-bill, the investigative packet is forwarded to
the Columbus Division of Police Firearms Review Board to determine if the shooting
shall be considering within policy.
42. The Columbus Division of Police Chief makes the final decision on whether a shooting
is within policy or not.
43. The Columbus Division of Police has an Officer Support Team, made up of officers
who have been involved in a critical incident in the past.
44. These officers respond to the scene of a police-involved shooting and provide support
and advice to the officers involved.
45. Sergeant Pilya has stated that the Officer Support Team is trained to steer them away
from talking about the incident.
46. Sergeant Pilya, the CIRT Team Leader, provides an initial training for Officer Support
Team members.
47. In that training, he instructs Officer Support Team members to tell the officer involved
in a shooting to not make a statement.
48. In addition to training the Officer Support Team, Sergeant Pilya teaches a class on
CIRT Team best practices at the academy that any officer can sign up to take.
49. In this class, he instructs officers on CIRT Team best practices.
50. In this class, he also informs officers that they do not have to give a statement to the
CIRT Team following a police-involved shooting.
51. The CIRT Team does not attempt to question an officer involved in a shooting
immediately, instead establishing a policy of giving an officer at least seven to fourteen
days before attempting to question them.
9
52. After a police officer is involved in a shooting, the CIRT Team allows the officer to walk
back through the scene.
53. During the walk through, the CIRT Team has a standing agreement with the Fraternal
Order of Police (FOP) that the CIRT Team will be allowed to ask three pre-determined
questions of the officers with their FOP attorney present.
54. In the CIRT Teams investigative packet, they include information about a victims
criminal history, gang affiliation and known associates, amongst other information.
55. No background information related to prior uses of force is provided in the CIRT
investigative packet regarding the officers involved in a shooting.
56. In the CIRT Teams investigative packet, they include information about a victims drug
and alcohol use.
57. No drug or alcohol tests are performed or requested by the Columbus Division of
Police on an officer involved in a shooting.
58. Immediately following the death of Deaunte Bell-McGrew, Sergeant Pilya assigned
Detective William Gillette to lead the CIRT investigation.
59. Detective Gillette either willfully or with deliberate indifference, influenced and/or
mischaracterized several witness statements while overlooking or failing to search for
other witnesses.
Policy and Practice Allegations
60. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of such information and belief
alleges that the governmental entity defendants and their decision makers, with
deliberate indifference, gross negligence, and reckless disregard to the safety,
security, and constitutional and statutory rights of the Decedent, maintained, enforced,
10
tolerated, permitted, acquiesced in, and applied policies, practices, or customs and
usages of, among other things:
(a) Training and authorizing Columbus Division of Police Officers to act
recklessly and aggressively with regard to the use of force on citizens;
(b) Hiring, retaining and assigning officers with demonstrably unreasonable
decision-making patterns and patterns of misconduct;
(c) Subjecting citizens to the unreasonable use of force and unreasonable
seizure;
(d) Allowing officers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and take
other unlawful action against citizens;
(e) Failing to adequately train officers regarding the use of force and the use
of lethal force;
(f) Failing to adequately train officers on plainclothes tactics and negligently
assigning officers to plainclothes duty;
(g) Failing to adequately supervise officers, permitting unlawful conduct to
occur;
(h) Failing to adequately discipline officers regarding their unlawful conduct;
(i) Failing to perform drug and alcohol tests on officers after their
involvement in police shootings;
(j) Failing to adequately investigate police-involved shootings, both
ratifying and authorizing future behavior;
(k) Condoning and encouraging officers in the belief that they can violate
the constitutional rights of individuals, such as Deaunte Bell-McGrew,
11
and that such conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for
promotion and other employment benefits.
61. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of such information and belief
alleges, that the entity defendants and their decision makers ordered, authorized,
acquiesced in, tolerated, permitted or maintained custom and usages permitting
Columbus Division of Police Officers to engage in the unlawful and unconstitutional
actions, policies, practices and customs or usages set forth in the foregoing paragraph.
Defendants conduct as alleged herein constitutes a pattern of constitutional violations
based either on a deliberate plan by defendants or on defendants deliberate
indifference, gross negligence, or reckless disregard to safety, security, and rights of
plaintiff and the Decedent.
(a) Defendant City of Columbus and Columbus Division of Police have a
policy, practice and custom of allowing officers to violate the
constitutional rights of citizens, and failing to adequately train, supervise
and discipline officers who participate in such unlawful conduct;
(b) Sergeant Eric Pilya, as Team Leader for the Critical Incident Response
Team, had both actual and constructive knowledge of the actions of both
Officers Baase and Narewski, as well as actual and constructive
knowledge of the actions of the actions of the detectives responsible for
investigating police-involved shootings, and he along with chain of
command authorized and encouraged the pattern and practice of failing
to adequately investigate officer-involved shootings.
12
(c) Chief Kim Jacobs, as chief law enforcement officer for the City of
Columbus, Ohio, serves as the ultimate policymaker for the Columbus
Division of Police, and had both actual and constructive knowledge of
the actions of both Officers Baase and Narewski, as well as actual and
constructive knowledge of the actions of the chain of command in failing
to train, supervise and discipline Officers Baase, Narewski and others
like them.
Damages
62. The family members of Deaunte Bell-McGrew have lost Decedents love, comfort,
society, and consortium, and have sustained emotional distress, all in amounts in
accordance with proof. The estate has incurred medical, burial and other related
expenses. The Decedent sustained general damages, including pre-death pain and
suffering and post-death loss of enjoyment of his life, in an amount in accordance with
proof.
63. The conduct of the individual defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and in
reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and the Decedent himself, thus
justifying punitive damages against the defendants in an amount in accordance with proof.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE
42 U.S.C. 1983 AND ORC 2125.01 - WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL

ACTION
64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each
preceding paragraph as if full set forth herein.
13
65. This is an action brought against defendants in their individual and official
capacities, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2125.01 and the United States Constitution
Amendments IV and XIV, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
66. At all times material hereto, Defendants were employees and/or agents of
Defendant City of Columbus, and acting within the course and scope of their employment
with same, and acting under color of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances,
regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant City of Columbus.
67. Defendants Officer Matthew Baase, Officer John Narewski, Sergeant Eric Pilya,
and Chief Kim Jacobs have, under color of law, deprived Deaunte Bell-McGrew of rights,
privileges, and immunities secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution, by, among other things, subjecting Decedent to a seizure
without a warrant or any other legal justification or fabricating a legal justification for doing
so and Officers Baase and Narewski failing to identify themselves as police officers,
subjecting Decedent to excessive force and acting with deliberate indifference to his right
to life and liberty.
68. The foregoing wrongful acts of defendants killed Decedent.
69. The actions of defendants acting in concert and under color of law, were
undertaken intentionally, willfully, maliciously, with a deliberate indifference and/or with a
reckless disregard for the natural and probable cause of their acts, was done without
lawful justification or reason, and was designed to and did cause specific and serious
physical and emotional pain and suffering in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights.
14
70. As a proximate result Plaintiffs family members lost companionship, society,
comfort and consortium with the Decedent, and are entitled to damages for the pain,
suffering and disfigurement of the Decedent.
71. Plaintiff has ongoing and continuous mental and physical damages, and as such
is entitled to recovery, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Compensation for physical and emotional harm;
(b) Loss of earnings and net accumulations;
(c) Past medical bills and expenses;
(d) Conscious pain and suffering;
(e) Punitive damages;
(f) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiff on Federal
1983 Counts;
(g) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem
appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages in an amount in excess of
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), together with post judgment
interest and costs.
COUNT TWO
EXCESSIVE FORCE AND UNREASONABLE SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C.

1983 AND THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION
15
capacities, pursuant to the United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
Defendant City of Columbus, and acting within the course and scope of their employment
with same, and acting under color of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances,
regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant City of Columbus.
75. Defendants subjected Decedent to unreasonable seizure and excessive force,
depriving him of bodily integrity, liberty, and due process of law.
76. The actions of defendants, acting in concert and under color of law, were
undertaken intentionally, willfully, maliciously, with a deliberate indifference and/or with a
reckless disregard for the natural and probable cause of their acts, was done without
lawful justification or reason, and was designed to and did cause specific and serious
physical and emotional pain and suffering in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights.
77. As a direct and proximate result of defendants acts, omissions, and clearly
unreasonable seizure and use of excessive force, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the
rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, the right to be free from excessive force and
the right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution.
16
(f) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiff on Federal 1983 Counts;
(g) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), together with post judgment interest and costs.
COUNT THREE
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 THE EQUAL

PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
capacities, pursuant to the United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, based
upon racial discrimination in law enforcement and failure to provide equal protection under
the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
81. At all times material hereto, defendants were employees and/or agents of
Defendant City of Columbus, acting within the course and scope of their employment with
same, and in furtherance of the interest of Defendant City of Columbus, and with
Defendant City of Columbus consent.
82. Plaintiff, as an African-American is a member of a protected class, and thus also
had the clearly established statutory right to be free from racially motivated arrests,
detentions, searches and seizures.
17
83. Any reasonable officer knew or should have known that these rights at the time of
the complained conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
84. Plaintiffs race was a motivating factor in the decision to detain him and use
excessive force. Defendants conduct was undertaken with the purpose of depriving
Plaintiff of the equal protection and benefits of the law, equal privileges and immunities
under the law, and due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.
1983.
85. Defendant engaged in the conduct described in the complaint willfully, maliciously,
in bad faith, and in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs federally protected rights.
86. The acts or omissions of the Defendant were moving forces behind Plaintiffs
injuries.
87. Plaintiff has permanent and ongoing damages as a result of said incident and as
such is entitled to recovery, including but not limited to the following:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages in an amount in excess of SEVENTY- FIVE
18
COUNT FOUR
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND 42 USC

1983
89. Members of the Columbus Police Department have an affirmative duty to seek
medical attention for persons who are injured in the course of being apprehended by the
police.
90. Defendant Officers discharged their weapons at Plaintiff and were aware that
Plaintiff was experiencing extreme physical pain as a result of their use of excessive
and unnecessary force, but took no action to provide or request medical care for
Plaintiff, disregarding the obvious risk to Plaintiff's health.
91. The actions of defendants in failing to request or obtain medical attention for
Plaintiff, acting in concert and under color of law, were undertaken intentionally, willfully,
maliciously, with a deliberate indifference and/or with a reckless disregard for the natural
and probable cause of their acts, was done without lawful justification or reason, and was
designed to and did cause specific and serious physical and emotional pain and suffering
in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights.
92. As a direct and proximate result of defendants acts, omissions, and clearly
unreasonable seizure and use of excessive force, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the
rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, the right to be free from excessive force and
the right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution.
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE
COUNT FIVE
MONELL CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO 42 U.S.C.

1983
Defendant City of Columbus, acting within the course and scope of their employment with
same, and in furtherance of the interest of Defendant City of Columbus, and with
Defendant City of Columbus consent.
96. The City of Columbus directly caused the constitutional violations suffered by
Plaintiff, and is liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the conduct of
the defendant officers. The conduct of the defendant officers was a direct consequence
of policies and practices of Defendant City of Columbus.
20
97. Defendant Columbus Division of Police Chief Kim Jacobs had actual knowledge
and/or had constructive knowledge and/or failed to conduct a proper investigation into the
actions of Defendants Baase and Narewski. A proper investigation would have included
that Defendants Baase and Narewski participated in a pattern of conduct that was racially
discriminatory and/or unconstitutional.
98. Defendant City of Columbus had actual knowledge and/or had constructive
knowledge and/or failed to conduct a proper investigation into the actions of Defendants
Baase and Narewski. A proper investigation would have included that Defendants Baase
and Narewski participated in a pattern of conduct that was racially discriminatory and/or
unconstitutional.
99. At the time of the incidents described in this Complaint, the pattern of racially
discriminatory and/or unlawful conduct was established through policy, practice and
custom of the City of Columbus and the Columbus Division of Police.
100. By tacitly authorizing the behavior of Defendants, the policymakers and those
responsible for hiring, training and supervision of police officers within the City of
Columbus acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, knowingly and
with deliberate indifference to the serious safety needs of the citizens of Columbus,
including Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
101. Defendant City of Columbus has a policy, practice and custom of failing to
adequately investigate and discipline police officers who exhibit racially motivated and/or
unconstitutional conduct. This policy, practice and custom was the moving force behind
the racially motivated and unconstitutional actions against Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
21
102. Defendant City of Columbus has a policy, practice and custom of allowing officers
to exhibit racially motivated and/or unconstitutional conduct. This policy, practice and
custom was the moving force behind the racially motivated and unconstitutional actions
against Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
103. Defendant City of Columbus has a policy, practice and custom of exhibiting racially
motivated and/or unconstitutional conduct. This policy, practice and custom was the
moving force behind the racially motivated and unconstitutional actions against Deaunte
Bell-McGrew.
investigate civilian complaints against officers consisting of racially motivated and/or
unconstitutional conduct. This policy, practice and custom was the moving force behind
the racially motivated and unconstitutional actions against Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
105. Defendant City of Columbus negligently retained Defendants Baase and Narewski.
106. Defendant City of Columbus has a policy, practice and custom of negligently
retaining police officers who exhibit racially motivated and/or unconstitutional conduct.
This policy, practice and custom was the moving force behind the racially motivated and
unconstitutional actions against Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
107. Defendant City of Columbus failed to adequately train Defendants Baase and
Narewski.
adequately train police officers who exhibit racially motivated and/or unconstitutional
conduct. This policy, practice and custom was the moving force behind the racially
motivated and unconstitutional actions against Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
22
109. Defendant City of Columbus has a policy, practice and custom of conspiring to
interfere with and to deprive Plaintiffs of their causes of action by allowing suspect officers
unreasonable and harmful concessions during investigations of police-involved shootings.
110. The policies, practices and customs described above have been the subject of civil
rights investigations, previous lawsuits and have been well known within the Columbus
community for many years. These policies, practices and customs have been perpetuated
by the line officers including Defendants Baase and Narewski, Sergeant Eric Pilya, Chief
Kim Jacobs, policymakers and those responsible for hiring, training and supervision of
police officers within the City of Columbus who have all acted negligently, recklessly,
intentionally, knowingly and with deliberate indifference to the serious safety needs of the
citizens of Columbus, including Deaunte Bell-McGrew.
111. The wrongful policies, practices, customs and/or usages complained of herein,
demonstrated a deliberate indifference on the part of policymakers of the City of
Columbus to the constitutional rights of persons within the city, and were the direct and
proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs rights alleged herein.
VI. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all claims triable to a jury.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court award:
A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be shown at trial;

B. Punitive damages against the individual Defendants (not the City of Columbus) in
an amount to be shown at trial;
C. Loss of earnings and net accumulations;
D. Costs incurred in this action and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.
1988;
E. Prejudgment interest; and
F. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
23
Respectfully submitted,
Sean L. Walton, Jr._

/s/
Sean L. Walton, Jr. (0088401)
[email protected]
Chanda L. Brown (0081076)
[email protected]
Walton + Brown, LLP
395 E. Broad Street, Suite 200
(614) 636-3476/Fax: (614) 636-3453
/s/Christopher M. Cooper_
Christopher M. Cooper (0028970)
[email protected]
Cooper & Pennington Co., LPA
3055 Cleveland Ave.
Columbus, OH 43224
(614) 447-0255/Fax: (614) 447-8672
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PAGE 24 OF 25
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by a jury of eight (8) persons.
/s/ Sean L. Walton

Sean L. Walton (0088401)
PAGE 25 OF 25

2017 10 26 Bell McGrew Complaint Time Stamped

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 10 26 Bell McGrew Complaint Time Stamped

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 10 26 Bell McGrew Complaint Time Stamped

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 2:17-cv-00948-GCS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/26/17 Page: 1 of 25 PAGEID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CHRISTOPHER M. COOPER, ESQ., as Case No.:

CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO; and DOES JURY DEMAND ENDORSED

MATTHEW BAASE, Officer

Individually and in His Official Capacity

JOHN NAREWSKI, Officer

Individually and in His Official Capacity

ERIC J. PILYA, Sergeant

Individually and in His Official Capacity

KIM JACOBS, Chief

Individually and in her official capacity

McGrew (hereinafter, Decedent, Plaintiff or Deaunte) by Columbus Division of

as a result of the gunshot wounds suffered.

5. Officers Baase and Narewski confronted Deaunte in a fashion that unnecessarily

created a dangerous situation, failing to follow well-established constitutional policing

practices including conducting an illegal seizure and using deadly force

inappropriately, excessively and unreasonably, amongst numerous other violations of

policy and law.

have a similar proclivity to use force unreasonably and inappropriately.

against them sustained or receiving a reprieve from their chain of command.

an authorization of their behavior and reflective of a pattern and practice of behavior

within the Columbus Division of Police.

the circumstances surrounding Deauntes death, demonstrating a deliberate

indifference to Deauntes right to be free from constitutional violations such as those

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Amendments IV and XIV, 1983 and 1988, respectively.

III. THE PARTIES

conducting business in Franklin County, Ohio. Columbus Division of Police is a

subdivision of Defendant City of Columbus, Ohio.

capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.

official capacity as an employee of the City of Columbus.

as an employee of the City of Columbus.

and knowing disregard for the Plaintiffs rights.

23. This is an action seeking damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars

($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys fees.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

was committing any crime.

and Narewski, under the pretextual excuse of a consensual encounter.

and inquired as to what the occupants of the vehicle were doing.

approached by Officer Narewski for no lawful reason.

request to understand why he was being removed from the vehicle.

least five times.

35. Deaunte died as a result of his gunshot wounds.

The Critical Incident Response Team Investigation

the position since.

results of that investigation to the Franklin County Prosecutors Office to be presented

shall be considering within policy.

is within policy or not.

who have been involved in a critical incident in the past.

and advice to the officers involved.

from talking about the incident.

in a shooting to not make a statement.

49. In this class, he instructs officers on CIRT Team best practices.

CIRT Team following a police-involved shooting.

immediately, instead establishing a policy of giving an officer at least seven to fourteen

days before attempting to question them.

back through the scene.

questions of the officers with their FOP attorney present.