Due Process

Reginald Smith v. County of Los Angeles

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 12/07/2022 - 11:12

Plaintiff TWICE arrested on another person’s warrant. First arrest resulted in 6 weeks of incarceration; second arrest resulted in 2 hours in jail. Sheriff’s dept was on notice for years that the warrant was wrongly using Plaintiff’s identifiers, instead of the identifiers for the true defendant, yet Sheriff’s dept kept refusing to update & correct the warrant.

Mrozek v. Ringler, et al.

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 12/07/2022 - 10:40

Plaintiff is confined in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (a “treatment program” which is in reality a prison where almost no one gets released). He was raped by his roommate about ten days after staff was advised of the perpetrator making inappropriate sexual advances towards Plaintiff.

Julian v. Hanna, et al.

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 12/07/2022 - 02:18

Billy Julian was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted as a result of police fabrication of inculpatory evidence against him (including coercing/threatening witnesses to testify falsely against him) and withholding of exculpatory evidence. Julian was imprisoned for over 3 years after wrongful conviction, then conviction was vacated after post-conviction court found Brady violations. Charges remained pending for an additional 4 years until they were finally dismissed.

Jonathan Santiago/Nel Sothy/Mihran Mosko v. Thomas Lafferty and the City of Lowell

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 12/07/2022 - 01:58

Three plaintiffs brought consolidated cases against a Lowell detective and the City of Lowell. In 2012, informants planted drugs in the plaintiffs’ cars. Plaintiffs were falsely charged with trafficking in cocaine; charges pended for over 1 year, over 6 months, and over 5 months (w/ 3.5 months in custody). They faced mandatory minimums of 3, 2, and 8 years. All charges were dismissed due to revelation of the informants’ misconduct. The detective knew his informants were not trustworthy.

Grenning v. Klemme

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 12/07/2022 - 01:40

Inmate wrote mother complaining that Sgt. filed “bullsht” infractions. Mail room opened letter (correct), laughed and forwarded copy to Sgt. Sgt was furious and gave inmate 10 days cell-confinement. Inmate grieved and coordinator denied action was error, then admitted during grievance appeal that rules did not permit mailroom personnel sharing letter with custody. Court dismissed Monell but found 1st violation (“egregious” was the term judge used.

Fields v. City of Chicago, et al.

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 11/30/2022 - 14:28

Plaintiff was wrongfully convicted of a 1984 double homicide and sentenced to death, then re-tried and acquitted in 2009. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Officers fabricated false eyewitness identifications and false inculpatory testimony from informants, and suppressed exculpatory evidence by burying it in a street file. Plaintiff alleged that the suppression of the street file was caused by the policies and practices of the City of Chicago. The Defendants contended that Plaintiff was guilty of the double homicide.

Elroy Jones v City of Detroit

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 11/30/2022 - 14:09

Plaintiff was arrested for a homicide in 2006, underwent two jury trials, was convicted and served 7 years of a life sentence before one of the perps of the original crime was picked up by the feds. He gave a proffer statement which led to a re-investigation of the homicide by the feds and one lamplighter LEO, where it was discovered that 2 police reports containing exculpatory information for Plaintiff and INCULPATING the true killer were removed from the homicide file. After motion for new trial, prosecutor dismissed in 2014.

Allen et al v. City of Pomona

Submitted by christina-giorgio on Tue, 09/27/2022 - 15:32

City of Pomona illegally seizing the property of its residents experiencing homelessness. We sued to stop the practice and force the city to honor the plaintiffs' constitutional rights and compensate them for lost property.

Resolved post-filing; no dispositive motions decided.