Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Daniel Black v. David Clark
Daniel Black v. David Clark
DANIEL BLACK
Plaintiff,
DAVID CLARKE,
in his personal capacity,
And
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
[1 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 13 Document 1
COMES NOW Plaintiff Daniel Black, by his attorney, William F. Sulton,
Esq., of the law firm of Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., and files this complaint
against Defendants David Clarke, John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three,
John Doe Four, John Doe Five, John Doe Six, and the County of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
INTRODUCTION
damages against defendants for the unlawful stop and arrest of Plaintiff Daniel
THE PARTIES
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
3. Defendant David Clarke (Sheriff Clarke) is the elected Sheriff of the County
[2 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 13 Document 1
7. Defendant John Doe Three, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is
10. Defendant John Doe Six, is a deputy sheriff for Milwaukee County. He is
11. This court has jurisdiction over the claims in this complaint under 28 U.S.C.
1331 because the claims in this complaint arise under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the
12. This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3) because the
claims in this complaint seek relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and the laws of
13. This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(4) because the
14. This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) because this
[3 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 13 Document 1
15. This court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2202 because this
complaint seeks further necessary and proper relief based on the request for a
declaratory judgment.
16. Venue in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) because the
17. Venue in this court is also proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because the
events giving rise to this action occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
18. On January 15, 2017, Black was at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
(DFW) in Texas.
19. Black boarded a flight that was departing for General Mitchell International
Airport in Milwaukee.
20. While boarding the flight, Black saw a man that looked like Sheriff Clarke
wearing clothes emblazoned with the logo and colors of the Dallas Cowboys football
team.
21. Black asked the man if he was Sheriff Clarke, and Sheriff Clarke responded
that he was.
22. Black moved towards the rear of the airplane and shook his head.
23. Sheriff Clarke asked Black if he had a problem. Black shook his head no and
24. There was no interaction between Black and Sheriff Clarke during the flight
to Milwaukee.
[4 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 13 Document 1
25. When Black got off the airplane, Sheriff Clarke was in the waiting area by
the gate.
26. Sheriff Clarke motioned to John Does One through Six and John Does One
27. John Does One and Two then arrested Black and escorted him to an
28. John Does One and Two interrogated Black in the waiting area.
29. During the interrogation, Black was questioned about his political opinions.
30. John Does One and Two interrogated Black for about fifteen minutes and
31. A reasonable Milwaukee County sheriff would not have ordered his deputy
sheriffs to stop, arrest and interrogate a citizen for shaking his head.
32. A reasonable Milwaukee County sheriff would know that his deputy sheriffs
33. A reasonable sheriff deputy would know that they do not have jurisdiction
34. A reasonable sheriff deputy would have refused Sheriff Clarkes unlawful
35. A reasonable sheriff deputy would have intervened and prevented John Does
36. A reasonable sheriff deputy would have known that it is unlawful to stop,
[5 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 13 Document 1
37. Black filed a complaint with Milwaukee County about Sheriff Clarkes
misconduct.
media:
39. Sheriff Clarke published the above statements to give a false impression of
40. Sheriff Clarke also published the above statements to incite violent verbal
41. Black has experienced racial and other threats against his person on social
[6 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 13 Document 1
43. Sheriff Clarke has publicly stated that he will not cooperate with Milwaukee
Countys investigation.
44. Sheriff Clarke has also publicly stated that he ordered his deputies not to
45. Sheriff Clarke has also publicly stated that Milwaukee County has no
47. At all relevant times, Sheriff Clarke was acting under color of law.
48. At the time that Sheriff Clarke ordered John Does One through Six to stop
Black, Sheriff Clarke knew that the order was unlawful and without reasonable
suspicion.
49. At the time that Sheriff Clarke ordered John Does One and Two to arrest and
interrogate Black, Sheriff Clarke knew that the order was unlawful and without
probable cause.
50. At the time that Sheriff Clarke made the knowingly unlawful orders, Sheriff
Clarke did so to single out Black for reasons that were irrational and unrelated to
52. Sheriff Clarkes misconduct was designed to cause and did cause emotional
[7 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 13 Document 1
54. At all relevant times, John Does One and Two were acting under color of law.
55. At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarkes order to
stop Black, John Does One and Two knew that the order was unlawful and without
reasonable suspicion.
56. At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarkes order to
stop Black, John Does One and Two knew they had a duty to intervene and prevent
the unlawful stop of Black. John Does One and Two failed to intervene.
57. At the time that John Does One and Two stopped Black, John Does One and
Two knew that the stop was unlawful and without reasonable suspicion.
58. At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarkes order to
arrest and interrogate Black, John Does One and Two knew that the order was
59. At the time that John Does One and Two received Sheriff Clarkes order to
arrest and interrogate Black, John Does One and Two knew they had a duty to
intervene and prevent the unlawful arrest of Black. John Does One and Two failed
to intervene.
60. At the time that John Does One and Two arrested and interrogated Black,
John Does One and Two knew that the arrest was unlawful and without probable
cause.
61. At the time that John Does One and Two interrogated Black about his
political opinions, John Does One and Two knew that it was unlawful to stop, arrest
[8 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 13 Document 1
62. John Does One and Two singled out Black because of his opinions.
63. John Does Ones and Twos acts and omissions were designed to cause and
65. At all relevant times, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six were acting under
color of law.
66. At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six received Sheriff
Clarkes order to stop Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew that the
67. At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six received Sheriff
Clarkes order to stop Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew they had a
duty to intervene and prevent the unlawful stop of Black. John Does Three, Four,
68. At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six stopped Black, John
Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew that the stop was unlawful and without
reasonable suspicion.
69. At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six saw John Does One
and Two arrest Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew that the arrest
70. At the time that John Does Three, Four, Five and Six saw John Does One
and Two arrest Black, John Does Three, Four, Five and Six knew they had a duty to
[9 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 13 Document 1
intervene and prevent the unlawful arrest of Black. John Does Three, Four, Five
71. John Does Three, Four, Five and Six singled out Black because of his
opinions.
72. John Does Threes, Fours, Fives and Sixs unlawful acts and omissions
74. At all relevant times, Sheriff Clarke was acting under color of law and as the
protect the public from terrorism at the airport to mete out punishment against
76. It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarkes office and Milwaukee County
to single out citizens that they perceive express displeasure with Sheriff Clarke or
77. It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarkes office and Milwaukee County
to stop without reasonable suspicion and to arrest without probable cause citizens
that they perceive to express displeasure with Sheriff Clarke or his deputies.
78. It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarkes office and Milwaukee County
[10 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 13 Document 1
79. It is the policy and practice of Sheriff Clarkes office and Milwaukee County
deputies.
80. It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarkes and Milwaukee Countys policies and
practices would result in violent verbal assaults against Black, whom they publicly
derided.
81. It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarkes and Milwaukee Countys policies and
82. It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarkes and Milwaukee Countys policies and
practices would result in the deprivations of equal protection of the laws stated in
this complaint.
83. It was foreseeable that Sheriff Clarkes and Milwaukee Countys policies and
practices would deter sheriff deputies from intervening when they observed
Clarke and his deputies for violating citizens civil and constitutional rights.
85. It was foreseeable that without an effective mechanism for discipline, Sheriff
Clarke and his deputies would violate Blacks civil and constitutional rights.
Milwaukee Countys intentional acts, Black has suffered injuries, damages and
other losses, without limitation to emotional distress and damage to his reputation.
[11 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 13 Document 1
These injuries, damages and other losses continue into the present and will
RELIEF REQUESTED
Wherefore, Daniel Black respectfully requests that the court enter judgment
Constitution.
Clarke, John Doe One and John Doe Two unlawfully arrested Black in violation of
deprived Black of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Equal Protection
compensatory damages.
G. An order under Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and its progeny,
H. An order under 28 U.S.C. 1920 taxing the costs of this action against
defendants.
[12 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 12 of 13 Document 1
I. An order under 28 U.S.C. 2202 providing further necessary and proper
Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b).
Dated at the law offices of Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., in Milwaukee,
[13 / 13]
Case 2:17-cv-00156 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 13 Document 1