As Filed Complaint

Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MARVIN HENRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF NEEDHAM; JOHN

SCHLITTLER, individually and in his
official and supervisory capacities as the
Chief of the Needham Police Department;
ANDREW CRAY, individually and in his
official and supervisory capacities as a police
officer for Needham Police Department; Civ. No. 1:21-cv-11116
COLIN FITZPATRICK, individually and in
his official capacity as a police officer for
Needham Police Department; NICOLE
MCMAHON, individually and in her official
capacity as a police officer for Needham
Police Department; LEO SCHLITTLER,
individually and in his official capacity as a
police officer for Needham Police
Department,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
1. On January 25, 2020, four white officers of the Needham Police Department
(“NPD”) conspired to wrongfully accost, arrest, detain, publicly embarrass, and defame Marvin
Henry, a law-abiding father of four young children who was simply trying to buy an iced tea and
cough drops at CVS on his way to work to earn a paycheck for his family. The officers had no
legitimate reason for their conduct. While NPD had received a call about possible shoplifting at
the CVS by a male and female, the description of the male suspect did not remotely match Mr.
Henry, who was unaccompanied by a female. They shared only one feature: they were both
Black men.
1
2. Sadly, that was enough to motivate the officers’ conduct. Quite literally, Mr.
Henry’s only “crime” was being Black while shopping in a white neighborhood, patrolled by
white police officers. And for that crime, Mr. Henry was forced to endure unlawful arrest and
ongoing public embarrassment not only at the scene, but in the days and weeks that followed, as
the Defendants published false allegations against Mr. Henry and “investigated” absurd possible
crimes in the hope of justifying their misconduct. To this day, over a year and a half after the
incident, none of the officers involved have apologized, much less offered to make Mr. Henry
whole. So, Mr. Henry is left with no choice but to seek justice—justice to compensate him
fairly, and to ensure that no other citizen experiences racial animus from NPD.
3. The evidence will show that when the Defendant officers confronted Mr. Henry,
they forcibly shoved him against his vehicle; roughly handcuffed him in full view of passersby
within blocks of his workplace; refused to loosen his restraints despite Mr. Henry’s repeated
attempts to tell them the handcuffs were hurting him; and ignored Mr. Henry’s attempts to show
a receipt for his purchases that would have immediately demonstrated he was a store customer,
not a shoplifter. They presumed him guilty because he was Black. White people do not get
treated this way.
4. As the Defendant officers deprived Mr. Henry of his freedom, they also deprived
him of his dignity. One officer openly mocked Mr. Henry; another refused to give Mr. Henry his
badge number. Despite his unjust treatment, Mr. Henry remained compliant. He was not armed;
he did not pose any threat to the officers. Nevertheless, Mr. Henry knew all too well what could
happen to him, a Black man, if he resisted arrest or gave the white officers any opportunity to
allege that he was violent or dangerous.
2
5. The Defendant officers searched Mr. Henry; the contents of Mr. Henry’s vehicle,
including Mr. Henry’s backpack; and ran his license plate. They were determined to find
evidence of his criminality, but they found nothing. Only after detaining Mr. Henry for nearly
half an hour and illegally searching his car did the officers release him, promising that Mr. Henry
would hear from them once they pressed charges. Physically hurt and traumatized by the event,
Mr. Henry asked for the police report. When NPD finally released the report, it was filled with
blatant lies. NPD alleged that he was a serial shoplifter and had successfully robbed the CVS by
his workplace at least twice. The NPD officers had no evidence for these accusations. In fact,
they had decided that Mr. Henry had to be guilty of something and the officers concocted an
outrageous and false theory of criminality to justify the arrest.
6. Once Mr. Henry shared his story, the public cried out, pressuring the Town of
Needham to undertake an independent investigation of the Defendant officers’ conduct, in
addition to NPD’s own internal affairs investigation. Throughout these investigations, the same
officers lied in an effort to cover up their illegal targeting and demeaning treatment of Mr.
Henry. Predictably, the NPD internal investigation yielded no reforms—proving that the
Department believes it acted rightfully and will not change without outside intervention.
7. Having been deprived of his rights under state and federal law, Mr. Henry seeks
to recover damages for the harm the Defendant officers and Town inflicted, as well as the
removal of all defamatory materials published on the Town of Needham website and injunctive
relief to address the bias-based policing of NPD through training and policy reviews. In this
moment of racial reckoning, Mr. Henry prays that this Court holds the Town of Needham and
NPD accountable for perpetuating race-based policing and colluding to protect white officers
3
who violate the rule of law. Without accountability, the Defendant officers and the Town of
Needham continue to pose a threat to Black people living and working in Needham.
8. By this civil action, Plaintiff Marvin Henry seeks redress for violations of his
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983; for civil rights conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3);
for Mr. Henry’s detention and subsequent mistreatment by Defendants pursuant to M.G.L. ch.
12, §§ 11H-I; and pursuant to Massachusetts common law.
9. Mr. Henry alleges all facts in this complaint on his personal knowledge or on
information and belief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over
the federal claims concerning violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42
U.S.C. § 1985(3). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the
related claims under state law.
11. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the
events giving rise to this civil action occurred in this judicial district.
12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Town of Needham, a
municipality within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and over all individual Defendants
because they reside in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and they are employed by the Town
of Needham, a municipality within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff Marvin Henry is a Black man who works as a licensed massage therapist
at Elements Massage in Needham, Massachusetts.
4
14. Defendant Town of Needham is a municipality duly organized and existing under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
15. Defendant John Schlittler is an employee of the Town of Needham, serves as the
Chief of Police of the Needham Police Department (“NPD”), and supervises all NPD employees,
including Defendants Andrew Cray, Colin Fitzpatrick, Nicole McMahon, and Leo Schlittler.
John Schlittler acted in a supervisory capacity and as an agent, servant, and employee of the
Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against John Schlittler in his supervisory, official,
and individual capacities.
16. Defendant Andrew Cray is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves as
an NPD police officer. Cray is a Sergeant in NPD and acted in a supervisory capacity and as an
agent, servant, and employee of the Town of Needham at all relevant times. This action asserts
claims against Cray in his supervisory, official, and individual capacities.
17. Defendant Colin Fitzpatrick is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves
as an NPD police officer. At all relevant times, Fitzpatrick acted as an agent, servant, and
employee of the Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against Fitzpatrick in his official
18. Defendant Nicole McMahon is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves
as an NPD police officer. At all relevant times, McMahon acted as an agent, servant, and
employee of the Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against McMahon in her official
19. Defendant Leo Schlittler is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves as
an NPD police officer. At all relevant times, Leo Schlittler acted as an agent, servant, and
5
employee of the Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against Leo Schlittler in his
official and individual capacities.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Mr. Henry Made a Routine Purchase at CVS on January 25, 2020.
20. On the afternoon of January 25, 2020, Mr. Henry drove into Needham for a shift
at Elements Massage from his home in Hyde Park, Massachusetts, in a light blue Honda Odyssey
minivan that he co-owns with his wife, titled in her name.
21. Mr. Henry wore a black hoodless jacket over a crewneck sweater, light-colored
pants, and a knitted cap.
22. Mr. Henry parked the minivan in front of the Starbucks located at 910 Highland
Avenue, in Needham, Massachusetts. Mr. Henry proceeded to order lunch from the Town House
of Pizza at 892 Highland Avenue, as was his routine on his way to work, and then walked to
CVS store # 2128 (the “CVS”) located at 936 Highland Avenue. Elements Massage is located at
855 Highland Avenue in Needham and is approximately 0.1 miles from the CVS.
23. Mr. Henry entered CVS at approximately 3:01 p.m. through the Highland Avenue
door. Mr. Henry selected cough drops and an iced tea and completed his purchase of those items
with a cashier whom he recognized from prior visits. He received his receipt by email on his cell
phone at about 3:04 p.m.
24. Mr. Henry exited the CVS at about 3:05 p.m. and walked to the Town House of
Pizza, where he picked up his lunch order, and then returned to his minivan.
The CVS Operations Manager Provided Descriptions of Two Suspects, Neither of Whom
Matched Mr. Henry’s Description, in a 911 Call to NPD.
25. Another Black man (“John Doe”) entered the CVS before Mr. Henry, at about
2:53 p.m. John Doe wore a dark hooded jacket, a light grey hooded sweatshirt, black pants, and
6
a dark baseball cap. A Black woman (“Jane Doe”) entered the CVS shortly after John Doe.
Both John Doe and Jane Doe acquired shopping carts.
26. The CVS Operations Manager told the CVS General Manager that he thought he
recognized John Doe and Jane Doe from two previous shoplifting incidents in that CVS.
27. The CVS Operations Manager called NPD at about 3:04 p.m. to report the
suspected shoplifting and described the two subjects to the 911 operator.
28. The Operations Manager spoke with Officer William Kelleher, the 911 operator
who answered the call, about the suspected shoplifting.
29. As to the first subject, the Operations Manager described a big male, Black, who
was wearing a hoodie or hat which was brown, red, or grey. As to the second subject, the
Operations Manager described a Black female wearing black or dark clothes.
30. Officer Kelleher radioed to responding officers that the subjects were a very large
Black male with a grey hoodie and a female wearing dark clothes.
31. John Doe exited the CVS shortly after Mr. Henry.
32. John Doe did not make any purchases in the CVS on January 25, 2020.
33. The CVS did not find that any items had been stolen from the store after Mr.
Henry, John Doe, and Jane Doe left on January 25, 2020.
Needham Police Falsely Identified Mr. Henry as the Male Shoplifting Suspect, Even
Though He Did Not Match the Description of John Doe.
34. In response to the 911 call, at approximately 3:07 p.m. on January 25, 2020,
Defendants Fitzpatrick and McMahon entered the CVS.
35. Defendant Leo Schlittler responded in a marked police vehicle to the intersection
of Highland Avenue and West Street at approximately 3:08 p.m.
7
36. Defendant Fitzpatrick exited the CVS and began walking down Highland Avenue.
Defendant Fitzpatrick radioed Defendant Leo Schlittler, falsely indicating that Mr. Henry was
the suspected male shoplifter.
37. After placing his purchased items on the front passenger seat of his minivan, Mr.
Henry walked around to the driver’s side of the car and heard a police officer, Defendant Leo
Schlittler, yell, “Hey you, come here!” from behind him.
38. The only way in which Mr. Henry matched the description of the suspect was his
skin color, but Defendant Leo Schlittler—without valid legal basis to do so—accosted Mr. Henry
outside of his minivan and detained him.
39. Defendant Fitzpatrick and Defendant Leo Schlittler profiled and confronted Mr.
Henry because of his race.
Mr. Henry Was Forcibly Arrested Without Probable Cause.
40. Immediately upon approaching Mr. Henry, Defendant Leo Schlittler pushed Mr.
Henry against his minivan, simultaneously grabbing Mr. Henry’s right hand and arm.
41. Defendant Leo Schlittler handcuffed Mr. Henry forcibly behind his back, not
telling Mr. Henry why he was under arrest.
42. At no point did Mr. Henry resist Defendant Leo Schlittler. Nor did Mr. Henry
give Defendant Leo Schlittler any reason to use physical restraints.
43. Mr. Henry was unarmed and had nothing in his hands.
44. Defendant Leo Schlittler searched Mr. Henry’s pants pockets and outer clothing
after handcuffing him.
8
45. Defendant Fitzpatrick did not attempt to confirm whether Mr. Henry was the
individual identified by the CVS Operations Manager or if he matched the description given by
the CVS Operations Manager.
46. Defendant McMahon called in the license plate number of the minivan Mr. Henry
had placed his purchases in.
47. Defendant Cray thereafter joined Defendants Fitzpatrick and Leo Schlittler at the
scene.
48. Defendant Cray stated his support for the decision to continue to detain Mr.
Henry, who was still in handcuffs.
49. Mr. Henry repeatedly told Defendants Leo Schlittler, Fitzpatrick, and Cray that
his metal handcuffs were too tight and asked for them to be adjusted, but the officers ignored
him. At no point did any of the Defendant officers check the tightness of the handcuffs or
otherwise address this concern.
50. Defendant Cray went inside the CVS and spoke to Defendant McMahon and the
CVS Operations Manager and Store Manager who confirmed that they had not seen John Doe
and Jane Doe steal anything from the store that day.
51. Throughout his detention, Mr. Henry asked the Defendant officers why they were
detaining and restraining him. The Defendant officers refused to answer Mr. Henry for half an
hour, when Defendant Cray left the CVS and told Mr. Henry that he was suspected of
shoplifting, even though Defendant Cray had learned that no shoplifting took place that day.
52. Mr. Henry offered to show a copy of the receipt for his CVS purchases, which
was on his phone. Defendants did not immediately accept this offer, which would have dispelled
any suspicion, and instead continued to detain him, ignoring the proof of Mr. Henry’s innocence.
9
53. During this encounter, four officers—Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon,
and Leo Schlittler—confronted Mr. Henry. None of them told Mr. Henry why he was detained
or restrained for about 30 minutes; none of them read him his Miranda rights; none of them let
him call his employer to explain why he was late.
54. Instead, Mr. Henry was held in the vicinity of his workplace, without explanation
and without basis, even though Mr. Henry did not match the description of the suspect, was not
accompanied by a woman, and even after CVS could not substantiate that any shoplifting
whatsoever had occurred. Mr. Henry was humiliated, and he was concerned that his public
detention—in full view of a busy Starbucks and the people of Needham—would affect his ability
to get clients as a massage therapist by undermining his clients’ trust in him. Mr. Henry would
not have been mistreated in this way if he was not Black.
55. Compounding the harm to Mr. Henry, Defendant Fitzpatrick cruelly told Mr.
Henry that Defendant Fitzpatrick would apologize if Mr. Henry was not on the CVS surveillance
footage. Defendant Fitzpatrick knew that Mr. Henry had already said that he had been in the
CVS that day. And Defendant Fitzpatrick knew that this was a hollow, condescending statement
because simply being on the video had nothing to do with whether Mr. Henry was a shoplifter.
56. Defendant Cray ultimately made the decision to release Mr. Henry after his arrest.
57. When Mr. Henry asked for the Defendant officers’ information, Defendant Cray,
a Sergeant in NPD, walked away without giving Mr. Henry his badge number.
58. Defendant Schlittler cleared the scene at approximately 3:35 p.m.
59. Mr. Henry was held for approximately 30 minutes, handcuffed in public view,
and arrested without justification, by Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo
Schlittler, because of racial bias.
10
Mr. Henry’s Person, Car, and Backpack Were Unlawfully Searched.
60. After Defendant Leo Schlittler confronted Mr. Henry, shouted at him, grabbed
him, shoved him against the vehicle, and forced his hands behind his back, Defendant Leo
Schlittler continued to detain and restrain Mr. Henry without adjusting the handcuffs. Defendants
Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick also searched Mr. Henry’s person, car, and backpack.
61. Mr. Henry was in a coercive situation, surrounded by armed police officers and in
handcuffs. He was not armed, and there was no reason for the Defendant officers to believe he
was armed. Mr. Henry did not pose any threat to the Defendant officers. But the Defendant
officers unlawfully searched his person, his car, and his backpack inside his car anyway.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Failed to Consider Evidence During Mr. Henry’s
Detention.
62. Defendants McMahon and Cray also had an opportunity to review CVS footage
showing John Doe and Jane Doe with shopping carts inside the CVS and that there had been two
Black males in the store, confirming Mr. Henry’s innocence, during his detention. Defendants
McMahon and Cray did not do so. Instead, as evidence of Mr. Henry’s innocence mounted, they
ignored it.
63. Defendants McMahon and Cray failed to investigate or consider evidence that
conflicted with their belief that Mr. Henry was a criminal.
64. The CVS Operations Manager and Store Manager both conveyed that Defendants
Cray and McMahon did not review the CVS footage from January 25, 2020 during Mr. Henry’s
detention.
11
NPD Denied Mr. Henry’s Request for Details Pertaining to His Arrest.
65. Mr. Henry submitted a public records request for details as to his arrest on
January 25, 2020, but NPD denied his request on January 27, 2020 without satisfactory
explanation.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Invented a False Theory of Mr. Henry’s Criminality.
66. Determined to find Mr. Henry guilty of some offense, Defendants Cray and
McMahon conspired to pursue a follow-up investigation of Mr. Henry subsequent to his release.
Defendant McMahon, with, at the direction of, and under the supervision of Defendant Cray,
began pursuing an invented theory of criminality related to Mr. Henry.
67. In her follow-up investigation on or around January 30, 2020, Defendant
McMahon reviewed the footage of CVS shoplifting incidents from months prior, specifically
footage from August 4, 2019 and October 19, 2019, the dates that the CVS Operations Manager
had provided for the prior incidents. Defendant McMahon falsely summarized her findings in
the police report—that Mr. Henry was the male perpetrator of both 2019 shoplifting incidents
and that he was assisted by Jane Doe in all three incidents. In fact, as NPD would later admit,
Mr. Henry did not appear in the video footage reviewed by Defendant McMahon at all.
68. Defendant Cray told Defendant McMahon to investigate whether Mr. Henry was
both embezzling from his workplace and regularly shoplifting from the CVS. Defendant Cray
instructed Defendant McMahon to ask Mr. Henry’s manager at Elements Massage if Mr. Henry
was given money to buy products for the business, “which he then pockets and steals the
product.” In or around February 2020, Defendant McMahon spoke to the manager at Elements
Massage to pursue this line of questioning.
12
69. Without any evidence supporting the idea that Mr. Henry had stolen anything at
all—from the CVS or from his employer—Defendant Cray fabricated a theory under which Mr.
Henry was undertaking deceitful and criminal activity.
70. This theory was not based on any facts. The CVS video footage clearly
contradicted Defendants Cray and McMahon’s theory. Nevertheless, Defendants Cray and
McMahon continued to pursue Mr. Henry for crimes that he did not commit.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Investigated Mr. Henry’s Wife as a Potential Suspect with
No Evidence to Support this Theory.
71. Defendant McMahon concluded that Jane Doe appeared in the CVS footage from
August 4, 2019 and October 19, 2019. Defendant McMahon wrongly identified Jane Doe as Mr.
Henry’s wife, the woman to whom Mr. Henry’s minivan was registered and who is also
employed at Elements Massage.
72. Defendant McMahon then pursued a false line of investigation based on a theory
that Mr. Henry’s wife was the perpetrator for all the shoplifting incidents, together with Mr.
Henry. There was no basis for this theory other than Defendant McMahon’s racial bias against
Mr. Henry. Her investigation was nothing more than a smear campaign against Mr. Henry and
his family, wrongly presuming that a Black man must be a criminal and because there was a
Black woman in the vicinity, the woman had to be his wife and she must be his accomplice.
73. Neither Mr. Henry nor his wife appeared in the footage showing alleged
shoplifting from August 4, 2019 and October 19, 2019.
74. Mr. Henry and his wife are both employed at Elements Massage, but they do not
drive into Needham together for their work shifts because one parent stays home to take care of
their four young children.
13
75. Defendant McMahon showed a still from the CVS footage to the manager at
Elements Massage, who confirmed it was not Mr. Henry’s wife, again undermining Defendants
Cray and McMahon’s invented theory of criminality.
76. The Defendant officers’ investigation into Mr. Henry’s wife, based solely on her
connection to him and their race, has further exacerbated Mr. Henry’s distress from his initial
arrest.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Published False and Malicious Libel Of and Concerning
Mr. Henry.
77. Defendant McMahon reported her observations from the events of January 25,
2020 in an incident report at around 4:28 p.m. on January 25, 2020.
78. Defendant McMahon modified her report in or around January 30, 2020 -
February 3, 2020 to include her notes and false theories about who appeared in the 2019 CVS
footage and again on February 7, 2020 to include her notes from her meeting with the manager at
Elements Massage.
79. Defendant Cray approved the police report on February 22, 2020.
80. Defendants McMahon and Cray’s police report contained false and malicious
libel.
81. The false, defamatory, and slanderous statements made by Defendants McMahon
and Cray concerning Mr. Henry include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Defendant McMahon claimed that on entering the store she “was

immediately met by the [redacted in original] Manager, [redacted in
original] who stated Henry had just exited the store on the Highland
Avenue side”
b. “[Redacted in original] stated he recognized Henry as he was walking

down the street (Highland Ave) and confirmed that he was the suspect.”
14
c. “[Redacted in original] and the [redacted in original] Manager,

[redacted in original] stated Henry and [redacted in original] have
successfully shoplifted from the store two or three times in the past few
months. They stated they have video footage that has been provided to
NPD. Henry and [redacted in original] were never identified in the past
incidents. [Redacted in original] and [redacted in original] stated Henry
and [redacted in original] entered CVS separately from the parking lot
side about a minute or two apart. They stated Henry and [redacted in
original] both were on the phone and had individual carts, walking up
and down the aisles separately while filling the cars. [Redacted in
original] and [redacted in original] immediately recognized the two
from previous shoplifting incidents. [Redacted in original] stated she
followed Henry and [redacted in original] and noticed Henry stopped
filling the carts and went to check out/purchase a small amount of
product. Henry and [redacted in original] then exited the store shortly
after while leaving their accumulated carts in the middle of the aisles.”
d. “[Redacted in original] and [redacted in original] showed me video

footage, which clearly showed Henry and [redacted in original]
entering CVS. [Redacted in original] entered at approximately 2:52pm
and Henry entered at approximately 2:53pm.”
e. “[Redacted in original] and [redacted in original] stated the incidents in

the past have been almost identical to this one. Henry and [redacted in
original] would usually come on a Saturday around 3:00pm or 4:00pm.
They would both fill up individual carts with very similar items each
time. [Redacted in original] and [redacted in original] stated in the past
Henry and [redacted in original] have successfully walked directly out
of the store with the carts, which were filled with unpaid items. . . .”
f. “Henry had the first cart, which included the following items: 2
Listerine bottles, 2 Heals Soften lotion, 4 Palmer Cocoa Butter, 5 Dove
body wash bottles…Estimated value $112.87.”
82. Defendants McMahon and Cray falsely identified Mr. Henry as the male
shoplifting suspect entering the CVS at 2:53 p.m. when Mr. Henry did not enter the store until
3:01 p.m.
83. Defendants McMahon and Cray further attached photos to the report, which they
recklessly identified as photos of Mr. Henry. The photos were captured from the CVS video
footage and did not show Mr. Henry, but rather John Doe.
15
84. Regarding the 2019 shoplifting incidents, Defendants McMahon and Cray
continued to falsely and misleadingly refer to the male shoplifting suspect, John Doe, as
“Henry,” falsely reporting defamatory statements including, but not limited to:
a. “Henry enters (CVS Highland Ave door) while talking on the phone” at
4:50 p.m. on Sunday, August 4, 2019.
b. “Henry exits (CVS Highland Ave door)” at 5:10 p.m.
c. “Henry enters (CVS Highland Ave door) with gray hoodie, dark pants and
hat while on the phone.”
d. “Henry puts items in [redacted in original] cart and both parties interact.”
e. “Henry is identified as assisting [redacted in original] on 10/19/2019. Both

identifications are based on the RMV photos. After Henry placed items in
[redacted in original] cart and interacted with [redacted in original] Henry
went to the counter to purchase a small amount of items while [redacted in
original] left with the unpurchased items out of the CVS Highland Ave
door.
f. “Photos of Henry and [redacted in original] are attached to this report.”
85. Defendants McMahon and Cray failed to investigate who was responsible for the
prior shoplifting crimes that they falsely attributed to Mr. Henry. Had they done so, they would
have discovered Mr. Henry was not responsible for either.
86. On or about July 22, 2020, Defendants McMahon and Cray caused to be
published the police report on the Town of Needham website with a statement that, “[i]n the
interest of transparency,” the Town was releasing an incident report detailing “facts of an
incident involving Mr. Henry on January 25, 2020” as well as “the subsequent investigation” and
several photos under the subheading “Incident Report Photos Involving Marvin Henry.”
87. The Defendants McMahon and Cray published the defamatory statements and
pictures with reckless disregard for their truth, ignoring that several of the pictures were
timestamped from 2019 and were unrelated to the January 25, 2020 incident. They also ignored
16
that nothing had been stolen on January 25, 2020 and therefore the pictures of full shopping carts
held no significance.
88. As of the filing of this complaint, these defamatory statements and pictures
remain on the Town of Needham’s website.
Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler Conspired to Deprive Mr.
Henry of his Civil Rights and Sought to Cover Up their Targeting of Mr. Henry.
89. Defendants Cray, Leo Schlittler, McMahon, and Fitzpatrick made conflicting
statements to internal affairs and the independent investigators as to several key facts.
90. These facts included where Defendants were located at various stages of Mr.
Henry’s detainment and what aspects of it they each observed; how much time passed between
Mr. Henry’s initial stop and his handcuffing; whether Mr. Henry alerted the Defendants to the
pain from the handcuffs; whether Mr. Henry’s person was searched; whether Mr. Henry’s license
plate was run; whether the CVS Operations Manager positively identified Mr. Henry as the
suspect before a decision was made to handcuff Mr. Henry; and whether the CVS Operations
Manager ever identified Mr. Henry at all.
91. As one example, Defendant McMahon told the internal affairs investigators that
she did review video footage at CVS during the incident on January 25 but subsequently told the
independent investigators that she could not recall if she did so.
92. These inconsistencies and episodes of unreliable reporting reflect the Defendants’
intent to cover up the true circumstances of Mr. Henry’s unlawful search, false arrest, and the
excessive force inflicted on him.
93. As described above, Defendant Cray also directed Defendant McMahon to pursue
a fabricated theory of criminality for Mr. Henry based on no evidence that he had committed any
crime whatsoever, much less the scheme that Defendant Cray invented.
17
94. This subsequent investigation by Defendants Cray and McMahon was an attempt
to cover up Defendants Fitzpatrick, Leo Schlittler, and McMahon’s targeting and racial profiling
of Mr. Henry by conducting a fishing expedition for evidence that he had committed some crime
and that therefore Defendants’ treatment of Mr. Henry was justified.
95. Defendant Cray told investigators that he did not have Defendants Leo Schlittler
and Fitzpatrick complete an incident report because he did not think one was warranted. This
violated NPD policy to document all arrests made.
96. This violation of policy was recognized by NPD’s internal affairs investigation.
97. This violation of policy also indicates the Defendants’ intent to conceal their
targeting of Mr. Henry by withholding facts and refusing to create a record of the Defendant
officers’ misconduct.
98. The Town of Needham, through NPD, also failed to explain why they denied Mr.
Henry’s public records request. The internal affairs investigators recognized that NPD’s
response to Mr. Henry’s request failed to uphold the guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of
State as to records requests.
99. This violation of policy also shows that Defendants intended and sought to
conceal their unlawful conduct in targeting Mr. Henry.
Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler Failed to Follow Several
Department Policies, Showing the Town of Needham and Defendant John Schlittler’s
Failure to Train and Resulting in Bias-Based Policing.
100. Defendants failed to follow several of their own policies, as recognized by the
internal affairs investigation and independent investigation reports. These failures include, but
are not limited to, those described below.
18
101. Defendant Cray did not have Defendants Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick complete
an incident report, which violated NPD policy to document all arrests made.
102. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler failed to follow
NPD’s policy against the use of RMV photos to identify suspects.
103. Defendant McMahon’s follow-up investigation did not follow internal policy.
Defendant McMahon identified Mr. Henry’s wife as Jane Doe and used CVS surveillance
footage during a visit to his wife’s employer to ask the employer to confirm the woman’s
identity. Defendant McMahon did not have any reason to believe that Mr. Henry’s wife was
involved except that she co-owned the van with Mr. Henry and it was titled in her name, and
Defendant McMahon suspected Mr. Henry. This conduct violated NPD policy on follow-up
investigations by patrol officers.
104. Defendants Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick violated NPD policy to treat the public
with courtesy and respect. Defendant Leo Schlittler handcuffed Mr. Henry immediately upon
approach, without any conversation or discussion. Defendant Fitzpatrick taunted and derided
Mr. Henry. Neither Defendant Leo Schlittler nor Defendant Fitzpatrick loosened Mr. Henry’s
handcuffs when he told them they were too tight.
105. Defendant Cray violated NPD’s policy to provide officer identification upon
request.
106. Defendants Town of Needham and John Schlittler have acted with deliberate
indifference to the rights of Mr. Henry, including by failing to train NPD officers.
107. Defendants Town of Needham and John Schlittler failed to train Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler to follow several NPD policies.
19
108. Defendants Town of Needham and John Schlittler also failed to train Defendants
Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler on the law of searches and seizures and equal
protection, causing Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler to violate Mr.
Henry’s rights.
109. The failure to train is particularly problematic because of the pattern of biased
policing in Needham by NPD. In general, it is extremely challenging for members of the
Needham community to have any visibility into NPD’s activities. A local organization,
concerned about the lack of transparency and public metrics about NPD’s work in the
community, therefore made a public records request in September 2020 for data on NPD’s
tactics and patterns of law enforcement.
110. The organization’s report, which it released in February 2021 based on the
records it received from NPD, makes clear that there is a pattern of bias-based policing by NPD
in Needham. 1 Black, Indigenous, and People of Color are only 16% of Needham’s population,
and Needham has a Black and Hispanic population of at most 7%. But Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color accounted for 35% of all handcuffings, 35% of all arrests, and 45% of all
offenses with criminal charges sought between September 2019 and August 2020. The statistics
also showed an increase in the racial disparity in policing over time.
111. According to the draft independent investigation report, NPD officers minimized
their mistreatment of Mr. Henry, implying that because he was never charged with any crime, he
was not harmed.
1
See generally Equal Justice in Needham Public Safety Working Group, Race and Policing in Needham: An
Analysis of Public Records Request Data (2021), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qtqE2P7my_-
kOJf2DBBGvjYlz6SkmUkU/view.
20
112. This attitude fails to recognize the hardship that Mr. Henry experienced during
and after his detention and the danger that police encounters pose to people of color, particularly
Black men. As stated by the independent investigators in their draft report, “[m]ore than once
during our interviews of NPD officers, we heard words to the effect of, ‘Mr. Henry wasn’t
charged, so…,’ as if to infer that his release from arrest without further law enforcement
involvement was essentially no harm, no foul.” This statement did not appear in the final version
of the report.
113. Mr. Henry’s treatment is an example of ongoing bias-based policing in Needham.
Mr. Henry Continues to Experience Harm As A Result of Defendants’ Actions.
114. As a result of Mr. Henry’s traumatic and painful detention, he is still deeply
shaken and upset. He had to miss his shifts at Elements Massage on January 25 and the
subsequent weekend of work as a result of the humiliation, pain, and fear Defendants caused
him.
115. Mr. Henry was initially too traumatized to speak about Defendants’ actions. With
the support of his community, he is seeking accountability for the harm that Defendants inflicted
on him.
116. That harm continues to this day, and it will have long-term ramifications for Mr.
Henry’s life. Mr. Henry cannot return to the CVS, which he used to visit routinely, because he is
worried that he will once again be racially profiled by NPD. Mr. Henry is fearful every time he
is in Needham, where he continues to work, because of NPD’s treatment of him, and his
knowledge of the danger of race-based policing. And Mr. Henry continues to struggle with
shame, fear, and worry for his four young children.
21
CAUSES OF ACTION
First Cause of Action

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments: False Arrest
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
117. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
118. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler
were employed by the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
119. The Defendants arrested Mr. Henry. The Defendants did not have probable cause
to arrest Mr. Henry.
120. By falsely arresting Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo
Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his clearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to be free from illegal seizure.
121. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Second Cause of Action

(Violation of Massachusetts Civil Rights Act: False Arrest)
123. Mr. Henry was falsely arrested, which acted as a threat, intimidation, or coercion
and forced him to give up his fundamental right to be free of unreasonable seizure.
124. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his clearly established right to be free of
22
unreasonable seizure as guaranteed under federal and state law in violation of the Massachusetts
Civil Rights Act.
Third Cause of Action

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments: Excessive Force
127. In detaining Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo
Schlittler jointly and in concert used excessive and unreasonable force against him.
128. By using excessive and unreasonable force against Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his clearly established rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from excessive and unreasonable force.
129. As a result of the excessive and unreasonable force that Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler used, Mr. Henry suffered damages.
Fourth Cause of Action

(Violation of Massachusetts Civil Rights Act: Excessive Force)
131. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler used excessive force
against Mr. Henry, which acted as a threat, intimidation, or coercion and forced him to give up
his fundamental right to be free of unreasonable seizure.
23
132. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his right to be free of unreasonable seizure
as guaranteed under federal and state law in violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
Fifth Cause of Action

(Assault and Battery)
134. By using excessive and unjustified force against Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler, jointly and in concert, intentionally and without
justification or excuse caused Mr. Henry to suffer physical injuries.
135. As a result of Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler’s
unjustified physical battery of Mr. Henry, he suffered damages.
Sixth Cause of Action

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments: Unreasonable Search
137. At all relevant times, Defendants Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick were employed by
the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
138. Defendant Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his right to be free from illegal
search, without any probable cause of criminality or reasonable suspicion that Mr. Henry was
armed and dangerous, by searching his person.
139. Defendant Fitzpatrick deprived Mr. Henry of his right to be free from illegal
search by searching his vehicle and his backpack within the vehicle.
24
140. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Leo Schlittler and
Fitzpatrick deprived Mr. Henry of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Seventh Cause of Action

(Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection
143. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler detained, falsely
arrested, and unjustly treated Mr. Henry on account of his race. If he had been white, the officers
would not have treated him in the manner in which they did, or with the disrespect or force with
which they did.
144. Defendants Cray and McMahon developed and pursued an invented theory of Mr.
Henry’s criminality based on the fact that Mr. Henry is Black.
145. The history of bias-based policing in Needham and across America supports the
claim that the officers acted intentionally and with bias against Mr. Henry.
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating his Fourteenth Amendment
right to equal protection under the laws.
25
Eighth Cause of Action

(Violation of Massachusetts Civil Rights Act: Equal Protection)
148. Mr. Henry was unlawfully arrested because of his race.
149. Defendant Leo Schlittler therefore coerced and intimidated Mr. Henry and
deprived him of his right to equal protection under the laws.
150. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendant Leo Schlittler violated Mr.
Henry’s right to equal protection under the laws in violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights
Act.
Ninth Cause of Action

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil Rights Conspiracy
153. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler acted in concert to
conspire to falsely arrest and use excessive force against Mr. Henry, inflicting a wrong against
him.
154. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler took overt acts to
carry out their conspiracy by arresting Mr. Henry without probable cause and treating him
roughly, including by handcuffing him.
26
155. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler’s accounts to Internal
Affairs and to the independent investigators demonstrate that they were attempting to cover up
their race-based targeting of Mr. Henry.
156. Defendant McMahon and Defendant Cray’s fixation on proving Mr. Henry’s
nonexistent criminality, despite all evidence to the contrary, further demonstrates the existence of
the conspiracy.
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by conspiring to harm Mr. Henry.
Tenth Cause of Action

(Violation of 1985(3): Civil Rights Conspiracy)
159. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler conspired to deprive
Mr. Henry of his equal protection of the laws by falsely arresting him and using excessive force
against him.
160. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler detained, falsely
arrested, and unjustly treated Mr. Henry on account of his race. If he had been white, the officers
would not have treated him in the manner in which they did, including by acting with force
against him and falsely arresting him.
161. The history of bias-based policing in Needham supports the claim that the officers
acted intentionally and with bias against Mr. Henry.
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
27
Eleventh Cause of Action

(Defamation)
164. Mr. Henry is a private figure under the laws of defamation and libel.
165. The false statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon in the police report
and Town of Needham website were of and concerning Mr. Henry, defamatory, and made with
reckless disregard for their truth.
166. The defamatory statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon were
published to third parties with the knowledge that such publication would harm the reputation,
standing, and employment situation of Mr. Henry.
167. The statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon allege that Mr. Henry
engaged in criminal conduct, and such allegations, which are false, are per se defamatory.
168. The statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon prejudiced Mr. Henry’s
profession and business and such allegations, which are false, are per se defamatory.
169. As a proximate cause of the publishing of the false and malicious libel on the
Town of Needham website, Mr. Henry’s reputation, both personally and professionally, has been
greatly damaged and he has been subjected to humiliation, scorn and ridicule, and impaired his
standing in the community.
170. The defamatory statements resulted in damage to Mr. Henry’s career and
reputation as a massage therapist as well as severe mental anguish and suffering, loss of income,
loss of earning capacity, and loss of business opportunities.
28
Twelfth Cause of Action

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Municipal Liability)
171. Mr. Henry realleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the
172. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, John Schlittler,
and Leo Schlittler served as employees of Defendant Town of Needham, and they acted in
accordance with a policy or custom of Defendant Town of Needham.
173. Despite the need for adequate training for police officers responding to 911 calls
about alleged crimes in process, Defendant Town of Needham has maintained, and continues to
maintain, a policy of providing inadequate training for police officers.
174. At all relevant times, Defendant Town of Needham knew or should have known
that there was a need for such training.
175. The training currently provided by Defendant Town of Needham is inadequate
and discriminatory, because it results in bias-based policing, civil rights violations, excessive use
of force, and reckless publication of defamatory statements.
176. Defendant Town of Needham’s policy of providing inadequate and discriminatory
training for police officers proximately caused the harms to Mr. Henry in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
Thirteenth Cause of Action

(Supervisory Liability)
177. Mr. Henry realleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the
prior paragraphs.
178. By unlawfully seizing Mr. Henry, using excessive force against Mr. Henry,
committing equal protection violations against Mr. Henry, and conspiring to violate his civil
29
rights, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated Mr. Henry’s
constitutional rights.
179. At all relevant times, Defendant John Schlittler, as the head of NPD, supervised
Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler.
180. At all relevant times, Defendant Cray, as a Sergeant at NPD, supervised
Defendants Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler.
181. Defendants John Schlittler and Cray’s deliberate indifference and negligent
failure to provide adequate training to and supervision of their employees was a direct and
proximate cause of the violation of Mr. Henry’s rights.
182. As a result of Defendants John Schlittler’s and Cray’s deliberate indifference, Mr.
Henry suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Henry requests that this court:
a. Award compensatory damages against all Defendants;
b. Award punitive damages against Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,

McMahon, Leo Schlittler, and John Schlittler;
c. Award injunctive relief against Needham, including ordering the

removal of the defamatory report and any and all other defamatory
representations regarding Mr. Henry from its website; enhanced and
ongoing training of all NPD officers on implicit bias, de-escalation
techniques, report writing, and policy reviews of other investigative
best practices;
d. Award the cost of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and
e. Award such other relief as this Court may deem necessary and
appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Mr. Henry demands a jury trial on all counts so triable.
30
Respectfully submitted,
MARVIN HENRY
By his attorneys,
Dated: July 7, 2021
/s/ Timothy J. Perla

Of Counsel: Timothy J. Perla (BBO #660447)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
Lauren Sampson (BBO #704319) HALE AND DORR LLP
Oren Sellstrom (BBO #569045) 60 State Street
LAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS Boston, MA 02109
61 Batterymarch Street, Fifth Floor (617) 526-6000
Boston, MA 02110 [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Joanna Howard*
617-988-0609 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 230-8800
[email protected]
Rieko H. Shepherd*
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 526-6000
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiff
*Pro Hac Vice motion forthcoming
31
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1-1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Marvin Henry v. Town of Needham, et al.
Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local
rule 40.1(a)(1)).
, 40, 41, 4, 535, 830*, 8, 893, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.
II. 130, 190, 196, 370, 37, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 820*, 840*, .
III. 120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 24, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 36,
367, 368, 37,38,422, 423, 40, 460, 462, 463, 465, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555,
625, 690, 7, 791, 861-865, 80,8,950.
*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.
3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this
district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.
4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES NO
5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest? (See 28 USC
§2403)
YES NO ■

If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?
YES NO
6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284?
YES NO
7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (“governmental agencies”), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES NO
A. If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?
Eastern Division ; Central Division Western Division

B. If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies,
residing in Massachusetts reside?
Eastern Division Central Division Western Division

8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes,
submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)
YES NO
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)
ATTORNEY'S 253526(
6NAME Timothy J. Perla, Joanna Howard, Rieko Shepherd, Lauren Sampson, Oren Sellstrom
ADDRESS 60 State Street, Boston MA, 02109
TELEPHONE NO. (617) 526-6000
(0$,/$''5(66 [email protected]
(CategoryForm-20.wpd )
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) CIVIL
Case 1:21-cv-11116 COVER
Document 1-2 SHEET
Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Marvin Henry Town of Needham; John Schlittler; Andrew Cray; Colin Fitzpatrick; Nicole McMahon; Leo Schlittler
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Suffolk County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Timothy J. Perla, Joanna Howard, Rieko Shepherd Lauren Sampson, Oren Sellstrom
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Lawyers for Civil Rights
60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, (617) 526-6000 61 Batterymarch Street, Fifth Floor, Boston MA 02110
See Addendum for Additional Counsel (617) 988-0609
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation ✖ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from
6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District
Litigation - Litigation -
Transfer
(specify) Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. Section 1983; 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Plaintiff brings this action to compel defendants to compensate him for violation of his constitutional rights and to remove defamatory material from the public domain.
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
July 7, 2021
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

As Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

As Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TOWN OF NEEDHAM; JOHN

treated this way.

allege that he was violent or dangerous.

outrageous and false theory of criminality to justify the arrest.

Needham to undertake an independent investigation of the Defendant officers’ conduct, in

12, §§ 11H-I; and pursuant to Massachusetts common law.

information and belief.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

related claims under state law.

of Needham, a municipality within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

at Elements Massage in Needham, Massachusetts.

the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

and individual capacities.

claims against Cray in his supervisory, official, and individual capacities.

and individual capacities.

and individual capacities.

official and individual capacities.

Mr. Henry Made a Routine Purchase at CVS on January 25, 2020.

minivan that he co-owns with his wife, titled in her name.

pants, and a knitted cap.

phone at about 3:04 p.m.

Both John Doe and Jane Doe acquired shopping carts.

who answered the call, about the suspected shoplifting.

Operations Manager described a Black female wearing black or dark clothes.

Defendants Fitzpatrick and McMahon entered the CVS.

of Highland Avenue and West Street at approximately 3:08 p.m.

the suspected male shoplifter.

Schlittler, yell, “Hey you, come here!” from behind him.

outside of his minivan and detained him.

Henry because of his race.

Mr. Henry Was Forcibly Arrested Without Probable Cause.

telling Mr. Henry why he was under arrest.

give Defendant Leo Schlittler any reason to use physical restraints.

after handcuffing him.

the CVS Operations Manager.

had placed his purchases in.

Henry, who was still in handcuffs.

otherwise address this concern.

53. During this encounter, four officers—Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon,

him call his employer to explain why he was late.

not have been mistreated in this way if he was not Black.

58. Defendant Schlittler cleared the scene at approximately 3:35 p.m.

Schlittler, because of racial bias.

Mr. Henry’s Person, Car, and Backpack Were Unlawfully Searched.

conflicted with their belief that Mr. Henry was a criminal.

began pursuing an invented theory of criminality related to Mr. Henry.

67. In her follow-up investigation on or around January 30, 2020, Defendant

Massage to pursue this line of questioning.

Henry was undertaking deceitful and criminal activity.

employed at Elements Massage.

shoplifting from August 4, 2019 and October 19, 2019.

their four young children.

Cray and McMahon’s invented theory of criminality.

2020 in an incident report at around 4:28 p.m. on January 25, 2020.

a. Defendant McMahon claimed that on entering the store she “was

b. “[Redacted in original] stated he recognized Henry as he was walking

c. “[Redacted in original] and the [redacted in original] Manager,

d. “[Redacted in original] and [redacted in original] showed me video

e. “[Redacted in original] and [redacted in original] stated the incidents in

b. “Henry exits (CVS Highland Ave door)” at 5:10 p.m.

e. “Henry is identified as assisting [redacted in original] on 10/19/2019. Both

f. “Photos of Henry and [redacted in original] are attached to this report.”