CAIR-Michigan Complaint
CAIR-Michigan Complaint
HELANA BOWE,
vs. HON:
Defendants.
1
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 33
and through her counsel, CAIR-MI LEGAL FUND, by Amy V. Doukoure (“CAIR-
MI”), and brings this action against CITY OF FERNDALE (“Defendant Ferndale”),
ZYROWSKI , for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin all
religious wear, and enjoin all Defendants from creating a permanent public record
Defendants from engaging in unnecessary gross gender searches and for the
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000cc et seq. (“RLUPIA”)
committed by all Defendants when (1) Ms. Bowe was forcefully required to remove
her religious headwear to take a booking photograph in the presence of male officers,
(2) a permanent public record of Ms. Bowe’s image without her religious headwear
was created (3) Ms. Bowe’s image without her religious headwear was disseminated
via a public information request and (3) Ms. Bowe was subjected to a cross gender
search unnecessarily.
2
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 33
1. The instant action arises under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
Defendants conducts business in this judicial district, and this is the district where a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Ms. Bowe, is an individual, a Muslim woman who wears the Islamic
relevant herein a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State
of Michigan.
Chief of Police with the Defendant City of Ferndale police Department, and upon
3
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 33
with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon information and
with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon information and
officer with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon information
sergeant with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon
JURY DEMAND
12. This case is about Defendant City of Ferndale’s policy, pattern and practice
violates the First Amendment as well as other federal and state law. Pursuant to this
policy, pattern, and practice Defendant Ferndale, and all individually named
Defendants force arrestees who wear religious head coverings to remove those head
4
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 33
coverings for a photograph, even where doing so violates the arrestees’ sincerely-
held religious beliefs. This practice alienates and oppresses faith communities
13. Furthermore, Defendant Ferndale required Ms. Bowe to remove her religious
outer garment that she wears to prohibit non-family member men from viewing or
witnessing her body, body shape, or seeing her any portion of her skin from her neck
to the tops of her feet in violation of her sincerely held religious beliefs, and in
14. This case is also about Defendant City of Ferndale’s policy, pattern, and
cross gender searches despite officers of the same gender being present and available
15. Furthermore, the individual Defendant’s knew that their actions in removing
Ms. Bowe’s hijab for a booking photo, and removing her religious outer garment,
especially in the presence of male officers, and their acts in engaging in cross gender
searches while female officers were present and there were no exigent circumstances
The Hijab
16. Ms. Bowe wears a hijab pursuant to her Muslim faith. For the purposes of
discussing the Defendants’ policy, the term “hijab” is used throughout this complaint
5
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 33
to refer to a garment worn by many Muslim women in various parts of the world; it
is a headscarf that covers the wearer’s hair, ears, and neck, and frequently part of her
chest, but leaves her entire face exposed. In Arabic, the word “hijab” derives from
the word “hajaba,” sometimes translated as to hide or screen from view or to cover.
Wearing a hijab is also known as “covering.” Ms. Bowe does not wear a niqab, or a
face veil.
17. For many observant Muslim women, the practice of covering entails wearing
one’s hijab at all times, whether at home or in public, when the wearer is in the
presence of men who are not part of her immediate family (“mahram”).
18. Furthermore, many Muslim women consider the wearing of hijab to include
the covering of one’s body in a manner that avoids showing the shape of a woman’s
body, covers all areas of exposed skin from the neck to the top of the feet, including
either the wearing of a religious outer-garment or extremely modest and loose fitting
clothing.
19. While women choose to wear the hijab for an array of reasons, many believe
that the hijab fulfills the commandments of modesty and devotion that stem from,
among other things, the Qu’ran, the primary holy book of the Muslim faith, and the
hadith, the oral traditions carried down from the age of the Prophet Mohammed
6
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 33
(S.A.W.).1 Ms. Bowe and other women who cover frequently view wearing the hijab
20. Ms. Bowe wears the hijab because her their faith dictates that no man outside
of a woman’s mahram should see her uncovered hair, head, and neck. Ms. Bowe
presently wears hijab every single day and believes that her religious faith requires
her to do so. Ms. Bowe has covered regularly for years. Ms. Bowe’s hijab is core to
21. Being forced to remove one’s hijab in public, particularly in the presence of
men who do not belong to the wearer’s mahram, is a profound defilement of the
Requiring a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in public is akin to demanding that
and of Ms. Bowe’s clearly established constitutional right to wear her hijab in front
of all men whom she is not closely related to, and expressed this to the male officers
who arrested Ms. Bowe when they originally brought her into the station, prior to
Defendant Zyrowski forcing Ms. Bowe to remove her hijab in the presence of male
1
The phrase “S.A.W.” is shorthand for “salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam,” a phrase that translates to “God’s blessings
and peace be upon him” and that is frequently used to express love and respect for the Prophet.
7
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 10/29/21 Page 8 of 33
removal of religious head wear, including the hijab, to be removed for booking
Freedom of Information Act and thus City of Ferndale’s policy, pattern and practice
creates a permanent public record of women without their religious hijab subjecting
them to repeated violations of their sincerely held religious beliefs in a manner that
25. In addition, Booking Photographs are integrated into other law enforcement
databases. Due to this practice, the integration increases the likelihood that images
of arrestees without their religious head coverings will be viewed by many people
Federal, State, and Local Governments Across the United States Recognize the
Religious Interest in the Hijab and Permit it to be Worn in Official Photographs
26. The Defendant Ferndale’s Photograph Policy contravenes national norms and
practices. From the federal to the local level, government and law enforcement
entities recognize the significant constitutional and statutory interests at play and
permit those in custody to wear religious head coverings for the purpose of official
photographs.
8
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 10/29/21 Page 9 of 33
27. The United States Department of State permits those who wear hats or head
wear a religious hat or head covering if they “submit a signed statement that verifies
that the hat or head covering in [the person’s] photograph is part of recognized,
public.2
28. Similarly, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
issued a policy memorandum on July 23, 2012 that permits religious head coverings
head covering cast a shadow over the wearer’s face or otherwise obscure part of their
face, USCIS will “ask individual to remove or adjust portions of religious headwear
that covers all or part of individual’s face.” In this situation, USCIS will offer the
wearer a private room or screened area in which to adjust their head covering as well
allowed to cover the ears if USCIS can still identify the individual.”
2
See http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-ripped-abusing-facial-recognition-tool-article-
1.3847796.
3
Available at https://ru.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/passports/photos/.
9
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 10/29/21 Page 10 of 33
29. The Michigan Vehicle Code, Sections 28.292 and 257.310 also permits an
applicant for a driver’s license to keep her hijab on while having her official driver’s
license photograph taken; as long as it does not touch the person’s eyebrows.
30. The Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the Police Department changed its booking
procedures in July 2015 after a woman was forced to remove her hijab in the
presence of men during the booking photograph and while in custody. The Police
Department implemented reform after that woman filed suit alleging violations of
her religious rights. According to the updated policy, Muslim women are not
required to remove religious head coverings like hijabs for any booking photographs.
At least one additional lawsuit has been settled under the new policy, which
31. In a lawsuit against the City of Dearborn Heights, the 6th Circuit upheld the
policy because of the clear privacy and religious right of the Muslim women has in
religious practice. The 6th Circuit found that the releasing the booking photograph
of a Muslim woman without her hijab would be a clear unwarranted invasion of the
woman’s privacy. The booking photograph without religious head covering would
not be made available to the public because it would violate the establishment clause
10
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 10/29/21 Page 11 of 33
photograph policy to allow the wearing of religious headwear, including hijab, for
33. Law enforcement officials across the country have likewise recognized the
right of citizens to wear hijabs or other religious head coverings while being
34. In Long Beach, California, the City Council approved a July 2017 settlement
between a woman required to remove her hijab for a post-arrest photograph and the
Long Beach Police Department that amended the Department’s official policy so as
longer permitted to forcibly remove the hijabs of female arrestees at any point while
35. In amending its policy, Long Beach joined two neighboring jurisdictions, San
Bernardino County and Orange County, which adopted policies protecting detainees
who wear religious head coverings following lawsuits that settled in 2008 and 2013
respectively.
the Sheriff’s Office implemented a new policy for inmates at the Hennepin County
4
While the MDOC’s photograph policy has been updated, the new policy is scheduled to take effect on November
29, 2021.
11
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 10/29/21 Page 12 of 33
Jail and those in custody throughout Hennepin County in March 2014. The policy
permits female arrestees to keep their hijabs on while a booking photograph is taken
and provides that the hijab can be pushed back slightly off of the wearer’s face if
necessary. Inmates at the County Jail are permitted to wear hijabs while incarcerated.
apologized after releasing the booking photographs of two Muslim women who had
been arrested at a Black Lives Matter protest. The photographs showed each woman
without her hijab; Joyce offered his “sincerest apologies…to the Muslim community
for the appearance that we are disrespecting their religious beliefs and practices.” 5
The Cumberland County Jail procedures require a woman to remove her hijab only
in private, without men present, and provide that two booking photographs will be
38. Each of these examples reflects a growing national consensus that there is no
basis to require the removal of religious head coverings for official government
photographs.
39. Even the New York Police Department has recognized the harm its
Photograph Policy may cause Muslim women. Three Muslim women reached a
settlement with the City on February 26, 2018, pursuant to which the City agreed to
5
Available at https://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/14/sheriffs-office-apologizes-for-improperly-releasing-photos-
of-muslim-protesters/.
12
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 10/29/21 Page 13 of 33
pay $180,000 in damages for the forced removal of the women’s hijabs pursuant to
the Photograph Policy.6 Upon information and belief, however, the Photograph
Policy remains in place despite this settlement. Even if a Muslim woman is able to
have her Booking Photograph taken in private by another woman at One Police
Plaza, the Booking Photograph itself remains in the NYPD’s database indefinitely
— available to all who access the computer system or the woman’s paper file.
40. Federal legislation has been enacted to demonstrate our robust national
commitment to the free exercise of religion and to prohibit the government from
increased awareness of and support for religious interest in practices like covering,
statute even “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to
embodies, the Defendants’ Photograph Policy pattern and practice has had an
6
Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/nyregion/muslim-hijab-nypd.html.
13
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 10/29/21 Page 14 of 33
and, upon information and belief, on other City of Ferndale residents who wear
religious head coverings and are arrested by Ferndale Police Department (FPD).
42. Indeed in this case, the City of Ferndale’s unlawful photograph policy affected
Ms. Bowe despite the fact that she had no direct connection to the city of Ferndale
exclusively within the city of Ferndale and pulling over individuals who had no
nexus with the city of Ferndale other than to be close to the border with Ferndale.
by setting an example in their arrest and booking practices. The Photograph Policy
44. The Defendants’ Photograph Policy pattern and practice substantially impacts
Muslim-women to forcibly remove their hijabs for the Booking Photograph while in
custody and that the Photograph Policy pattern and practice had violated their
14
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 10/29/21 Page 15 of 33
45. Ms. Bowe was forced to remove her hijab against her will and religion,
Helana Bowe is Forced to Remove Her Hijab at City of Ferndale Police Station
for a Photograph
46. On June 21, 2021, Ms. Bowe was traveling eastbound on Eight Mile Road
47. While stopped at a traffic light, inside the city of Ferndale, Defendant
Ferndale’s police officer, while engaged in his official duties, pulled up next to Ms.
Bowe’s vehicle and then reversed and got behind her vehicle and ran her license
plate through his computer despite Ms. Bowe having engaged in no traffic violations
and despite Ms. Bowe never having crossed into the city of Ferndale.
48. Subsequent to running Ms. Bowe’s license plate, Defendant Wroe engaged
Ms. Bowe in a traffic stop alleging that she had an expired license plate tag despite
her having a valid plate on the car and being able to produce a valid and current
49. Ms. Bowe notified Defendant Wroe that she had a taser in her purse that she
had obtained as a result of being mugged in the parking lot of the Meijer store located
15
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 10/29/21 Page 16 of 33
at Eight Mile and Woodward Ave. in Ferndale, the very same location where
Defendant Wroe had pulled Ms. Bowe over for a traffic stop.
50. Subsequent to notifying Defendant Wroe of the taser, Ms. Bowe was arrested
51. Upon her arrival at the Defendant Ferndale’s police department, Defendant
Zyrowski asked Ms. Bowe about her hijab and confirmed that Ms. Bowe wore it
52. After confirming with Ms. Bowe that she indeed wore the hijab pursuant to
her religion, Defendant Zyrwoski notified the arresting officers that they were in no
way allowed to remove or disturb Ms. Bowe’s hijab as it was her constitutional right
to wear it.
53. Once Ms. Bowe was taken into custody, pursuant to Defendant Ferndale’s
Policy, Ms. Bowe was forced to remove her religious outer-garment by and in front
relgious, constitutional and legal rights to wear her hijab without disturbance,
Defendant Zyrowski forced or otherwise coerced Ms. Bowe into removing her hijab
for a booking photo which was taken in the presence of male officers.
55. At multiple instances, Ms. Bowe made her dissent and protest to the forceful
removal of her hijab extremely clear. Ms. Bowe asserted her right to keep her hijab
16
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 10/29/21 Page 17 of 33
as a Muslim-woman.
especially Defendants Wroe and Zyrowski were aware that their actions violated Ms.
photos were taken with her hijab on, but Defendant Zyrowski told Ms. Bowe that if
she would allow them to take a mugshot photo of her without her hijab on, they
would release her to go home that evening, otherwise, Ms. Bowe was going to be
58. Ms. Bowe protested the taking of her mugshot without her hijab, and
especially in front of the male officer who was still present. However, Defendant
Zyrowski told Ms. Bowe, she would take the photograph and eventually Ms. Bowe
relented so that she could be released and not have to remain in jail overnight.
59. Upon information and belief the male officer remained in the booking room
where he had full view of Ms. Bowe in the booking cell while her hijabless
60. It is clear that Ms. Bowe was threatened with a night in jail if she failed to
booking photograph.
17
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 10/29/21 Page 18 of 33
cross gender search upon her arrest and while at the Defendant Ferndale’s police
department.
62. Ms. Bowe’s cross gender search was conducted by Defendant Wroe while
Defendant Zyrowski was present and in full view, and while Ms. Bowe was pleading
with both Defendants to have the search conducted by Defendant Zyrowski who was
63. Additionally, Ms. Bowe, after learning that she had been indicted on charges
stemming from the taser she was carrying on June 21, 2021 turned herself into the
Defendant Ferndale’s police department on July 8, 2021, where she was once again
officer despite the fact that female officers were present and capable of conducting
the search.
64. Ms. Bowe’s humiliation caused by the traumatic event did not end after Ms.
Bowe was released from Defendant Ferndale’s custody. Booking Photographs are
Bowe’s booking photograph was released by Defendant Ferndale when there was a
18
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 33
65. Like many Muslim women whose religious beliefs dictate that they wear a
hijab, Ms. Bpwe felt exposed and violated without hers. It is as if Ms. Bowe was
direct result of the Defendants’ pattern and practice. This policy is unnecessarily
discriminatory and the existence of Ms. Bowe’s booking photograph and the fact
that it can be viewed again and again by men who are not members of her immediate
family is haunting.
67. Since these incidents, Ms. Bowe suffers from anxiety and depression and has
68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if the same were fully
69. The RLUIPA provides, in relevant part, the following: “No government shall
confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden
results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that
19
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 10/29/21 Page 20 of 33
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
70. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined under the RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-
72. At all relevant times, Defendants met the definition of “government” under
73. At all relevant times, the locations where the city of Ferndale take Booking
Photographs, including, but not limited to, the city of Ferndale Police Department,
“institutions” as defined under the RLUIPA and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
defined under the RLUIPA when the events alleged above transpired.
20
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 10/29/21 Page 21 of 33
image without her hijab which has been and can continue to be released to the public
Plaintiff’s religious exercise by requiring Ms. Bowe to wear the offending picture
on her wrist and presenting that picture to male staff and guards and the act of male
guards observing her hijabless photo while she was residing in or confined in DDC.
78. The wearing of the hijab is so common place and universally understood as a
religious practice of Muslim women that individually named Defendants had actual
knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo policy requiring the hijab to be
79. Clearly in this instant case, Defendant Zyrowski had actual knowledge that
her actions were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s clearly established constitutional right.
81. Defendant Emmi, in his official roles are substantially and primarily
responsible for the adoption, enactment, and enforcement of the illegal and
21
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 33
82. Defendants acts or omissions, polices, and customs are not the least-restrictive
Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has
suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, physical and emotional distress,
84. Plaintiff repeats and alleges the above paragraphs as if the same were fully set
85. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prohibits any person acting under color of state law, custom,
86. At all relevant times, all named Defendants acted under color of state law.
87. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
88. By forcing Plaintiff to remove her hijab for the Booking Photograph,
22
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 10/29/21 Page 23 of 33
89. Defendant Emmi, in his official roles are substantially and primarily
responsible for the adoption, enactment, and enforcement of the illegal and
90. The wearing of the hijab is so common place and universally understood as a
religious practice of Muslim women that Defendants Washington and DeAngelo had
actual knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo policy requiring the hijab
discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has suffered and
continue to suffer mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if the same were fully
23
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 10/29/21 Page 24 of 33
94. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan provides that:
“Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience.”
95. Defendant Ferndale and Defendant DDC and Defendant MDOC’s policy
requiring that arrestees who wear religious head coverings remove those head
exercise of religion.
96. Defendants Ferndale, DDC and MDOC’s policy requiring that arrestees who
wear religious head coverings wear their booking photo without the religious head
97. Defendants Washington and DeAngelo, in their official roles are substantially
and primarily responsible for the adoption, enactment, and enforcement of the illegal
98. The wearing of the hijab is so common place and universally understood as a
religious practice of Muslim women that Defendants Washington and DeAngelo had
actual knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo and wristband policies
were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the
Michigan Constitution.
24
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.25 Filed 10/29/21 Page 25 of 33
Plaintiff has sustained damages and continues to suffer mental anguish, physical and
Declaratory Judgment
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02)
(As to Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants in Their Official
Capacity)
101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if the same were
103. Plaintiffs’ rights to the free exercise of religion were infringed upon and
104. Defendants’ policy and custom of forcing the removal of religious head
coverings for post-arrest photographs, including the hijab worn by Ms. Bowe, is an
unlawful and unconstitutional practice that infringes upon the rights of Plaintiff and
other Muslim women and religious adherents to freely exercise their religion without
25
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.26 Filed 10/29/21 Page 26 of 33
105. Defendants’ policy and custom of forcing women who wear religious
presented to and viewed by male officers and staff, including the hijab worn by Ms.
Bowe, is an unlawful and unconstitutional practice that infringes upon the rights of
Plaintiff and other Muslim women and religious adherents to freely exercise their
106. Defendants policy, practice, and custom caused and continue to cause
responsible for the adoption, enactment, and enforcement of the illegal and
religious beliefs.
knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo policy requiring the hijab to be
26
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.27 Filed 10/29/21 Page 27 of 33
upon and substantially burdened Plaintiffs religious free exercise and continue to
women and religious adherents in violation of federal and state law and the United
States Constitution.
claims.
that Plaintiffs have a right to be free from the deprivation of life, liberty, and bodily
security without due process of law and to be free from unreasonable searches and
114. 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides a vehicle for a private cause of action against
state actors who engage in activities that violate an individual’s rights guaranteed by
115. At all material times, Defendants acted under color of law and
unreasonably when the violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Rights when they
circumstances.
116. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants were “state actors”
117. That while acting under the color of state law, Defendants, acting
individually and in concert with other Ferndale Police officials who they were
directing and controlling, violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States
the United States Constitution including, but not limited to the following:
of male officers;
officers;
officers being present and able to engage in a search and in the absences
of exigent circumstances;
28
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.29 Filed 10/29/21 Page 29 of 33
litigation.
118. Defendants acted under color of law and are not entitled to
119. Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional acts were the direct and
court to award, exemplary, compensatory, and punitive damages plus costs and
123. These customs, policies, and/or practices included but were not limited
to the following:
29
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 30 of 33
conduct;
and/or illegally detaining citizens that have no nexus with the city
of Ferndale;
30
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.31 Filed 10/29/21 Page 31 of 33
in their custody.
omissions were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, together with costs and attorney fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
Gross Negligence
31
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.32 Filed 10/29/21 Page 32 of 33
duty to exercise reasonable care was reckless and amounts to gross negligence.
DEFENDANTS as follows:
hijabless booking photo from the public record and their own
internal records to ensure that the photo will never again be viewed
of Defendants;
unlawful conduct;
i) Granting Plaintiff such other further relief as may be just and proper.
/s/
By: Amy V. Doukoure (P80641)
Attorney for Plaintiff
1905 S. Haggerty Rd. Suite 105
Canton, MI 48188
(248) 559-2247
[email protected]
33