Ryan Pownall vs. Larry Krasner Lawsuit Main Complaint
Ryan Pownall vs. Larry Krasner Lawsuit Main Complaint
and
TRACY TRIPP
in her individual capacity
District Attorney of Philadelphia
Three South Penn Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107
and
Defendants
I. INTRODUCTION
shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a
the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good
or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to
become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of
the criminal law the end justifies the means * * * would bring terrible retribution.
Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.” Justice Louis
D. Brandeis dissent Olmstead v. United States, 227 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575, 72
2. This quote, from Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his dissent, properly forecast
the damage caused by constitutional and common law torts as committed by these
speaking to the pattern and practice of this District Attorney’s Office that incorporates
the intentional manipulation of facts, lack of candor to the tribunal, and disregard of the
Judge Barbara McDermott, in her 17 October 2022 Statement of Findings of Fact and
2
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 3 of 29
The Commonwealth was also disingenuous with the Court when it asserted
that it had good cause to bypass the preliminary hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P.
565(A) because of the complexity of the case, the large number of witnesses
the Commonwealth would have to call, the expense, and the delay caused by
a preliminary hearing
....
4. Judge McDermott was not alone in finding significant fault in the manner
that these defendants illegally prosecuted Ryan Pownall. In rejecting the Defendants’
flawed appeals and illegal prosecution that inevitably led to the dismissal of the
how these Defendants intentionally and illegally manipulated a grand jury to use the
“… [w]e must not lose sight of the fact that “[o]ur communities rely on
3
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 4 of 29
See Justice Dougherty Special Concurrence Exhibit “B” at pp. 2-3. (emphasis added).
5. The Defendants’ malicious intent was revealed during the appeal of the
criminal prosecution:
“Now, for the first time before this Court, the DAO finally admits its true
intent in all this was simply to use Pownall’s case as a vehicle to force
judicial determination on ‘whether Section 508(a)(1) is facially
unconstitutional.’ DAO’s Reply Brief at 1; see id.at 6 (asserting ‘Section
508’s applicability to [Pownall] is not the subject of this appeal”). What’s
more, despite having assured the trial court it was not trying ‘to bar
[Pownall] from a defense[.]’ N.T. 11/25/2019 at 8, the DAO now boldly
asserts it would be appropriate for this Court to rewrite the law and
retroactively apply it to Pownall’s case because he supposedly ‘had fair
notice of his inability to rely on this unconstitutional defense[.]’ DAO’s Brief
at 10.”
4
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 5 of 29
Dougherty, J.] – 19 procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the
basis of sufficient evidence.” Pa.R.P.C. 3.8, Comment. Little that has
happened in this case up to this point reflects procedural justice. On the
contrary, the DAO’s prosecution of Pownall appears to be “driven by a
win-at-all-cost office culture” that treats police officers differently than
other criminal defendants. DAO CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT
REPORT, OVERTURNING CONVICTIONS — AND AN ERA 2 (June 15,
2021), available at tinyurl.com/CIU report (last visited July 19, 2022). This
is the antithesis of what the law expects of a prosecutor.
grand jury the relevant and applicable legal definitions of murder as well as legal
instructions on 18 Pa.C.S. § 508(a) (Peace Officer’s Use Of Force In Making Arrest), was
neither negligent nor inadvertent. These Defendants knew that Section 508 provides
legal justification for deadly force to a peace officer in making an arrest, yet, in plain
violation of Pownall’s constitutional rights, withheld it because it was fatal to the grand
8. Defendant Tripp’s fabrication to the court that she did provide legal
definitions for murder to the grand jury – another example of a lack of candor to the
Former ADA Tripp’s assertion that she left the statutes for the Grand Jury
was indirectly contradicted by former ADA Murphy’s testimony. Former
ADA Murphy, the then-supervisor of the Special Investigations Unit who
oversaw all Grand Jury proceedings for the District Attorney’s Office, was
present in the Grand Jury room on August 23, 2018 when the presentment
was read to the grand jurors. She did not provide the statutes to the grand
jurors and could not remember anyone providing the Grand Jury with a
copy of the appropriate statutes and definitions.
5
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 6 of 29
Defendant’s case at the time of the Grand Jury proceedings, she decided
not to advise the Grand Jury about Section 508 after consulting with
other, more senior Assistant District Attorneys.
The Notes of Testimony also establish that former ADA Tripp neglected to
bring the exhibits from the Defendant’s case for the grand jurors to review
in making their decision. She left the room to retrieve the exhibits, but, due
to the swiftness of the Grand Jury’s decision to approve the presentment,
she did not have an opportunity to return before the presentment was
issued. The Grand Jury began its deliberations on Presentment No. 4 at
12:48 p.m. and approved Presentment No. 4 just twelve minutes later at
1:00 p.m. The fact that Presentment No. 4 was returned in only twelve
minutes supports this Court’s conclusion that the grand jurors did not have
enough time to review the statutes.
9. Justice Dougherty made plain that these Defendants violated the Rules of
via their highly improper plan to poison the jury pool via press releases and a self-
serving documentary in which an entire sixty (60) minute episode of the “Philly D.A.”
6
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 7 of 29
10. In spite of the above, all the while they were on their PR campaign to
poison the jury pool against Pownall, lie to the court, mislead the grand jury, all to
deprive Pownall of his constitutional rights, they withheld highly relevant Brady1
evidence that Officer Pownall’s actions were justified. See Exhibit “C,” their expert
report from Gregory A. Warren, Ed.D. of American Law Enforcement Training and
However, with all of the facts presented in this case at this time, it is my
professional opinion that Officer Pownall acted in accordance with the [sic]
statutory laws of the State of Pennsylvania and within the confines and
structure of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on the use of deadly force by
law enforcement officers. I therefore conclude that Officer Pownall’s use of
deadly force in this case was justified.
See Gregory Warren, Ed.D. of American Law Enforcement Training and Consulting
Dougherty and Judge McDermott, the trial Court dismissed all charges against Officer
12. This is not the first time that these Defendants have manipulated facts,
intentionally mislead a court, or otherwise sought to foster their own agenda while
13. At the same time these Defendants chose to implement their illegal and
1 Krasner’s office has admitted, in Commonwealth v. Wharton, 2:01-cv-060049 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 12, 2022)
(ECF No. 314) that they indeed have a “heightened duty” when addressing Brady materials: As Judge
Goldberg wrote in his opinion sanctioning these defendants, “[T]he Office asserts that this heightened duty
only applies to disclosures to the defense of exculpatory facts under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), and Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d). (ECF No. 300-1 at 16.)”
7
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 8 of 29
unconstitutional agenda, using Pownall as a pawn to further their own scheme, they
were, just like in Commonwealth v. Pownall, violating their duty of candor to the
060049 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 12, 2022) (ECF No. 314). See Exhibit “D.”
Goldberg held it was the “procedures implemented by the district attorney” that
permitted prosecutors to mislead the court and obtain a result inconsistent with the
District Attorney’s mandate in the Wharton filings. Similarly, these same “procedures”
dismissed litigation.
misleading tribunals and whose own procedures mandate violations the Rules of
Pownall and Wharton, resulted in Judge Goldberg concluding the Wharton Rule 11
I also find that the violation was sufficiently “egregious” and “exceptional”
under the circumstances of this case to warrant sanctions under Rule 11.
....
When the misconduct or other basis for action against an attorney (other
than as set forth in Rule 11) or allegations of the same which, if
substantiated, would warrant discipline or other action against an attorney
admitted to practice before this court shall come to the attention of a Judge
of this court, whether by complaint or other-wise, and the applicable
procedure is not otherwise mandated by these Rules, the judge shall refer
the matter to the Chief Judge who shall issue an order to show cause.
8
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 9 of 29
For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be referred to the Chief
Judge of this Court.
16. The damage done to Pownall and our entire system of justice is
irreparable; their intentional actions and omissions were maliciously designed and
recklessly implemented to deprive Pownall of due process and repeatedly violate his
constitutional rights; this was done solely for the improper purpose of advancing their
own agenda.
to compensate Pownall and strongly punish these Defendants to ensure that neither
they nor those who may be empowered by their own agenda ever violate their mandate
constitutional rights identified in this complaint, Pownall, brings this action pursuant to
19. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States,
including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and is brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and/or 1343 (a) (3). The Court has pendent jurisdiction
and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in this Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The amount in controversy vastly exceeds the amount
9
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 10 of 29
20. The events giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint arose in the
County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Venue therefore lies in the United States District
III. PARTIES
was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
23. At all times relevant hereto, Krasner was acting under color of state law in
24. At all times relevant hereto Defendant Tracy Tripp (“Tripp”) was a citizen
25. At all times relevant hereto, Tripp was acting under color of state law in
corporation and is the legal entity responsible for itself, the Office of the District
Attorney for City of Philadelphia. The City is also responsible for the unidentified
Philadelphia prosecutors who assisted and abetted Krasner and Tripp in violating
10
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 11 of 29
27. The City of Philadelphia (The City) is a local government subject to liability
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the unconstitutional conditions created by the defendants,
acting directly and/or by and through their agents, servants, and employees.
28. The City is a “person” for purposes of this lawsuit and is liable for the
herein.
29. All Defendants are properly sued directly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their
own and their delegated deliberately indifferent unconstitutional decisions, false arrest,
failures to intervene, policies, practice, habits, customs, usages, training and derelict
forces in the complained of constitutional and statutory violations and resulting injuries.
30. The Defendant City is also properly sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the
challenged delegated final decisions of those who assisted and abetted Krasner, Tripp,
and/or Krasner’s and Tripp’s agents (actual or ostensible), servants, and/or employees
described further herein, and for those of any final delegated decision makers, with
IV. FACTS
32. Pownall was in full police uniform and operating marked patrol unit, RPC
11
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 12 of 29
1519, and was transporting a father and his two minor children to the Special Victims
33. While stopped at a red light at the intersection of Whitaker and Hunting
Park Ave., Pownall observed a red dirt bike being illegally operated by David Jones and
34. Mr. Jones’ motorcycle stalled on the sidewalk adjacent to a club at 4210
Whitaker Ave, and Pownall exited his police vehicle to investigate Mr. Jones.
35. As Pownall approached, Mr. Jones twisted his torso to his right side to
36. Based upon his education, training, and experience, Pownall recognized
Mr. Jones actions to be consistent with an individual concealing a weapon and reacted
accordingly by grabbing Mr. Jones to protect his safety and the safety of others in the
immediate area, including the father and two minor children in the rear of Plaintiff’s
police vehicle.
37. Pownall immediately felt the outline of a handgun concealed in Mr. Jones’
38. The adult male in the rear of Pownall’s police vehicle also shouted to Mr.
39. During this struggle, Pownall began to lose physical control over Mr. Jones
40. Pownall feared for his life and pulled his issued firearm and again ordered
12
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 13 of 29
41. In response to Mr. Jones’ actions, and in accord with Section 508, Pownall
42. Consistent with his education, training, and experience, Pownall cleared
his firearm malfunction but momentarily lost sight of Mr. Jones and his concealed
firearm.
44. Mr. Jones was transported to Temple University Hospital and pronounced
shortly thereafter.
45. Police recovered a stolen firearm loaded with multiple live rounds of
ammunition on the ground near where the encounter between Pownall and Mr. Jones
occurred.
46. While the investigation proceeded, Kelley B. Hodge was elected by the
Attorney for the City of Philadelphia; Ms. Hodge was elected on July 20, 2017 and sworn
Attorney Hodge and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, an investigation into
General.
48. In November 2017, Krasner won the general election for Philadelphia
District Attorney.
13
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 14 of 29
49. On January 2, 2018, Krasner was sworn to office as the District Attorney of
Philadelphia.
50. When Krasner took control of the District Attorney’s office, the Pownall
file was transferred back to Krasner, Tripp, and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s
Office.
51. After receiving the investigative file, Krasner, Tripp, and their agents,
Investigating Grand Jury, impaneled pursuant to the Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 4541 et. seq., to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the
52. Based upon the evidence obtained and considered by the Investigating
Grand Jury, and only after the defendants intentionally and deliberately deprived the
grand jury of the necessary legal definitions or instructions, the members of the 29th
institute criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Ryan Pownall and charge him with the
following offenses:
David Jones.
14
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 15 of 29
54. After charging Pownall with these crimes, the Defendants disingenuously
asserted they had good cause to bypass the preliminary hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P.
565(A) because of the complexity of the case. See Exhibit “A” at p. 10.
successfully moved to unseal their presentment, after criminally charging Pownall, then
directed the press to the investigating grand jury’s purported factual findings, knowing
that such a salacious (and one-sided) news story would be covered by local and national
56. The case was assigned to the Honorable Barbara A. McDermott who
57. After achieving the extensive local news coverage the Defendants desired
and achieved, they next fought to keep the trial in Philadelphia before a Philadelphia jury,
in an effort to “stack the deck” and secure a conviction against Pownall which the
58. The only obstacle that remained in the Defendants’ path to conviction was
59. To prevent any finder of fact from considering this constitutional statute
which negates the probable cause for arrest, “the DAO, in the District Attorney’s own
words, did something ‘unusual’ and ‘creative’ – it challenged Section 508 and its
corresponding suggested jury instruction because it believed they are ‘not fair.’” See
60. On November 24, 2019, a little more than a month before trial was set to
15
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 16 of 29
begin, yet “more than a year and two months after [Pownall]’s arrest … and more than
two years and five months after” Jones’s death, Trial Court Op., 1/2/2020 at 2 n.2 – the
District Attorney’s Office informed the trial court and Pownall that it intended to file a
motion seeking to bar use of the suggested standard jury instruction relative to the
peace officer justification defense. The District Attorney’s Office filed its motion in
61. Justice Dougherty’s special concurrence “pulled back the curtain” on the
(setting forth circumstances in which a peace officer’s use of deadly force while making
an arrest is not a crime) Defendant Krasner filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to
preclude the trial court from using Suggested Standard Jury Instruction (Crim)
63. The basis for this argument (recognized as an improper purpose by Justice
Dougherty as identified in Exhibit “B,”) – that Section 508 supposedly violated the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution based upon their interpretation of
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) – even though it was the law known to all
16
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 17 of 29
64. On December 18, 2019, Pownall through his counsel filed a motion to
quash the grand jury presentment. Rather than responding to Pownall’s motion, the
Defendants made an unscheduled appearance before the trial court and demanded the
65. In doing so, the Defendants warned they’d take an interlocutory appeal –
with or without the court’s permission – should the court deny its motion. See Exhibit
“B” at p. 16.
66. The Defendants followed through on this threat and filed an improper
67. As described above, while criminal charges were pending and Pownall
D.A.” focused on the District Attorney’s Office, which aired during the Defendants’
frivolous appeal.
comments served no legitimate law enforcement purpose and served only to “poison the
well of public opinion.” See Justice Dougherty Special Concurrence, Exhibit “B” at p. 17,
n. 13.
17
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 18 of 29
evidence.
71. The Defendants possessed and failed to provide Pownall and his lawyers
the expert report of Gregory A. Warren, Ed.D. of American Law Enforcement Training
72. The existence of this expert report was only discovered after Pownall’s
lawyers asked whether the Defendants had an expert and expert report.
73. Then, Warren’s expert report was only provided to Pownall and his
lawyers after Judge McDermott Ordered the Defendants to produce this Brady
evidence.
the disingenuous arguments they repeated to the tribunal and because it was fatal to the
75. All of the above-described acts were done by the Defendants intentionally,
federally protected rights; they were done pursuant to the preexisting and ongoing
76. As identified in this document and attached opinions, the Defendants have
procedures to mislead the tribunal and others as necessary to foster their own activist
18
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 19 of 29
77. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of each of the
Defendants, Plaintiff has been substantially injured. These injuries include, without
limitation, the loss of constitutional and federal rights, great pain and emotional
distress, and/or aggravation of pre-existing conditions, and ongoing special damages for
significant PTSD type symptoms, including sadness, anxiety, stress, anger, depression,
79. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages on all of his claims against the
19
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 20 of 29
82. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and all of the
83. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were
acting under the color of state law in their capacity as prosecutors and/or law
enforcement officers of the City of Philadelphia and their acts or omissions were
84. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly
cause under the Fourth Amendment and in violation of due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly
86. The individual Defendants violated Mr. Pownall’s Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to be free from false arrest and malicious prosecution without
probable cause and without due process when they worked in concert to secure false
procure, and continue a criminal proceeding for the criminal charges brought without
probable cause against Mr. Pownall in an effort to conceal their prior violations of Mr.
20
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 21 of 29
88. Defendants engaged in the conduct described herein that was willful,
malicious, in bad faith, and in complete and reckless disregard of Mr. Pownall’s
lack of probable cause was malicious, disgraceful, outrageous, and shocking, in the light
of the circumstances.
reflecting the egregious conduct of the Defendant Krasner and their unidentified
agents, servants, and/or employees before the grand jury which resulted in this
miscarriage of justice.
91. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces
92. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each
other.
deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other
94. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of
conduct.
95. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting
21
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 22 of 29
suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as
determined at trial.
97. The Defendants, by their actions as set forth herein, intended to inflict
social opportunities.
outrageous conduct, as set forth herein, the Plaintiff has suffered irreparable damage to
99. The Defendants have caused the injuries, damages and losses to the
Plaintiff by their outrageous conduct; and, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover against the
Defendants for the injuries, damages and losses set forth herein.
incurred special damages, including lost earnings, lost earning capacity, medically
related expenses which are continuing, and other related expenses, in amounts to be
established at trial.
U.S.C. § 1988 and pre-judgment interest as permitted by federal law. There may also be
22
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 23 of 29
damages, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named
Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual
limit to guarantee a jury trial, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court permits.
105. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and Defendants to
106. In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 56 L.
23
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 24 of 29
Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress
intended municipalities and other local government entities to be included among those
107. Pownall had the following clearly established rights at the time of the
complained of conduct:
these Defendants which permitted the outrageous actions with indifference to obvious
24
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 25 of 29
109. The Defendants were at all relevant times acting under the color of state
law.
110. These Defendants knew or should have known of these rights at the time
111. These Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the
complained of conduct.
practices which permitted and encouraged the outrageous actions described in this
Complaint.
of citizens, which were moving forces behind and proximately caused the violations of
Plaintiff’s constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other claims,
resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among
related policies, procedures, customs, practices, and/or failed to properly train and/or
25
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 26 of 29
Philadelphia and were moving forces in the constitutional injuries sustained by Plaintiff.
intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him
other damages.
suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as
determined at trial.
incurred special damages, including medically related expenses and may continue to
established at trial.
120. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings and
impaired earning capacities from the not yet fully ascertained sequelae of his closed
26
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 27 of 29
U.S.C. §1988 and pre-judgment interest permitted by federal law. There may also be
limit to guarantee a jury trial, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court permits.
123. The Defendants' actions as set forth herein, were malicious, outrageous,
violations were a wanton and willful disregard for the rights and feelings of the Plaintiff.
aforementioned acts was to permanently harm the Plaintiff and violate his rights.
126. The Defendants, by their actions as identified in this complaint and the
future, reputation, name, honor, integrity, and respect within his community and any
27
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 28 of 29
outrageous conduct, as set forth herein, the Plaintiff was forced to suffer, and will
limit to guarantee a jury trial, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court permits.
128. Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiff and against
g) any further relief that this court deems just and proper.
28
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
____________________________________________
215.592.1000 POWNALL V. KRASNER, ET AL.
215.592.8360 (FAX)
WWW.BEASLEYFIRM.COM
COMPLAINT
Case 2:22-cv-04191-GAM Document 1 Filed 10/19/22 Page 29 of 29