Post v MDOC
-
Upload
justin-hinkley -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Post v MDOC
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
1/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
1
of
43
Page
ID#1
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EUGENE
POST,
as the Personal
Representative
for the
Estate
of Terri
L. Greene
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
V.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
MARY
T.
WIDENER,
in her official
and
individual
capacities,
CHARLES
RUFFIN,
in his
official
and
individual
capacities,
TIMOTHY
ALANA,
in his official
and
individual
capacities,
EATON
COUNTY,
EATON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,
MICHAEL
RAINES,
in
his
official and
individual
capacities,
FRED
MCPHAIL,
in his official and
individual
capacities,
JOHN
AND
JANE
DOES
1
through
10,
in
their
official
and individual
capacities,
1
and CHRISTOPHER PERRIEN,
Defendants.
Fillipe
Iorio
(P58741)
Kurt Kline
(P7229I)
Attorneys
for Plaintiff
KALNIZ,
LORIO &
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981 Cascade
Road,
SE
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
Phone:
(616)
940-1911
Fax:
(616)
940-1942
kklinegkifiaw.com
COMPLAINT
AND JURY
DEMAND
THERE IS NO OTHER CIVIL
ACTION
BETWEEN
THESE PARTIES
ARISING
OUT
OF
THE
SAME TRANSACTION OR
OCCURRENCE
AS ALLEGED IN
THIS
COMPLAINT PENDING
IN
THIS
COURT,
NOR
HAS
ANY
SUCH
ACTION BEEN
PREVIOUSLY
FILED
AND
DISMISSED
OR TRANSFERRED
AFTER HAVING
Law Offices oi
BEEN
ASSIGNED
TO
A
JUDGE.
KALANZ,
10R10
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
EPA..
4981
Cascada
Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
M14I 49546
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
2/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
2
of
43
Page
ID#2
NOW
COMES
the
Plaintiff
Eugene
Post,
as
the
Personal
Representative
for the Estate
of Terri
L.
Greene,
by
an d
through
his
attorneys,
the
law
offices
of
Kalniz,
lorio
&
Feldstein
Co., L.P.A.,
and for his
Complaint hereby
states
and
avers as
follows:
JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE
1,
Eugene
Post
is
the
duly
appointed
Personal
Representative
of
the
Estate
of
Terri
L.
Greene
( Ms.
Greene ),
his
daughter, appointed by
the Probate Court for the
County
of
Eaton,
State of
Michigan,
on
October
7, 2011,
Case Number
11-48208-DE,
2.
The
Michigan
Department
of
Corrections
( MDOC )
is
a
governmental
agency
of
the
State of
Michigan,
created
pursuant
to
the
laws
of
the
State of
Michigan,
and
is
charged
with
supervising
parolees
and
probationers
released from
prison
and/or
jail,
and
is
charged
with
administering
and
supervising
the
State of
Michigan's
Work Release
Program.
3. At
all times relevant
to
this
Complaint,
Defendant
Mary
Widener
( Defendant
Widener )
was
a
probation
agent
employed
by
the
MDOC,
an d
was
acting
under
color
of
law
and
pretense
of
the
statutes,
ordinances,
regulations,
laws,
customs,
policies,
and
usages
of the
State
of
Michigan
and Eaton
County
and was
acting
in
the
course and
scope
of
her
employment
with the MDOC
at
the
time
of the
acts
and/or omissions
complained
of
herein,
and is
being
sued
in her
official
and
individual
capacities.
4. At
all times
relevant
to
this
Complaint,
Defendant
Charles Ruffin
( Defendant Ruffin )
was a
probation
agent
employed
by
the
MDOC,
and
was
acting
under
color
and
pretense
of the
statutes, ordinances,
regulations,
laws,
customs,
policies,
and
usages
of
the
State of
Michigan
and
Eaton
County
and was
acting
in the
course
and
scope
of
his
2
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
3/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
3
of
43
Page
ID#3
employment
with
the
MDOC
at
the
time
of
the
acts and/or
omissions
complained
of
herein,
and is
being
sued
in his official
and
individual
capacities.
5.
At
all
times relevant
to
this
Complaint,
Defendant
Timothy
Alana
( Defendant
Alana )
was
employed
by
the
MDOC,
and
was
acting
under
color
and
pretense
of
the
statutes,
ordinances,
regulations,
laws, customs,
policies,
and
usages
of the State
of
Michiga
and Eaton
County
an d
was
acting
in
the
course
an d
scope
of
his
employment
with
the
MDOC
at the time
of the
acts
and/or
omissions
complained
of
herein,
and
is
being
sued
in his
official
and
individual
capacities.
6.
Defendant
Eaton
County
is
a
municipal
corporation
formed
pursuant
to
the
laws
of
Michigan,
and
one
of
its functions
is
to
organize,
maintain,
operate,
staff,
an d
supervis
a
sheriff
s
department,
7.
Defendant
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department
is
an
Eaton
County agency
believed
to
be
responsible
for
the
oversight,
policy
and
procedure
making,
staffing,
training,
an d
rule
enforcement
regarding
sheriff's
deputies
and staff
that
act in Eaton
County,
Michigan,
including
specifically,
those
law
enforcement
officers
charged
with
administering
the Eaton
County
Jail
and
the
Eaton
County
Work Release
Program.
8.
At
all
times
relevant
to
this
Complaint,
Defendant
Michael
Raines
( Defendant
Raines )
was
the
Sheriff
of
Eaton
County
and
was
responsible
for
the
supervision
and
training
of Eaton
County
Sheriff
personnel
and
is believed
to
have
been
responsible
for
the
oversight,
policy
an d
procedure
making, staffing,
training
and
rule
enforcement
regarding
sheriff
s
deputies
that
act
in
Eaton
County,
Michigan,
an d
is
being
sued
in
his
official
and
individual
capacities.
Law Offices
at
KALNIZ,
(ORO
&
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.PA.
4981 Cascade
Rd
ST.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
H
3
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
4/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
4
of
43
Page
ID#4
9.
At all
times
relevant
to
this
Complaint,
Defendant
Fred McPhail
( Defendant
McPhail )
was
the
Undersheriff
of
Eaton
County
and
was
responsible
for
the
supervision
and
training
of
Eaton
County
Sheriff
personnel
an d
is
believed
to
have
been
responsible
for
the
oversight,
policy
and
procedure
making,
staffing,
training
and
rule enforcement
regarding
sheriff's
deputies
that
act
in
Eaton
County,
Michigan,
and
is
being
sued
in his
official
and
individual
capacities.
10. Defendants
John
and Jane
Does
1
through
10
are
currently
unknown
probation
and
parole
officers
employed
by
the
MDOC
and/or
Eaton
County
sheriff's
deputies
charged
with
the
supervision
of
inmates,
parolees,
and
probationers
within
the
MDOC
and Eaton
County
Jail
and
whose
identities
are no t
known
at
this
time
and
were
no t
able to
be
obtained
through
reasonable
efforts
an d
diligence,
and
are
being
sued
in
their
official
and
individual
capacities.
11 .
The
MDOC at
all
times
relevant
to
this
Complaint
was
responsible
for the
hirin
training,
supervising,
disciplining,
and
instructing
of
its
probation
agents
in
the
performance
of
their
job
duties
and
was
responsible
for
setting
policies
and
procedures
for
employees'
and
probation
agents'
conduct
and
enforcement
of
the
law.
12.
Eaton
County,
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Defendant
Raines,
and
Defendant
McPhail
at all
times
relevant
to
this
Complaint
were
responsible
for
hirin
training,
supervising,
disciplining,
and
instructing
their
deputies
in
the
performance
o
their
job
duties
and
were
responsible
for
setting
policies
an d
procedures
for
employees
an d
deputies'
conduct
and
enforcement
of
the
law.
13.
Christopher
A.
Perrien
( Defendant
Perrien )
was
at
all
times
relevant
hereto
an
inmate
Latv
Offices of
with
the
Michigan
Department
of Corrections
serving
a
300
day jail
sentence
in
th
KALMZ,
IORIO
;
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
EPA..i
4981
Cascade
Rd.
5.6.
Grand
Rapids,
MI
49546
4
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
5/43
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
6/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
6
of
43
Page
ID#6
for
stealing/retaining
a
financial
transaction
device
without
consent
in
violation
of
MCL
750.157N
I
(Habitual
Criminal
4th
Offense)
in
56th
Circuit
Court
Case
No.
11-99-F111.
20.
Defendant
Perrien
was
sentenced
in
Case
No.
11-99-FH
on
September
1
2011
before
Judge
Thomas
S.
Eve land.
Defendant
Perrien
was sentenced
to
300
days
in the
Eaton
County
Jail
but
was
ordered
eligible
for the
work
release
program
between
the
hours
of
8:00
a.m.
and
7:00
p.m.
Monday
through
Saturday
with
a
45
minute
drive
time.
At the
time
of
his
sentencing,
Defendant
Perrien
was
in
violation
of
his
parole.
Additionally,
there was
a
parole
violation
warrant
type
#2
issued
by
the
MDOC-Kent/Grand
Rapids
Office
for
Defendant
Perrien
that
disqualified
him
from
work
release.
21.
At
sentencing,
Defendant
Perrien
represented
that
he
was
employed
with
Advanced
Building
Contractors
Inc.,
located at
4660
South
Hagadorn
Rd.,
East
Lansing,
Michigan
48823-5371
with
a
telephone
number
of 517-894-6038.
Defendant
Perrien
provided
a
letter
fipm
his
alleged
employer,
signed
by
on e
Crystal
Gonzales,
Human
Resource
Manager
for
Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc.,
dated
August
8
2011
that
indicated
that
Defendant
Perrien
was
employed
with
Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc.
The
same
was
filed
with
the court
on
September
2,
2011.
22. Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc.
is a
fictitious
company
created
by
Defendant
Perrien
that
did
no t exist
on
September
1
2011,
does
not
now
exist,
and
ha s
never
existed.
The
August
8
2011
letter
provided
by
Defendant
Perrien
was
no t
on
company
letterhead
and
a
review
of
Michigan
business records
reveals that
Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc. ha s
never
existed.
Law Offices
of
KALNIZ,
IORIO
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
LEA.
4981
Ce.s.cde
Rd.
S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
6
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
7/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
7
of
43
Page
ID#7
23.
Defendant
Widener
was
present
during
Defendant
Perrien's
sentencing
and
did
no t
object
to
the
court-ordered
work
release
for
Defendant
Perrien,
Defendant
Widener
knew
or
should
have
known that
Defendant
Perrien
was
no t
eligible
for
work
release.
24 .
Defendant
Ruffin
was
the
MDOC
probation
agent
assigned
to
Defendant
Perrien's
case.
Mr.
Ruffin
did
not
object
to
Defendant
Perrien's
court ordered
work
release.
On
September
16,
2011,
Defendant
Ruffin
and
his
supervisor,
Defendant
Alarm,
approved
Defendant
Perfien
for
work
release
by
executing
an
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Office,
Corrections
Division
Work
Release
Agreement.
Upon
information
an d
belief,
had
Defendant
Ruffin
o r
Defendant
Alana
made
any
attempt
to
verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
with
Advanced
Building
Contractors
Inc.,
they
would
have
learned
that
the
company
was
fictitious
an d
that
Defendant
Perrien
was
not
employed
as
required
for
work
release.
25.
Upon
information
and
belief,
the
MDOC
and
its
employees
an d
agents,
including,
but
no t
limited
to,
Defendant
Widener,
Defendant
Ruffin,
and
Defendant Alana,
failed
t
verify
whether
Defendant
Perrien
was
actually employed
an d
failed
to
verify
whether
Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc.
actually
existed,
a
cursory
review
of
which
would
have
revealed
that
no
such
company
existed.
26.
Upon
information
an d belief,
Eaton
County,
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Departme
Defendant
Raines,
Defendant
McPhail,
an d
their
employees
and
agents
failed
to
verify
whether
Defendant
Perrien
was
actually
employed
and
failed
to
verify
wheth
Advanced
Building
Contractors,
Inc.
actually
existed,
a
cursory
review
of
which
would
have
revealed
that
no
such
company
existed.
Law Offices
of
KALMZ,
IOR10
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981
Cascade
Rd.
S.E
Grand
RaPds,
MI 49546:
7
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
8/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
8
of
43
Page
ID#8
27.
Upon
information
and
belief,
Defendant
Perrien
was
on
court-approved
work
release
on
September
22,
2011
at
the
time that
he murdered
Ms. Greene
and
Michael
Greene.
28.
Rather
than
going
to
work
on
September
22, 2011,
Defendant
Perrien
went
to
the
Greene
residence
at
7167
Eaton
Highway,
Delta
Township,
Eaton
County,
Michigan.
There
Defendant Perrien
robbed
and
imirdered
Ms.
Greene
an d
Michael
Greene
by
multiple
gunshot
wounds.
Following
the
murders,
Defendant
Perrien
sold
belongings
of
Ms. Greene
and
Michael
Greene,
showered
at
his
girlfriend's
house,
and
ate
dinner
before
returning
to
the
Eaton
County
Jail
that
evening.
29. Ms.
Greene's
body
was
found
by
her
parents dumped
in a
pond
located
in
the
Greene
backyard.
Ms.
Greene
ha d
been
shot twice
in
the head.
Ms.
Greene
was found
underneath
a
wheelbarrow
used
to
move her
to
the
pond
and
a
blue
moving
blanket
was
covering
the
wheelbarrow.
30.
Following
the
murders,
Defendant
Perrien
continued
to
leave
the Eaton
County
jail
on
work
release.
Law
enforcement
officers
were able to
track
Defendant
Perrien's
movements
via
a
global positioning
system
( GPS )
in
Ms.
Greene's
cell
phone.
Additional
evidence
linked
Defendant
Perrien
to
the murders
and
he
was
arrested
days
later
while
ou t
on
work release.
Subsequent
GPS
reports
established
that
Defenda
Perrien
drove
by
the
Greene's
house
approximately
three
times
casing
the
location
in
the
days prior
to
September
22,
2011 and
that
his
car
was
located
at
the Greene's
home
on
September
22,
2011
between
11:28 a.m.
an d
1:40
p.m.,
the time
the
investigators
believe
the murders
occurred.
Law
Offices of
KALNE,
IOW
&
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.1
4981
Cascade
Rd.
S E
Grand
Rapids,
MI
49546,
8
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
9/43
Case
1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed
09/19/13
Page
9
of
43
Page
ID#9
31.
In
April,
2013
Defendant
Perrien
was
tried and
convicted
on
two
counts
of
first-degree
felony
murder and
two counts
of
being
a
felon
in
possession
of
a
firearm. On
May
9,
2013
Defendant
Perrien
was
sentenced
to
life
in
prison
without
the
possibility
of
parole.
32.
Upon
information and
belief,
prior
to
September
1 2011,
Defendant
Perrien
had
a
long
and sometimes
violent
criminal
record
that
disqualified
him from
the work release
program
which the
Defendants knew
or
should
have
known
about.
33.
Upon
information and
belief,
prior
to
September
1,
2011
Defendant Perrien
had
a
history
of
failing
to
report
to
his
probation
officers,
of
violating parole,
of
absconding
from
parole,
an d of
failing
to
report
under
work release
programs,
a
history
of
which
disqualified
him from
the
work release
program
which the
Defendants
knew o r
should
have
known about.
34.
Specifically,
prior
to
September
1
2011
Defendant
Perrien was
charged
and
convicte
of the
following
criminal offenses
of
which the
Defendants
knew
o r
should
have
known
about:
Breaking
and
entering
of
a
vehicle
to
steal
property
in violation
of
MCL750.356(A)
&
(B)
and
habitual
offender status
769.11
(12/16/1997)
Uttering
an d
publishing
in violation
of MCL750.249
and
habitual
offender
status
769.11
(5/2/2000)
Illegal
sale
of
use
of a
financial transaction
device
in
violation
of
MCL750.157(Q)
and habitual
offender
status
769.11(5/31/2000)
Uttering
and
publishing
in violation
ofMCL750.249
(7/19/2001)
Illegal
sale
or use
of
a
financial
transaction
device
in violation
of
MCL750.157(Q) (8/27/2001)
Stealing
o r
retaining
without
consent
a
financial
transaction
device
in
violation
of
MCL750.157(N)(1)
(8/30/2001)
Lew Offices
at
KALN1Z,
IORIO
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.PA,
Larceny
by
false
personation
in violation
of
MCL750.363
(10/31/2001)
4981 Cascade
Rd.
S.E.
Grand
RapIds,
MI
49546
9
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
10/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
10
of
43
Page
ID#10
Uttering
and
publishing
in violation
of
MCL750.249
and
habitual
offender
status
769.12
(9/10/2010)
First
Degree
Home Invasion
in
violation
of MCL750.11082
and
habitual
offender
status
769.12
(9/1012010)
Defendant
Perrien also
ha d
the
following
additional
probation
violations:
Issuing
checks
without an
account o r
without
sufficient funds
in
violation
of
MCL750.131(A)(1)
an d
habitual
offender
status
769.12
(11/18/2010)
Stealing
or
retaining
without
consent
a
financial
transaction
device
in
violation
of
MCL750.157(N)(1)
and habitual
offender
status
769.12
(4/16/2010)
Multiple
failed
drug
tests;
Arrested
for
driving
under the
influence
of
drugs
with
minors
in the
car;
Leaving
the
State
of
Michigan
without
permission;
Aggravated
domestic assault
of
Rayna
Kikos
on
August
18,
2006.
35.
Upon
information
and
belief,
prior
to
September
1
2011
Defendant
Perrien
violated
his
parole
approximately
twenty-six
(26)
times,
absconded
on
parole
at
least three
times,
failed
to
report
on
parole
on
multiple
occasions,
and
was
assigned
to
work release
in
1999
but
failed
to
go
to
work,
all
of which
Defendants
knew o r
should have
known
about.
36.
Upon
information
and
belief,
prior
to
September
1
2011,
Defendant
Perrien
was
a
dangerous
and
violent criminal. Defendant
Perrien
ha d
an
assault
and
battery
conviction
in
1994,
while
on
parole
was
sent to the
Correction
Center
for
ninety
(90)
days
for
assault,
and
was
ordered
to the Technical
Rules
Violation
Center
for
a domestic
violence situation
on
July
8, 2007,
all
of
which Defendants
knew of
or
should
have
Law Offices
of
KALNIZ,
W
&
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.PA.
known about.
Additionally,
at various
times,
Defendant
Perrien
was
subject
to
nine
(9)
4981
Cascade
Rd.
Grand
Rapids,
M1
49546
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
11/43
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
12/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
12
of
43
Page
ID#12
alleged employer,
requesting
a
weekly
pay
stub,
requiring
a
letter
of
verification
on
company
letterhead,
or
searched
public
databases
for
company
records,
Defendant
Perrien
would
not
have
been
granted
work
release
o r
his work release
would
have
been
immediately
revoked
and
Defendant
Perrien
would have
been
in
jail
on
September
22,
2011
and would
no t
have
had
the
opportunity
to
murder
Ms. Greene
and
Michael
Greene.
41 On
September
1
2011
the Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department's
policy
regarding
work
release
provided
in relevant
part
that:
Work
schedule,
hours,
travel,
and
any
other
details
are the
responsibility
of the
inmate,
court
and
probation
department,
no t
the
Eaton
County
Sherins
Office].
Only
the
courts
o r the
probation
office
has
the
authority
to
make
any
changes
in
the
work
schedule
o r hours
worked.
All work
release
orders
established
by
the
courts will be followed
without
exception.
42.
Upon
information
and
belief,
on
September
1
2011 it
was
the
official
policy
of
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department
to assume
that
the
judge
assigned
to
the
case and
the defendant's
parole
agent,
an
MDOC
employee,
had
vetted
the
parolee's
employment
before
releasing
a
parolee
from
jail
for
work
release.
43.
In
a
statement attributed
to Defendant
McPhail,
he
stated
that
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
ha d
no
control
over the
work
release
program.
Defendant
McPhail was
quoted
as
stating
If
we had
any
input
in
the
process,
a
career
felon
like
Perrien would
no t
have
been
granted
work
release.
44.
On December
22,
2011 the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
issued
a
press
release
concerning
Defendant
Perrien.
The
press
release
provides
in
relevant
part
as
follows:
Law Offices
of
KALNIZ,
(ORO &
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981
Cascade Rd.
S.E
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49548
12
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
13/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
13
of
43
Page
ID#13
Sheriff Raines
stated,
Perrien
was
assigned
a
Probation/Parole
Agent
but
his
actual
employment
was
never
verified.
Our
investigation
determined
he
was
on
work-release
without
actually
having
a
job.
Sheriff
Raines
immediately
revoked
Perrien's
work release
status
pending
further
court
action
and he
remained
in
our
custody.
Sheriff
Raines
said,
Work
release
is
a
valuable
tool,
designed
for those
convicted
of
relatively
minor
offenses
to
serve
their
time
in
jail,
while
maintaining
their
ability
to
support
their
family.
However,
in
my opinion,
Perrien,
never
should
have been
granted
the
opportunity
for
Work
Release,
considering
his
lengthy
criminal
history,
which
began
nearly
20
years
ago .
As a
result
of Perrien's release
without
proper
oversight,
Sheriff
Raines
ordered
a
review
of ALL
work
release inmates
and took
the
following
measures
to
address these
concerns.
Promptly
contracted
with
a
private
company
to
monitor
ALL
work release
inmates
with a
GPS
ankle
tether
device.
The cost
of
the
tether
will be
directly
billed to
and
paid
for
by
the
inmate,
no t
the
taxpayer.
42
Require
work
releasers
to
provide
an
original pay
stub
each
pay
period
to
Jail Staff
in addition
to
any requirements
of
the
court.
43
Require
work releasers
to
provide
verification
of
employment
an d
work
hours
on
company
letterhead to
Jail Staff
in
addition
to
any
requirements
of
the court.
Sheriff
Raines
stated,
any
violations
while
on
work release
will result
in
the
immediate
termination
of
work
release
status,
until
o r unless
it
is
reinstated
by
a
court
order .
45.
Upon
information
and
belief,
Eaton
County
an d
the
Eaton
County
Sherifrs
Department
did
no t
have
a
policy
and failed
to train
its
employees
and
agents
including
sheriff
s
deputies
regarding
verifying eligibility
and
employment
of
a
parolee
before
allowing
a
parolee
ou t of
jail
for
work
release.
46.
Upon
information
and
belief,
on
September
1
2011
the MDOC
did
no t
have
a
statewide
j
policy
for
verifying
eligibility
and
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
ou t ot
ail
tor
Law Offices
of
KALNIZ,
(ORO
&
FELDSTEIN
CO., L.P/L
4981
Cascade
Rd.
S.E.
Grand
RapVs,
MI 49546
13
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
14/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
14
of
43
Page
ID#14
work release.
Rather,
the
MDOC's
policy
was
to
assume
that the
local
sheriff
s
office verified
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out
of
jail
for work
release.
47.
Upon
information
and
belief,
the
MDOC
did
no t
have
a
policy
and failed
to
train
its
employees
and
agents
including parole
and
probation
agents
regarding
verifying
eligibility
and
employment
of a
parolee
before
allowing
a
parolee
ou t of
jail
for work
release.
COUNT
I
COMMON
LAW
GROSS
NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin
and
Alana
(in
their
official
and
individual
capacities)
48.
Plaintiff
herein
incorporates
by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1)
through
forty-seven
(47)
as
if
fully
restated
herein.
49 .
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener, Ruffin,
Alana,
and
other
MDOC
employees
and
agents
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a.
The
duty
to
abide
by
the
laws
of
the
state
of
Michigan;
b.
The
duty
to
properly
and
adequately
hire,
train,
supervise,
and
discipline
MDOC
parole
and
probation
officers
acting
in the
State
of
Michigan
under
color of
law;
c.
The
duty
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
an d
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
MDOC;
d. The
duty
to
investigate,
review,
report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations
in
general
and
work release
violations
specifically
as
required
by
Michigan
law;
e. The
duty
to
arrest
a
parolee
o r
probationer
for
parole
o r
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
Law Offices
of
KALNIZ,
fORIO
&
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L, PA.
4961
Cascade
Rd.
S.E.
Grand
Raptcfs
MI 49545
14
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
15/43
1
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
15
of
43
Page
ID#15
f.
The
duty
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise
parolees
and
probationers
on
work
release,
including
the
duty
to
verify
that
said
parolees
and
probationers
have
valid
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on
work release
and
to
verify
that
said
individuals
maintain
valid
employment
during
the
course
of their
work
release;
g.
The
duty
to
ensure that
parolees
and
probationers
released
from
jail
on
wor
release are
eligible
for
work
release;
h.
The
duty
to
act
as
a
reasonable
public
entity,
state
agency,
or
parole
o r
probation
agent
would
act
under
the
circumstances
then
and
there
existing;
and
i.
The
duty
to
have
a
reasonable
policy
o r
custom
concerning
work
release.
50,
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alarm,
and
other
MDOC
employees
and
agents
breached
their
respective
duties
owed
to
plaintiff
in the
following particular
ways:
a.
Failure
to
abide
by
the
laws
of the
State
of
Michigan;
b. Failure
to
properly
and
adequately
hire,
train,
supervise,
and
discipline
MDOC
parole
and
probation
agents;
c.
Failure
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
an d
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of the
MDOC,
and
to
specifically
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien;
d. Failure
to
investigate,
review,
report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations
in
general
an d
work
release
violations
specifically
as
required
by
Michigan
law;
e. Failure
to
arrest Defendant
Perrien
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the
same
exists;
f.
Failure
to
revoke
Defendant
Perrien's
parole
for
numerous
parole
o r
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
Lew
Offices of
KALMZ,
10F110 &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
4981 Cascade
Rd. SE
Grand
Rapids,
hi 49546
1 5
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
16/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
16
of
43
Page
ID#16
g.
Failure
to
verify,
monitor and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien,
including
the
duty
to
verify
Defendant
Perrien's
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on work
release and failure
to
verify
that
Defendant
Perrien
maintained
valid
employment
during
the
course
of his work
release;
h.
Failure
to
verify
that
Defendant
Perrien
was
eligible
for
work
release
prior
to
being
released
from
jail;
i. Failure
to
act
as a
reasonable
public
entity,
state
agency
o r
parole
o r
probatio
agent
would
act under
the
circumstances then
and
there
existing;
an d
j.
Failure
to
maintain
a
reasonable
policy
or
custom
concerning
work
release.
51. In
breaching
said
duties as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana
and
other
employees
and
agents
of Defendant
MDOC acted
grossly
negligent
as
that
term
is
used
in MCL 691.1407
because
the
acts
were
conduct
so reckless
as
to
demonstrate
a
substantial
lack
of
concern
for whether an
injury
result[ed]
to
plaintiff's
decedent,
52.
In
breaching
said
duties
as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana
and other
employees
and
agents
of
Defendant
MDOC
acted
willfully,
wantonly,
maliciously
and
in
bad
faith.
53. As a
direct
and
proximate
result
of the
above
grossly
negligent,
willilil,
wanton,
malicious an d
bad faith
acts
of the
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana
and
other
employees
and
agents
of
Defendant
MDOC,
the
plaintiff
s
decedent
was
murdered
an d
suffered
conscious
severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock
and
fright,
and
the
fear
of
impending
murder
up
to
and
through
the
time
of her death.
Offices
of
KALN1Z,
fORIO
FFLOSTEIN CO.,
LP4.
4981
Cascada Rd.
S.E.
Grand
Raplds,
M149546
1
6
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
17/43
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
18/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
18
of
43
Page
ID#18
e.
The
duty
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise parolees
and
probationers
on
work
release
under the
jurisdiction
of
the
MDOC,
including
the
duty
to
verify
that
said
parolees
and
probationers
have valid
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on work
re lease and
to
verify
that
said
individuals
maintain
valid
employment
during
the
course
of
their
work
release;
f. The
duty
to
ensure
that
parolees
and
probationers
released
from
jail
on work
release
under
tbe
jurisdiction
of
the
MDOC are
eligible
for
work
release;
g.
The
duty
to act
as a
reasonable
parole
o r
probation
agents
would
act
under the
I
circumstances
then and there
existing;
and
h. The
duty
to
have a
reasonable
policy
o r
custom
concerning
work
release.
57.
Defendant
John
an d
Jane
Does
1-10
breached
their
respective
duties owed
to
plaintiff
in
the
following particular
ways:
a. Failure
to
abide
by
the laws of the
State
of
Michigan;
b. Failure
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of the
MDOC,
and
to
specifically
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien;
c.
Failure
to
investigate,
review,
report,
and
respond
to
parole/probation
violations
in
general
and work
release
violations
specifically
as
required
by
Michigan
law
d.
Failure
to
arrest
a
parolee
o r
probationer
for
parole
o r
probation
violations where
probable
cause
supporting
the
same
exists;
e.
Failure
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien,
including
the
duty
to
verify
Defendant Perrien's
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on work
release and failure to
verify
that
Defendant
Perrien maintained
valid
employment during
the
course
of
his work
release;
Law
Offioes
of
KALNIZ,
fORID &
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L,
PA.
4981 Cascade
Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49696
1 8
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
19/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
19
of
43
Page
ID#19
f.
Failure
to
verify
that
Defendant
Perrien
was
eligible
for
work release
prior
to
being
released
from
jail;
g.
Failure
to
act
as
a
reasonable
parole
o r
probation
agent
would
act
under
the
circumstances
then
and
there
existing;
and
h.
Failure to
maintain
a
reasonable
policy
o r
custom
concerning
work
release.
58.
In
breaching
said
duties
as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
John
an d
Jane
Does
1-10
acted
grossly
negligent
as
that
term
is
used
in
MCL
691.1407
because
the
acts
were conduct
so
reckless
as
to
demonstrate
a
substantial
lack
of
concern
for
whether
an
injury
result[ed]
to
plaintifPs
decedent.
59 .
In
breaching
said
duties
as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10
acte
willfully,
wantonly,
maliciously
and
in
bad faith.
60 .
As a
direct
and
proximate
result
of
the above
grossly
negligent,
willful,
wanton,
malicious
and
bad faith
acts
of
the
Defendants
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10,
the
plaintiff
s
decedent
was
murdered
and
suffered
conscious
severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock
and
fright,
an d
the
fear
of
impending
murder
up
to
and
through
the time
of
her death.
61.
As
a
direct
and
proximate
result
of
the
above
grossly
negligent,
willful,
wanton,
malicious
and
ba d
faith
acts of
the
Defendants
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10,
plaintiff's
decedent's
family,
including
her
only
child,
ha s
been
deprived
of
the
financial
support,
love,
society,
comfort
and
guidance
of
Terri
Greene,
and have
sustained
other
compensable
damages,
including,
but no t
limited
to,
extraordinary
therapy
an
prescription
drug
costs
incurred
in
dealing
with
the
tragic
an d
avoidable
loss
of a
beloved
family
member.
Law
Olfict,
s
of
KALNIZ,
OHIO
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981
Cascade
Rd.
S E
Ciand
Rapk/s,
MI
49546
19
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
20/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
20
of
43
Page
ID#20
COUNT
Hi RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR
Michigan
Department of
Corrections
62.
Plaintiff
herein
incorporates
by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1)
through
sixty-one
(61)
as
if
fully
restated
herein.
;1
63.
At
all
times relevant
hereto,
Defendants
Widener,
Ruffin, Alana,
and
other
parole
and
probation
agents,
identified
herein as John and
Jane
Does
1-10,
were
employed
by
the
De;fendant MDOC.
64 .
Defendant
Widener's,
Ruffin's,
Alana's
and
John
and
Jane
Does 1-10's
gross
negligent,
willful,
wanton,
malicious
and bad
faith
acts
were
committed
while
actin
within
the
course and
scope
of their
agency,
service,
or
employment
relationship
with
Defendant
MDOC.
65. Defendant MDOC
is
vicariously
liable
by
virtue
of the doctrine
of
revondeat
superior
for the
grossly
negligent,
willful,
wanton,
malicious
and
bad faith
acts
committed
by
it
agents,
servants
and
employees
including,
but
no t
limited
to,
Defendants
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana
and
john
and
Jane
Does
1-10.
COUNT
IV COMMON
LAW
GROSS
NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriffs
Department,
Raines
&
McPhail
(in
their
official
and
individual
capacities)
66.
Plaintiff
herein
incorporates by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1) through
sixty-five
(65)
a
if
fully
restated
herein.
67.
Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail,
an
other sheriff
s
deputies
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a.
The
duty
to abide
by
the
laws
of the
state
of
Michigan;
Law
Offices of
KALMZ,
IORIO
&
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.PA.
4981
Cascade
Rd.
S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
20
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
21/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
21
of
43
Page
ID#21
b.
The
duly
to
properly
and
adequately
hire,
train,
supervise,
and
discipline
Eaton
County
sheriff
s
deputies
and
other
employees
acting
in
the State
of
Michigan
under
color
of
law;
c.
The
duty
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of the
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department
and
Eaton
County
Jail;
d.
The
duty
to
arrest
a
parolee
o r
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the
same
exists;
e. The
duty
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise
parolees
an d
probationers
on
work
release
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department
an d
Eaton
County
Jail,
including
the
duty
to
verify
that
said
parolees
and
probationers
have
valid
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on
work
release
an d
to
verify
that
said
individuals
maintain
valid
employment
during
the
course
of their
work
release;
f. The
duty
to ensure
that
parolees
and
probationers
released
from
jail
on
work
release
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and
Eaton
County
Jail
ar e
eligible
for
work
release;
g.
The
duty
to
act
as
a
reasonable
municipal
corporation,
sheriff,
o r
deputy
sheriff
would
act
under
the
circumstances
then
an d
there
existing;
and
h.
The
duty
to
have
a
reasonable
policy
o r
custom
concerning
work
release.
68. Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail,
an d
other
sheriff's
deputies
and
county
employees
and
agents
breached
their
respective
duties
owed
to
plaintiff
in the
following
particular
ways:
Law
Offices
a.
Failure
to
abide
by
the
laws
of
the State
of
Michigan;
of
KALNIZ,
ORO &
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P.A.
4961
Cascade
Rd. S F
Grand
Rapids,
MI
49546:
21
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
22/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
22
of
43
Page
ID#22
b. Failure
to
properly
and
adequately
hire,
train,
supervise,
and
discipline
sheriff
s
deputies
acting
in Eaton
County;
c.
Failure
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of
Eaton
County,
and
to
specifically
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien;
d.
Failure
to
arrest
a
parolee
or
probationer
for
parole
o r
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the same
exists;
e.
Failure
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien,
including
the
duty
to
verify
Defendant
Perrien's
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on
work
release and
failure
to
verify
that
Defendant
Perrien
maintained valid
employment
during
the
course
of his work
release;
f.
Failure to
verify
that
Defendant
Perrien was
eligible
for work
release
prior
to
being
released
from
jail;
g.
Failure
to act
as a
reasonable
municipal
corporation,
sheriff,
o r
deputy
would
act
under the
circumstances
then and
there
existing;
and
h.
Failure
to
maintain
a
reasonable
policy
o r
custom
concerning
work release.
69 .
In
breaching
said
duties
as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department,
Defendant
Raines,
Defendant
McPhail,
and
other
sheriff
s
deputies
an d
county employees
and
agents
acted
grossly
negligent
as
that
term
is used
in
MCL 691.1407
because
the
acts
were
conduct
so reckless
as
to
demonstrate
a
substantial
lack
of concern
for
whether
an
injury
result[edf
to
plaintiff
s
decedent.
70,
In
breaching
said duties
as
set forth
herein,
Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
an d
Defendant
Raines,
and
other
sheriff
s
deputies
an d
county
employees
an d
agents
acted
willfully,
wantonly,
maliciously
an d
in ba d
faith.
Law
Offices
of
KALNIZ,
fORIO
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.P.A.
4981
Cascade
Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapfds,
1 41 49546
22
ic71F4?
c
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
23/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
23
of
43
Page
ID#23
71 .
As
a
direct
and
proximate
result
of
the above
grossly
negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious
and
ba d
faith
acts
of
the
Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheri
11-s
Department,
Raines, McPhail,
and
other
sheriff
s
deputies
an d
county
employees
and
agents,
the
plaintiff's
decedent
was
murdered
and
suffered
conscious
severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock
and
fright,
and
the fear
of
impending
murder
up
to
and
through
the
time
of
her death.
72.
As
a
direct
and
proximate
result
of
the
above
grossly
negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious
and
bad
faith
acts
of
the Defendants
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail,
and
other
sheriff
s
deputies
and
county
employees
and
agents,
plaintiff
s decedent's
family,
including
her
only
child,
ha s
been
deprived
of
the
financial
support,
love,
society,
comfort
and
guidance
of
Terri
Greene,
and
have
sustained
other
compensable
damages,
including,
but
no t
limited
to,
extraordinary
therapy
and
prescription
drug
costs
incurred
in
dealing
with
the
tragic
and
avoidable
loss
of a beloved
family
member.
COUNT
V
COMMON
LAW
GROSS
NEGLIGENCE
Defendants
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10
(in
their
official
and individual
capacities
as
employees
of
Defendants
Eaton
County
and
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department)
73.
Plaintiff
herein
incorporates
by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1)
through
seventy-two
(72)
as
if
fully
restated
herein.
74.
Defendants
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10,
as
employees
and
agents
of
Eaton
County
and
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
owed
plaintiff
the
following
duties:
a.
The
duty
to
abide
by
the
laws
of the
state
of
Michigan;
Law
Offices
of
KALNIZ,
IORIO
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.PA.
4981
Cascade
Rd.
s.E.
Grand
Rapids,
Mi 49546
23
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
24/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
24
of
43
Page
ID#24
b.
The
duty
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department
an d
Eaton
County
Jail;
c. The
duty
to
arrest
a
parolee
o r
probationer
for
parole
or
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the
same
exists;
d.
The
duty
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise
parolees
and
probationers
on
work
release
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and
Eaton
County
Jail,
including
the
duty
to
verify
that
said
parolees
an d
probationers
have
valid
employment
before
being
released
from
jail
on
work
release
and
to
verify
that
said
individuals
maintain
valid
employment during
the
course
of
their work
release;
e.
The
duty
to
verify
that
parolees
and
probationers
released
from
jail
on work
release under
the
jurisdiction
of
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
and
Eaton
County
Jail
are
eligible
for
work
release;
f.
The
duty
to
act
as a reasonable
deputy
sheriff
would act
under
the
circumstances
then
and
there
existing;
and
g.
The
duty
to
have
a reasonable
policy
or
custom
concerning
work
release.
75.
Defendant
John and
Jane
Does 1-10
breached
their
respective
duties
owed to
plaintiff
in
the
following particular
ways:
a.
Failure
to
abide
by
the
laws
of
the
State
of
Michigan;
b.
Failure
to
supervise
and
monitor
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
jurisdiction
of Eaton
County
and
the
Eaton
County
Jail,
and
to
specifically
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien;
Law
Offices
of
KALNIZ,
IOW
&
FELDSTEIN
CO .
4981
Cascada
Rd.
S.E
Grand
Rapids,
MI
49596
24
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
25/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
25
of
43
Page
ID#25
c.
Failure
to
arrest
a
parolee
o r
probationer
for
parole
o r
probation
violations
where
probable
cause
supporting
the
same
exists;
d. Failure
to
verify,
monitor
and
supervise
Defendant
Perrien,
including
the
duty
to
verify
Defendant
Perrien's
employment
before
being
released from
jail
on
work
release
and
failure
to
verify
that Defendant Perrien maintained valid
employment during
the
course of
his
work
release;
e. Failure
to
verify
that Defendant Perrien was
eligible
for work
release
prior
to
being
released
from
jail;
f.
Failure
to
ac t
as
a
reasonable
sheriff
s
deputy
would
ac t
under
the
circumstances
then
and
there
existing;
and
g.
Failure
to maintain
a
reasonable
policy
or
custom
concerning
work release.
76. In
breaching
said
duties as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
John
and Jane
Does
1-10
acted
grossly negligent
as
that
term
is used
in
MCL
691.1407
because
the
acts
were
conduct
so
reckless
as
to
demonstrate a substantial lack
of concern for whether an
injury
result[ed]
to
plaintiff
s
decedent
77. In
breaching
said duties
as
set
forth
herein,
Defendants
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10
acted
willfully,
wantonly, maliciously
and
in
bad faith.
78.
As
a
direct
an d
proximate
result of
the above
grossly
negligent,
willful, wanton,
malicious
and bad faith
acts
of
the Defendants
John and Jane Does
1-10,
the
plaintiff
s
decedent
was
murdered
and
suffered conscious
severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock
and
fright,
and
the fear
of
impending
murder
up
to
and
through
the
time
of
her
death.
Law Offices
of
KALNIZ,
lOR10
&
FELDSTON
CO.,
L.P.A.
4981
Cascade
Rd, S
E
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
25
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
26/43
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
27/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
27
of
43
Page
ID#27
COUNT
VII
VIOLATION
OF MICHIGAN
STATE
CONSTITUTION,
SUBSTANTIVE
DUE
PROCESS
Michigan
Department
of
Corrections,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana,
&
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10
(in
their
official
and individual
capacities)
84.
Plaintiff
herein
incorporates
by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1)
through
eighty-three
(83)
as
if
fully
restated
herein.
85. At
all
times
relevant
hereto,
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana,
and
other
employees
and
agents
of
Defendant
MDOC,
identified
herein
as
John
an d
Jane
Does,
were
under a
duty
to
monitor
and
supervise
inmates,
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
MDOC'
s
jurisdiction.
86.
Specifically,
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana,
and
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10
owed
a
duty
to
the
public,
and
plaintiff's
decedent,
to
verifying
a
parolee's
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
ou t
of
jail
for work
release,
a
duty
to
verifying
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
after
a
parolee
ha s
been
released
from
jail
on
work
release,
a
duty
to
verify
that
only parolees
eligible
for work
release
were
released
from
jail,
a
duty
to
ensure
that
ineligible
inmates are
not
released
on
work
release,
and
a
duty
to
ensure
that
violent,
career
criminals
are
no t
released
on
work
release.
87.
The
MDOC
was
under
a
duty
to
train
its
parole
an d
probation
agents,
employees,
servants
an d
agents.
88 .
Specifically,
MDOC
owed
a
duty
to
the
public,
and
plaintiff
s
decedent,
to
properly
train
its
parole
an d
probation
agents
in the
procedures
to
verify
a
parolee's
employmen
before
allowing
a
parolee
out of
jail
for
work
release,
to
verify
a
parolee's
continued
valid
employment
after
a
parolee
ha s
been
released
from
jail
on work
release,
to
verify
Law
Offices
of
KALMZ,
10R10
&
that
only parolees
eligible
for
work
release
were
released
from
jail,
to
ensure
tha
FELOSTEIN Ca,
L.PA.
49 3
1
Cascade
Rd. S.E.
Grand
Rapids,
Mf
49546
27
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
28/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
28
of
43
Page
ID#28
ineligible
imnates
are
no t
released on
work
release,
an d
to
ensure
that
violent,
career
criminals
are
not
released
on
work
release.
89. Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana,
an d
John
an d
Jane
Does
violated
plaintiff's
decedent's
constitutional
rights
under
the
State
of
Michigan
Constitution,
including
Plaintiff's
decedent's
right
to
life
an d
liberty
protected
in
the
substantive
component
of
the
Due
Process Clause
of
Article
1
Section
17,
in
the
following
ways:
a.
By
deliberately
maintaining
a
custom
and/or
policy
to
no t
verify
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out
of
jail
for
work
release;
b.
By
deliberately
maintaining
a
custom
and/or
policy
to
no t
verify
employment
after
a
parolee
is
out
of
jail
for
work
release;
c.
By
deliberately
failing
to
have a
statewide
policy
for
verifying
that
only parolees
eligible
for
work
release were
released
from
jail;
d.
By
deliberately
failing
to
have
a
statewide
policy
for
verifying
that
ineligible
inmates
are
no t
released
on
work
release
e.
By
deliberately
failing
to
have
a
statewide
policy
for
verifying
that
violent,
career
criminals
ar e
not
released
on
work
release.
f.
By
deliberately
failing
to
have
a
statewide
policy
for
verifying
employmen
before
allowing
a
parolee
out
of
jail
for
work
release;
g.
By
deliberately
failing
to
have
a
statewide
policy
for
verifying
employment
afte
a
parolee
is
ou t
of
jail
for work
release
h.
By
deliberately
maintaining
a custom
and/or
policy
wherein
the
MDOC
and
it
employees
assume
that
the
local
sheriff's
office
verifies
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
ou t of
jail
for
work
release.
LwOftCQJ
KALMZ,
ORO
&
FELDSTON CO.,
L.P.A.:
4981
Cascada
Rd.
S
E
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49546
28
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
29/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
29
of
43
Page
ID#29
i.
By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation
officers
in
the
process
of
verifying
a
parolee's employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
to
be
released
from
jail
on work
release;
j.
By deliberately failing
to
properly
train its
parole
and
probation
officers in the
process
of
verifying
a
parolee's employment
after
a
parolee
ha s
been
released
from
jail
on
work
release;
lc.
By
deliberately failing
to
properly
train
its
parole
and
probation
officers
on
the
MDOC work release
policies
and
procedures;
I.
By
deliberately
failing
to
maintain
policies
and
procedures
prohibiting
the
release
of
a
parolee
from
jail
on work release
before
verifying
a
parole's
employment;
and
m.
By
deliberately failing
to
maintain
policies
and
procedures
prohibiting
a
parolee
to
continue
on work release
once a
parolee
ha s left
jail
on
work
release,
without
verifying
a
parolee's
employment.
90.
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener, Ruffin,
Alana,
and
Jo
1m
and
Jane
Does have
engaged in
behavior
so
arbitrary
and unreasonable
as
to
shock
the
conscience.
91. As
the direct and
proximate
result of
the
deliberate,
willful
and wanton
misconduct
of
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener, Ruffin,
Alana,
and
John and
Jane
Does,
and
the
violations of
plaintiff
s decedent's
right
to
life
an d
liberty
protected
by
the
substantive
component
of the Due
Process
Clause of
Article
1
Section
17
of
the
Michigan
State
Constitution,
the
plaintiff
s
decedent
was murdered
and
suffered
conscious
severe
pain
and
suffering,
both
physical
and
psychological,
including
shock
and
fright,
and
the fear
Law Offices
of
impending
murder
up
to and
through
the
time
of her death.
of;
KALNIZ,
IORIO
:
FELDSTEIN
CO.,
L.RA.
49Th CascadeRd,
S:
Grand
Rapids,
MI
49546
29
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
30/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
30
of
43
Page
ID#30
92.
As
the
direct
an d
proximate
result
of the
deliberate,
willful an d
wanton
misconduct
of
the
Defendants
MDOC,
Widener,
Ruffin,
Alana,
an d
john
and Jane
Does,
an d
the
violations
of
plaintiff
s
decedent's
right
to
life
an d
liberty
protected
by
the substantive
component
of
the
Due
Process
Clause
of
Article
1
Section
17 of
the
Michigan
State
Constitution,
plaintiff's
decedent's
family,
including
her
only
child,
ha s
been
deprived
of
the financial
support,
love,
society,
comfort
and
guidance
of
Terri
Greene,
and
have
sustained
other
compensable
damages,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
extraordinary
therapy
and
prescription
drug
costs
incurred
in
dealing
with
the
tragic
and
avoidable
loss
of a
beloved
family
member,
COUNT
VIII
VIOLATION
OF MICHIGAN
STATE
CONSTITUTION,
SUBSTANTIVE
DUE
PROCESS
Eaton
County,
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail
&
John
and
Jane
Does
1-10
(in
their
official
and individual
capacities)
93.
Plaintiff
herein
incorporates
by
reference
paragraphs
one
(1)
through
ninety-two
(92)
as
if
fully
restated
herein.
94. At all
times
relevant
hereto,
Defendants
Eaton
County,
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department,
Raines,
McPhail
and other
Eaton
County
sheriff
s
deputies,
identified
herein as
John and
Jane
Does,
were
under
a
duty
to
monitor
and
supervise
inmates,
parolees
and
probationers
under
the
Eaton
County
an d
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department's
jurisdiction.
95.
Specifically,
Defendants
Eaton
County,
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff
s
Department,
Raines,
McPhail,
and John
and
Jane
Does owed
a
duty
to
the
public,
an d
plaintiff's
decedent,
to
verifying
a
parolee's
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
ou t
of
jail
for
work
release
Law
Offices
of
KALNIZ,
IORIO
a
duty
to
verifying
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
after
a
parolee
has
been
FELDSTEIN CO.,
L.PA.
9981
Cascade
Rd.
S.F.
Grand
Rapids,
MI 49548
30
=7:g.:
0
-
8/12/2019 Post v MDOC
31/43
Case 1:13-cv-01031 Doc
#1
Filed 09/19/13
Page
31
of
43
Page
ID#31
released
from
jail
on
work
release,
a
duty
to
verify
that
only parolees
eligible
for
wor
release
were released from
jail,
a
duty
to
ensure that
ineligible
inmates
are
no t
released
on
work
release,
an d a
duty
to
ensure that
violent,
career
criminals
are
no t
released
on
work
release.
96.
The
Eaton
County
an d
the
Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
were under a
duty
to
train its sheriff s
deputies,
employees,
servants
and
agents.
97.
Specifically,
Eaton
County
and
the Eaton
County
Sheriff's
Department
owed a
duty
to
the
public,
and
plaintiff's
decedent,
to
properly
train
its
parole
and
probation
agents
in
the
procedures
to
verify
a
parolee's
employment
before
allowing
a
parolee
out
of
jail
for
work
release,
to
verify
a
parolee's
continued,
valid
employment
afler a
parolee
ha s been
released from
jail
on
work
release,
to
verify