Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 1 of 12.

PageID #: 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDREW SZEWCZYK,
8427 West Ridge Road
Elyria, Ohio 44035-4468
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANK J. WOYMA, JR.
4317 West 50th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44144-2972
and
MARTIN RUDIN
18104 Nottingham Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44119-2948
and
JOHN T. SPAHIA
6706 Dellbank Drive
Cleveland, Ohio 44144-1621
and
CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO
601 Lakeside Avenue, East
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1027
and
JOHN DOE NO. 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.:
JUDGE
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 2 of 12. PageID #: 7

*****

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-2-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 3 of 12. PageID #: 8

Andrew Szewczyk, the Plaintiff, through his undersigned counsel, Brent L. English, states for his
Complaint the following:
JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff Andrew Szewczyk is a resident of Lorain County, Ohio.
2. Defendant Frank Woyma is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
3. Defendant Martin Rudin is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
4. Defendant John T. Spahia is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
5. Defendants John Doe No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are parties currently unknown to the Plaintiff but
who may have participated in the unlawful conduct set forth hereinbelow.
6. Defendant City of Cleveland is a municipal corporation in the State of Ohio.
7. This Court has jurisdiction because this case invokes federal-question jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and by virtue of the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(d) inasmuch as the state-law based claims are so related to the claims in
the action within this Courts federal-question jurisdiction as to form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. On October 28, 2006 between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., Plaintiff was a patron at a
nightclub called Traffic in the Warehouse District in Downtown Cleveland, Ohio.
9. Plaintiff was accompanied by his girlfriend, Jennifer Pierce, and a four other women.
10. Plaintiff, his girlfriend, and the four other women had all gone to a comedy club called
Hilarities on East 4th Street in Downtown Cleveland earlier in the evening.
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-3-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 4 of 12. PageID #: 9

11. Defendant Frank Woyma is a Cleveland Police Officer on the day in question.
12. He was providing security outside of a number of establishments in the Warehouse
District near Traffic. Defendant Woyma was not on duty at the time of the incident giving rise to this
Complaint but was performing what the Cleveland Police Department calls departmentally-approved
secondary employment.
13. Defendant Martin Rudin is also a Cleveland Police Officer on the date and at the time of
the incident giving rise to this Complaint but was not working as a police officer, or otherwise.
14. Defendant John T. Spahia is a Cleveland Police Officer and on the date and time of the
incident giving rise to this Complaint was on duty and working as a Cleveland Police Officer.
Defendant Spahia was not in the Warehouse District at the time of the incident giving rise to this
Complaint but subsequently came to the Warehouse District and engaged in conduct set forth herein
below for which he is being sued.
15. At all times relevant Defendants were acting under color of state law.
16. As Plaintiff and his girlfriend, accompanied by the four other women, left Traffic, they
began to walk on the public sidewalk to the north.
17. Plaintiff was holding an empty beer bottle into which he was spitting tobacco juice.
18. As Plaintiff walked down the sidewalk, minding his own business, and lawfully in all
respects, Defendant Woyma jumped on Plaintiffs back and began to strike him in the side of the head
with the beer bottle.
19. Woyma failed to identify himself as a police officer and was not dressed such that the
Plaintiff or any of the five women he was with could identify him as a police officer.
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-4-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 5 of 12. PageID #: 10

20. Plaintiff was finally able to get Woyma off of his back and, because Woyma was
aggressively hitting Plaintiff, Plaintiff tried to push him away and both of them fell down. Woyma struck
a taxi cab that was parked near the curb and the Plaintiff fell straight onto his face onto the pavement.
21. Defendant Rudin, without privilege to do so, then attacked Plaintiff and hit him a number
of times with his fists and shoes as hard as he could.
22. Plaintiff was then placed in handcuffs and was rolled over onto this back.
23. With a number of police officer standing around, Woyma then approached Plaintiff and
brutally and without cause struck him in the face and head at least three times.
24. Plaintiff was then placed into a patrol car.
25. Defendant Spahia began to transport the Plaintiff to the central police facility in Downtown
Cleveland, Ohio.
26.

En route, Plaintiff complained about what had occurred at the scene near Traffic. With

that, Spahia stopped the car, got out, and then brutally assaulted the Plaintiff with his fists while the
Plaintiff was in the back seat of the police cruiser and then maliciously strayed pepper spray in his face,
eyes, and mouth.
27. Plaintiff was then taken to the central police facility where he was processed.
28. As a result of Plaintiffs injuries, he was subsequently taken to Saint Vincent Charity
Hospital for treatment of his injuries.
29. Plaintiff was charged with felonious assault upon a police officer, with two counts of
assault, with resisting arrest, and with two counts of harassment by an inmate.
30. Plaintiff was able to post bond.
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-5-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 6 of 12. PageID #: 11

31. Plaintiff was then indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury with the same charges.
32. Plaintiff was tried on each of the offenses in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio Case No. CR-05-472636, Judge Carolyn Friedland over the period September 18 to
September 25, 2006.
33. The Court directed a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff (Defendant therein) on the felonious
assault charge at the close of the States case. The remainder of the charges went to the jury, which
returned a verdict of not guilty on the assault and resisting arrest charges but a verdict of guilty on the
two counts of harassment by an inmate. Sentencing on the two charges for which the Plaintiff was
found guilty is scheduled for October 31, 2006.
34. Plaintiff sustained permanent hearing loss as a result of the brutal assault upon his body
inflicted by Defendants Woyma, Rudin, and Spahia. Moreover, Plaintiff sustained great pain and
suffering, including emotional pain and suffering, as a result of the conduct of the Defendants, jointly and
severally.
35. Plaintiff had to incur significant legal fees and expenses to defend himself against the
specious criminal charges preferred against him.
36. Plaintiff has lost income as well as income-producing opportunities as a result of the
Defendants conduct, jointly and severally.
FIRST CLAIM
[42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against Defendant Woyma]

37. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above,
as if fully reproduced herein.

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-6-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 7 of 12. PageID #: 12

38. Defendant violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment on October 28, 2006.
39. Specifically, but without limitation, Defendant Woyma violated Plaintiffs clearlyestablished constitutional rights by using excessive force against the Plaintiff and by interfering with his
Fourth Amendment right to be left alone.
40. Woyma jumped on Plaintiffs back without any justification, tried to take him to the
ground, struck Plaintiff in the head and face with a beer bottle, and then bludgeoning him whie he was
laying on the ground and in handcuffs.
41. Defendant Woyma also deliberately, intentionally, corruptly, and perversely lied under
oath during the criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff (Defendant therein) and claimed Plaintiff had
provoked him when, in fact, Plaintiff had done no such thing. Further, Defendant Woyma deliberately,
intentionally, corruptly, and perversely lied about not striking the Plaintiff after he was in handcuffs
when, in fact, he did so and, most importantly, his conduct was witnessed by a disinterested taxi cab
driver.
42. Defendant Woymas conduct constitutes police brutality of the worse order.
43. Defendant Woyma also violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights under
the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by falsely arresting the Plaintiff for allegedly
assaulting him and resisting arrest when, in fact, Plaintiff was the victim of a malicious assault and did
nothing more than try to keep Woyma from hurting him further.
44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Woymas unlawful and unconscionable
conduct, Plaintiff sustained those injuries and damages set forth hereinabove.
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-7-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 8 of 12. PageID #: 13

SECOND CLAIM
[42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against Defendant Rudin]

45. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above,
as if fully reproduced herein.
46. Defendant Rudin violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights on October 28,
2006 by jumping into the fray and by using excessive and unnecessary force against the Plaintiff.
THIRD CLAIM
[42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against Defendant Spahia]

47. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above,
as if fully reproduced herein.
48. Defendant Spahia violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights on October
28, 2006 by using excessive and unnecessary force against the Plaintiff.
FOURTH CLAIM
[Malicious Prosecution]
49. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above
and in the First, Second and Third Claims, above, as if fully reproduced herein.
50. The Defendants maliciously instituted criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff.
51. There was no probable cause to charge the Plaintiff with felonious assault upon Woyma,
with two additional counts of assault, and with resisting arrest.
52. The legal proceedings maliciously instituted were terminated in Plaintiffs favor.
53. As a result of the malicious institution of the legal proceedings described hereinabove,
Plaintiff sustained great harm, was arrested (seized), and incarcerated, was forced to go through an

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-8-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 9 of 12. PageID #: 14

extensive jury trial, and had to pay substantial legal fees and expenses.

FIFTH CLAIM
[Intentional Infliction of Serious Emotional Distress]
54. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above
and in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Claims, above, as if fully reproduced herein.
55. The Defendants, jointly and severally, intended to cause emotional distress to the Plaintiff
or should have known that their actions would result in serious emotional distress to him.
56. The Defendants joint and several conduct was extreme and outrageous, and went beyond
all possible bounds of decency and is intolerable in a civilized community.
57. The Defendants actions, jointly and severally, directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs
emotional and psychic injuries set forth hereinabove.
58. The mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff is serious and is of such a nature that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
SIXTH CLAIM
[Assault and Battery]
59. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above
and in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims, above, as if fully reproduced herein.

60. Defendants, jointly and severally, intentionally attempted to cause physical harm and
offensive touching of the Plaintiff without privilege to do so.

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-9-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 10 of 12. PageID #: 15

61. Defendants, jointly and severally, intentionally and without Plaintiffs consent, caused
physical harm harm and offensive touching of the Plaintiff without privilege to do so.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing Plaintiff sustained the damages set forth
hereinabove.
SEVENTH CLAIM
[Abuse of Process]
63. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations above
and in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Claims, above, as if fully reproduced herein
64. Assuming that the legal process was set in order in proper form and with probable cause,
the Defendants perverted the process in an attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was
not designed.
65. As a result, Plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the wrongful use of process.
66. Specifically, but without limitation, Defendant, Woyma perverted the legal process in an
effort to avoid liability to the Plaintiff for his perverse misconduct and so that he could sue the Plaintiff
for the alleged injury he claims to have sustained or to make a workers compensation claim for his
alleged injury.
EIGHTH CLAIM
[42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against the City of Cleveland]
67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every allegation set forth herein above as if fully
reproduced herein.
68. The City of Cleveland maintained a police force on the date of the incident alleged herein
and was responsible for training, managing, and controlling the individual officers therein, including the
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-10-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 11 of 12. PageID #: 16

individual defendants named herein.

69. The actions of the individual defendants were a direct and proximate result of the City of
Clevelands failure to properly and adequately train, control, and manage the individual defendants was
further the result of an unconstitutional policy which permitted officers such as the individual defendants
to engage in the conduct alleged herein.
70. As a direct and proximate result of the City of Clevelands conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff
sustained bodily injuries, lost income, incurred legal fees, and otherwise sustained great pain and
suffering of body and mind.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for
the sum of $500,000.00, plus attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brent L. English
BRENT L. ENGLISH
Law Offices of Brent L. English
M.K. Ferguson Plaza, Suite 470
1500 West Third Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1422
(216) 781-9917
(216) 781-8113 (Fax)
Sup. Ct. Reg. No. 0022678
benglish@englishlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff, Andrew Szewczyk

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as of right to a jury herein.
s/ Brent L. English
BRENT L. ENGLISH
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-11-

Case: 1:06-cv-02631-KSM Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/30/06 12 of 12. PageID #: 17

Attorney for Andrew Szewczyk

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

-12-