Federal District Court Slow Handling of Civil Rights Cases

Federal District Court Slow Handling of Civil Rights Cases

Update from prior article ". "

In the case of Wright et al. vs City of Wilmington in Delaware, Judge Sue Robinson in her ruling on March 31, 2016 ordered the case to PROCEED. In reviewing the case, a reasonable person would agree with the Judge’s Memorandum Order as well as be outraged knowing facts of the case and that so much time has passed in the pursuit of justice. The original lawsuit was filed over two years ago November 2013.

In essence, named parties in this lawsuit are several mostly inner city young Black males being repeatedly violated by members of the City of Wilmington Delaware police department (WPD). With plaintiffs’ names withheld, an exert of FACTS taken directly from the Plaintiffs’ First Amended complaint in Case 1:13-cv-01966-SLR-SRF Document 61 filed 03/31/16 is as follows:

71. On or about the afternoon of March 15, 2013, [plaintiffs] were waiting in a friend’s apartment prior to picking up [plaintiff’s] son who attended Odyssey day school across the street.
72. At approximately 3:30 [plaintiffs] exited the friend’s apartment to walk across the street to pick up [plaintiff’s] son.
73. As they left the building, WPD officers emerged from three vehicles with guns drawn.
74. The officers told the two men to get down on the ground immediately.
75. Both men complied with the officers’ request and laid face down on the pavement.
76. Upon information and belief two of the officers present were Officer Barnes and Officer Mullings.
77. The Officers handcuffed [plaintiffs] and patted them down for weapons.
78. The Officers then proceeded to search [plaintiffs].
79. An Officer removed a cigarette pack from [plaintiff’s] pocket and opened it, finding nothing but cigarettes inside.
80. One of the officer’s took [plaintiff’s] car keys and phone from his pocket.
81. While [plaintiffs] were detained, the officer entered [plaintiff’s] car, started it, and then circled the block a few times in the car.
82. The officer then searched the entire car, finding nothing.
83. The officers at the scene asked which apartment [plaintiffs] were coming from.
84. [Plaintiffs] responded that they were in a friend’s apartment in the building.
85. The police then escorted [plaintiffs], still handcuffed, back into the apartment complex and into the apartment unit where the police assumed the men exited from.
86. The Officers then took [one plaintiff] to a back bedroom where the handcuffs were removed.
87. He was then forced to remove all of his clothing in front of three officers.
88. During this strip search, one of the officers brandished a taser several inches away from [plaintiff].
89. [Plaintiff] was told that if he moved he would be tased immediately by the officer next to him.
90. The officers proceeded to search his mouth.
91. The officers then instructed him to pull apart his buttocks.
92. Finding nothing the officers told [plaintiff] to redress.
93. After he dressed he was once again handcuffed.
94. The officers then returned [plaintiff] to the living room of the unit.
95. Police then took [the other plaintiff] to the same back bedroom.
96. In the bedroom the officers took the handcuffs off [plaintiff].
97. He was then forced to remove all of his clothing in front of three officers.
98. One of the officers brandished a taser as [plaintiff] undressed.
99. [Plaintiff] was instructed that if he moved he would be tased immediately by the Officer.
100. The officers proceeded to search his mouth.
101. The officers then instructed him to pull apart his buttocks.
102. Finding nothing, the officers then told [plaintiff] to redress.
103. [Plaintiff] was then handcuffed and returned to the living room.
104. The officers then proceeded to search the entire apartment.
105. None of the officers ever showed [plaintiffs] a warrant for the search of the apartment or for any other purpose.
106. The Officers seized a cell phone and a pair of bolt clippers from the apartment.
107. Upon information and belief, the Officers located no weapons or contraband.
108. [Plaintiffs] were then transported to the Police station.
109. [Plaintiffs] were imprisoned at the station in a cell for approximately one hour.
110. The two men were then subsequently released with no charges filed.
111. Neither [one plaintiff], nor [other plaintiff] was ever provided a reason why they were handcuffed, searched, strip searched, transported, and imprisoned.
112. [One plaintiff] had to subsequently describe to his 6 year old son why he was handcuffed.

With over Three Thousand practicing attorneys in Delaware, a sole downstate, country lawyer from Dagsboro, Delaware had the courage to argue in court for plaintiffs’ civil rights. These graphic facts are only the tip of the iceberg. In seeking class action certification for this case, there are potentially numerous others unlike Jeremy “Bam” McDole (believed to be WPD firing squad alleged victim) all who live to tell their stories; seeking justice for all.


plaintiff (noun)
1. somebody who brings civil action (lawsuit)