Gordon T. Davis

Worcester MA  01604

Plaintiff in Pro per

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

_____________________________

Gordon T. Davis                                      *     CASE No. 24CV40151

Plaintiff                                                   *  

v.                                                              *     Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to

City of Worcester Massachusetts      *      42 U.S.C. par. 1983 (non-prisoner)

Kathleen M. Toomey, City Councilor *       and Title 18, U.S.C. Sec. 24

Eric D. Batista, City Manager               *

Michael E. Traynor, City Solicitor        *     No Jury Trial

Defendants                                               *

 

 

•                   I. JURISDICTION 

 

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343. Federal question jurisdiction arises pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

 

 

•                   II. VENUE

 

The Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 because the City of Worcester is in Massachusetts and the Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Worcester Massachusetts.

 

•                   III. PARTIES

 

Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s name is Gordon T. Davis (Davis). His residence is 416 Lake Ave. Worcester MA 01604. The Plaintiff is Black and has lived in the Black community for over fifty-six (56) years.

 

Defendants

City of Worcester MA, 455 Main St. Worcester MA 01608. This defendant is being sued in its official capacity as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 

Kathleen M. Toomey (Toomey), works at City Council 455 Main St., Worcester, MA 01608. This defendant is being sued in her official capacity. Councilor Toomey is a City councilor on the Worcester City Council.

 

Eric D. Batista (Batista) works as City Manager, 455 Main St. Worcester MA 01608. This defendant is being sued in his official capacity.

 

Michael E. Traynor, works as City Solicitor, 455 Main St. Worcester MA 01608. Traynor is being sued in his official capacity

 

•                   IV. Statement OF FACTS

 

1.     In 2022 the City hired a firm to audit the Worcester Police Department. The audit was completed in 2023.  The audit report showed that the Worcester Police Department is systemically racist in the number of arrests made in the Black and Latino communities which are disproportionately higher than in comparator communities. (Exhibit A)

2.     Worcester Police Chief, Soucier, admitted that the Systemic Racism described in the report is harming the Black and Latino individuals and communities.  (Exhibit A)

3.     Davis petitioned that the City Council request (order) the City Manager Batista to investigate and fix the Systematic Racism found in the City. The City Council filed Davis’s Petition. A filed petition means the City Council took no action regarding requesting City Manager Batista to investigate the Systemic Racism and fix violations of Civil Rights. (Exhibit B)

4.     The City Manager Batista has ignored Davis’ request for community hearings on the issue and fix the violations of Civil Rights. (Exhibit C)

 

5.     The City Manager has not given the police arrest records to the Worcester Commission for Human Rights. The Commission is responsible for investigation of Worcester Police arrest records. (Exhibit D)

6.     Davis has been ignored by the City Manager and the City Council in his petition that the City of Worcester investigate and fix the Systemic Racism that is harming people in the Black and Latino communities. Davis petitioned for a second time that the City Council itself to investigate and create a policy that would end the systemic Racism (Exhibit E)

This petition requested the City Council’s Standing Committee on

 Safety to investigate and fix the issues of Systemic Racism regarding the police arrest data. Councilor Toomey, stated in open meeting, that Davis’ petition was flawed and she wanted to table the petition.  Davis’ petition was not flawed, as the City Clerk helped in the wording of the petition. The City Council by majority vote approved Davis’ petition.  Councilor Toomey tabled (delayed) as an individual councilor Davis’ approved petition. (Exhibit E)

7.     Davis filed a third Petition saying that in accordance with City Council Rules his Petition tabled by Councilor Toomey should had been taken off the table in May 2024 and effectuated.  (Exhibit F).

8.     City Solicitor Traynor ignored black letter City Council rules and did not allow Davis’ third Petition to go to City Council, using the pretext that Councilor Toomey tabling of the Petion was not done as an individual councilor.  A reasonable fact-finder could conclude that City Solicitor knew a priori his ruling was in violation of City Council Rules.   (Exhibit G)

9.     This ruling by City Solicitor Traynor has been contradicted by the City Clerk who has written in several documents that Councilor Toomey tabled Davis’ Petition about the Public Safety Committee to investigate and fix the issues of Systemically Racist Civil Rights violations and was tabled under individual councilor privilege and can only be tabled for one week. (Exhibit G)

10. Defendant City Solicitor Traynor was involved in at least one other racist incident. The Diversity Officer wrote a report for the investigation of that incident. The City has refused to release the report.

 

V. Claims

Claim # 1

•         Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs above. (Paragraphs 1 through 10)

 

The Plaintiff has a claim under the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause and   42 U.S.C. par. 1983 

 

•         The above Civil Rights violation was committed by the Defendant City of Worcester Massachusetts. (Paragraphs 1 and 2)

 

 As a result of the above Civil Rights violations the Plaintiff was harmed in the following manner. The Plaintiff as a Black person is at greater risk of the being arrested than other Protected classes. The potential of increased risk of arrest is emotionally distressing. Such arrests are traumatic and costly to defend.  (Paragraph 2)

Joy Hope

 

Claim # 2

 

•        Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs above. (Paragraphs 1 through 10)

 

•        Plaintiff alleges that City Manager Batista actions are in violation of TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 24. (Paragraphs 1,4 and 6)

 

 

Claim # 3

 

•        Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs above. (Paragraphs 1 through 10)

 

•        Plaintiff alleges that City Councilor Toomey ‘s action are in violation of TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 24. (Paragraphs 7,8,9,10)

 

Claim # 4

 

•        Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs above. (Paragraphs 1 through 01)

 

•        Plaintiff alleges that City Solicitor ‘s actions are in violation of TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 24. (Paragraphs 8, 9, 10)10)

 

 

VI. Request for Relief

 

Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests:

 

•       (Paragraphs (1 and 2),

That the City of Worcester Massachusetts be ordered to investigate by all means, including public hearings, the causes of the disproportional arrests of Black and Latino people by the Worcester police.  From this investigation a policy and practice are established that ends the Civil Rights violations.

 

•       (paragraphs (paragraphs 3 through 10))

That the respective Defendants Batista, Traynor, and Toomey are fined five-hundred ($500.00) Dollars and enjoined from blocking or delaying the investigation and correction of the civil rights violations.

 

December 2, 2024