Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


EBONY DAVIS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs
V.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT, HONORABLE FRANCIS E. KELLY, Individually as President Judge of Philadelphia Traffic Court, HONORABLE FORTUNATO PERRI, Individually as Administrative Judge of Philadelphia Traffic Court, OFFICERS JOHN DOE(S) and OFFICERS RICHARD ROE(S), Individually as Officers of the Philadelphia Police Department,
Defendants

0 0 CIVIL ACTION NO. 03- / if
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT Preliminary Statement 1. Plaintiff Ebony Davis was arrested by Philadelphia police officers who erroneously claimed that he owed outstanding fines and costs in connection with alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. The officers failed to consider available information which demonstrated that Plaintiff Davis was not the individual who had committed the alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations. Despite the absence of probable cause to arrest, Plaintiff was detained, searched, handcuffed and transported to Philadelphia Traffic Court. After a Traffic Court proceeding at which he was not afforded counsel, notice of the specific charges against him, the opportunity to prepare a defense, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to present evidence on his

Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 2 of 18
own behalf, Plaintiff was sentenced to a period of incarceration in the Philadelphia County Prison System. Plaintiff, who is indigent, was forced to remain in custody for nearly one month because he was unable to remit a portion of the outstanding fines and costs to secure his release, a right granted only to those with the means to make substantial monetary payments.
2. On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants' pattern, practice and policy of unlawfully arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating individuals on alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations in the absence of probable cause and without the right to counsel and to a fair trial. The named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class have been and continue to be deprived ofrights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.c. §1983. The named Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the harms caused by Defendants' actions and the loss of fundamental constitutional rights. The Plaintiff Class seeks a declaratory judgment that the acts complained of herein are unconstitutional and injunctive relief to prevent further civil rights violations.
Jurisdiction 3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §1983. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§133l and 1343 (1), (3), (4) and the aforementioned statutory provision. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
2


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 3 of 18
Parties 4. Plaintiff Ebony Davis is a citizen of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and at all times relevant to this action resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant City of Philadelphia is a municipality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that operates and funds Philadelphia Traffic Court and the Philadelphia Police Department which employs the other named defendants, including Defendants Kelly, Perri, Doe(s) and Roe(s). 6. Defendant Philadelphia Traffic Court is a governmental agency funded by the City ofPhilade1phia which is responsible for the daily operation, direction and control ofall proceedings conducted in Philadelphia Traffic Court. 7. Defendants, Honorable Francis E. Kelly and Honorable Fortunato Perri, were at all times relevant to this action President Judge and Administrative Judge, respectively, of Philadelphia Traffic Court and, in those capacities, exercised supervisory and administrative authority over the operation ofPhiladelphia Traffic Court and its officials and employees. They are being sued in their individual capacities as supervisors and administrators of Philadelphia Traffic Court. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Kelly was and is a final policy and decision-maker for Defendants City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Traffic Court. Defendant Perri was a final policy and decision-maker for Defendants City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Traffic Court with respect to the claims raised herein until his removal as Administrative Judge on or about December 1, 2002. 8. Defendant Police Officers Roe(s) and Doe(s) are police officers for the Philadelphia Police Department who, at all times relevant to this action, acted under color of state law. They are being sued in their individual capacities as police officers. 9. At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of state law and in concert and
3


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 4 of 18
agreement with each other to improperly deprive the named Plaintiffand the PlaintiffClass oftheir constitutional and statutory rights.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 10. Plaintiff Davis seeks to maintain this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Davis represents a class of persons who have been or will be detained, arrested, searched, prosecuted and incarcerated by Defendants without the right to counsel and to a fair trial. The class members have been, are and will be subjected to deprivations of their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.c. §1983. The PlaintiffClass therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate Defendants' actions, policies and practices which caused, are causing, and will continue to cause constitutional violations. 11. The Plaintiff Class consists of individuals who have been and will be arrested for alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations and subjected to periods of incarceration as a result of Philadelphia Traffic Court proceedings conducted without the assistance ofcounsel, notice ofthe specific charges against them, the opportunity to prepare a defense, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them and to offer evidence on their own behalf. 12. The requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are satisfied by this class action. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff Class consists of more than one hundred individuals and will include additional individuals in the future, thereby making joinder of all members impractical. 13. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of Defendants' practices, customs and policies. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims ofthe class and he will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests ofthe class.
4

Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 5 of 18
14. Plaintiff Davis is an adequate representative of the Plaintiff Class as he was and is subject to Defendants' pattern, practice and policy of unlawfully arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating individuals on alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations without the right to counsel and a fair trial. It is the existence of this pattern, practice and policy that gives rise to questions of law and fact common to all members of the Plaintiff Class.
15. Upon information and belief, there is no pending litigation concerning these issues which would be disrupted by maintaining this matter as a class action. Moreover, this is the appropriate forum for this litigation. To the extent that management of this matter as a class action will pose difficulties, the fact that the Plaintiff Class is represented by experienced civil rights litigators and the law firm of'Kairys, Rudovsky, Epstein and Messing will substantially reduce the burdens on the Court and litigants.
16. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
17. Over an extended period of time, including but not limited to the period from March 1, 2001 to the present, members of the Plaintiff Class were arrested by Defendants Roe(s), Philadelphia police officers, on the basis of allegations that they owed fines and costs in connection with Motor Vehicle Code violations.
18. Members ofthe PlaintiffClass were transported to Philadelphia Traffic Court where they were further detained and appeared before Traffic Court judges on violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, summary offenses punishable under Pennsylvania law by a maximum period of ninety days incarceration and a $300 fine. Upon information and belief, most ifnot all members of
5


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 6 of 18
the PlaintiffClass were charged with a number ofoutstanding Motor Vehicle Code violations which carried potential consecutive prison sentences in excess of six months.
19. At the Traffic Court proceedings, members of the Plaintiff Class who were indigent and unable to afford private counsel were not advised of their right to counsel nor provided with the assistance of counsel.
20. At the Traffic Court proceedings, members of the Plaintiff Class were not advised of the specific charges against them and were not afforded the opportunity to prepare a defense, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them and to present evidence on their own behalf.
21. Members of the Plaintiff Class were sentenced to periods of incarceration in the Philadelphia County Prison System.
22. The Traffic Court judges further ordered that members of the Plaintiff Class were to be held in the Philadelphia County Prison System until dates certain or until substantial amounts of money were paid to secure their release.
23. As members ofthe PlaintiffClass were financially unable to make the required payments, they were held in the Philadelphia County Prison System for extended periods of time.
24. It was the policy and practice ofDefendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri to release from custody individuals with the financial means to pay a portion of the outstanding fines and costs that accrued in connection with alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations. Individuals, such as members of the Plaintiff Class who are indigent and thus unable to make a substantial monetary payment, are required to serve prison sentences.
25. The practice of Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri requiring indigent persons to post substantial amounts of money or remain incarcerated
6


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 7 of 18
impermissibly treats a class of persons - the indigent - differently than others similarly situated. 26. Defendants Kelly and Perri, in their respective capacities as President Judge and
Administrative Judge of Philadelphia Traffic Court, and as final policy and decision makers for Defendants City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Traffic Court, knew or should have known that the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class were being subjected to the above-described treatment by officials and employees of the Philadelphia Traffic Court and failed to take steps to ensure that in cases where individuals were subject to periods of incarceration the accused were provided: a. the assistance of counsel; b. notice of the specific charges against them; c. the opportunity to prepare a defense; d. the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them; e. the opportunity to offer evidence on their own behalf; and f. equal protection of the law.
27. The arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations ofthe named Plaintiffand the PlaintiffClass were undertaken by all Defendants pursuant to a pattern, practice and policy of unlawfully arresting and prosecuting individuals on alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations without the rights to counsel, due process and equal protection of the law.
28. As a direct and proximate cause of all Defendants' illegal and unconstitutional actions, the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class suffered and will suffer pain, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, loss of liberty, emotional trauma, financial losses, the loss of the enjoyment of life, and the deprivation of other liberty and property interests.
7


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 8 of 18
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF EBONY DAVIS
 29. On or about September 30, 2002, Plaintiff Davis was arrested by Defendant Doe(s) and charged with the failure to pay alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations which totaled in excess of $7,500.00 in fines and costs. Defendant Doe(s) failed to consider available information which demonstrated that Plaintiff Davis was not the individual who had committed the alleged traffic violations. 30. Plaintiff Davis repeatedly told Defendant Doe(s) that he was not the individual who had committed the alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations and produced identification which confirmed that fact. Defendant Doe(s) knew or should have known that Plaintiff Davis' name, date of birth, social security number and other descriptive information differed from that ofthe person who was alleged to have committed the Motor Vehicle Code violations. 31. Defendant Doe(s) knew or should have known that there was no probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Davis for the alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations as there was no reasonable basis for the belief that Plaintiff Davis was the individual who had accrued the traffic tickets and the associated fines and costs. 32. Plaintiff Davis did not commit the alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations or commit any offenses against the laws of the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of Philadelphia that justified the actions of Defendant Doe(s). 33. Defendant Doe(s) detained Plaintiff Davis and, without cause or justification, placed him under arrest, searched him and secured him in handcuffs. Plaintiff Davis was transported to Philadelphia Traffic Court where he was further detained. Plaintiff Davis appeared before the Honorable Robert Shaffer on numerous violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code,
8


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 9 of 18
summary offenses punishable under Pennsylvania law by a maximum period of ninety days incarceration and a $300 fine, as set forth in Offense Tracking Number 20561194.
34. Although each of the offenses with which Plaintiff Davis was charged carried a maximum period ofninety days incarceration, the total number ofoutstanding Motor Vehicle Code violations carried a potential consecutive prison sentence in excess of six months.
35. At the proceeding before Judge Shaffer, PlaintiffDavis, who was indigent and unable to afford private counsel, was not advised of his right to counsel nor provided with the assistance of counsel.
36. At the proceeding before Judge Shaffer, PlaintiffDavis was not afforded notice ofthe specific charges against him, the opportunity to prepare a defense, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him or to present evidence on his own behalf.
37. Despite PlaintiffDavis' protest that he was not the individual who had accrued fines and costs in connection with alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations, Judge Shaffer sentenced PlaintiffDavis to a period of twenty-six days incarceration. 38. Judge Shaffer further ordered Plaintiff Davis held in the custody of the Philadelphia County Prison System until October 25, 2002 or until the amount of $1,748.00 was paid.
39. As PlaintiffDavis was financially unable to pay the $1,748.00, he was held in the Philadelphia County Prison System until October 25,2002.
40. It is the policy and practice of Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri to release from custody individuals with the financial means to pay a portion ofthe outstanding fines and costs that accrued in connection with alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations. Individuals, such as PlaintiffDavis, who are indigent and thus unable to make substantial monetary payments, are required to serve prison sentences.
9


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 10 of 18
41. Upon information and belief, prior to October 25, 2002, employees and officials of the Philadelphia Traffic Court determined or should have determined that PlaintiffDavis was in fact not the individual who was alleged to have violated the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. No effort was made by Defendants to secure Plaintiff Davis' release from custody prior to October 25,2002.
42. On October 25, 2002, Plaintiff Davis was transported from the Philadelphia County Prison to Philadelphia Traffic Court where a representative of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and court-appointed counsel were present. At that time, PlaintiffDavis, having been determined not to be the individual wanted for Motor Vehicle Code violations, was ordered released from custody. This order thus invalidated the judgment and sentence of Judge Shaffer dated September 30, 2002. Mr. Davis had served twenty-six days in prison.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
The Named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class v, Defendants 43. Plaintiffs hereby reallege paragraphs 1-42 ofthis Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 44. By adopting, permitting, encouraging, tolerating, ratifying or being deliberately indifferent to a pattern, practice and policy pursuant to which Philadelphia police officers arrest individuals on alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations without having probable cause to believe that those individuals had committed the alleged violations, Defendants City of Philadelphia, Doe(s) and Roe(s) have and will continue to deprive the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class of rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.c. §1983. 45. By adopting, permitting, encouraging, tolerating, ratifying or being deliberately indifferent to a pattern, practice and policy pursuant to which employees and officials of Philadelphia Traffic
10


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 11 of 18
Court deny the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class the rights to counsel, due process and equal protection of the law, Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri have and will continue to deprive the named Plaintiff and the PlaintiffClass of rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe Constitution ofthe United States and 42 U.S.c. §1983.
46. By engaging in the practice of unlawfully arresting and prosecuting the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class on alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations in the absence of probable cause, Defendants City of Philadelphia, Doe(s) and Roe(s) have and will continue to deprive the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class of rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.c. §1983.
47. By engaging in the practice of unlawfully denying members of the Plaintiff Class the rights to counsel, due process and equal protection of the law in connection with proceedings that result in periods of incarceration, Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri have and will continue to deprive the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class of rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe Constitution ofthe United States and 42 U.S.c. §1983.
48. As a result of the conduct of all Defendants, the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. There is no adequate remedy at law and the requested declaratory and injunctive relief are necessary to prevent ongoing civil rights violations.
11


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 12 of 18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DAMAGES FOR FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Plaintiff Davis v. Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly, Perri and Doe(s) 49. Plaintiffs hereby reallege paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the above described conduct, committed under color of state law, and while acting in that capacity, Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly, Perri and Doe(s) deprived the named Plaintiff of his rights to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and further denied the named Plaintiffthe rights to counsel, due process and equal protection ofthe law. As a result, Plaintiff suffered harm in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 51. Defendants City ofPhiladelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri have encouraged, tolerated, adopted, ratified or have been deliberately indifferent to a policy, practice and custom in which officers of the Philadelphia Police Department unlawfully arrest individuals, including the named Plaintiff, in the absence of probable cause. 52. Defendants City ofPhiladelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri have encouraged, tolerated, adopted, ratified or have been deliberately indifferent to a policy, practice and custom in which employees and officials of the Philadelphia Traffic Court deny the right to counsel and to a fair trial to persons, including Plaintiff, in connection with proceedings that result in incarceration. 53. Defendants City ofPhiladelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri have encouraged, tolerated, ratified and/or have been deliberately indifferent to the following patterns, practices and customs and to the need for training, supervision or discipline to prevent these practices: a. The abuse of police powers, including but not limited to unlawful detention, unlawful arrest,
12


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 13 of 18
improper searches and seizures, and malicious prosecution; b. The failure of police officers to consider available information in determining whether an individual is the same person reported to have violated provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; c. The failure of police officers to follow established policies and procedures regarding the arrests of persons sought in connection with outstanding fines and costs in Motor Vehicle Code violations and the failure to confirm the identity of persons sought in connection with such matters prior to making an arrest; d. The failure to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the identity of individuals who are alleged to have violated the Motor Vehicle Code thus preventing:
i) employees of Defendants City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Traffic Court, including the individual defendants in this case, from accurately identifying persons who are wanted for alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Code; ii) erroneously identifying Plaintiffs as persons who have outstanding fines and costs in connection with alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations; and iii) Defendants City ofPhiladelphia and Philadelphia Traffic Court from properly monitoring the conduct and performance of their employees to assure compliance with the laws and Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and applicable Court Orders and Consent Decrees; e. The failure of Philadelphia Traffic Court to provide counsel to persons who are facing incarceration for violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, including the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class, who were indigent and unable to afford private counsel; f. The failure of Philadelphia Traffic Court to afford persons who are facing incarceration for violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, including the named Plaintiff, with notice of the specific charges against them, the opportunity to prepare a defense, to confront and cross-examine the
13


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 14 of 18
witnesses against them, to present evidence on their own behalf and to equal protection of the law in connection with the alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; and g. The failure of Philadelphia Traffic Court to prevent the policy, practice and procedure of incarcerating indigent alleged offenders.
54. By these actions, Defendants City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Traffic Court have deprived the named Plaintiff of rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class respectfully request the following relief:
(a) Certify the Plaintiff Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) Issue a declaratory judgment that the actions, policies and practices described above of the Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly, Perri, Doe(s) and Roe(s) cause the deprivation of rights guaranteed to the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (c) Permanently enjoin Defendants City of Philadelphia, Doe(s) and Roe(s) and all officers of the Philadelphia Police Department from unlawfully arresting and prosecuting the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class on alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations in the absence of probable cause; (d) Permanently enjoin Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Kelly and Perri from unlawfully denying the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class the rights to counsel, due process and equal protection of the law in Traffic Court proceedings that result in periods of
14


Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 15 of 18
incarceration; (e) Enjoin and require Defendant City of Philadelphia to establish effective policies, procedures
and programs with respect to the training, supervision and discipline ofPhiladelphia police officers that are specifically designed to remedy the conduct complained of herein;
(f) Enjoin and require the Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Traffic Court and Kelly to establish effective policies, procedures and programs that are specifically designed to remedy the conduct complained of herein, including, but not limited to, provisions for the right to counsel and to a fair trial for all persons brought before Philadelphia Traffic Court who are subject to incarceration for alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations;
(g) Award the named Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages; (h) Award the named Plaintiff reasonable counsel fees and costs; and (i) Such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just.
 U) Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.


PAULM ING Attom D No. 17749 KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY,
EPSTEIN & MESSING 924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 (215) 925-4400 Counsel for Plaintiffs

o ATHAN FEINBERG
A omey ID No. 88227 IRYS, RUDOVSKY, EPSTEIN & MESSING
924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400 Counsel for Plaintiffs
15


o Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page31·6 ojf ~18/OO


~J~ 44 .,~I-.":..;.~~.i ~i:;"\J

CIVIL COVER SHEET

.

APPENDIX B

The JS-44 civil e

inforrmtion contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required

by law, except es provi ed by ocal rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the

use of the Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS CN THE REVER~E OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Ebony Davis,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plai (EXCEPT rN U.S. P

DEFENDANTS Ci ty of Phi la., Phi la Traffic Court, Honorable Kelly,

Honorable Perri, Officer John Doe

and Officer Richard Roe

County of Residence of First Listed

..p....b.....i.._l....a........

_

(rN U.S. PLArNTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Kairys Rudovsky Epstein & Messing
924 Cherry st., Ste 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 ~1~925 4400

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURIS

I

o I U.S. Governmen
Plaintiff

ace an -x- in One Box Only)
uestion . Govern ment Not a Party)

and One Box for De fendant)
DEF
In rporated or Principal Pia ce 0 4 04 of Business hi This State

o 2 U.S. Govcrnmen
Defendant

iversity (Indicate Citi zcnship of Part ies in Item III)

IV. NATURE 0 F SUIT
CONTRACT

Place an "X" in One Box Onl TORTS

0 110 Insurance 0 120 Marine

PERSONAL INJURY 0 310 Airplane

PERSONAL INJURY
o 362 Personal [njury­

0 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument

0 315 Airplane Product liability

Med. Malpractice
o 36S Personal Injury ­

0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0

& En Iorcement 01

0 ~~~llllte8lcare Act

0

320 Assa ult, Libe J & Slander
330 Federal Empl ojers '

Product Liabifity
o 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Pjeduc t

0 152 Recovery of Debuted

Liability

Liability

Student Loans

0 340 Ma rine

(Exc!. Veterans)

0 345 Marine Product

0 I S3 Recove ry of Overpayment

Liability

of Vetcran' s Benefits

0 350 M otor Vehide

PERSONAL PROPERTY
o 370 Other Fraud o 371 Truth in Lending o 380 Other Personal

0 160 SIOCkholders' Suits 0 190 Other Contract

0 3SS Motor V chicle Product Liability

o Property Damage 38S Property Da mage

0 19S Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Injury

Product Liability

REAL PROPERTY
o 210 Land Condemnation o 220 Foree losure o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 240 Torts to Land o 24S Tort Product Liability o 290 All Othe r Real Prop y

CIVIL RIGHTS
o o

PRISONER PETITION
OSlO Motions to Va cate Sentence
Habeas Corpus:
o 530 General o 535 De ath Penalty o S40 Mandamus & Other o 550 Civil Rights o SSS Prison Condition

Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 05 of Business h Another Slate

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation Forei n Coun

o 6 06

FORFEITURE/PENAL1Y

BANKRUPTCY

0 610 Agriculture

0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0 620 Other Food & Drug

0 625 Drug Related S eizurc 0 423 Withdrawal

of Property 21 USC

28USCI57

0 630 Liq eor Laws 0 640 R.R. & Truck

PROPERTY RIGHTS

0 6S0 Airlile Regs. 0 660 Occupational
Safety/Health 0 690 Other

0 820 Co pyrights 0 830 Patent 0 840 Trad emark

LABOR

SOCIAL SECURITY

0 710 Fair Labor Sjandatds 0 861 H IA (13 95fl)

A<l

0 862 Black Lung (923)

0 720 Labor/M gmt. Relations 0 863 DIW C/DIW W (405 (g))

0 g64 SSID Title XVI

0 730 Labor/M gmt.Reporting 0 g65 RS I (405(g))

& Disclosure Ace 0 740 Railway Labor Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

o 870 T axes (U.S. Plaintiff

0 790 Other Labor Litigatiln

or Defenda nt)

0 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

o 871 IRS -Third Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES
o 400 State Reap portionment o 410 Antitrust o 430 Banks and Banking o 450 Commerce/lCC Rates/etc. o 460 Deportation o 470 Racke teer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
o 810 Selec rive Service o 850 Securiti:s/Commoditics/
Exchange
o 87S Customer Challenge
12USC3410
o 891 Agricultural Acts o 892 Economic Stab iliaat on Act o 893 Environm ental Matters o 894 Energy Albcalion Act o 895 Freedom of
Informalion Ael 0900 App eal of Fee
Dete{fflWel-~QualAcces 5 to
o Justice 9S0 C onstitu tionality 0 t
o State Stanacs 890 Other Statutory Actions

"X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Removed from State Court

03 Remanded from
Appellate Court

Transferred from

o

4 Reinstated or

0 5

another district (specify)

Reopened

(Cite the U.S. Civil Sjatute under which you arc filing and write brief staement of cause. Do not cite jurisd ictiona l statutes unless d ivctsity.)

o 6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Appeal to

District

o 7

Judge from Magistrate

Judgment

42 USC 198
VII. REQUESTED COMPLAINT·

A CLASS ACTION 3

DEMANDS

VIII. RELATED C IF ANY
DATE
fOR~/t!t Psi oNLI'

JUDG E
~Jr;:r:::=;'""0'" )

RECEIPT #

- - - - - - - _ AMOUN

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAR 0 4..2003~--

_

MAG. JUDGE

_

0 Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 17".o»>f 18I '-lot)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

APPENDIX A

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to Indicate the category of lie case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar.

Address of Plaintiff:. 810 N. 63rd s t r e--"e----t'--",.......-=P-=h-==i-l==a.:d=..=e:.l.=p.==h.=i-=a=-,.........P::..Ac'-"----1-'-9-=<1-'-5-"'1'-'-­

_

1515 Arch street, Law Dept. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Address of Defendant:

-=--:-:_~---=~.:..:...--=--=..J;:.....=~-=..:.:.=..:.=c==-=:..l::.~=:..L-=-~~~....!....:~'__

_

Philadelphia, PA

(Use Reverse Side For Addtional Spac

Does this case involve mulidistrict Iligation pcssibilities?
RELA TED CASE, IF ANY:

Case Number:

Judge

Date Terrnlnaed:

_

Civil cases are deemed related when yes is arswered to any of the following questions: 1. Is this case related to property included i1 an earler numbered suit pendirg or withh one year previousty terminated action in ths court?
Yes O N~

2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending cr within one year previously terminated action in this court?
YesO No,PlJ"

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent alrea::ly in suit or any earlier numbered case pendng or within one year previously

terminata::l action in this court?

Yes O NO~

V CIVIL: (Place in ONE CATEGCRY ONLY)

A. Federal Cnastion Cases:
1. 0 Indemnity Cmtract, Marine Contract, and All Olher Contracts 2. 0 FELA 3. 0 Jones Act-Personal Injury 4. 0 Antitrust
10. 0 Social Security Review Cases

B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Conlracts 2. 0 Airplane Personal Injury 3. 0 Assault, Defamation 4. 0 Marine Personal Injury 5. 0 Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. 0 Other Personal Injury (Please specify) 7. 0 Products Liability 8. [J Products Liability - Asbestos 9. 0 All other Diversity Cases
(Please specify)

11. 0 All other Federal Question Cases
(Please specify)
Paul Messing

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check appropriate Cfiegory)

o Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that tothe best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case
exieed the sum d $150,000.00 exclusve of interest and costs;
o Relief other than monetary damages is sough!.

DATE:

3/4/03

17749

Attar y-at-Law

Attorney 1.0.#

NOTE: A trial de novo wI! be a trial by jury Iy if there has been compliance wth F.R.C.P. 38.

I certify that, to myknowledge, the within easels not related to any case now ping or within one year previouslyterminated action In thiscourt except as noted above.

DATE: _ _3'/--4-'/--03

_

CIV. 609 (9.99)

Attorney 1.0.#

Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 1 Filed 03/04/03 Page 18 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

APPENDIX C

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

Ebony Davis, et al.
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. {).5 -J 4QCJ

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus -- Cases brought under 28 U.S.C.

§2241 through §2255.

( )

(b) Social Securi ty -- Cases re questing rev iew of a

decision of the Secretary ofHealth and Human

Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.

( )

(c) Arbitration -- Cases required to be designated for

arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.

( )

(d) Asbestos -- Cases involving claims for personal

injury or property damage from exposure to

asbestos.

( )

(e) Special Management -- Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.)

J. y.o:3
Date

(f) Standard Management -- Cases that do not fall int anyone of the other tracks.

(Civ.660) 7/95

Attorney for

,i

,

iI I

 
 Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 5-1 Filed 03/18/03 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EBONY DAVIS, et al,

:

Plaintiffs :

:

vs.

:

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al,

:

Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 03-CV-1400

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2003, after a conference with counsel for the parties, IT IS ORDERED that no defendant brought before The Philadelphia Traffic Court shall be ordered incarcerated for failure to post bail or security pending a trial at which the defendant shall be afforded the right to counsel and shall be advised of his or her right to appeal to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

BY THE COURT:

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

 
 Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 10 Filed 07/08/03 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EBONY DAVIS,

:

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND

:

ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, :

Plaintiffs :

:

vs.

:

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

:

PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT, :

HONORABLE FRANCIS E. KELLY, :

Individually as President Judge of :

Philadelphia Traffic Court,

:

HONORABLE FORTUNATO PERRI, :

Individually as Administrative Judge :

of Philadelphia Traffic Court,

:

OFFICERS JOHN DOE(S) and

:

OFFICERS RICHARD ROE(S),

:

Individually and Officers of the

:

Philadelphia Police Department,

:

Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-CV-1400

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2003, upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement (Document No. 9) of the parties, and the Court finding that:
(a) The parties stipulate and agree to this Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3) and 4;
(b) The parties stipulate and agree that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant further relief found necessary and proper;
(c) The parties stipulate and agree that this action be certified as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) solely as to the issues of declaratory and injunctive relief;

Case 2:03-cv-01400-TJS Document 10 Filed 07/08/03 Page 2 of 2
and, (d) Counsel for the parties have engaged in serious, good faith negotiations
relating to the establishment of procedures to resolve the issues associated with the prosecution and incarceration of persons brought before Philadelphia Traffic Court and to compensate counsel for the Class.
IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Settlement Agreement is APPROVED; 2. The action is certified as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) as to the issues of declaratory and injunctive relief only; 3. The Class consists of individuals who have been or may be subject to the jurisdiction of Philadelphia Traffic Court for alleged Motor Vehicle Code violations and have been or may be subject to periods of incarceration as a result of proceedings conducted without the assistance of counsel, due process and/or equal protection of the law; 4. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and the Class members for all matters relating to this action and settlement, including the administration, interpretation, effectuation and/or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Order; and, 5. The case is DISMISSED without costs pursuant to Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
BY THE COURT:
TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

 
 Case: 2:03-cv-01400-TJS As of: 10/03/2014 01:53 PM EDT 1 of 3
CLOSED,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03−cv−01400−TJS

DAVIS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al Assigned to: HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/04/2003 Date Terminated: 07/08/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

EBONY DAVIS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING &FEINBERG LLP THE CAST IRON BLDG STE 501 SOUTH 718 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−925−4400 Fax: 215−925−5365 Email: jfeinberg@krlawphila.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL M. MESSING KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING &FEINBERG LLP THE CAST IRON BLDG STE 501 SOUTH 718 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−925−4400 Fax: 215−925−5365 Email: pmessing@krlawphila.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Defendant PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT

represented by JEFFREY M. SCOTT ARCHER &GREINER ONE LIBERTY PL 32ND FL 1650 MARKET ST. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103−7393 215−963−3300 Email: jscott@archerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. TAYLOR WILLIAMS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PA COURTS 1515 MARKET ST STE 1414 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−560−6300 Fax: 215−560−6315 Email: legaldepartment@pacourts.us

Case: 2:03-cv-01400-TJS As of: 10/03/2014 01:53 PM EDT 2 of 3

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FRANCIS E. KELLY HONORABLE, INDIVIDUALLY AS PRESIDENT JUDGE OF PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT

represented by A. TAYLOR WILLIAMS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FORTUNATO PERRI HONORABLE, INDIVIDUALLY AS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OF PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT

represented by A. TAYLOR WILLIAMS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN DOE(S) OFFICERS

Defendant
RICHARD ROE(S) OFFICERS, INDIVIDUALLY AS OFFICERS OF THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Date Filed 03/04/2003
03/04/2003 03/04/2003 03/10/2003
03/11/2003 03/12/2003 03/18/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, JOHN DOE(S), FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI, PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT, RICHARD ROE(S) ( Filing fee $ 150 receipt number 883159.), filed by EBONY DAVIS.(aam, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/3/2007 (om, ). (Entered: 03/05/2003)
Summons Issued as to CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI, PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT.4 mailed To: Counsel on 3/5/03 (aam, ) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EBONY DAVIS. (aam, ) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by EBONY DAVIS re: Wayne Clinton served Summons and Complaint upon CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI, PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT by Personal Service. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA served on 3/7/2003, answer due 3/27/2003; FRANCIS E. KELLY served on 3/7/2003, answer due 3/27/2003; FORTUNATO PERRI served on 3/7/2003, answer due 3/27/2003; PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT served on 3/7/2003, answer due 3/27/2003. (fdc, ) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
3 Entry of Appearance of A. TAYLOR WILLIAMS, ESQ. on behalf of FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI, PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT, Certificate of Service (fdc) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
4 ORDER THAT A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 AT 11:00 AM. SIGNED BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 3/12/03. 3/12/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
5 ORDER THAT NO DEFENDANT BROUGHT BEFORE THE PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT SHALL BE ORDERED INCARCERATED FOR FAILURE TO POST BAIL OR SECURITY PENDING A TRIAL AT WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE AFFORDED THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND SHALL BE ADVISED OF HIS OR HER RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. SIGNED BY JUDGE

Case: 2:03-cv-01400-TJS As of: 10/03/2014 01:53 PM EDT 3 of 3

03/19/2003 04/22/2003 04/30/2003 06/11/2003 07/08/2003 07/09/2003 06/12/2006 08/01/2006 09/05/2006

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 3/18/03. 3/18/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fdc) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2003 (fdc, ). (Entered: 03/18/2003)
6 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2003 AT 9:30 AM. SIGNED BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 3/19/03. 3/19/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
7 FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI AND PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT'S Petition to Dissolve the Order of Court entered March 18, 2003, Certificate of Service. (fdc) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
8 ORDER THAT A STAUS CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2003 AT 10:30 AM IN ROOM 4006. SIGNED BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 4/30/03. 4/30/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
9 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by EBONY DAVIS, FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI, PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT, Certificate of Service. (fdc) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
10 ORDER THAT THE CASE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS PURSUANT TO RULE 41.1(B) OF THE LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. SIGNED BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/8/03. 7/8/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
11 ORDER THAT THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE ORDER OF COURT ENTERED 3/18/2003 IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/8/2003. 7/9/2003 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
12 MOTION To Relinquish Jurisdiction filed by FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(WILLIAMS, A.) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
13 Letter to Judge Savage RE: REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 MOTION To Relinquish Jurisdiction filed by PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT, FRANCIS E. KELLY, FORTUNATO PERRI. (WILLIAMS, A.) Modified on 8/2/2006 (np). (Entered: 08/01/2006)
14 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS COURT RELINQUISHES JURISDICTION. SIGNED BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 9/5/06.9/6/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 09/06/2006)