UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MARQUAYLE MARTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-384-TLS-SLC

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FORT WAYNE et al., )

)

Defendants. )

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

COMES NOW Plaintiff, MarQuayle Martin, on behalf of himself and all other similarlysituated individuals, by counsel, and pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

alleges against the Defendant City of Fort Wayne as follows:

1. Representative Plaintiff MarQuayle Martin resides in the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

He brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated

persons, to wit, the “Class” of putative class members, which is defined as follows: 

Individuals who from August 17, 2013 until the present time, were 

subjected to traffic stops by City of Fort Wayne police officers, and had 

their vehicles immediately seized, towed and impounded without a warrant

and the owners’ consent, or any legal justification to do so; the vehicle 

seizures occurred without any pre-deprivation notice and/or hearing prior to 

the seizure, towing, and impoundment; and City officers failed to permit the 

vehicle owners to have a licensed driver present at the scene drive the 

vehicle from the scene. 

2. The Defendant City of Fort Wayne (“City”), is responsible for the policies, practices, 

procedures and customs that are and have been in effect at the Fort Wayne Police 

Department regarding the seizure and automatic impoundment of vehicles. The City 

is named in its official capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City’s policies, 

practices, procedures, and customs (or lack of) pertaining to the seizure and automatic 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 1 of 7
2

tow and impoundment of vehicles without allowing owners of the vehicles to permit 

alternative licensed drivers on the scene to drive the vehicles away, are unreasonable 

and unconstitutional and constitute unreasonable seizures of the Fourth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution and constitute a denial of procedural due process under 

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (failing to provide notice 

and an opportunity for a hearing prior to depriving owners of their vehicles). 

Furthermore, the City and the Chief of Police of the City of Fort Wayne failed to train 

and supervise its police officers regarding the seizure and automatic towing and 

impoundment of vehicles without allowing the owners to use alternative drivers and/or 

without allowing licensed drivers on the scene to drive the vehicles away. 

3. MarQuayle Martin was driving his vehicle in Fort Wayne Indiana on June 27, 2014, 

when he was stopped by City of Fort Wayne Police Officers, and then arrested. A 

licensed driver was in the car at the time of the vehicle stop and was willing to drive 

the Plaintiff’s car away from the scene when Plaintiff was arrested. The Plaintiff 

asked that the individual be permitted to drive the car away, but his requests were 

denied by the officers.

4. The Plaintiff objected to the officers’ seizure and towing of his vehicle, and repeatedly 

asked why his car had to be towed and impounded, when a licensed driver at the scene

had indicated she could drive the vehicle home. Nevertheless, the Fort Wayne City 

police officers decided to tow the Plaintiff’s vehicle and automatically impound it, even 

though they had no warrant for the seizure of the car, no probable cause to search or 

seize the car, and even though they had given the Plaintiff no pre-deprivation notice or 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 2 of 7
3

hearing as to why automatic impoundment was required. 

5. As a result of the automatic towing and impoundment, MarQuayle Martin’s Fourth 

Amendment right against unreasonable seizure of his property was violated, and his 

Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process was violated (he received no 

notice or hearing prior to the seizure). The decisions to take the car into custody and 

to conduct a search of the vehicle were not done in accordance with standardized 

criteria or established routine required by the Fourth Amendment. There was no 

constitutionally legitimate reason to tow, impound or search Plaintiff’s car.

6. The wrongful and unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was the result of the 

Defendant City of Fort Wayne’s unconstitutional/ constitutionally defective policies, 

practices, procedures, and/or customs that were in effect governing the seizure and 

automatic impoundment of vehicles. In addition, the City failed to adequately train 

and supervise its personnel on the appropriate versus inappropriate seizure, automatic 

towing of vehicles, and impoundment of vehicles, such as where the owner has 

consented to a licensed driver present to drive the vehicle from the scene.

7. As a result of the officers’ unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff’s vehicle, and as a result 

of depriving Plaintiff of procedural due process by automatically seizing, towing and 

impounding the vehicle without any pre-deprivation notice or hearing (violation of 

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment), the Plaintiff suffered otherwise 

avoidable towing charges and storage fees, the loss of the benefit of the value and use 

of his vehicle, and Plaintiff suffered inconvenience, emotional distress, and other 

damages and injuries. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 3 of 7
4

8. Pursuant to Local Rule 23.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court of 

Northern District of Indiana, set forth below are references to the portions of the Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23 under which it is claimed that this suit is properly maintained as a class 

action. 

a. Plaintiff maintains that:

i) The class is so numerous that joinder of all putative class members would 

be impracticable, 

ii) There are questions of law or fact common to the class;

iii) The claims of the class representative (MarQuayle Martin) are typical of 

the claims of the class members, and 

iv) The class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the class. 

b. This action is maintainable as a class action because the prerequisites of Rule 

23(a) are satisfied, and in addition: 

i) There are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class which 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that pursuant

to Rule 23 (b) (3) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy, and:

(A) There is no interest of members of the class in individually controlling the 

prosecution of separate actions; 

(B) There is no collateral litigation to this case which has been commenced by 

other putative class members, at least such litigation is unknown to either 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 4 of 7
5

the named Plaintiff or his counsel; 

(C) It would be desirable of concentrating the litigation of any and all claims 

similar to that of the Plaintiffs in one (1) forum (this Court); and 

(D) There are no known difficulties likely to be encountered in the 

management of this class action).

9. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts on behalf of himself individually only, and not on 

behalf of the class:

a. Plaintiff is MarQuayle Martin, a black male who resides in Fort Wayne, 

Indiana, and who, on June 27, 2014, was driving his vehicle on St. Mary’s 

Avenue in Fort Wayne, Indiana, when he was stopped by Fort Wayne City 

Police Department Officers Barry Pruser, Michael Long, Martin Grooms, 

Derrick Demorest, and Todd Hughes.

b. Defendants Fort Wayne City Police Department Officers Barry Pruser, 

Michael Long, Martin Grooms, Derrick Demorest, and Todd Hughes are sued 

in their individual capacity and as persons acting under color of law whose 

actions in subjecting the Plaintiff to unconsented to search of property and 

unreasonable seizure of property violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to be 

free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the alternative, the 

individually named officers are liable to the Plaintiff based upon bystander 

liability, for failing to intervene on the Plaintiff’s behalf to stop the rights 

violations, in spite of having a meaningful opportunity to do so.

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 5 of 7
6

c. On or about June 27, 2014, Plaintiff was pulled over by Defendants Long and 

Pruser. 

d. Plaintiff was later put into the back of a police car, and these officers decided 

that Plaintiff’s car had to be towed, even though it did not need to be towed 

because Plaintiff had a licensed passenger who could drive the car. Plaintiff 

asked repeatedly why his car had to be towed. The officers ignored the 

Plaintiff. The officers decided to tow Plaintiff’s vehicle even though they 

had no probable cause to do so, and they left Plaintiff’s five year-old daughter 

and two female cousins standing waiting for a ride.

e. These officers unlawfully seized Plaintiff’s vehicle and also made an illegal 

search of it without probable cause, a warrant, or legal justification to do so, 

which also violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth 

Amendment. Defendant officers made the decision to tow and impound 

Plaintiff’s vehicle even though a licensed driver was available and ready to 

drive Plaintiff’s vehicle from the scene. Plaintiff was deprived of procedural 

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, receiving no notice or 

opportunity to be heard prior to the “automatic towing and impoundment.” 

Defendant officers acted intentionally and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages.

f. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants officers’ treatment, Plaintiff 

suffered the wrongful loss of the possession and use of his property, emotional 

distress, and other damages and injuries. The Defendant officers also acted 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 6 of 7
7

intentionally and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected civil 

rights warranting an imposition of punitive damages against the individual 

Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MarQuayle Martin, on behalf of himself and putative class 

members who are similarly situated, respectfully request a judgment against the Defendant City 

of Fort Wayne for compensatory damages, for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief, 

for cost of the action including attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and 

for all other just and proper relief in the premises. Plaintiff, individually only, prays for 

compensatory and punitive damages against the individual officer Defendants Barry Pruser, 

Michael Long, Martin Grooms, Derrick Demorest, and Todd Hughes, reasonable attorney’s fees 

and costs, and for all other just and proper relief.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial 

by jury in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Christopher C. Myers

Christopher C. Myers, #10043-02

809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone: (260) 424-0600

Facsimile: (260) 424-0712

Attorney for Plaintiffs

CCM/DF

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00384-SLC document 49 filed 10/11/17 page 7 of 7