Little, Logan v City of Philadelphia et al

8/18/2019 Little, Logan v City of Philadelphia et al

1/21

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREW LITTLE :

LEONARD LOGAN : CIVIL ACTION:-vs- : NO.

:CITY OF PHILADLEPHIA, CHARLES RAMSEY :WILLIAM BLACKBURN, EVELYN HEATH, :CARMAN VUOTTO, VINCENT TESTA, : Jury Trial DemandPATRICIA GEORGIO FOX, STEPHEN JOHNSON and :CAROL ONIEL. :

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1.

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Claims are also

brought under sections 1985 and 1986, included is a Monell action. The action asserts the

Defendants while acing under color of state law, intentionally and with reckless disregard or

deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ civil rights, deprived the Plaintiffs of their First

Amendment rights by retaliating against the Plaintiffs engaging in free speech and petition clause

activity. The Plaintiffs assert their rights were deprived by the Defendants as such rights are

secured and guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the United States Constitution and federal law; and

that the rights were deprived under and as a result of intentional conduct, a City policy, practice

and/or custom, and an agreement between the defendants, and/or by an omission to supervise

and/or stop the other from depriving the Plaintiff rights. Plaintiffs’ assert that they sustained

economic damages and personal injuries as a direct result of and proximate cause of the

defendants’ conduct, agreement and/or the policy, practice, and/or custom.

Case 2:12-cv-02678-JP Document 1 Filed 05/17/12 Page 1 of 21


2/21

2

II. JURISDICTION

2. Pursuant to 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986, and 28 USC 1331 and 1343(3), this

court has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ civil rights action.

3. Venue is proper in this Court because the events that allow the causes of action

occurred in this venue and all parties to the action reside in the Court’s venue. Pursuant to Local

Civil Rule 5.1.1 regarding pleading claims for un-liquidated damages, as specifically stated

herein, plaintiff seeks to declare unconstitutional the acts of the Defendants, recover

compensatory and punitive damages, and recovery of an amount in excess of the amount

awardable through arbitration, as such this matter is not subject to arbitration under Local Civil

Rule 53.2.

III.

PARTIES

4. Andrew Little and Leonard Logan are the Plaintiff; each is a natural person, and

each is domiciled and reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

5. The City of Philadelphia Defendant is a City of the First Class, a municipal

governmental entity, and operated under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and

through its elected officials and employees, of which Defendant Testa, Heath, Vuotto, O’Neill,

Blackburn, Johnson and Georgio-Fox are employee and who hold policy making positions with

delegated final authority from the City of Philadelphia via Police Commissioner Charles

Ramsey.

6. Charles Ramsey, William Blackburn, Evelyn Heath, Carman Vuotto, Vincent

Testa, Patricia Georgio Fox, Stephen Johnson, and Carol O’Neill are natural person, each is

believed by the Plaintiffs to reside in the County of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania.



3/21

3

7. For all times material to the causes of action, each defendant is a “Persons” as

intended by 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986; each also at such time was a person utilizing authority

conferred to them by state law; thus, each is a “State Actor” as intended by 42 USC 1983, 1985

and 1986.

8. Each defendant was at all times material to the causes of action a sworn police

officer, supervisors, and person that held a position to make policy and/or/ final decision making

authority for the City of Philadelphia and its Police Department.

IV. MATERIAL FACTS

9. On or about April 23, 1990 Plaintiff Andrew Little began employment with the

City of Philadelphia as a police officer; he remains an employee of the City of Philadelphia and

as a police officer with the rank of Seargent.

10. On or about September 23, 1985 Leonard Logan began employment with the City

of Philadelphia as a police officer; he remains an employee of the City of Philadelphia and as a

police officer with the rank of Lieutenant.

11. Plaintiffs Little and Logan while employed as City of Philadelphia archived

excellent work histories, were well liked by their equal co-workers and supervisors not

mentioned as defendants in this action, and advanced in rank.

12. Charles Ramsey, William Blackburn, Evelyn Heath (# ), Carman Vuotto (#21),

Vincent Testa (#302), Patricia Georgio Fox, Stephen Johnson, and Carol O’Neill (#130) for all

times material to the causes of action was a “Persons” as intended by 42 USC 1983, 1985 and

1986.


Testa, Patricia Georgio Fox, Stephen Johnson, and Carol O’Neill for all material times of the



4/21

4

causes of action was a person that used authority conferred to them by state law; thus each is a

“State Actors” as intended by 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986.


Testa, Patricia Georgio Fox, Stephen Johnson, and Carol O’Neill for all times material to the

causes of action was a sworn police officer, supervisors, and person that held a position to make

policy and/or/ final decision making authority for the City of Philadelphia and its Police

Department.

15. For all material times of the causes of action Charles Ramsey, William Blackburn,

Evelyn Heath, Carman Vuotto, Vincent Testa, Patricia Georgio-Fox, Stephen Johnson, and Carol

O’Neill for all material times of the causes of action was a person that issued authority conferred

to them by state law; thus each is a “State Actors” as intended by 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986.

16. For all material times related to the causes of action:

(a) Charles Ramsey was the Police Commissioner and for such acts are further described

below, Charles Ramsey used this position as Police Commissioner and its authority.

(b) William Blackburn, Patricia Georgio Fox, and Stephen Johnson were Deputy Police

Commissioners; each was appointed to such position by Charles Ramsey. Defendants Blackburn

Georgio-Fox and Johnson used their position and authority.

(c) Evelyn Heath was a Chief Inspector and assigned to the Forensic Unit of the

Philadelphia Police Depar tment. Heath’s rank is the highest civil service rank in the City of

Philadelphia’s Police Department, and it is a rank just below Deputy Police Commissioner. For

such acts by Heath that are further described below, Heath used the Chief Inspector position and

its authority, and she acted too under a personal relationship with Defendant Carmen Vuotto.



5/21

5

(d) Carman Vuotto was a Captain. Vuotto was assigned to Internal Affairs and replaced

Captain David Harte (#76). Vuotto for all times material to the causes of action used his Captain

and Internal affairs position and its authority.

(e) Vincent Testa was a Lieutenant and for such acts which are further described below

Testa was involved in a personal and romantic relationship with Evelyn Heath and was assigned

to command the Firearms Identification Unit (FIU). For such time and the acts by him, which are

further described below, Testa used this position as Police Lieutenant and its authority.

(f) Carol O’ Neill was a Captain and assigned to the Charging Unit for the City of

Philadelphia Police Department Police Board of Inquiry. O’Neill for such acts that are further

described below used her position as Captain and assigned to the Charging Unit for the City of

Philadelphia Police Department Police Board of Inquiry and its authority.

17. On or about August 2009 Plaintiff Little was a Sergeant assigned to supervise

City employees and police officers assigned to the Firearms Identification Unit.

18. On or about August 2009 Defendants Testa was the Lieutenant and Command Officer

over Little, other police and civil employees that were assigned to work at the Firearms

Identification Unit.

19. Some tasks for those working at the FIU include: to identify firearms that may

have been used in crimes, such crimes as assaults, robberies and homicides. The FIU receives

firearms of all types from all Districts and Units within the Philadelphia Police department, and

the FIU is to identify every firearm before it is sent to the Evidence Unit. The FIU also performs

identification services to federal agencies, such as the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms)

Agency.



6/21

6

20. The FIU is a recognized certified forensic lab that provided court testimony on

firearms. The FIU receives grant money for overtime work and other services. The grant money

is received from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and State and Federal sources.

21. The FIU is and was in 2009, 2010 and 2011 understaffed. And, based on the very

large number of firearms daily sent to and received by the FIU, the small staff size and the duty

to identify each firearm that comes to FIU there is and was created a very large backlog of

firearms to be identified.

22. On or about August 2009 Evelyn Heath, William Blackburn sought to reduce the

large backlog of unidentified firearms. At such time, Blackburn said he wanted the backlog to be

500. Heath stated the backlog was unacceptable. Testa promised Heath and Blackburn that by

June 2010 he (Testa) would have the backlog number down to 500.

23. Testa with the knowledge and approval of Chief Inspector Heath and Deputy

Police Commissioner William Blackburn stopped identifying every firearm. Testa then mass

shipped unidentified firearms to the Evidence Unit. Tests fabricated the FIU paperwork to show

the backlog was reduced.

24. As a result of Testa’s actions approved by Heath and Blackburn, potential guns

used in crimes were not discovered and the crimes could not be prosecuted or cleared, because

the evidence to clear and prosecute the crime was lost forever when the firearms are destroyed

through the Evidence Unit’s practice to destroy firearms.

25. Little unequivocally opposed Testa’s scheme that by manipulating numbers

fraudulently showed the backlog was reduced. Little opposed Testa’s cover-up scheme to Testa,

Heath and Blackburn.



7/21

7

26. In response to Little’s opposition, Heath said she did not care and wanted the

backlog numbers reduced no matter what. Blackburn said he wanted the backlog number down

to around 500. Testa initiated a quota system and policy to clear one firearm not matter what for

each FIU employee per shift, which quota required standardized scientific standards to be short

cut, and which quota caused a risk the lab would lose its certification and the member’s

credibility to testify in court.

27. On or about May 28, 2010 Little in writing and through the U.S. Mail reported to

Police Commissioner Ramsey and Deputy Police Commissioners Fox and Ross the Testa

backlog clearance scheme. Little also reported that Testa engaged in police misconduct or a

cover-up involving FIU Police Officer Magsam. Here, Magsam had stolen firearms and firearm

parts form the FIU.

28. Little’s mailing was routed on June 8, 2010 to Chief Anthony Dilaqua Office

Professional responsibility) and Kevin Long (Internal Affairs) (See Exhibits A and B). On or

about June 9, 2010 Plaintiff Logan was assigned to investigate Little report of Testa’s police

misconduct but the assignment was outside the usual internal affairs assignment practices.

29. Captain David Harte (#76) was in Command of an Internal Affairs Team which

team included Lt. Leonard Logan (Plaintiff Logan) as a team member. Inspector Jeanette Lake-

Dooley was at such time too an Internal Affairs supervisor over Harte and Logan.

30. At the time of the Little report, Internal Affairs had limited manpower that caused

internal affairs investigator to not be able to complete investigations as fast as they would like;

the manpower problem caused a back-log of internal affairs investigations.

31. The backlog problem at IA and FIU were known problems to Ramsey, Georgia

Fox, Johnson and Vuotto, because the backlog problems had been discussed at COMSTAT



8/21

8

meetings, and Ramsey, Heath, Blackburn, Johnson and Georgia Fox attended the COMSTAT

meetings.

32. Following Little’s opposition to the scheme to fake reduction of the firearm

identification backlog, Little reported Testa, Heath and Blackburn to Deputy Police

Commissioners Johnson and Georgia Fox, however they did nothing with the report to end

Testa’s scheme.

33. On or about June 9, 2010 an investigator from Internal Affairs appeared at FIU

and spoke only with Testa. The Internal Affairs Investigator left and Testa then summonsed all

FIU employees working, including Little, to a meeting. Testa at the meeting said to all that,

“some pussy made a complaint”. Testa then said words to the effect that he (Testa) had political

power thus “nothing is going to be done about it.”

34. Little’s report to Ramsey about Testa and that Testa threatened FIU employee

with discipline if they did not conform their conduct to his policy to clearance one firearm a shift

and if overtime was worked to clear no less than two firearms and the zero clearance per person

per shit quota, which was approved by Heath and Blackburn, was not acted upon to stop the

conduct.

35. Little learned that Testa and others, such as Heath, and Vuotto, had not reported

the federal crimes by FIU police officer Magsam to Internal Affairs, Philadelphia District

Attorney or federal authorities for investigation and prosecution. Rather, Testa, Heath and

Vuotto buried the incident. Here, following a meeting involving Testa, Heath, Vuotto and retired

Chief Feeney, about Magsam stealing guns and gun parts, Magsam was transferred from FIU to

the 15th District by Testa, Heath, and Blackburn.



9/21

9

36. Plaintiff Little unequivocally opposed to Testa the Magsam cover-up. Little told

Testa that Magsam had to be turned in to authorities . Testa replied, if you don’t like the way I

handled it, then you take the Lieutenants test.

37. Little then reported to City officials, the ATF, United States Attorney General and

FBI the Testa, Heath, Blackburn, Vuotto cover-up, and that Johnson’s and Georgia Fox failed to

action.

38. As a result of the in action to stop Testa and to oppose Testa’s quota that

reproduces the lab’s accreditation and the workers’ ability to testify in court, plus Testa’s threats

to retaliate through disciplinary process, Little and other FIU employees filed Union grievances

,which grievances also implicated the falsification of the backlog paperwork scheme.

39. Upon information or belief, defendant Ramsey was aware of the FIU union

grievance and Little’s oppositions. Ramsey was made aware of such through weekly meetings

with the Labor Unit of the Police Department; thus, Ramsey knew of the Testa’s illegal conduct

and fraudulent backlog clearance scheme and quota.

40. Following the meeting called by Testa, Little and all the FIU employees decided

to speak out about the police misconduct cover-up, the fraudulent backlog paperwork, false

figures of a clearance of the backlog clearance rate for unidentified Firearms, Testa’ threats to

discipline if the one clearance a shift quota was not met, and no action being taken to stop Testa

or investigate the misconduct..

41. Little again by U.S. Mail sent directly to Charles Ramsey written notification of,

inter alia, the Testa, Heath, Vuotto, Blackburn cover-up that involved Magsam. Little’s

notification was dates “01-01-11”and the notification also reported Testa “fudging numbers” for

DARs ( daily attendance records) which involved paying officers for working when they were



10/21

10

not and the placing of tape records on voice activation mode in the FIU, which act and tape

recording system mode would violate the State’s Wire-Tapping law (See Exhibit C).

42. Little’s letter to Ramsey was received in the Police Commissioner’s Office on or

about February 1, 2011. Following receipt of Little’s letter to Ramsey, Little was contacted.

Staff of Deputy Police Commissioner Ross’ staff asked whether Little sent the letter to Ramsey

about Testa.

43. On or about February 3, 2011 Little’s letter was forwarded to Internal Affairs on

through the Police Department’s mailing system (See Exhibits D). Little’s letter was received by

Captain O’Donnell on February 4, 2011 (See Exhibit E).

44. During the commencement of the 2010 IA investigation that concerned Little’s

first report to IA, and about Magsam’s theft of guns and gun parts and possible targets being high

ranking police officers, Plaintiff Logan discussed the investigation with Captain David Harte. It

was determined from the discussion there may be federal law violations, such as but not limited

to the possession of stolen gun parts and a cover-up of the crime by police officers.

45. During the course of the IA investigation, Plaintiff Logan conducted interviews of

FIU employees and officers, collected computers, sent evidence to the FBI lab and a private lab,

and concluded there were others than just Testa and Magsam involved; that other police were

involved and that the other police were high in the command structure.

46. Logan fear retaliation and interference with the investigation by the higher ranked

police officers over the Magsam’s criminal conduct cover-up by Testa, Heath, Blackburn, and

Vuotto.

47. Logan thus started to keep the IA investigation at home and then spoke with the

ATF, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and FBI.



11/21

11

48. The ATF would not aid Logan, because ATF worked with the Philadelphia Police

Firearm Unit; however, the U.S. Attorney did provide Logan with assistance as did the FBI,

which two federal agencies started a parallel federal investigation.

49. Logan’s investigative activity was documented and in Logan’s IA report (#10-

1072). However, IAD #10-1072, was not completed by Logan. Rather, it was completed by Lt.

Danielle Vales. The case was reassigned to Vales after and because Logan told Johnson and Fox

that Testa could not have acted alone and that high ranking officials were involved.

50. Internal Affair’s “white papers” and updates of on-going Internal Affair

investigations are discussed between Ramsey and his Deputy Police Commissioners, such as

Ross, Johnson, Blackburn, Georgia-Fox, and Gaittens.

51. IA white papers and IA up-dates are sent to Charles Ramsey and such were being

sent to Ramsey in 2009, 2010 2011 and still in 2012.

52. Ramsey and Deputy Gillison meet with federal authorities about federal

investigations concerning Philadelphia police and/or municipal employee corruption.

53. On or about August 1, 2011 the Philadelphia Inquirer and its sister paper the

Philadelphia Daily News published news articles about a cover-up involving FUI police officer

Magsam. The article read in part that “the lead Internal Affairs investigator was replaced, as was

Capt. Carmen Vuotto, who was overseeing the investigator's work. Vuotto previously worked in

the FIU with Testa”.

54. Charles Ramsey replaced David Harte with Carmen Vuotto as IA Team Captain,

and Ramsey moved Harte to police radio were Vuotto had been assigned.

55. Vuotto before being in Police Radio had worked in FIU and not only worked with

but was a friend to Testa.



12/21

12

56. Testa and Heath are personally and romantically involved. Heath would visit

Testa at FIU.

57. Heath ordered the transfer of Magsam into FIU.

58. Ramsey knew when he replaced Harte with Vuotto that Vuotto had worked in

FIU with Testa.

59. Ramsey knew when he removed Harte that Harte had been involved in a prior IA

investigation involving Heath, and where Heath was dismissed from the police force under the

allegation that Heath engaged in misconduct resulting from a stormy personal relationship with

another police employee subordinate supervisor.

60. Ramsey took no action to move the 2010 IA investigation to conclusion until after

the Inquirer/Daily News Articles were published. Thereafter, Ramsey assigned Vuotto to replace

Harte, replaced Logan and thereafter on or about January 9, 2012 approved discipline against

Logan and against Little on or about December 22, 2011.

61. The discipline Ramsey approved against Logan was for Failure to conduct a

proper, thorough, and complete investigations. The discipline was recommend by Vuotto, was

approved to be submitted for issuance on Ramsey’s authority by Carol O’Neill but opposed by

Harte and Jeannette Lake Dooley.

62. The discipline against Little was approved by Ramsey and submitted by O’Neill

The Charge was Failure to properly supervise subordinates or to prefer disciplinary charges or

take appropriate disciplinary action for Testa’s acts, “regarding removal of weapon parts

belonging to the Firearms Identification Unit…”.

63. At all times for the acts above described, Defendants Ramsey, Vuotto, Heath,

Testa, Georgia Fox, Blackburn, O’Neill, and Johnson acted intentionally, maliciously, with



13/21

13

depraved hearts and animus for Little and Logan; Defendants Ramsey, Vuotto, Heath, Testa,

Georgia Fox, Blackburn, O’Neill, and Johnson acted recklessly, with gross negligence, and with

deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for the constitutional and/or civil rights of Logan

and Little

64. At the time of the acts described above for Ramsey, Vuotto, Heath, Testa,

Georgia Fox, Blackburn, O’Neill, and Johnson, the law was clearly established that retaliation

was actionable and illegal for those person engaging in free speech, such as to oppose criminal

and corrupt misconduct or report to law enforcement police criminal or otherwise other

misconduct, or who file a union grievance to oppose criminal and/or governmental criminal or

illegal misconduct.

V.

CAUSES OF ACTIONCOUNT I

42 USC 1983First Amendment

Free Speech and Petition ClauseCharles Ramsey Carmen Vuotto, Carol O’Neill, Vincent Testa

65. Plaintiffs Little and Logan incorporate all preceding paragraphs here and as

though each were repeated verbatim.

66. Plaintiffs’ Little and Logan engaged in First Amendment Free Speech and/or

Petition Clause activities when they opposed by speaking out, reporting to law enforcement and

the Lodge 5 FOP Union by word and union grievance petition the illegal and police misconduct

by police officer Magsam, Testa, Heath, Blackburn’s Georgia-Fox, Johnson and Ramsey.

67. At all times for the acts by Ramsey, Vuotto, Heath, Testa, Georgia Fox,

Blackburn, O’Neill, and Johnson acted under color of state law, and deprived Logan and Little of

their constitutional right.



14/21

14

68. At all times for the acts by Ramsey, Vuotto, Heath, Testa, Georgia Fox,

Blackburn, O’Neill, and Johnson each knew of or believed Logan’s and Little had engaged in

free speech and/or petition clause activity to report to law enforcement and/or oppose municipal

corruption and police misconduct.

69. Logan’s free speech activity and Little free speech and petition clause activities

were to speak out to others, including law enforcement authorities, about police corruption and

police cover-up of the corruption and criminal conduct.

70. Little’s and Logan’s speech involved a public concern, because the public would

want to know whether its police are corrupt and covering-up criminal acts of other police. The

topic too is of public concern and some much so that the topic here with Magsam and a cover-up

was reported several times already in the written and electronic (internet, radio and televised)

press and the topic remains of interest to the public and press to date.

71. The discipline against Plaintiffs Little and Logan was motivated by or substantial

because of Little and Logan’s f ree speech and/or petition clause activities.

72. The discipline against Little in December 2011 and Logan in January 2012 is

illegal and actionable retaliation under 42 USC 1983 for a deprivation of Logan’s and Little Fir st

Amendment free speech and/or Petition Clause activity rights.

73. Ramsey, O’Neill, and Vuotto knew when each acted to seek, approve and/or

impose the discipline against Logan and Little that Little and Logan had been engaged in First

Amendment free speech or petition clause activities.

74. There was no non-discriminatory legitimate business reason to impose the

discipline against Little or Logan.



15/21

15

75. Any asserted non-discriminatory legitimate business reason the Defendants may

asserted for the discipline, such reasons as Little failed to take appropriate action to supervisor or

stop Testa, or that Logan failed to conduct a thorough and complete investigation would be false

and merely a pretext to hide the retaliatory conduct. For example, Little reported Testa to law

local and federal enforcement; Little reported Testa’ misconduct to Internal affairs and to

Ramsey, Heath, Blackburn, Johnson and Georgia-Fox, and all of these persons held and hold

higher rank to Testa and Little; however, none of these higher ranked persons acted to stop or

discipline Testa. Rather, each allowed Testa to continue. Heath, Blackburn and Vuotto aided

Testa too, and not one of these people (Ramsey, Heath, Blackburn, Johnson and Georgia-Fox)

was moved or disciplined by Ramsey or even recommended to be disciplined by Vuotto and/or

O’Neill.

76. Further, for Logan, he was accused by Ramsey, Vuotto and O’Neill of not doing

interviews and a thorough investigation. However, the IA Investigation at the time Logan was

removed contains over 24 interviewed of which 23 occurred between April 7, 2011 and April 25,

2011. There to were two submissions to two different forensic labs, and there were meetings

with the ATF, FBI and US attorney. All of these facts appear in Logan’s IA report. Logan’s

White Paper writing, done before the completion of the investigation, is word for word the

Conclusion in the final report that was done by the replacement IA Investigator.

77. As a direct result of the defendants’ acts the Plaintiffs suffered economic damages

in excess of $150,000 and the proximate cause for the damages is the Defendants acts as such

acts have been above described.

78. As a direct result of the defendants’ acts the Plaintiffs suffered personal injuries,

which injuries include loss of enjoyment life and society, and extreme emotional distress from



16/21

16

the outrageous conduct of the defendants, as such conduct a is described above, and the

emotional distress has manifested into physical form, such as but not limited to sleeplessness,

moot changes, weight loss and gains, eye twitching, and upset stomachs. The emotional and

physical injuries are proximately causes by the Defendants acts as such acts have been above

described.

COUNT II42 USC 1985

Conspiracy to Deprive Civil RightsCharles Ramsey, William Blackburn, Evelyn Heath, Carman Vuotto, Vincent Testa, Patricia

Georgio Fox, Stephen Johnson And Carol O’Neill



80. Defendants Heath, Blackburn, Vuotto, Testa, Georgio-Fox, Johnson, O’Neill, and

Ramsey entered into an agreement to silence Plaintiff Little and Logan for reporting to the FBI,

U.S. Attorney, and others, and to continue to report, the theft by police officer Magsam, Testa

cover-up of Magsam’s theft, and the fraud by Testa that concerned the fabrication of reduction

numbers and preparing of false public documents about a reduction in FIU back-log of

identification for guns. Which fraud was indorsed, approved and achieved to by Heath and

Blackburn.

81. In furtherance of the agreement, each defendant took substantial steps to allow the

conspiracy to occur and succeed; for example:

(a) Ramsey has done nothing to ensure his subordinate supervisors act lawfully; rather,

Ramsey merely relies on what they say or do and Ramsey have no supervisor system in place to

ensure a cover-up cannot occur, as did and was done here between heath, Blackburn, Johnson,



17/21

17

Georgio-Fox, Testa and Vuotto. Ramsey approved the disciplinary charge against Little and

Logan.

(b) Vuotto recommended the discipline to O’Neill and Ramsey;

(c) O’Neill developed the discipline charge that was approved by Ramsey;

(d) Heath denied knowledge of any wronging by Testa or Magsam, or of Little report of

such to her. Heath aided Vuotto, Testa and Blackburn to move Magsam to the 15th Police district.

(e) Blackburn, like Heath too, acquiesced to Testa’s knowingly false firearm identification

reduction figures; Heath and Blackburn aided Testa to cover-up Magsam’ theft at FIU and Heath

as a Chief Inspector and Blackburn as a Deputy Police Commissioner used their authority,

position, status and rank to move Testa to the 15th police district, and aid Testa to cover-up the

real basis for Magsam being moved from FIU to the 15 th District, which was the theft of guns

and gun parts, and too was a favor done to retired police Chief Feeney and to reward Testa for

the fraud or scheme to reduce the firearm identification backlog.

(f) Georgio-Fox and Johnson remained silent of the wrongdoing by Heath, Blackburn,

Testa and Vuotto, so to allow the misconduct to succeed, although each was under a policy duty

to have the wrongdoing investigated.

82. Plaintiffs were under color of state law intentionally deprived of their civil rights

by the agreement of the defendants, and as a direct or the proximate result of the agreement the

Plaintiffs suffered economic damages, personal injury, and/or a deprivation of their protected

civil and constitutional free speech, petition clause, and equal protection rights as such rights are

secured under the First and fourteenth Amendment s of the United States Constitution and

federal law, rule and regulation.



18/21

18

COUNT III42 USC 1986 (3)

Failure to Stop Deprivation of Civil RightsCharles Ramsey, Patricia Georgio Fox, Stephen Johnson and Carol O’Neill



84. As supervisors with actual knowledge of the others conduct would or were

violating the Plaintiff’s rights, each defendants could by failed to stop the other defendants from

depriving the Plaintiffs civil and constitutional rights.

85. Rather, each defendant acquiesced in the other defendants’ conduct and did so too

to aid in the intended outcome of the conduct, which intended conduct was to punish for past

protected conduct of the Plaintiffs and to dissuade the Plaintiffs from making or continuing to

report and/or oppose police corruption, misconduct and criminal conduct, such as the conduct of

Testa, Heath, Vuotto and Blackburn to cover-up police officer Magsam’s theft of guns and gun

parts from FIU; or, Testa’s fraud scheme and threats towards FIU employees to remain silent

about and even to aid in the scheme to reflect in public documents there was when not a

reduction in the firearm identification backlog.

86. Ramsey and O’Neill further failed to stop the deprivation of Logan’s rights. Here,

it was known to Ramsey and O’Neill before approving discipline that Logan had not improperly

acted as Vuotto alleged. Ramsey and O’Neil knew Vuotto was a friend to and past co-worker at

FIU with Testa. By a Memo from Chief Lake-Dooley, the IA report itself, and the IA statements

from Logan and Harte, Ramsey and O’Neill knew Vuotto allegation that Logan had not properly

acted and delayed the IA investigation into Testa and Magsam was false.

87. Defendants O’Neil, Heath, Johnson, Fox-Georgio and Blackburn were all in a

position of rank and authority to speak out and stop Ramsey’s and Vuotto’s discipline against



19/21

19

Logan and Little; yet, Defendants O’Neil, Heath, Johnson, Fox-Georgio and Blackburn did not

stop the discipline. Here, Defendants O’Neil, Heath, Johnson, Fox-Georgio and Blackburn had

regular meetings with Ramsey and at such, or by simply arranging a meeting with or sending a

memo to Ramsey, each could have and should have stopped the discipline.

88. Defendants O’Neil, Heath, Johnson, Fox-Georgio and Blackburn could have,

should have but did not speak up about the true known facts surrounding the Logan conducted

IA investigation into Testa and Magsam. Defendants O’Neil, Heath, Johnson, Fox-Georgio and

Blackburn each remained silent and acquiesced to the discipline against Little and Logan by

Ramsey, O’Neil and Vuotto.

89. Ramsey, O’Neil, Heath, Johnson, Fox-Georgio, Blackburn, Vuotto and Testa

under color of state law intentionally deprived Plaintiffs of civil rights through a failure to act

and stop a deprivation of civil rights.

89. As a direct or the proximate result of the defendants’ failure to act when the law

required such the Plaintiffs suffered economic damages and personal injury.

COUNT IV42 USC 1983

Monell



92. The City of Philadelphia has a policy practice or custom to use and misuse the

disciplinary system of the police department to silence or retaliate against employees for

activities protected under law or constitution, such activities as free speech in reporting

corruption and filing grievances to oppose illegal conduct such as falsification of pubic



20/21

20

documents and the threat of discipline if the employee did not go along with a fraud scheme

showing reduced back-log numbers.

93. The City failed to supervise. Here, the City failed to supervise Ramsey, Heath,

Vuotto, Blackburn, O’Neill and Testa. The failure allowed and was known or should have been

known to allow the misuse of the disciplinary system to silence employees and/or punish them

for engaging in activities protected by law, such as Little’s and Long’s First Amendment right to

free speech and Petition Clause activity, to and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right to

be free from unequal treatment and/or because of race, which deprivation in fact occurred by the

failure to supervise Ramsey, Heath, Vuotto, Blackburn, O’Neill and Testa,

94. Failure to train. The City failed to adequately train it employees on misusing of

the disciplinary system, which system has been misuses to chill and/or deprive free speech rights

since at least 1995. For example:

(a) In 1998 Jeannette Dooley was disciplined for obeying a subpoena to appear in federal

court. The Court in 2001 granted summary judgment to Dooley on the free speech deprivation

and the City paid Dooley in excess of $35,000.00.

(b) In 2001 police officer John Devore was terminated for reporting a corrupt police office.

A jury in March 2003 found the termination was retaliation for Devore’s free speech activity and

awarded Devore $400.000.00.

(c) In 2009 police detectives Denise Szustowicz reported police criminal conduct. She was

subjected to retaliatory investigation and discipline by Ramsey. Detective Miguel Alers in 2009

was subjected to retaliatory discipline for reporting race discrimination; Alers was subjected to

retaliatory discipline.



21/21

21

95. The City has not provided training or adequate training to its police officers and

supervisors since 2001, or Dooley’s case payment, to prevent further deprivations of police

officers constitutional and civil rights, because the conduct continues to date and is seen by the

Dec 2011 and January 2012 discipline from Ramsey, O’Neill and Vuotto against Little and

Logan.

96. As a direct or the proximate result of the Defendant City’s failure to train,

supervise and/or policy practice or custom to misuse the disciplinary process to chill free speech

rights, the Plaintiffs suffered economic damages and personal injury.

VI. PRAY FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs prays the Court enter judgment for them him and against each

defendant, and to hold each defendant joint and several liable, and to award all relief the law and

equity allows, including but not limited to compensatory and actual damages, punitive damages,

and any and all relief necessary that will make the Plaintiffs whole, plus, an award of reasonable

attorney fees and litigation costs, and to purge the Plaintiffs’’ personnel records of the discipline

and declare the acts of the defendants illegal, unconstitutional, and causing under color of state

law the Plaintiffs civil rights to be deprived,

Date May 15, 2012

ECF SIGNATURE BMP3198 /s/Brian M Puricelli

Brian M. PuricelliAttorneys for Plaintiff

Law Offices of Brian Puricelli691 Washington Crossing Road Newtown PA 18940(215) 504-8115 [email protected]

mailto:puricellib@[email protected]:puricellib@[email protected]:puricellib@[email protected]

Little, Logan v City of Philadelphia et al

Documents

Transcript of Little, Logan v City of Philadelphia et al