** Draft for settlement purposes only do not file until authorized **
Case No. __________
Complaint for Deprivation of Property, Denial of Procedural Due Process, State Constitutional Violations, and Related State Claims
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Indianapolis Division
Robbin Stewart dba Arbitrary Aardvark,
Plaintiff,
Case No. __________
CITY OF BEECH GROVE;
[Officer A], in his individual and official capacity;
[Officer B], in his individual and official capacity;
(and any John/Jane Does identified in discovery),
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND MONETARY RELIEF (42 U.S.C. § 1983; State Law Claims)
Parties
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Marion County, Indiana.
2. Defendant City of Beech Grove is a municipal corporation organized under Indiana law and is sued under § 1983 for policies, customs, and practices that caused the constitutional violations alleged below.
3. Defendants [Officer A] and [Officer B] are police officers employed by the City of Beech Grove. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This Court has subject‑matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state‑law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Marion County, Indiana.
Factual Allegations
6. On or about May [day], 2025, at approximately 5:00 PM, officers of the Beech Grove Police Department seized Plaintiff’s vehicle, a Chrysler Town and Country (VIN: [VIN]; plate: [plate if known]) while it was located on Beech Grove Street. The police report for the incident identifies two officers as the seizing officers.
7. The vehicle contained tools, legal files, a “McGuffin,” and other personal property of substantial value and importance to Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the vehicle and the property inside it and has title/registration and other proof of ownership.
9. Plaintiff made timely written demands to the City and the Beech Grove Police Department for preservation of all video and records relating to the seizure, and for an administrative impound hearing under the City’s impound ordinance (Chapter 75). Plaintiff served those demands by certified mail and email and received proof of delivery. Plaintiff was never told of chapter 75, but it does not appear that one can get a chapter 75 hearing without a ticket. Therefore, P has exhausted administrative remedies, not that exhaustion is required prior to a 1983 suit.
10. Despite Plaintiff’s preservation demand, the Beech Grove Police Department destroyed or otherwise failed to preserve dashcam/bodycam/surveillance video and related records that captured the seizure and the officers’ conduct. The destruction occurred after the Department had actual notice of Plaintiff’s preservation demand.
11. Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing to contest the impoundment and to seek return of the vehicle and contents. The City refused to provide a meaningful hearing or otherwise denied Plaintiff a prompt opportunity to be heard.
12. The seizure and continued retention of Plaintiff’s vehicle and property were not accompanied by adequate pre‑deprivation process, and the post‑deprivation process that was available was either not provided or was inadequate to remedy the deprivation in a timely manner.
13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic loss (value of vehicle; value of tools, legal files, and personal property; towing/impound fees), emotional distress, loss of use of the vehicle, and other damages.
Count I — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Procedural Due Process (Deprivation of Property)
14. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–13.
15. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of property (the vehicle and its contents) without affording constitutionally adequate process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
16. Plaintiff demanded preservation and an administrative hearing; Defendants refused or failed to provide a prompt, meaningful opportunity to contest the seizure and to obtain return of property.
17. The destruction of video evidence after notice further prejudiced Plaintiff’s ability to prove the facts surrounding the seizure and demonstrates culpable conduct by Defendants.
18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered compensable damages, including the full value of the property taken, consequential economic losses, and emotional harm. Plaintiff seeks full compensatory damages on this claim.
Relief requested on Count I: declaratory relief; return of property or its fair market value; compensatory damages; nominal damages if appropriate; punitive damages against individual defendants where permitted; reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and other relief the Court deems just.
Count II — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Taking Without Just Compensation / Deprivation as a Taking
19. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–18.
20. The seizure and continued retention of Plaintiff’s vehicle and property constitute a taking for which the government must provide just compensation. Defendants failed to provide just compensation or an adequate process to obtain compensation.
21. Plaintiff therefore seeks full compensation for the taking under the Constitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief ordering return of property or payment of just compensation.
Relief requested on Count II: declaratory judgment that the seizure constituted a taking; injunctive relief ordering return or compensation; full compensatory damages for the taking; attorney’s fees and costs.
Count III — State Constitutional Claims (Indiana Constitution): Deprivation of Property and Denial of Procedural Rights
22. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–21.
23. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Indiana Constitution to due course of law (sections 12, 1) and to be free from uncompensated takings (section 16?). Plaintiff seeks nominal damages under the Indiana Constitution for the denial of procedural rights and full damages for the taking of property.
Relief requested on Count III: nominal damages for the denial of procedural rights; full damages for the taking; declaratory and injunctive relief; costs and fees as allowed by state law and 42 usc 1988.
Count IV — State Law Conversion and Trespass to Chattels
24. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–23.
25. Defendants intentionally exercised dominion and control over Plaintiff’s vehicle and personal property without lawful authority, thereby converting Plaintiff’s property. The conversion caused economic loss and other damages.
26. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for conversion, including 3x the fair market value of the vehicle and the value of the converted contents, together with interest, costs, and other relief.
Count V — Spoliation / Evidence Destruction (Request for Sanctions and Adverse Inference)
27. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–26.
28. Defendants had custody and control of video and records that were uniquely relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff served a written preservation demand prior to destruction. Defendants destroyed the evidence after notice, causing prejudice to Plaintiff.
29. Plaintiff requests that the Court: (a) order immediate production of any backups or logs; (b) impose an adverse‑inference instruction at trial that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to Defendants; (c) award reasonable fees and costs for forensic efforts and motion practice; and (d) impose any other sanctions the Court deems appropriate.
Qualified Immunity and Municipal Liability
30. Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established in Indiana at the time of the seizure and because a reasonable officer would have known that seizing property without providing a prompt, meaningful hearing and destroying evidence after notice violated Plaintiff’s rights.
31. Plaintiff alleges municipal liability against the City of Beech Grove under Monell v. Department of Social Services for policies, customs, or practices that caused the constitutional violations, including (but not limited to) inadequate impoundment procedures, failure to preserve evidence, and failure to provide adequate post‑seizure process.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and grant the following relief:
- Declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s federal and state constitutional rights;
- Injunctive relief ordering immediate return of the vehicle and property or, if return is impossible, payment of fair market value and just compensation;
- Compensatory damages for economic loss, loss of use, emotional distress, and consequential damages (full damages on the taking claim);
- Nominal damages under the Indiana Constitution for denial of procedural rights;
- Punitive damages against individual defendants to the extent permitted by law;
- An adverse‑inference instruction and other evidentiary sanctions for spoliation;
- Monetary sanctions and attorneys’ fees and costs, including under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
- Pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and costs of suit; and
- Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
[Signature block for Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel]
[Name]
[Address]
[Phone]
[Email]
[Bar number if attorney]
Filing notes and next steps
- Fill in placeholders: exact May date, VIN, plate, police report number, officer names, and precise damage amounts.
- Attach exhibits: certified‑mail receipts for preservation/hearing demands; police report; proof of ownership; inventory and valuations; witness affidavits; APRA responses.
- Consider parallel state ITCA notice: if you intend to pursue state‑law damages against the municipality, ensure timely ITCA notice is served where required (the ITCA may limit or condition recovery against municipal entities).
- Preserve and subpoena backups: include spoliation motion and subpoenas for
Complaint for Deprivation of Property, Denial of Procedural Due Process, State Constitutional Violations, and Related State Claims UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA [Division] [Plaintiff Name], Plaintiff, Case No. __________
CITY OF BEECH GROVE; [Officer A], in his individual and official capacity; [Officer B], in his individual and official capacity; (and any John/Jane Does identified in discovery), Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND MONETARY RELIEF (42 U.S.C. § 1983; State Law Claims)
Parties
- Plaintiff is a resident of Marion County, Indiana.
- Defendant City of Beech Grove is a municipal corporation organized under Indiana law and is sued under § 1983 for policies, customs, and practices that caused the constitutional violations alleged below.
- Defendants [Officer A] and [Officer B] are police officers employed by the City of Beech Grove. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.
Jurisdiction and Venue 4. This Court has subject‑matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state‑law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Marion County, Indiana.
Factual Allegations 6. On or about May [day], 2025, at approximately 5:00 PM, officers of the Beech Grove Police Department seized Plaintiff’s vehicle, a Chrysler Town and Country (VIN: [VIN]; plate: [plate if known]) while it was located on Beech Grove Street. The police report for the incident identifies two officers as the seizing officers. 7. The vehicle contained tools, legal files, a “McGuffin,” and other personal property of substantial value and importance to Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the vehicle and the property inside it and has title/registration and other proof of ownership. 9. Plaintiff made timely written demands to the City and the Beech Grove Police Department for preservation of all video and records relating to the seizure, and for an administrative impound hearing under the City’s impound ordinance (Chapter 75). Plaintiff served those demands by certified mail and email and received proof of delivery. 10. Despite Plaintiff’s preservation demand, the Beech Grove Police Department destroyed or otherwise failed to preserve dashcam/bodycam/surveillance video and related records that captured the seizure and the officers’ conduct. The destruction occurred after the Department had actual notice of Plaintiff’s preservation demand. 11. Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing to contest the impoundment and to seek return of the vehicle and contents. The City refused to provide a meaningful hearing or otherwise denied Plaintiff a prompt opportunity to be heard. 12. The seizure and continued retention of Plaintiff’s vehicle and property were not accompanied by adequate pre‑deprivation process, and the post‑deprivation process that was available was either not provided or was inadequate to remedy the deprivation in a timely manner. 13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic loss (value of vehicle; value of tools, legal files, and personal property; towing/impound fees), emotional distress, loss of use of the vehicle, and other damages.
Count I — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Procedural Due Process (Deprivation of Property) 14. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–13. 15. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of property (the vehicle and its contents) without affording constitutionally adequate process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 16. Plaintiff demanded preservation and an administrative hearing; Defendants refused or failed to provide a prompt, meaningful opportunity to contest the seizure and to obtain return of property. 17. The destruction of video evidence after notice further prejudiced Plaintiff’s ability to prove the facts surrounding the seizure and demonstrates culpable conduct by Defendants. 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered compensable damages, including the full value of the property taken, consequential economic losses, and emotional harm. Plaintiff seeks full compensatory damages on this claim. Relief requested on Count I: declaratory relief; return of property or its fair market value; compensatory damages; nominal damages if appropriate; punitive damages against individual defendants where permitted; reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and other relief the Court deems just.
Count II — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Taking Without Just Compensation / Deprivation as a Taking 19. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–18. 20. The seizure and continued retention of Plaintiff’s vehicle and property constitute a taking for which the government must provide just compensation. Defendants failed to provide just compensation or an adequate process to obtain compensation. 21. Plaintiff therefore seeks full compensation for the taking under the Constitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief ordering return of property or payment of just compensation. Relief requested on Count II: declaratory judgment that the seizure constituted a taking; injunctive relief ordering return or compensation; full compensatory damages for the taking; attorney’s fees and costs.
Count III — State Constitutional Claims (Indiana Constitution): Deprivation of Property and Denial of Procedural Rights 22. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–21. 23. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Indiana Constitution to due process and to be free from uncompensated takings. Plaintiff seeks nominal damages under the Indiana Constitution for the denial of procedural rights and full damages for the taking of property. Relief requested on Count III: nominal damages for the denial of procedural rights; full damages for the taking; declaratory and injunctive relief; costs and fees as allowed by state law.
Count IV — State Law Conversion and Trespass to Chattels 24. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–23. 25. Defendants intentionally exercised dominion and control over Plaintiff’s vehicle and personal property without lawful authority, thereby converting Plaintiff’s property. The conversion caused economic loss and other damages. 26. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for conversion, including the fair market value of the vehicle and the value of the converted contents, together with interest, costs, and other relief.
Count V — Spoliation / Evidence Destruction (Request for Sanctions and Adverse Inference) 27. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–26. 28. Defendants had custody and control of video and records that were uniquely relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff served a written preservation demand prior to destruction. Defendants destroyed the evidence after notice, causing prejudice to Plaintiff. 29. Plaintiff requests that the Court: (a) order immediate production of any backups or logs; (b) impose an adverse‑inference instruction at trial that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to Defendants; (c) award reasonable fees and costs for forensic efforts and motion practice; and (d) impose any other sanctions the Court deems appropriate.
Qualified Immunity and Municipal Liability 30. Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established in Indiana at the time of the seizure and because a reasonable officer would have known that seizing property without providing a prompt, meaningful hearing and destroying evidence after notice violated Plaintiff’s rights. 31. Plaintiff alleges municipal liability against the City of Beech Grove under Monell v. Department of Social Services for policies, customs, or practices that caused the constitutional violations, including (but not limited to) inadequate impoundment procedures, failure to preserve evidence, and failure to provide adequate post‑seizure process.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and grant the following relief:
- Declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s federal and state constitutional rights;
- Injunctive relief ordering immediate return of the vehicle and property or, if return is impossible, payment of fair market value and just compensation;
- Compensatory damages for economic loss, loss of use, emotional distress, and consequential damages (full damages on the taking claim);
- Nominal damages under the Indiana Constitution for denial of procedural rights;
- Punitive damages against individual defendants to the extent permitted by law;
- An adverse‑inference instruction and other evidentiary sanctions for spoliation;
- Monetary sanctions and attorneys’ fees and costs, including un
No comments:
Post a Comment