EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio — East Cleveland needs to pay more than $30 million after “unlawfully arresting a man, beating him, and confining him in a storage closet for four days,” according to a post from Court News Ohio summarizing the decision.

What You Need To Know

  • East Cleveland needs to pay more than $30 million after “unlawfully arresting a man, beating him, and confining him in a storage closet for four days"

  • The decision came from the Supreme Court of Ohio

  • It follows a verdict Arnold Black won in 2019 that saw the city and officers liable for $20 million in damages

  • The summary states the city must pay “the judgement, prejudgment interest, and all postjudgment interest accumulating since the August 2019 trial court verdict"

The decision came from the Supreme Court of Ohio and follows a verdict Arnold Black won in 2019 that saw the city and officers liable for $20 million in damages.

“Black sought a writ of mandamus from the Court to force the city to pay the verdict plus interest after the city refused to respond to his requests,” the summary reads. “The decision requires East Cleveland to pay more than $10 million in prejudgment and postjudgment interest, which is still accumulating.”

Black had been arrested in 2012, and the summary states officers admitted they stopped him even though he hadn’t committed a crime. It also states that Detective Randy Hicks hit him in the head and face during questioning.

“Black was transported to the East Cleveland jail, where he was placed in a ‘holding cell,’ which was a storage room containing a wooden bench, storage lockers, and cleaning supplies,” the summary reads. “The room had no bed or toilet. Black was kept in the storage room for four days.”

What followed was a years-long legal process after Black filed a lawsuit in 2014.

The summary states the city didn’t respond to a letter sent by Black’s attorney asking they pay the judgement.

“In February 2023, Black sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the city to pay or to follow the procedures…to set up a payment plan,” the summary reads. “Black estimated as of August 2023, he was entitled to $30.4 million when postjudgment interest was factored into the trial court’s judgment.”

The city had argued the court could not force them to pay Black, as they had a motion pending with the trial court to reduce damages to $250,000.

“The city’s argument in opposition is incorrect, and we reject it,” the opinion reads.

The summary states the city must pay “the judgement, prejudgment interest, and all postjudgment interest accumulating since the August 2019 trial court verdict.”