Class Action Suit Against D.C.P.D. For Use of Deadly Force Against Bikers

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 30
UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TERRY THEDALE CAIN 3021 9th Street, SE DC 20032 :
: : Civil Action No.: : JAKWAN (A/K/A JAQUAN) BROWN: 1142 Barnaby Terrace, SE : DC 20032 : : ELLIE JAMES TURNER/BROOKS : 1206 Barnaby Terrace, SE : DC 20032 : : JAMES (CARTER)TURNER : 62 Galveston Street, SW : DC 20032 : : BRITTANI RONNICKA CARNEY : 2104 Ridge Crest Courts, SE : DC : : AAIRON JOHNSON : 2584 Firth Sterling Ave. : DC 20020 : : DON WHITAKER : 1202 Barnaby Terrace : DC 20032 : : ERIC BUTLER : 1130 Barnaby Terrace, SE : DC 20032 : : Plaintiffs : A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED : v. : : DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A municipal corporation Office of the Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Serve: Designee
1
ou r
th
ou
se
ew
: : : : : :
Se
rv
ic
JOHN DOE MPD CRUISER DRIVERS Driver numbers 1 500 Defendants
: : : : : COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
money damages for violations of the rights of the above referenced Plaintiffs under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution via the Fourteenth Amendment for unreasonable seizure, excessive deadly force and
of Columbia, including common law claims for assault and battery, and
deadly force by Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers when these MPD officers intentionally hit young black males with their MPD cruisers. This practice is acquiesced to and condoned by the District of Columbia as well as by the
hierarchy of the MPD. This class action suit is filed against the District of Columbia and the MPD officers who target young black bikers under color of law with the tacit approval of the supervising officers of MPD. DC and the supervisors of MPD knowingly fail to correct the unconstitutional behavior of its MPD officers wherein they target said bikers with their cruisers under the color of
ou r
th
ou
black bikers, predominately male, who have been targeted with excessive and
se
includes a claim for a FRCP 23 Class Action suit of this insular minority of young
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence. It also
ew
2
violations of Due Process, as well as claims brought under the laws of the District
Se
rv
ic
1) This law suit, brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section 1983, seeks
law. D.C. is liable for the conduct of its MPD officers under the theory of respondeat superior. PARTIES 2) Plaintiffs are a class of young black motorbike riders, primarily males, driving motorbikes of 250 ccs or less. The definition of biker or motorbike driver for
(ATVs) that include recreational vehicles often denoted as ATVs, 3 Wheelers and 4 Wheelers of 250 ccs or less. There are two young black females in this class whom the MPD mistook for a young black male rider; one young black
a 12-309 notice. The MPD is targeting these young bikers with deadly force, i.e.
3) The individual Plaintiffs include Terry Thedale Cain, JaKwan whose c orrect spelling is JaQuan Brown who lives at 1142 Barnaby Terrace (not 1144), Ellie James Turner Brooks whose correct name is Ellie James Brooks, James (Carter)
Turner whose correct name is James Turner, Brittani Ronnicka Carnery, Aairon Johnson, Don Whitaker and Eric Butler. Their Declarations under oath are herein incorporated by reference which have been previously been provided to DC in docket # 09-2292 of this court and to DCs Office of Risk Management. Said facts set forth the facts of their case and are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this complaint. The above named Plaintiffs have attached their
ou r
th
ou
police officers.
se
their MPD cruisers during the course of their work under color of law acting as
intentionally hitting these bikers off their motorbikes with 250 ccs or less with
ew
3
female that filed a 12-309 notice and another young black female that did not file
Se
rv
ic
purposes of this law suit includes two wheel motorbikes and all terrain vehicles
respective Declarations in the Order in which they appear in the style of this case. 4) The District of Columbia is a municipality and a governmental body within the federal territory of the District of Columbia. 5) Defendants are the District of Columbia and numerous John Doe MPD
drove MPD police cruisers and targeted young bikers with deadly force. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6) Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 USC section 1331 and 1343 as
jurisdiction over the claims arising under District of Columbia law (state law
8) Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 as all material and relevant acts and inactions involving the collisions occurred within the District of Columbia, most material witnesses and evidence may be found within the District or nearby, and
the Defendant is the District of Columbia. 9) The actions of which Plaintiffs complain violate Plaintiffs Constitutionally Protected Rights and were taken under the color of law by MPD officers of the District of Columbia and/or by the policies, procedures, customs or usages of the District of Columbia and may be redressed pursuant to 42 USC 1983.
ou r
th
ou
the District of Columbia.
se
7) Personal Jurisdiction is proper as all of the said collisions have taken place in
claims) is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
ew
4
this suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Pendant
Se
rv
ic
officers, whose names Plaintiffs will attempt to ascertain during discovery, who
10) Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights, under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the United States, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by use of excessive force and to be free from deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law.
system wide pattern and practice which is tolerated by and in some instances encouraged by D.C. through the MPD is a violation of the Constitutional rights of this insular minority class based on the holding in Monell v. Department of Soc.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL
13) The MPD has engaged in a practice of targeting young black bikers with deadly force by intentionally striking motorbikes driven by young black bikers, predominately males, with MPD cruisers. 14) The young black bikers invariably run from the scene after they have been hit
by MPD cruisers if they cant get away on their bikes and leave their bikes at the scene of the collision. 15) The MPD officers take these motorbikes into custody. Ultimately these motorbikes are either confiscated by individual police officers or sold by the MPD and/or by D.C.s Department of Public Works , thus creating a revenue stream for the District of Columbia. Most bikers would not give up their bikes voluntarily to the police so that it is a fair conclusion that the vast majority of motorbikes
5
ou r
th
ou
se
if fully set forth herein.
12) Plaintiff restates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as
ew
Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Se
rv
ic
11) This act of targeting an insular minority on a racial and class basis as a
confiscated by the MPD or claimed as abandoned property are motorbikes that come from bikers that have been hit off their bikes by MPD cruisers. 16) This unconstitutional act of targeting an insular minority of young black motorbike drivers with deadly force is a discriminatory act of racial and class profiling that is inherently unconstitutional and is exacerbated by the fact that the
in serious injury or death. Consequently, this potentially deadly targeting of young black bikers with MPD cruisers deprives this class of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. MPD knew or should have known that this
Estate of Arnell Robinson v. DC et. al., docket number 09-cv-2294 before this
declarations under oath and are incorporated by reference to this Complaint. These declarations set forth the facts of their individual claims. 18) These bikers who are filing suit, both on behalf of themselves and behalf of
the class are Terry Thedale Cain, JaKwan (a/k/a JaQuan) Brown, Ellie James Brooks (Turner), Brittani Ronnicka Carney, James Turner, and Aarion Johnson (hereinafter Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner and Johnson 12-309 notice class) . Don Whitaker and Eric Butler (non notice class) are filing on behalf of themselves and the class but they represent those that have the additional element that they have not sent a notice to the District of Columbia pursuant to
ou r
th
ou
17) The Plaintiffs identified in the style of this case have attached their
se
taken into the storage facility of the MPD, usually Blue Plains.
Court. Furthermore, it should be obvious from the large number of motorbikes
ew
6
practice has persisted from at least 2009 and before because of the case of the
Se
rv
ic
respective bikers are being targeted intentionally with deadly force that can result
DC Code 12-309. Their Declarations are attached herein and incorporated by reference as the facts of their individual respective cases. Their declarations under oath have been previously provided to DC and are incorporated herein by reference. They are bringing their own individual actions in the event that their class action claim does not survive judicial scrutiny.
Whitaker and Eric Butler have given the District notice pursuant to DC Code section 12-309 and have received acknowledgement of their claims from the D. C. Office of Risk Management.
the respective Plaintiffs involved in their individual collisions and are liable as part
and as part of a class, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for violations of their respective rights. 22) Plaintiffs are seeking costs and reasonable attorneys fees in this action as
provided in 42 USC section 1988. 23) John Doe officers driving MPD cruisers are targeting said bikers with deliberate and callous indifference to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and with deliberate and callous indifference to their safety and health. DAMAGES
ou r
th
ou
21) Defendant District of Columbia is liable to respective Plaintiffs as individuals
se
with deadly force by hitting them off their bikes with their respective cruisers.
of a pattern, practice and custom within the MPD to target young black bikers
ew
7
20) Defendant John Doe MPD cruiser drivers are jointly and severally liable to
Se
rv
ic
19) Bikers set forth as individual bikers above, with the exception of Don
24) As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant John Doe Police officers and Defendant D.C. as stated herein above and in each of the Counts of this Complaint, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as follows: a) Bikers have suffered an assortment of bodily injuries, pain and suffering, disfigurement, inconvenience, mental anguish, disability, fright,
demeaned status and emotional distress.
b) Bikers have sustained damage to their vehicles, suffered loss of income and other financial losses.
injuries they sustained as a result of the deadly and dangerous acts of MPD
se
d) Bikers have incurred costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
FOURTH AMENDMENT UNREASONABLE SEIZURE 25) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set
forth.
26) At all times DC and the MPD officers acted under the color of law. 27) On each and every instance set forth as attached herein, Defendants intentionally used deadly force, i.e. used their police cruiser, as an object to strike Plaintiffs which is tantamount to a traffic stop with potentially deadly force.
ou r
th
ou
officers who target young black bikers.
ew
8
COUNT 1
c) Some riders have incurred medical expenses in the treatment of their
Se
rv
ic
embarrassment, demoralization, deformity, discomfort, humiliation, degradation,
28) The outrageous and intentional acts of the respective officers exhibit a degree of malice to warrant punitive damages against said John Doe Drivers as defendant John Doe DC cruiser drivers were targeting said bikers with deliberate and callous indifference. 29) The conduct of these respective officers in targeting young black bikers is a
practice employed by many of the MPD officers in areas where young black bikers drive motorbikes of 250 ccs or less drive their bikes. It is a pattern and practice that is condoned and tacitly encouraged by the MPD.
on by the large accumulation of abandoned motorbikes that occur after the police
DC, the MPD and the individual officers where there is little to no accountability regarding the sale of these bikes.
Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demand judgment against the District of Columbia and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages against each respective John Doe MPD driver individually and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count. COUNT II FOURTH AMENDMENT: EXCESSIVE FORCE
ou r
Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney,
th
ou
targeting said bikers is that DC and its officers sell these bikes which benefits
se
31) One of the motivations that the police had to continue this practice of
attempt to apprehend the said bikers.
ew
9
30) The MPD and DC knew or should have known that such a practice is going
Se
rv
ic
practice and pattern of the type that is customary and usual law enforcement
32) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth. 33) At all times the MPD was acting under the color of law. 34) Defendant MPD John Doe drivers seized the respective bikers by targeting
35) Such deadly force was clearly and objectively unreasonable in light of the circumstances known to Defendants as they knew or should have known that striking a young black biker with a cruiser could cause serious bodily harm or
36) Such use of deadly force was out of proportion to the circumstances
37) At all times incident hereto, Plaintiffs were unarmed. 38) Defendant John Doe MPD officers outrageous intentional wrongful acts exhibit the degree of malice that warrants punitive damages by their deliberate
and callous indifference to the safety and well being said bikers. Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of Columbia and respective John Doe MPD drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages
ou r
th
ou
deadly force.
se
a traffic infractions or other relatively minor infraction does not justify the use of
presented by these respective bikers and class of bikers as the mere violation of
ew
10
death.
Se
rv
ic
them with their cruisers, struck them and knocked them off their bikes.
against each of the respective John Doe Defendant MPD cruiser drivers and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count. COUNT III VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 39) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set
40) At all material times Defendant John Doe MPD officers acted under the color of law.
41) Plaintiffs have a right to be free from deprivation of life and liberty without due
42) Defendants are targeting Plaintiffs with deadly force by knocking them off
degree of malice to warrant punitive damages against the John Doe MPD drivers because of their deliberate and callous indifference to the safety and health of said bikers.
Johnson, Turner, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of Columbia and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages against each of the respective John Doe drivers for each of the said respective Plaintiffs and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count.
ou r
Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney
th
ou
43) Defendant MPD Officers outrageous, intentional and wrongful acts exhibit a
se
unreasonable governmental interference with Plaintiffs rights to life and liberty.
their bikes by hitting the bikers with their police cruisers which amounts to
ew
11
process of law.
Se
rv
ic
forth.
COUNT IV 1983 MONELL CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDEMENT
44) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set
45) DC through its MPD Officers, violated the bikers Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights.
46) At all times incident hereto, the respective MPD officers who targeted these
47) At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the policy, practice and
48) Invariably the biker would flee the scene leaving their bikes in the vicinity of the respective pursuing police cruiser. 49) Since the bikers have abandoned their vehicles by running from the police,
the sale of these bikes by the D.C. government and confiscation for the personal use of these bikes by friends of MPD officers and/or the subsequent sale to unaccounted purchasers, provides a lucrative source of income to generate revenues for the District and/or the individual police officers who obtained possession of these bikes.
ou r
th
ou
police cruisers in an effort to dislodge the bikers from their bikes.
se
on patrol in their vehicles to intimidate and target young black bikers with their
custom of Defendant DC and its MPD Officers to encourage and permit officers
ew
12
bikers acted under the color of law.
Se
rv
ic
forth.
50) These practices and customs employed by the MPD Officers were common place and were knowingly or tacitly condoned and encouraged by supervisors within the MPD. 51) At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the policy, practice and custom of Defendant D.C. endemic to the MPD, to condone abuses of police
bikers off their bikes with MPD cruisers due to supervisor inaction and failure to investigate and pursue reports of unlawful seizures and use of excessive force, and failure to deter such behavior by its agents through failing to properly train,
with deadly force.
certain to violate the constitutional rights of bikers in DC through unreasonable seizures, use of excessive force, and deprivation of due process of the law, without fear of consequences.
53) The above described polices and customs demonstrate a deliberate and callous indifference on the part of policy makers of Defendant DC to deny the constitutional rights of bikers and said polices and customs are the direct and proximate cause of the violations of plaintiffs Constitutional rights being violated as alleged herein.
ou r
th
ou
creating a situation where its unfit, untrained and undisciplined officers were
se
Defendant D.C., endemic to its MPD, to fail to train and discipline its officers,
52) At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the practice and custom of
ew
13
reprimand, suspend or dismiss said MPD officers who target young black bikers
Se
rv
ic
power by its officers including but not limited to the type of abuse of knocking
54) Defendant DC and its agents adhered to the aforementioned policies, practices and customs intentionally, and with deliberate indifference to the obvious eventuality that bikers would be deprived of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights in the manner described in these Counts herein (unlawful seizures and uses of excessive force.)
were incapable to do their jobs without violating the constitutional rights of bikers. DC allowed its MPD officers to exercise their jobs without providing them proper training with respect to the constitutional rights of young motorcyclists, with
violate the constitutional rights of bikers.
whenever infractions of police misconduct regarding knocking a biker off a bike with a cruiser is exposed to public scrutiny, the MPD close ranks and place the errant officer behind the veil of the blue wall of silence and said MPD officers
cover for their errant officers by covering up their misdeeds. 57) As the direct and proximate result of the official and unofficial policies, procedures, customs, usages and practices of Defendant, D.C., Defendant D.C. is directly liable under 1983 for the violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. 58) As a direct and proximate result of the above described polices and customs, the bikers suffered damages described in the damages section of this complaint.
ou r
th
ou
rights and are often promoted to higher levels of the MPD. Furthermore,
se
unabated, none of the MPD officers are sanctioned for their violations of civil
56) While this dangerous practice of targeting young black males continues
ew
14
deliberate and callous indifference to the fact that they were almost certain to
Se
rv
ic
55) As a result of improper training by Defendant D.C., Defendant MPD officers
59) Defendant D. C. drivers outrageous, intentional, reckless, grossly negligent unconstitutional and wrongful acts exhibit a degree of malice to warrant punitive damages. Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, e.g. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of
actual damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages against each respective John Doe MPD driver and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count.
MPD cruisers is clearly excessive force under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of
Wherefore, since this has been on ongoing practice in the District of Columbia for years and it must stop immediately, Plaintiffs pray for an Order from this Court demanding that the MPD cease and desist from the practice knocking
young black bikers off their motorbikes with their cruisers regardless of the traffic infraction unless deadly force would otherwise be necessary. Wherefore, Plaintiffs also pray for an Order to D.C. to instruct MPD to exclude MPD candidates who are be inclined to target young black bikers and knock them off their bikes and to train its MPD officers not to target drivers of motorbikes with their police cruisers.
ou r
th
ou
Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million Dollars) in damages.
se
ability to stop said practice and that, in fact, they are profiting from this practice,
the Constitution; this practice needs to stop; and DC and the MPD has shown no
ew
15
Wherefore, since this deadly practice of targeting young black bikers with
Se
rv
ic
Columbia and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for Judgment awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988 and damages as the presentation of the evidence justifies.
STATE LAW CLAIMS
60) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth.
in a careful and prudent manner and not target individual bikers on the basis of
63) Notwithstanding the above referenced duties, and in the breach of such duties, Defendant John Doe drivers negligently and carelessly failed to operate their motor vehicles in a careful and prudent manner, and negligently and
carelessly failed to yield the right of way to Plaintiffs but instead targeted said Plaintiffs. 64) Notwithstanding the above referenced duties, and in breach of such duties, Defendant John Doe drivers negligently, recklessly, carelessly and without due care failed to obey all applicable traffic regulations, laws, and instead targeted young black bikers with deadly force.
ou r
th
ou
regulations, laws, signs and signals, especially in non-emergency situations.
se
62) Defendant DC and its MPD officers had a duty to obey all applicable traffic
race and class and use deadly force to knock young black bikers off their bikes.
ew
16
61) Defendant DC and its MPD officers had a duty to operate their motor vehicles
Se
rv
ic
COUNT V NEGLIGENCE
65) Said named Plaintiffs were injured and suffered humiliation and degradation and were demeaned at the hands of the MPD in violation of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demand judgment against the District of Columbia
damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against each respective John Doe Defendant driver and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count.
66) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class
and scope of his employment as a servant and/or employee of Defendant D.C. 68) Said MPD Officers drove their cruisers in a manner that intentionally and unlawfully assaulted Plaintiff by swerving their cruisers into the motorbikes driven
by Plaintiffs.
69) All such damages were solely and proximately caused by the intentional actions of said MPD officers and the District of Columbia. 70) D. C. by its actions and failure to train such officers contributed to the proliferation of its MPD officers targeting young black bikers with their MPD cruisers.
ou r
th
ou
67) At all times material hereto, the said MPD officers acted within the course
se
forth.
restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set
ew
17
COUNT VI ASSAULT
Se
rv
ic
and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual
71) At all times during which these tortuous and unconstitutional acts were being committed by the MPD officers, said MPD officers were acting within the scope of their employment. 72) The Defendant DC is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the aforesaid tortuous acts and omissions of Defendant D.C.
and degraded as a result of being targeted with deadly force by said MPD officers and said conduct was condoned by the Defendant DC. 74) Damages sought under this count are proper pursuant to District of Columbia
Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner,
against John Doe Defendants and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count.
ou r
th
ou
actual damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages
75) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth. 76) At all times material hereto, Defendant MPD Officers acted within the course and scope of his employment as a servant and/or employee of Defendant DC.
se
Columbia and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in
COUNT VII BATTERY
Johnson, Whitaker and Butler, i.e. demands judgment against the District of
ew
18
law.
Se
rv
ic
73) Said motorbike Plaintiffs were harmed in their body, humiliated, demeaned
77) Said MPD officers intentionally battered Plaintiffs by targeting them with their respective cruisers with deadly force. 78) As a result of these collisions the said bikers were injured in body and were humiliated and degraded by the use of official power directed towards Plaintiffs on a racial and class basis.
of the collisions.
80) Defendant DC is jointly and severally liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the aforementioned tortuous acts and omissions against Plaintiffs.
Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demand judgment against the District of Columbia
listed below in the class action count. .
81) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth. 82) At all times material hereto, the MPD Officers who targeted these young black bikers with deadly force acted within the course and scope of their employment as a servant and/or employee of Defendant D.C.
ou r
COUNT VIII INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
th
ou
against each respective John Doe MPD driver and also join in the class action as
se
damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages
and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual
ew
19
Se
rv
ic
79) All such damages suffered by Plaintiffs were the direct and proximate cause
83) Defendant MPD officers drove their respective cruisers in a manner to target young black bikers in order to cause intentional infliction of emotional distress causing extreme fear, apprehension and emotional distress. 84) Defendant MPD officers, by targeting these respective biker Plaintiffs, did cause extreme emotional distress, fear and apprehension.
target shooting and/or sport.
86) As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants intentional targeting Plaintiffs with their motorbikes with deadly force, Plaintiffs have suffered
87) All such damages were proximately and solely caused by the intentional
superior for the aforementioned tortuous acts and omissions of D.C. of said MPD officers.
Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of Columbia and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against each respective John Doe MPD driver and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count. COUNT XI (DEFENDANT D.C.) NEGLIGENT HIRING AND TRAINING
ou r
th
ou
88) Defendant D.C. is jointly and severally liable under the doctrine of respondeat
se
D.C. and the supervisors of the MPD.
actions of Defendant MPD officers with the acquiescence and being condoned by
ew
20
damages of body and humiliation and degradation.
Se
rv
ic
85) Defendant MPD officers enjoy targeting these young black bikers as if it were
89) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth. 90) At all times relevant herein, the respective MPD officers who have targeted young black male motorbike drivers, were employees, agents and/or servants of
rules, regulations, policies, and procedures of Defendant D.C.
91) Defendant D.C. had a duty, through performance of reasonable inquiry, to hire as police officers, only such individuals who were capable of appreciating the
Constitution, and to refrain from hiring individuals unfit or unable to enforce the
rights of citizens of the District of Columbia afforded by the United States Constitution, and to suspend and dismiss individuals unfit or unable to enforce the Districts police powers within constitutional boundaries.
93) Defendant D.C. had a duty to train Defendant Police officers to effect searches and seizures within the bounds of the Unites States Constitution, and not in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of said Constitution. 94) Defendant D.C. had a duty to supervise Defendant John Doe drivers to ensure that his actions were in conformity with the United States Constitution.
ou r
th
ou
and dismiss, those officers who demonstrate lack of capacity to appreciate the
se
92) Defendant D.C. had a duty to refrain from retaining, i.e. a duty to suspend
Districts police powers within Constitutional boundaries.
ew
21
rights of citizens of the District of Columbia afforded by the United States
Se
rv
ic
D.C. and acted under the direction and control of, and pursuant to the statutes,
95) In breach of the aforementioned duties set forth herein, Defendant D.C. hired Defendant MPD officers, without inquiring into whether or not these officers were capable of appreciating the rights and citizens of the District of Columbia afforded by the United States Constitution, when in fact, these officers were unfit and unable to enforce the Districts police powers within the boundaries of the
96) In breach of the aforementioned duties, the MPD failed to suspend and dismiss officers who the District knew or should have known were violating the Constitutional Rights of its citizens by unlawful searches and seizure that
order to knock said bikers off their motorbikes.
Amendments of said Constitution. 98) In breach of the aforementioned duties set forth herein, Defendant D.C. failed to supervise Defendant MPD officers to ensure that their actions were in
conformity with the United States Constitution. 99) As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant D.C. with respect to its negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision of its errant MPD officers, the Plaintiffs suffered harm to their bodies, humiliation and emotional distress and a loss of their freedoms guaranteed to them under the Constitution.
ou r
th
ou
the United States Constitution, and not in violation of the Fourth and Fifth
se
to train said MPD officers to effect searches and seizures within the bounds of
97) In breach of the aforementioned duties set forth herein, Defendant D.C. failed
ew
22
involved excessive force by targeting young black bikers with excessive force in
Se
rv
ic
United States Constitution.
Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner, Johnson and Whitaker demands judgment against the District of Columbia and in the amount of $200,000 in actual damages and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count. Wherefore, since this deadly practice of targeting young black bikers with
the Constitution; this practice needs to stop; and DC and the MPD has shown no ability to stop said practice and that, in fact, they are profiting from this practice, Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 in damages.
Columbia for years and it must stop immediately, Plaintiffs pray for an Order from
Plaintiffs also pray for an Order to D.C. to instruct and train its MPD officers not to target drivers of motorbikes with their police cruisers.
reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988.
ou r
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for Judgment awarding Plaintiffs their costs and
100) The aforementioned Plaintiffs, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler, on behalf of their class restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth. Plaintiffs asserts that
th
ou
infraction unless deadly force would otherwise be necessary.
CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO RULE 23
se
young black bikers off their motorbikes with their cruisers regardless of the traffic
this Court demanding that the MPD cease and desist from the practice knocking
ew
23
Wherefore, since this has been an ongoing practice in the District of
Se
rv
ic
MPD cruisers is clearly excessive force under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of
there is a pattern and practice in the District of Columbia whereby the MPD is targeting an insular category of people based on race and class with deadly force. 101) Plaintiffs further assert that the method by which the MPD is targeting this insular class is by hitting these young black bikers with their MPD cruisers under
poor geographic areas in D.C. This way, the MPD can target young black bikers, most often males, with deadly force with impunity. This class includes young black bikers, predominately male ones, who drive motorbikes of 250 ccs
areas in which poor young black bikers are concentrated conceals the MPD
103) Yet, the District of Columbia has sold a large number of these motorbikes that have been abandoned or confiscated by the police as a result of targeting young black bikers with their cruisers, i.e. deadly force, which money goes into
District of Columbia or under that table to those who have control over said bikes. 104) There is a record by the D.C. Inspector General of opportunity for fraud and abuse in the sale of abandoned cars and trucks that is documented the DC Inspector General reports. 105) But the same scrutiny has not occurred with respect to abandoned or confiscated bikes. There appears to be a different procedure for the sale of
ou r
th
ou
motorbike to a police officer.
se
102) Almost to the person, a motorbike driver will not voluntarily give up their
predisposition to target these bikers based on MPD racial and class animus.
ew
24
or less in the District of Columbia in the poorer areas of town. Targeting poorer
Se
rv
ic
the color of law. Plaintiffs further assert that the MPD is targeting particularly
these motorbikes going through the MPD as opposed to the public works department. This procedure needs to be flushed out during discovery. Thus, the ones who are confiscating the bikes are the same ones who have control over the sale of the bikes. This creates a large potential for fraud and abuse. Thus, DC and its MPD have a motivation to continue the practice of knocking young
106) It appears that the District of Columbia and the MPD have engaged in a pattern of making money from these confiscated bikes.
107) Since these smaller bikes are not registered and they appear to be
enormous opportunity to exploit their financial gain by selling these bikes.
at the time of the filing of this complaint, the MPD and DC have refused to provide the PD 81s for the abandoned bikes which MPD has taken pursuant to this practice of knocking young black bikers of their bikes.
110) There is a line on the MPDs PD 81 form for how much the motorbike is sold for. The MPD and DC have not been held to account for the disposition of these bikes as they are not easy to trace. 111) The above referenced plaintiffs have filed notice to the District pursuant to 12-309 with the exception of Don Whitaker and Eric Butler. However, it is impractical to require all members of this class to do so. Requiring the traditional
ou r
th
ou
109) In other litigation pending before this court, i.e. DC Docket number 09-2294,
se
be filed.
108) Each time that a motorbike is abandoned or confiscated, a form PD 81 must
ew
25
abandoned when the biker runs after being hit by the MPD cruiser, this leaves an
Se
rv
ic
black bikers off their bikes.
12-309 notice will only serve to perpetual the practice of targeting young black bikers with deadly force with impunity and will perpetuate the deprival of Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights. 112) The above Plaintiffs represent a small proportion of bikers who have been knocked off bikes in that DC requires a six month notice of the collision as a
113) This instant law suit is necessary to end the ongoing DC practice of acquiescing to and condoning the practice of MPD officers targeting young black bikers with deadly force by knocking young bikers off their motorbikes.
bikes by police cruisers, while falling outside the six month notice period, has
month notice 12-309 time frame. 116) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 117) There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
118) The representatives of the parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 119) Inconsistent or varying adjucations with respect to individual class members would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the case.
ou r
th
ou
cruisers during a long period of time, most of which do not fall within the sixth
se
115) Plaintiffs have over 200 Declarations of bikers who have been hit by MPD
persisted for a long time.
ew
26
114) Plaintiffs allege that this practice of knocking young black bikers off their
Se
rv
ic
prerequisite to filing suit.
120) Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently adjucating the controversy. 121) In most instances where young black bikers have been knocked off their bikes by MPD cruisers driven by MPD officers acting under color of law, there are
litigate without proper documentation.
122) This class case is a pure Model practice and usage suit that focuses on the MPDs practice of targeting young black bikers with their cruisers under color of
bike or to the respective plaintiffs personal injuries rather than the individuals
123) This practice has already resulted in the death of at least one young black male biker that is presently before this Court, e.g. docket # 09 2294. 124) The case brings to light a practice of depriving the disenfranchised and
outcast of their constitutional rights and targeting them with deadly force within the District of Columbia that would not otherwise come to the attention of this Court because most bikers run from the scene. In those cases where the injuries are substantial and the biker is taken to the hospital, individual cases are filed. So, this pattern and practice of targeting young black males with deadly force, i.e.
ou r
th
ou
of law.
se
Constitutional Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without due process
right to be free from excessive force which deprives the Plaintiffs of their
ew
27
law. This count is less concerned about the amount of the damage to either the
Se
rv
ic
insufficient medical bills to justify a personal injury case that is too expensive to
cruiser collisions, has yet to be scrutinized by this court as part of a system wide pattern and usage. 125) There is an urgency to hold DC and the MPD liable for their conduct of racial and class profiling of young black bikers, as this dangerous and deadly practice continues to persist.
will perpetuate the practice of knocking young black males off motorbikes. 127) Since this case involves the constitutional rights to be free from excessive deadly force under the United States Constitution, it is unreasonable to require
309. Furthermore, the conduct of the MPD is a violation of this insular class of
force, and deprives to this class their Constitutional Rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to be free from unwarranted excessive and deadly force under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
128) Thus, this class should be open to all litigants who have suffered at the hands of the MPD for being targeted with excessive and deadly force, i.e. intentionally hit with MPD cruisers, and not be limited to those who have filed a 12-309 notice with the District of Columbia as a local statute cannot burden those inalienable rights belonging to US citizens under the Constitution.
ou r
th
ou
and acquiescing to the MPD practice of targeting young black bikers with deadly
se
free from unlawful seizures and excessive force in which DC, by its condoning
US citizens, most of whom are DC residents, of their Constitutional rights to be
ew
28
the litigants of this class to comply with a burdensome state law of D.C. Code 12-
Se
rv
ic
126) Foreclosing the litigants who do not have the six month 12-309 notice letters
Wherefore, since this deadly practice of targeting young black bikers with MPD cruisers is clearly excessive force under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the Constitution; this practice needs to stop; DC and the MPD have shown no ability to stop said practice and that, in fact, they are profiting from this practice, Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 in damages.
Columbia for years and it must stop immediately, Plaintiffs pray for an Order from this Court demanding that the MPD cease and desist from the practice knocking young black bikers off their motorbikes with their cruisers regardless of the traffic
Plaintiffs also pray for an Order to D.C. to instruct and train its MPD
such damages as the evidence dictates.
ou r
th
ou
reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988 and
se
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for Judgment awarding Plaintiffs their costs and
officers not to target drivers of motorbikes with their police cruisers.
ew
29
Submitted by:
______________/s/______________________ David L. Shurtz
infraction unless deadly force would otherwise be necessary.
Se
A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANED
rv
ic
Wherefore, since this has been on ongoing practice in the District of
Attorney at Law 1200 North Nash Street, # 835 Arlington, VA 22209 (202) 617-9141 dshurtz103@gmail.com
ou r
th
ou
se
ew
30
Se
rv
ic

Class Action Suit Against D.C.P.D. For Use of Deadly Force Against Bikers

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Class Action Suit Against D.C.P.D. For Use of Deadly Force Against Bikers

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 30

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 2 of 30

JOHN DOE MPD CRUISER DRIVERS Driver numbers 1 500 Defendants

intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence. It also

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 3 of 30

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 4 of 30

the District of Columbia.

claims) is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 5 of 30

FACTS COMMON TO ALL

if fully set forth herein.

Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 6 of 30

Court. Furthermore, it should be obvious from the large number of motorbikes

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 7 of 30

21) Defendant District of Columbia is liable to respective Plaintiffs as individuals

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 8 of 30

demeaned status and emotional distress.

d) Bikers have incurred costs and reasonable attorneys fees.

officers who target young black bikers.

c) Some riders have incurred medical expenses in the treatment of their

embarrassment, demoralization, deformity, discomfort, humiliation, degradation,

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 9 of 30

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney,

attempt to apprehend the said bikers.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 10 of 30

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 11 of 30

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney

unreasonable governmental interference with Plaintiffs rights to life and liberty.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 12 of 30

police cruisers in an effort to dislodge the bikers from their bikes.

bikers acted under the color of law.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 13 of 30

with deadly force.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 14 of 30

violate the constitutional rights of bikers.

55) As a result of improper training by Defendant D.C., Defendant MPD officers

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 15 of 30

Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million Dollars) in damages.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 16 of 30

STATE LAW CLAIMS

regulations, laws, signs and signals, especially in non-emergency situations.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 17 of 30

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 18 of 30

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner,

COUNT VII BATTERY

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 19 of 30

listed below in the class action count. .

COUNT VIII INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner,

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 20 of 30

target shooting and/or sport.

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner,

D.C. and the supervisors of the MPD.

damages of body and humiliation and degradation.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 21 of 30

rules, regulations, policies, and procedures of Defendant D.C.

Districts police powers within Constitutional boundaries.

rights of citizens of the District of Columbia afforded by the United States

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 22 of 30

order to knock said bikers off their motorbikes.

United States Constitution.

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 23 of 30

/s/________ David L. Shurtz