Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 1 of 14 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JAMES WHITE Plaintiff

v.

Civil Action No.

CITY OF DALLAS, OFFICER STEVEN MATTHEW ULAS AND OFFICER DANIEL JUSTITZ Defendants

PLAINTFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the plaintiff, James White through undersigned counsel, who respectfully represents that:
I.

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. This action is brought by James White who was injured as a result of the excessive unnecessary physical force and assault by officers of the Dallas Police Department. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this case is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because it

involves an action arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution as the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 1

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 2 of 14 PageID 2

4.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). A substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District in Dallas, Texas. PARTIES 5. 6. Plaintiff, James White, is an adult citizen of Dallas County, State of Texas. Made Defendants herein are: A. City of Dallas a municipal government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. Service of process may be delivered to Mr. Mike Rawlins, Mayor, at 1500 Marilla St. Room SEN, Dallas, Texas 75201. B. Officer Steven Matthews Ulas ID#9451, an adult citizen of Dallas County, State of Texas and officer with the Dallas Police Department. Service of process may be delivered to Mr. David Brown, Chief of Police, at 1400 S. Lamar St., Dallas, Texas 75215. C. Officer Daniel Justitz ID#9520, an adult citizen of Dallas County, State of Texas and officer with the Dallas Police Department. Service of process may be delivered to Mr. David Brown, Chief of Police, at 1400 S. Lamar St., Dallas, Texas 75215. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 7. On or about July 5, 2010, James White, while leaving an apartment

complex was stopped by officers from the Dallas Police Department. 8. Once stopped, Mr. White got out of his vehicle and attempted to run.

After his attempt was unsuccessful, he was apprehended by officers. 9. After being apprehended and handcuffed by these officers, Mr. White was

beaten upon and tazed several times before coughing up blood and blacking out. 10. Mr. White awoke in an ambulance to the sight of a paramedic standing

over him with a defibrillator. 11. Mr. White as a result of this beating, spent days in the Intensive Care Unit.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 2

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 3 of 14 PageID 3

12.

Mr. White, since the incident, has had trouble with memory retention,

normal everyday recognition, and his body is still experiencing the negative effects of this horrible ordeal. 13. As a result of Defendants excessive use of force, plaintiff, James White,

has experienced, a near death occurrence, severe memory loss, headaches, and he suffers from anxiety attacks, sleepless nights and has had complications with the portions of his body that were repeatedly tazed. 17. Plaintiff would show that Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of his

constitutionally protected, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. In this regard, Plaintiff was subjected to assault and an excessive use of force as a result of Defendants abuse of power. 18. Pleading further, Plaintiff would show that the Defendants City of Dallas,

Officer Steven Matthew Ulas and Officer Daniel Justitz have among other things, violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution respectively, rendering Defendants City of Dallas, Officer Ulas and Officer Justitz are liable to Plaintiff for his injuries and damages proximately caused by said violations and egregious conduct. 19. The above and foregoing acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or

in any combination, were a proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries and damages. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violating the 4th and 14th Amendments (42 U.S.C. 14141) 20. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth in previous paragraphs as

fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 3

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 4 of 14 PageID 4

21.

Through the actions described below, the City of Dallas, has engaged in

and continues to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by the City of Dallas' officers that deprives persons in the City of Dallas of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 14141. 22. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was an agent and/or

employee of the other Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment. 23. The City of Dallas' officers, have engaged and continue to engage in a

pattern or practice of falsely arresting persons in the Dallas area. 24. The City of Dallas has engaged in and continues to engage in other

misbehavior, including, but not limited to; conducting searches without lawful authority or in an improper manner. 25. The City of Dallas has tolerated the misconduct of individual officers

through its acts or omissions. These acts or omissions include, but are not limited to: a. failing to train City of Dallas' officers adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct; b. failing to supervise City of Dallas' officers adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct; c. failing to monitor City of Dallas' officers adequately who engage in or who may be likely to engage in misconduct; d. failing to establish a procedure whereby citizen complaints are adequately investigated;

Plaintiff's Original Complaint - 4

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 5 of 14 PageID 5

e. failing to investigate adequately incidents in which a police officer uses lethal or non-lethal force; f. failing to fairly and adequately adjudicate or review citizen complaints, and incidents in which a police officer uses lethal or non-lethal force;

and
g. failing to discipline adequately City of Dallas' officers who engage in misconduct. 26. Law enforcement officers of the City of Dallas Police Department practice

a pattern of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Defendant the City of Dallas has engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting individuals to false arrests and improper searches and seizures. The City has tolerated this conduct through its failure to

adequately train, supervise, and monitor police officers, and its failure to adequately accept citizen complaints of misconduct, investigate alleged misconduct, and adequately discipline officers who are guilty of misconduct. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Constitutional Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) 27. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth in previous paragraphs as fully

set forth herein. 28. As a result of the concerted unlawful and malicious detention of Plaintiff,

the Defendants intentionally, and with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs rights, deprived Plaintiff of his right to equal protection, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, of the United States Constitution, and of the Texas

Plaintiff's Original Complaint - 5

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 6 of 14 PageID 6

Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Texas Tort Claims Act, and Texas common

law.
29. Acting under the color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom,

Defendants as police officers of the City of Dallas Police Department and Defendant City of Dallas, knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline, on a continuing basis police officers of Defendant Dallas Police Department in their duties to refrain from (1) unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; (2) unlawfully, maliciously and falsely imprisoning a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities; (3) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Texas and United States Constitutions; and (5) otherwise depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities. 30. The City of Dallas, had knowledge or, had they diligently exercised their

duties to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. Defendants had power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of said wrongs, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff s rights failed or refused to do
so.

Plaintiff's Original Complaint - 6

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 7 of 14 PageID 7

31.

The City of Dallas, directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or

ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of the officers of the Dallas Police Department heretofore described. 32. The above described actions of the Defendants subjected Plaintiff to

deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and an absolute right to be free from unreasonable seizure/arrest without probable cause provided by the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. 33. By their conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, loss of

time, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, fear of the future, severe memory loss, headaches, anxiety attacks, sleepless nights and has had complications with the portions of his body that were repeatedly tazed 34. The facts in support of this allegation are inter alia as follows: THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Excessive Use of Force 35. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth in previous paragraphs as fully

set forth herein. 36. Officers Steven Matthew Ulas and Daniel Justitz are liable to Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because they used excessive force against Mr. James White. 37. The force used by Officers Ulas and Justitz was clearly excessive because: a. Mr. James White was not attempting to flee, was apprehended,

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 7

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 8 of 14 PageID 8

completely restrained, and not armed when he was first shocked, and gave Officers Ulas or Justitz no justification for using the Taser gun on Mr. White; b. Even though Mr. James White was immediately immobilized when he was hit with the Taser, Officer Ulas and Justitz shocked and beat Mr. White additional times without justification. 38. 39. The foregoing acts, individually and collectively, were clearly excessive. Moreover, the excessiveness of these acts, resulting in shocks to Mr.

James White with 50,000 volts of electricity several times, was objectively unreasonable. 40. The force used by Officers Ulas and Justitz were objectively unreasonable

under the circumstances, and their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable and excessive force. 41. It would have been obvious to any reasonable officer that the conduct of

Officer Ulas and Justitz was unlawful in the circumstances of this case. 42. state law. 43. The unreasonable use of force proximately caused Mr. James White to At all relevant times, Officers Ulas and Justitz were acting under color of

suffer a near death experience. AGENCY, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, RATIFICATION AND/OR NONDELEGABLE DUTY

44.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth in previous paragraphs as

fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 8

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 9 of 14 PageID 9

45.

Pleading further and/or in the alternative, the City of Dallas is responsible

for the acts and omissions of its employees, agents and vice principals under the doctrines of respondeat superior, agency, ratification and/or non-delegable duty EXEMPLARY AND/OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 46. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth in previous paragraphs as

fully set forth herein. 47. The conduct of Defendant and its agents, employees and representatives

has been done willfully, recklessly, wantonly, maliciously and/or intentionally. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages in an amount determined by the jury that is sufficient to punish Defendant and to serve as an example to others and as a deterrent to such future conduct. 48. In addition, Plaintiff would show that the foregoing acts and/or omissions

of Defendants, whether taken singularly, collectively, or in any combination, amount to such willful wanton and malicious misconduct as to evidence a conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of Plaintiff. Further, Defendants acted with intent to abuse, intimidate and harass the Plaintiff causing her injuries. Additionally, Plaintiff would show as well, that Defendants acts and/or omissions amount to malice, as that term is defined in law. As a proximate result of Defendants acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages from the Defendant. 49. The amount of damages will be according to the proof at trial, and,

ultimately, it will be up to the jury or the Court to decide damages. Plaintiff respectfully pray that the trier of fact return a verdict providing a maximum of $3,500,000.00 in actual

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 9

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 10 of 14 PageID 10

and punitive damages as to Plaintiff, or in the jury's or Court's discretion, whatever amount of damages that the jury decides is just. 50. In summary, the acts of the Defendants which culminated in the multiple

injuries of Plaintiff resulted from the willful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent and total disregard of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights such that exemplary damages should be recovered against them in this action. The acts of the Defendants, were so flagrant as to offend a public's sense of justice and propriety. Such conduct should be justly punished to deter future misconduct. ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 51. paragraphs. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants actions and conduct Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding

described herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue in the future to suffer, severe mental anguish and emotional distress. The ordeal the Defendants have put the Plaintiff through has caused him to suffer extreme injuries to his person, embarrassment, humiliation and ongoing nightmares of the incident. 53. Plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket expenses, which include travel

expenses, attorneys' fees, and other expenses. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks all general, special, incidental and consequential damages as shall be proven at the time of trial, including exemplary, and enhanced damages, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest. 54. The amount of total damages suffered by Plaintiff is significant and

continuing in nature. Such amounts exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 10

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 11 of 14 PageID 11

Honorable Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and state further with respect to their damages. PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST 55. paragraphs. 56. Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest at a rate commensurate with the Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding

actual rate of interest in the marketplace or, alternatively, a statutory rate of interest because of the delay in receiving the damages and also to avoid unjust enrichment to Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by
law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that the named Defendants be cited to appear and answer and that upon final hearing, Plaintiff has judgment of and from the Defendants, jointly and severally for: (a) declaratory judgment; (b) equitable relief; (c) past physical pain and mental suffering; (d) future physical pain and mental suffering; (e) past and future mental anguish; (f) past physical impairment; (g) past loss of enjoyment and quality of life; (h) future loss of enjoyment and quality of life; (i) actual, incidental and consequential damages;

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 11

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 12 of 14 PageID 12

(j) past and future medical bills; (k) reasonable attorney fees; (1) costs of court; (m) punitive and exemplary damages in an amount above the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court; (n) pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate for all damages suffered; (o) post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate for all damages suffered;
and

(p) for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all the issues so triable.

Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF DARIAN HOWARD, PLLC P.O. Box 411252 Dallas, Texas 75241 (214) 372.3333 (Telephone)

Darian Howard State Bar No. 24067669

************ SERVICE INFORMATION ON NEXT PAGE ************

Plaintiff's Original Complaint - 12

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 13 of 14 PageID 13

PLEASE SERVE: CITY OF DALLAS Through: Mayor Mike Rawlins 1500 Marilla Street, Room SEN Dallas, Texas 75201 OFFICER STEVEN MATTHEW ULAS Through: Chief David Brown 1400 S. Lamar Street Dallas, Texas 75215 OFFICER DANIEL JUSTITZ Through: Chief David Brown 1400 S. Lamar Street Dallas, Texas 75215

Plaintiffs Original Complaint - 13

Case 3:12-cv-02145-L-BH Document 1 Filed 07/05/12

Page 14 of 14 PageID 14

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared: JAMES WHITE Who, after being duly sworn, did depose and state that he is the plaintiff in the above captioned and numbered matter and that all allegations of fact are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

SWORN

TO

AND

SUBSCRIBED,

before

me,

on

this

*"]

day

of

VOLANDA R. ODOM My Commission Expires November 13, 2012