NO. - The Police News

Transcription

~
Case 3:10~cv-00388
Document 1
Filed in TXSD on 09/24/10
Page 1 of 31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS·
GALVESTON DIVISION
BRANDON A. BACKE, JOSEPH P.
§
BELLUOMINI, SHANNON BELLUOMINI,
§
CHRIS CORNWELL, MATTHEW L. GOODSON, §
MICHAEL R. MCMILLAN, DANIEL COLE
§
O'BALLE, GILBERT E. O'BALLE, JR., JUSTIN
§
PACKARD, CALVIN SILVA, AARON TREVINO,§
AND CHARLES YOUNG,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
vs.
§
CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, and STEVEN
LeBLANC, CHIEF CHARLES B. WILEY, JR., LT.
JOEL 1. CALDWELL, OFFICER JAMES R.
FERGUSON, OFFICER CLEMENTE 1. GARCIA
Ill, OFFICER JONATHAN M. LONGORIA,
OFFICER JONEKA N. LOYD, OFFICER
NICHOLAS H. MCDERMOTT, SGT. ANDRE L.
MITCHELL, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER M.
SANDERSON, OFFICER MATHEW D. BURUS,
OFFICER EVELYN S. DOOLEY, OFFICER
DANE M. GOODE, OFFICER PHENERIA
MANUELL, OFFICER JEFFREY A. MICHAEL,
OFFICER JOHN RUTHERFORD, OFFICER
ROBERT 1. SANDERSON, III, AND JOHN DOE
GALVESTON POLlCE OFFICERS 1 - 20,
individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants.
§
§
§ NO.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
_
JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Brandon A. Backe, Joseph P. Belluomini, Shannon Belluomini, Chris Cornwell,
Matthew 1. Goodson, Michael R. McMillan, Daniel Cole O'Balle, Gilbert E. O'Balle, Jr., Justin
Packard, Calvin Silva, Aaron Trevino, and Charles Young (the "Plaintiffs")
file this Original
Complaint against the City of Galveston, Texas, and Steven LeBlanc, Chief Charles B. Wiley,
Jr., L1. Joel 1. Caldwell, Officer James R. Ferguson, Officer Clemente 1. Garcia Ill, Officer
~
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 2 of 31
Jonathan M. Longoria, Officer Joneka N. Loyd, Officer Nicholas H. McDermott, Sgt. Andre L.
Mitchell, Officer Christopher M. Sanderson, Officer Mathew D. Bums, Officer Evelyn S.
Dooley, Officer Dane M. Goode, Officer Pheneria ManuelI, Officer Jeffrey A. Michael, Officer
John Rutherford, Officer Robert L. Sanderson, III, and John Doe Galveston Police Officers I 20, individually and in their official capacity and would show the following:
I.
1.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Brandon A. Backe ("Backe"), an individual, is a resident of Galveston
County, Texas.
2.
Plaintiff Joseph P. Belluomini ("1. Belluomini"), an individual, is a resident of
Galveston County, Texas.
3.
Plaintiff Shannon Belluomini ("S. Belluomini"), an individual, is a resident of
4.
Plaintiff Chris Cornwell ("Cornwell"), an individual, is a resident of Galveston
County, Texas.
5.
Plaintiff Matthew L. Goodson ("Goodson"), an individual, is a resident of
6.
Plaintiff Michael R. McMillan ("McMillan"), an individual, is a resident of Harris
County, Texas.
7.
Plaintiff Daniel Cole O'Balle ("Cole"), an individual, is a resident of Galveston
County, Texas.
8.
Plaintiff Gilbert E. O'Balle, Jr. ("Gil"), an individual, is a resident of Galveston
County, Texas.
2
~
Case 3:10-cv-00388
9.
Document 1
Plaintiff Justin Packard ("Packard"),
an individual,
Page 3 of 31
is a resident of Galveston
County, Texas.
10.
Plaintiff Calvin Silva ("Silva"), an individual, is a resident of Galveston County,
11.
Plaintiff Aaron Trevino ("Trevino"),
Texas.
an individual,
is a resident of Galveston
County, Texas.
12.
Plaintiff Charles Young ("Young"), an individual, is a resident of Blount County,
Alabama.
13.
Backe, 1. Belluomini,
S. Belluomini,
Cornwell, Goodson, McMillan, Cole, Gil,
Packard, Silva, Trevino, and Young, are collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs."
14.
Defendant
the City of Galveston,
Texas ("Galveston")
may be served with
process by serving its Mayor, Joe Jaworski, its Secretary, Barbara Lawrence,
or its clerk or
treasurer, at 823 Rosenberg, Galveston, Texas 77553.
15.
Defendant Steven LeBlanc ("LeBlanc")
his official capacity as City Manager
of Galveston
is sued in his individual capacity and in
and may be served with process at his
,~---------------------------
business address, 823 Rosenberg, Galveston, Texas 77553, his residence
Galveston, Texas 77551, and/or at any other place where Defendant may be found.
16.
Defendant Chief Charles B. Wiley, Jr. ("Wiley") (Badge No. 605) may be served
with process at his business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his residence at
Galveston, Texas 77551, and/or at any other place where Defendant may be
found. Wiley is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
17.
Defendant Lt. Joel 1. Caldwell ("Caldwell")
(Badge No. 339) may be served with
process at his business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his residence at
3
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 4 of 31
Cove View Blvd., Unit 215, Galveston, Texas 77554, and/or at any other place where Defendant
may be found. Caldwell is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
18.
Defendant
Officer James R. Ferguson
served with process at his business
residence'
"
("Ferguson")
(Badge No. 416) may be
address, 601 54th Street, Galveston,
Galveston,
Texas 77552, his
Texas 77550, and/or at any other place where
Defendant may be found. Ferguson is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
19.
Defendant
Officer Clemente 1. Garcia III ("Garcia")
residence
Texas 77552, his
Texas City, Texas 77591 and/or at any other place where
Defendant may be found. Garcia is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
20.
Defendant Officer Jonathan M. Longoria ("Longoria")
residence
a'
Texas 77552, his
Galveston, Texas 77551, and/or at any other
place where Defendant
may be found.
Longoria is sued in both his official and individual
capacities.
21.
Defendant Officer Joneka N. Loyd ("Loyd") (Badge No. 394) may be served with
process at her business address, 60] 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, her residence at
\
and/or at any other place where Defendant may be found.
Loyd is sued in both her official and individual capacities.
22.
Defendant Officer Nicholas H. McDermott ("McDermott")
...".
(Badge No. 407) may
;;.
"
be served with process at his business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552,1
t,
~and/or at any other place where Defendant may be
',;:
found. McDermott is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
4
Case 3:10-cv-00388
23.
Document 1
Page 5 of 31
Defendant Sgt. Andre L. Mitchell ("Mitchell") (Badge No. 343) may be served
~and/or at any other place where Defendant may be
found. Mitchell is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
24.
Defendant Officer Christopher M. Sanderson ("Sanderson") (Badge No. 435) may
be served with process at his business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his
" andlor at any other place where Defendant may
residence
be found. Sanderson is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
25.
Defendant Officer Mathew D. Burus ("Burus") may be served with process at his
business address, tiO 1 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his residence
Burus is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
I
I
26.
Defendant Officer Evelyn S. Dooley ("Dooley") may be served with process at
her business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, her residence ar
•
, and/or at any other place where Defendant
may be found. Dooley is sued in both her official and individual capacities.
27.
Defendant Officer Dane M. Goode ("Goode") may be served with process at his
business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his residence
kndlor at any other place where Defendant may be found.
Goode is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
28.
Defendant Officer Pheneria M. Manuell (formerly Mims) ("Manuell") may be
served with process at her business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, her
5
Case 3:10-cv-00388 Document 1
residence;
Page 6 of 31
ll, and/or at any other place where Defendant
may be found. Manuell is sued in both her official and individual capacities.
29.
Defendant Officer Jeffrey A. Michael ("Michael")
may be served with process at
his business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his residence a4
---------------~
, andlor at any other place where Defendant
may be found.
Michael is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
30.
Defendant Officer John M. Rutherford ("Rutherford")
may be served with process
at his business address, 601 54th Street, Galveston, Texas 77552, his residence ~
Rutherford is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
31.
Defendant Officer Robert L. Sanderson, III ("R. Sanderson, III") may be served
, and/or at any other place where Defendant may be
found. R. Sanderson, III is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
32.
Defendants
John Doe Galveston
Police Officers
1 - 20 are as yet unnamed
Galveston police officers who responded to the incident, were involved in the excessive use of
force, and are sued in both their official and individual capacities.
The identity of John Doe
Galveston Police Officers 1 - 20 is anticipated to be identified in discovery.
33.
McDennott,
Defendants
Mitchell,
Le Blanc,
Sanderson,
Wiley,
Caldwell,
Ferguson,
Burus, Dooley, Goode, Manuell,
Garcia,
Michael,
Longoria,
Loyd,
Rutherford,
R.
Sanderson, Ill, and John Doe Galveston Police Officers 1 - 20 are referred to collectively as the
"Individual Defendants."
6
II.
34.
JURISDICTION
Page 7 of 31
AND VENUE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.e. §§ 1331 and 1343, this Court has jurisdiction to hear claims
",
brought under 42 U.s.e.
§ 1983 to enforcf rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
35.
Venue for this s~!t is appropriate in the Galveston Division of the Southern
,
District of Texas because all substantial events occurfed in Galveston County, Texas.
"tt.
III.
C;ONDITIONS PRECEDENT
~
All co~ditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.
~;!',
36.
i:"
IV.
37. '.
confinement
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arises from the brutal beatings, excessive use of force, and unlawful
of members
and guests of a wedding
party by Galveston
and the Individual
Defendants.
38.
On the evening and early morning hours of October 4 and 5, 2008, the O'Balle
family, friends, extended family members, and other guests gathered for the wedding of the
daughter of Plaintiff Gil O'Balle (and the sister of Cole). The wedding ceremony and reception
took place at the Galveston
Island Convention
Center at the San Luis Resort ("Convention
';.',
Center").
39.
The wedding and reception was a time of joy and celebration for the O'Balles and
their family and friends. At the end of the reception, the wedding party, family, and guests went
to the adjacent San Luis Resort Spa and Conference
Center ("San Luis") where the wedding
party and many wedding guests were staying for the night.
Gil and his son Cole left the
Convention Center together in Gil's truck to drive to the San Luis. A large number of wedding
7
"<-
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 8 of 31
guests, as well as unrelated members of the general public, gathered at the H2o Bar at the San
Luis Hotel ("H2o") on the premises of the San Luis.
40.
After being dropped off at the San Luis by Gil, Cole walked through the H2o with
the intention of going up to his hotel room to change clothes. As Cole continued toward the back
of the bar, the security guard
followed, approached
Galveston
I
and Officer Sanderson
(working
him, and stated "come with me, boy."
Police Officer's
uniform.
Sanderson
security at the San Luis)
Sanderson
was dressed in his
regularly worked security at the San Luis.
Sanderson and the security guard escorted Cole down a hallway/walkway
toward the rear of the
H2o bar. This rear hallway portion of the bar was not covered by video security cameras, a fact
one would expect Sanderson and the security guard to have known due to their previous work as
security at the San Luis.
As Cole was taken down the hallway, J. Belluomini,
Silva, and other witnesses followed to determine if there was a problem.
S. Belluomini,
As Sanderson and the
security guard suddenly stopped Cole and turned to face him in the hallway, Cole asked the
officers what he had done. J. Belluomini stepped between Cole and Sanderson and the security
guard, facing Cole, and encouraged everyone to calm down.
At the same time, S. Belluomini
addressed Sanderson and the security guard to ask what was going on. Sanderson then removed
his baton, placed a call for "officer needs assistance," and stated he was going to arrest Cole. At
no point did Cole threaten or abuse Sanderson and/or the security guard physically or verbally.
41.
During this point in time in the evening, Galveston Police Department
officers
were staging at a location nearby in order to enforce a curfew in effect in the days following
Hurricane
I
2
Ike.2
Upon the receipt of the "officer needs assistance"
Some witnesses describe the presence of a second, plain-clothed security guard.
The wedding and subsequent reception had received an exemption from the curfew.
8
call, a large number of
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 9 of 31
officers, estimated by witnesses as many as twenty police officers, responded from this staging
area to the San Luis.
42.
At this point, additional
police officers, believed to be Garcia and Longoria,
approached the scene. Without provocation or cause, Sanderson sprayed Cole and J. Belluomini
with pepper spray.
Officer Garcia reached over .1. Belluomini and struck Cole in the face. As
Cole fell to the ground as a result of the punch and pepper spray, Sanderson beat Cole with his
baton and continued to beat Cole with the baton as he was on the ground, defenseless.
The other
police officers, believed to be Garcia and Longoria, and security guard(s) also beat and struck
Cole with batons, fists, and kicks as he was on the ground.
~~.
43.
As Cole was on the ground, S. Belluomini threw herself on top of Cole in an
attempt to protect him. At this point, a number of additional police officers and law enforcement
personnel began arriving on the scene.
While on the ground and not presenting
a threat to
anyone, Cole was also shot with a conductive energy device, more commonly known as a Taser.
J. Belluomini was grabbed around the neck by an officer and/or security guard, pepper-sprayed,
and thrown to the ground.
S. Belluomini, the wife of .1. Belluomini who tried to protect Cole
from this senseless and baseless violence, was also pepper-sprayed
44.
by the police officers,
Officers responding and involved in the excesses described herein included, but
were not limited to, Caldwell, Ferguson, Garcia, Longoria, McDermott, Mitchell, Burus, Dooley,
Goode, Manuell, Michael, Rutherford,
and R. Sanderson,
arrived at the San Luis and directly observed the situation.
III.
In addition, Loyd and Wiley
At this point, the hallway, the H2o
bar, and the front of the San Luis erupted into chaos and became congested with arriving officers
and patrons.
This led to the patrons attempting to respond to conflicting orders from the police
9
~
Case 3: 10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 10 of 31
officers to "get out" (toward the front of the bar) or "step back" (away from the front of the bar).
Several altercations instigated by the police against bystanders occurred at the same time.
45.
As the police arrived, they acted aggressively and began to yell at the crowd at the
bar. In addition to the actions against the Belluominis and Cole described above, the Individual
Defendants also beat, pepper-sprayed,
and tased bystanders who were not part of the wedding
party. Young, who was not a wedding guest but was at the San Luis to eat dinner, emerged from
a restroom near the hallway where Cole was being beaten. As Young was attempting to leave, a
Galveston police officer grabbed him, told him he was under arrest, attempted to handcuff him,
and hit him in the back. As Young was escorted out the front entry of the hotel, a police officer
slammed Young to the ground where he struck his face on the concrete due to his hands being
handcuffed behind his back. As Young was lying on the ground, the handcuffs fell off his wrists.
As he turned over and sat up, a female Galveston police officer, believed to be Officer Dooley or
Officer Manuell, yelled "stop resisting" then kicked him in the face.
police officers approached
Several other Galveston
and began yelling, hitting, and kicking Young as he lay on the
ground. Young was tased by a Galveston police officer and as a result of the Taser and beating,
Young was rendered unconscious.
46.
J. Belluomini
including Michael.
was also grabbed and handcuffed
by Galveston
police officers,
After being taken outside, J. Belluomini was thrown, face-first, into a curb
by a Galveston police officer. He was later put into a police car. Due to the effects of the pepper
spray on his clothing
Belluomini's
(and on the clothes of Silva, who was also in the police car), J.
heart began to race and he could not catch his breath.
After he complained
to
Galveston police officers, he was pulled out of the car, thrown over the trunk, and water was
poured onto his face.
10
Case 3:10-cv-00388
47.
Document 1
Page 11 of31
Backe, among others including Cornwell, McMillan, Trevino and Silva, were in a
crowd near the entry to the hallway in which Cole was beaten. These witnesses saw Cole beaten
and tased. Without provocation, officers began screaming profanities at Backe and the crowd
and yelling at them to "back the fuck up" and move away from the hallway. Due to the mass of
people behind them, and the conflicting orders from the police officers arriving on the scene
pushing toward the hallway, they were unable to back up any further. The police officers
continued screaming obscenities toward the crowd and approached the crowd aggressively.
Backe, the closest to the police officers, asked the officers to calm down and told them that they
could not back up further due to the people behind them. An officer, believed to be McDermott,
grabbed Backe, spun him around, and forced Backe's hands behind his back. Backe was then
forced to the ground and handcuffed, at which time McDennott and other officers began to
punch and kick him. Backe was then dragged outside where he was put into a police car.
48.
As McMillan saw Backe being kicked while face down on the ground, an officer
screamed at McMillan to leave. As McMillan turned to leave, an officer, believed to be Bums,
elbowed McMillan in the back, forced him to the ground, and placed handcuffs on him.
McMillan was placed in the police car with Backe.
49.
After seeing Backe thrown to the ground, Cornwell immediately made his way
back into the bar to reach his wife, who was pregnant at the time. As they were out of the hotel
and walking away from the scene a Galveston police officer pushed Cornwell's wife. He told
the officer that his wife was pregnant and asked that he stop pushing her.
Cornwell was
immediately thrown to the ground and handcuffed, and saw his pregnant wife pushed to the
ground. As he was seated on the ground handcuffed, he asked the officer why he was arrested.
11
•...,
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 12 of 31
The Galveston police officer then pushed Cornwell's head into a curb and punched him while he
lay on the ground.
50.
As the events progressed with approximately 15 to 20 officers responding to the
scene, Goodson also witnessed Backe on the ground, handcuffed, and being beaten by Galveston
police officers. Goodson and his girlfriend exited the H2o bar and walked down a hill toward a
nearby hotel where they were guests. Galveston police officers, including Goode, followed the
couple screaming profanities at them. About forty feet away from the entrance of the hotel, the
police officers following them struck Goodson's girlfriend with what is believed to be a baton.
Four police officers then tackled Goodson to the ground and punched him in the head and torso.
Goodson was sprayed with pepper spray while on the ground.
51.
Packard and a group of friends made their way out of the San Luis as the police
profanely shouted at them to exit. After they were outside the San Luis walking toward the
adjacent hotel where they were staying, Galveston police officers yelled at the group leaving and
followed them. After Packard had reached the parking lot of a restaurant next door to the San
Luis, a police officer grabbed Packard around the neck, threw him to the ground and pulled his
hands behind his back. The officer then pepper-sprayed Packard and placed him under arrest.
Due to the injuries he suffered as a result of the attack by the police officer, Packard was forced
to be treated by an eye doctor and general practitioner.
52.
As directed by the police officers, Silva attempted to make his way back toward
the bar, but was unable due to the number of people who had gathered in the area. Silva was
then pushed in the back by a Galveston police officer using either a flashlight or baton and when
he looked back, a Galveston police officer, believed to be Michael, hit him across the collarbone
with a baton, which caused immediate bleeding. Silva was then grabbed, pepper-sprayed, and
12
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 13 of 31
thrown to the ground. On the ground he was kicked, his back was stepped on, a baton was
forced into his ribs, and he was struck in the forearm.
53.
Gil, who had not been present during the original melee in the H2o bar and
hallway, came into the hotel lobby after parking his truck and walking up to the hotel. He
immediately saw that S. Belluomini was in the lobby and unable to see due to the pepper spray in
her face and eyes. Gil called to her and S. Belluomini informed Gil that the police were beating
his son Cole; Gil made his way out of the lobby to determine what was happening to his son.
Upon exiting the lobby, he saw 1. Belluomini on the ground and asked what was going on.
Galveston police officers then screamed obscenities at him and told him to "get the fuck back."
Gil made his way back into the lobby and again assisted S. Belluomini. Approaching the front of
the hotel, Gil saw his son Cole covered in blood and being escorted by Galveston police officers.
54.
After seeing Backe thrown to the ground and beaten, Trevino made his way back
through the lobby and out the front of the hotel. While in front of the hotel, Trevino saw Gil
walk out of the hotel asking what was going on and asking police officers why his son was
bleeding. Police officers immediately shouted to Gil and Trevino to back up. Trevino's back
was to the police officers as he faced Gil. Obeying the profane orders being screamed by the
police officers, Gil and Trevino, with hands up, backed as far as they could into a wall, where
they could move no farther. But that was not enough for the officers: Trevino was struck in the
leg and fell down while Gil was then shot with a Taser gun. When Gil did not immediately fall
to the ground he was struck a second time with the Taser gun and then fell to the ground. While
on the ground, Gil was handcuffed. Still unsatisfied with the amount of harm they had inflicted
upon him, Galveston police officers lifted Gil's glasses from his eyes and pepper-sprayed him on
each side of his face. The officers then kicked Gil, struck him on the side of the face by a baton,
13
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 14 of 31
or other blunt instrument, causing serious injury to his ear and eye, and one officer put a foot on
the back of Gil's neck, forcing Gil's face into the concrete.
55.
While on the ground, Trevino saw Gil struck with the Taser and forced to the
ground. Trevino was then struck twice more in the leg, whereupon a camera in his pocket was
broken by the force of the strikes. As Trevino rolled over and put his hand up to defend himself,
he was pepper-sprayed in the face. Trevino's eyes were injured due to the impact of the pepper
spray on the contacts he was wearing. Trevino and Gil were placed in a police car together and
driven to the police station. Officers involved in the beating of Gil are believed to have included
Longoria and Sanderson.
56.
After suffering his severe beating, Cole was initially taken to a Galveston police
car. An ambulance was called and as Cole was being taken to the ambulance, an officer pushed
him and he fell into the back of the ambulance while handcuffed. Due to the severity of his
injuries, Cole was transported by Life Flight Helicopter to I-Iermann Memorial Hospital in
Houston, Texas. Cole suffered injuries to his skull, head, face, and torso.
57.
Officers Caldwell, Ferguson, Mitchell, Bums, Rutherford, and R. Sanderson, III
were at the scene and participated in the beatings and excessive use of force by the Galveston
police. Upon information and belief, Officer Loyd was at the scene, participated in the events,
and processed the events of the incident. Upon information and belief, Chief Wiley was advised
of the situation, arrived at the scene, and observed the situation and allowed it to continue. As
such, Wiley was personally involved in the incident.
58.
The police ultimately arrested at least ten individuals, including certain persons
who were not members of the wedding party or wedding guests, but who were simply patrons or
guests of the hotel or bar.
Others, although not arrested, were victims of harassment and
14
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
excessive force by the security officer and Galveston police officers.
justification,
the Individual
while arresting
Defendants
andlor detaining
used unreasonable,
the Plaintiffs.
Without provocation
unnecessary,
The injuries
Page 15 of 31
or
and excessive
force
by Plaintiffs
were
suffered
significant, substantial, and severe.
59.
At all times, Galveston and the Individual Defendants were acting under the color
of law and under the direct supervision of Galveston, Le Blanc, and Wiley.
60.
Galveston,
and its police department,
have a long history of acts of police
brutality, excessive use of force, intimidation, false arrests, and false reports.
A media report in
2008 noted a log of over 55 police brutality charges during the previous six years.'
incidents, and the official response thereto, demonstrates
Such other
a pattern of violations of individual
rights and that Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley knew, or should have known, of this pattern of
conduct.
This pattern of conduct,
and the tolerance
andlor approval
of such conduct, by
Galveston and its officials constituted a policy and/or custom of the city and its law enforcement
departments.
Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley authorized and ratified the policy and/or custom of
an excessive use of force, treatment of persons under restraint, false arrests and reports, and use
of abusive language and/or physical force.
This pattern of violations, and Galveston's
lack of
response to those violations, demonstrate the obvious inadequacy of its training, supervision, and
hiring practices and was likely to result in constitutional violations.
61.
LeBlanc, as City Manager, provides policy direction and executive
over the Galveston Police Department.
LeBlanc.
Galveston,
LeBlanc,
and
leadership
Wiley, the police chief of Galveston, reports directly to
Wiley
are
charged
with
management,
oversight,
Indeed, simple media searches reveal an unquestionable pattern of improper actions by the Galveston Police
including, but not limited to, officers throwing a media photographer to the ground, arresting him, and placing him
in jail for "interfering with a police officer," while photographing an arrest at Mardi Gras (photographer acquitted);
a 2004 incident of misuse of deadly force; and the conviction of a Galveston Police officer for kidnapping and rape
after the incident occurred while the officer was on duty.
3
15
Case 3: 10-cv-00388
administration,
Document 1
and supervision of the Individual Defendants.
Page 16 of 31
Galveston and its law enforcement
bodies failed to adequately train its law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, the
Individual Defendants.
Galveston, including LeBlanc and Wiley, failed to properly train its law
enforcement officers on (among other topics) the appropriate use of force and for the appropriate
response to crowds and gatherings.
This failure to train police officers, including the Individual
Defendants, directly resulted in injuries to the Plaintiffs.
62.
Wiley,
Galveston and its law enforcement divisions and officers, including LeBlanc and
failed to adequately
supervise,
oversee,
discipline,
monitor,
and manage
enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, the Individual Defendants.
its law
Galveston and its
officials, including LeBlanc and Wiley, turned a blind-eye to excessive use of force and police
misconduct and expressly or inherently authorized and/or encouraged the conduct that resulted in
injuries to the Plaintiffs.
63.
Galveston and its law enforcement divisions and officers, including LeBlanc and
Wiley, failed to adequately screen and hire law enforcement
but not limited to, the Individual Defendants.
employees and officers, including,
The Individual Defendants were highly likely to
use excessive force and inflict the physical abuse and injuries such as those which ultimately
occurred against the Plaintiffs.
64.
The conduct and omissions of Galveston and the Individual Defendants directly
resulted in the deprivation of the Plaintiffs' rights and severe injuries to the Plaintiffs.
V.
A.
COUNT
U.S.
65.
1: 42 U.S.c. § 1983
CONSTITUTION
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM
FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE
4TH AMENDMENT
TO THE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Paragraphs 1 through 64 are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
16
Case 3:10-cv-00388
66.
Document 1
The City of Galveston and the Individual Defendants
state law to cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs'
Page 17 of 31
acted under the color of
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
67.
Galveston and the Individual Defendants, by means of physical force or show of
authority, restrained the liberties of the Plaintiffs and subjected them to unreasonable
and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
used by Galveston
and the Individual
Defendants
was objectively
searches
The excessive force
unreasonable
given the
circumstances.
68.
Specifically,
Caldwell, Ferguson, Garcia, Longoria, Loyd, McDermott,
Sanderson, Bums, Dooley, Goode, Manuell, Michael, Rutherford,
Mitchell,
R. Sanderson, III, and John
Doe Galveston Police Officers 1 - 20 used excessive force without provocation
in beating the
Plaintiffs with fists, kicks, and the use of batons, pepper spray and Tasers thereby restraining the
liberties of the Plaintiffs and subjecting them to unreasonable
searches and seizures in violation
of the rights guaranteed to them under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Each of
the individual Plaintiffs suffered physical beating at the hands of these Galveston police officers.
69.
The abusive conduct of the Individual Defendants was objectively unreasonable.
The Fourth Amendment rights violated by Galveston and the Individual Defendants were clearly
established at the time of their violation.
70.
knowledgeable
Wiley was at the scene of the incident and thus was personally involved in and
about the incident and the conduct of the Galveston police officers under his
supervision and failed to stop the abusive conduct of the Individual Defendants.
71.
In addition, Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley accepted, approved, and authorized
the vicious actions of the Galveston police officers described above by its policy and/or custom
17
Case 3: 10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 18 of 31
of acceptance of police brutality, excessive use of force, intimidation, false arrests and reports,
and failure to properly train, supervise, and/or hire law enforcement officials.
72.
The excessive use of force by Galveston and the Individual Defendants to restrain
the Plaintiffs' liberties and subject them to unreasonable searches and seizures was a violation of
the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. This conduct was a direct
cause of injury to Plaintiffs. As demonstrated above, the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs were
more than de minimis. The conduct of Galveston and the Individual Defendants was willful and
malicious.
73.
The acts of Galveston and the Individual Defendants, separately or in
combination, constituted a deliberate, malicious, callous, and reckless indifference to the rights
and physical safety of Plaintiffs. This deliberate indifference, coupled with the unnecessary and
shockingly brutal physical assault on Plaintiffs, constituted unnecessary and wanton infliction of
physical injury, pain, and suffering on the Plaintiffs and an unreasonable search and seizure
under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The acts and omissions of Galveston and
the Individual Defendants demonstrate such indifference that they offend the standards of
decency and violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
74.
This deprivation is directly attributable to the enforcement of a custom or policy
of the City of Galveston, more specifically described in Paragraphs 105 through 109, infra, and
incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
B.
COUNT
2: 42 V.S.C. § 1983
V.S. CONSTITUTION
75.
CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE
8TH
AMENDMENT
TO THE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
18
Case 3:10-cv-00388
76.
Document 1
Page 19 of 31
The City of Galveston and the Individual Defendants acted under the color of
state law to cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
77.
Galveston and the Individual Defendants, by use of physical beatings, pepper
spray, and Tasers, inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon the Plaintiffs in violation of
rights guaranteed to the Plaintiffs under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
excessive force used by Galveston and the Individual Defendants was objectively unreasonable
given the circumstances.
78.
Specifically, Caldwell, Ferguson, Garcia, Longoria, Loyd, McDermott, Mitchell,
Sanderson, Bums, Dooley, Goode, Manuell, Michael, Rutherford, R. Sanderson, III, and John
Doe Galveston Police Officers 1 - 20, without provocation, beat the Plaintiffs with fists, kicks,
and the use of batons, pepper spray and Tasers.
Each of the individual Plaintiffs suffered
physical beating at the hands of these Galveston police officers.
79.
The Eighth Amendment rights violated by Galveston and the Individual Defendants were clearly
established at the time of their violation.
80.
knowledgeable about the incident and the conduct of the Galveston police officers under his
81.
the vicious actions of the Galveston police officers described above by its policy andlor custom
of acceptance of police brutality, excessive use of force, intimidation, false arrests and reports,
19
Case 3:10-cv-00388
82.
Document 1
The excessive use of force by Galveston
Page 20 of 31
and the Individual
Defendants
and
subjecting the Plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment was a violation of the Plaintiffs' Eighth
Amendment
Plaintiffs.
rights under the U.S. Constitution.
As demonstrated
This conduct was a direct cause of injury to
above, the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs were more than de
minimis. The conduct of Galveston and the Individual Defendants was willful and malicious.
83.
The
combination,
acts
of Galveston
and
the
Individual
Defendants,
separately
or
111
constituted a deliberate, malicious, callous, and reckless indifference to the rights
and physical safety of Plaintiffs.
This deliberate indifference, coupled with the unnecessary and
physical injury, pain, and suffering on the Plaintiffs and cruel and unusual punishment.
and omissions of Galveston and the Individual Defendants
demonstrate
The acts
such indifference
that
they offend the standards of decency and violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
84.
This deprivation is directly attributable to the enforcement
of the City of Galveston, more specifically described in Paragraphs
of a custom or policy
105 through 109, infra, and
C.
COUNT
V.S.
3: 42 V.S.C. § 1983
CONSTITUTION
CLAIM
AGAINST
FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE
14TH AMENDMENT
TO THE
ALL DEFENDANTS
85.
86.
state law to cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs'
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the
U.S. Constitution.
87.
Galveston
and the Individual
Defendants,
by use of physical beatings, pepper
spray, and Tasers, denied Plaintiffs due process and equal protection of the laws and deprived
their rights, privileges,
or immunities
secured by the Fourteenth
20
Amendment
to the U.S.
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Constitution.
Document 1
The excessive
force used by Galveston
Page 21 of 31
and the Individual
Defendants
was
objectively unreasonable given the circumstances.
88.
Specifically,
Caldwell, Ferguson, Garcia, Longoria, Loyd, McDennott,
Sanderson, Burus, Dooley, Goode, Manuell, Michael, Rutherford,
Doe Galveston Police Officers I - 20, without provocation
Mitchell,
R. Sanderson, Ill, and John
or due process, beat the Plaintiffs
with fists, kicks, and the use of batons, pepper spray and Tasers thereby denying the Plaintiffs
due process and equal protection under the laws in violation of rights guaranteed to the Plaintiffs
under the Fourteenth
Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
Each of the individual Plaintiffs
suffered physical beating at the hands of these Galveston police officers.
89.
The Fourteenth Amendment
rights violated by Galveston and the Individual Defendants were
clearly established at the time of their violation.
90.
knowledgeable
91.
of acceptance of police brutality, excessive use of force, intimidation,
false arrests and reports,
92.
The excessive use of force by Galveston and the Individual Defendants and denial
of the Plaintiffs due process and equal protection under the laws was a violation of the Plaintiffs'
Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.
injury to Plaintiffs.
As demonstrated
This conduct was a direct cause of
above, the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs were more
21
~"iCase 3:10-cv-00388
than de minimis.
Document 1
The conduct of Galveston
and the Individual
Page 22 of 31
Defendants
was willful and
malicious.
93.
combination,
The
acts
of Galveston
and
the
Individual
Defendants,
separately
or in
physical injury, pain, and suffering on the Plaintiffs and a denial of Plaintiffs'
equal protection
under the laws.
The acts and omissions
of Galveston
due process and
and the Individual
Defendants demonstrate such indifference that they offend the standards of decency and violate
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
94.
D.
COUNT
4:
AMENDMENTS
U.S.c. § 1983
42
TO THE
U.S.
CLAIM
CONSTITUTION
FOR
VIOLATIONS
AGAINST
OF
5TH
AND
14TH
ALL DEFENDANTS
95.
Paragraphs
96.
state law to cause
THE
1 through 94 are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
the deprivation
of Plaintiffs'
rights
under
the Fifth
and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
97.
Galveston
and the Individual
Defendants,
acting
separately
and in concert,
wrongfully detained the Plaintiffs in violation of the Plaintiffs' clearly established right not to be
denied their right to liberty under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
process of law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
22
without due
Case 3:10-cv-00388
98.
Specifically,
Document 1
Page 23 of 31
Caldwell, Ferguson, Garcia, Longoria, Loyd, McDermott, Mitchell,
Sanderson, Burus, Dooley, Goode, Manuell, Michael, Rutherford,
R. Sanderson, III, and John
Doe Galveston Police Officers I - 20, without provocation or due process, willfully detained the
Plaintiffs
without
consent and without legal authority
or justification
thereby deprived
the
Plaintiffs of their right to liberty under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution without due
process of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
99.
The conduct of the Individual
Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment
Defendants
was objectively
unreasonable.
The
rights violated by Galveston and the Individual Defendants
were clearly established at the time of their violation.
100.
knowledgeable
101.
of acceptance of police brutality, excessive use of force, intimidation,
false arrests and reports,
lO2.
The denial of the Plaintiffs'
liberty without due process by Galveston and the
Individual Defendants was a violation of the Plaintiffs' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
under the U.S. Constitution.
demonstrated
This conduct was a direct cause of injury to Plaintiffs.
As
above, the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs were more than de minimis. As a
direct and proximate result of these individual Defendants'
false imprisonment
of Plaintiffs, they
suffered numerous injuries, including great distress, pain, anguish, fear, suffering, and economic
damages.
The conduct of Galveston and the Individual Defendants was willful and malicious.
23
"-
Case 3:10-cv-00388
103.
The
combination,
acts
Document 1
of Galveston
and
the
Individual
Page 24 of 31
Defendants,
separately
or in
physical injury, pain, and suffering on the Plaintiffs and a deprivation of the Plaintiffs'
without due process.
demonstrate
The acts and omISSIOns of Galveston
such indifference
that they offend
and the Individual
the standards
of decency
liberty
Defendants
and violate
the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
104.
E.
5: 42
COUNT
U.S.C.
§ 1983
CLAIM
PRACTICE AGAINST GALVESTON,
FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
LEBLANC,
POLlCY,
CUSTOM,
OR
AND WILEY
105.
106.
There is a pattern of brutality and excessive use of force in the Galveston police
department, including, but not limited to over 50 incidents of abusive or improper conduct in the
past eight years.
107.
systematic
In addition, Galveston,
violations
of individual
LeBlanc,
rights
and Wiley participated
by the Individual
in or were aware of
Defendants
and other
law
enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, the habitual use of excessive force, unlawful
searches
and seizures,
groundless
and unlawful
arrests and reports,
intimidation,
cmel and
unusual punishment, and denials of due process and equal protection, all in violation of the rights
guaranteed
Amendments
to individual
like the Plaintiffs under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Further, Galveston has had a policy and/or custom of
24
failing to properly investigate,
Page 25 of 31
reprimand, discipline, and punish officers for excessive use of
force, abusive conduct, and other improper conduct.
The result of this policy and/or custom is
that Galveston police officers feel free to engage in abusive and improper conduct without fear
of repercussion,
in violation of the rights guaranteed
Eighth, and Fourteenth
encouraged,
Defendants
condoned,
Amendments
and permitted
to individuals
under the Fourth, Fifth,
This policy and/or custom
the unlawful excessive use of force by the Individual
against Plaintiffs in violation of the rights guaranteed
to the Plaintiffs under the
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
108.
The conduct and actions of Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley were a part of the
policy and/or custom and practice of the city and its police department.
The constitutional
deprivations visited upon the Plaintiffs were a result of this governmental policy and/or custom.
This policy and/or custom to engage in acts violating rights guaranteed to individuals
Plaintiffs under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
like the
to the U.S. Constitution
was the persistent, widespread practice of officials, employees, and law enforcement
officers,
which, even though such policy and/or custom may not have (but certainly may have) received
formal approval through the city's official decision-making
settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represented
pattern of abusive conduct by law enforcement
channels, was so common and well
the policy of Galveston.
Due to the
officials, Galveston and its officers, including
LeBlanc and Wiley, had actual and/or constructive
knowledge
and failed to take corrective
action.
109.
Galveston's
policies and/or customs were the direct moving force, or cause, that
resulted in the deprivation of the Plaintiffs'
shocking to the conscience,
federally protected rights.
This incident, although
was not an isolated event, but a direct result of the policy and/or
25
- ..
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 26 of 31
custom of Galveston and its officials to violate rights guaranteed to individuals like the Plaintiffs
under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Galveston
and the Individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs since the acts of
Galveston and the Individual Defendants created a de facto policy enforced so as to constitute
the adoption of an official policy, custom, usage, or procedure, on both a formal and informal
basis, to violate rights guaranteed to individuals like the Plaintiffs under the Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Galveston and the Individual
Defendants effectively permitted, condoned, approved, and ratified the acts of the individual
police officers, and such acts complained of herein may fairly be said to be the official policy of
Galveston. The conduct of Galveston and the Individual Defendants was willful and malicious.
F.
COUNT
6: 42
U.S.c.
§ 1983
HIRING AGAINST GALVESTON,
CLAIM
FOR INADEQUATE
LEBLANC,
TRAINING,
SUPERVISION,
AND
AND WILEY
110.
111.
Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley are the parties charged with management,
oversight, administration, and supervision of the Individual Defendants. Those duties include the
supervision, management, oversight, training, and hiring of the Individual Defendants in their
official duties. Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley created or maintained an unconstitutional policy,
custom or practice with respect to the failure to manage, oversee, administer, and supervise,
screen, and hire police officers. These policies, customs, or practices of failing to adequately
train, supervise, and hire officers were created or maintained intentionally, maliciously, and with
reckless disregard for and deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed under the
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It was foreseeable
that constitutional deprivations would likely result from Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley's failure
to properly train, supervise, and hire police officers.
26
••...
-;-.0"
Case 3:10-cv-00388
112.
Document 1
Page 27 of 31
Galveston, LeBlanc, and Wiley failed to properly train, supervise, and hire its law
enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, the Individual Defendants. Galveston and its
officials, including Le Blanc and Wiley, failed to properly train its law enforcement officers on,
among other topics, the appropriate use of force and for the appropriate response to crowds and
gatherings of people. This negligent and grossly negligent failure to train police officers resulted
in a pattern of unconstitutional application of the use of force and this inadequate training of
police officers directly resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights and constituted a
deliberate, malicious, callous, and reckless indifference to the rights and physical safety of
Plaintiffs. The need for more or different training was so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely
to result in constitutional violations, that Galveston's failure to address the need was in fact a
policy of deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' constitutionally protected rights guaranteed
under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
This
deliberate indifference, coupled with the unnecessary and shockingly brutal physical assault on
Plaintiffs, constituted unnecessary and wanton infliction of physical injury, pain, and suffering
on the Plaintiffs and a violation of their rights guaranteed under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
113.
Galveston and its officials, including LeBlanc and Wiley, turned a blind-eye to
and tolerated excessive use of force and police misconduct and expressly or inherently
authorized the conduct that resulted in injuries to the Plaintiffs. In addition, Wiley, the Chief of
Police, was involved in the specific incident causing injuries to the Plaintiffs by observing the
events and failing to intervene.
ill
addition, Le Blanc and Wiley may have given tacit approval
the events by the lack of substantive investigation following the events and failure to sanction
27
Case 3:10·cv-00388
Document 1
Page 28 of 31
officers involved in the incident in further violation of Plaintiffs rights guaranteed under the
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
114.
Galveston,
LeBlanc,
and Wiley
failed
to adequately
screen
and hire law
enforcement employees and officers, including, but not limited to, the Individual Defendants.
a result, the police force included members who, by temperament
or prior experience,
As
were
inclined to use abusive and excessive force and were highly likely to inflict the injuries suffered
by Plaintiffs.
This included the Individual Defendants who used excessive force and inflicted
physical abuse and injuries such as that which ultimately occurred against the Plaintiffs.
This
negligent and grossly negligent failure to adequately screen and hire police officers resulted in a
pattern of unconstitutional
application
of the use of force and this inadequate
screening and
hiring of police officers directly resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights and constituted a
deliberate,
malicious,
callous, and reckless indifference
Plaintiffs.
This deliberate
indifference,
coupled with the unnecessary
physical assault on Plaintiffs, constituted unnecessary
pain, and suffering on the Plaintiffs.
to the rights and physical safety of
and shockingly
brutal
and wanton infliction of physical injury,
The conduct of Galveston and the Individual Defendants
was willful and malicious.
115.
As a direct result, Galveston and the Individual Defendants
violated Plaintiffs'
rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
VI.
DAMAGES
116.
117.
The wrongful conduct of Galveston and the Individual Defendants,
Paragraphs
1 through
]] 6, supra, and incorporated
described in
by reference as if set forth fully herein,
directly resulted in the injuries suffered by each of the individual Plaintiffs, including physical
28
.....
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 29 of 31
injuries and past and future emotional distress, physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement,
impairment, fear, suffering, and economic damages.
As such, each of the Plaintiffs are entitled
to recovery of: (a) compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation
for constitutional
deprivations
and the injuries inflicted,
including,
but not limited to, the
expenses each individual Plaintiff incurred for medical treatment and, based upon reasonable
medical probability, future medical expenses for treatment of each of Plaintiffs'
injuries; each of
the Plaintiffs' past and future physical pain and mental anguish; each of the Plaintiffs'
future disfigurement;
each of the Plaintiffs'
past and future physical impairment;
past and
each of the
Plaintiffs'
lost earnings; each of the Plaintiffs' past and future lost earning capacity; each of the
Plaintiffs'
pain and suffering;
damages where appropriate;
and each of the Plaintiffs
and (c) attorneys'
damages;
(b) exemplary
fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other
expenses, in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
VII.
property
limits of this Court.
JURY DEMAND
118.
Paragraphs 1 through 117 are incorporated by reference as if set f01ih fully herein.
119.
Plaintiffs
assert
their
rights
under
the
Seventh
Amendment
to the U.S.
Constitution and demand, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by jury
on all issues.
VIII.
WHEREFORE,
Belluomini,
PREMISES
PRAYER
CONSIDERED,
Plaintiffs
Brandon A. Backe, Joseph P.
Shannon Belluomini, Chris Cornwell, Matthew L. Goodson, Michael R. McMillan,
Daniel Cole O'Balle, Gilbert E. O'Balle, Jr., Justin Packard, Calvin Silva, Aaron Trevino, and
Charles Young pray that, after notice and [mal trial hereon, the City of Galveston, Texas, and
Steven LeBlanc, Chief Charles B. Wiley, Jr., Lt. Joel 1. Caldwell, Officer James R. Ferguson,
29
--
Case 3: 10-cv-00388
Document 1
Page 30 of 31
Officer Clemente J. Garcia III, Officer Jonathan M. Longoria, Officer Joneka N. Loyd, Officer
Nicholas H. McDermott,
Sgt. Andre L. Mitchell, Officer Christopher
M. Sanderson, Officer
Mathew D. Bums, Officer Evelyn S. Dooley, Officer Dane M. Goode, Officer Pheneria Manuel!,
Officer Jeffrey A. Michael, Officer John Rutherford, Officer Robert L. Sanderson, III, and John
Doe Galveston Police Officers 1 - 20, individually and in their official capacities, be found liable
for their conduct; and Plaintiffs recover the following relief:
a.
compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation for
constitutional deprivations; past and future economic loss, physical harm, and
emotional trauma as described above;
b.
exemplary damages in an amount to be established at trial to punish the
Defendants for outrageous and malicious conduct done in reckless disregard for
the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to discourage them from engaging in similar
conduct in the future, and to deter others similarly situated from engaging in
similar conduct;
c.
reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, including attorneys' fees provided by 42
U.S.C. § 1988;
d.
prejudgment and post-judgment
e.
costs of court; and
f.
such other and further relief, at law or equity, to which Plaintiffs may show
themselves justly entitled.
interest;
Dated: September 24,2010.
Respectfully submitted,
PORTER & HEDGES, L.L.P.
By: sf John A. Irvine
John A. Irvine
Attorney- in -Charge
State Bar No.1 0423300
Federal 1D No. 0905
1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 226-6000
Facsimile: (713) 226-6219
ATTORNEY
30
FOR PLAINTIFFS
Case 3:10-cv-00388
Document 1
OF COUNSEL:
Eugene M. Nettles
State Bar No. 14927300
Federal ID No. 0770
Joseph D. Cohen
Federal ID No. 14710
Daniel V. Flatten
Federal ID No. 2506
R. Blake Runions
FederallD No. 876522
PORTER & HEDGES, L.L.P.
1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 226-6000
Facsimile: (713) 226-6219
31
Page 31 of 31

NO. - The Police News

Transcription

Similar documents

Galveston Drive

Galveston-Interview images-Street

Galveston Island, Texas: Where to Eat + Drink

Isaac`s Storm by Erik Larson

Meetings Today: Galveston Gourmet

Fishing Report for April

Find Your New Home HERE… - Galveston Housing Authority

Elena Ford, Why haven`t you responded to my

raser technologies order on defendants` motion to temporarily stay

View The Spring/Summer 2016 Newsletter Here