v. Civil Action No. 3:09-cv PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT A. Parties

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION WYONDA HILL INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESATE OF DARNELL CHESTER, DECEASED Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:09-cv THE CITY OF GARLAND Defendant. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT A. Parties 1. Plaintiff, Wyonda Hill is an Individual, and statutory beneficiary of decedent, Darnell Chester, as defined under the laws of the state of Texas. 2. Defendant, The City of Garland, a governmental organization of a state or municipal corporation, may be served by personal delivery on the City of Garland Secretary, Mary J. Kayser, at City of Garland Municipal Building, 200 N. Fifth Street, Garland, Texas B. Jurisdiction 3. The court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the suit arises under 42 U.S.C An as yet unidentified police officer acting in the course and scope of his employment with the Garland Police department and acting under color of law violated the civil rights of Darnell Chester when this officer shot and killed Darnell Chester, while Mr. Chester was unarmed. At the time of the shooting there was no imminent threat of danger or Page 1

2 harm to the unidentified Garland police officer. C. Venue 4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district. D. Conditions Precedent 5. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. E. Facts 6. On or about September 8, 2009, Plaintiff suffered injuries resulting from Decedent s death. Decedent, a known mentally ill male, while unarmed, was shot and killed by a Garland police officer. Upon information and belief, moments before the Decedent was shot, two family members of Decedent called 911 to report that Decedent was firing a gun. Upon information and belief, both family members reported to the 911 operator that Decedent suffered from a mental health condition. In response to those 911 calls at least four Garland Police officers were dispatched to and arrived at the scene near Decedent s home. With weapons drawn, at least one of those officers commanded Decedent to drop his gun. Upon information and belief Decedent immediately, and in plain view, complied with that command, whereby he ceased to represent a threat to the responding officers. Thereafter, a period of ten to fifteen seconds elapsed at which point a currently unnamed Garland police officer, who was positioned more than fifty yards away from Decedent, discharged his Page 2

3 weapon, hitting Decedent with a single fatal shot to the chest. At the time Decedent was shot he was unarmed and did not represent or pose any imminent threat of danger to the officer that shot him or any other individual at or near the scene. 7. The as yet unidentified officer who fired the fatal shot was acting in the course and scope of his employment as a Garland Police officer for the City of Garland, Texas. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, (1982); Reed v. City of Chi., 77 F.3d 1049, 1051 (7th Cir. 1996). 8. The officer who fatally shot Decedent used unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive force under the set of circumstances that existed at the time he shot and killed Decedent. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, (1989). 9. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff were significant, substantial, and severe. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered the following damages: A. Deprivation of a kind and loving child; B. Loss of care, comfort, society, protection, love, companionship, and solace; C. Loss of moral support; D. Loss of parental consortium; E. Loss of the physical assistance in the operation and maintenance of the home; F. Loss of financial support; and G. Reasonable and necessary expenses for decedent s funeral, burial, and memorial services. Page 3

4 10. At the time of the arrest, the Garland Police officer who fatally shot the Decedent was acting under color of the laws and regulations of the State of Texas and the City of Garland Police Department. The Garland Police Department had a policy/custom in place that enabled its agents and employees to act with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals. Specifically the Garland Police Department had a policy/custom in place that disregarded the significance of providing adequate training, discipline, and supervision of its officers who respond to emergency situations involving a person who suffers from a mental health disorder. Moreover, The City of Garland Police Department tolerated its officers using deadly force in the absence of any imminent threat of harm or danger to anyone. See 42 U.S.C. 1983; Tenn. v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7 (1985); Brown v. Bryan County, 219 F.3d 450, (5th Cir. 2000). F. Count 1 Violation of Constitutional Rights 11. The exercise of these established policies/customs violated Decedent s clearly established rights under the U.S. Constitution (A) against the use of unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive force. See U.S. Const. amends. 4, 14; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, (1989).; G. Compliance with Notice Provisions 14. Plaintiff timely presented her claim to defendant as required by Texas Law. Page 4

5 J. Damages 15. As a direct and proximate result of the officer s use of excessive force, Plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages: A. Deprivation of a kind and loving child; B. Loss of care, comfort, society, protection, love, companionship, and solace; C. Loss of moral support; D. Loss of parental consortium; E. Loss of the physical assistance in the operation and maintenance of the home; F. Loss of financial support; and G. Reasonable and necessary expenses for decedent s funeral, burial, and memorial services. K. Attorney Fees 16. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). L. Prayer 17. For these reasons, plaintiff asks for judgment against defendant for the following: a. Actual damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. b. Reasonable attorney fees. Page 5

6 c. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest. d. Costs of suit. e. All other relief the court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, THE GODSEY LAW FIRM By: David L. Godsey Texas Bar No McKinney Ave. Dallas, Texas (T): (214) (F): (214) Page 6