IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:12cv26

Similar documents
Case 9:12-cv RC Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1

2:15-cv PDB-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA THIRD DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv BR Document 1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 7

Case3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON. Case No.:

Case 5:17-cv Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

)(

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (NORTHERN DIVISION)

Case 1:06-cv VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 9

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:06-cv JJF Document 5 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS - LAW DIVISION. v. No.: COMPLAINT AT LAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado

3:14-cv SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/24/17 Page 1 of 23

Case 2:06-cv FSH-PS Document 20 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 7

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 2:16-cv ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/02/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1

Case 4:08-cv CW Document 19 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:10-cv TS Document 2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv HGB-ALC Document 1 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JANET DELUCA CIVIL ACTION

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION JUDGE:

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/12/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 9:15-cv DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2015 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:17-cv GJQ-TPG ECF No. 1 filed 01/25/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Case 4:18-cv HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

4:15-cv TGB-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/29/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. Brooklyn in which he was serving out the last months of his prison sentence to a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT. Introduction

Case 3:08-cv DAK Document 31 Filed 02/25/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION V. CIVIL ACTION NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case: 1:13-cv HJW Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 11 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1020

Case 5:16-cv RWS-CMC Document 1 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Case 2:18-cv PMW Document 2 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 5:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/13/17 Page 1 of 11

COMPLAINT NATURE OF THE ACTION PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 15 Filed: 01/27/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:29

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/02/10 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendants. : : June 26, 2018 COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Plaintiff, Number:

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION

3:14-cv CSB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 8 IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION. Plaintiff, No.: Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case 1:12-cv S-LDA Document 1 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Case 3:17-cv DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13

Case: 4:17-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 07/19/17 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PlainSite. Legal Document. New York Eastern District Court Case No. 1:11-cv Jordan et al v. The City of New York et al.

Case 1:18-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2018 Page 1 of 17

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-cv-12698

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1

Case 3:14-cv Document 1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 1:12-cv WGY Document 6 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRCT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 2:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Case3:09-cv EMC Document1 Filed08/28/09 Page1 of 8

Case 2:13-cv MLCF-JCW Document 1 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COMPLAINT

2:13-cv BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 06/24/13 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1

Case 1:11-cv JBS-AMD Document 37 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 223 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:15-cv Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/08/15 1 of 9. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 2:16-at Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 9

2:16-cv HAB # 1 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CASE NO CP-23- COUNTY OF GREENVILLE. Sylvia Lockaby, Plaintiff, vs.

Case 1:12-cv JEB Document 1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, v. No.

Courthouse News Service

4:15-cv SLD-JEH # 1 Page 1 of 8 COMPLAINT. 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and

case 2:14-cv PPS-JEM document 15 filed 09/21/14 page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Courthouse News Service

CASE 0:12-cv PJS-TNL Document 15 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND JURISDICTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv RBK-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION MARILYN FIELDS STEPHEN FIELDS Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:12cv26 RICKY KING, CITY OF CENTER DETECTIVE JUDGE: STEPHEN STROUD, CITY OF CENTER DETECTIVE JURY DEMANDED JOHN WELCH, CITY OF CENTER DETECTIVE JOEY HALEY, CITY OF CENTER DETECTIVE SCOTT BURKHALTER, CITY OF CENTER SERGEANT CHRIS KNOWLTON, CITY OF CENTER POLICE OFFICER JEREMY KONDERLA, CITY OF CENTER POLICE OFFICER STEVEN THORNBURGH, CITY OF CENTER POLICE OFFICER DAVID HALEY, CITY OF CENTER POLICE OFFICER UNKNOWN JOHN DOES All Defendants Sued In Their Individual Capacities Defendants COMPLAINT Page 1 of 8

Come now Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields who for their Complaint state as follows: I Preliminary Statement 1. Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields, who were terrorized by gun-toting intruders who went to the wrong location, commence this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 which provides in relevant part for redress for every person within the jurisdiction of the United States for the deprivation under color of state law of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that Defendants acts and omissions violated rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages together with a reasonable attorney fee as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988. II Jurisdiction 4. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' constitutional claims against Defendants for which redress is provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983 is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3). Federal question jurisdiction is also conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331 because this action arises under the United States Constitution. Page 2 of 8

III Parties Plaintiffs 5. Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen fields are citizens of the United States and residents of Shelby County, Texas. Defendants 6. Defendants Dets. Ricky King, Stephen Stroud, John Welch, and Joey Haley, Sgt. Scott Burkhalter, and Officers Chris Knowlton, Jeremy Konderla, Steven Thornburgh, and David Haley are and were at all times relevant hereto members of the City of Center Tactical Entry Team and employed by the City of Center, Texas Police Department who reside in Shelby County, Texas. It is and was at all times relevant hereto their responsibility and duty to treat all citizens, including Plaintiffs, in accordance with minimum constitutional and statutory requirements. 7. Defendants Unknown John Does were unknown law enforcement officers involved in the catastrophe. They will be properly identified as soon as their names are learned during discovery. IV Facts Background 8. Plaintiff Marilyn Fields was at home (143 CR 2231, Center, Texas) minding her own business and visiting with her estranged husband, Plaintiff Stephen Fields, at around 7:30 p.m. on January 7, 2012 when the catastrophe occurred. 9. The defendants did not have a search warrant for the mobile home at all times relevant hereto. Page 3 of 8

What Happened 10. Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields saw a hoard of gun toting intruders running around outside the mobile home. This hoard of gun toting intruders barged inside and Plaintiffs were separated from each other and handcuffed. 11. The intruders did not identify themselves as police until the door was breached. 12. Plaintiff Marilyn Fields got down on her knees praying because Defendants had their guns drawn on both Plaintiffs. 13. Plaintiffs immediately hit the floor. 14. After Defendants finished "securing" the house Plaintiffs were handcuffed. 15. Defendants pulled stuff out of the bedrooms, pulled the covers off the sofa and basically ransacked the house. However, the only thing that was broken was the door. 16. Defendants finally put their guns back in their holsters after Plaintiffs were handcuffed and taken outside. 17. Defendants stayed at the home for about 30 minutes before their light bulbs came on and they realized that they were at the wrong house. 18. Plaintiff Marilyn Fields had a panic attack and was taken to the hospital by ambulance the next day and her blood pressure was completely out of control. 19. If Defendants had followed the directions on the Search Warrant they would have ended up at the mobile home that they should have entered in the first place. The Search Warrant describes a residence that is not Plaintiff Marilyn Fields' residence. In order to get to Plaintiff Marilyn Fields' residence, as opposed to the residence in the warrant, you have to turn left on a dirt road/driveway. Page 4 of 8

20. Plaintiff Marilyn Fields was taken to the Shelby County Memorial Hospital on Wednesday morning but ambulance where she stayed for two days. 21. Defendants have replaced the landlord's door. 22. Plaintiffs state on information and belief that Defendants went to the wrong mobile home because the mobile home at the top of the hill faces the street and the mobile home at the bottom of the hill also faces the street. 23. None of the Defendants had a search warrant for Plaintiffs Marilyn Fields home or an arrest warrant for either of the Plaintiffs. 24. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff Marilyn Fields home was unlawful. 25. The entry, detention and search and seizure were conducted in an objectively unreasonable manner. Damages 26. Defendants Dets. Ricky King, Stephen Stroud, John Welch, and Joey Haley, Sgt. Scott Burkhalter, Officers Chris Knowlton, Jeremy Konderla, Steven Thornburgh, David Haley and Unknown John Doe's acts and omissions set out above are a proximate cause of substantial damages to Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields including terror, grief, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and medical bills. 27. All of the acts and omissions of the Defendants were wanton, malicious and done in conscious disregard of and with deliberate indifference to the rights and needs Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields rendering appropriate the award of punitive damages. Page 5 of 8

Miscellaneous 28. All of the Defendants were acting under color of state law at all times relevant hereto. 29. All of the Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. V CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause of Action 30. The entry into and search of Plaintiff Marilyn Fields' mobile home and the brief detention of Plaintiff Marilyn and Stephen Fields as set out above amount to an unlawful search and an unlawful detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the Defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for which redress is provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983. 31. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields for compensatory damages and statutory attorney fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988. In addition, each Defendant is separately liable to each Plaintiff for punitive damages. Second Cause of Action 32. The way the search and seizure was conducted, including but not limited to busting in the door, ransacking the mobile home, and detaining Plaintiffs at gun point amounts to a search and seizure conducted in an objectively unreasonable manner in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the Defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for which redress is provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983. Page 6 of 8

33. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages and statutory attorney fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988. In addition, each defendant, in his individual capacity, is separately liable to Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields for punitive damages. VI Jury Demand 34. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS PRAY that this Honorable Court: a. Enter judgment in behalf of Plaintiff Marilyn Fields against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to fully and completely compensate Plaintiff Marilyn Fields for her actual damages proximately caused by the defendants; b. Enter judgment in behalf of Plaintiff Stephen Fields against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to fully and completely compensate Plaintiff Stephen Fields for his actual damages proximately caused by the defendants; c. Enter judgment in behalf of Plaintiff Marilyn Fields against each individual Defendant, separately, for punitive damages, in an amount sufficient to punish each Defendant for his misconduct in the case at bar and in an amount sufficient to deter each Defendant and others from doing the same thing to someone else; d. Enter judgment in behalf of Plaintiff Stephen Fields against each individual Defendant, separately, for punitive damages, in an amount sufficient to punish each Defendant for his misconduct in the case at bar and in an amount sufficient to deter each Defendant and others from doing the same one else; e. Grant Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields a reasonable attorney fee against the individual Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988; f. Grant Plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Fields a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and Page 7 of 8

e. Grant Plaintiff any and all additional relief for which they may appear to be entitled including pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and their costs herein expended. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Curtis B. Stuckey Curtis B. Stuckey Attorney in Charge for Plaintiffs Bar Card No. 19437300 Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter Law Offices 2803 C North Street P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, Texas 75963-1902 (936) 560-6020 FAX: 560-9578 tonitomlin@yahoo.com Page 8 of 8