IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION STEVE PARTON, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) CASE NO. ) BLAKE DORNING, ) STEVE WATSON, ) CURTIS SANDERS, ) CHRIS STEPHENS, ) CHARLES BERRY, ) KERRY PHILLIPS, ) MARION BULLOCK, ) CHARLES ZEISSLER, ) ROBERT HAYES, ) BRIAN CHAFFIN, ) T.A. MILLER, ) FORREST EDDE, ) STEVE FINLEY, ) ROBERT BROUSSARD, ) MARC SANDLIN, and ) ROBERT BECHER, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff Steve Parton complains of defendants, stating as follows: Parties 1. Plaintiff Steve Parton is of legal age and is a U.S. citizen and resident of the state of Alabama.
2. Defendant Blake Dorning is an individual. For over 10 years, Dorning has been the Madison County, Alabama Sheriff. He is sued in his individual capacity only. 3. Defendant Steve Watson is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was the captain over the patrol division. 4. Defendant Curtis Sanders is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was the captain over the records division. 5. Defendant Chris Stephens is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was a sergeant, though he had only recently stepped down from the position of chief deputy. 6. Defendant Charles Berry is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was the captain over the investigations division. 2
7. Defendant Kerry Phillips is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was the lieutenant under Berry in the investigations division and Dorning s administrative assistant. 8. Marion Bullock is an individual. At all relevant times, he was employed by the Madison County, Alabama Sheriff. He is sued in his individual capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was a lieutenant. 9. Charles Zeissler is an individual. At all relevant times, he was employed by the Madison County, Alabama Sheriff. He is sued in his individual capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was a lieutenant. 10. Robert Hayes is an individual. At all relevant times, he was employed by the Madison County, Alabama Sheriff. He is sued in his individual capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was a sergeant. 11. Defendant Brian Chaffin is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was the sergeant under Berry and Phillips in the investigations division. 12. Defendant T.A. Miller is an individual. At all relevant times, he was 3
capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was a sergeant and an investigator in the investigations division. 13. Defendant Forrest Edde is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was an investigator in the investigations division. 14. Defendant Steve Finley is an individual. At all relevant times, he was capacity only. At the time of Parton s arrest he was an investigator in the investigations division. 15. Defendant Robert Broussard is an individual. At all relevant times, he was the Madison County District Attorney. He is sued in his individual capacity only. 16. Defendant Marc Sandlin is an individual. At all relevant times, he was an Assistant Madison County District Attorney. He is sued in his individual capacity only. 17. Defendant Robert Becher is an individual. At all relevant times, he was an Assistant Madison County District Attorney. He is sued in his individual capacity only. 4
Facts 18. Jason Klonowski was murdered on or about October 30, 2013, by a small caliber bullet to his head. His body was discovered on November 3, 2013. 19. The murder of Klonowski remains unsolved. 20. Timing suggests Klonowski may have been murdered because of his support for Robert Bryant. 21. Robert Bryant was arrested and beaten by Madison County deputies, including Justin Watson, in August 2012. 22. As of November 3, 2013, Bryant was fighting criminal charges brought by Justin Watson and was preparing to file a civil rights lawsuit against Watson and other deputies. 23. Klonowski was financing Bryant s criminal defense. 24. Klonowski was also speaking out about what happened to Bryant. 25. Only a few weeks before being murdered, Klonowski held a rally in support of Bryant. 26. Klonowski, who lived on a busy highway in Madison County, was also displaying signs protesting the brutality of Madison County deputies and supporting Bryant. 27. Klonowski s body was discovered by Denise Brown, a friend of 5
Klonowski s and Bryant s. 28. The first deputy responding to the murder scene was Steve Parton. 29. Parton was Brown s ex-boyfriend and a friend of Klonowski s. Parton also knew Bryant. Brown and Bryant were friends. 30. While on the scene, Parton observed a.357 handgun in a leather case on the open tailgate of Klonowski s pickup, secured the gun for safety reasons, and later, pursuant to instructions from the gun s owner, Donnia Monroe, placed the gun in her car under the front seat. 31. At the time, Parton had no knowledge or reason to believe that Klonowski had been shot. 32. Moreover, the gun was not involved in the murder. 33. While there was initially some confusion regarding the gun, by November 7, 2013, any issue with the gun had been resolved. 34. Any error by Parton regarding the gun was minor, unintentional, and was not sufficient to justify suspension and termination, let alone the theft charge later filed against him. 35. The evidence clearly shows Parton, at most, made innocent mistakes that in no way affected the investigation of the Klonowski murder. 36. Critical evidence regarding the murder of Klonowski was not preserved 6
because the scene was not treated as a murder scene by investigators, including defendant Edde. 37. Parton was suspended without pay (on November 14, 2013), then terminated (in December 2014), and finally prosecuted criminally for felony theft. 38. In contrast, Watson, who beat and falsely arrested Bryant and then lied under oath in a preliminary hearing in Bryant s criminal case, was not disciplined for the beating, was only suspended without pay for two weeks for lying under oath, and was never prosecuted by Madison County. 39. Similarly, the investigators who failed to preserve the Klonowski murder scene received no discipline. 40. Documents related to the termination of Parton, which are attached as Exhibit 1, make clear no one involved in the investigation of Parton s alleged mistakes regarding the gun had any evidence or ever believed Parton took personal possession of the gun or ever had any intent to steal the gun. 41. This was later confirmed by the alleged victim, Monroe, who wrote a letter to Assistant District Attorney Jeff McCluskey requesting that the criminal charges be dropped. Monroe s letter is attached as Exhibit 2. 42. The decision to pursue criminal charges against Parton was made in late January 2014. 7
43. Timing suggests the decision to pursue criminal charges against Parton, despite clear evidence no crime was committed, was related to the cover-up of the Robert Bryant beating. 44. The decision to pursue false criminal charges against Parton was known to and approved by Dorning and senior command personnel, including defendants Watson, Sanders, Stephens, Berry, Phillips, Bullock, Zeissler, and Hayes; was approved by the Madison County District Attorney (defendant Broussard) and at least two assistant DAs (defendants Sandlin and Brecher); and was executed by defendants Berry, Chaffin, Miller, Edde, and Finley. 45. All of these individuals agreed and conspired to falsely charge Parton. 46. All of these individuals had reviewed the investigative documents concerning Parton s alleged mishandling of the gun or had knowledge of their contents, knew Parton committed no crime, but nevertheless agreed to pursue criminal charges against Parton. 47. In fact, notes prepared by defendant Berry related to the conspiracy to charge Parton were contained in the internal investigation file for the Robert Bryant matter and were produced to the undersigned in the civil case filed by Robert Bryant. 48. These notes are attached as Exhibit 3. 49. While not containing references to every person who participated in the 8
conspiracy to falsely charge and prosecute Parton, these notes make clear that the Parton prosecution was for an improper purpose, presumably related to covering up the Robert Bryant matter, and not for legitimate law enforcement reasons. 50. The notes begin on January 28, 2014, the same date Watson received notice that Dorning was considering discipline against him. (As noted above, Watson eventually received a two-week suspension without pay.) 51. These notes specifically identify Dorning, Berry, Chaffin, Edde, Miller, Sandlin, and Becher as being involved. 52. Other documents, and reasonable inferences, make clear that Phillips, Watson, Bullock, Zeissler, Stephens, and Hayes were actively involved. 53. Phillips was Dorning s assistant and Berry s second-in-command. 54. Watson, Stephens, Bullock, Zeissler, and Hayes were actively involved in the cover-up of the Bryant beating, including the decision to only suspend Watson without pay for two weeks. Reports related to the recommendation that Watson only be suspended without pay for two weeks are attached as Exhibit 4. 55. Sandlin and Becher obtained approval from their boss, DA Broussard, before giving the go-ahead on the charges. 56. On February 5, 2014, defendant Miller obtained an arrest warrant for Steve Parton, and Parton was thereafter arrested. 9
57. All involved knew there was no factual basis for criminal charges against Parton. 58. Nevertheless, the DA s office pursued charges through to the preliminary hearing, even after receiving Monroe s letter. 59. On April 16, 2014, after the preliminary hearing, the charges against Parton were dismissed. 60. There was no basis for investigating Parton and certainly not for arresting Parton. 61. All individuals involved knew Parton did not steal the gun. 62. Nevertheless, these individuals conspired to manufacture a theft charge against Parton. 63. This raises a fundamental question. Why would numerous deputies and supervisory personnel up to and including the sheriff manufacture criminal charges against a fellow law enforcement officer? 64. Ordinarily, of course, law enforcement officers err on the side of protecting their own, often to a fault, meaning one or more strong contrary motivations must have been at work. 65. Moroever, Dorning has a long history of tolerating even obviouslyunconstitutional (even criminal) actions of his deputies. 10
66. Thus, Dorning refused to investigate and discipline deputies involved in the well-publicized revenge beating of Robert Bryant in August 2012. 1 67. To the contrary, Dorning took steps to cover it up, even promoting Watson s father (Steve Watson) to captain and assigning him the responsibility of internal affairs investigations. 68. Dorning s actions regarding Parton and Bryant are evidence of and consistent with pre-existing policy. 69. In fact, under Dorning, though the policy and procedure manual requires thorough and prompt investigations, sets forth a detailed procedure for such allegations to be investigated by trained criminal investigators, and states that all such investigations are reviewed by the sheriff to ensure the allegations have been fairly investigated, allegations of misconduct by deputies are not investigated. 70. Even when the criminal conduct of the deputies who assaulted Bryant came under public scrutiny, Dorning disavowed any responsibility, putting responsibility for any action on the federal government, as reflected by the public comments of Dorning s chief deputy. 71. The failure and refusal to investigate serious incidents is a more general practice of Dorning, who has refused to investigate serious allegations related to 6 1 See http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/01/claims_of_revenge_beatdown_by.html. 11
deaths at the Madison County Jail. 72. Even after the undersigned filed lawsuits concerning three of these deaths, all of which occurred during 2013, Dorning s comments to the media make clear Dorning believes the responsibility for the deaths and for making changes lies with the health care provider. I m sure ACH will evaluate how they do things, Dorning told the reporter. 73. Thus, no officer has been disciplined, let alone terminated, for excessive force or for otherwise violating a citizen s constitutional rights during Dorning s tenure. 74. Through explicit instruction and long-established custom, Dorning has established a custom or policy that incidents of possible, likely, or known misconduct are not investigated, with the foreseeable result that deputies believe they can get away with violating citizen s rights. 75. Incidents in which deputies misconduct was approved as a matter of routine through the chain of command without any investigation include five that resulted in lawsuits filed by the undersigned, on behalf of Bryant (No. 5:14-CV- 00414-CLS), Lance Johnson (No. 5-09-cv-01940-IPJ), James Ratliff (No. 5:11-CV- 03612-TMP), Sonney Summers (No. 5:12-cv-01816-CLS), Dominique Kenebrew (No. 5:15-CV-00372-CLS), all of which were resolved by settlement for non-nominal 12
sums. 76. Because use of force reports and internal investigations are not a matter of public record, the number of excessive force and other incidents sanctioned by Dorning is not known. 77. The foregoing acts, omissions, and systemic failures and deficiencies are policies and customs of Dorning and caused deputies under his supervision to believe that false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, and other misconduct would be tolerated and that complaints would not be honestly or properly investigated, with the foreseeable result that officers would violate the constitutional rights of plaintiff and other similarly-situated citizens. 78. As a result of the conduct of defendants, plaintiff has been caused to suffer emotional injuries and damages, including embarrassment and humiliation, and has been caused to incur legal bills and other expenses. 79. The individual defendants acted with malice and/or with reckless indifference to plaintiff s constitutional rights. Count I - 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Illegal Seizure 80. On or about February 5, 2014, defendant Miller, with the knowledge and approval of the other individual defendants, acting under color of law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983, obtained an arrest warrant for plaintiff without 13
reasonable suspicion or probable cause and thereby caused plaintiff to be seized and arrested. 81. The arrest warrant for Parton was obtained pursuant to a widespread conspiracy among all of the individual defendants and with the express approval of all of the individual defendants. 82. All of the individual defendants, therefore, did deprive plaintiff of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Specifically, they violated plaintiff s right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. 83. As explained above, Dorning has established a custom and policy of tolerating misconduct by his officers, and, therefore, he is responsible for this reason in addition to his personal participation. Other Matters 84. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this suit have occurred. Relief Sought 85. As relief, plaintiff seeks the following: a. That plaintiff be awarded such compensatory damages as a jury shall determine from the evidence plaintiff is entitled to recover; b. That plaintiff be awarded such punitive damages against defendants as a jury shall determine from the evidence plaintiff is 14
entitled to recover; c. That plaintiff be awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law; d. That plaintiff be awarded the costs of this action, reasonable attorney s fees, and reasonable expert witness fees; e. That plaintiff be awarded an amount to compensate plaintiff for any adverse tax consequences as a result of a favorable judgment; and f. That plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief to which plaintiff is justly entitled. Dated: December 4, 2015. 15
Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. s/ Henry F. (Hank) Sherrod III Henry F. (Hank) Sherrod III No. ASB-1200-D63H HENRY F. SHERROD III, P.C. 119 South Court Street P. O. Box 606 Florence, Alabama 35631-0606 Phone: 256-764-4141 Fax: 877-684-0802 Email: hank@alcivilrights.com Attorney for Plaintiff Jury Demand s/ Henry F. (Hank) Sherrod III 16