Jackson v. SLMPD

7/31/2019 Jackson v. SLMPD

1/55

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

EASTERNDISTRICTOFMISSOURI

EASTERNDIVISION

DWAYNEA.JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCISSLAY,

inhisofficialcapacityasamemberoftheSt.

LouisBoardofPoliceCommissioners;

Serve:1200ClarkAvenue

St.Louis,MO63103

(WaiverofServiceRequested)

THOMASIRWIN,




St.Louis,MO63103


BETTYEBATTLETURNER,inherofficialcapacityasamemberoftheSt.



St.Louis,MO63103


RICHARDH.GRAY,




St.Louis,MO63103


CaseNo.12CV1444

Case: 4:12-cv-01444-TCM Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/12 Page: 1 of 55 PageID #: 1


2/55

2

DANIELISOM,

inhisofficialcapacityastheChiefofPolice

fortheSt.LouisMetropolitanPolice

Department;

Serve:1200ClarkAvenueSt.Louis,MO63103


MARYEDWARDSFEARS,

inherofficialcapacityasCaptainand

CommanderoftheFifthDistrictoftheSt.

LouisMetropolitanPoliceDepartment;


St.Louis,MO63103


OFFICERZARBO,arrestingpoliceofficer,

inhisofficialcapacityasapoliceofficerand

inhisindividualcapacity;

HoldforService

JOHNDOE,arrestingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

OFFICERJONES,bookingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

JAMESDOE,

booking

police

officer,



HoldforService



3/55

3

JOSEPHDOE,bookingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

JOSHUADOE,

inhisofficialcapacityasCaptainand

CommanderofunknownDistrictoftheSt.

LouisMetropolitanPoliceDepartment;


St.Louis,MO63103


OFFICERLAMMERT,arrestingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

JEFFERSONDOE,arrestingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

OFFICERHENNING,bookingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

JUSTINDOE,bookingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService

JACOBDOE,bookingpoliceofficer,



HoldforService



4/55

4

ST.LOUISCITYSHERIFFSDEPARTMENT,

asabodyandthroughitsSheriff,inhis

officialcapacity;

Serve:1114MarketStreet

St.Louis,MO63101(WaiverofServiceRequested)

JAMESW.MURPHY,

inhisofficialcapacityasSt.LouisCitySheriff;

Serve:1114MarketStreet

St.Louis,MO63101


JERALDDOE,deputysheriff,

inhisofficialcapacityasadeputysheriffand


HoldforService

JAREDDOE,deputysheriff,

inhisofficialcapacityasadeputysheriffand


HoldforService

ST.LOUISCITYDIVISIONOFCORRECTIONS,

asabodyandthroughitsCommissioner,in

hisofficialcapacity;

Serve:200S.TuckerBlvd.

St.Louis,MO63102


DALEGLASS,

inhis

official

capacity

asCommissioner

ofthe

DivisionofCorrections;

Serve:200S.TuckerBlvd.

St.Louis,MO63102




5/55

5

JACKSONDOE,correctionsofficer,

inhisofficialcapacityasacorrectionsofficer

andinhisindividualcapacity;

HoldforService

JESSEDOE,correctionsofficer,

inhisofficialcapacityasacorrectionsofficer

andinhisindividualcapacity;

HoldforService

CORRECTIONALMEDICALSERVICES,

Serve: CTCorporationSystem

120SouthCentralAvenue

Clayton,MO63105


JORDANDOE,CMSphysician,

HoldforService

JASONDOE,CMSphysician,

HoldforService

Defendants.

COMPLAINTFORDECLARATORYJUDGMENTANDDAMAGES

PlaintiffDwayneA.Jackson,forhiscomplaintagainstDefendants,statesasfollows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Thiscomplaintisfordeclaratoryjudgmentanddamagesforcivilrightsviolationsarisingoutof incidents thatoccurred inSt.LouisCity,Missouri, fromonoraboutAugust17,

2010throughonoraboutOctober12,2011.



6/55

6

2. This is an action formoney damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,becausePlaintiffwaswrongfullyheld in thecustodyofDefendantson twooccasionsthirty

seven (37)daysbetweenAugust17,2010andSeptember23,2010,andsixtythree (63)days

betweenAugust10,2011andOctober12,2011inviolaonofhisrightsundertheFourthand

FourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution.

3. Plaintiffalsohasstatelawclaimsforfalsearrestandfalseimprisonment.PARTIES

4. PlaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandaresidentoftheStateofMissouri.

5. TheSt.LouisMetropolitanBoardofPoliceCommissionersisagovernmentalunitwithin the StateofMissouriand through its individualmembers, isa corporatebodyand is

authorized to be sued in its corporate name through its individualmembers. Defendants

Mayor Francis Slay, Thomas Irwin, Bettye BattleTurner, and Richard H. Gray (collectively

referred to hereinafter as Defendant Board) comprise the entire Board of Police

CommissionersoftheCityofSt.Louis.Theindividualboardmembershavelegalresponsibility

and policymaking authority for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment)andarenamed intheirofficialcapacitysolelytomaintain

this action against the St. LouisMetropolitan Board of Police Commissioners for the claims

allegedherein.

6. TheSt.LouisMetropolitanBoardofPoliceCommissionersisagovernmentalunitwithin the State ofMissouri and is the governing body and employer for theMetropolitan

PoliceDepartment, includingthe individuallynamedpoliceofficers,and isresponsibleforthe



7/55

7

trainingandsupervisionofDefendantDaniel Isom(hereinafterDefendant Isom),Defendant

Mary EdwardsFears (hereinafter Defendant EdwardsFears), Defendant Officer Zarbo

(hereinafterDefendantZarbo),Defendant JohnDoe,DefendantOfficerJones (hereinafter

Defendant Jones), Defendant James Doe, Defendant Joseph Doe, Defendant Joshua Doe,

Defendant Officer Lammert (hereinafter Defendant Lammert),Defendant JeffersonDoe,

Defendant OfficerHenning (hereinafter DefendantHenning),Defendant JustinDoe, and

DefendantJacobDoe.

7. DefendantIsom,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint, the ChiefofPolice for theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment andwas the highest

ranking police officer in the City of St. Louis, chargedwith administering the police force,

including training, supervising,disciplining,anddismissing individualpoliceofficers, including

Defendants EdwardsFears, Zarbo, John Doe, Jones, James Doe, Joseph Doe, Joshua Doe,

Lammert, JeffersonDoe,Henning, JustinDoe,and JacobDoe.Defendant Isom is sued inhis

officialcapacityasChiefofPolicefortheMetropolitanPoliceDepartment.

8. Defendant EdwardsFears, is and was at all times relevant to the incidentsdescribed in this Complaint, the Captain and Commander of the Fifth District for the

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment,chargedwithtraining,supervising,disciplining,anddismissing

individualpoliceofficers,includingDefendantsZarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,andJamesDoe,aswell

asdeciding

which

tasks

police

officers

should

perform.

Defendant

Edwards

Fears

issued

inher

official capacity asCaptain and Commander for the FifthDistrictof theMetropolitanPolice

Department.



8/55

8

9. DefendantZarbo,thearrestingofficerin2010,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,alawenforcementofficerfortheMetropolitanPolice

Department, acting in such capacity as an agent and servant of the Metropolitan Police

Department, acting under the control ofDefendant Board,Defendant Isom, andDefendant

EdwardsFears, and acting pursuant to an official policy, custom, and/or practice of the

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment.Defendant Zarbo is sued inhisofficial capacity as apolice

officerfortheMetropolitanPoliceDepartment,andalsoinhisindividualcapacity.

10. Defendant John Doe, the arresting officer in 2010, is and was at all timesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the

Metropolitan Police Department, acting in such capacity as an agent and servant of the

Metropolitan Police Department, acting under the control of Defendant Board, Defendant

Isom,andDefendantEdwardsFears,andactingpursuanttoanofficialpolicy,custom,and/or

practice of theMetropolitan Police Department. Defendant John Doe is sued in his official

capacityasapoliceofficer fortheMetropolitanPoliceDepartment,andalso inhis individual

capacity.

11. DefendantJones,abookingpoliceofficerin2010,isandwasatalltimesrelevantto the incidentsdescribed in thisComplaint,a lawenforcementofficer for theMetropolitan

PoliceDepartment,acting insuchcapacityasanagentandservantoftheMetropolitanPolice

Department,acting

under

the

control

ofDefendant

Board,

Defendant

Isom,

and

Defendant

EdwardsFears, and acting pursuant to an official policy, custom, and/or practice of the

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment.Defendant Jones is sued inhisofficial capacity as a police




9/55

9

12. Defendant JamesDoe,abookingpoliceofficer in2010, isandwasatall timesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the



Isom,andDefendantEdwardsFears,andactingpursuanttoanofficialpolicy,custom,and/or

practiceof theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment.Defendant JamesDoe is sued inhisofficial


capacity.

13. DefendantJosephDoe,abookingpoliceofficer in2010, isandwasatalltimesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the


MetropolitanPoliceDepartment,actingunderthecontrolofDefendantBoardandDefendant

Isom and acting pursuant to an official policy, custom, and/or practice of theMetropolitan

PoliceDepartment.DefendantJosephDoeissuedinhisofficialcapacityasapoliceofficerfor

theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment,andalsoinhisindividualcapacity.

14. DefendantJoshuaDoe,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,theCaptainandCommanderanunknowndistrictfortheMetropolitanPolice

Department, chargedwith training, supervising, disciplining, and dismissing individual police

officers,including

Defendants

Lammert,

Jefferson

Doe,

Henning,

and

Justin

Doe,

aswell

as

decidingwhichtaskspoliceofficersshouldperform.DefendantJoshuaDoeissuedinhisofficial

capacity as Captain and Commander for an unknown district of the Metropolitan Police

Department.



10/55

10

15. DefendantLammert,thearrestingofficerin2011,isandwasatalltimesrelevantto the incidentsdescribed in thisComplaint,a lawenforcementofficer for theMetropolitan

PoliceDepartment,acting insuchcapacityasanagentandservantoftheMetropolitanPolice

Department, acting under the control ofDefendant Board,Defendant Isom, andDefendant

Joshua Doe, and acting pursuant to an official policy, custom, and/or practice of the

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment.DefendantLammertissuedinhisofficialcapacityasapolice


16. Defendant JeffersonDoe, thearrestingofficer in2011, isandwasatall timesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the



Isom, and Defendant Joshua Doe, and acting pursuant to an official policy, custom, and/or

practiceoftheMetropolitanPoliceDepartment.DefendantJeffersonDoeissuedinhisofficial


capacity.

17. Defendant Henning, a booking police officer in 2011, is andwas at all timesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the


MetropolitanPolice

Department,

acting

under

the

control

ofDefendant

Board,

Defendant


practice of theMetropolitan Police Department. Defendant Henning is sued in his official



11/55

11


capacity.

18. Defendant JustinDoe,abookingpoliceofficer in2011, isandwasatall timesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the




practiceof theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment.Defendant JustinDoe is sued inhis official


capacity.

19. Defendant JacobDoe,abookingpoliceofficer in2011, isandwasatall timesrelevant to the incidents described in this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the


MetropolitanPoliceDepartment,actingunderthecontrolofDefendantBoardandDefendant

Isom and acting pursuant to an official policy, custom, and/or practice of theMetropolitan

PoliceDepartment.DefendantJacobDoeissuedinhisofficialcapacityasapoliceofficerforthe

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment,andalsoinhisindividualcapacity.

20. DefendantSt.LouisCitySheriffsDepartment (hereinafterDefendantSheriffsDepartment)

isthe

governing

body

and

the

employer

ofSheriffs

employees

for

the

City

ofSt.

Louis and is responsible for the training and supervision of Defendants JamesW.Murphy

(hereinafter Defendant Murphy) and Defendants Jerald Doe and Jared Doe. Defendant

MurphyhasthelegalresponsibilityandpolicymakingauthorityfortheSheriffsDepartment.



12/55

12

21. DefendantMurphy,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,theSheriffoftheCityofSt.Louis,chargedwithresponsibilityforthesafetyand

security of the thirtyone divisional courtrooms of the TwentySecond Judicial Circuit, the

transportationofprisonersbetween theCourtsanddetention facilities,and the trainingand

supervisionofthedeputysheriffs, includingDefendantsJeraldDoeandJaredDoe.Defendant

MurphyissuedinhisofficialcapacityasSheriffoftheCityofSt.Louis.

22. DefendantJeraldDoe,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,adeputyfortheSheriffsDepartment,actinginsuchcapacityasanagentand

servant of the Sheriffs Department, acting under the control of Defendant Sheriffs

DepartmentandDefendantMurphy,andactingpursuanttoanofficialpolicy,custom,and/or

practiceoftheSheriffsDepartment.DefendantJeraldDoe issued inhisofficialcapacityasa

deputyfortheSheriffsDepartment,andalsoinhisindividualcapacity.

23. DefendantJaredDoe,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,adeputyfortheSheriffsDepartment,actinginsuchcapacityasanagentand

servant of the Sheriffs Department, acting under the control of Defendant Sheriffs

DepartmentandDefendantMurphy,andactingpursuanttoanofficialpolicy,custom,and/or

practiceoftheSheriffsDepartment.Defendant JaredDoe issued inhisofficialcapacityasa

deputyfortheSheriffsDepartment,andalsoinhisindividualcapacity.

24.

DefendantSt.

Louis

City

Division

ofCorrections

(hereinafter

Defendant

Division

ofCorrections) is thegoverningbodyand theemployer for theMediumSecurity Institution

locatedat7600NorthHallstreet,St.Louis,Missouri63147(commonlyknownasandreferred

to hereinafter as the Workhouse) and is responsible for the training and supervision of



13/55

13

DefendantsDaleGlass(hereinafterDefendantGlass)andDefendantsJacksonDoeandJesse

Doe.DefendantGlass has legal responsibility and policymaking authority for theDivision of

Corrections.

25. DefendantGlass, isandwasatall times relevant to the incidentsdescribed inthisComplaint, the Commissioner of theDivision ofCorrections, chargedwith the custodial

careofpretrialinmatesattheWorkhouse,andthetrainingandsupervisionofthecorrections

officersattheWorkhouse,includingDefendantsJacksonDoeandJesseDoe.DefendantGlassis

suedinhisofficialcapacity,asCommanderoftheDivisionofCorrections.

26. Defendant Jackson Doe, is and was at all times relevant to the incidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,alawenforcementofficerfortheDivisionofCorrections,actingin

suchcapacityasanagentandservantoftheDivisionofCorrections,actingunderthecontrolof

Defendant Division of Corrections and Defendant Glass, and acting pursuant to an official

policy,custom,and/orpracticeoftheDivisionofCorrections.DefendantJacksonDoeissuedin

his official capacity as a corrections officer for the Division of Corrections, and also in his

individualcapacity.

27. DefendantJesseDoe,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedin this Complaint, a law enforcement officer for the Division of Corrections, acting in such

capacity as an agent and servantof theDivisionofCorrections, actingunder the control of

DefendantDivision

ofCorrections

and

Defendant

Glass,

and

acting

pursuant

toanofficial

policy,custom,and/orpracticeoftheDivisionofCorrections.DefendantJesseDoeissuedinhis

officialcapacityasacorrectionsofficerfortheDivisionofCorrections,andalsoinhisindividual

capacity.



14/55

14

28. DefendantCorrectionalMedicalServices,Inc.(hereinafterDefendantCMS), isaMissouricorporation.Atallrelevanttimesherein,DefendantCMSwascontractedbytheCity

ofSt.LouisandtheDefendantDivisionofCorrections,toprovidehealthcareandmanagement

servicestodetaineesattheWorkhouse.AtalltimesrelevantDefendantCMSwasactingunder

colorofstatelaw.Atalltimesrelevant,DefendantCMSemployedindividualswhosejob,acting

inthecourseandscopeoftheiremploymentoragencyonbehalfofDefendantCMS,wasto

providehealthcarefordetaineesand/orprisoners incarcerated intheWorkhouse.Defendant

CMS is liablefortrainingandsupervising itsemployees, includingDefendantsJordanDoeand

JasonDoeandisliableforunconstitutionalactionsofDefendantJordanDoeandJasonDoe.

29. DefendantJordanDoe,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,alicensedphysicianemployedbyDefendantCMS,actinginsuchcapacityas

an agent and servant of Defendant CMS, and acting under the control and supervision of

DefendantCMS,andactingpursuanttoanofficialpolicy,custom,and/orpracticeofDefendant

CMS.DefendantJordanDoeissuedinhisofficialcapacityasalicensedphysicianactingunder

colorofstatelaw,andinhisindividualcapacity.

30. DefendantJasonDoe,isandwasatalltimesrelevanttotheincidentsdescribedinthisComplaint,alicensedphysicianemployedbyDefendantCMS,actinginsuchcapacityas

an agent and servant of Defendant CMS, and acting under the control and supervision of

DefendantCMS,

and

acting

pursuant

toanofficial

policy,

custom,

and/or

practice

ofDefendant

CMS.Defendant JasonDoe issued inhisofficialcapacityasa licensedphysicianactingunder

colorofstatelaw,andinhisindividualcapacity.



15/55

15

31. Atalltimesrelevanttothiscaseandinallactionsandomissionsallegedherein,allDefendantswereactingundercolorofstatelaw.

JURISDICTIONANDVENUE

32. Thisaction isbroughtpursuant to42U.S.C.1983 to redress thedeprivationundercolorofstatelawofrightssecuredbythefederalconstitution,andtherefore,thisCourt

hasoriginaljurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.1331and1343.

33. ThisCourthassupplementaljurisdictiontohearanddecideclaimsarisingoutofstatelawpursuantto28U.S.C.1367.

34. Therelevantactsandomissionsoccurred inSt.LouisCounty,MissouriandtheCity of St. Louis,Missouri; therefore, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28U.S.C.

1391(b)(2).

35. Divisionalvenue is in theEasternDistrictbecause theeventsgiving rise to thesuitoccurredinSt.LouisCountyandtheCityofSt.Louis.E.D.Mo.L.R.2.07(A)(1),(B)(1).

36. The State ofMissouri has waived sovereign immunity against the individualpoliceofficersandtheBoardofPoliceCommissionersoftheCityofSt.Louis,bytheenactment

ofMissouriRevisedStatute105.711.

BACKGROUND

37. As stated in detail below, between August 17, 2010 and October 12, 2011,Plaintiff

was

wrongfully

and

involuntarily

held

inthe

custody

ofthe

Metropolitan

Police

Department, the Sheriffs Department, and/or the Division of Corrections on two separate

occasions for the same chargeunder casenumber 0822CR04569 from: 1)August 17, 2010



16/55

16

through September 23, 2010 for aperiodof thirtyseven (37)days;and2)August10, 2011

throughOctober12,2011foraperiodofsixtythree(63)days.

38. Thecrimealleged incasenumber0822CR04569occurredbetween January7,2006andJuly1,2006.

39. PlaintiffwasimprisonedbytheStateofMissourifromFebruary20,2003throughFebruary19,2009,andthus,couldnothavecommittedthecrimeallegedincasenumber0822

CR04569.

40. During both wrongful detentions, as explained in detail below, Plaintiffcontinuedtoprotestthathewasmisidentifiedandthathewasincarceratedatthetimeofthe

crimeinquestion.

41. Throughout his time in custody, Plaintiff repeatedly complained about hisunlawfuldetentionto:1)policeofficers,whowereemployeesandagentsactingonbehalfof

andunder thedirectionofDefendantsBoard, Isom,EdwardsFears,and theotherunknown

CaptainandCommanderDefendantJoshuaDoe;2)sheriffsdeputies,whowereemployeesand

agents acting on behalf of and under the direction ofDefendants SheriffsDepartment and

Murphy;and3)correctionsofficers,whowereemployeesandagentsonbehalfofandunder

thedirectionofDefendantDivisionofCorrectionsandDefendantGlass.Plaintiffscomplaints

weresummarilyignored.Noneofthedefendants,northeiragentsoremployees,investigated

Plaintiffsclaims

ofinnocence

ormisidentification,

based

on

the

the

multiple

inconsistencies

withPlaintiffsidentificationandtheproperdefendantincase0822CR04569andbasedonthe

exonerating fact thatPlaintiffwasjailedat the time thecrimealleged incasenumber0822

4569occurred.



17/55

17

42. Upon informationandbelief,atalltimesmentionedherein,allDefendantshadvarious computer databases at their disposal includingMissouri Uniform Law Enforcement

System (M.U.L.E.S.) and theNational Crime InformationCenter (N.C.I.C.),whichwould have

positivelyidentifiedPlaintiffandverifiedthathewasincarceratedatthetimetheoffensethat

was the subject of warrants 08ARWA4332 and 10STARW5198, in case number 0822

CR04569 occured, and failed to utilize or misused said databases or deliberately ignored

evidencerecoveredfromsaiddatabasessuggestingPlaintiffwasnottheproperDefendantor

systematically and continuously implicated Plaintiff as the proper defendant in the face of

contraryevidencerecoveredfromsaiddatabases,therebydirectlyandproximately leadingto

thewrongful detention of Plaintiff for thirtyseven (37) days fromAugust 17, 2010 through

September23,2010and forsixtythree (63)days fromAugust10,2011 throughOctober12,

2011.

43. Defendant Boards, Defendant Isoms, Defendant EdwardsFears, DefendantJoshuaDoes,Defendant SheriffsDepartments,DefendantMurphys,DefendantDivisionof

Corrections, and Defendant Glasss failure to provide sufficient policies, training, and

supervisionofpoliceofficers,deputysheriffs,andcorrectionsofficers,specificallypertainingto

unlawfularrests,seizures,detentions,faultyexecutionofwarrants,identificationproceduresof

defendantswhoarethesubjectofwarrants,and lackofpoliciesorenforcementofpoliciesto

preventthe

misidentification

ofdetained

persons,

isunconstitutional,

and

their

deliberate

indifferenceto,andwillfultoleranceof,suchpracticesandcustoms(orlackthereof)represents

deliberateindifferencetotherightsofpersonswithwhomtheofficerscomeintocontactand

hasresultedinapatternofsimilarconstitutionalviolations.



18/55

18

44. DefendantBoardpossessed,inwholeorinpart,policymakingandorsupervisoryauthority for theMetropolitan Police Department and acted, for all times relevant to this

Complaint, under color of state law. Defendant Board delegated its policymaking and/or

supervisoryauthority,inwholeorinpart,toDefendantsIsom,EdwardsFears,andJoshuaDoe,

eachactingundercolorofstate law.Therefore,Board,Defendants Isom,EdwardsFears,and

JoshuaDoeare liable for theunconstitutionalactionsofDefendantsZarbo, Jones, Lammert,

Henning,JohnDoe,JamesDoe,JosephDoe,JeffersonDoe,JustinDoe,andJacobDoe,byfailing

toproperly train and supervise saiddefendants, andby theirdeliberate indifference to and

willfulblindnesstotheunlawfulcustomsdescribedabove.

45. HadDefendantsBoard, Isom,EdwardsFears,and JoshuaDoeprovidedproperpolicies, training,and supervision toDefendants Zarbo, Jones, Lammert,Henning, JohnDoe,

James Doe, Joseph Doe, Jefferson Doe, Justin Doe, and Jacob Doe, or prevented the

longstandingcustomsdescribedabove,Plaintiffsfederalandstateconstitutionalrightswould

nothavebeenviolated.

46. Defendant Sheriffs Department delegated its policymaking and supervisoryauthority, in whole or in part, to DefendantMurphywho acted under color of state law.

Therefore, Defendant Sheriffs Department and Defendant Murphy are liable for the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Jerald Doe and Defendant Jared Doe, by failing to

properlytrain

and

supervise

said

defendants,

and

bytheir

deliberate

indifference

toand

willful

blindnesstotheunlawfulcustomsdescribedabove.

47. Had Defendant SheriffsDepartment and DefendantMurphy provided properpolicies, training,andsupervisiontoDefendants JeraldDoeand JaredDoe,orpreventing the



19/55

19

longstandingcustomsdescribedabove,Plaintiffsfederalandstateconstitutionalrightswould

nothavebeenviolated.

48. Defendant Division of Corrections delegated its policymaking and supervisoryauthority, inwholeor inpart, toDefendantGlassand/orhispredecessors,whoactedunder

colorofstatelaw.Therefore,DefendantDivisionofCorrectionsandDefendantGlassareliable

fortheunconstitutionalactionsofDefendantJacksonDoeandDefendantJesseDoe,byfailing

toproperlytrainandsupervise,andbytheirdeliberateindifferencetoandwillfulblindnessto

theunlawfulcustomsdescribedbelow.

49. Had Defendant Division of Corrections and Defendant Glass provided properpolicies, training, and supervision to Defendant Jackson Doe and Defendant Jesse Doe, or

prevented the longstanding customs described above, Plaintiffs federal and state

constitutionalrightswouldnothavebeenviolated.

50. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and inactions of Defendants,Plaintiffsufferedthefollowinginjuriesanddamages:

a. Lossofhisphysicallibertyforthirtyseven(37)days,betweenAugust17,2010andSeptember23,2010;

b. Lossofhisphysicallibertyforsixtythree(63)daysfromAugust10,2011throughOctober12,2011;

c.Violation

ofhis

constitutional

rights

under

the

Fourth

Amendment

tobe

free

fromunreasonablesearchandseizureofhispersonandtherighttobefreefrom

unreasonablearrest;



20/55

20

d. ViolationofhisconstitutionalrightundertheFourteenthAmendmenttobefreefromwrongfulincarcerationwithoutdueprocessoflaw;

e. ViolationofhisconstitutionalrightundertheFourteenthAmendmenttobefreefromdeliberateindifferencetoaseriousmedicalneed;

f. ViolationofhisrightsunderMissouri lawtobefree fromfalsearrestandfalseimprisonment.

AUGUST17,2010ARREST&THIRTYSEVENDAYDETENTION

51. OnoraboutJuly22,2008,chargeswerebroughtintheCityofSt.Louisagainstan individual named Dwayne Anthony Jackson, for fraudulently receiving unemployment

benefitsfromtheStateofMissourifromJanuary7,2006throughJuly1,2006,aClassCFelony,

inviolationofMissouriRevisedStatute570.030,undercausenumber0822CR04569. The

chargingdocumentsincludedaphotographoftheDwayneAnthonyJacksonatissue.

52. OnoraboutJuly22,2008,theTwentySecondJudicialCircuitCourtforMissouriissuedawarrantontheindictment,08ARWA4332,forthearrestofDwayneAnthonyJackson:

residingat4223Enright,Apt.302,St.Louis,MO63108;bornMay31,1963;andsocialsecurity

number571114210.

53. On August 17, 2010, Defendant Zarbo and other unknown officers, includingDefendant JohnDoe, from theFifthDistrictof theSt. LouisMetropolitanPoliceDepartment

(hereinafterMetropolitan

Police

Department)

stopped

Plaintiff

atthe

4000

block

ofN.Grand,

justnorthoftheintersectionofN.GrandandNaturalBridgeAvenue,intheCityofSt.Louis.

54. Defendant Zarbo and Defendant John Doe stopped Plaintiff without anyreasonablesuspicionthatPlaintiffwasengagedincriminalactivity.



21/55

21

55. Plaintiff did not feel free to leave when stopped by Defendant Zarbo andDefendantJohnDoe.

56. PlaintifffullycooperatedwithDefendantZarboandDefendantJohnDoe.57. At one of the officers request, Plaintiff provided the officerswith his name:

DwayneA.Jackson;dateofbirth:October22,1962;andsocialsecuritynumber:491780524.

58. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has never provided false identificationinformationtoanylawenforcementofficial.

59. DespitePlaintiffsassurancesthathisidentificationwastrueanddespitethefactthataphotographofthesoughtafterDwayneA.Jacksonwas inDefendantsfiles,Defendant

ZarboandDefendant JohnDoe insistedthatPlaintiffwas in facttheDwayneA.Jackson,who

wasthesubjectofoutstandingwarrant08ARWA4332, issuedbytheTwentySecond Judicial

Circuit Court of Missouri for case number 0822CR04569, for fraudulently receiving

unemploymentbenefitsfromtheStateofMissourifromJanuary7,2006throughJuly1,2006.

60. Plaintiff informed Defendant Zarbo and Defendant John Doe that he did notcommit thatcrimeand thathewas incarceratedby theStateofMissouri fromFebruary20,

2003throughFebruary19,2009.

61. PlaintiffrepeatedlytriedtoexplaintoDefendantZarboandDefendantJohnDoethathewasnottheDwayneA.Jacksonwhofraudulentlyreceivedunemploymentbenefits.

62.

DefendantZarbo

and

Defendant

John

Doe

placed

Plaintiff

under

arrest

for

outstandingwarrant08ARWA4332.

63. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantZarboandDefendantJohnDoehadnoreasonable suspicion of illegal conduct to stop Plaintiff and had no reasonable suspicion or



22/55

22

probablecausetoarrestPlaintiffexceptfortheirerroneousbeliefthatPlaintiffwasthesubject

ofoutstandingwarrant08ARWA4332.

64. After his arrest, Plaintiffwas transported in the custody of theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment to the Substation,wherehewas fingerprintedandbookedbyDefendant

Jones.

65. AsPlaintiffwaspreviouslyarrestedandconvictedforanoffenseintheCityofSt.Louis,hisfingerprintswerealreadyinthecriminalidentificationdatabase.

66. Upon information and belief, the criminal identification database accuratelycontained information about Plaintiff, including his photo, fingerprints, date of birth, social

securitynumber,andverifiedthathewasincarceratedatthetimetheoffensewascommitted

thatwasthesubjectofwarrant08ARWA4332,incasenumber0822CR04569.

67. DespitethefactPlaintiffsidentificationwasverifiedthroughhisfingerprintsanddespite the fact that the criminal identificationdatabaseverifiedhewas incarceratedat the

timetheoffensethatwasthesubjectofwarrant08ARWA4332,DefendantJamesDoeserved

Plaintiffwithwarrant 08ARWA4332, issued by the TwentySecond Judicial Circuit Court of

Missouri.

68. On or about August 17, 2010, Plaintiffwas transported by theMetropolitanPoliceDepartmentfromtheSubstationtotheJusticeCenter.

69.

Onceatthe

Justice

Center,

upon

information

and

belief,

while

inthe

custody

of

theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment,despitePlaintiffsrepeatedproteststhathewasnotthe

properdefendant;anddespite the factDefendant JosephDoe fingerprintedPlaintiff,verified

his correctdateofbirth, social securitynumber, and addressusingdatabases that revealed



23/55

23

Plaintiffwastheimproperdefendant,DefendantJosephDoewrongfullyconfinedPlaintiffina

holdingpen,toawaitascheduledcourtappearanceforcasenumber0822CR04569.

70. On or about September 20, 2010, sheriffs deputy Defendant Jerald DoedeliveredPlaintifftotheWorkhouseandtransferredcustodyofPlaintifftoDefendantDivision

ofCorrections.

71. Defendant JeraldDoe had a statutory duty underMissouri Revised Statute 217.305.2(2) to provide certain information to Defendant Division of Corrections, including

Plaintiffs age, crime for which sentenced, probable cause statement, circumstances

surroundingthecrimeandsentence,andPlaintiffspreviousconvictionsandcommitments.

72. Defendant Jerald Does possession of the information contained withinParagraph 71 verified that Plaintiffwas incarcerated at the time the offense thatwas the

subjectofwarrant08ARWA4332, incasenumber0822CR04569,andDefendant JeraldDoe

either failed toobtain said informationcontrary tohis statutorydutyordeliberately ignored

that evidence suggesting Plaintiff was not the proper defendant or systematically and

continuouslyimplicatedPlaintiffastheproperdefendantinthefaceofthatcontraryevidence.

73. Defendant JacksonDoe,whoacceptedPlaintiff into the custodyofDefendantDivisionofCorrections,had a statutory rightunderMissouriRevised Statute 217.305.3 to

refuse toacceptPlaintiff into itscustodywithoutcertain information includingPlaintiffsage,

crimefor

which

sentenced,

probable

cause

statement,

circumstances

surrounding

the

crime

andsentence,andPlaintiffspreviousconvictionsandcommitments.



24/55

24

74. Defendant Jackson Doe either obtained the information contained withinParagraph 73 from Defendant Jerald Doe or obtained said information through Division of

Correctionsownresources.

75. Defendant Jackson Does possession of the information contained withinParagraph 73 verified that Plaintiffwas incarcerated at the time the offense thatwas the

subjectofwarrant08ARWA4332,incasenumber0822CR04569,andDefendantJacksonDoe


that evidence suggesting Plaintiff was not the proper defendant or systematically and


76. Between August 20, 2010 and August 22, 2010, while in the custody ofDefendantDivisionofCorrections,Plaintiffsufferedfromepilepticorgrandmalseizuresontwo

separateoccasions.

77. On or about August 23, 2010, an unknown corrections officer, identified as#jaes2,attheWorkhousewasnotifiedbyafamilymemberofPlaintiffthathehadsufferedtwo

seizuresovertheweekend,andsaidcorrectionsofficertransferredthecalltoDefendantCMS.

78. Subsequently,uponinformationandbelief,aphysicianemployedbyDefendantCMS,DefendantJordanDoe,diagnosedPlaintiffwithepilepsyandprovidedPlaintiffwithanti

seizuremedication,whichwasdistributedeitherthroughacorrectionsofficeroranagentor

employeeofDefendant

CMS.

79. During a routine visit with Plaintiff during September 2010, Public DefenderDavid L. Bryant met with Plaintiff and discovered the misidentification and wrongful

incarceration.



25/55

25

80. Mr.Bryantnotified theCourt and theCircuitAttorneysofficeofDefendantserror.

81. OnoraboutSeptember23,2010,JudgeMichaelStelzerreducedPlaintiffsbailtopersonalrecognizance,releasedPlaintiff,andorderedtheMetropolitanPoliceDepartmentto

conductafingerprintcomparison.

82. Defendants failed tonotifytheCourtthattheprioroffendersprintswerenotonfile,sotheywereunabletocomparehisprintswithPlaintiffs.

83. DefendantsdidnotpresentPlaintiffincourtuntilOctober18,2010.84. OnOctober 13, 2010, Judge Steven Ohmermade a note in the file for case

number0822CR04569, thatthe[p]reviouswarrantwasservedtothewrongpersononAug

17, 2010 and issued capiaswarrant 10STARW5198 for the proper defendant,Dwayne A.

Jackson,bornonMay31,1963withsocialsecuritynumber571114210.

AUGUST10,2011ARREST&SIXTYTHREEDAYDETENTION

85. OnAugust10,2011,DefendantLammertandotherunknownofficers,includingDefendant JeffersonDoe, from an unknownDistrict of theMetropolitan PoliceDepartment

arrested Plaintiff based on the outstanding warrant 10STARW5198 issued for Dwayne A.

Jacksonincasenumber0822CR04569.

86. Plaintiff was unarmed and fully cooperated with Defendant Lammert andDefendant

Jefferson

Doe.

87. At one of the officers request, Plaintiff provided the officerswith his name:DwayneA.Jackson;dateofbirth:October22,1962;andsocialsecuritynumber:491780524.



26/55

26

88. Despite Plaintiffs assurances that his identification was true, DefendantLammertandDefendantJeffersonDoeinsistedthatPlaintiffwasinfacttheDwayneA.Jackson,

whowas the subject of outstandingwarrant 10STARW5198, issued by the TwentySecond

Judicial Circuit Court ofMissouri for case number 0822CR04569, for fraudulently receiving

unemploymentbenefitsfromtheStateofMissourifromJanuary7,2006throughJuly1,2006.

89. PlaintiffinformedDefendantLammertandDefendantJeffersonDoethathedidnot commit the crime, that hewasjailed by the State ofMissouri from February 20, 2003

throughFebruary19,2009sohecouldnothavecommittedthecrimealleged,andthathehad

previouslybeenwrongfullyarrestedforthesamechargein2010.

90. Plaintiff repeatedly tried to explain to Defendant Lammert and DefendantJefferson Doe that he was not the Dwayne A. Jackson who fraudulently received

unemploymentbenefits.

91. DespitePlaintiffsattestations,DefendantLammertandDefendantJeffersonDoeplacedPlaintiffunderarrestforoutstandingwarrant10STARW5198.

92. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantLammertandDefendantJeffersonDoehadno reasonable suspicionorprobable cause toarrestPlaintiffexcept for theirerroneous

beliefthatPlaintiffwasthesubjectofoutstandingwarrant10STARW5198.

93. After his arrest, Plaintiffwas transported in the custody of theMetropolitanPolice

Department

toanunknown

substation,

where

he

was

fingerprinted

and

booked

by

DefendantHenning.



27/55

27

94. AsPlaintiffhadpreviouslybeenarrestedandconvictedofadifferentoffenseintheCityofSt.Louis,andhadpreviouslybeenwrongfullyarrestedandreleasedforcasenumber

0822CR04569,hisfingerprintswerealreadyinthecriminalidentificationdatabase.

95. Upon information and belief, the criminal identification database accuratelycontained information about Plaintiff, including his photo, fingerprints, date of birth, social

securitynumber,verifiedthathewaspreviouslywrongfullyarrestedandreleasedonwarrant

08ARWA4332 incasenumber0822CR04569,and thathewas incarceratedat the time the

offensewascommittedthatwasthesubjectofwarrants10STARW5198and08ARWA4332.

96. Despite the fact that Plaintiffs identification was verified through hisfingerprints, and despite the fact that the criminal identification database verified he was

incarceratedatthetimetheoffensethatwasthesubjectofwarrants08ARWA4332and10

STARW5198, and despite the fact that the database revealed that Plaintiffwas previously

wrongfully arrested and released on warrant 08ARWA4332, Defendant Justin Doe served

Plaintiffwithwarrant10STARW5198, issuedby theTwentySecond JudicialCircuitCourtof

Missouri.

97. On or about August 10, 2011 Plaintiffwas transported in the custody of theMetropolitanPoliceDepartmentfromtheSubstationtotheJusticeCenter.

98. OnceattheJusticeCenter,uponinformationandbelief,whileinthecustodyofthe

Metropolitan

Police

Department,

despite

Plaintiffs

repeated

protests

that

he

was

not

the

proper defendant; and despite the fact that Defendant Jacob Doe fingerprinted Plaintiff,

verified his correct date of birth, social security number, and address using databases that

revealed Plaintiff was the improper defendant, Defendant Jacob Doe wrongfully confined



28/55

28

Plaintiff in a holding pen, to await a scheduled court appearance for case number 0822

CR04569.

99. Onor aboutAugust15,2011, sheriffsdeputyDefendant JaredDoedeliveredPlaintiff to the Workhouse and transferred custody of Plaintiff to Defendant Division of

Corrections.

100. Defendant Jared Doe had a statutory duty underMissouri Revised Statute 217.305.2(2) to provide certain information to Defendant Division of Corrections, including

Plaintiffs age, crime for which sentenced, probable cause statement, circumstances

surroundingthecrimeandsentence,andPlaintiffspreviousconvictionsandcommitments.

101. Defendant Jared Does possession of the information contained withinParagraph 100 verified that Plaintiffwas incarcerated at the time the offense thatwas the

subject ofwarrant 08ARWA4332 and 10STARW5198 in case number 0822CR04569, that

Plaintiffhadpreviouslybeenwrongfullyarrestedandreleasedonwarrant08ARWA4332,and

DefendantJaredDoeeitherfailedtoobtainsaid informationcontrarytohisstatutorydutyor

deliberately ignored that evidence suggesting Plaintiff was not the proper defendant or

systematicallyandcontinuouslyimplicatedPlaintiffastheproperdefendantinthefaceofthat

contraryevidence.

102. Defendant Jesse Doe, who accepted Plaintiff into the custody of DefendantDivision

ofCorrections,

had

astatutory

right

under

Missouri

Revised

Statute

217.305.3

to

refuse toacceptPlaintiff into itscustodywithoutcertain information includingPlaintiffsage,

crime forwhich sentenced,probable cause statement, circumstances surrounding the crime

andsentence,andPlaintiffspreviousconvictionsandcommitments.



29/55

29

103. Defendant Jesse Doe either obtained the information contained withinParagraph 102 from Defendant JaredDoe or obtained said information throughDivision of

Correctionsownresources.

104. DefendantJesseDoespossessionoftheinformationcontainedwithinParagraph102thatPlaintiffwasincarceratedatthetimetheoffensethatwasthesubjectofwarrant08

ARWA4332and10STARW5198 incasenumber0822CR04569, thatPlaintiffhadpreviously

beenwrongfullyarrestedandreleasedonwarrant08ARWA4332,andDefendantJacksonDoe


that evidence suggesting Plaintiff was not the proper Defendant or systematically and


105. Despite the fact that Defendant Jesse Doe, who accepted Plaintiff into thecustody of Defendant Division of Corrections, had a statutory duty underMissouri Revised

Statute217.310.1tomakesurePlaintiffwasexaminedbya licensedphysician,anddespite

thefactthatDefendantCMSpreviouslydiagnosedPlaintiffwithepilepsy in2010,thetreating

physicianforDefendantCMS,DefendantJasonDoe,didnotprovidePlaintiffwithantiseizure

medication.

106. As a result of Defendant CMS and Defendant Jason Doe failing to providePlaintiffwithantiseizuremedicationatthetimeheenteredtheWorkhouse,Plaintiffsuffered

multipleseizures

while

incarcerated.

107. Plaintiffs attorney, Public Defender David L. Bryant, againmetwith Plaintiffduringaroutinevisitanddiscoveredthemisidentificationandwrongfulincarceration.



30/55

30

108. OnAugust30,2011,Mr.Bryantrequestedafingerprintcomparison,notifiedtheCourtofthewrongful identificationofPlaintiff,andthatPlaintiffwas incarceratedatthetime

thecrimewascommittedthatwasthesubjectofthecase.

109. On August 30, 2011, Judge Barbara Peebles ordered Defendant SheriffsDepartment to transport Plaintiff to the Metropolitan Police Department for fingerprint

comparison.

110. OnoraboutSeptember2,2011,theMetropolitanPoliceDepartment informedtheCourtmoreinformationwasrequiredtoconductthecomparison.TheMetropolitanPolice

Departmentdidnot informtheCourtthattheprintsoftheproperdefendant incasenumber

0822CR04569werepurportedlyunavailable.

111. On September 7, 2011, Judge Peebles again ordered theMetropolitan PoliceDepartmenttocomparethefingerprintsofPlaintiffwiththeproperdefendantincasenumber

0822CR04569.

112. OnoraboutSeptember14,2011,theMetropolitanPoliceDepartmentinformedtheCourtitwasunabletolocatetheproperdefendantsfingerprints.

113. OnSeptember26,2011,thecasewastransferredtoJudgeJohnF.Garvey,Jr.inDivision16forfurtherproceedings.

114. OnOctober12,2011,JudgeGarveyorderedthatPlaintiffbereleasedashewasnot

the

individual

wanted

on

case

number

0822

CR04569.

115. OnNovember8,2011,JudgeGarveyissuedcapiaswarrant11STFTA875fortheproperdefendant,DwayneA.Jackson,bornMay31,1963,withsocialsecuritynumber57111

4210.



31/55

31

116. Upon information and belief, in February 2012, Assistant Circuit AttorneyAnthonyBruningthereafterfilledoutamemorandumofNolleProsequiincasenumber0822

CR04569statingthattheStateofMissouriwaselectingnottoproceedinthatmatter.

117. Upon information andbelief, saidmemorandumwasnot filedwith theCourtuntilJune20,2012.

COUNTIFOURTHAMENDMENT:2010INCARCERATION

118. Forhisfirstclaim forrelief,which isagainstDefendantsBoard, Isom,EdwardsFears,Zarbo, JohnDoe, Jones, JamesDoe, JosephDoe,SheriffsDepartment,Murphy, Jerald

Doe,DivisionofCorrections,Glass,andJacksonDoe,intheirofficialcapacities,andDefendants

Zarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe,JosephDoe,JeraldDoe,andJacksonDoe,intheirindividual

capacities, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations containedwithin Paragraphs 1

through117,asiffullysetforthherein.

119. DefendantssubjectedPlaintifftoanunlawfulandunjustifiedsearchandseizureofhispersoninviolationoftheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionbyoneor

moreofthefollowingactswhichoccurredbetweenAugust17,2010andSeptember23,2010:

a. StoppingandseizingPlaintiffonAugust17,2010aroundthe4000blockofN.Grandwithoutanyreasonablesuspicionthatacrimewasafootandcausing

Plaintifftofeelthathewasnotfreetoleave.

b.Placing

Plaintiff

under

arrest

without

avalid

warrant,

probable

cause,

or

reasonablesuspicionofillegalconduct;

c. Transporting Plaintiff in their custody to the Substation, where he wassearcheduponintake;



32/55

32

d. TransportingPlaintiff in their custody to the JusticeCenter,wherehewassearcheduponintake;

e. Transporting Plaintiff in their custody to theWorkhouse, where he wassearcheduponintake;

f. Causing Plaintiff to be subjected to a search without a valid warrant,probable cause, reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, or any other

justification;

g. Creatingandapprovingpoliciesinwhichanindividualcouldbesubjectedtomultiple searches without a valid warrant, probable cause, reasonable

suspicionofillegalconduct,oranyotherjustification;

h. Creatingandapprovingpolicies inwhichthemisidentificationandwrongfuldetentionofPlaintiffcouldbeperpetratedandgoundetectedforaperiodof

thirtyseven(37)days.

i. Creating andapprovingpolicies inwhichajudge couldorder a fingerprintcomparisontobecompleted,andignoringandfailingtocarryoutthatcourt

order and failing to explain to the court why that order could go un

executed.

120. ThesearchesandseizuresufferedbyPlaintiffwasillegalandunreasonable,anddeprived

Plaintiff

ofhis

civil

rights

pursuant

to42

U.S.C.

1983

and

the

Fourth

Amendment

to

theUnitedStatesConstitution.



33/55

33

121. ItwasthepolicyorcustomofDefendantBoard,DefendantIsom,andDefendantEdwardsFearstoinadequatelytrainandsuperviseitsofficerstoavoidtheunreasonableseizure

ofPlaintiffspersonwithoutreasonablesuspicionthatacrimewasafoot.

122. Itwas the policy or custom of Defendant Board, Defendant Isom, DefendantEdwardsFears, Defendant Sheriffs Department, DefendantMurphy, Defendant Division of

Corrections, andDefendantGlass to inadequately train and supervise its officers or deputy

sheriffstoavoidtheunreasonableseizureandunlawfulsearchofPlaintiffspersonbasedona

wrongfulidentification.

123. Itwas the policy or custom of Defendant Board, Defendant Isom, DefendantEdwardsFears, Defendant Sheriffs Department, DefendantMurphy, Defendant Division of


sheriffs in proper identification procedures during arrests, booking, transportation, prisoner

intake,anddetentionspursuanttoandtheexecutionofcapiaswarrants.

124. Defendants failed to adopt or promulgate precise and clear identificationprocedures, and adopted and permitted customs and practices which led to the

misidentification,unlawfulseizure,andunlawfulsearchesofPlaintiff.

125. Defendantsproceduresforarrestanddetentionofsuspectsweresocarelesslydrawnastoleadtomisidentification,unlawfulseizure,andunlawfulsearchesinthecaseatbar.

126.The

foregoing

acts

oromissions

byDefendant

Board

occurred

through

DefendantsSlay,Isom,EdwardsFears,Zarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe,andJosephDoe,in

theirofficialcapacities.



34/55

34

127. The foregoing acts or omissions by Defendant Sheriffs Department occurredthroughDefendantsMurphyandJeraldDoe,intheirofficialcapacities.

128. The foregoing acts by Defendant Division of Corrections occurred throughDefendantsGlassandJacksonDoe,intheirofficialcapacities.

129. Atall timesof theeventsdescribed in thisComplaint,DefendantsZarbo, JohnDoe, Jones, JamesDoe, JosephDoe, JeraldDoe,and JacksonDoe,actedundercolorofstate

law.

130. Defendant Boards, Defendant Isoms, Defendant EdwardsFears, DefendantSheriffsDepartments,DefendantMurphys,DefendantDivisionofCorrections,andDefendant

Glassspolicies,customs,andpracticesasallegedabovesimilarlyconstituteaviolationofand

deliberateindifferencetoPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundertheFourthAmendment.

131. Defendantsconductisoutrageousandshockstheconscience.132. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and inactions of Defendants,

Plaintiffsufferedunreasonableseizureofhispersonwithoutawarrantandprobablecause in

violationof the FourthAmendment fromAugust17,2010 through September23, 2010, for

thirtyseven(37)days.

WHEREFORE,Plaintiff respectfully requests that thisCourtenterjudgment in favorof

PlaintiffandagainstallDefendants;declarethattheforegoingpoliciesorcustomsofDefendant

Board,Defendant

Sheriffs

Department,

and

Defendant

Division

ofCorrections

unconstitutional;issueaninjunctionrequiringDefendantsBoard,Isom,EdwardsFears,Sheriffs

Department,Murphy,DivisionofCorrections,andGlass todevelopand implementadequate

training programs for its police and corrections officers or sheriffs deputies about citizens



35/55

35

rights under the Fourth Amendment; award Plaintiff compensatory damages against

Defendants Defendants Board, Isom, EdwardsFears, Zarbo, John Doe, Jones, James Doe,

Joseph Doe, Sheriffs Department,Murphy, Jerald Doe, Division of Corrections, Glass, and

JacksonDoe,fortheirviolationofPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundercolorofstatelaw;award

PlaintiffpunitivedamagesagainstDefendantsZarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe,JosephDoe,

Jerald Doe, and Jackson Doe, in their individual capacities, for their violation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rightsundercolorofstate law;awardPlaintiff reasonablecostsandattorneys

feespursuant to42U.S.C.1988;andgrantsuchotherand furtherreliefas isavailableand

appropriateunderthecircumstances.

COUNTIIFOURTEENTHAMENDMENT:2010INCARCERATION

133. For his second claim for relief, which is against Defendants Board, Isom,EdwardsFears,Zarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe,JosephDoe,SheriffsDepartment,Murphy,

Jerald Doe, Division of Corrections, Glass, and Jackson Doe, in their official capacities, and

DefendantsZarbo, JohnDoe, Jones, JamesDoe, JosephDoe, JeraldDoe,and JacksonDoe, in

their individualcapacities,Plaintiff incorporatesbyreferencetheallegationscontainedwithin

Paragraphs1through132,asiffullysetforthherein.

134. Defendants violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right to dueprocessunder the FourteenthAmendmentnot to bewrongfully detained due to deliberate

indifferencetoevidence

Plaintiff

was

the

wrong

person

toarrest

and

detain

under

case

number

0822CR04569,byoneormoreofthefollowingacts:



36/55

36

a. Deliberately ignoring evidence suggesting Plaintiff was not the properdefendantincasenumber0822CR04569,becausePlaintiffwasincarcerated

atthetimetheoffenseoccurredthatwasthesubjectmatterofthatcase;

b. SystematicallyandcontinuouslyimplicatedPlaintiffastheproperdefendantinthefaceofcontraryevidence;

c. FailingtoprovidePlaintiffameansfor initiatingachallengetothedurationofhisdetentionwithoutacourtappearance;

d. FailingtoprovidePlaintiffameansforinitiatingachallengetothevalidityofhisdetention;

e. Failingto informPlaintiffofavailablemeansfor initiatingachallengetothedurationorvalidityofhisdetention;

f. FailingtocommunicatePlaintiffscomplaintsabouthisunlawfuldetentiontotheirsuperiors,toaprosecutor,ortoajudge;

g. Failingtotakeanyactionforthirtyseven(37)daysbetweenAugust17,2010and September 23, 2010, to ensure that Plaintiffwas held pursuant to a

validlyexecutedcapiaswarrant.

135. Itwas the policy, custom, and practice ofDefendant Board,Defendant Isom,Defendant Captain and Commander, Defendant Sheriffs Department, Defendant Murphy,

DefendantDivision

ofCorrections,

and

Defendant

Glass

toinadequately

supervise

and

train

its

officers or deputies, including Defendants Zarbo, John Doe, Jones, James Doe, JosephDoe,

JeraldDoe, and JacksonDoe, thereby failing to prevent the constitutional violations against

Plaintiff,inoneormoreofthefollowingways:



37/55

37

a. Inadequately training or supervising officers or deputies under theirsupervisiontopreventthemfromdeliberatelyignoringexoneratingevidence

orevidencewhichtendedtoshowthewrongpersonwasincarcerated,such

asPlaintiff;

b. Inadequately training or supervising officers or deputies under theirsupervisiontoinformpersonsdetainedonacapiaswarrant,suchasPlaintiff,

ofavailablemeansforinitiatingachallengetothedurationorvalidityofhis

detention;and/or

c. Inadequately training or supervision officers or deputies under theirsupervision to report the complaints of unlawful detention by persons

detainedonacapiaswarrant,suchasPlaintiff;and/or

d. Inadequately training or supervision officers or deputies under theirsupervision inproper identificationprocedures for identificationofpretrial

detainees.

136. The foregoing acts or omissions by Defendant Board occurred through,DefendantsIsom,EdwardsFears,Zarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe,andJosephDoe,intheir

officialcapacities.

137. The foregoing acts or omissions by Defendant Sheriffs Department occurredthrough

Defendants

Murphy

and

Jerald

Doe,

intheir

official

capacities.

138. The foregoingactsoromissionsbyDefendantDivisionofCorrectionsoccurredthroughDefendantsGlassandJacksonDoeintheirofficialcapacities.



38/55

38


law.

140. Defendant Boards, Defendant Isoms, Defendant EdwardsFears, DefendantSheriffsDepartments,DefendantMurphys,DefendantDivisionofCorrections,andDefendant




Plaintiff suffered unlawful deprivation of his physical libertywithout due process for thirty

seven(37)days,betweenAugust17,2010throughSeptember23,2010,inviolationofhisright

todueprocessundertheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution.



Board, Defendant Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Division of Corrections

unconstitutional;issueaninjunctionrequiringDefendantsBoard,Isom,EdwardsFears,Sheriffs

Department,Murphy,DivisionofCorrections,andGlass todevelopand implementadequate

training programs for its police and corrections officers or sheriffs deputies about citizens

rightsunder

the

Fourth

Amendment;

award

Plaintiff

compensatory

damages

against

Defendants Defendants Board, Isom, EdwardsFears, Zarbo, John Doe, Jones, James Doe,

Joseph Doe, Sheriffs Department,Murphy, Jerald Doe, Division of Corrections, Glass, and

JacksonDoe,fortheirviolationofPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundercolorofstatelaw;award



39/55

39

PlaintiffpunitivedamagesagainstDefendantsZarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe,JosephDoe,

Jerald Doe, and Jackson Doe, in their individual capacities, for their violation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rightsundercolorofstate law;awardPlaintiff reasonablecostsandattorneys

feespursuant to42U.S.C.1988;andgrantsuchotherand furtherreliefas isavailableand

appropriateunderthecircumstances.

COUNTIIIFALSEARREST/FALSEIMPRISONMENT:2010INCARCERATION

143. Forhisthirdclaimforrelief,whichisagainstDefendantsZarbo,JohnDoe,Jones,JamesDoe, JosephDoe, JeraldDoe, and JacksonDoe, in their individual capacities,Plaintiff

incorporatesbyreferencetheallegationscontainedwithinParagraphs1through142,asiffully

setforthherein.

144. DefendantsOfficers,Deputies,corrections,restrained,arrested,andimprisonedPlaintiff against his will without legal justification for a period of thirtyseven (37) days,

betweenAugust17,2010andSeptember23,2010.

145. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs arrestwas illegal andtheyhadnolegalrighttoimprisonPlaintiffbecause:

a. AtthetimehewasarrestedandatthesubsequentsearchesconductedonPlaintiff,hepresenteddocumentsidentifyinghimselfasDwayneA.Jackson;

dateofbirth:October22,1962;andsocialsecuritynumber:491780524.

b.Throughout

his

incarceration,

Plaintiff

repeatedly

told

Defendants

he

was

not

theDwayneA.Jacksonwhowaswantedforemploymentfraud,andthathe

didnotknowandknewnothingaboutthatDwayneA.Jackson;



40/55

40

c. PlaintiffrepeatedlytoldDefendantsthathewasincarceratedatthetimetheemployment fraud occurred, so he could not possibly be the correct

defendant;

d. OnSeptember23,2010,JudgeOhmerorderedafingerprintcomparisonandreduced Plaintiffs bail to personal recognizance because hewas not the

properdefendant.

146. ThefalsearrestsufferedbyPlaintiffoccurredduringanillegalsearchandseizureinviolationofPlaintiffsrightsundertheFourthandFourteenthAmendmentsandwaswithout

legaljustification.

147. Asadirectandproximateresultoftheforegoing,Plaintiffsufferedthefollowinginjuriesanddamages:

a. Loss of physical liberty for thirtyseven (37) days, from August 17, 2010throughSeptember23,2010;

b. Mental pain and suffering, including fear that he would repeatedly bemisidentifiedandwrongfullyincarceratedinthefuture.


law.

149.Defendants

conduct

constituted

awillful

violation

ofand

deliberate

indifference

to Plaintiffs constitutional right to be free fromwrongful and prolonged incarceration and

deprivationofhisliberty.

150. Defendantsconductisoffensive,outrageousandshockstheconscience.



41/55

41

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in favor of

PlaintiffandagainstDefendantsZarbo, JohnDoe, Jones, JamesDoe, JosephDoe, JeraldDoe,

and Jackson Doe, in their individual capacities; award Plaintiff compensatory, punitive, and

aggravated damages for said Defendants false arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff; award

Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys fees; and grant such other and further relief as is

availableandappropriateunderthecircumstances.

COUNTIVFOURTHAMENDMENT:2011INCARCERATION

151. Forhis fourthclaim forrelief,which isagainstDefendantsBoard, Isom, JoshuaDoe,Lammert, JeffersonDoe,Henning, JustinDoe,JacobDoe,SheriffsDepartment,Murphy,

JaredDoe,DivisionofCorrections,Bryson,Glass,andJesseDoe,intheirofficialcapacities,and

DefendantsLammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,JacobDoe,JaredDoe,andJesseDoe,

intheirindividualcapacities,Plaintiffincorporatesbyreferencetheallegationscontainedwithin


152. DefendantssubjectedPlaintifftoanunlawfulandunjustifiedsearchandseizureofhispersoninviolationoftheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionbyoneor

moreofthefollowingactswhichoccurredbetweenAugust10,2011andOctober12,2011:

a. Placing Plaintiff under arrest without a valid warrant, probable cause, orreasonablesuspicionofillegalconduct,forthesamecrimeforwhichhewas

exoneratedasthe

wrong

person

on

orabout

September

23,

2010

byJudge

Ohmer;



42/55

42

b. Transporting Plaintiff in their custody to the Substation, where he wassearchedupon intake, for the samecrime forwhichhewasexoneratedas

thewrongpersononoraboutSeptember23,2010byJudgeOhmer;

c. TransportingPlaintiff in their custody to the JusticeCenter,wherehewassearchedupon intake, for the samecrime forwhichhewasexoneratedas

thewrongpersononoraboutSeptember23,2010byJudgeOhmer;

d. Transporting Plaintiff in their custody to theWorkhouse, where he wassearchedupon intake,forthesamecrimeforthewhichhewasexonerated

asthewrongpersononoraboutSeptember23,2010byJudgeOhmer;

e. Causing Plaintiff to be subjected to a search without a valid warrant,probable cause, reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, or any other

justification, for the same crime for which he was exonerated as the

improperdefendantonoraboutSeptember23,2010byJudgeOhmer;

f. Creatingandapprovingpoliciesinwhichanindividualcouldbesubjectedtomultiple searches without a valid warrant, probable cause, reasonable

suspicionofillegalconduct,oranyotherjustification,forthesamecrimefor

whichhewaspreviouslyexoneratedasthewrongperson;

g. Creatingandapprovingpolicies inwhichthemisidentificationandwrongfuldetention

ofPlaintiff

could

be

perpetrated

and

goundetected

for

aperiod

of

sixtythree(63)days.



43/55

43

153. ThesearchesandseizuresufferedbyPlaintiffwasillegalandunreasonable,anddeprivedPlaintiffofhiscivilrightspursuantto42U.S.C.1983andtheFourthAmendmentto

theUnitedStatesConstitution.

154. Itwas the policy or custom of Defendant Board, Defendant Isom, DefendantJoshua Doe, Defendant Sheriffs Department, Defendant Murphy, Defendant Division of


sheriffstoavoidtheunreasonableseizureandunlawfulsearchofPlaintiffspersonbasedona

wrongfulidentification.

155. Itwas the policy or custom of Defendant Board, Defendant Isom, DefendantJoshua Doe, Defendant Sheriffs Department, Defendant Murphy, Defendant Division of


sheriffs in proper identification procedures during arrests, booking, transportation, prisoner

intake,anddetentionspursuanttoandtheexecutionofcapiaswarrants.

156. Defendants failed to adopt or promulgate precise and clear identificationprocedures, and adopted and permitted customs and practices which led to the

misidentification,unlawfulseizure,andunlawfulsearchesofPlaintiff.

157. Defendantsprocedures forarrestanddetentionof suspectswas socarelesslydrawnastoleadtomisidentification,unlawfulseizure,andunlawfulsearchesinthecaseatbar.

158.The

foregoing

acts

oromissions

byDefendant

Board

occurred

through,

DefendantsIsom,JoshuaDoe,Lammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,andJacobDoe,in




44/55

44

159. The foregoing acts or omissions by Defendant Sheriffs Department occurredthroughDefendantsMurphyandJaredDoe,intheirofficialcapacities.

160. The foregoingactsoromissionsbyDefendantDivisionofCorrectionsoccurredthroughDefendantsGlassandJesseDoeintheirofficialcapacities.

161. At all times of the events described in this Complaint, Defendants Lammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,JacobDoe,JaredDoe,andJesseDoe,actedundercolorof

statelaw.

162. Defendant Boards, Defendant Isoms, Defendant Joshua Does, DefendantSheriffsDepartments,DefendantMurphys,DefendantDivisionofCorrections,andDefendant




Plaintiffsufferedunreasonableseizureofhispersonwithoutawarrantandprobablecause in

violationoftheFourthAmendmentfromAugust10,2010throughOctober12,2011,forsixty

three(63)days.



Board,Defendant

Sheriffs

Department,

and

Defendant

Division

ofCorrections

unconstitutional; issuean injunction requiringDefendantsBoard, Isom, JoshuaDoe,Murphy,

andGlasstodevelopandimplementadequatetrainingprogramsforitspoliceandcorrections

officersorsheriffsdeputiesaboutcitizensrightsundertheFourthAmendment;awardPlaintiff



45/55

45

compensatorydamagesagainstDefendantsBoard,Isom,JoshuaDoe,Lammert,JeffersonDoe,

Henning, Justin Doe, Jacob Doe, Sheriffs Department, Murphy, Jared Doe, Division of

Corrections,Glass, and JesseDoe, in their official capacities, for their violation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rights under color of state law; award Plaintiff punitive damages against


intheirindividualcapacities,fortheirviolationofPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundercolorof

statelaw;awardPlaintiffreasonablecostsandattorneysfeespursuantto42U.S.C.1988;and

grantsuchotherandfurtherreliefasisavailableandappropriateunderthecircumstances.

COUNTVFOURTEENTHAMENDMENT:2011INCARCERATION

165. Forhisfifthclaimforrelief,whichisagainstDefendantsBoard,Isom,JoshuaDoe,Lammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,JacobDoe,SheriffsDepartment,Murphy,

JaredDoe,DivisionofCorrections,Bryson,Glass,andJesseDoe,intheirofficialcapacities,and


intheirindividualcapacities,Plaintiffincorporatesbyreferencetheallegationscontainedwithin


166. Defendants violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right to dueprocessunder the FourteenthAmendmentnot to bewrongfully detained due to deliberate

indifferencetoevidencePlaintiffwasthewrongpersontoarrestanddetainundercasenumber

0822CR04569,

byone

ormore

ofthe

following

acts:

a. DeliberatelyignoringevidencesuggestingPlaintiffwasnottheproperdefendantin casenumber0822CR04569,becausePlaintiffwas incarcerated at the time

theoffenseoccurredthatwasthesubjectmatterofthatcase;



46/55

46

b. SystematicallyandcontinuouslyimplicatedPlaintiffastheproperdefendantinthefaceofcontraryevidence;

c. CausingPlaintifftobedetainedinvoluntarilyforsixtythree(63)dayswithoutpromptaccesstothejudicialsystem,fromAugust10,2011throughOctober

12,2011.

d. FailingtoprovidePlaintiffameansfor initiatingachallengetothedurationofhisdetentionwithoutacourtappearance;

e. FailingtoprovidePlaintiffameansforinitiatingachallengetothevalidityofhisdetention;

f. Failingto informPlaintiffofavailablemeansfor initiatingachallengetothedurationorvalidityofhisdetention;

g. FailingtocommunicatePlaintiffscomplaintsabouthisunlawfuldetentiontotheirsuperiors,toaprosecutor,ortoajudge;

h. Failingtotakeanyactionforsixtythree(63)day,betweenAugust10,2011andOctober12,2011,toensurethatPlaintiffwasheldpursuanttoavalidly

executedcapiaswarrant.

167. Itwas the policy, custom, and practice ofDefendant Board,Defendant Isom,Defendant Joshua Doe, Defendant Sheriffs Department, Defendant Murphy, Defendant

DivisionofCorrections,

and

Defendant

Glass

toinadequately

supervise

and

train

itsofficers

or

deputies,includingDefendantsLammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,JacobDoe,Jared

Doe,andJesseDoe,therebyfailingtopreventtheconstitutionalviolationsagainstPlaintiff,in

oneormoreofthefollowingways:



47/55

47

a. Inadequately training or supervising officers or deputies under theirsupervisiontopreventthemfromdeliberatelyignoringexoneratingevidence

orevidencewhichtendedtoshowthewrongpersonwasincarcerated,such

asPlaintiff;

b. Inadequately training or supervising officers or deputies under theirsupervisiontoinformpersonsdetainedonacapiaswarrant,suchasPlaintiff,

ofavailablemeansforinitiatingachallengetothedurationorvalidityofhis

detention;and/or

c. Inadequately training or supervision officers or deputies under theirsupervision to report the complaints of unlawful detention by persons

detainedonacapiaswarrant,suchasPlaintiff;and/or

d. Inadequately training or supervision officers or deputies under theirsupervision inproper identificationprocedures for identificationofpretrial

detainees.

168. The foregoing acts or omissions by Defendant Board occurred through,DefendantsIsom,JoshuaDoe,Lammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,andJacobDoe,in


169. The foregoing acts or omissions by Defendant Sheriffs Department occurredthrough

Defendants

Murphy

and

Jared

Doe,

intheir

official

capacities.

170. The foregoingactsoromissionsbyDefendantDivisionofCorrectionsoccurredthroughDefendantsGlassandJesseDoeintheirofficialcapacities.



48/55

48

171. At all times of the events described in this Complaint, Defendants Lammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,JacobDoe,JaredDoe,andJesseDoe,actedundercolorof

statelaw.

172. Defendant Boards, Defendant Isoms, Defendant Joshua Does, DefendantSheriffsDepartments,DefendantMurphys,DefendantDivisionofCorrections,andDefendant


deliberateindifferencetoPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundertheFourteenthAmendment.


Plaintiffsufferedunlawfuldeprivationofhisphysicallibertywithoutdueprocessforsixtythree

(63)days,betweenAugust10,2011throughOctober12,2011, inviolationofhisrighttodue

processundertheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution.



Board, Defendant Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Division of Corrections

unconstitutional; issuean injunction requiringDefendantsBoard, Isom, JoshuaDoe,Murphy,

andGlasstodevelopandimplementadequatetrainingprogramsforitspoliceandcorrections

officersorsheriffsdeputiesaboutcitizensrightsundertheFourthAmendment;awardPlaintiff

compensatorydamages

against

Defendants

Board,

Isom,

Joshua

Doe,

Lammert,

Jefferson

Doe,

Henning, Justin Doe, Jacob Doe, Sheriffs Department, Murphy, Jared Doe, Division of

Corrections,Glass, and JesseDoe, in their official capacities, for their violation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rights under color of state law; award Plaintiff punitive damages against



49/55

49


intheirindividualcapacities,fortheirviolationofPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundercolorof



COUNTVIFOURTEENTHAMENDMENT:DELIBERATEINDIFFERENCE2011INCARCERATION

175. Forhis sixthclaim for relief,which isagainstDefendantsCMSandDefendantsJordanDoeandJasonDoe, intheirofficialcapacities;andagainstDefendantsJordanDoeand

Jason Doe in their individual capacities. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations

containedwithinParagraphs1through174,asiffullysetforthherein.

176. PlaintiffwasapretrialdetaineeentitledtoprotectionagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentundertheFourteenthAmendment.

177. WhenPlaintiffwaswrongfullyincarceratedbyDefendantsin2010,aconcernedfamilymemberinformedDivisionofCorrectionsofficialsthatPlaintiffhadsufferedtwoseizures

overtheweekendpriortohisincarceration.

178. Subsequently, Defendant Jordan Doe diagnosed epilepsy and provided antiseizuremedication toPlaintiffduringhis incarceration in 2010.Therefore,Defendants knew

Plaintiffsufferedfromepilepsy.

179. Epilepsyisaseriousmedicalneed.180.

When

Plaintiff

was

wrongfully

incarcerated

byDefendants

in2011,

despite

the

fact that Division of Corrections officers or employees previously diagnosed Plaintiff with

epilepsy,saidofficersdisregardedPlaintiffsseriousmedicalneedandPlaintiffwaswrongfully

deniedantiseizuremedicationbytheofficersandemployeesoftheDivisionofCorrections.



50/55

50

181. Asa resultofDefendantsdeliberate indifference toPlaintiffs seriousmedicalneed,Plaintiffsufferedmultipleepilepticorgrandmalseizureswhilewrongfully incarcerated

byDefendantsbetweenAugust10,2011andOctober12,2011.

182. Defendants violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right againstcruel and unusual punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment not to be subject to

deliberateindifferencetoaseriousmedicalneed,byoneormoreofthefollowingacts:

a. FailingtodocumentPlaintiffsseriousmedicalconditioninhisprisonmedicalrecordsmaintainedbyDefendantDivisionofCorrections.

b. Deliberately ignoring Plaintiffs medical records at intake in 2011 whichstatedthatDefendantCMSdiagnosedPlaintiffwithepilepsyin2010.

183. Itwas the policy, custom, and/or practice ofDefendant CMS to inadequatelysupervise and train its physicians, includingDefendants JordanDoe and JasonDoe, thereby

failingtopreventtheconstitutionalviolationsagainstPlaintiff,inoneormoreofthefollowing

ways:

a. Inadequately training or supervising physicians under their supervision orfailing todevelop sufficientpolicies toensureapretrialdetainees serious

medical condition as documented in his prison recordsmaintained by the

DivisionofCorrections.

b.Inadequately

training

orsupervising

physicians

under

their

supervision

or

failing to develop sufficient policies to ensure that a pretrial detainees

previousmedicalrecordsaresufficientlyreviewedbyaphysicianatintaketo



51/55

51

prevent deliberate ignorance of an inmatesmedical needs that result in

seriousphysicalinjurytothatinmate.

c. Inadequately training or supervising physicians under their supervision orfailing to provide anymeaningful policy for physicians to providemedical

caretopretrialdetaineessufferingfromepilepsy.

d. Permitting or deliberately ignoring a continuing, widespread, persistentpatternofunconstitutionalmisconductbyDefendantsemployees, suchas

DefendantsJasonDoeandJordanDoe.

184. TheforegoingactsoromissionsbyDefendantCMSoccurredthroughDefendantsJordanDoeandJasonDoeintheirofficialcapacities.

185. AtalltimesrelevantDefendantsJordanDoeandJasonDoeactedundercolorofstatelaw.

186. Defendant CMSs policies, customs, and practices as alleged above alsoconstituteaviolationofanddeliberateindifferencetoPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsunderthe

FourteenthAmendment.


Plaintiffsufferedmultipleseizuresduringhisunlawful incarcerationbetweenAugust10,2011

andOctober

12,

2011,

inviolation

ofhis

right

tobe

free

from

deliberate

indifference

toa

seriousmedicalneedundertheFourteenthAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution.


Plaintiff and against Defendant CMS, and declare that the foregoing policies or customs of



52/55

52

DefendantCMSareunconstitutional; issuean injunctionrequiringDefendantCMStodevelop

andimplementadequatetrainingprogramsforitsphysicians,sothatPlaintiffshereandother

citizensrightsagainstdeliberateindifferencetoaseriousmedicalneedundertheFourteenth

Amendmentarenotagainviolated;awardPlaintiffcompensatorydamagesagainstDefendants

CMS,JordanDoe,andJasonDoefortheirviolationofPlaintiffsconstitutionalrightsundercolor

ofstatelaw;awardPlaintiffpunitivedamagesagainstDefendantsJordanDoeandJasonDoein

their individual capacities, for theirviolationofPlaintiffs constitutional rightsunder colorof



COUNTVIIFALSEARREST/FALSEIMPRISONMENT:2011INCARCERATION

189. Forhisseventhclaimforrelief,which isagainstDefendantsLammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning, JustinDoe, JacobDoe, JaredDoe,and JesseDoe, intheir individualcapacities,

Plaintiff incorporatesbyreferencetheallegationscontainedwithinParagraphs1through188,

asiffullysetforthherein.

190. DefendantsLammert,JeffersonDoe,Henning,JustinDoe,JacobDoe,JaredDoe,and Jesse Doe, restrained, arrested, and imprisoned Plaintiff against his will without legal

justification foraperiodof sixtythree (63)days,betweenAugust10,2011andOctober12,

2011.

191.Defendants

knew

orshould

have

known

that

Plaintiffs

arrest

was

illegal

and

theyhadnolegalrighttoimprisonPlaintiffbecause:

Case: 4:12-cv

Documents

Jackson v. SLMPD