Kametra Barbour vs. City of Forney and Chief Rick Barnes

8/10/2019 Kametra Barbour vs. City of Forney and Chief Rick Barnes

1/11

Original Complaint Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KAMETRA BARBOUR Individually andKAMETRA BARBOUR as Next Friendof JANE DOE, a Minor, JOHN DOE, aMinor, JANE DOE 2, a Minor and JANEDOE 3, a Minor.

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________

vs.

CITY OF FORNEY and CHIEF RICK

BARNES,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Kametra Barbour Individually and Kametra Barbour as Next Friend of

Jane Doe, a Minor, John Doe, a Minor, Jane Doe 2, a Minor and Jane Doe 3, a Minor, hereinafter

collectively called Plaintiffs, complaining of and about the City of Forney, Texas; and Chief

Rick Barnes, hereinafter called collectively Defendants, and for cause of action shows unto the

Court the following:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action of law to redress the deprivation under color of statute, custom, or

usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to Plaintiffs, Kametra Barbour Individually and

Kametra Barbour as Next Friend of Jane Doe, a Minor, John Doe, a Minor, Jane Doe 2, a Minor

and Jane Doe 3, a Minor, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 for unlawful

Case 3:15-cv-00090-B Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1


2/11


detention and seizure of Kametra Barbour, Jane Doe, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3, in

the violation of each of their Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution; and

under the common laws of the State of Texas pursuant to the Texas Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs

allege that the Defendants, individually and jointly deprived each and every Plaintiff of his and

her liberty and their right to be free from unreasonable seizure of their persons, as well as their

right to procedural due process.

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE

1. Plaintiff Kametra Barbour, is a citizen of the United States and the State of Texasand resides in Kaufman County, Texas.

2. Plaintiff Jane Doe, a Minor, is a citizen of the United States and the State of Texas

and resides in Kaufman County, Texas.

3. Plaintiff John Doe, a Minor, is a citizen of the United States and the State of

Texas and resides in Kaufman County, Texas.

4. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2, a Minor, is a citizen of the United States and the State of


5. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3, a Minor, is a citizen of the United States and the State of


6. Defendant City of Forney is a municipal government unit in Kaufman County

within the State of Texas and may be served with citation by serving its City Secretary, Dorothy

Brooks, 101 East Main Street, Forney, Texas, 75126 .

7. Defendant Chief Rick Barnes, is the Chief of Police City of Forney Texas and

may be served at 110 Justice Center Dr., Forney, TX 75126



3/11


III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 USC 1983 and 1988 for the violation of each

Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Accordingly, this

Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331 and supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims discussed below under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because they arise

out of the same case or controversy.

9. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Texas under 28 USC 1391 (b)(2) as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims

herein occurred within this judicial district.

IV. FACTS

10. On or about August 9, 2014 Ms. Kametra Barbour along with four children, each

of whom was under the age of 10, Jane Doe, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3, was

traveling on Highway 80 in the city limits of Forney, Texas. Mrs. Barbour and the four minors

were just leaving Walmart and on their way home. At or around this same time, Eva and Stacy

Whatley were driving down Highway 80 in Forney, Texas and notice a tan or beige Toyota

occupied by four black males, one of whom was waving a gun outside the window. Eva and

Stacy Whatley called 911 and very clearly indicated that a beige or tan Toyota occupied by four

black males and one of them was waving a gun on Highway 80 in Forney Texas. A Forney

police officer then got behind said vehicle, however; the Forney police officer disengaged and

did not stop the vehicle. When this happened, Eva and Stacy Whatley again called 911 and

indicated very clearly that the police just let the car driven by the four black males go and are

now stopping the wrong car. Armed with this information, Forney Police Officers stopped



4/11


Plaintiff Kametra Barbour who was driving a burgundy Nissan Maxima occupied by her and 4

minors. Plaintiffs vehicle neither fit the description nor make of the vehicle described to 911 by

Eva and Stacy Whatley.

11. Plaintiffs vehicle was stopped by several officers with the Forney Police

Department and even though Plaintiffs vehicle did not match the description, Plaintiff Kametra

Barbour was order out of her car by gunpoint. Plaintiff Kametra Barbour was then ordered to

turn around and walk backwards towards to police at gunpoint. All the while, the minor

Plaintiffs were witnessing this take place in horror. Once Plaintiff Kametra Barbour reached the

officers, she was immediately handcuffed. To Plaintiff Kametras shock and utter dismay,officers with the Forney Police Department ordered Plaintiff John Doe, a minor, out of the

vehicle at gunpoint. After this time, two officers approached each side of Plaintiffs vehicle,

now occupied by 3 minors, with their hands on their guns that were drawn. After realizing there

were only kids in the car, the officers placed their guns in their holsters. The officers thereafter

finally concluded that they had stopped the wrong vehicle, however; the officers continued to

search Plaintiffs vehicle with flashlights trying to find some evidence of a crime. Moreover, the

Forney Police officer on the right side of Plaintiffs vehicle reached inside the vehicle pressing

on the car television asking the minor children if the television was just a box that they stored

stuff inside. In addition, the same officer continued to question the minor Plaintiffs inside the

vehicle about the contents of their bags in a continued effort to pin some type of crime on

Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Kametra Barbour and the minor Plaintiffs were gravely terrified by this

experience.



5/11


V. CAUSES OF ACTION

1. LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

12. The foregoing paragraphs are herein incorporated by reference.

13. The above described acts and conduct of the Defendants were the result of

policies, customs, and practices of the City of Forney Police Department and that through such

policies, customs, and practices the Defendant City of Forney violated each and every Plaintiffs

Fourth Amendment Rights. These policies, practices, and customs include the failure of the City

of Forney to adequately train and supervise its officers in the stop, detention arrest of a person,

including the use of or exhibiting a firearm and ascertaining whether a person stopped is actuallythe person that should have been stopped, all of which were a proximate cause of each and every

Plaintiffs injuries and damages. Unknown Officers with the Forney Police Department were not

trained on how to determine which car to stop based on descriptions given from dispatch as well

as distinguish between male and females and difference between children and adult males. As a

result, Plaintiffs were wrongfully stopped and detained by Forney Police Officers.

14. Prior to the wrongful stop and detention of Plaintiffs, the City of Forneys law

enforcement officers engaged in numerous acts of wrongful stops, detentions and arrests similar

to the circumstances of this case, in violation of standard law enforcement rules and citizens

civil rights. The police chief and others delegated by the City of Forney with responsibility for

operating the police department were aware of these occurrences, which were of sufficient

frequency to alert the City of Forneys Police Department of the need for additional training and

supervision. The City of Forneys Police Department failed to provide such training and

supervision knowingly and with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of each and

every Plaintiff. Such failure was a moving force in the wrongful stop and detention of each and



6/11


every Plaintiff and the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

2. FALSE IMPRISONMENT


16 Defendants subjected each and every Plaintiff to false arrest, imprisonment,

deprivation of liberty, and humiliation without reasonable or probable cause.

17 Defendants have deprived each and every Plaintiff of their civil, constitutional,

and statutory rights and are liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

18 Defendants Police Officers willfully detained Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not

consent to the detention and the detention was without legal authority or justification. On orabout August 9, 2014, Plaintiffs were detained by Forney Police Officers who were suppose to

stop a beige or tan colored Toyota vehicle driven by four (4) black males yet instead stopped

Plaintiffs, an African American Female and four kids under the age of 10 years old, who were

driving in a maroon colored Nissan Maxima. Plaintiff Kametra Barbour and John Doe were

made to exit the vehicle at gunpoint. While Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3 were

approached by Police Officers a gun point. Even though Forney Police Officers should have

recognized they had stopped the wrong vehicle, they continued to detain plaintiffs and began

searching Plaintiffs car with flashlights. No legal reason existed to stop or detain either Plaintiff

during this time. Each Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiffs herein sue.

3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

19. Defendants intentionally or recklessly caused each and every Plaintiff to be

humiliated by falsely imprisoning them by gunpoint. Defendants conduct was extreme and

outrageous and proximately caused each and every Plaintiffs severe emotional distress. Each

and every Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiffs herein sue.



7/11


4. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAININGBY CITY OF FORNEY


21. The conduct of Defendant City of Forney constituted negligent supervision and

training. Defendant City of Forney did not properly screen, evaluate, investigate, or take any

reasonable steps to determine whether its officers were unfit or incompetent to be a police

officer. Defendant City of Forney knew or should have known that its officers were unfit and

untrained and could foresee that its officers would come in contact with Plaintiffs, creating a risk

of danger to Plaintiffs. Defendant City of Forneys failure to exercise reasonable care in the

supervision and training of its officers was the proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs for

which Plaintiffs hereby sue.

22. Defendant City of Forney is liable for the damages suffered by each and every

Plaintiff as a result of the conduct of its officers and the City of Forneys failure to exercise

reasonable care in the supervision and training of its officers .

23. Defendant City of Forney knew or should have known of its employees, agents,

or servants propensity to engage in the illegal and wrongful acts detailed above.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendants and their supervisors have in the past

falsely detained and arrested individuals without probable cause.

25. Defendant City of Forney has failed to take steps necessary to discipline, train,

supervise or otherwise correct the improper, illegal conduct of its officers in this and other

Forney Police officers in similar cases involving misconduct.

26. Defendant City of Forney has damaged the Plaintiffs by its failure to properly

supervise, train, discipline, review, remove, or correct the illegal and improper acts of its

employees, agents, or servants in this and in similar cases involving police misconduct.



8/11


27. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the wrongful, negligent, and illegal

acts of the Defendants City of Forney and its Police officers .

5. RATIFICATION


29. Whenever in this complaint it is alleged that the Defendant, City of Forney, did

any act or thing, it is meant that the City of Forneys officers, agents, servants, employees or

representatives did such act and/or that at that time such act was done, it was done with the full

authorization or ratification of the City of Forney.

VI. LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT THE CITY OF DALLASUNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT


31. That at all times material hereto and during the course of events set forth herein,

The Police Officers who held plaintiff Barbour and John Dow at gun point and the Officers who

approached Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 2 at gun point were employees of the City of

Forney, acting in their capacity as police officers within the course and scope of their

employment.

32. That the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs were caused by the use of tangible

personal property, a police guns and handcuffs.

33. That Defendants Police Officers committed the following acts of negligence

which jointly and severely were a proximate cause of each and every Plaintiffs injuries and

damages:

a. That Defendants Officers were negligent in using their handcuffsand guns.



9/11


b. That Defendants officers negligently seized each and everyPlaintiff by detention and/or using their handcuffs.

c. That Defendants Officers committed other acts of omission andcommission, which constituted negligence and were a proximate

cause of each and every Plaintiffs injuries and the damages hereinalleged.

34. That the City of Forney is liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for the

negligence of the Defendants Police Officers which proximately caused each and every

Plaintiffs injuries and damages.

VII. ALTERNATIVE PLEADINGS

35. To the extent facts and/or causes of action pled in this complaint are in conflict,

they are pled in the alternative.

DAMAGES

A. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

36. Each Plaintiff sustained the following damages as a result of the actions and/or

omissions of Defendants described hereinabove:

a. Actual Damages;

b. All reasonable and necessary attorneys fees incurred by or on behalf of

Plaintiffs;

c. Emotional pain in the past and future;

d. Loss of enjoyment of life in the past and future; and

e. Mental anguish in the past and future.

f. Prejudgment interest;



10/11

Original Complaint Page10

g. Loss of enjoyment of life;

h. Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. These expenses were

incurred by Plaintiffs and such charges are reasonable and were usual and

customary charges for such services in Kaufman County, Texas;

i. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will in all

reasonable probability be incurred in the future; and

j. Humiliation.

B. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

37. Plaintiff would further show that the acts and omissions of Defendantscomplained of herein were committed with malice or reckless indifference to the protected rights

of the Plaintiffs. In order to punish said Defendant for engaging in unlawful business practices

and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future, Plaintiffs also seeks recovery from

Defendants for exemplary damages.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Plaintiffs, Kametra Barbour Individually

and Kametra Barbour as Next Friend of Jane Doe, a Minor, John Doe, a Minor, Jane Doe 2, a

Minor and Jane Doe 3, a Minor, respectfully prays that the Defendants be cited to appear and

answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs

against Defendants for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court;

exemplary damages, together with interest as allowed by law; costs of court; and such other and

further relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity.



11/11

Original Complaint Page11

Respectfully submitted,

THE JACKSON LAW FIRM

/s/ Ray JacksonBy: Ray JacksonTexas Bar No. 007977543838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1350Dallas, Texas 75219Tel. (214) 651-6250Fax. (214) 651-6244E-Mail: [email protected] for Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY


Documents

Kametra Barbour vs. City of Forney and Chief Rick Barnes