UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KNOXVILLE DIVISION v. ) NO ...media.graytvinc.com/documents/Federal+lawusit+against+Blount+County.pdf · extraordinary use of excessive force by Vaughn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KNOXVILLE DIVISION

JUDY R. HODGE, individually, )and as personal representative of )the Estate of Larry Glenn Hodge, )

)Plaintiff, )

)v. ) NO. _________________

)BLOUNT COUNTY, Tennessee, ) Jury of Twelve Demandeda governmental entity, and )

)JAMES BERRONG, individually, )and in his official capacity as )Blount County Sheriff, )

)HENRY VAUGHN, individually, and )in his official capacity, )

)KEVIN CLENDENEN, individually, )and in his official capacity, )

)DOUGLAS DAVIS, individually, and ) in his official capacity as Blount )County Sheriff’s Department )Detective, )

)DOUG MOORE, individually, and )in his official capacity as )Lieutenant of the Blount )County Sheriff’s Department, )

)JEFF CLARK, individually, and in )his official capacity as Patrol )Captain of the Blount County )Sheriff’s Department, )

)RON TALBOTT, individually, and ) in his official capacity as Deputy )Chief of the Blount County Sheriff’s )Department, )

Case 3:16-cv-00317-PLR-CCS Document 1 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 1

JAMES LONG, individually, and ) in his official capacity as Deputy )Chief of the Blount County Sheriff’s )Department, )

)JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, )employees of the Blount County )Sheriff's Department, individually, )and in their official capacities, )

)Defendants. )

______________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES_______________________________________________________________________________

COMES Judy Hodge, as personal representative of the Estate of Larry G.

Hodge (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorney, and brings this Complaint against

the Defendants, Blount County (“Blount County”), James Berrong (“Sheriff

Berrong”), individually, and in his official capacity as Blount County Sheriff, Henry

Vaughn (“Vaughn”), Kevin Clendenen (“Deputy Clendenen”), Detective Douglas

Davis (“Detective Davis”), Lieutenant Doug Moore (“Lieutenant Moore”), Patrol

Captain Jeff Clark (“Captain Clark”), Deputy Chief Ron Talbott (Chief Talbott”),

Deputy Chief James Long (“Chief Long”), and John and Jane Does 1-10

(collectively, “Defendants”).

-ii-


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. NATURE OF ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

III. PARTIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. Plaintiff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B. Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A. Mr. Hodge Suffered From Severe and Debilitating MedicalDisorders and their Effects Made Him a Particularly VulnerableCitizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

B. Events Leading Up to Mr. Hodge’s Injuries and Arrest. . . . . . . . . 14

C. Vaughn Draws and Points His Gun Directly at Mr. Hodge,Grabs and Jerks Mr. Hodge From His Truck, and Throws Mr.Hodge Face-Down Onto the Asphalt Pavement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

D. Events Immediately Following Vaughn’s Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

E. BCSD Employees Fail to Provide Medical Care to Mr. Hodgeand Transport Him to Jail Instead.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

F. Vaughn’s History in Law Enforcement and Job ResponsibilitiesIndicate That He Is Prone to Violence, Poorly-Trained toInteract with Citizens, and Either Not Sufficiently Trained toMake Traffic Stops and Arrests or Is Simply DeliberatelyIndifferent to the Consequences of His Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

G. BCSD’s Sham Investigation of Vaughn’s Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

H. Mr. Hodge’s Injuries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

I. Long-Term Affects of the June 10, 2015 Assaultand Resulting Trauma on Mr. Hodge’s Remaining Life. . . . . . . . . 31

-iii-


V. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VII. JURY DEMAND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

-iv-


I. NATURE OF ACTION

1. Henry Vaughn (“Vaughn”), a Blount County Sheriff’s Department

evidence technician, dressed in green camouflage pants and a Polo-type shirt,

came upon Larry G. Hodge sitting in his truck with his hands on the steering

wheel. According to another driver, Mr. Hodge had allegedly committed a

misdemeanor traffic offense about 45 minutes earlier. Vaughn approached Mr.

Hodge with his gun un-holstered and pointed at Mr. Hodge, screaming at Mr.

Hodge to “get out the car.” He grabbed Mr. Hodge, opened the truck-door,

violently jerked him out his truck, and threw him hard onto the street, causing

Mr. Hodge to suffer trauma to his head, face, and other parts of his body. This

extraordinary use of excessive force by Vaughn on a law-abiding citizen who may

or may not have committed a misdemeanor traffic offense was a gross violation of

Mr. Hodge’s civil rights, which, as it turned out, Defendants continued to trample.

2. Mr. Hodge was, in his physician’s view, “a lovely gentleman.” A proud

husband and father, he was also high-functioning and a successful Blount County

businessman for many years. Unfortunately, Mr. Hodge suffered a stroke in 2003,

and his health began to deteriorate. He suffered another stroke in October 2014.

In the interim, Mr. Hodge was diagnosed as having “advanced vascular dementia,”

and suffered progressive cognitive and functional deterioration over the last few

years of his life. Mr. Hodge’s condition was noticeable to laymen. But on June

10, 2015, his condition permitted him to engage in the functions of everyday life,

-1-


working in his yard, running errands for his wife, and driving his good-looking

black GMC Sierra pick-up truck around town.

3. On the afternoon of June 10, 2015, Mr. Hodge was driving his pick-up

truck on an errand on a narrow rural road in Blount County, Tennessee. His

vehicle, and another vehicle, a Landcruiser, driven by local entertainer Robin

Bailey, a/k/a Robinella (“Ms. Bailey”), passed each other on a narrow stretch of

Russell Hollow Road and their respective driver’s side mirrors made contact,

apparently breaking Ms. Bailey’s mirror. Mr. Hodge stopped his truck, but the

Landcruiser continued past him and did not appear to stop. Shortly afterwards,

Mr. Hodge noticed the Landcruiser behind him. He again slowed and stopped, to

no avail, as the driver of the Landcruiser would not allow him to approach. This

scenario was repeated several times.

4. Meanwhile, Vaughn, driving a white unmarked pick-up truck and

wearing a dark Polo-type shirt, green camouflage pants, and no hat, purportedly

heard the E-911 dispatcher on the radio broadcasting details of an alleged hit-

and-run, was “in the vicinity,” and joined in a search for the black pick-up truck

that Ms. Bailey reported as having hit the side-mirror of her SUV, and, according

to her, failed to stop. Hearing sirens, Mr. Hodge immediately pulled his truck to

the right side of the road and placed his hands on his steering wheel. He did not

see an emergency vehicle behind him.

-2-


5. Suddenly, Vaughn, who had parked his unmarked truck alongside

Mr. Hodge’s truck and to its rear, i.e., Mr. Hodge’s blind-spot, came upon the

motionless Mr. Hodge in his truck, un-holstered his gun, began screaming at Mr.

Hodge to “get out of the car,” and pointed his gun directly at Mr. Hodge’s head.

Mr. Hodge, confused and slow to respond because of his medical impairments,

tried to ask Vaughn what was going on, but Vaughn reached in Mr. Hodge’s truck,

grabbed Mr. Hodge by the wrist and short collar, violently jerked him out of his

truck, and threw Mr. Hodge onto the pavement face-first, punched him, and

grabbed and twisted Mr. Hodge’s arms behind his back. Vaughn placed Mr.

Hodge under arrest for resisting arrest.

6. As a direct result of Vaughn’s excessive use-of-force, Mr. Hodge

suffered head and facial trauma, contusions, and abrasions to his head, face, and

nose, from which he began bleeding profusely. Mr. Hodge also suffered injuries

to his neck, wrists, arms, shoulder, and legs, among other injuries.

7. Mr. Hodge, sitting motionless in his truck with his hands on his

steering wheel in a 10 o’clock/2 o’clock position, had posed no threat whatsoever

to Vaughn. Indeed, a simple background check would have revealed that Mr.

Hodge had no criminal record and was, at most, a suspect for a minor

misdemeanor traffic offense. Mr. Hodge did not drink alcohol, and was fully

insured. Certainly, nothing about Mr. Hodge’s driving record should have

prompted a reasonable person to be concerned about safety. Nevertheless,

-3-


Vaughn chose to “go rogue” and approach Mr. Hodge with his gun drawn and

pointed directly at Mr. Hodge. Vaughn did not identify himself, nor did he indicate

to Mr. Hodge exactly why he was pointing a gun at him.

8. Although dazed, confused, disoriented, bleeding, and in tremendous

pain, Vaughn and other BCSD employees, including Deputy Clendenen and

Detective Davis, kept Mr. Hodge face-down on the pavement for several minutes.

A dash-cam video from inside Deputy Clendenen’s cruiser shows that several

other BCSD employees – at least eight of them – converged at the intersection as

Vaughn was kneeling beside Mr. Hodge. Mr. Hodge is seen lying face-down on the

asphalt, wrists cuffed behind him. Officers eventually pull Mr. Hodge up into a

sitting position, and he is seen bleeding badly from his head, nose, and face.

Another officer is seen standing over Mr. Hodge, moving Mr. Hodge by dragging

him along in a sitting position along the asphalt. Mr. Hodge was kept on the

asphalt, bleeding from his head, nose, face, and arm, for at least fifteen minutes.

9. Placed in the back of Deputy Clendenen’s cruiser, Mr. Hodge is over-

heard saying, “you boys really worked me over,” while complaining about pain.

One officer is heard remarking to Mr. Hodge “you’re bleeding all over my car.” At

this point, Mr. Hodge’s son arrived and informed Detective Davis about his father’s

dementia, that he was a multiple stroke victim, and about his other medical

conditions. Despite obvious injuries, neither Vaughn nor any other BCSD officer

present on the scene made any attempt to take Mr. Hodge to the hospital for

-4-


treatment, although Detective Davis stated that he thought he needed stitches.

Instead, Mr. Hodge was transported to the Blount County Jail, where he stayed

until he was bonded out, allowing his family to transport him to two different

hospitals, where Mr. Hodge was treated for his injuries and released.

10. Immediately following the incident, Mr. Hodge’s health began a

marked decline and he became profoundly impaired, with marked fatigue, weight

loss, gastrointestinal upset, marked decrease in appetite, gradual disorientation,

and poor judgment and insight. His neurologist believes the cause of that decline

was the trauma Mr. Hodge suffered on June 10, 2015.

11. Mr. Hodge was never the same after he was held at gun-point and

jerked out of his truck by Vaughn, thrown down onto the pavement face-first,

refused medical attention, and jailed. For the next six months, every aspect of Mr.

Hodge’s quality of life suffered, culminating in his death on December 27, 2015.

12. Upon information and belief, this was the first traffic stop and arrest

made by Vaughn in several years. For good reason, as Vaughn had previously

been involved in other violent confrontations, including assaulting a female

neighbor and a traffic stop that ended badly (in which Vaughn’s report sounds

eerily similar to his description of Mr. Hodge’s reaction to him, eleven years later).

Vaughn was suspended and a convicted of assault. Vaughn was removed from

patrol duties and assigned administrative duties handling property and evidence,

although the details of that transfer do not appear in his personnel file.

-5-


13. Vaughn’s unmarked pickup truck was not equipped with a dash-cam

or other video recorder, and since the assaults had ended by the time other

officers arrived in video-equipped vehicles, there is no recording of the traffic stop,

or how Mr. Hodge wound up face-down on the road, or, for that matter, how he

was injured. Notably, Vaughn did not park directly behind Mr. Hodge’s truck, as

is customary. Rather, he pulled his truck alongside Mr. Hodge’s truck, but to its

rear, and his assault on Mr. Hodge occurred between the two vehicles, largely

shielding Vaughn’s actions from passing vehicles.

14. BCSD employees, including Kelly Hoard and Lieutenant Moore, visited

the hospital to question Mr. Hodge. The evidence reveals that Blount County and

the BCSD conducted a sham investigation into Vaughn’s use-of-force, which was

eventually characterized as “justified” by the BCSD, in an attempt to conceal facts

from the Hodge family, their attorney, and the public and cover-up the facts

surrounding the June 10, 2015 assaults. An email between supervisors implies

that their main concern – in view of recent police brutality cases – was to make

sure Mr. Hodge’s family believed Vaughn’s use-of-force was being investigated.

Yet, investigators failed to interview a witness who had watched the incident

unfold and whose description of it differs substantially from Vaughn’s, to the effect

that Vaughn actions appeared to be an act of “road rage,” not a traffic stop.

15. Mr. Hodge was seriously injured, suffering injuries to his head, nose,

neck, face, shoulder, and wrists, and caused to suffer severe pain and substantial

-6-


mental anguish for the remainder of his life – as a result of Vaughn’s brutal

treatment. The incident and resulting injuries also aggravated and exacerbated

Mr. Hodge’s medical condition, grossly impaired the quality of his remaining life,

and hastened his death. See Photographs, #’s 1-8, attached hereto.

16. Among others, Mr. Hodge had the following clearly established rights

at all times material herein:

# The right to be secure in his person from excessiveforce, under the Fourth Amendment;

# The right to bodily integrity and to be free fromexcessive force by law enforcement under the FourteenthAmendment; and

# The right to be free from cruel and unusualpunishment under the Eighth Amendment.

17. The Individual Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived

Mr. Hodge of those rights. This action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

Tennessee common and statutory law, alleges claims for:

(a) the unnecessary, unreasonable, and unjustified useof force by Vaughn against Mr. Hodge, in violation of Mr.Hodge’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and FourteenthAmendments to the United States Constitution;

(b) the failure to provide medical care to Mr. Hodge, anespecially vulnerable citizen, after he experiencedtraumatic injuries;

(c)the failure to properly train and supervise officers withrespect to the appropriate procedure for making trafficstops and the use-of-force, including the un-holsteringof weapons;

-7-


(d) ratification, acquiescence, or approval by BlountCounty and the BCSD of the use of excessive force byofficers through sham investigations and deliberateindifference to the physical and psychological well-beingof citizens;

(e) allowing Vaughn, an evidence technician, to make atraffic stop and arrest using excessive force andconcluding that his actions were “justified”; and

(e) assault and battery, false arrest, outrageous conduct,negligence, and loss of society and consortium.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1343 over Plaintiff's claims arising under the Constitution of the United

States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any claims brought

under Tennessee law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, as such claims are so related

to claims in the action within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form

part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution.

20. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Tennessee because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

Plaintiff's claims occurred in Blount County. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

21. Plaintiff, Judy R. Hodge, is the lawful and duly appointed personal

representative of the Estate of Larry Glenn Hodge, her late husband. Plaintiff

-8-


brings this action as the surviving spouse of Mr. Hodge and as personal

representative of his estate. She also brings a claim individually, for loss of

society and consortium. During all relevant times, Mr. and Mrs. Hodge were

citizens and residents of Blount County, Tennessee.

B. Defendants

22. Blount County, Tennessee (“Blount County”) is a governmental entity

and political subdivision of the State of Tennessee, duly organized. It may be

served through its chief executive officer, County Mayor Ed Mitchell, at the Blount

County Mayor's Office, 341 Court Street, Maryville, TN 37804-5906.

23. Blount County possessed the power and authority to adopt policies

and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices affecting all facets of the training,

supervision, control, employment, assignment and removal of individual members

of the BCSD, and to assure that said actions, policies, rules, regulations, practices

and procedures of the BCSD and its employees and agents comply with the laws

and constitutions of the United States and of the State of Tennessee.

24. Blount County and the BCSD are answerable for the safekeeping of

persons in their custody and responsible for all matters relating to the selection,

supervision, promotion, training, and discipline of employees, including uniformed

and non-uniformed employees.

25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sheriff James L. Berrong

(“Sheriff Berrong”) was the duly elected Sheriff of Blount County, Tennessee,

-9-


statutorily responsible for the screening, hiring, firing, training and the

supervision of the BCSD personnel; and responsible for the safety and welfare of

those in custody. Sheriff Berrong is sued in his individual and official capacities

and as principal on his official bond. Sheriff Berrong was operating under color

of law. Sheriff Berrong is, upon information and belief, a citizen and resident of

Blount County and may be served with process at the Blount County Sheriff's

Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, Tennessee 37804.

26. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Henry Vaughn

(“Vaughn”), was employed by the BCSD. Vaughn is sued in his individual and

official capacities and as principal on his official bond. Vaughn was operating

under color of law. Vaughn is, upon information and belief, a citizen and resident

of Blount County and may be served with process at the Blount County Sheriff's

Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, Tennessee 37804.

27. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Kevin Clendenen

(Deputy Clendenen”), was a Deputy employed by the BCSD. Deputy Clendenen

is being sued in his individual and official capacities and as principal on his

official bond. Deputy Clendenen was operating under color of law. Deputy

Clendenen is, upon information and belief, a citizen and resident of Blount

County, and may be served with process at the Blount County Sheriff's Office,

940 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, Tennessee 37804.

-10-


28. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Lieutenant Doug

Moore (“Lieutenant Moore”), was employed by the BCSD. Lieutenant Moore is

being sued in his individual and official capacities and as principal on his official

bond. Lieutenant Moore was operating under color of law. Lieutenant Moore is,

upon information and belief, a citizen and resident of Blount County and may be

served with process at the Blount County Sheriff's Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander

Parkway, Maryville, Tennessee 37804.

29. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Detective Douglas

Davis (“Detective Davis”), was employed by the BCSD. Detective Davis is being

sued in his individual and official capacities and as principal on his official bond.

Detective Davis was operating under color of law. Detective Davis is, upon

information and belief, a citizen and resident of Blount County and may be served

with process at the Blount County Sheriff's Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander


30. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Patrol Captain Jeff

Clark (“Captain Clark”), was employed by the BCSD. Captain Clark is being sued

in his individual and official capacities and as principal on his official bond.

Captain Clark was operating under color of law. Captain Clark is, upon

information and belief, a citizen and resident of Blount County and may be served

with process at the Blount County Sheriff's Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander


-11-


31. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Deputy Chief Ron

Talbott (“Chief Talbott”), was employed by the BCSD. Chief Talbott is being sued

in his individual and official capacities and as principal on his official bond. Chief

Talbott was operating under color of law. Chief Talbott is, upon information and

belief, a citizen and resident of Blount County and may be served with process at

the Blount County Sheriff's Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville,

Tennessee 37804.

32. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant, Deputy Chief

James Long (“Chief Long”), was employed by the BCSD. Chief Long is being sued

in his individual and official capacities and as principal on his official bond. Chief

Long was operating under color of law. Chief Long is, upon information and belief,

a citizen and resident of Blount County and may be served with process at the

Blount County Sheriff's Office, 940 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville,

Tennessee 37804.

33. Plaintiff also sues the fictitious Defendants, Does 1-10, as their true

identities and/or capacities and/or other facts showing their culpability are

presently unknown. These Doe Defendants are sued in their individual and

official capacities as BCSD deputies, officers, or employees, and as principals on

their official bonds.1 They include unknown officers of the BCSD who failed to

1Under Rules 4(m) and 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend her Complaint to set forth thetrue names and capacities of such Defendants when their identities are

-12-


protect Mr. Hodge from harm and/or failed to insure that Mr. Hodge received

medical attention before jailing him. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

thereupon alleges that at all times relevant herein, certain of the Doe Defendants,

1-10, inclusive, were supervisors and policy makers for the BCSD.

34. Various persons or entities not made Defendants in this lawsuit,

including but not limited to Blount County officials, commissioners, or BCSD

employees, have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants in the violations

asserted in this Complaint and have performed acts and made statements in

furtherance thereof. Plaintiff reserves the right to name some or all of these

persons as Defendants at a later date.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Mr. Hodge Suffered From Severe and Debilitating MedicalDisorders and their Effects Made Him a ParticularlyVulnerable Citizen.

35. Mr. Hodge was a 67-year old man. He was a multiple stroke victim

suffering from atrial fibrillation. Following his initial stroke on 2003, Mr. Hodge

was diagnosed with advanced vascular dementia, a debilitating cognitive disorder

that prohibited him from proper cognitive functioning.

36. According to the Mayo Clinic, vascular dementia is a general term

describing problems with reasoning, planning, judgment, memory and other

thought processes caused by brain damage from impaired blood flow to the brain.

ascertained.

-13-


Vascular dementia symptoms2 include confusion, trouble paying attention and

concentrating, reduced ability to organize thoughts or actions, decline in ability

to analyze a situation, develop an effective plan and communicate that plan to

others, difficulty deciding what to do next, problems with memory, restlessness

and agitation, unsteady gait, and depression.

37. Although before June 10, 2015, Mr. Hodge was able to engage in

many day-to-day functions of life, e.g., working at his businesses, working in his

yard, running errands, and driving, the condition nevertheless made Mr. Hodge

a particularly vulnerable citizen, and that condition was noticeable to laymen.

B. Events Leading Up to Mr. Hodge’s Injuries and Arrest

38. Shortly before 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of June 10, 2015, Mr.

Hodge was on an errand, traveling north along Russell Hollow Road, a narrow

rural road in Blount County, Tennessee, in his beloved black 2011 GMC Sierra

pick-up truck. At some point along that stretch of narrow road, the large driver’s

side mirror on Mr. Hodge’s pick-up made contact with a large oncoming sport

utility vehicle (“SUV”), a Toyota Landcruiser, traveling south, driven by Ms. Robin

Bailey (“Ms. Bailey”), a local entertainer known as “Robinella.” The impact

apparently broke Ms. Bailey’s side-mirror.

2See Mayo Clinic Diseases and Conditions, Vascular Dementia,http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/vascular-dementia/basics/symptoms/con-20029330.

-14-


39. According to a statement made by Mr. Hodge several hours after the

incident, “the other driver refused to stop and would not stay for him to talk to

her. Mr. Hodge stated that he tried to get her attention 5 times.” She would “go

a ways and stop” but would not get close enough and stop for him to make contact

with her. After stopping a fifth time, Mr. Hodge gave up and decided to go on.

40. Eventually, near the intersection of Crye Road and Brickmill Road,

Mr. Hodge heard sirens and immediately pulled his truck over to the right side of

the road just a few feet ahead of the intersection. Mr. Hodge had a valid and

lawful hand-gun carry permit, and believing law enforcement vehicles were

nearby, by reflex (and pursuant to his firearms’ safety training), gripped his

steering wheel with both hands and sat motionless in his truck. Mr. Hodge looked

in his rearview mirror and saw no signs of emergency vehicles behind him.

41. Meanwhile, immediately after Mr. Hodge’s truck side-mirror had made

contact with Ms. Bailey’s SUV, Ms. Bailey” had traveled down the road a short

distance and turned her SUV around, getting behind Mr. Hodge’s truck, and

began “chasing the truck.” At some point, Ms. Bailey called E-911 and reported

that she had been the “victim” of a “hit-and-run” driver and was following that

driver.3 Ms. Bailey followed Mr. Hodge for approximately 45 minutes, reporting

her location and details about Mr. Hodge’s vehicle, including his tag number.

3As discussed below, Plaintiff believes discovery will show that Ms. Baileymade a call to a BCSD employee before making the 911 call.

-15-


42. Mr. Hodge was licensed to drive. His vehicle was in excellent

mechanical shape. He had automobile liability insurance. He did not drink

alcohol in any form. Nor was he under the influence of any intoxicant. And he

had no criminal record. In other words, Mr. Hodge had absolutely no reason to

“leave the scene” after the two vehicles’ mirrors made contact. Indeed, even Ms.

Bailey acknowledged that Mr. Hodge stopped his truck and tried to communicate

with her, as he stated he did, but she was apparently apprehensive about making

contact, as she was accompanied by her two minor sons.

43. Eventually, Mr. Hodge heard sirens and pulled his truck over to the

right side of the road and stopped. Somewhere nearby, Ms. Bailey lurked in her

SUV, watching what was about to unfold.

C. Vaughn Draws and Points His Gun Directly at Mr. Hodge,Grabs and Jerks Mr. Hodge From His Truck, and ThrowsMr. Hodge Face-Down Onto the Asphalt Pavement.

44. BCSD employee Henry Vaughn, a property and evidence technician

not normally involved in making traffic stops or arrests, was driving his unmarked

white pick-up truck4 nearby and heard “dispatch” broadcast a “hit-and-run.

According to Vaughn, he “caught up” to Mr. Hodge’s truck at the intersection of

Crye Road and Brickmill Road, where Mr. Hodge had pulled his pick-up truck off

4Vaughn’s truck was apparently not equipped with a video recordingdevice, and there is some dispute as to whether it was equipped withemergency lights and a siren, as one witness indicated that she thought thetrucks were stopped as a result of a “road rage” incident, and that she did notimmediately recognize Vaughn to be a law enforcement officer.

-16-


to the right side of the road and stopped. Inexplicably, Vaughn pulled his white

pick-up truck not behind Mr. Hodge’s truck, but alongside it, but to the rear, not

only in Mr. Hodge’s “blind-spot,” but also partly shielding Mr. Hodge’s truck – and

what was about to transpire – from the view of passing motorists.5

45. This was not, by any account, a felony traffic stop. At most – and

even this fact is in dispute – Mr. Hodge had allegedly left the scene of an accident

that did not involve death or personal injury, a Class C misdemeanor.6

46. According to Vaughn’s use-of-force report, he un-holstered his service

weapon and approached Mr. Hodge’s truck with his gun drawn and pointed at Mr.

Hodge, purportedly because he did not know the occupant’s “state-of-mind.”7

5Accepted law enforcement practice is for an officer to stop his vehiclebehind a suspect’s vehicle, as opposed to in front, whenever possible, out ofconcerns for officer safety.

6If the accident resulted in damage less than $400, a driver who leavesthe scene may face Class C misdemeanor charges. Such charges carry apenalty of up to 30 days in jail, a fine of up to $50, and driver’s educationclasses. If the damage caused was greater than $400, leaving the scene of theaccident is still considered a Class C misdemeanor, which is punishable by upto 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $50. However, because of the higher valueof property damage, leaving the scene in this scenario may also result in thesuspension or revocation of the driver’s license. See Tenn. Code Ann. §55-10-102. Indeed, leaving the scene is the only traffic-related offense withwhich Mr. Hodge was ultimately charged. It is certainly the only allegedoffense against Mr. Hodge that may have occurred up to that point.

7Vaughn also reported that he approached the vehicle “giving commandsfor the driver to show his hands.” However, the only disinterested witness whowatched this particular part of the incident occur stated that Mr. Hodge wasfirmly gripping the steering wheel with both of his hands.

-17-


47. Vaughn apparently concedes that he did not identify himself as a

BCSD employee or officer, as no such statement appears in any of the numerous

reports. Vaughn “ordered” Mr. Hodge “out of his vehicle” and, according to

Vaughn, Mr. Hodge responded with a profanity, adding “I’m not getting out.”8

48. According to Vaughn, he opened the door on Mr. Hodge’s truck,

“restrained him by his wrist and ordered him out.” When Mr. Hodge allegedly

again responded with a profanity, Vaughn “restrained” Mr. Hodge “by the collar

of his shirt” and took Mr. Hodge “to the ground.”

49. In truth, Mr. Hodge had no reason to believe Vaughn was a law

enforcement officer. Ms. Bailey had been chasing Mr. Hodge around for 45

minutes. Mr. Hodge suffered from advanced dementia and a multitude of other

debilitating ailments. It is entirely reasonable for Mr. Hodge to have believed that

Vaughn was a passenger in Ms. Bailey’s SUV. And while Mr. Hodge heard sirens

and immediately pulled his vehicle to the side of the road, Vaughn:

# was driving a white unmarked pick-up truck that mayor may not have had emergency lights and siren;

# did not pull directly behind Mr. Hodge’s truck, butinstead pulled to alongside it, but slightly to the rear,i.e., in Mr. Hodge’s blind-spot;

8The disinterested witness, a passing motorist who had pulled up to theintersection and was told by Vaughn to “go around,” disputes Vaughn’saccount, and states that all Mr. Hodge said to Vaughn at this point was “whatdid I do?” and he asked that question three times.

-18-


# was not wearing a uniform, shirt, hat, or anything elsethat would be immediately recognizable by the public asa law enforcement officer, but was instead wearing greencamouflage pants, a dark Polo-type shirt, and no hat9;

# did not, according to his own statements and officialreports, identify himself to Mr. Hodge as an officer oremployee of the BCSD;

# did not ask for Mr. Hodge’s driver’s license,registration, or proof of insurance when he first came toMr. Hodge’s truck window;

# did not inform Mr. Hodge, after repeated requests, whyhe was (a) pointing a gun at him, or (b) what he hadallegedly done wrong to warrant such action; and

# knowing that Mr. Hodge had been in an accident, didnot inquire about whether Mr. Hodge was well.

50. When Vaughn asked Mr. Hodge to get out of his truck, Mr. Hodge was

predictably confused and deliberate in his reaction, and not surprisingly, it took

him some time to try to orient himself to the circumstances. As he was moving

too slowly to satisfy Vaughn, Vaughn suddenly grabbed Mr. Hodge by the wrist

and shirt collar, violently jerked him out of his truck, and flung Mr. Hodge hard

and face-first to the pavement, punched at Mr. Hodge, twisted Mr. Hodge’s arms

behind his back, and cuffed his wrists behind his back, all while Mr. Hodge lay in

a prone position, bleeding profusely from his head, face, and nose.

9Police officers should anticipate that when he or she is dressed in plainclothes and driving unmarked private vehicles, members of the public mighthave difficulty identifying him or her as an officer.

-19-


51. Vaughn’s drastic actions were stunning beyond measure. He failed

to identify himself, to make any reasonable attempt to engage Mr. Hodge in

dialogue, or to communicate with Mr. Hodge in a civil or calm manner. Yet,

nothing in the records BCSD provided to Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that Vaughn

actually had reason to believe himself to be in danger. Vaughn did nothing to

demonstrate that he exercised the slightest degree of restraint.

D. Events Immediately Following Vaughn’s Actions

52. Deputy Clendenen’s dash-cam video shows that as his vehicle pulls

up to the intersection, Vaughn is kneeling with his left hand pressed against Mr.

Hodge’s back, as Mr. Hodge is face-down on the pavement.10 Vaughn is seen

shaking his right hand and looking intently at his left hand, indicating that he had

punched Mr. Hodge or otherwise injured his hands during the incident.

53. Other BCSD employees, including Detective Davis, arrived on the

scene. Mr. Hodge was pulled up into a sitting position, at which time he was still

bleeding profusely from his head, nose, and face. A BCSD employee stood over

Mr. Hodge, and moved Mr. Hodge by dragging him along the pavement. Mr. Hodge

is not allowed to stand on his feet for at least 15 minutes. As Mr. Hodge is placed

into Deputy Clendenen’s vehicle, he is heard to say, “you boys really worked me

over,” while he also complains about his arm and wrist.

10There are no video recordings which show exactly how Mr. Hodgewound up on the pavement or how Mr. Hodge’s head, face, nose, wrists, arm,and legs were injured and became so bloody.

-20-


54. After being placed in the back of Deputy Clendenen’s vehicle, an

officer, upon information and belief, Deputy Clendenen, is heard remarking to Mr.

Hodge “you’re bleeding all over my car.” Mr. Hodge was transported to the Blount

County Jail to be booked.

55. Mr. Hodge was charged with resisting arrest. See State of Tennessee

v. Larry Glen Hodge, No. CR-10253 (Gen Sess. Ct.). He was also cited with leaving

the scene of an accident, a Class C Misdemeanor. See Blount County Citation No.

8038387/Case No. 15003326.

E. BCSD Employees Fail to Provide Medical Care to Mr. Hodgeand Transport Him to Jail Instead.

56. Despite obvious injuries, BCSD employees did not take Mr. Hodge to

the hospital for treatment. Detective Davis stated that because of the amount of

blood, he thought Mr. Hodge needed stitches. However, upon information and

belief, no other BCSD employee even hinted about transporting the bleeding,

confused, and disoriented Mr. Hodge to a hospital.

57. While BCSD employees and Mr. Hodge were still at the scene,

however, Mr. Hodge’s son arrived and informed Detective Davis about Mr. Hodge’s

precarious medical condition. Specifically, he informed Detective Davis that Mr.

Hodge suffered from dementia and took medication, i.e., anticoagulants, that kept

his blood from clotting. This, in part, was why he was bleeding so badly.

Nevertheless, BCSD employees directed that Mr. Hodge be transported to the

Blount County Jail, instead of a hospital.

-21-


58. Following the June 10, 2015 assaults, Mr. Hodge was examined by

his neurologist, Monica K. Crane, MD, of the Cole Neuroscience Center. Dr. Cole

had been treating Mr. Hodge for his advanced vascular dementia and was well

aware of his abilities and functioning limitations. Dr. Cole’s records reflect that

Mr. Hodge had suffered a traumatic head injury during the incident, that jailing

caused him to be confused and disoriented, that he did not understand what was

going on and had no capacity to realize what was happening to him. Shortly after

the incident, in August 2015, Dr. Cole wrote that Mr. Hodge’s condition had

progressed rapidly since the incident, and “due to his progressive neurological

impairment and cognitive decline, he is unable to follow simple commands.”

F. Vaughn’s History in Law Enforcement and JobResponsibilities Indicate That He Is Prone to Violence,Poorly-Trained to Interact with Citizens, and Either NotSufficiently Trained to Make Traffic Stops and Arrests or IsSimply Deliberately Indifferent to the Consequences of HisActions.

59. Henry Vaughn was hired by the BCSD on November 16, 1998.

Vaughn had previously been employed at the Wal-Mart garden center before

entering law enforcement.

60. As it turns out, Vaughn should not have been entrusted with

responsibilities to make a traffic stop or an arrest, much less put in a situation

whereby he aggressively confronted a citizen with no criminal record with an un-

holstered gun. Blount County clearly had advanced knowledge that Vaughn was

otherwise unfit to be authorized to make traffic stops or arrests, much less

-22-


confront citizens with an un-holstered drawn gun. Vaughn also has a history of

violence and using excessive force as an officer.

61. In 2005, Vaughn was charged and convicted of simple assault on a

female neighbor while off-duty. The incident appears to have been the

culmination of an ongoing family feud preceded by other unreported incidents of

violence. As a result of the incident, Vaughn was suspended with pay, taken off

patrol, and placed on administrative duty.

62. That criminal conviction was preceded by another violent incident on

September 27, 2005. On that occasion, Vaughn made a traffic stop, pulling over

a man named S.F. Szabados, and grabbing and violently pushing Mr. Szabados

up against his vehicle. Other than the violent nature of the incident, it is

noteworthy for yet another reason. Vaughn’s rendition of the traffic stop is eerily

similar to his summary of his stop of Mr. Hodge. As with his stop of Mr. Hodge,

Vaughn repeatedly told Mr. Szabados “to get out” of his vehicle. Vaughn stated

that the Szabados stop escalated because Mr. Szabados replied in “an angry tone”

and, like Mr. Hodge allegedly did, cursed at Vaughn, using, incidentally, the same

vulgarity as Mr. Hodge allegedly used.

63. Since 2006, Vaughn has been the BCSD’s “property and evidence

custodian.” Vaughn was the subject of an internal affairs investigation in or about

January 2007, and was also reprimanded for poor communication skills and

directed to get counseling.

-23-


64. Vaughn’s involvement in the incident involved here is quite

surprising. According to Blount County’s attorney, Vaughn is an “evidence

technician” and he normally does not respond to patrol calls. That is why his

truck was not equipped with a dash-cam. Vaughn “just happened to be in the

vicinity of this particular call and was the first on the scene.” Clearly, from this,

it is evident that Vaughn’s responsibilities do not normally entail making traffic

stops or arrests, much less un-holstering his weapon and pointing it at a citizen.

65. Vaughn’s reaction to the circumstances then and there existing was

grossly overzealous. Mr. Hodge was not a criminal.11 Nor was he being sought for

committing a felony. He was, thus far in his 67 years, a respected local

businessman, husband, and father, who just happened to approach an oncoming

vehicle about as large as his truck on a narrow rural road and they clipped side-

mirrors. According to Mr. Hodge, he stopped his truck. According to Ms. Bailey,

he stopped his truck and tried to approach her. Other than Ms. Bailey, there is

no evidence that Mr. Hodge was at fault. In fact, according to Ms. Bailey, Mr.

Hodge’s insurance company investigated and denied the claim to pay for Bailey’s

mirror for lack of evidence. Nevertheless, the most serious offense for which

11 Nothing in the incident, arrest, use of force, E-911, or other reports orfiles provided by Blount County indicates that Vaughn or any other BCSDemployee attempted to run Mr. Hodge’s license plate number, much less obtainhis driver’s license or vehicle registration to determine if Mr. Hodge presented adanger. This is so even though the alleged victim of the hit-and-run hadprovided Mr. Hodge’s license plate number to the E-911 operator well beforeVaughn arrived at Mr. Hodge’s truck.

-24-


Vaughn would have been making the stop of Mr. Hodge was a Class C

Misdemeanor, i.e., that Mr. Hodge left the scene of an accident, the offense with

which he was ultimately charged for the mirror-impact.

66. Yet, Vaughn, acting overzealously, without proper training, and/or

with deliberate indifference to the consequences of his actions, rushed Mr. Hodge

with a drawn gun, pointing it at Mr. Hodge as he sat motionless in his truck – for

allegedly being involved in a Class C Misdemeanor offense which, incidentally,

Vaughn did not witness. And why did Vaughn believe he was justified? In his

“use-of-force” report, Vaughn stated, “did not know Mr. Hodge’s state-of-mind.”

In his “multi-purpose” report, he blamed his reaction on a remark by the E-911

dispatcher, “dispatch stated the subject had got out of his vehicle and approached

the victim.” Yet, Mr. Hodge was being pursued because Ms. Bailey also reported

that he did not stop. Without more, these purported reasons for pointing a gun

at Mr. Hodge did not justify the application of such force in this situation.

67. Based upon investigation and upon information and belief, there is,

however, another reason – no less unreasonable and unjustified – why Vaughn

appeared on the scene and over-reacted as horribly as he did. The alleged victim,

Ms. Bailey, a/k/a Robinella, has numerous friends who are employees of the

BCSD. Moreover, Plaintiff believes discovery will demonstrate that Vaughn and

Ms. Bailey were acquainted before the assaults on Mr. Hodge on June 10, 2015,

and that after Mr. Hodge’s truck mirror impacted hers, and before Ms. Bailey

-25-


called E-911 to report the incident, she first called Vaughn and alerted him to the

circumstances. Vaughn, an evidence technician, not a patrolman, who does not

normally make traffic stops, became part of “the chase,” and caught up with Ms.

Bailey and Mr. Hodge. Having allegedly heard from a dispatcher that Mr. Hodge

had allegedly approached Ms. Bailey at one point during “the chase,” and knowing

that Ms. Bailey was also present at the scene in her SUV, Vaughn resolved to

“take care of business” and impress Ms. Bailey, who was nearby. He un-holstered

his weapon, screamed at Mr. Hodge repeatedly so that Ms. Bailey could hear him,

confronted Mr. Hodge at gun-point, and jerked the multiple stroke and dementia

victim out of his truck, flinging him onto the pavement face-first in front of the

waiting and watchful Ms. Bailey.12

68. If this true, and Plaintiff believes it to be so, it explains – but does not

at all excuse – Vaughn’s overzealous actions, gun-pointing, and gross misuse of

force against Mr. Hodge.

G. BCSD’s Sham Investigation of Vaughn’s Actions

69. The circumstances cried for an independent inquiry:

A woman who has befriended numerous BCSD officersand employees calls E-911 and says the side mirror onher SUV has just been hit by a passing motorist drivinga black pick-up truck, that the truck did not stop, andthat she is following him. The driver of the black pick-uptruck is a 67-year old multiple stroke victim with

12Ms. Bailey even participated in the event by getting out of her SUV,grabbing Vaughn’s radio out of his pick-up truck, and giving it to him.

-26-


advanced vascular dementia and a progressiveneurological impairment, who regularly takesanticoagulants to prevent blood clots. He is also arespected local businessman without a criminal record,as a routine background check would have easilydiscovered. The woman continues to follow the blacktruck for approximately 45 minutes, all the whileconstantly reporting her location to the eagerly listeningE-911 dispatcher. Several BCSD patrol units convergeon the area.

After about 45 minutes, an apparently off-duty evidencetechnician, known to be an acquaintance of the womanSUV driver, driving an unmarked white Ford F-150 pick-up truck, happens to spot the two motorists near anintersection. The driver of the black pick-up, who hasstopped on 5 occasions during the search and even triedto approach the woman, nears the intersection and,hearing sirens, immediately pulls over to the right sideof the road. The driver looks in his rear-view mirror anddoes not see an emergency vehicle of any type. Theblack pick-up driver’s hands are gripping the steeringwheel and he sits in his truck motionless.

Suddenly, the driver is confronted by a 50-somethingyear-old gun-wielding man in a dark polo shirt and greencamouflage pants pointing a gun at him and screamingat him to “get out of the car.” The driver looks at theman and ask three times “what did I do?” A passingmotorist sees and overhears the incident and thinks it isa “road rage” situation. The black pick-up’s driver,reacting and moving very slowly due to his medicalimpairments, slowly begins to open the door to his truck,but the gun-wielding man grabs his wrist and collar ofhis shirt and jerks the driver out of his truck, throwinghim onto the asphalt road face-first, punching him, andgetting on top of him.

The driver is now face-down on the ground with hishands cuffed behind him and his head, face, and nosebleeding profusely. The gun-wielding man turns out tobe a BCSD evidence technician and former patrol officer

-27-


(he was suspended in 2005 for assaulting a femaleneighbor and was also investigated for excessive force ina traffic stop that bore striking similarities to thisincident). The driver is kept face-down bleeding on thepavement as other BCSD officers begin to arrive on thescene and pull him up to a sitting position, where hisblood-covered head and face can be seen.

The driver, whose impairments are noticeable andprofound, sits on the road, dazed, disoriented, confused,and bleeding not having any idea of what has happenedto him. At least eight BCSD employees arrive on thescene, including detectives and supervisors. The driver’sson arrives and informs a BCSD detective that his fatherhas dementia and takes anticoagulants for strokevictims. Not one BCSD employee sees fit to direct thatthe battered and bleeding driver be taken to a hospital toreceive medical attention. He is not taken to a hospitaluntil after his family has posted his bail several hourslater.

70. At 1:28 a.m. on the morning of June 11, 2015, hours after the

incident, Lieutenant Moore of the BCSD wrote an email to several supervisors,

Captain Clark and Chiefs Talbott and Long summarizing an investigation of

Vaughn’s use-of-force against Mr. Hodge. In the email, Lieutenant Moore summed

up his investigation by the following:

# “Based on what I learned about the events DeputyVaughn was justified in his use of force however, I gotthe Det Div involved so as to let the family see that wewere investigating the issue at a higher level then thePatrol Function.”

# “Once again from my initial questions as to whatoccurred on Cry Rd Deputy Vaughn did a great job ingetting him stopped and in custody.”

-28-


71. Lieutenant Moore’s email gives the distinct impression that the so-

called “investigation” of Vaughn’s use-of-force was a sham. He stated that he

“handled the intial (sic) complaint with kid gloves” and informed his superiors that

he merely wanted Mr. Hodge’s family to believe that he was conducting an

investigation of the incident, reasoning that:

“[w]ith the current events as they are in the media, hisage, and so on I felt it important to have the family feelas though a good investigation was being put into whathad occurred.”

72. Lieutenant Moore also derided Mr. Hodge’s daughter, a nurse at Knox

County’s Jail, as having “a pre-conceived notion” about what had happened and

for thinking she knew “something about the use of force/excessive force.” If

anything, the email from Lieutenant Moore demonstrates that he, and apparently

the recipients of his missive, cared less about what actually happened than they

did about protecting Vaughn. Lieutenant Moore wanted to “nail” Mr. Hodge “down

with a statement before he may alter his story later.”

73. Nothing in Vaughn’s employment file reveals that he was the subject

of disciplinary action for his traffic stop or use-of-force against Mr. Hodge. Thus,

no fewer than four supervisory personnel – Lieutenant Moore, Captain Clark, and

Chiefs Talbott and Long – as well as Sheriff Berrong, were given an opportunity

for corrective action, but they failed to take any such action, with all of them

acquiescing in Lieutenant Moore’s assessment that Vaughn “was justified” and

“did a great job.”

-29-


H. Mr. Hodge’s Injuries

74. Mr. Hodge was hospitalized at Blount Memorial Hospital after his

release from Blount County Jail and sent to the University of Tennessee Medical

Center. Medical personnel at the emergency department of The University of

Tennessee Medical Center determined that Mr. Hodge suffered multiple head and

facial injuries, including a frontal hematoma overlying his forehead, as well as

contusions, abrasions, and inflammation to his nose, neck, wrists, fingers, arms,

shoulders, and legs, pain in his right arm and shoulder, decreased range of

motion in this right arm, severe pain, and other injuries. Mr. Hodge received a

tetanus immunization, was treated, his wounds were closed, and he was stabilized

and discharged to follow up with his family doctor.

75. The actions of Vaughn and the other Defendants also aggravated and

exacerbated Mr. Hodge’s existing ailments and also caused Mr. Hodge to suffer:

frequent headaches, nightmares, early phase and late phase insomnia, memory

loss, depression, and severe anxiety.

76. As a further result of the assaults, Mr. Hodge suffered immeasurable

psychological harm and further damage to his cognitive abilities, requiring

continuous therapy, treatment, and psychiatric care, conscious physical pain, loss

of enjoyment of life, humiliation, harm to his reputation, and emotional injury and

distress. Mr. Hodge’s sleep was also constantly disrupted by severe pain. Mr.

Hodge’s appetite diminished and he suffered substantial weight loss. Mr. Hodge

-30-


was also depressed and anxious, suffering frequent mood swings until his death.

Mr. Hodge also suffered conscious physical pain, loss of enjoyment of life,

humiliation, harm to his reputation, and emotional injury and distress, as a

proximate result of Defendants’ actions.

I. Long-Term Affects of the June 10, 2015 Assaultand Resulting Trauma on Mr. Hodge’s Remaining Life

77. Before the incident, Mr. Hodge could function in the real world. He

could, for example, drive his truck around town. After the incident, Mr. Hodge

never drove his truck again for the remainder of his life and could not do most of

the things he once enjoyed. According to his neurologist, he suffered a marked

decline in his overall cognitive abilities as a direct result of the incident. Following

the incident, Mr. Hodge “had interval deterioration,” rapidly became profoundly

impaired, with notable marked fatigue, weight loss, gastrointestinal upset, marked

decrease in appetite, and gradual disorientation. His speech rate became very

slow, his judgment and insight became poor, and he became notably very weak.

V. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY

78. Blount County has waived immunity for negligence of the county and

county employees, misconduct of deputies acting under color of law, and for the

negligence of deputies or employees of the BCSD or the county, as set out in Tenn.

Code Ann. §29-20-305, and for intentional acts or misconduct done by deputies

under color of law, as set out in Tenn. Code Ann. §8-8-302-302.

-31-


79. There is no immunity for individuals for criminal conduct, or conduct

which is willful or malicious.

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988

Use of Unlawful and Excessive Force(Against Vaughn)

80. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are

hereby incorporated by reference into this Count of the Complaint, as if set forth

verbatim herein.

81. Excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment is objectively

unreasonable conduct that, given the facts and circumstances, would “shock the

conscience” and amount to an arbitrary exercise of governmental power.

82. Mr. Hodge had a constitutional right to be free from the unlawful and

excessive use of force pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. As

a result of the acts described herein, Mr. Hodge was subjected to unlawful and

excessive force at the hands of Vaughn.

83. The force used by Vaughn amounted to unlawful force that carried

with it a high risk of causing serious bodily harm to Mr. Hodge, was unnecessary

and unreasonable under the circumstances then and there existing.

-32-


84. Before Vaughn’s attack on Mr. Hodge, the only arguably unlawful act

committed by Mr. Hodge that day was not immediately stopping after the side

mirrors on his truck and Ms. Bailey’s SUV made contact on a narrow rural road.

Even if, arguendo, Mr. Hodge had left the scene where the two vehicles made

impact, at most, he committed a Class C misdemeanor under Tennessee law. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-102.

85. This conduct by Mr. Hodge hardly justifies him being confronted at

gunpoint. No reasonable officer would have acted as Vaughn did and no

reasonable officer would have acted in the manner described in this Complaint.

86. Blount County, the BCSD, Sheriff Berrong, and the other supervisors

named and not named herein as Defendants have taken no disciplinary action

against Vaughn (or any other Defendant) despite overwhelming evidence

demanding suspension, termination, or other reprimand.

87. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the right to make

an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some

degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. However, the application

of the reasonableness standard requires a particularized inquiry into the totality

of the circumstances, including a consideration of the severity of the crime at

issue (here a Class C Misdemeanor), whether the suspect poses an immediate

threat to the safety of the officers or others (Mr. Hodge was not a criminal and

immediately pulled to the side of the road and placed his hands on the steering

-33-


wheel), and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by

flight (a disinterested witness stated that Mr. Hodge was not resisting or trying to

flee, he was merely slow to react due to his medical condition).

88. On or about June 10, 2015, Vaughn acted under color of law and his

negligence and intentional acts deprived Mr. Hodge of rights secured to him under

the Constitution. His actions proximately caused injuries to Mr. Hodge and his

disregard of Mr. Hodge’s civil rights was done by either actual malice or deliberate

indifference to Mr. Hodge’s civil rights.

89. Vaughn is also individually liable for the violation of Mr. Hodge’s civil

rights. As a result, Mr. Hodge suffered substantial and serious psychological

injury to his body and mind, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

90. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses

under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988

Use of Unlawful and Excessive Forceand Cruel and Unusual Punishment

(Against Vaughn)



verbatim herein.

-34-


92. After Vaughn confronted Mr. Hodge at gun-point as he sat motionless

in his truck with both of his hands on his truck’s steering wheel, Vaughn grabbed

Mr. Hodge by the wrist and shirt collar and violently jerked him out of his truck,

throwing him hard face-first onto the asphalt pavement, proximately causing

traumatic injuries to Mr. Hodge’s head, face, nose, neck, wrist, arm, shoulder, and

legs, as elsewhere described.

93. At most, Mr. Hodge had committed a Class C misdemeanor under

Tennessee law. This alleged offense hardly justifies him being grabbed and jerked

from his truck and violently thrown face-down onto the pavement and left there

for no less than fifteen minutes.

94. On June 10, 2015, Vaughn violated Mr. Hodge’s civil rights by using

a degree of physical force unnecessary and not objectively reasonable under the

circumstances. Vaughn’s actions proximately caused injuries to Mr. Hodge and

his disregard of Mr. Hodge’s civil rights was done by either actual malice or

deliberate indifference to Mr. Hodge’s civil rights.

95. Vaughn is individually liable for the violation of Mr. Hodge’s civil

rights. As a result, Mr. Hodge suffered substantial physical and serious

psychological injury to his body and mind, pain and suffering, and medical

expenses.


under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

-35-


COUNT THREE


42 U.S.C. §§ 1983

Failure to Train and Supervise and KnowinglyAcquiescing in Unconstitutional Conduct of Subordinates

(Against Berrong, Clark, Talbott, Long, and Moore )



verbatim herein.

98. About 10 hours after the incident, at about 1:28 a.m. on June 11,

2016, Lieutenant Moore, a supervisory officer of the BCSD, sent an email to

Captain Clark, Chief Talbott, and Chief Long summarizing the results of his

“investigation” of Vaughn’s use-of-force against Mr. Hodge. Lieutenant Moore

concluded that Vaughn’s use-of-force against Mr. Hodge “was justified” and that

“. . . Vaughn did a great job in getting him stopped and in custody.”

99. Lieutenant Moore’s email implied that the so-called “investigation”

was a mere sham. He stated that he “handled the intial (sic) complaint with kid

gloves” and revealed to his superiors that he merely wanted Mr. Hodge’s family to

believe that he was conducting a thorough investigation of the incident.

Lieutenant Moore said that “[w]ith the current events as they are in the media, his

-36-


age, and so on I felt it important to have the family feel as though a good

investigation was being put into what had occurred.”

100. Yet, in the email to his superiors, Lieutenant Moore implies that he

did not take the Hodge family’s complaint seriously, deriding Mr. Hodge’s

daughter, a nurse at Knox County’s Jail, as having “a pre-conceived notion” about

what happened and thinking she knew “something about the use of

force/excessive force.” He demonstrated that he cared less about the truth than

he did about public relations, Lieutenant Moore reported that he wanted to “nail”

Mr. Hodge “down with a statement before he may alter his story later.”

101. Not surprisingly, nothing in Vaughn’s employment file, previously

produced by Blount County, gives the slightest hint or indication that Vaughn was

given so much as a “slap-on-the-wrist,” much less a reprimand, for his use-of-

force against Mr. Hodge or his handling of the traffic stop. Rather, at least four

supervisory personnel were presented with an opportunity to implement corrective

action against Vaughn, but did not. Instead, they implicitly authorized, approved,

or knowingly acquiesced in Lieutenant Moore’s assessment that the

unconstitutional conduct of Vaughn “was justified” and that Vaughn “did a great

job” implicitly acquiescing in Vaughn’s escessive uses-of-force as well.

102. But these are not the only supervisors who bear responsibility for

Vaughn’s actions. Sheriff Berrong had a duty to train and supervise BCSD

officers to make procedurally proper traffic stops and avoid the use of excessive

-37-


force. Sheriff Berrong failed to train and supervise Vaughn (and other officers)

properly; failed to competently and properly investigate allegations of excessive

force; and attempted to cover-up the unnecessary and unreasonable use-of-force

by conducting a sham investigation of the incident. Sheriff Berrong at least

implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional

conduct of Vaughn.

103. It is highly unlikely that an incident such as that described herein

would not be reviewed by Sheriff Berrong. Vaughn was not disciplined for his use

of excessive force. Sheriff Berrong acquiesced in Vaughn’s actions.

104. Ratification of Vaughn’s conduct by Sheriff Berrong and other

supervisors sent a message that officers are allowed to do whatever they want,

whenever they want, to whomever they want, irrespective of the United States

Constitution. Sheriff Berrong was involved, at least in part, in creating and

enforcing all BCSD policies. Here, he did not punish officer misconduct, including

his use of excessive force, but “rubber stamped” Vaughn’s misconduct.

105. Defendants’ actions proximately caused injuries to Mr. Hodge.

Defendants’ disregard of Mr. Hodge’s civil rights was done by either actual malice

or deliberate indifference to Mr. Hodge’s civil rights.

106. Defendants are individually liable for violation of Mr. Hodge’s civil

rights. Mr. Hodge suffered substantial physical and serious psychological injury

to his body and mind, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

-38-


107. The conduct of the Individual Defendants, in their individual

capacities, was intentional, malicious, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard

of Mr. Hodge’s constitutional rights and/or grossly negligent in that this conduct

shocks the conscience and is fundamentally offensive to a civilized society, so as

to justify the imposition of punitive damages on these Defendants in their

individual capacity.


under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT FOUR


(MONELL CLAIM)

42 U.S.C. §§, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988(Against Blount County)



verbatim herein.

110. Blount County, the BCSD, and Sheriff Berrong failed to train and

supervise officers or employees to avoid the use of excessive force, failed to

investigate the allegations of excessive force properly, and attempted to cover-up

unconstitutional conduct by exonerating employees in an effort to escape liability.

111. Blount County had a duty of care to Mr. Hodge to ensure that its

officers and agents were properly trained in the appropriate procedure for making

-39-


a traffic stop and the use-of-force, particularly with respect to especially

vulnerable citizens. This duty extends to ensuring that its officers and agents

were properly trained concerning the limits of their authority to use force,

particularly as to especially vulnerable citizens. The duty further extends to

ensure that its supervisory officers are properly trained not to overlook or condone

unnecessary and unreasonable uses-of-force and unlawful seizures by its officers

and agents, particularly as to especially vulnerable citizens. Blount County also

has a duty to train its sworn officers to report officer abuse and unreasonable

uses-of-force. These duties were all breached, as described herein.

112. Blount County also has a duty to properly supervise its officers and

employees and to ensure that its supervisory officers do not condone unnecessary

force by its officers and employees in their dealings with the public.

113. Here, Lieutenant Moore conducting a sham “investigation” in which:

# he did not even interview the only witness to theincident who was not directly involved;

# he revealed to his superiors that he merely wanted Mr.Hodge’s family to believe that he was conducting aninvestigation of the incident (“[w]ith the current events asthey are in the media, his age, and so on I felt itimportant to have the family feel as though a goodinvestigation was being put into what had occurred”);and

# his primary goal was to “nail” Mr. Hodge “down with astatement before he may alter his story later”

-40-


114. By ratifying Vaughn’s use-of-force as “justified,” including his un-

holstering his gun and pointing it at Mr. Hodge, grabbing and jerking Mr. Hodge

out of his truck, and throwing him face-first onto the pavement, Lieutenant

Moore, Captain Clark, and Chiefs Talbott and Long knowingly acquiesced in the

unconstitutional conduct of their subordinate through the execution of their job

functions. Nor did Sheriff Berrong take any action to remedy Lieutenant Moore’s

woefully deficient investigation, discipline Vaughn, or take corrective action.

115. These actions of Vaughn’s superiors constitute ratification and render

Blount County liable to Plaintiff.

116. Blount County and the BCSD’s failure to develop and promulgate

lawful policies outlining the guidelines for traffic stops and the appropriate use-of-

force and to properly train its officers and agents to follow such guidelines

constitute deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of citizens.

117. Vaughn’s use of excessive force against Mr. Hodge evidenced a

complete lack of training in proper traffic stop-procedures as well as methods

related to dealing with individuals such as Mr. Hodge. The failure of his

supervisors to recognize or appreciate the gravity of Vaughn’s actions imply that

they, too, found no wrong in Vaughn’s conduct, giving officers the “green light” to

violate the civil rights of citizens.

118. Vaughn’s employment file reveals that he was not disciplined for his

use-of-force against Mr. Hodge or his handling of the traffic stop.

-41-


119. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits

Blount County from having any custom, policy, or procedure which would

constitute the proximate cause of its officers’ deprivation of any citizen’s

constitutional rights. Where such a custom, policy, or procedure has resulted in

its officers’ deprivations of a citizen's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983,

sovereign immunity is removed.

120. Official policy usually exists in the form of written policy statements,

ordinances, or regulations, but may also arise in the form of a widespread practice

that is so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents

municipal policy.

121. The actions and inactions of the aforementioned supervisors

demonstrate that prior to June 10, 2015, Blount County and the BCSD had

developed and maintained a policy, custom, or practice exhibiting deliberate

indifference to the unreasonable use of force, which ultimately caused the

violation of Mr. Hodge’s civil rights.

122. Here, Vaughn believed that his actions would not be properly

monitored or corrected by supervisory officers and that his misconduct would be

tolerated and accepted. Vaughn’s belief turned out to be exactly right.

123. All of these actions were done in violation of Mr. Hodge’s civil rights

under color of state law and constituted a systematic custom, policy, practice, and

procedure instituted for denial of civil rights.

-42-


124. All of these failures demonstrate a widespread practice or custom that

resulted in the deprivation of Constitutional rights in this case. Blount County

and the BCSD, while they may have established certain “policies and procedures”

regarding the procedure for traffic stops and the use-of-force, fail to enforce those

policies and/or to appropriately discipline and/or sanction those who disregard

those policies and procedures, establishing, by custom and usage, a de facto

policy of, among other things, allowing the unnecessary and unreasonable use-of-

force to go unchecked.

125. Such acts and omissions on the part of all Defendants, including the

Doe Defendants, constitute a violation of §1983 and were done to deprive Mr.

Hodge of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

126. The actions of the Defendants were done with actual malice/willful

and wanton indifference toward Mr. Hodge and with deliberate disregard for his

constitutional rights and statutory rights, constitute deliberate indifference, and

were the direct and proximate cause of Mr. Hodge’s injuries.

127. Mr. Hodge suffered substantial physical and serious psychological

injury to his body and mind, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

128. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and actual damages, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1988. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, costs and

expenses under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

-43-


COUNT FIVE

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)(Against All Defendants)



verbatim herein.

130. After Mr. Hodge was grabbed and jerked out his truck and thrown

face-first onto the asphalt pavement, no fewer than eight officers, including

supervisors, arrived on the scene and viewed Mr. Hodge in significant physical

distress, yet there is nothing in the files or reports produced by Blount County

that even hints that a suggestion was made – by any BCSD officer or employee –

to transport Mr. Hodge to a hospital. Instead, he was taken to the Blount County

Jail, where he stayed for several hours, until his family bailed him out of jail and

took him to an emergency room.

131. As Mr. Hodge was in obvious distress, bleeding from his head, face,

nose, arms, and legs, this failure to provide medical care was not inadvertent. All

of this demonstrates that each officer’s failure to attend to Mr. Hodge’s serious

medical needs or provide medical care to Mr. Hodge constituted a violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment.

-44-


132. Why was it necessary to get Mr. Hodge to a hospital? First, Mr. Hodge

was a multiple stroke victim on anticoagulants to prevent his blood from clotting.

Mr. Hodge was bleeding profusely from his head, face, and nose at the scene.

Detective Davis knew, or should have known about Mr. Hodge’s medical condition,

as Mr. Hodge’s son had appeared at the scene before Mr. Hodge was transported

to Blount County Jail, and advised Detective Davis of his father’s precarious

medical condition. Second, Mr. Hodge also suffered from dementia, which affected

his cognitive functioning, causing, among other things, his speech and movements

to be noticeably slow. According to his neurologist, Mr. Hodge suffered obvious

trauma to his head when his head hit the pavement. From this point until the

end of his life, Mr. Hodge’s cognitive functioning drastically decreased and his

quality of life suffered immensely. There is verifying medical evidence that

establishes the detrimental effect of the delay in medical treatment.

133. This failure to provide medical treatment rose to a Constitutional

violation. As a proximate result of the conduct of these Defendants, Mr. Hodge

suffered personal injury and emotional distress and incurred general damages for

the deprivation of his Constitutional rights.

-45-


COUNT SIX

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988

Failure to Protect(Against All Defendants)



verbatim herein.

135. Defendants owed a duty of care to avoid harming Mr. Hodge and to

protect him. Therefore, a special relationship existed between Mr Hodge and the

Defendants, which gave rise to their duty to protect him. Defendants’ breached

that duty by permitting Vaughn to make a traffic stop and arrest and by not

providing the clearly injured Mr. Hodge with adequate medical care. The

aforementioned breaches of duties by Defendants constitutes violations of Mr.

Hodge’s civil rights in contravention of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

136. Defendants had a duty to protect Plaintiff from violence at the hands

of the use of excessive force by BCSD personnel. Defendants’ deliberate

indifference and reckless disregard for Mr. Hodge’s safety subjected him to

Vaughn’s use of excessive force.

137. As a direct and proximate result, Mr. Hodge suffered substantial

physical and serious psychological injury to his body and mind, pain and

suffering, and medical expenses.

-46-



under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT SEVEN

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

TENN. CODE ANN. § 8-8-301 Et. Seq.(Against Vaughn)



verbatim herein.

140. The above-described actions by Vaughn, acting under color of law and

in the course and scope of their employment, constitute assault and battery

against Mr. Hodge.

141. Vaughn, through the actions described above, did intentionally

attempt to do and did serious bodily harm to Mr. Hodge and caused him

psychological trauma. Vaughn also possessed a contemporaneous and/or

appearance of the present ability to cause such harm and trauma. Accordingly,

Vaughn committed an assault against Mr. Hodge and made contact with Mr.

Hodge in a harmful and offensive way, committing battery against Mr. Hodge.

142. Defendants Blount County and the BCSD are responsible for the acts

of their employees and agents pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior and

are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-8-301 et seq.

-47-


143. Mr. Hodge suffered physical and psychological injuries as a proximate

result of Vaughn’s assault and battery.

COUNT EIGHT

OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT/ INTENTIONALINFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Against All Defendants)



verbatim herein.

145. The allegations outlined herein against the individually named

Defendants – including, but not limited to, Vaughn confronting Mr. Hodge with a

gun, then grabbing and jerking Mr. Hodge out of his truck and throwing him face-

first onto the pavement, while acting under color of law – were outrageous and

utterly intolerable in a civilized society, and were done with a reckless disregard

of the probability of causing emotional distress.

146. The conduct of the Defendants, as alleged above, was outrageous.

Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that their conduct

would result in injuries and severe emotional distress to Mr. Hodge, and their

conduct was perpetrated with the intent to inflict, or with reckless disregard of the

probability of inflicting, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress upon Mr.

Hodge.

-48-


147. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were done knowingly,

intentionally, and maliciously, for the purpose of harassment, oppression and

inflicting injury upon Mr. Hodge, and in reckless, wanton and callous disregard

of his safety, security, and civil rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiff claims punitive

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

148. As a result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Hodge sustained and

suffered personal injuries, as elsewhere alleged.

149. The wrongful acts of the individually named Defendants were willful,

oppressive, intentional and malicious; therefore, punitive damages should be

assessed against Defendants in an amount deemed sufficient to punish and deter

Defendants and others in similar positions of authority from engaging in similar

conduct in the future.

150. Blount County is liable to Plaintiff under Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-301,

et seq.

COUNT NINE

TENNESSEE GOVERNMENTAL TORT LIABILITY ACT/NEGLIGENCE

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101(Against All Defendants)



verbatim herein.

-49-


152. Blount County was responsible for the operation and the supervision

of the Individual Defendants.

153. Pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, the

Defendants owed Mr. Hodge a duty of care to be free from excessive force and

cruel and unusual punishment and to provide him with a safe environment and

adequate medical care while he was detained in their custody.

154. Defendants breached the duty of care as set forth herein and are

therefore liable to Plaintiff.

155. Plaintiff seeks money damages in the maximum amount allowed

under Tennessee law.

COUNT TEN

LOSS OF SOCIETY AND CONSORTIUM

(By Judy R. Hodge)



verbatim herein.

157. As a direct and proximate result of the assault by Vaughn on Mr.

Hodge, Plaintiff Judy R. Hodge, individually, has sustained emotional distress and

suffering caused by seeing her husband suffer serious pain and discomfort due

to the injuries that he received as a direct result of the assault, which was caused

by the wanton acts of Vaughn.

-50-


158. As a direct and proximate result of the assault by Vaughn on Mr.

Hodge, Plaintiff, Judy R. Hodge, individually, lost the services, companionship,

consortium and society of her husband, to which she was entitled as his wife,

thus Vaughn is liable to Plaintiff, Judy R. Hodge, individually, for the aforesaid

loss.

VII. JURY DEMAND

159. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands

a trial by jury of all of the claims asserted in this Complaint so triable.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:

A. That the summons be issued and that Defendants be duly served with

a copy of this Complaint and required to answer same;

B. That the Court find that Defendants have engaged in the conduct and

statutory and common law violations alleged herein;

C. That Plaintiff Judy R. Hodge, as personal representative of the Estate

of Larry G. Hodge, be awarded such damages as will fully compensate Plaintiff for

all injuries caused by Defendants’ actions and that a judgment in favor of Plaintiff

be entered;

D. That Plaintiff Judy R. Hodge, as personal representative of the Estate

of Larry G. Hodge, be awarded compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined by the trier of fact, not to exceed $2,500,000;

-51-


E. That Plaintiff Judy R. Hodge, as personal representative of the Estate

of Larry G. Hodge, be awarded punitive damages in an amount to be determined

by the trier of fact, not to exceed $3,500,000;

F. That Plaintiff, Judy R. Hodge, individually, be awarded $250,000 for

her loss of society and consortium;

G. That Plaintiff Judy R. Hodge, individually and as personal

representative of the Estate of Larry G. Hodge, recover costs for this suit,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees and discretionary costs, as provided by law;

H. That Plaintiff Judy R. Hodge, individually and as personal

representative of the Estate of Larry G. Hodge, be awarded pre-judgment and post-

judgment interest as permitted by common law or applicable statute and such

other or further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this 10th day of June, 2016.

/s/ Lance K. Baker Lance K. BakerTenn. Bar #: 032945THE BAKER LAW FIRM550 Main Street, Suite 600Knoxville, TN 37902Tel: 865-525-7028Fax: [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff

-52-


mailto:[email protected]

Case 3:16-cv-00317-PLR-CCS Document 1-1 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 57








AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of Tennessee

JUDY R. HODGE, individually, and as personal representative of the ESTATE of Larry Glenn Hodge,

BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE, a governmental entity, et al.,

Blounty County, Tennessee County Mayor Ed MitchellBlount County Courthouse341 Court Street Maryville, TN 37804

LANCE K. BAKERTHE BAKER LAW FIRM 550 WEST MAIN STREET, Suite 600Knoxville, TN 37902

06/10/2016


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Sheriff James Berrong940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkway. Maryville, TN 37804

LANCE K. BAKERTHE BAKER LAW FIRM550 WEST MAIN STREET, Suite 600Knoxville, TN 37902

06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Deputy Chief James Long940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Deputy Chief Ron Talbott940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Detective Doug Davis940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Henry Vaughn 940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Kevin Clendenen940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Lieutenant Doug Moore940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





Patrol Captain Jeff Clark940 E. Lamar Alexander Pkwy. Maryville, TN 37804


06/10/2016



Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE





on (date) ; or






on (date) ; or



.





Server’s address


0.00


JS 44 (Rev. 11/15) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition

’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1 OriginalProceeding

’ 2 Removed fromState Court

’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated orReopened

’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JUDY R. HODGE, individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of Larry Glenn Hodge

Blount County, Tennessee, a governmental entity, et al.,

Blount Blount

Lance K. Baker, The Baker Law Firm 550 W. Main St., Bank of America Ctr., Ste. 600, Knoxville, TN 37902

42 U.S.C. Section 1983

Violation of civil rights by use of excessive force and cruel and inhuman punishment

6,250,000.00


JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/15)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.


Documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KNOXVILLE DIVISION v. ) NO ...media.graytvinc.com/documents/Federal+lawusit+against+Blount+County.pdf · extraordinary use of excessive force by Vaughn