CIRCUIT COURT FOR HAMILTON COUNTY

State of Tennessee
NANCY LEE MASON,
Plaintiff,
~v~
HAMILTON COUNTY
GOVERNMENT,
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,
OFFICER GREG TATE,
In his official capacity as an
agent for City of Chattanooga
and in his individual capacity,
SGT. RODNEY TERRELL,
In his official capacity as an
agent for Hamilton County Government
and in his individual capacity,
C/O CHAUNCEY MORRISON,
In her official capacity as an
agent for Hamilton County Government
and in her individual capacity,
C/O CHARLES LOWERY, III,
In his official capacity as an
agent for Hamilton County Government
and in his individual capacity,
C/O BRENDAN BEADLE,
In his official capacity as an
agent for Hamilton County Government
and in his individual capacity,
C/O JOSHUA ROSS,
In his official capacity as an
agent for Hamilton County Government
and in his individual capacity.
Defendants.

~1~

No. ____________
JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, for her causes of action, will show the Court:
Introduction:
1.

This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and

1988 to redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiff by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and for violations of the common laws of the
State of Tennessee by the defendants and further brought by plaintiff pursuant to the Tennessee
Governmental Tort Liability Act.
2.

Plaintiff further brings this action against the defendant, Hamilton County

Government (County) pursuant to TENN. CODE ANN. 8-8-302.

3.

Plaintiff avers that the individually named defendant, Sgt. Rodney Terrell

(Terrell), acted as corrections officer, agent, and law enforcement officer employed by the
County and was at all times relevant to this matter acting under color of law and under color of
his office with the County.
4.

Plaintiff avers that the individually named defendant, C/O Chauncey Morrison

(Morrison), acted as corrections officer, agent, and law enforcement officer employed by the
County and was at all times relevant to this matter acting under color of law and under color of
her office with the County.
5.

Plaintiff avers that the individually named defendant, C/O Charles Lowery, III

(Lowery), acted as corrections officer, agent, and law enforcement officer employed by the
County and was at all times relevant to this matter acting under color of law and under color of
his office with the County.

~2~

6.

Plaintiff avers that the individually named defendant, C/O Brendan Beadle

(Beadle), acted as corrections officer, agent, and law enforcement officer employed by the
County and was at all times relevant to this matter acting under color of law and under color of
his office with the County.
7.

Plaintiff avers that the individually named defendant, C/O Joshua Ross (Ross),

acted as corrections officer, agent, and law enforcement officer employed by the County and was
at all times relevant to this matter acting under color of law and under color of his office with the
County.
8.

Plaintiff avers that the individually named defendant, Officer Greg Tate (Tate),

acted as a police officer, agent, and law enforcement officer employed by the City of
Chattanooga (City) and was at all times relevant to this matter acting under color of law and
under color of his office with the City.
9.

Plaintiff maintains that individual defendants Terrell, Morrison, Lowery, Beadle

and Ross committed these violations, further set forth herein, as a result of policies, customs,
practices, and/or procedures of the County.
10.

Plaintiff maintains that individual defendant Tate committed these violations,

further set forth herein, as a result of policies, customs, practices, and/or procedures of the City.
11.

In addition, plaintiff avers that the individual defendants acts and omissions

subjected plaintiff to mental anguish, emotional distress, and severe physical injuries that require
continued care and subject the plaintiff to continued physical pain and a reduced use of her
injured arm and a reduced ability to enjoy life.
12.

At all times during the events herein described the individual defendants were

engaged in a joint venture and assisted each other in performing the various acts described and

~3~

lent their physical presence and support in performing their various actions as described and lent
the authority of their respective offices to each other during the said events.
13.

At all times during the events herein described the individual defendants gave

statements to investigators that were designed to minimize the actions of Terrell and to assist one
another in covering up the violations described further in this Complaint.
Jurisdiction and Venue:
14.

This is an action to redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiff by the

First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments (specifically the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution (enforceable through 42 U.S.C.
1983) and for violations of Tennessee common law. Thus, as to the 1983 claims, this Court is
vested with original jurisdiction pursuant to the authority stated in Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S.
729 (2009). This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims pursuant
to TENN. CODE ANN. 16-10-101, et seq.
15.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to TENN. CODE ANN. 20-4-102. All acts

complained of occurred within Hamilton County.

a. Plaintiff is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
b. To the best of plaintiffs knowledge the individual defendants are residents of
Hamilton County, Tennessee.
c. County and City are political sub-divisions of the State of Tennessee.
The Parties:
16.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, plaintiff was a citizen of the United

States and resident and citizen of the State of Tennessee.

~4~

17.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, the County was a political sub-

division of the State of Tennessee organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Tennessee.
a.

The County finances its law enforcement department identified and

averred as the Hamilton County Sheriffs Department (sheriffs
department) and provides rules and regulations for the operation of the
sheriffs department.

b.

The County provides oversight of the hiring, training, discipline, and

retention of all personnel in its law enforcement department.

18.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, the County is responsible for the

creation and maintenance of its sheriffs department, which is a law enforcement agency created
under Tennessee state law and regulated by the laws of the State of Tennessee as to:
a.

The creation and operation of the Hamilton County Jail (jail);

b.

The safe and humane treatment of all persons held in the jail and while in
the jail to not be treated with undue rigor;

c.

The training and certification of its corrections employees;

d.

The safety of persons detained or otherwise within the custody of its

individual corrections officers and agents;

e.

To create rules and regulations to properly identify officers who have a

recurring pattern of misconduct or conduct that would place its
supervisory personnel on notice and the County on notice of officers who
are a threat to citizens within its jurisdiction;

~5~

f.

To create rules and regulations to properly investigate corrections officers

who have a recurring pattern of misconduct or conduct that would place its
supervisory personnel on notice and the County on notice of officers who
are a threat to citizens within its jurisdiction;

g.

Not to hire, retain, re-hire, or promote corrections officers who have a

recurring pattern of misconduct or conduct that would place its
supervisory personnel on notice and the County on notice of officers who
are a threat to citizens within its jurisdiction;

h.

To properly and promptly investigate claims by citizens of misconduct by

its officers;

i.

To properly train all of its corrections officers and agents to intervene and
stop or to promptly report the misconduct of other corrections officers and
agents who violate the constitutional rights of all persons held in custody
in the jail, and

j.

To properly train all of its corrections officers and agents to not retaliate
against citizens when such citizens report or state they will report such
officers and agents to government authorities.

19.

Specifically, and at all times relevant to this cause of action, the County is

responsible for the medical care of plaintiff pursuant to TENN. CODE ANN. 41-4-115 and the
expansive interpretation of that statute in Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth. v. Bradley
County, 249 S.W.3d 361, 366-367 (Tenn. 2008).

~6~

20.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, the City is responsible for the creation

and maintenance of its police department, which is a law enforcement agency created under
Tennessee state law and regulated by the laws of the State of Tennessee as to:
a.

The training and certification of its police officer employees;

b.

The safety of persons detained or otherwise within the custody of its

individual police officers and agents;

c.

The training and certification of its police officer employees;

d.

The safety of persons detained or otherwise within the custody of its

individual police officer employees and agents;

e.

To create rules and regulations to properly identify officers who have a

recurring pattern of misconduct or conduct that would place its
supervisory personnel on notice and the City on notice of police officers
who are a threat to citizens within its jurisdiction;

f.

To create rules and regulations to properly investigate police officers who

have a recurring pattern of misconduct or conduct that would place its
supervisory personnel on notice and the City on notice of police officers
who are a threat to citizens within its jurisdiction;

g.

Not to hire, retain, re-hire, or promote police officers who have a recurring
pattern of misconduct or conduct that would place its supervisory
personnel on notice and the City on notice of police officers who are a
threat to citizens within its jurisdiction;

h.

To properly and promptly investigate claims by citizens of misconduct by

its police officers; and

~7~

i.

To properly train all of its police officers and agents to intervene and stop
or to promptly report the misconduct of other law enforcement or other
corrections officers and agents who violate the constitutional rights of all
persons.

21.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, the individual defendants Terrell,

Chambers, Morrison, Lowery, Beadle, and Ross were employed by the County and acted under
the color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage and operated under color of
their respective offices. In addition:
a.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, these individual defendants

acted in their official capacities as agents, servants, and employees, as
defined under TENN. CODE ANN. 29-20-102, for the County. Plaintiff
sues these individual defendants in their individual and official capacities.

22.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, the individual defendant Tate was

employed by the City and acted under the color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage and operated under color of his office. In addition:
a.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, Tate acted in his/her official
capacity as agent, servant, and employee, as defined under TENN. CODE
ANN. 29-20-102, for the City. Plaintiff sues this defendant in his
individual and official capacity.

Factual Basis of Complaint:

23.

On March 21, 2015, Tate arrested plaintiff for theft and transported her to the jail.

24.

Plaintiff, at the time, was 61 years old and of small stature and weight.

25.

At the time of the arrest, Tate searched plaintiffs purse and her person.

~8~

a.
26.

Tate did not find any weapons during these searches.

Upon arrival at the jail, plaintiff cooperated with Tates directions.

a.

Tate had not relinquished his custody of the plaintiff fully to the County,
for he had not completed the booking process required before
relinquishing his custody.

b.
27.

Tate was present for the entire series of events described herein.

Lowery had the duty to search and catalog any and all property plaintiff had on

her or her person during the booking process and before placing the plaintiff into the population
of inmates at the jail.
a.
28.

Plaintiff cooperated with Lowery while Lowery performed his duties.

Morrison had the duty to search plaintiff due to the gender difference between

plaintiff and Lowery.

29.

Plaintiff cooperated with Morrisons search, but plaintiff did not want to remove

her earrings and other jewelry.

30.

Terrell arrived with defendants Ross, and Beadle, and stood about 4 feet from

plaintiff with at least two of the other defendants next to and behind Terrell.
31.

Plaintiff told Terrell that she was going to report him, and Terrell told plaintiff

to step over there and you can report all you want.
32.

Terrell un-holstered his Taser and told plaintiff that he would not keep telling

plaintiff to step over there and remove her earrings and jewelry.
33.

Without warning, Terrell shot plaintiff with the Taser, causing her to fall onto the

hard floor on her right side, severely fracturing plaintiffs right wrist.

~9~

34.

Terrell kept the Taser engaged with the plaintiff and after the 5-second cycle

engaged in the following conversation:

Terrell:

Now will you be able to get up and place your earrings on this?

Plaintiff:

Yes.

Terrell:

You can? So get up and place your earrings and all your jewelry
on this counter.

35.

Plaintiff:

You broke my arm.

Terrell:

I didnt break your arm, you broke it.

Terrell spent less than 25 seconds talking with plaintiff before injuring plaintiff

with the Taser.

36.

Despite plaintiffs notification to the individual defendants that her arm was

broken, the individual defendants unnecessarily delayed taking plaintiff to a hospital emergency
room for treatment for her severe injuries.
37.

Instead, the individual defendants simply sat the plaintiff on a bench and waited

for a County medical person to arrive.

38.

Despite the superior numbers of the individual defendants, to include at least one

unidentified Chattanooga police officer, the physical size, weight, age disparity between the
plaintiff and the individual defendants, and the amount of trained and available jail personnel
other than those present in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff, Terrell used excessive force
against the plaintiff and such force was excessive under the circumstances.
39.

The individual defendants were fully aware of the hard surface plaintiff would

land upon and fully aware (through their training with their respective police agencies and

~ 10 ~

employers) that the Taser would cause plaintiff to uncontrollably fall onto the hard surface and
thus sustain injury.
40.

Under the circumstances described herein, no reasonable corrections officer or

police officer would have used such force or would have allowed Terrell to use such force.
41.

The individual defendants gave false statements or wrote false reports to County

investigators to justify or to minimize the conduct of Terrell.

a.

Lowery wrote in a report that plaintiff was combative.

b.

Morrison wrote in a report that plaintiff was combative.

c.

Terrell gave a report that he warned plaintiff he would use his Taser on
plaintiff if plaintiff did not comply with the search of her person. Video
and audio does not reveal any such warning.

d.

Tate stated that Terrells use of force against plaintiff was justified.

e.

Beadle gave a statement Terrells use of force against plaintiff was not
excessive.

f.

Ross gave a statement that justified Terrells use of force against plaintiff
and stated that County policy required plaintiff to remove her jewelry and
since plaintiff refused Terrell was justified in using his Taser. Ross also
claimed Terrell warned plaintiff he would use his Taser if she did not
remove her jewelry, but no audio and video recording of the incident
reveals any such warning.

42.

Terrell wrote a use of force report wherein he falsely claimed a justified use of the

Taser on plaintiff, which 3 of Terrells supervisors holding the ranks of Lieutenant, Captain, and
Administration approved and endorsed as Terrell having followed Policy/Training.

~ 11 ~

43.

At no time did any of the individual defendants ever attempt to stop Terrell from

his use of force on the plaintiff.

a.

Morrison walked away from the scene after Terrell used his Taser on
plaintiff and had no other contact or involvement with the situation.

44.

At no time did any of the individual defendants report Terrells unnecessary use

of force to anyone before being confronted by Detective Robert Lee of the Hamilton County
Sheriffs Department.
Facts as to the City:
45.

The City has a history of police officers failure to intervene in the unlawful use

of force and a failure to report the unlawful use of force by fellow officers against citizens as
noted in the incident involving Adam Tatum on June 12, 2012.
46.

The City has a pattern of overlooking or providing excuses and reasons to justify

the misconduct of its officers and civilian employees in order to retain, promote, and/or re-hire
officers. Such a pattern created the environment that allowed Tate to believe that he could
provide statements to provide cover for Terrell. Plaintiff avers the following past incidents of
police officer misconduct and the seemingly lax responses of the City to these examples
contributed to Plaintiffs damages:
a.

The City, through its police command officers, refused to relieve former
assistant police chief Jeanie Snyder of all duties after three much
publicized events wherein [1] she appeared under the influence while
armed and in a Gwinnett County, Georgia mall whereupon City police
officers drove to said county and took Snyder back to Tennessee; [2] was
wandering about in a Marion County wood which required a large law

~ 12 ~

enforcement response to find her at much costs to the Tennessee

taxpayers; [3] found unconscious at her home due to prescription drug use
after she failed to report for a staff meeting.
b.

The City refused to follow the recommendations of its own Internal

Affairs unit to discipline Captain Edwin McPherson for untruthfulness
after the investigators found McPherson took actions to interfere with a
murder investigation that involved his niece as a suspect. The Citys
command cleared McPherson without review by an entity outside of the
police department.

c.

The City refused to fire Detective Karl Fields after he made false claims
that he was a victim of a carjacking in order to cover up that he wrecked
his car while drunk and shooting his gun. The City allowed Fields to
remain as a homicide investigator, despite his obvious deceit that could
have caused an innocent person to be charged with carjacking.

d.

The City fired, then, rehired officer Steven Campbell for his part in the
infamous beating of two handcuffed suspects in the parking lot of Kankus
gas station, which resulted in a settled federal lawsuit this Court in
McCallum and Jones v. City of Chattanooga, et al . The City later
assigned Campbell to the S.W.A.T team for the City and assignment as an
investigator/detective.

e.

The City suspended, but did not fire defendant Wenger for his unlawful
assault of one of the two men in the aforesaid Kankus incident which
resulted in Trent Jones receiving a facial fracture. Rather than fire

~ 13 ~

Wenger, the City later promoted Wenger to a detective position, and

eventually assigned Wenger to handle the investigation of this incident.
f.

The City refused to fire former detective Kenneth Freeman for his videorecorded assault of a 71 year old greeter at Wal-Mart, which resulted in in
Walker v. City of Chattanooga in this court. The video also captured
Freeman shoving through a glass door a person who came to the aid of the
greeter. Edwin McPherson was present and stood by. Despite the clear
video evidence of the assault, and video evidence of Freeman assaulting
an attorney in the Hamilton County Courthouse, the City allowed Freeman
to remain a detective. Freeman had a long history of citizen and internal
complaints that placed the City on notice of his propensity for misconduct.
Despite the long history and the video evidence of assault on two persons
at Wal-mart and the attorney (Lloyd Levitt), it wasnt until a non-video
recorded claim of domestic assault against Freeman arose that the City
finally terminated Freemans employment. The City never took action to
address McPhersons failure to render aid to the greeter or to stop Freeman
from injuring the greeter.

g.

The City fired officers Steven Miller and Daniel Gibbs for macing then
placing a homeless man, Robert Williams (Williams), in the trunk of
Gibbs police car and transporting Williams to Camp Jordan Park in East
Ridge, where the officers left Williams by the side of the road. Despite
firing these two officers for excessive force and

~ 14 ~

lying about the

incident the City rehired allowed these two officers to return to their
employment as police officers.
h.

Despite having overwhelming video evidence of police brutality in the

Tatum v. City of Chattanooga, et al. case in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Chattanooga (No. 1:13-cv-26), the City failed to
remove defendants Sean Emmer, Adam Cooley, and Chip Smith from
duty until many days later and only after a representative of Tatum made a
complaint to the City. The City also failed to take action against those
officers present during the abuse of Tatum by Emmer, Cooley, and Smith
when such officers failed to stop or report the abuse of Tatum.

i.

The City was aware of numerous excessive force complaints against Sean
Emmer, but cleared him each time and allowed him to remain on full duty
despite the Citys own internal affairs office flagging of Emmer as a
result of the numerous excessive force complaints.

j.

CPD Sgt. D. Turner (Turner), was the supervisor of Cooley, Smith, and
Emmer. The City requires its officers to write use of force reports
whenever its officers use force on a suspect. Since Turner became the
supervisor for Cooley, Smith, and Emmer, his shift saw a large increase in
the use of force. This high and sudden rise in the use of force, coupled
with the flag placed upon Emmer, put the City on notice that its officers
were not properly supervised and trained, and thus constituted deliberate
indifference that was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries.

Paul Page

~ 15 ~

k.

Former Mayor Ron Littlefield (Littlefield) hired his friend Paul Page as
the director of the Citys General Services.

l.

While employed as an agent for the City, Page was actively engaged in
acts of sexual harassment against female City employees and one nonemployee outside of Pages duties with the City.

m.

Despite Littlefields full knowledge of Pages misconduct, the City failed

to take action to stop Pages wrongdoing beyond a meager warning and
requirement to take lessons on sexual harassment.

n.

Rather than take action against Page, the City terminated the employment
of one of the women who complained against Page.

o.

Despite a finding by the EEOC that Pages misbehavior (which included

comments to the female employees about their breasts and comments
about sex acts) constituted violations of federal law, the City stood by
Page and refused to fire him.

The Timothy Hicks Emmer Incident:

p.

In 2011, Emmer and other officers arrived at Track 29, a

downtown music venue in response to calls from Track 29 security
staff.

q.

One of the officers approached Richard Wetherbee from behind

and without warning, used a Taser on him.

r.

Emmer came behind Timothy Hicks (Hicks) and without

warning, placed a chokehold on Hicks.

~ 16 ~

s.

Hicks was unaware a police officer placed the chokehold on him,

and attempted to defend against the attack.

t.

Emmer and another officer slammed Hicks to the floor.

u.

Emmer straddled Hicks, and punched Hicks in the face and bashed
Hicks head on the concrete.

v.

The other officer held Hicks down and did nothing to stop
Emmers assault.

w.

The group of people who watched began to boo Emmers

actions.

x.

Emmer slapped Hicks face to make Hicks come to.

y.

At one point, Emmer pulled his service weapon and pointed it at

the group and told them to stay back.

z.

Other officers on the scene also directed the onlookers back and
did nothing to stop Emmers assault.

aa.

Emmer and another officer dragged Hicks by his ankles to a police

car.

bb.

The transporting officers screen tested Hicks on the way to the

hospital in a police car.

cc.

Screen test is a term to denote how police with a handcuffed and

un-seat-belted arrestee in the back seat speed up then slow
suddenly, which throws the arrestee into the screen that divides the
officers in the front and the arrestee.

dd.

Hicks suffered seven fractures to bones in his face.

~ 17 ~

ee.

The very next day, Chief Bobby Dodd (Dodd) spoke publicly
about how Hicks sucker punched Emmer, and Hicks deserved
the toughest penalty.

ff.

The City never conducted an investigation of the event with Hicks

before Dodd publicly cleared all the officers involved.

gg.

Dodd and Internal Affairs investigators were aware Emmer had a

propensity to use excessive force in that Emmer had three
excessive force complaints even before the Hicks matter.

hh.

In one incident, where Emmer punched a drunken man, which split

the mans tongue, Emmer explained his actions by stating, My
adrenaline gets going.

ii.

In each of the three cases and the Hicks matter, fellow officers
made false statements to support Emmers reasons for the force he
used, and the City exonerated Emmer each time.

47.

The failure of the Citys highest ranking police officers to remove officers from

duty when they exhibit gross misconduct, exhibit odd behavior, and allow officers fired to later
return to their jobs or even promote them later constitutes a deliberate indifference to the public
at large and created the atmosphere that allowed Tate to believe he could provide false
statements to provide justification of Terrells unnecessary force against plaintiff and motivated
Tate to take no action against Terrell and prevent Terrells unnecessary force against plaintiff.
48.

The failure of the City to discipline Page, a friend of the former mayor, reveals a

systemic culture of depravity and indifference to the laws of the land and the rights of all persons
within the corporate limits of the City of Chattanooga that permeated to all levels of employees

~ 18 ~

of the City a belief that misconduct was tolerated by the highest levels of City government and
thus, would not be reported and punished, and thus motivated Tate to take no action to stop
Terrell or report Terrells misconduct.
49.

The refusal of the City to take action against Page, and its retaliation against the

female employee, and the subsequent defense of Page through its Office of the City Attorney
(specifically attorney Ken Fritz) against the EEOCs overwhelming evidence of sexual
misconduct by Page created a parallel culture of fear of reprisal among those officers and
employees who would report the malfeasance of Terrell, and thus motivated Tate to take no
action to stop Terrell or report Terrells misconduct.
50.

As illustrated by Tates inaction to protect his arrestee (plaintiff), the City has

failed to train its police officers when to intervene when faced with the misconduct of other
police or corrections officers and when to report such misconduct. This failure constitutes
deliberate indifference of the City and was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs
injuries and mental suffering.
a.

In the alternative, plaintiff avers that the City has failed to properly train
its officers and agents when to intervene and report to the chain of
command or other authority in the event another officer uses excessive
and unlawful force and such failure constitutes deliberate indifference by
the City and was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries.

51.

The City has taken no action against Tate for his failure to prevent Terrell from

injuring plaintiff or Tates failure to report Terrells misconduct to either the City or County
chains of command.
Facts as to the County:

~ 19 ~

52.

As illustrated by the actions and omissions of Morrison, Lowery, Beadle, and

Ross, and as shown by the Countys approval of Terrells use of force report, the County initially
condoned Terrells actions.
53.

The County has taken no action against Morrison, Lowery, Beadle, and Ross for

their failures to protect plaintiff from Terrell and to report Terrells misconduct to the County
chain of command.
54.

Consequently, the actions stated in this Complaint created an environment that

allowed the individual defendants to believe that abusive behavior would not be properly
monitored, investigated, nor punished. Or if punished, done so lightly or, if terminated, would
get re-hired at a later date. This failure constitutes deliberate indifference by the County and was
the direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries.
a.

In the alternative, plaintiff avers that the County has failed to properly
train its officers and agents when to intervene and report to the chain of
command or other authority in the event another officer uses excessive
and unlawful force and such failure constitutes deliberate indifference by
the County and was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries.

55.

The County conducted an internal investigation of the facts set forth in this

Complaint, and concluded that Terrell used excessive force against the plaintiff but failed to
address the other individual County employee defendants failure to intervene or protect the
plaintiff and their failure to report the misconduct of Terrell.
56.

In addition, the County determined:

Policy needs review & better clarification made. It appears the
employees involved had no malicious intent, but training &
policies need to be addressed with each employee involved.

~ 20 ~

Count One:
Violation of Civil Rights Under
Color of Law 42 U.S.C. 1983
Excessive Force
57.

The force Terrell used against plaintiff amounted to unlawful force that carried a

high risk of causing serious bodily harm and death, was unnecessary and unreasonable under the
circumstances and was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs severe injuries, needless
suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
58.

The failure of the other individual defendants to intervene or report Terrells

excessive force constituted a joint effort in which they all participated as equals.
59.

The failures of the City and County, as set forth herein, to train its personnel to

intervene in the event of another officer using excessive force and to report another officer using
excessive force constituted deliberate indifference and were the direct and proximate cause of the
plaintiffs needless pain and suffering and of the plaintiffs severe injuries.
60.

All the individual defendants acted under color of law and their negligence and

intentional acts along with the deliberate indifference of the City and County deprived the
plaintiff her rights secured to her under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States
Constitution to be free from:
a.

Unreasonable seizures of persons, property, and effects, without due

process of law.

Count Two:
Violation of Civil Rights Under
Color of Law 42 U.S.C. 1983
Right To Petition Government
61.

The acts and omissions of the individual defendants were done in retaliation for

plaintiffs statement that she would report the individual defendants and were the direct and

~ 21 ~

proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment of
life.
62.

The failure of the other individual defendants to intervene or report Terrells

excessive force constituted a joint effort in which they all participated as equals.
63.

The failures of the City and County, as set forth herein, to train their personnel to

intervene in the event of another officer using excessive force and to report another officer using
excessive force and to train their personnel to not abuse plaintiff and citizens who state they will
report official misconduct to government authorities constituted deliberate indifference and were
the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs needless pain and suffering and of the plaintiffs
severe injuries.
64.

All the individual defendants acted under color of law and their negligence and

intentional acts along with the deliberate indifference of the City and County deprived the
plaintiff without Due Process of Law of her rights secured to her under the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution to:
a.

Petition government to seek redress of grievances against the defendants.

Count Three:
Violation of Civil Rights Under
Color of Law 42 U.S.C. 1983
Deprivation of Due Process by
Failure to Prevent Harm and to
Rescue Plaintiff from Terrell
65.

The individual defendants Lowery, Beadle, Morrison, Tate, and Ross failed to

intervene and prevent Terrell from his use of excessive and unlawful force Terrell used upon
plaintiff and to rescue the plaintiff from Terrells misconduct, and these failures were the direct
and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment
of life.

~ 22 ~

66.

The failures of the City and County, as set forth herein, to train its personnel to

intervene in the event of another officer using excessive force and to report another officer using
excessive force and to prevent harm and to rescue persons victimized by Terrells excessive
force constituted deliberate indifference and were the direct and proximate cause of the
plaintiffs needless pain and suffering and of the plaintiffs severe injuries.
67.

All the individual defendants acted under color of law and their negligence and

intentional acts along with the deliberate indifference of the City and County deprived the
plaintiff without Due Process of Law of her rights secured to her under the Fourteenth
Amendment to United States Constitution to:
a.

Not be harmed, killed, or injured by a state officer.

Count Four:
Violation of Civil Rights Under
Color of Law 42 U.S.C. 1983
Deprivation of Due Process by
Creation of Danger and Failure
to Protect Plaintiff from the Danger
68.

Once the plaintiff was in the joint custody of the individual defendants who were

not trained by the City and the County to prevent and report the type of misconduct of Terrell,
there existed a special relationship between the plaintiff and all defendants.
69.

The failures of the City and the County to properly train its officers and agents to

intervene and prevent injury to a citizen by another officer using unnecessary and unlawful force
and the failures of the City and the County to properly train its officers and agents to report such
misconduct to the chain of command or other lawful government authority created a zone of
danger for the plaintiff and these failures were the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs
severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

~ 23 ~

70.

All the individual defendants acted under color of law and their negligence and

intentional acts along with the deliberate indifference of the City and County deprived the
plaintiff without Due Process of Law of her rights secured to her under the Fourteenth
Amendment to United States Constitution to:
a.

Be protected when the defendants placed the plaintiff in the helpless and
dependent position of being in the custody of individuals who would
participate in and cover up official misconduct.

Count Five:
Negligent Supervision
71.

Plaintiff incorporates fully all averments stated in this Complaint as if fully set out

herein and avers that such actions and omissions on the part of the individual defendants and the
City and the County constitutes a violation of this common law of Tennessee and were the direct
and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment
of life.
Count Six:
Negligent Entrustment
72.

Plaintiff incorporates fully all averments stated in this Complaint as if fully set out

herein and avers that such actions and omissions on the part of the individual defendants and the
County constitutes the negligent entrustment of the Taser to Terrell and were the direct and
proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment of
life.
Count Seven:
Common Law Assault
73.

Plaintiff incorporates fully all averments stated in this Complaint as if fully set out

herein and avers that such actions and omissions on the part of the individual defendants and the

~ 24 ~

City and the County constitutes a violation of this common law of Tennessee and were the direct
and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment
of life.
Count Eight:
Common Law Battery
74.

Plaintiff incorporates fully all averments stated in this Complaint as if fully set out

herein and avers that such actions and omissions on the part of the individual defendants and the
City and the County constitutes a violation of this common law of Tennessee and were the direct
and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment
of life.
Count Nine:
Common Law Negligence
75.

The failures of the City and the County to properly train its officers to protect and

to report and the failures of the individual defendants to protect and report constituted negligence
and was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and
loss of enjoyment of life.
Count Ten:
Civil Conspiracy
76.

The acts and omissions of the individual defendants constituted a civil conspiracy

and were the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries, needless suffering, and
loss of enjoyment of life.
Count Eleven:
Intentional infliction
of emotional distress
77.

As to all the individual defendants, plaintiff incorporates fully all averments stated

in this Complaint as if fully set out herein and avers that such actions and omissions on the part

~ 25 ~

of the individual defendants in their individual capacities constitutes a violation of this common
law of the State of Tennessee and were the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe
injuries, needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Count Twelve:
Negligent infliction
of emotional distress
78.

As to all the individual defendants, plaintiff incorporates fully all averments stated

in this Complaint as if fully set out herein and avers that such omissions on the part of the
individual defendants in their individual capacities constitutes a violation of this common law of
the State of Tennessee and were the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiffs severe injuries,
needless suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
79.

The omissions of City and County constituted willful and wanton indifference to

and with deliberate disregard for the constitutional civil rights of the Plaintiff. Thus the Plaintiff
is entitled to actual damages, and attorney fees pursuant to 42. U.S.C. 1988.
80.

The individual defendants committed their acts against plaintiff with actual malice

toward the plaintiff and with willful and wanton indifference to and with deliberate disregard for
the constitutional civil rights of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages,
actual damages, and attorney fees pursuant to 42. U.S.C. 1988.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants and requests the
following relief:
A.

The Court to enter judgment against all defendants and to award plaintiff

compensatory damages in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND

DOLLARS ($750,000).

~ 26 ~

B.

The Court to enter judgment against all individual defendants and to award

plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000);

C.

That the Court award attorneys fees;

D.

That the Court award costs, and discretionary costs;

E.

Any other relief the Court may deem fit and proper;

F.

Any other relief the Court may deem fit and proper pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988,

and
G.

Allow a jury trial on all issues.

Respectfully submitted,

By: ____________________________
ROBIN RUBEN FLORES
TENN. BPR #20751
GA. STATE BAR #200745
Attorney for Plaintiff
4110-A Brainerd Road
Chattanooga, TN 37411
(423) 267-1575
robinflores@epbfi.com

~ 27 ~