Nickie Miller Federal Lawsuit

Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 1 of 44 - Page ID#: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON DIVISION
NICKIE MILLER )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ) Case No.
Montgomery County Sheriff FRED )
SHORTRIDGE, in his individual )
capacity, Montgomery County )
Sheriff’s Department Officers in their ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Individual Capacity, RALPH )
CHARLES JR., MARK COLLIER, )
Montgomery County Jailer in his )
Individual Capacity, ERIC JONES, )
Montgomery County Commonwealth )
Attorney in his Individual Capacity, )
KEITH CRAYCRAFT, and Kentucky )
State Police Polygraph Examiner )
JOHN FYFFE, in his Individual )
Capacity. )
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, NICKIE MILLER, by his attorneys LOEVY &
LOEVY, and complaining of Defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Montgomery
County Sheriff FRED SHORTRIDGE, Montgomery County Sheriff Officers RALPH
CHARLES JR. AND MARK COLLIER, Montgomery County Jailer ERIC JONES,
Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney KEITH CRAYCRAFT, Kentucky
State Police Polygraph Examiner, JOHN FYFFE, and other unknown officers from
the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and Montgomery County Regional Jail, and
state as follows:
Introduction
1. Plaintiff Nickie Miller was wrongfully incarcerated for nearly two
years of his life awaiting trial and facing a sentence of death for a crime he did not
commit.
2. Over the course of more than two years, Plaintiff lived in fear each day
that he would be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.
3. Plaintiff suffered the severe injustice of being framed for a crime he did
not commit while battling cancer. The Defendants’ misconduct had a profound
impact on Plaintiff’s ability to receive proper medical treatment, including
chemotherapy, while incarcerated.
4. This manifest injustice was not the result of mere flaws in the judicial
system. Rather, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers named herein
conspired to take his liberty by knowingly initiating false charges based on evidence
that the Defendants fabricated.
5. Thankfully, because it was fabricated, the evidence was flimsy and the
Defendant Officers never succeeded in obtaining a conviction. Although the system
functioned in the sense that all of the charges were eventually dismissed, the
Defendants nevertheless succeeded in manipulating the system for two years.
6. As a result, Mr. Miller was deprived of his liberty as a pretrial
detainee just the same as if the Defendants had secured his wrongful conviction.
7. Mr. Miller now brings this lawsuit to enforce the Constitutional right
to liberty guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution.
2
Jurisdiction and Venue
8. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the
deprivation under color of law of Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the U.S.
Constitution.
9. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1367.
10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). On information and
belief, all parties reside in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to the
claims asserted herein all occurred within this district.
The Parties
11. Plaintiff Nickie Miller, a military veteran, is a 56-year-old resident of
Stanton, Kentucky.
12. At all relevant times, Defendants Fred Shortridge, Ralph Charles Jr.,
and Mark Collier were officers employed by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s
Office. Each of these Defendant Officers is sued in their individual capacity and
each acted under color of law and within the scope of their employment in engaging
in the actions alleged in this complaint.
13. Defendants Shortridge, Charles, and Collier are referred to collectively
as the “Defendant Officers.”
14. Defendant Montgomery County is a local governmental entity
organized under Kentucky law. Defendant Montgomery County is responsible for
the policies, practices, and customs of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office.
3
15. At all relevant times, Defendant Keith Craycraft was an employee of
the Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. Defendant Craycraft is
sued in his individual capacity and acted under color of law and within the scope of
his employment in engaging in the actions alleged in this complaint.
16. Defendant Montgomery County is a local governmental entity
organized under Kentucky law. Defendant Montgomery County is responsible for
the policies, practices, and customs of the Montgomery County Commonwealth
Attorney’s Office.
17. At all relevant times, Defendant Eric Jones, the Jailer of the
Montgomery County Regional Jail, was an employee of the Montgomery County
Regional Jail. Defendant Jones is sued in his individual capacity and acted under
color of law and within the scope of his employment in engaging in the actions
alleged in this complaint.
18. Defendant Montgomery County is local governmental entity organized
under Kentucky law. Defendant Montgomery County is responsible for the policies,
practices, and customs of the Montgomery County Regional Jail.
19. At all relevant times, Defendant John Fyffe was an employee of the
Kentucky State Police. Defendant Fyffe is sued in his individual capacity and acted
under color of law and within the scope of his employment in engaging in the
actions alleged in this complaint.
20. The individual defendants are referred to collectively as the
“Defendants.”
4
The Murder of Paul Brewer
21. Paul Brewer was found dead at his home in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky on
December 22, 2011.
22. Every death is tragic, but Mr. Brewer’s was especially so. Mr. Brewer
was found with two gunshot wounds to his head and both arms strapped to his bed
frame.
23. Police officers from the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and
Kentucky State Police responded to the scene.
24. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office was the primary law-
enforcement agency responsible for the investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death.
25. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office received assistance during the
investigation from the Kentucky State Police, Powell County Sheriff’s Department,
and Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.
26. Defendants Ralph Charles Jr. and Mark Collier led the investigation
into Mr. Brewer’s death.
27. Defendants Charles and Collier believed from the beginning that the
motive for Mr. Brewer’s death was financially based.
28. This theory was supported when the Defendant Officers discovered
that Mr. Brewer possessed nearly $50,000 in his checking account at the time of his
death.
5
Defendant Officers Learn Significant Evidence Implicating Rick Mize
Police Learn Mize Confessed to Shooting Someone
29. Within two months of the murder, the Defendant Officers learned
significant evidence implicating Rick Mize in Mr. Brewer’s murder.
30. On February 14, 2012, Defendants Collier and Charles questioned
Cody Hall.
31. In that interview, Mr. Hall informed these Defendant Officers that Mr.
Miller was not involved in the murder of Paul Brewer. Instead, Mr. Hall revealed
that Rick Mize and Misty Dehart were the two individuals likely responsible for the
murder.
32. Mr. Hall further informed the Defendant Officers that Rick Mize
returned home with a gun around the time that Mr. Brewer was killed. According
to Mr. Hall, Rick Mize was alone and placed the gun underneath his bed.
33. The Defendant Officers were further informed that a few days after
Mr. Brewer was killed, Rick Mize refused to drive Michelle Lawson to Mt. Sterling.
34. Mr. Hall revealed that Rick Mize admitted that he could not drive to
Mt. Sterling because he shot someone a few nights before and could not be seen
driving a certain vehicle.
35. The Defendant Officers continued to learn information implicating
Rick Mize throughout their investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death.
6
Police Learn Mize Manipulated Investigation
36. Approximately two weeks later, Defendant Charles received a call from
Michelle Lawson.
37. In that call, Ms. Lawson recounted a telephone conversation she
overheard between Rick Mize and Misty Dehart. Ms. Lawson informed Defendant
Charles that Rick Mize kept assuring Ms. Dehart during this conversation that
Cody Hall had already been arrested and implored her to say that “we weren’t
there.”
38. Defendant Charles learned that Bobby Mize criticized Rick Mize after
the call for continuing to speak with Ms. Dehart. In doing so, Bobby Mize informed
Rick that Misty Dehart was “going to get him caught.”
Additional Witness Informs Police of Rick Mize’s Likely Involvement
39. Approximately six months later, on August 24, 2012, Defendant Collier
interviewed Kennie Helton at the Powell County Attorney’s Office.
40. During that interview, Ms. Helton revealed that she did not have any
first-hand knowledge regarding the murder of Mr. Brewer.
41. Ms. Helton repeatedly informed the Defendant Officers that she “was
not there…I will swear on anything I love.”
42. Ms. Helton did inform the Defendant Officers during this meeting that
she overheard rumors implicating Rick Mize in Mr. Brewer’s murder.
43. The Defendant Officers learned that although Rick Mize did not
explicitly confess to the murder, he did tell Ms. Helton that he was aware that law-
7
enforcement took DNA from two different women, but that neither of them were
involved.
44. Ms. Helton also revealed to Defendant Collier that Rick Mize
threatened her repeatedly because of comments she overheard that implicated him
in the crime. In one conversation, Rick threatened with words to the effect, if “you
care about your kids…you didn’t hear this.”
45. At the conclusion of that interview, Ms. Helton agreed to provide a
DNA sample to the authorities.
Based on Helton Interview, Police Question Cody Hall Once Again
46. On August 27, 2012, Defendants Collier and Charles drove to the
Woodford County Detention Facility to question Cody Hall once again regarding the
murder of Paul Brewer.
47. There, Mr. Hall again maintained his belief that Mr. Miller did not
have any involvement in the murder.
48. Mr. Hall also informed the Defendant Officers about the evening that
Rick Mize returned home with a gun and made comments about having to shoot
someone.
49. Defendants Collier and Charles learned that Mr. Mize confessed to
killing someone in Montgomery County on the evening that he returned home and
put a handgun underneath his bed.
50. Again, these Defendant Officers were informed that Mr. Miller was not
with Rick Mize when he returned home.
8
Police Learn that Tasha Martin Does Not Have Any Knowledge Regarding Crime
51. Defendant Charles first questioned Tasha Martin on September 4,
2012. At the time, Ms. Martin was still married to Cody Hall.
52. In her initial interview, Ms. Martin informed the Defendant Officers
that she had no first-hand knowledge regarding the murder.
53. After extensive questioning, Ms. Martin continued to maintain that
she did not have any valuable information.
54. Ms. Martin agreed to provide a DNA sample for comparison as proof
that she did not have any involvement in the crime.
Police Learn that Mize Confessed Yet Again
55. On September 4, 2012, Defendant Charles questioned Timothy Ryan
Robinson.
56. In that interview, Mr. Robinson revealed that Rick Mize confessed to
killing someone in Montgomery County.
57. Defendant Charles then learned that Mr. Mize provided a detailed
confession regarding the murder of Mr. Brewer. According to Mr. Robinson, Mr.
Mize revealed that a female let him into the backdoor of Mr. Brewer’s residence
before he proceeded to kill him inside.
58. Mr. Robinson also informed these Defendant Officers that he was
fearful that his family was in danger because of the information he knew that
implicating Mize in the murder.
9
59. In response, Defendant Charles retorted “I guess everybody is scared of
Rick…you want the son-of-a-bitch running around or would you rather see him
locked up?”
60. Finally, Mr. Robinson informed Defendant Charles that Eric Bradshaw
admitted to driving Rick Mize on the evening of Mr. Brewer’s death.
Another Witness Implicates Rick Mize in Murder
61. Later that week, the Defendant Officers learned additional
information implicating Rick Mize in the murder of Paul Brewer.
62. On September 9, 2012, Defendant Collier was informed by Anthony
Hawkins that Rick Mize confessed again to killing Mr. Brewer.
63. In this confession, Mr. Mize informed Mr. Hawkins that a woman
named Heather was involved in the murder.
64. Defendant Collier learned that Heather lived on Cat Creek Road in
Powell County, Kentucky.
65. Although the Defendant Officers had significant information
implicating Rick Mize in the murder of Paul Brewer, they declined to initiate any
charges against him.
A Cold Case Plagued With False Leads
66. For nearly two years, the investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death sat
stagnant.
67. According to police reports, the next documented police interview was
on January 29, 2014.
10
68. On that date, Defendants Shortridge and Charles interviewed Malana
Trent, whose mother lived with Cody Hall’s father.
69. In this meeting, Ms. Trent informed the Defendant Officers that the
gun used to kill Mr. Brewer was at the bottom of Chris Hall’s pond.
70. Defendants Shortridge and Charles were further informed that Chris
Hall is the brother of Cody Hall.
71. Ms. Trent informed the Defendant Officers of an interaction where
Cody Hall allegedly came to her house to sell a gun. After refusing to purchase the
weapon, Ms. Trent claimed that Mr. Hall got rid of the gun after failing to sell it
earlier that evening.
72. Over the course of the next several months, numerous dives were
conducted at Chris Hall’s pond by law-enforcement officers from the Montgomery
County Sheriff’s Office and the Louisville Metro Police Department.
73. None of those searches discovered any evidence relating to the murder
nor corroborated any of the information provided by Ms. Trent.
Cold Case Turns Into Scheme to Frame Plaintiff
74. The investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death ultimately went cold.
75. By October 2015, the Defendant Officers still had not initiated charges
against anyone for the murder and were beginning to feel the pressure associated
with solving Mr. Brewer’s death.
76. In spite of the mounting evidence against other suspects, including
Rick Mize, the Defendant Officers conspired to frame Plaintiff for the murder.
11
77. By November 2015, the Defendant Officers were fully determined to
frame Mr. Miller and close their investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death.
78. Over the course of a single week, the Defendant Officers obtained a
number of false statements that allowed them to initiate illegitimate charges
against Mr. Miller for the murder of Paul Brewer.
Police Fabricate Statement for Kennie Helton
79. The first false statement obtained in November of 2015 was attributed
to Kennie Helton.
80. On November 6, 2015, Defendants Shortridge and Charles met with
Ms. Helton at the Montgomery County Regional Jail.
81. After that meeting these Defendant Officers fabricated a police report
attributing false statements to Ms. Helton that implicated Mr. Miller in the murder
of Paul Brewer.
82. According to this false and fabricated report, Ms. Helton saw Mr.
Miller, Rick Mize, and Cody Hall return home together after doing some robberies.
The report further claims that Ms. Helton witnessed Rick Mize slap Cody Hall
before Mr. Miller placed a gun in the vent of Rick Mize’s camper.
83. Ms. Helton’s statement further claims that Rize Mize admitted to
setting up a threesome “with a guy and once they got him tied up they were going to
rob him. Something went wrong and they killed the guy.”
84. Ms. Helton has since revealed that the portions of this statement
implicating Mr. Miller in the murder were false and fabricated.
12
Through Promises of Consideration and Extensive Coercion, Defendant Officers

Successfully Fabricate a False Statement for Tasha Martin Implicating
Plaintiff in Mr. Brewer’s Murder
85. As discussed supra, Defendant Charles first questioned Tasha Martin
on September 4, 2012.
86. There, Ms. Martin informed Defendant Charles that she had no first-
hand knowledge regarding the murder.
87. Nonetheless, in their quest to frame Plaintiff, the Defendant Officers
sought out Ms. Martin again in November 2015.
Police Coerce Tasha Martin Into a Fabricated Statement
88. On November 12, 2015, Defendants Charles and Shortridge concocted
a scheme to pressure Natasha Martin into falsely implicating Mr. Miller in the
homicide.
89. On that date, Ms. Martin was taken to Defendant Shortridge’s office at
the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office.
90. There, Defendants Shortridge and Charles interrogated Ms. Martin for
the murder of Paul Brewer.
91. Over the course of several hours of questioning, Ms. Martin denied any
involvement or knowledge of the homicide.
92. Ms. Martin likewise informed these Defendant Officers that she did
not know the victim and had never met him in her life.
13
KSP Defendant John Fyffe Joins Conspiracy to Frame Plaintiff
93. After extensive questioning, the Defendant Officers telephoned
Defendant John Fyffe, a polygraph examiner for the Kentucky State Police.
94. In that conversation, the Defendant Officers informed Defendant Fyffe
of their plan to obtain a statement from Ms. Martin that implicated Plaintiff and
Mr. Hall in the murder of Mr. Brewer. Defendant Fyffe agreed to assist the
Defendant Officers in obtaining such a statement.
95. Ms. Martin was then brought to Frankfort, Kentucky for a polygraph
examination and extensive questioning.
96. After arriving in Frankfort, Ms. Martin was brought to an
interrogation room and given a polygraph examination by Defendant Fyffe.
97. Both during and after the polygraph examination, Ms. Martin
continued to deny any involvement or knowledge regarding Mr. Brewer’s death.
98. At the Defendant Officers’ behest, Defendant Fyffe refused to take Ms.
Martin’s denials at face-value.
99. Instead, Defendant Fyffe engaged in psychologically coercive
interrogation techniques to assist the Defendant Officers in framing Plaintiff.
100. In the process, Defendant Fyffe provided Ms. Martin with the
information he wanted her to repeat that falsely implicated Plaintiff in the murder.
101. Defendant Fyffe pretended to be nice to Ms. Martin at various points
in his interrogation. For instance, Defendant Fyffe inappropriately stroked Ms.
14
Martin’s arms, held her hands, and caressed her legs while encouraging her to
repeat the false and fabricated statement.
102. The photograph below depicts Defendant Fyffe holding Ms. Martin’s
hands while telling her what to repeat.
103. Throughout his questioning, Defendant Fyffe repeatedly provided Ms.
Martin with the information that he wanted her to repeat that falsely implicated
herself, Mr. Hall, and Plaintiff in the murder of Paul Brewer.
104. In one sequence, Defendant Fyffe told Ms. Martin that she: “went in
there you agreed to have sex with him and put him in that vulnerable position and
put those restraints on him and then you were going to leave.” After doing so,
Defendant Fyffe promised Ms. Martin that the Defendant Officers were not
15
interested in charging her with murder because they just “want the person who
pulled the trigger and you can fix that.”
105. During this period of time, Defendant Fyffe caressed Ms. Martin’s arm
as he guided her through the false story that he and the other Defendant Officers
wanted her to repeat.
106. Later, Defendant Fyffe promised Ms. Martin that the she could go free
if she just agreed to go along with the false statement.
107. At one point, Defendant Fyffe even informed Ms. Martin that he
would be willing to testify and tell the Court that his “understanding was that the
prosecutor said she was going to walk,” so long as she agreed to go along with the
statement.
16
108. Nonetheless, Ms. Martin continued to maintain that she did not know
who killed Mr. Brewer and had no involvement in the crime.
109. After a period of time, Defendant Fyffe left and Defendant Charles
entered the room.
110. After doing so, Defendant Charles implored Ms. Martin to implicate
Plaintiff in the murder of Paul Brewer.
111. When Ms. Martin refused to provide a false statement, Defendant
Charles threatened Ms. Martin that she needed to think about “those three babies
at home.”
112. Defendant Fyffe eventually rejoined the interrogation. Shortly
thereafter, Defendant Fyffe threatened to remove Ms. Martin’s children unless she
repeated what the Defendant Officers wanted her to repeat.
113. In turn, Ms. Martin responded to the Defendant Officers: “I can’t tell
you what I don’t know…I know nothing of this.” But the Defendant Officers refused
to accept Ms. Martin’s statements.
114. Later, when Defendant Fyffe threatened to have Ms. Martin’s children
taken away, Ms. Martin responded, “I love my kids more than anything. I want
more than anything to tell you the truth. But you don’t….do you want me to make
something up to tell you?”
115. Ms. Martin did not need to make up a story as Defendant Fyffe and the
Defendant Officers fabricated one for her.
17
Defendant Officers Return Ms. Martin to Montgomery County to Complete Her Fabricated
Statement and False Confession
116. After hours of questioning and polygraph examinations, Ms. Martin
was eventually brought back to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office for further
interrogation.
117. Through coercion and undisclosed promises of consideration,
Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers ultimately succeeded in obtaining a
false and fabricated statement from Ms. Martin that implicated Plaintiff in the
118. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers provided Ms. Martin with
the false information that they wanted her to repeat.
119. Specifically, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers provided
specific details to Ms. Martin about the murder and instructed her to falsely
implicate herself, Cody Hall, and Mr. Miller.
120. After doing so, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers made
undisclosed promises of consideration to Ms. Martin, while also threatening her
that she would never be allowed to see her kids again unless she agreed to go along
with the false and fabricated statement implicating herself, Cody Hall, and Plaintiff
in the murder of Paul Brewer.
121. In the end, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers successfully
fabricated a detailed statement for Ms. Martin that falsely implicated Plaintiff in
the murder of Paul Brewer.
18
122. According to the false and fabricated statement, Ms. Martin, Mr. Hall,
and Mr. Miller drove in a Volvo to the victim’s address. The statement further
alleges that Ms. Martin and one of two girls – either Kennie Helton or Kyla Walters
– successfully misled Mr. Brewer into his bedroom before using restraints to tie him
to the bed. At that point, the statement claims that the women left the residence as
Mr. Hall and Mr. Miller entered. Finally, the statement claims that Ms. Martin
heard one shot before the men exited the residence.
123. The false and fabricated statement further alleges that Ms. Martin,
Mr. Hall, and Mr. Miller went to the Brewer residence to commit a robbery and that
the women received approximately $340 for participating in the robbery and
124. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers knew at the time they
manufactured Ms. Martin’s statement that it was false and conflicted with the
physical evidence that existed at the time.
125. Nonetheless, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers plowed
forward with their conspiracy to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit.
The Wrongful Prosecution of Mr. Miller
126. On November 12, 2015, Defendant Charles signed a criminal
complaint and initiated charges against Mr. Miller for the murder and robbery of
Mr. Brewer.
127. On November 13, 2015, Defendants Collier and Charles arrested Mr.
Miller on the charges initiated the day before.
19
128. On November 24, 2015, Defendant Charles testified to the substance of
the false and fabricated statement that Defendant Fyffe and other Defendant
Officers obtained from Natasha Martin on November 12, 2015.
129. At the time of his testimony, Defendant Charles knew that the
statement testified to before the grand-jury was false and fabricated as part of a
conspiracy to frame Plaintiff for crimes he did not commit.
130. At the time of his testimony, Defendant Charles provided additional
facts to the grand jury that he knew to be false in his effort to corroborate the
fabricated statement manufactured for Ms. Martin. In this way, Defendant Charles
falsely informed the grand jury that DNA evidence collected at the scene matched
Ms. Martin to one of the restraints on the victim’s bed.
131. At the time of his testimony, Defendant Charles knew that DNA
evidence, in fact, did not form a match Ms. Martin.
132. Ultimately, the grand jury issued an indictment against Plaintiff for
the murder and robbery of Paul Brewer, as well as a count of being a Persistent
Felony Offender.
133. The false and fabricated statements by Defendant Fyffe and the other
Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be wrongfully incarcerated, and thus,
contributed to the deprivation of his liberty.
134. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers knew that the witness
statements used to initiate these charges against Mr. Miller were false, fabricated,
20
and the product of improper coercion. Even still, the Defendant Officers used these
statements to falsely initiate charges against Mr. Miller.
135. At the time, the Defendant Officers knew that probable cause did not
exist to initiate charges against Mr. Miller. Nonetheless, the Defendant Officers
continued to set Plaintiff’s prosecution in motion.
136. In their conspiracy to frame Plaintiff, sometimes acting alone and
sometimes acting in concert, Defendant Fyffe and/or other Defendant Officers
manipulated and manufactured a number of witnesses including Ms. Helton and
Ms. Martin.
137. In doing so, Defendant Fyffe and/or the Defendant Officers threatened
and coached these witnesses and others, and induced individuals who otherwise had
no knowledge to be false witnesses, with the result that several witnesses made
false statements about Mr. Miller and falsely implicated him in the murder of Mr.
Brewer.
138. Although no one—not the Montgomery County court, not the
prosecutors, and not Mr. Miller or his attorneys—was aware of it at the time,
Defendant Fyffe and/or other Defendant Officers fabricated or manipulated all of
the alleged evidence of guilt against Plaintiff in this case, including the false
statements and false testimony of other witnesses.
139. Prior to the dismissal of charges against Mr. Miller, Defendant Fyffe
and/or other Defendant Officers actively concealed from Plaintiff the falsity of the
21
evidence they fabricated, the methods by which they fabricated, and the scope of
their fabrication.
140. As a result of Defendant Fyffe and/or the other Defendant Officers’
continued fabrication of evidence, continued withholding of material exculpatory
evidence, and continued manipulation of witnesses, Mr. Miller was subject to
continued prosecution on capital murder charges.
141. Sometimes acting alone, and sometimes acting in concert, these
Defendants, over the course of two years, also manipulated physical evidence,
manufactured false inculpatory evidence, and lost or destroyed material exculpatory
evidence.
142. The evidence that Defendant Fyfffe and/or the other Defendant
Officers fabricated, falsified, and manufactured was the only evidence linking Mr.
Miller to the murder and was the only basis upon which prosecutors filed and
maintained charges against him.
143. Sometimes acting alone and sometimes acting in concert, Defendant
Fyffe and the other Defendant Officers, over the course of two years, concealed from
Mr. Miller and his defense counsel both the falsity of the witness statements and
the unlawful methods by which they procured and fabricated this evidence.
144. Sometimes acting alone and sometimes acting in concert, the
Defendant Officers, over the course of more than two years, withheld, concealed, or
destroyed material exculpatory evidence, keeping that evidence from the court, Mr.
Miller, and his defense counsel.
22
145. The Defendant Officers continued this misconduct even after the
initiation of charges against Mr. Miller. They did so through coercion and promises
of consideration.
The Defendant Officers Also Initiate Charges Against Cody Hall and Natasha Martin
Based on the False and Fabricated Evidence Described Above
146. On November 12, 2015, Defendant Charles signed criminal complaints
and initiated charges against Natasha Martin and Cody Hall for the murder and
robbery of Mr. Brewer.
147. On November 24, 2015, Defendant Charles testified to the substance of
the false and fabricated statement that he and Defendant Shortridge obtained from
Natasha Martin on November 12, 2015.
148. Based on Defendant Charles’ testimony, a grand jury issued
indictments against Mr. Hall and Ms. Martin for the robbery and murder of Paul
Brewer.
149. As a result of those indictments, both Cody Hall and Natasha Martin
were taken into custody.
150. The initiation of these false charges ultimately violated Mr. Hall’s
parole.
151. On October 19, 2016, the Commonwealth dismissed all charges against
Mr. Hall relating to the homicide of Mr. Brewer.
152. Even still, Mr. Hall remains incarcerated in the Kentucky Department
of Corrections because the initiation of charges for the murder and robbery of Paul
Brewer violated his parole conditions.
23
Cody Hall and Natasha Martin Regularly Exchanged Exculpatory

Correspondence With Each Other While Incarcerated
153. Cody Hall and Natasha Martin were married at the time they were
charged with the murder of Paul Brewer. Mr. Hall and Ms. Martin have at least
one child together.
154. After being charged with the murder and robbery of Paul Brewer, Mr.
Hall and Ms. Martin regularly exchanged correspondence with one another
regarding the underlying charges.
155. In that correspondence, Ms. Martin revealed that her statements
implicating Plaintiff in the murder and robbery of Mr. Brewer were false.
156. In this correspondence, Ms. Martin revealed that she was forced to lie
by the Defendant Officers through coercive interrogation techniques, threats, and
undisclosed promises of consideration.
157. Likewise, Mr. Hall’s correspondence to Ms. Martin confirmed that
Plaintiff was innocent of the charges and that Ms. Martin was forced to go along
with the false and fabricated statement by the Defendant Officers.
158. Mr. Hall’s correspondence to Ms. Martin also confirmed that neither he
nor Plaintiff had anything to do with the murder of Paul Brewer and that the
charges were manufactured at the hands of the Defendant Officers.
24
Montgomery County Prosecutor Joins Conspiracy to Frame Plaintiff by

Facilitating the Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence
Defense Team Obtains Ex Parte Court Order for Exculpatory Physical Evidence
159. Mr. Miller’s defense team ultimately sought to obtain the exculpatory
correspondence discussed above in June of 2017.
160. To ensure the integrity of the evidence, Mr. Miller’s defense team made
an ex parte motion in June of 2017 for exculpatory documentary evidence from Cody
Hall and Natasha Martin.
161. On June 15, 2017, the Hon. William Lane, a Montgomery County
Circuit Court judge, issued a sealed order requiring that “upon presentation of this
Order to any and all personnel of the Montgomery County Detention Center, said
personnel shall immediately go to Natasha Martin and retrieve from her all
correspondence, letters and emails written to her [or] by her to Co-defendant Cody
Hall, and same shall be produced to the investigator of the Nicki Miller Defense
team, Joshua Powell at that time.”
162. Since that order was ex parte, the only persons privy to the order were
Court staff, the defense team, and the prosecution team assigned to the case.
163. Defendant Craycraft was one of the limited individuals privy to the
Court’s June 15, 2017 ex parte and sealed order.
164. On June 15, 2017, at approximately 11:48 a.m., an investigator for the
defense team, Joshua Powell, arrived at the Montgomery County Regional Jail with
the sealed court order.
25
165. After arriving at the jail, Mr. Powell engaged in a conversation with
Montgomery County Jail Officer Tina Osbourne.
166. Mr. Powell informed Ms. Osbourne of the court order and requested
that the documents sought be obtained and taken as evidence.
167. Ms. Osbourne informed Mr. Powell, however, that Ms. Martin was
released from custody prior to his arrival at the jail.
168. Although the court order was ex parte, telephone records reveal that an
employee of the Montgomery County Regional Jail called Ms. Martin at noon on
June 16, 2017.
169. In that call, Ms. Martin was informed that an investigator was at the
Montgomery Regional Jail to retrieve her letters and correspondence via court
order.
Aware That Probable Cause Was Absent Against Plaintiff, Defendant Craycraft
Participated in the Destruction of Physical Exculpatory Evidence
170. After learning about this Court order, Ms. Martin sought advice from
the Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney, Keith Craycraft, on what should
be done with the letters and correspondence at issue.
171. Mr. Craycraft was made aware that the correspondence maintained by
Ms. Martin was exculpatory in nature.
172. Defendant Craycraft participated in the tampering and destruction of
exculpatory physical evidence by encouraging Ms. Martin to destroy the exculpatory
evidence in her possession. Defendant Craycraft did so despite the court order and
being aware that Mr. Miller had requested that any correspondence from Ms.
26
Martin or Mr. Hall be maintained and without notification to or the involvement of
Mr. Miller or his counsel.
173. By doing this, Defendant Craycraft was well aware that he was
removing the most critical and probative evidence remaining in the case –
communication from Cody Hall and Natasha Martin revealing that Plaintiff was
innocent and that Ms. Martin’s statements were fabricated, false, and a product of
police coercion and undisclosed promises of consideration.
174. Based on her communication with Mr. Craycraft, Ms. Martin destroyed
the physical exculpatory documentation, subject to production by court order.
175. At the time Defendant Craycraft committed this misconduct, he was
aware that probable cause did not exist for the pending charges against Mr. Miller
for the murder of Paul Brewer.
aware that Ms. Martin’s statement implicating Mr. Miller was false, fabricated, and
a product of police coercion and promises of consideration.
177. Put simply, at the time Defendant Craycraft committed this
misconduct, he was aware that no credible evidence existed that implicated Mr.
Miller in the Brewer homicide, yet, he facilitated the destruction of the exculpatory
evidence to ensure that the prosecution would continue moving forward.
The Egregious Behavior and Shocking Misconduct by Defendant Craycraft is Verified

Through Telephone Records
178. Defendant Craycraft’s egregious misconduct is verified through
telephone records.
27
179. Telephone records reveal that Mr. Craycraft and Ms. Martin
participated in a series of phone calls throughout the afternoon of June 16, 2017.
180. The first call on June 16, 2017 between Mr. Craycraft and Ms. Martin
occurred at approximately 2:11 p.m. In that conversation, Ms. Martin called Mr.
Craycraft at the Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office and spoke to
him for nearly four minutes.
181. An hour later, at 3:18 p.m., Mr. Craycraft called Natasha Martin from
his personal cellphone. In that call, Mr. Craycraft and Ms. Martin spoke for
approximately 8 seconds.
182. Apparently having lost service, Mr. Craycraft called Ms. Martin again
from his personal cellphone at 3:18 p.m. That call lasted for approximately 9
seconds.
183. At 5:03 p.m., Ms. Martin called Mr. Craycraft’s personal cellphone once
again. This time, Ms. Martin and Mr. Craycraft speak for more than ten minutes.
184. By the evening of June 16, 2017, the physical exculpatory evidence
sought by Plaintiff pursuant to a court order had been successfully destroyed
through the actions of Defendant Craycraft and Ms. Martin.
185. At 8:52 p.m., Cody Hall placed a recorded call to Ms. Martin. In that
call, Ms. Martin revealed to Mr. Hall that the defense team “subpoenaed your mail
and my mail…I guess she went up to the Montgomery County Jail today to get mine
and I wasn’t there, so you know she threw ten kinds of hell, because my friend
LaDonna was there. She works laundry.”
28
186. Mr. Hall then asked Ms. Martin where her letters were located. In
response, Ms. Martin revealed: “Not here. I got rid of it. It’s burnt.”
187. Mr. Hall revealed the exculpatory nature of the letters destroyed by
Ms. Martin. In those letters, it was revealed that Ms. Martin’s statement was false,
fabricated, and a product of police coercion.
Defendant Craycraft’s Participation in the Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence Harmed

Plaintiff
188. Due to Defendant Craycraft’s participation in the destruction of
physical exculpatory evidence, Plaintiff continued to suffer in the Montgomery
County Regional Jail.
189. Beginning on June 16, 2017 and lasting each and every day until the
dismissal of charges on November 21, 2017, Plaintiff suffered the agony of facing a
potential sentence of death for a crime he did not commit.
190. In this way, Defendant Craycraft’s scheme to destroy exculpatory
evidence caused Plaintiff to suffer continued criminal prosecution and incarceration
for an additional five months of his life.
Montgomery County Jailer Eric Jones Joins Conspiracy to Frame Plaintiff
191. Defendant Eric Jones was the Jailer of the Montgomery County
Regional Jail at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest.
192. As Jailer, Defendant Jones had regular contact with Ms. Martin, a
detainee at the Montgomery County Regional Jail.
29
193. Defendant Jones also engaged in regular contact with the Defendant
Officers in the underlying investigation. As a result, Defendant Jones learned that
the Defendant Officers intended to frame Plaintiff for the murder of Paul Brewer.
194. Defendant Jones further learned that Ms. Martin was the key to the
Defendant Officers scheme to obtain a conviction against Plaintiff.
195. After discovering this, Defendant Jones joined the Defendant Officers
in their conspiracy to frame Plaintiff after the initiation of charges.
196. In doing so, Defendant Jones made a number of undisclosed promises
of consideration to Ms. Martin in his attempt to procure her cooperation against
Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit.
197. For instance, Defendant Jones promised Ms. Martin that he would
have Cody Hall moved to a closer facility.
198. Defendant Jones also had discussions with Defendant Craycraft about
Ms. Martin’s release on an unsecured bond from the Montgomery County Regional
Jail in exchange for her cooperation against Plaintiff.
199. None of these promises of consideration were disclosed to Plaintiff or
his defense team.
200. In fact, the Defendants intended for such promises of consideration to
be made off-the-record. According to a May 2017 recorded conversation from Ms.
Martin at the Montgomery Regional Jail, Defendant Jones “said anything done on
my bond would not be done on record.”
30
201. In another call, a friend revealed the extent of assistance Ms. Martin
received, “Eric Jones has done more to help you than that man [her attorney] ever
has.”
Mr. Miller’s Vindication
202. For nearly two years the Defendant Officers contrived to frame Mr.
Miller for the murder of Mr. Brewer and deprived him of his freedom without due
process of law.
203. On November 20, 2017, the Commonwealth ultimately moved to
dismiss the charges against Mr. Miller.
204. On November 21, 2017, the Montgomery Circuit Court entered an
Order dismissing all charges against Mr. Miller relating to the death of Paul
Brewer in a manner indicative of his innocence.
205. On that date, after spending nearly two years in the Montgomery
County Regional Jail, Mr. Miller was finally released into the loving arms of his
family and friends.
Nickie Miller’s Damages
206. Nickie Miller spent nearly two years incarcerated in the county jail,
under the threat of capital punishment, for a crime he did not commit. He must
now attempt to make a life for himself without the benefit of nearly two years’
worth of experiences, which normally equip adults for that task.
207. Additionally, the emotional pain and suffering caused by losing those
years has been substantial. During his incarceration, he was stripped of the
31
various pleasures of basic human experience, from the simplest to the most
important, which all free people enjoy as a matter of right. Mr. Miller missed out on
the ability to share holidays, births, funerals, and other life events with loved ones,
the opportunity to fall in love, to marry, and the fundamental freedom to live one’s
life as an autonomous human being.
208. As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Miller has suffered tremendous
damage, including but not limited to physical harm, mental suffering, and loss of a
normal life, all proximately caused by Defendant Officers misconduct.
Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Malicious Prosecution
209. Paragraphs 1-158 and 191-208 of this Complaint are incorporated as if
restated fully herein.
210. As described more fully above, Defendant Jones, Defendant Fyffe, and
all of the Defendant Officers, while acting individually, jointly and in conspiracy, as
well as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived Mr.
Miller of his constitutional right to be free from unlawful prosecution and continued
detention without probable cause.
211. In the manner described more fully above, Defendant Jones,
Defendant Fyffe, and all of the Defendant Officers made, influenced and/or
participated in the decision to prosecute Mr. Miller, for which prosecution there was
no probable cause and which caused Mr. Miller to suffer a deprivation of liberty.
Their misconduct included falsifying evidence and withholding exculpatory and
impeachment evidence.
32
212. As described more fully above, the prosecution was resolved in Mr.
Miller’s favor.
213. Defendant Jones, Defendant Fyffe, and all of the Defendant Officers’
misconduct directly resulted in the unlawful prosecution and continued deprivation
of Mr. Miller’s liberty in violation of his constitutional rights.
214. As a result of this violation of his constitutional rights, Mr. Miller
suffered injuries, including but not limited to bodily harm and emotional distress,
as is more fully alleged above.
215. Defendant Jones, Defendant Fyffe, and all of the Defendant Officers’
misconduct, as described in this Count, was objectively unreasonable and was
undertaken intentionally with malice and willful indifference to Mr. Miller’s
constitutional rights.
216. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to a
routine practice of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office to pursue wrongful
prosecutions and wrongful convictions through reckless and profoundly flawed
investigations and coerced evidence. In this way, the municipal defendants violated
Mr. Miller’s rights by maintaining policies and practices that were the moving force
driving the foregoing constitutional violations.
217. These widespread practices, so well-settled so as to constitute de facto
policy in the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office were able to exist and thrive
because municipal policymakers with authority over these entities exhibited
deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.
33
218. The widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were
allowed to flourish because the municipal defendants declined to implement
sufficient training and/or enforce legitimate oversight and punishment.
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment

Fabrication of False Evidence
220. In the manner described more fully above, Defendant Fyffe and the
Defendant Officers, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other,
fabricated evidence, including without limitation, false police reports, fabricated
statements attributed to witnesses, and fabricated testimony offered at grand jury
and other pretrial proceedings. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers
knowingly fabricated this evidence and a reasonable likelihood exists that the false
evidence affected the decision of the grand jurors and courts that considered this
false evidence when determining whether probable cause existed.
221. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers were acting under color of
law and within their scope of employment when they took these actions.
222. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers misconduct directly
resulted in the unjust continued incarceration of Mr. Miller, thereby denying him
from his constitutional right to due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Absent this misconduct, there would have been no probable cause for Plaintiff’s
continued detention, and the prosecution of Plaintiff could not and would not have
been pursued.
34
223. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant
Officers’ actions, Mr. Miller’s constitutional rights were violated and he suffered
from injuries and damages, including but not limited to the loss of liberty, physical
sickness and injury, emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and
continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.
Count III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment

Due Process Claim Against Defendant Craycraft - Destruction of Evidence
224. Paragraphs 159-190 of this Complaint are incorporated as if restated
fully herein.
225. In the manner described more fully above, in an investigative capacity,
Defendant Craycraft participated in the destruction of evidence that Plaintiff could
have used to further prove his innocence.
aware that probable cause did not exist for the pending charges against Mr. Miller
for the murder of Paul Brewer.
aware that Ms. Martin’s statement implicating Mr. Miller was false, fabricated, and
a product of police coercion and promises of consideration.
228. The exculpatory value of that evidence was apparent to Defendant
Craycraft prior to its destruction. In the alternative, the evidence was potentially
exculpatory and Defendant Craycraft knew that.
229. Nonetheless, Defendant Craycraft acted in bad faith in facilitating the
destruction of physical and exculpatory evidence.
35
230. At the time of this destruction, Defendant Craycraft was aware that a
Court order had been issued requiring the preservation and disclosure of the
exculpatory evidence of which he facilitated the destruction.
231. As a result of this violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial,
Plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress more fully
alleged above.
232. As a result of this violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial,
Plaintiff suffered continued detention and prosecution for a crime that the
destroyed evidence proved he did not commit.
233. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights.
234. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by employees
and agents of the County of Montgomery, including but not limited to the
Defendants, pursuant to the policies and practices of Montgomery County, more
fully described above. This includes but is not limited to destroying evidence to
prevent defendants in criminal cases from proving their innocence.
Count IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Supervisory Liability
236. The continued wrongful detention of Plaintiff was caused by the
deliberate indifference and recklessness of supervisory defendants, including but
36
not limited to Defendant Shortridge, when he failed to adequately train and
supervise the individual Defendant Officers.
237. Specifically, these supervisory defendants were personally involved in
the case against Plaintiff and knew or, in the absence of their deliberate
indifference and recklessness, should have known of their subordinates’
unconstitutional actions and related misconduct in the case.
238. Furthermore, these supervisory defendants failed to supervise the
Defendant Officers in constitutionally adequate law enforcement practices,
particularly those which concerned interviews of suspects and the production of
exculpatory evidence, thereby encouraging and/or permitting these employees and
other defendants to engage in a reckless investigation, to coerce and fabricate false
inculpatory evidence and to withhold exculpatory and impeachment evidence, which
caused the constitutional deprivations suffered by Mr. Miller.
239. These interview techniques, failures in producing exculpatory
evidence, fabrications and other investigative procedures were contrary to accepted
methods used by law enforcement agencies. The fact that the defendant supervisors
failed to train and supervise their subordinates to ensure that they employed proper
investigation procedures demonstrates deliberate indifference and reckless
disregard for Mr. Miller’s constitutional rights.
240. The personal involvement of the defendant supervisors, through their
actions and omissions, proximately and directly caused the constitutional
37
deprivations and grievous personal injuries suffered by Mr. Miller, including the
above-mentioned injuries and damages.
241. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable,
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, willfulness, and deliberate
indifference to Mr. Miller’s clearly established constitutional rights.
Count V - 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Failure to Intervene
243. In the manner described above, during the constitutional violations
described above, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones and one or more of the
Defendant Officers stood by without intervening to prevent the misconduct, despite
having a reasonable opportunity to do so.
244. As a result of Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones’ and the Defendant
Officers’ failure to intervene to prevent the violation of Mr. Miller’s constitutional
rights, he suffered pain and injuries, as well as emotional distress.
245. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally and with willful indifference to Mr. Miller’s
rights.
246. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to
the policy and practice of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in the manner
described more fully in preceding paragraphs, and was tacitly ratified by
policymakers for the municipal defendants with final policymaking authority.
38
Count VI - 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
248. After Mr. Brewer was murdered, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones’
and the Defendant Officers’ reached an agreement amongst themselves to frame
Mr. Miller for the crimes, and to thereby deprive him of his constitutional rights
and his liberty to be continuously taken away from him, all as described in the
various Paragraphs of this Complaint.
249. In this manner, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones’ and the Defendant
Officers’, acting in concert with other unknown co-conspirators, conspired by
concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
250. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed
overt acts and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity.
251. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit prior agreement
referenced above, Mr. Miller’s constitutional rights were violated, and he suffered
financial damages, as well as severe emotional distress and anguish, as is more
fully alleged above.
252. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
253. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to
the policies and practices of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in the manner
39
described more fully in preceding paragraphs, and was tacitly ratified by
policymakers for the municipal defendants with final policymaking authority.
Count VII - 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Monell Claim Against Defendant Montgomery County
255. The actions of Montgomery County officers in withholding material
exculpatory information from Mr. Miller and their counsel were undertaken
pursuant to the policies and practices of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, as
described above, which were ratified by policymakers for the Montgomery County
Government with final policymaking authority. These policies and practices
included the failure to adequately train, supervise, and discipline officers on the
requirements concerning the prompt disclosure of newly discovered evidence that
exonerates a defendant following his arrest or conviction.
256. The policies and practices described in this Count were maintained
and implemented by the Montgomery County Government with deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
257. As a direct and proximate result of the Montgomery County
Government’s actions, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and he suffered
injuries and damages, as set forth in this Complaint.
258. The Montgomery County Government is therefore liable for the
misconduct committed by its officers.
40
Count VIII – State Law Claim

Malicious Prosecution
260. Through their actions as described above, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant
Jones and the Defendant Officers caused Mr. Miller to be improperly subjected to a
prosecution for which there was no probable cause. These judicial proceedings were
instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury, and all such proceedings
were ultimately terminated in Mr. Miller’s favor and in a manner indicative of his
innocence.
261. Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones and the Defendant Officers accused
Mr. Miller of criminal activities knowing those accusations to be without genuine
probable cause; fabricated evidence and withheld the manner in which that
evidence was fabricated; and made statements and reports to the police and/or
prosecutors with the intent of exerting influence to institute and continue the
judicial proceedings.
262. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
bad faith, and in a wanton and reckless manner, and was undertaken by Defendant
Fyffe, Defendant Jones, and the Defendant Officers within the scope of their
employment and/or official responsibilities.
263. As a result of this misconduct, Mr. Miller suffered injuries, including
bodily harm and emotional pain and suffering as more fully alleged above.
41
Count IX – State Law Claim

Negligent Supervision
265. The municipal defendants, as well as the supervisory defendants,
including Defendant Shortridge, had a duty to properly train and supervise officers,
detectives, and supervisor employees of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office,
and to provide adequate policies to prevent the above conduct, including fabricating
evidence, fabricating witness statements, and concealing material impeachment
evidence.
266. The municipal defendants and the supervisory defendants were
grossly negligent and negligent in the training, supervision and discipline of the
Defendant Officers, resulting in Mr. Miller being deprived of his right to due
process, and his right to be free from false arrest, false imprisonment, and wrongful
conviction.
267. As a result of this misconduct, Mr. Miller suffered injuries, including
bodily harm and emotional pain and suffering as more fully alleged above.
Count X
Respondeat Superior
268. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated
fully herein.
42
269. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, some of
the Defendant Officers were members and agents of the Montgomery County
Sheriff’s Office, acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment.
270. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant
Craycraft was a member of the Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney’s
Office, acting at all relevant times within the scope of his employment.
271. Defendant Montgomery County is liable as principals for all state law
torts committed by their agents.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NICKIE MILLER, respectfully requests that this
Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, Defendants Montgomery County Sheriff FRED SHORTRIDGE,
Montgomery County Sheriff Officers RALPH CHARLES JR. AND MARK
COLLIER, Montgomery County Jailer ERIC JONES, Montgomery County
Commonwealth’s Attorney KEITH CRAYCRAFT, Kentucky State Police Polygraph
Examiner, JOHN FYFFE, and other unknown officers from the Montgomery
County Sheriff’s Office and Montgomery County Regional Jail, awarding
compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs against each Defendant, and
punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants, as well as any other
relief this Court deems appropriate.
43
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, NICKIE MILLER, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Elliot Slosar

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
Arthur Loevy*
Jon Loevy*
Michael Kanovitz*
Elliot Slosar*
Amy Robinson Staples
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 243-5900
* Pro Hac Vice Motion Forthcoming
44
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 1 of 1 - Page ID#: 45
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The 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 as
provided 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 the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

NICKIE MILLER Montgomery County, Fred Shortridge, Ralph Charles Jr., Mark Collier,
Eric Jones, Keith Craycraft, John Fyffe
(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)
Loevy & Loevy

311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60607, 312-243-5900
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 DEF
Plaintiff (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 ’ 5
Defendant (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) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
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 ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act 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 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Section 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, monell claims
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
11/20/2018 /s/ Elliot Slosar
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District
__________ DistrictofofKentucky
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Montgomery County

County Clerk
44 West Main Street
Mt. Sterling, KY 40353
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 you
are 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 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
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
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) .
u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
u 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
u 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
u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
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:


for the
Eastern District
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Fred Shortridge

Montgomery County Sheriff
1 Court Street Suite 4
Mt. Sterling, Kentucky 40353
Loevy & Loevy
Chicago, IL 60607
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Mark Collier

Montgomery County Sherriff's Office
Loevy & Loevy
Chicago, IL 60607
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ralph Charles Jr.

Montgomery County Sherriff's Office
Loevy & Loevy
Chicago, IL 60607
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Eric Jones

Montgomery County Jailer
751 Chenault Lane
Mt. Sterling, KY 40353
Loevy & Loevy
Chicago, IL 60607
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) John Fyffe

Kentucky State Police Polygraph Examiner
100 Sower Blvd, Suite 102
Frankfort, KY 40601
Loevy & Loevy
Chicago, IL 60607
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Keith Craycraft

Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney
44 W Main St
Mt. Sterling, KY 40353-1386
Loevy & Loevy
Chicago, IL 60607
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Server’s address

Nickie Miller Federal Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nickie Miller Federal Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 1 of 44 - Page ID#: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, NICKIE MILLER, by his attorneys LOEVY &

LOEVY, and complaining of Defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Montgomery

County Sheriff FRED SHORTRIDGE, Montgomery County Sheriff Officers RALPH

Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney KEITH CRAYCRAFT, Kentucky

1. Plaintiff Nickie Miller was wrongfully incarcerated for nearly two

that he would be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

impact on Plaintiff’s ability to receive proper medical treatment, including

chemotherapy, while incarcerated.

that the Defendants fabricated.

Defendant Officers never succeeded in obtaining a conviction. Although the system

Defendants nevertheless succeeded in manipulating the system for two years.

6. As a result, Mr. Miller was deprived of his liberty as a pretrial

to liberty guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction and Venue

8. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the

deprivation under color of law of Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the U.S.

9. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

claims asserted herein all occurred within this district.

11. Plaintiff Nickie Miller, a military veteran, is a 56-year-old resident of

in the actions alleged in this complaint.

13. Defendants Shortridge, Charles, and Collier are referred to collectively

as the “Defendant Officers.”

14. Defendant Montgomery County is a local governmental entity

organized under Kentucky law. Defendant Montgomery County is responsible for

15. At all relevant times, Defendant Keith Craycraft was an employee of

the Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. Defendant Craycraft is

his employment in engaging in the actions alleged in this complaint.

16. Defendant Montgomery County is a local governmental entity

organized under Kentucky law. Defendant Montgomery County is responsible for

the policies, practices, and customs of the Montgomery County Commonwealth

Montgomery County Regional Jail, was an employee of the Montgomery County

alleged in this complaint.

18. Defendant Montgomery County is local governmental entity organized

practices, and customs of the Montgomery County Regional Jail.

actions alleged in this complaint.

20. The individual defendants are referred to collectively as the

The Murder of Paul Brewer

December 22, 2011.

Kentucky State Police responded to the scene.

and Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.

into Mr. Brewer’s death.

motive for Mr. Brewer’s death was financially based.

Defendant Officers Learn Significant Evidence Implicating Rick Mize

Police Learn Mize Confessed to Shooting Someone

significant evidence implicating Rick Mize in Mr. Brewer’s murder.

30. On February 14, 2012, Defendants Collier and Charles questioned

driving a certain vehicle.

35. The Defendant Officers continued to learn information implicating

Rick Mize throughout their investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death.

Police Learn Mize Manipulated Investigation

37. In that call, Ms. Lawson recounted a telephone conversation she

Rick that Misty Dehart was “going to get him caught.”

Additional Witness Informs Police of Rick Mize’s Likely Involvement

interviewed Kennie Helton at the Powell County Attorney’s Office.

first-hand knowledge regarding the murder of Mr. Brewer.

not there…I will swear on anything I love.”

she overheard rumors implicating Rick Mize in Mr. Brewer’s murder.

care about your kids…you didn’t hear this.”

45. At the conclusion of that interview, Ms. Helton agreed to provide a

DNA sample to the authorities.

Based on Helton Interview, Police Question Cody Hall Once Again

murder of Paul Brewer.