Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 9
1 2 3 4 5
E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. Nevada Bar No. 4933 7730 West Sahara Ave., Suite 109 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 (702) 364-1234 PHONE (702) 364 -1442 FAX Attorney for Taccara Brooks
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8 9 10
TACCARA BROOKS, individually, and as (Proposed) Special Administratrix of the Estate of Anthony Garrett,
11 12 13 14
Plaintiffs,
Case No. COMPLAINT
vs. (Jury Trial Demanded)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOE OFFICERS I through X; DOES XI through XX, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16 17 18 19
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, TACCARA BROOKS, individually, and as (Proposed) Special Administratrix of the Estate of Anthony Garrett, by and through her attorney E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. of the law offices of E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. and as and for her Complaint
20 21
against Defendants, and each of them states as follows: INTRODUCTION
22 23
1.
This is a civil rights and wrongful death action arising under both Federal and
24
State law for damages resulting from what Plaintiffs allege to be th e wrongful killing of Anthony
25
Garrett.
26
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27 2. 28
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 9
1
JURISDICTION (Federal Causes of Action)
2 3
3.
This action is brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress
4
violations perpetrated by the law enforcement Defendants while acting under color of state law,
5
municipal law, custom and/or policy of certain rights secured to the Plaintiffs by the Fourth,
6
Fifth and Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred
7
upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343.
8 JURISDICTION FOR THE STATE CAUSES OF ACTION
9 10 11
4.
Jurisdiction for the causes of action under the statutes of the State of Nevada is
conferred upon this Court by the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. VENUE
12 13 14
5.
Venue is proper in the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as the
claims arose in the Southern District of Nevada.
15
THE PARTIES
16 6.
Plaintiff, Taccara Brooks (Taccara), is the mother of Decedent, Anthony Garrett
17 18 19
(Anthony) and was at all times relevant herein, a resident of the State of Nevada. Ne vada. 7.
Plaintiff, Taccara Brooks, is in the process of petitioning the Eighth Judicial
20
District Court, Clark County, Nevada, to be appointed as Special Administratrix of the Estate of
21
Anthony Garrett and is and was at all times relevant releva nt herein a resident of the State of Nevada.
22 23
8.
The Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is a legal entity for the
purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
24 25 26 27 28
(hereinafter referred to as “Metro”) is responsible for the hiring, control, and supervision of all of its police officers and agents, as well as for the implementation and maintenance of official and unofficial policies pertaining to the day to day da y functioning of its officers and agents. 9.
Defendant Doe Officers I through X, inclusive, are the individual members of 2
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 9
1
Metro who assisted in, participated in, facilitated, permitted or allowed the violation of Plaintiffs’
2
civil rights and or the killing killing of Anthony. Plaintiffs will ask leave leave of this Court to insert insert the true
3 4
names and capacities of such DOE Defendants when the same have been ascertained and will further seek leave to join said DOE Defendants in these proceedings.
5 6 7
10.
Defendant Roe Officers XI through XX, inclusive, are supervisory and/or policy
making officials of Metro, as yet unidentified, who have adopted, implemented, maintained or
8
tolerated policies which permitted, facilitated or allowed the violation of the Plaintiff’s civil
9
rights and/or the killing of the Decedent Anthony or who have negligently trained, hired or
10
supervised officers, agents or employees of Metro. Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to insert
11
the true names and capacities of such Defendants when the same have been ascertained and will
12 further ask leave to join said Defendants in these proceedings. 13 14
11.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, all of the actions of the Defendants and
15
each of them were performed under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as police
16
officers.
17 18 19
12.
That at all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents,
servants, employers and/or employees of each other and were acting within the course and scope of said relationship.
20 FACTS
21 22
13.
On July 12, 2017, Taccara heard a knock on the front door.
When Tacarra
23
answered the door, she saw a uniformed Metro officer and an individual that identified himself
24
as a plain clothes detective. The officers asked if they could search Anthony’s room because
25
they believed that Anthony was involved in some burglaries. Taccara consented for the officers
26 27
to search Anthony’s room. After the first two officers went upstairs, additional officers and
detectives arrived on scene. One officer stayed with with Taccara and prevented Taccara from going
28 3
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 9
1
upstairs to her room. Other officers were upstairs for an extended period of time searching searching the
2
house. It was reported that an officer outside saw Anthony hiding in some bushes. Apparently,
3 4
Anthony ran around the house with an officer in pursuit. Anthony then ran into into his house and ran upstairs where officers officers were present. Within a short period of time, Taccara heard a shot, but
5 6 7
was given no information about the shot shot by officers. After the shot was fired, fired, the scene was treated as a barricaded barricaded suspect situation and SWAT was called. Taccara was then removed from
8
the house along with other family family members and a friend. Metro Officers then allowed a K-9 dog
9
to bite and drag Anthony after being shot and while he was still alive. Almost seven (7) hours
10
passed from the time of the shot until Anthony was transported to a hospital. It was during this
11
delay that Tacarra learned that her son had been shot.
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Civil Rights to Life and Security of Person, 42 U.S.C. §1983)
13 14 15 16 17 18
14.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set
forth herein. 15.
Doe Officers acted under color of law in failing to timely render medical care to
-9 dog to drag and bite Anthony without lawful justification, “Anthony” and allowing a K -9
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
subjecting Anthony to excessive force, therefore depriving Taccara and Anthony of certain constitutionally protected rights, including but not limited to: a.
The right to not be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law as
guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; b.
The right to be free from excessive use of force by law enforcement
officers as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and
27 28
c.
The right to be free from pre-conviction punishment as guaranteed by the 4
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 5 of 9
1 2 3 4
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 16.
That as a proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of Defendants and each
of them and the death of Decedent Anthony, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the society, love, comfort, companionship and services of Anthony.
5 6 7
17.
That as a further proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful conduct
as alleged above, Anthony has lost the enjoyment of life.
The wrong and unlawful acts
8
perpetrated by Defendants in intentionally disregarding the constitutional rights of o f Taccara and
9
Anthony were wilful, oppressive, malicious and with wanton disregard for the established rights
10
of Taccara and Anthony, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages.
11
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12
(Violation of Plaintiff’s Plai ntiff’s Civil Rights-Familial Rights -Familial Relationships
13
42 U.S.C. §1983)
14 15 16
18.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set
forth herein. 19.
Defendants and each of them, acting under color of state law, deprived Taccara of
17
her right to a familial relationship without due process of law by seizing Anthony by use of
18
unreasonable and unjustified force and violence, causing injuries which resulted in Anthony’s
19
death, all without provocation and in violation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by
20 21
the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, all to Plaintiffs’
damages as hereinabove alleged.
22 23 24 25 26 27
20.
That as a proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of Defendants, and each
of them, and of the death of Anthony, Taccara has been deprived of the society, love, comfort, companionship and services of her son Anthony. 21.
That the wrong and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Defendants, and each of
them, in intentionally disregarding the constitutional rights of the Taccara and her son Anthony
28 5
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 6 of 9
1
were wilful, oppressive, malicious and with wanton disregard for the established rights of
2
Taccara and Anthony, Taccara is therefore entitled to punitive damages.
3
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation (Viola tion of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Municipal Liability 42 U.S.C. §1983)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
22.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set
forth herein. 23.
Plaintiffs further allege, upon information and belief, that it is the policy, practice
and custom of Metro to tolerate and ratify the use of excessive and unreasonable force by its officers.
11 24.
Plaintiffs also allege, upon information and belief, that it is the policy, practice
12 13
and custom of Metro to negligently hire, train and supervise its officers, agents and employees. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Death)
14 15 16 17
25.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set
forth herein.
18 19 20 21
26.
Plaintiffs, upon information and belief, allege that Defendants, and each of them,
are responsible by their actions for the occurrences and injuries herein alleged. 27.
Defendant Doe Officers used unreasonable force and intentionally, wantonly,
22
wilfully, maliciously, oppressively and without just provocation or cause proximately brought
23
about the death of Anthony and the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs by withholding medical
24 25
attention to Anthony and allowing Anthony to be bitten and dragged by a Police K-9 dog while Anthony was alive. alive. Defendant Doe officers then failed to secure secure and render immediate immediate medical
26 27 28
attention for Anthony instead instead leaving him to bleed and ultimately expire. Upon information and belief, Metro ratified the Doe Officers’ conduct. 6
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 7 of 9
1 2 3 4
28.
That the wrong and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Defendants, and each of
them, in intentionally disregarding the rights of Taccara and Anthony were wilful, oppressive, malicious and with wanton disregard for the established rights of Taccara and Anthony, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages.
5 6 7 8
29.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct and each of them as
herein alleged, Taccara and Anthony have been damaged in an amount in excess of $15,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at trial.
9
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
(Negligence)
11 12
30.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set
forth herein. 31.
At all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them, were subject to a
13 14
duty of care to avoid causing cau sing unnecessary physical harm and distress to citizens c itizens in the exercise of
15
the police function. function. The conduct of Defendants Defendants as set forth herein did not comply with with the
16
standard of care to be exercised by reasonable police officers, thus, the Defendants, and each of
17
them, breached their duty of care.
18 19
32.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as herein alleged,
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $15,000.00, the exact amount to be
20 21
proven at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Supervision and Training)
22 23 24 25 26 27
33.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 as though fully set
forth herein. 34.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Metro had prior notice of the Defendant
DOE Officers’ lack of training in the areas of search and seizure, securing of medical treatment
28 7
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 8 of 9
1
for injured injured suspects, the use of Police K-9 dogs to apprehend suspects, and detention.
2
took no steps to re-train Defendant Doe Officers after the incident to correct their abuse of
3 4
Metro
authority, or to discourage their misconduct. 35.
Metro has a mandatory duty to properly and adequately train and supervise
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
officers and personnel under its control so as to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm to the citizens of Clark Clark County. Metro failed to take necessary, appropriate appropriate and/or adequate measures to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and state rights. 36.
Metro breached their duty of care to the Plaintiffs in that they failed to adequately
train and supervise their officers and by having inadequate training and supervisory procedures regarding search and seizure, securing of medical treatment for injured suspects, as well as the
12 use of K-9 dogs to apprehend suspects, and detention. 13 14
37.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' and each of them, negligence as
15
herein alleged, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $15,000.00, the exact
16
amount to be proven at trial.
17 18 19
ATTORNEY'S FEES
38.
Plaintiffs have been required to retain the services of E. Brent Bryson, Ltd. to
prosecute this action and should be awarded their reasonable costs, expenses and attorney's fees
20 21 22
incurred herein pursuant to U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988 and all relevant Nevada Revised Statutes regarding the state claims.
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
24
As to the Federal claims:
25
1.
For compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000.00;
2.
For punitive damages against Defendant Doe Officer individually in the amount
26 27
of $2,000,000.00;
28 8
Case 2:19-cv-00573-JCM-CWH Document 1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 9 of 9
1
3.
For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988;
2
4.
For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
3 4
As to the State Claims:
5 6 7
1.
For compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $15,000.00;
2.
For punitive damages against all Defendant Doe officers in an amount deemed
8
appropriate by this Court to punish them for their wrongful conduct and set an example to deter
9
further police misconduct;
10 11
3.
For special damages;
4.
For an award of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred
12 herein; and 13 14 15 16
5.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED this 5th day of April, 2019. E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD.
17 18 19 20 21
By s/E. Brent Bryson __________ E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4933 7730 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 109 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
