Austin Sullivan - Complaint For Damages
Austin Sullivan - Complaint For Damages
VS. :
JUDGE ____________________________
CITY OF SHREVEPORT,
SHREVEPORT POLICE CHIEF ALAN :
CRUMP, SHREVEPORT POLICE
SERGEANT MICHAEL JONES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________
SHREVEPORT POLICE OFFICER B.C.
HANCOCK, AND SHREVEPORT JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
POLICE OFFICER CODY HYDE
1.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover from the defendants compensatory damages, punitive
damages, reasonable attorney fees, judicial interest, and all costs and expenses incurred in these
proceedings, pursuant to 42 United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and other applicable
state and federal statutes and constitutional provisions, based upon the following:
PARTIES
2.
The Plaintiff is Austin Sullivan (hereinafter “Mr. Sullivan” or “Plaintiff”) a person of the
full age of majority who resides in Shreveport, Louisiana, and who is a resident and domiciliary
3.
Made Defendants herein are:
JURISDICTION
4.
This is a civil action seeking monetary damages against defendants for committing, and
conspiring to commit, acts under color of law which deprived Plaintiff of rights secured under the
Constitution and laws of the United States and which deprived Plaintiff of his security, liberty, and
property without due process of law and without equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed to
Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and other
5.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988,
and 28 United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction of this Court is further invoked
pursuant to 28 United States Code, Section 1367, in its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over
Louisiana State Law claims that are so related to claims in the action within the District Court’s
original jurisdiction that they form a part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6.
At approximately 2:12:36 a.m. on August 6, 2018, Plaintiff Austin Sullivan heard a short,
7.
Approximately 15 seconds after the first series of rapid knocks, and as he made his way to
the front door wearing nothing but his underwear, Mr. Sullivan heard another short burst of three
8.
Mr. Sullivan opened the door at approximately 2:12:57 a.m. and saw several police officers
9.
The officers did not greet Mr. Sullivan, identify themselves, state their business at his front
10.
Instead, at approximately 2:13:00 a.m., one of the officers stated “step outside” to Mr.
Sullivan.
11.
Mr. Sullivan hesitated for a moment.
12.
Then, at approximately 2:13:02 a.m., one of the officers more loudly and forcefully said
“step outside!”
13.
Video and audio recording of this interaction captures one of the officers saying “[e]ither
come out or you can get drug out!” at approximately 2:13:05 a.m. as an audible physical
confrontation ensues.
14.
On the audio recording of the incident, Mr. Sullivan can be heard saying “No sir, I’m
coming out!” at approximately 2:13:06 a.m. as the officers breached the threshold of his home and
physically attacked him; Mr. Sullivan can then be heard imploring the officers to stop.
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
15.
After the officers forced their way into Mr. Sullivan’s home, tackled him, punched him
repeatedly in his face and head, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of a police car, he was
transported to the Shreveport Police Department and charged with the felony offense of “Resisting
an Officer with Force or Violence” under La. R.S. 14:108.2, and the misdemeanor charge of
16.
Mr. Sullivan was booked into Caddo Correctional Center on the charges, and the aggregate
17.
Mr. Sullivan posted bail and was released on August 7, 2018, and then retained an attorney
to represent him.
18.
After retaining an attorney, Mr. Sullivan appeared in Caddo Parish District Court for
arraignment on charges of Battery of a Police Officer and Resisting an Officer with Force or
Violence, and entered pleas of not guilty to all charges on October 29, 2018.
19.
All criminal charges against Mr. Sullivan were dismissed by the Caddo Parish District
Attorney in open court at Mr. Sullivan’s second court setting on January 7, 2019.
20.
On the audio recording of the incident, Mr. Sullivan can be heard yelling out for help and
loudly imploring the officers to tell him what he did wrong while he was being attacked.
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
21.
According to the report prepared by Sgt. Michael Jones, the charge of Battery of a Police
Officer was based on contact between Mr. Sullivan’s front door and Sgt. Jones’ person.
22.
Mr. Sullivan’s front door opens inward rather than outward.
23.
Sgt. Jones came into contact with Mr. Sullivan’s front door because Sgt. Jones had
24.
Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, Defendants JONES,
HANCOCK, and HYDE, with other Defendants, knowingly, recklessly, and with deliberate
indifference and callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, forcibly entered Plaintiff’s home, beat him,
arrested him, transported him to a patrol unit (and to jail) in his underwear, and charged him with
having committed a violent felony against a police officer. In so doing, Defendants detained
Plaintiff without legal authority, and in the absence of any probable cause to believe that Plaintiff
had committed any criminal offense. Defendants thereby deprived Plaintiff of his rights to due
process and equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
25.
This Constitutional deprivation renders Defendants liable to Plaintiff for full compensatory
damages, attorney fees, costs of this action sufficient to remedy the damage to Plaintiff, and
punitive damages.
26.
Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, Defendants JONES,
HANCOCK, and HYDE, knowingly, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference to, and callous
disregard for, Plaintiff’s rights, forcibly entered Plaintiff’s home, beat him, arrested him,
transported him to a patrol unit (and to jail) in his underwear, and charged him with having
committed a violent felony against a police officer. Defendants thereby deprived Plaintiff of his
rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
27.
These constitutional deprivations render Defendants liable to Plaintiff for full
compensatory damages, attorney fees, and costs of this action sufficient to remedy the damage to
28.
Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, CITY, through
supervisory personnel, including but not limited to Chief of Police Crump, Sgt. Jones (the
commanding officer at the scene), as well as Internal Affairs investigators who investigated the
incident but failed to take any corrective action toward the officers involved, knowingly,
recklessly, and with deliberate indifference and callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights, failed
to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline the defendant police officers and those working in
concert with them on their duties relevant to “knock and talk” citizen encounters, the basic due
process rights implicated in an arrest scenario, the appropriate use of force, and truthfully and
accurately reporting facts in police reports. Those duties specifically include duties to refrain from
violating and conspiring to violate the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by
the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Louisiana in the specifics
set forth in the foregoing counts and other allegations of this Complaint and otherwise depriving
Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities. CITY had
knowledge, or had it exercised its duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a
continuing basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore
alleged, were about to be and were being committed. CITY had the power to prevent the
commission of these wrongs, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly,
recklessly, and with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, failed or
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
refused to do so. CITY, directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful,
deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of the police officers heretofore described.
29.
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of the defendants and those working in concert
with them as described above, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, severe mental anguish, and
other losses in connection with the deprivation of his constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United State of America and
30.
These constitutional deprivations render CITY liable to Plaintiff for full compensatory
damages, attorney fees, costs of this action sufficient to remedy the damage to Plaintiff, and
punitive damages.
31.
Acting without Plaintiff’s consent or legal authority to arrest Plaintiff, Defendants JONES,
HANCOCK, and HYDE, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference
and callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, forcibly entered Plaintiff’s home, beat him, arrested
him, transported him to a patrol unit (and to jail) in his underwear, and charged him with having
committed violent crimes against a police officer. This physical attack was made in the absence of
any valid authority or probable cause, and thus constitutes the intentional tort of battery under the
laws of Louisiana.
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
32.
Pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff shows that the action and/or
inaction of defendants, as set forth above, deprived Plaintiff of rights under State Law, including
the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as amended, and Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315, 2317,
and 2320. These non-exclusive State Law deprivations render said defendants, along with other
damages, including general damages and special damages (medical and legal expenses), and costs
of this action.
was both extreme and outrageous. As evidenced by Plaintiff’s cries for help and other exclamations
at the time of his beating and arrest, Plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe and of substantial
temporal duration. The conduct of JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE was extreme and outrageous,
the emotional distress suffered by Mr. Sullivan was severe, and the officers desired to inflict severe
emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain
34.
Pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff shows that the action and/or
inaction of defendants, as set forth above, deprived Plaintiff of rights under State Law, including
the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as amended, and Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315, 2317,
and 2320. These non-exclusive State Law deprivations render said defendants, along with other
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
damages, including general damages and special damages (medical and legal expenses), and costs
of this action.
HANCOCK commenced and caused an original criminal judicial proceeding. All of the charges
have been dismissed in favor of Mr. Sullivan, and there was no probable cause justifying the
initiation of those charges. The false police reports were made for the malicious purpose of
concealing the wrongful conduct of the officers who beat and arrested Mr. Sullivan, and for the
purpose of casting him in a negative light in order to justify the deprivation of rights that occurred.
Mr. Sullivan has suffered significant damages, including the costs of legal representation, bond
fees, medical treatment, and other general and special damages, which conform to applicable legal
36.
Pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff shows that the action and/or
inaction of defendants, as set forth in the foregoing cited paragraphs, deprived Plaintiff of rights
under State Law, including the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as amended, Louisiana Civil Code
Article 2315, 2317, and 2320. These non-exclusive state law deprivations render said defendants,
along with other unknown participants or co-conspirators, solidarily liable to Plaintiff for full
compensatory damages, including general damages and special damages (medical and legal
inaction of CITY, as set forth in the foregoing cited paragraphs, deprived Plaintiff of rights under
State Law, including the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as amended, Louisiana Civil Code Article
2315, 2317, and 2320, and including, but not limited to, theories of recovery such as abuse of
38.
These non-exclusive State Law deprivations render CITY liable to Plaintiff for full
compensatory damages, including general damages and special damages (medical and legal
to this Complaint, CITY is liable for the actions of defendants Jones, Hancock, Hyde, and the other
employees of CITY, to the extent said persons were acting in the capacity as either agents or
employees of CITY, thereby placing liability upon CITY pursuant to the theories of agency,
respondeat superior, and vicarious liability for all causes and claims stated herein arising under
40.
These non-exclusive State Law deprivations render said defendants, along with other
damages, including general damages and special damages (past, present, and future medical
41.
Defendants JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE, conspired to bring false charges against Mr.
Sullivan in order to deprive Mr. Sullivan of due process and other constitutional rights in violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Further, JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE’s conspiracy to bring false charges
against Mr. Sullivan constitutes abuse of process under the laws of Louisiana. Further, the
individual officers who falsely stated that Mr. Sullivan had committed a crime were aware of the
conspiracy, knew that it would serve to deprive Mr. Sullivan of his civil rights under the
1986.
42.
These non-exclusive deprivations and intentional acts render said defendants, along with
other unknown participants or co-conspirators, solidarily liable to Plaintiff for full compensatory
damages, including general damages and special damages (medical and legal expenses), costs of
43.
Defendants JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE, and CITY, individually and together, and
jointly and severally, and by and through their agents, servants, and employees, unlawfully
restrained and/or imprisoned Plaintiff and restricted Plaintiff’s personal liberty and freedom of
locomotion.
44.
Defendant JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE, and CITY, through its agents, servants, and
employees physically, aggressively, and unlawfully invaded the home of Plaintiff, and violently
took hold of him and restrained him with handcuffs, rendering him immobile.
45.
Defendants JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE, and CITY, through its agents, servants,
carelessly, and/or recklessly restrained Plaintiff, and restricted his movements with violence, brute
46.
Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned, without any justification, and against his will, in his own
47.
Defendants JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE, and CITY, by and through their agents,
servants, and/or employees, acted without having any reasonable grounds to believe that Plaintiff
had committed a criminal offense, or that it was otherwise legally and morally necessary to restrain
48.
At no time did Plaintiff give permission, consent, or authority to be restrained or
49.
Plaintiff’s imprisonment and confinement were by physical force and physical barrier, and
50.
As a direct and proximate foreseeable result of the Defendants’ false imprisonment, as set
forth above, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including physical bodily injuries, physical pain and
suffering, mental pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully
51.
At all relevant times, the employees, agents and/or officers of CITY’s Police Department,
including JONES, HANCOCK, AND HYDE, were acting under the color of state law.
Case 5:19-cv-01017-SMH-KLH Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
52.
At all relevant times, the employees, agents, and/or officers of Shreveport’s Police
Department, including JONES, HANCOCK, HYDE, as well internal affairs investigators, were
acting pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a longstanding practice or custom of the
53.
Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Shreveport Police Department, including
its agents, employees, and/or officers, together with other City of Shreveport policymakers and
supervisors maintained, inter alia, the following unconstitutional customs, practices, and/or
policies:
b. Providing inadequate training regarding how to detain suspects and the appropriate use
of physical force;
c. Providing inadequate training regarding how to intervene to stop other officers from
reasonably should have known, had dangerous propensities for abusing authority and for using
police officers and other personnel, including the individually named defendant officers, who
CITY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, had the aforementioned
numbers of excessive use of police force, including by failing to discipline, retrain, investigate,
terminate, and recommend officers for criminal prosecution who participate in excessive use
of police force.
54.
CITY had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the deficient policies, practices and
customs alleged above. Despite having knowledge of the above, CITY condoned, tolerated, and
through its own actions or inactions, ratified such policies. CITY also acted with deliberate
indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with respect to the
55.
As a direct and proximate result of the Constitutional violations caused by the employees,
agents and/or officers of the Shreveport Police Department, and the policy makers, Plaintiff
suffered violations of his Constitutional rights guaranteed to him by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other provisions of the United States Constitution, and
56.
Moreover, as a result of the defendant Officers’ actions, including those of Officers
JONES, HANCOCK, and HYDE, Plaintiff suffered injuries and is entitled to recover all damages
allowable for constitutional violations such as 42 USC § 1983, including compensatory damages,
special damages, economic damages, all costs incurred in prosecuting this action, and attorney fees
g. For all costs of this proceeding, including expert witness fees; and,
Respectfully Submitted,
THE HATCH LAW FIRM, LLC.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff CADDO PARISH County of Residence of First Listed Defendant CADDO PARISH
(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)
CHRISTOPHER HATCH 318-424-1111
101 Milam Street, Suite 100, Shreveport, LA 71101
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)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State