Kendrick Watson Vs City of Mem Lawsuit
Kendrick Watson Vs City of Mem Lawsuit
Kendrick Watson, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
CITY OF MEMPHIS, OFFICER THERMAN )
RICHARDSON, Individually and in his Official )
Capacity and OFFICER JOHNATHAN OVERLY, ) Jury Trial is Demanded
Individually and in his Official Capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Complaint
______________________________________________________________________________
Einführung
1. This is an action at law to redress the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance,
secured to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Liability Act.
alleging any and all causes of action consistent with the information provided in the
4. Plaintiff was a resident in Memphis, Tennessee, Shelby County, at all relevant times
County, Tennessee.
9. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331, federal question jurisdiction.
10. Defendants worked together as it related to the prosecution of Plaintiff, sharing and
prosecution of Plaintiff.
12. Defendants pursued Plaintiff based on their belief that they needed to take him off
14. The indictments were returned based on the evidence, and information provided by
15. Prior to any indictments, Defendant Officers worked together with Defendant City,
Case 2:21-cv-02143-JTF-tmp Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
16. Plaintiff was charged with conspiracy drug charges, kidnapping, money laundering,
17. Defendants created evidence, and falsified documents, and used that evidence to
18. Specifically, Defendants represented that Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s alleged co-
19. Defendants also falsified the amounts of drugs that it represented that it had, and
20. In addition, Plaintiff was never actually provided with any of the drugs which were
alleged to be tagged into evidence, and Plaintiff, to this date, has never seen any of
21. Plaintiff was entitled to see this information, and requested to see the information,
23. Defendants also relied on this information to secure the indictments against
Plaintiff.
24. Defendants also relied on wiretaps to secure the indictments against Plaintiff.
25. The wiretaps were either illegally obtained, or obtained after securing a search
26. Defendants never informed the judge, prior to securing the wiretaps, that it was
Case 2:21-cv-02143-JTF-tmp Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
27. Defendants never informed the grand jury that they were securing indictments
28. Plaintiff was never provided any evidence from Defendants, informing him that the
29. Plaintiff, under the United Stated Constitution, and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), was entitled to this information, even if he never asked for it.
30. However, in this case, Plaintiff repeatedly requested the information, from the year
31. To this date, Plaintiff has still not been provided with all of this information from
Defendants.
32. Defendants have actively concealed this information from Plaintiff, even though
they are aware that Plaintiff has a constitutional right to the information.
33. Plaintiff has no way of retrieving the information on his own, as the information is
34. On April 2, 2020, Plaintiff discovered, and received proof that Defendants were
35. Celitria Watson received this information from Defendant City, through their
attorney.
36. Then, on September 17, 2020, Plaintiff was made aware through April Malone, that
Defendants created false text messages, which were used to cause Plaintiff to plead
Case 2:21-cv-02143-JTF-tmp Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
guilty.
37. This information was provided by way of testimony from Defendant City, on
38. Prior to September 17, 2020, Plaintiff had the false text messages, but was not
39. Prior to September 17, 2020, it had always been represented that the false text
40. To this date, Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with any legitimate text
messages from a phone company, reflecting what was in the document that
Defendants created.
41. Defendants, while depriving Plaintiff of this information, were acting under the
color of law.
42. Plaintiff had a constitutional right to this information as part of his Discovery
43. This constitutional right of Plaintiff that was violated is a clearly established right.
44. Defendant Officers initiated the prosecutions against Plaintiff, and participated in
45. Defendant Officers created either all or some of the false documents used as the
46. Defendant City was aware of this, and allowed Defendant Officers to proceed with
this conduct.
47. Defendant City also kept this information from Plaintiff, and intentionally withheld
Case 2:21-cv-02143-JTF-tmp Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
48. Defendant City has a policy, practice, or custom, which allows its attorney to
offenses, and Defendant City makes that determination, regardless of what the law
49. Defendant City negligently supervises its officers, and elects not to review their
conduct relating to the way and manner in which they conduct investigations.
50. Defendants used the illegal, false, and fabricated evidence as the basis to get search
51. Defendants used the illegal, false, and fabricated evidence as the basis to show
52. Defendants used the illegal, false, and fabricated evidence as the basis to secure
53. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to T.C.A. 29-20-20 (a) municipalities and
54. Plaintiff alleges however that based upon the conduct of the governmental
employees, Defendant City, and pursuant to T.C.A. 29-20-205 (1) (2), the Tennessee
55. Based on Defendants use of false evidence, Plaintiff had his personal property, and
vehicles seized.
56. Defendants also instructed, and contacted the Mississippi Police Department, and
57. Defendants intentionally refused to disclose to the grand jury, or any of the judges
who arrested Plaintiff, or issued search warrants in the cases referenced, that
Case 2:21-cv-02143-JTF-tmp Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
Plaintiff had multiple legal businesses that were very profitable, and instead, made
representations that the money confiscated was from illegal drug activity.
58. Defendant City was aware that the conduct engaged in by Defendant Officers
violated the training, policies, and procedures that were written, but Defendant City
59. This is due to the fact that the officers were acting consistent with Defendant City’s
expectations.
60. Defendants conduct has caused Plaintiff to be incarcerated, and convicted, based on
61. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, and was deprived of his liberty.
62. Plaintiff, based on the misrepresentations and fraud by Defendants, had his personal
possessions confiscated.
damages of $10,000,000.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Terrell Tooten_
BPR 028506
1160 Vickery Ln Ste 2
Cordova, TN, 38016
(901) 304-8539 office
(901) 347-8776 fax
[email protected]