CIRCUIT COURT FOR HAMILTON COUNTY State of Tennessee TAYLOR O'NEAL GARNER, § - ‘ Plaintiff, § av_0$ § No. 830477 ~ i HAMILTON COUNTY § GOVERNMENT, § JURY DEMAND § and § § DESHON PARKER, § A Deputy Sheriff of Hamilton County § Government, in his individual capacity, § § Defendants. § COMPLAINT Pranvrirr, TAYLOR O'NEAL GARNER, by and through his attomey, Robin Ruben Flores, and complaining of Defendants, HAMILTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, and DESHON PARKER, states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution arising from the unreasonable seizure of the Plaintiff by Defendant Deshon Parker (“Parker”). 2. This civil rights action is brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Parker in his individual capacity, and against Defendant Hamilton County Government (“County”).3. This action seeks damages against Defendants caused by the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights as set forth more fully infra. 4. This action also raises state law claims against Parker for common law intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery and malicious prosecution, in his individual capacity. Additionally, Plaintiff brings these claims against the County pursuant to TENN. CODE ANN. § 8-8-302 and for indemnification. 5. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Parker in his individual capacity, and Plaintiff seeks for the County to indemnify Parker and to pay compensatory claims under TENN. CODE ANN. § 8-8-302. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Plaintiff's claims for relief are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to the Plaintiff by the United States Constitution. This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Thus, as to the § 1983 claims, this Court is vested with original jurisdiction pursuant to the authority stated in Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 781 (2009) and Poling v. Goins, 713 S.W.2d 305, 306 (Tenn. 1986). This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state claims pursuant to TENN. CODE ANN. § 16-10-101, et seq 7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to TENN. CODE ANN. § 20-4-102. All acts complained of occurred within Hamilton County. a. Plaintiff is currently a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.b. To the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, Parker is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, or in the alternative, conducted his primary duty as an agent and law enforcement officer for the County within the corporate limits of Hamilton County, Tennessee. THE PARTIES 8. Plaintiff is a United States citizen and resident of Tennessee. 9. The County is a municipality formed under the laws of the state of Tennessee. 10. The Hamilton County Sheriff's Office is a municipal agency or department of the County. 11. The County is liable for the acts of Parker while he acted within the scope of his employment pursuant to the County's statutory obligation to indemnify Parker 12. Atall relevant times, Parker was responsible for the safety and welfare of the Plaintiff; was under a lawful obligation to refrain from the use of unnecessary and unreasonable force when seizing the Plaintiff: was under a lawful obligation to not assault and batter the Plaintiff; and was under a lawful obligation to refrain from fabricating false reports and criminal charges against the Plaintiff. 13. At all times relevant to this litigation, Parker acted under color of state law and in the course and scope of his employment with the County. 14, Plaintiff sues Parker in his individual capacity, ~3~FACTUAL BASIS 15. Onor about December 24, 2022, Plaintiff operated a black Honda Civie within the corporate limits of Hamilton County, Tennessee. Plaintiff was the lone occupant of the Honda, 16. Parker seized Plaintiff by conducting a traffic stop in the 4800 block of Dayton Bivd., within the corporate limits of Hamilton County, Tennessee. 17. Parker approached the Plaintiff as he sat behind the wheel of the Honda. 18. The driver's window was down, and Plaintiff's hands were visible and clasped in the Plaintiff's lap. 19. Parker asked Plaintiff to turn off his Honda. Plaintiff initially said no, but then within seconds complied and turned off the Honda. 20. Parker opened the driver door of the Honda and told Plaintiff to step out. 21. Parker did not state any reason to Plaintiff as to why he wanted Plaintiff to step out. 22, At this point, Plaintiff became fearful of Parker. 23. Plaintiff, while his hands were in full view and empty of any weapons, refused to step out, stated he did not “have to,” and asked Parker if he had a warrant. 24. Parker replied that he did not need a warrant and Plaintiff replied that Parker needed a warrant.25. Parker, without warning as to what he was going to do to Plaintiff and without clearly stating any reason, grabbed Plaintiff by his clothing and violently pulled Plaintiff from the Honda, onto the pavement and onto Plaintiff's back 26. Plaintiff had in his possession a cell phone he intended to use to record Parker. 27. Parker took the phone from the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff reached up for his phone as he laid prone on his back. 28. Parker, without any justification, punched the bespectacled Plaintiff full in the face as the Plaintiff remained on his back on the pavement. 29, Plaintiff raised his empty hands. Parker turned Plaintiff onto his stomach and told Plaintiff to “put your hands behind your back” to which Plaintiff replied that he was trying to wipe his nose. 30. To be sure, Plaintiff was bleeding significantly from his nose that puddled on the pavement, and which Parker directly caused. The blow stunned and dazed Plaintiff. 31, Parker handcuffed the Plaintiff as he lay prone on his stomach. 32. Parker then falsely told Plaintiff to “stop grabbing on me.” 33. Parker then stood the handcuffed Plaintiff to his feet and took Plaintiff to the trunk of the Honda where Parker immediately slammed Plaintiff face first onto the hard surface of the Honda, causing Plaintiff additional injury. Parker had no lawful justification for this first of four instances where Parker slammed Plaintiff face-first onto hard surfaces.34. Within seconds, Parker slammed Plaintiff face-first for the second time onto the hard surface of the Honda. 35. Within seconds, Parker again slammed Plaintiff face-first for the third time onto the hard surface of the Honda, causing Plaintiff's glasses to come off Plaintiff's face, 36. This third face-slam caused Plaintiff to become limp. 37. Within seconds, Parker, while using both hands on the shoulder of Plaintiff's jacket, again slammed Plaintiff face first for the fourth time onto the pavement causing yet more injury to the Plaintiff. 38. The force of slamming Plaintiff to the pavement on the fourth attack was so strong that it caused abrasions to the Plaintiff's shoulder, which removed part of a tattoo Plaintiff had on his shoulder. 39. Parker falsely stated during the assault on Plaintiff that Plaintiff was “fighting me.” 40. Despite video evidence to the contrary Parker made false statements in an affidavit of complaint (and under oath) that the Plaintiff “resisted” by grabbing Parker's “upper leg,” and “hit my left arm once.” 41. Despite video evidence to the contrary Parker continued his false statements by claiming that Plaintiff “pushed away from his vehicle” and that Plaintiff “pulled away” from Parker as he walked Plaintiff to the police vehicle. 42. Parker used his false statements, made while under oath, to justify criminal charges against Plaintiff, which included: Resisting Arrest and Assault.43. Parker also charged Plaintiff with DUI, Driving Left of Center, Open Container, and Possession of Controlled Substance. 44. Plaintiff's injuries required immediate medical attention, and he was transported to Erlanger hospital by EMS whereupon Plaintiff was treated and released to the custody of Parker, who was present at the hospital. 45. On April 21, 2023, ADA Carl Huskins moved to dismiss all charges that Parker brought against Plaintiff, and Judge Larry Ables entered a dismissal without any conditions. COUNT ONE: UNREASONABLE SEIZURE BY EXCESSIVE FORCE (FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW 42 U.S.C. §1983 46. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 47. The force displayed by Parker amounted to unlawful force that carried a high risk of causing serious and life-threatening bodily harm and was unnecessary and unreasonable under the circumstances. Parker's shocking level of violence and excessive force was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's deprivation of his liberty by excessive force and Plaintiff's injuries and mental anguish. 48. Parker had no reason to punch the Plaintiff in the face. Parker had no reason to slam the Plaintiff face-first, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times,other than to inflict gratuitous pain and injury upon the Plaintiff. Indeed, the fourth face-slam resulted in a partial disfigurement of the Plaintiff's body. 49. Parker had time to think and reconsider his actions between each violent act, yet he made the conscious decision to persist in his unlawful behavior. 50. No reasonable law enforcement officer would have acted in this manner. 51. Parker acted under color of law and his intentional acts deprived the Plaintiff of the right secured to him under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures of his person by excessive force without Due Process of Law. COUNT TWO: VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW4?2 U.S.C. §1983 52. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 53. Parker fabricated false claims to justify his stunning level of violence against a handcuffed Plaintiff. 54, Parker's false claims, under oath in an affidavit of complaint, resulted in Plaintiff defending against the charges of resisting arrest and assault.55. Because of the criminal prosecution initiated by Parker's false claims of resisting arrest and assault, Plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty apart from his initial seizure. 56. No reasonable law enforcement officer would have acted in this manner. 57. Plaintiffs criminal prosecution was ultimately terminated in his favor not only on the resisting arrest and assault charges, but on each and every charge Parker brought against Plaintiff. 58. Asa direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's false testimony and false claims as averred in this Complaint, Plaintiff was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, and housed in the notorious Silverdale Detention facility now called the Hamilton County Jail and Detention Center on charges of resisting arrest and assault, crimes he did not commit. 59, Asa further direct and proximate result of Parker's unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiff suffered the indignity and humiliation of the loss of his liberty especially while he was housed in a notorious jail, and the cost of a criminal defense 60. Parker acted under color of law and his intentional acts deprived Plaintiff of his right secured to him under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution to not be deprived of his freedom by way of false testimony and malicious prosecution. VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY ~geFABRICATION OF EVIDENCE VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW42 U.S.C. §1983 61. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 62. Parker knowingly fabricated evidence by making false statements under oath that resulted in a criminal prosecution. Indeed, testimony has long been recognized as evidence in American Jurisprudence. 63. Asa direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs false testimony and false claims as averred in this Complaint, Plaintiff was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, and housed in the notorious Silverdale Detention facility now called the Hamilton County Jail and Detention Center on charges of resisting arrest and assault, crimes he did not commit. 64. Asa further direct and proximate result of Parker's unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiff suffered the indignity and humiliation of the loss of his liberty especially while he was housed in a notorious jail, and the cost of a criminal defense. 65. Parker's fabricated evidence was the direct and proximate result of the continued criminal prosecution. 66. No reasonable law enforcement officer would have acted in this manner. 67. Parker acted under color of law and his intentional acts deprived Plaintiff of his right secured to him under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ~10~to United States Constitution to not be deprived of his freedom by way of fabrication of evidence to secure criminal charges against the Plaintiff. COUNT FOUR: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION TENNESSEE STATE LAW CLAIM 68. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 69. Parker fabricated false claims to justify his stunning level of violence against a Plaintiff, 70. Parker's false claims, under oath in an affidavit of complaint, resulted in Plaintiff defending against the charges of resisting arrest and assault. 71. Asa consequence of the criminal prosecution initiated by Parker's false claims of resisting arrest and assault, Plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty apart from his initial seizure. 72. Plaintiff's criminal prosecution ultimately terminated in his favor not only on the resisting arrest and assault charges, but on each and every charge Parker brought against Plaintiff. 73. No reasonable law enforcement officer would have acted in this manner. 74, Asa direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs false testimony and claims as averred in this Complaint, Plaintiff was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, and housed in the notorious Silverdale Detention facility now called uethe Hamilton County Jail and Detention Center for resisting arrest and assault charges, crimes he did not commit. 75. Asa further direct and proximate result of Parker's unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and Plaintiff suffered the indignity and humiliation of the loss of his liberty especially while he was housed in a notorious jail, and the cost of a criminal defense. 76. Parker acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment with the County. 77. Through TENN. CoDE ANN. § 8-8-302, the County is liable as a principle for all torts committed by its employees or agents, including the misconduct of Parker as described in this Count. COUNTS FIVE THROUGH NIN! BATTERY AND ASSAULT TENNESSEE STATE LAW CLAIMS 78. Bach paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein, 79. Parker's actions were void of any lawful purpose. 80. ‘The FIVE blows (punch to the face; face-slam #1; face-slam #2; face- slam #3; face-slam #4) constituted FIVE UNLAWFUL ATTACKS upon the Plaintiff's person that carried a high risk of causing serious and life-threatening bodily harm and was unnecessary and unreasonable under the circumstances. Parker persisted in attacking a dazed, helpless, and defenseless Plaintiff. Parker's ~42~shocking level of violence and excessive force was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and mental anguish. 81. Parker had no reason to punch the Plaintiff in the face. Parker had no reason to slam the Plaintiff face-first, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times other than to inflict gratuitous pain and injury upon the Plaintiff. Indeed, the fourth face-slam resulted in a partial disfigurement of the Plaintiff's body. 82. Parker had time to think and reconsider his actions between each blow, yet he made the conscious decision to persist in his unlawful behavior. 83. No reasonable law enforcement officer would have acted in this manner 84. Parker acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment with the County, 85. Through TENN. CODE ANN. § 8-8-302, the County is liable as a principle for all torts committed by its employees or agents, including the misconduct of Parker as described in these Counts. COUNT TEN: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TENNESSEE STATE LAW CLAIM 86, Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 87. Inthe manner described more fully above, Parker intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduet that caused Plaintiff serious, ~436severe emotional distress as well as bodily harm and a partial disfigurement of the Plaintiff's body. 87. No reasonable officer would have acted in such a manner. 89. Parker's misconduct was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff's emotional distress and bodily harm. 90. Asa further direct and proximate result of Parker's unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated, and Plaintiff suffered the indignity and humiliation of the loss of his liberty especially while he was housed in a notorious jail, and the cost of a criminal defense. 91. Parker acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment with the County, 92. ‘Through TENN. CoDE ANN. § 8-8-302, the County is liable as a principle for all torts committed by its employees or agents, including the misconduct of Parker as described in this Count. COUNT ELEVEN: TENN. CODE ANN. § 8-8-302 TENNESSEE STATE LAW CLAIM 93. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 94. While committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Parker was an employee and agent of the County, acting at all relevant times within the scope of his employment. ~44e95. While committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Parker's behavior was calculated to facilitate and/or promote the business for which the County employed Parker. 96. The County is liable as principal for all torts committed by its agents. COUNT TWELVE: INDEMNIFICATION TENNESSEE LAW CLAIM 97. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein, 98. Tennessee law provides that the County is directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for which its employees are liable within the scope of their employment activities. 99. Parker was an employee of the County and acted within the scope of his employment in committing the actions described herein. RELIEF REQUESTED Wuereror, the Plaintiff requests relief as follows: 1) An award of nominal, punitive, compensatory, and presumed damages for each violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; 2) Awarding Plaintiff his attorney and expert witness fees and all other costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, and under other applicable law; 3) Pre-judgment and post judgment interest; 4) The right to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence presented at trial; and ~15~5) Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to TENN. R. CIV. P., Rule 38.02 on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, OBIN RUBE TENN. BPR #20751 GA. STATE BAR #200745 Attorney for Plaintiff 4110-A Brainerd Road Chattanooga, TN 37411 O: (423) 267-1575 F: (423) 267-2703 robin@robinfloreslaw.com RES ~16~