Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 1 of 23 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DAVID BLAIR Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1515

v. THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, RICHARD CANTU AND JESSE AQUINO, Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT COME NOW, David Blair, complaining of Defendants, The CITY OF DALLAS, Texas, more particularly The CITY OF DALLAS Police Department, by and through its agents and servants acting in their official capacity, Officer Richard Cantu, individually and in his official capacities as a Dallas police officer and Officer Jesse Aquino, individually and in his official capacities as a Dallas police officer, and for cause would show the Honorable Court as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against The CITY OF DALLAS for

Dallas Police Officers Richard Cantu and Jesse Aquino's use of excessive force, assault, unlawful arrest and detention resulting in the injuries sustained by David Blair (Blair) under the color of law in violation of his individual rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and in violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 2. Plaintiff alleges that the City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), who is

responsible for the daily operations of The CITY OF DALLAS and Chief of Police, David O.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 1

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 2 of 23 PageID 2

Brown ("Brown"), delegated with the authority for setting policies, including training of the Dallas Police Officers, had a duty, but failed to implement and/or enforce policies, practices and procedures for the Dallas Police Department (DPD) that respected David Blair's constitutional rights to protection and equal treatment under the law. This duty was delegated to Chief Brown by the Dallas City Council and City Manager Gonzalez. Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez, Mayor Rawlings and Chief Browns failure to implement the necessary policies and the implementation of unconstitutional policies deprived David Blair of equal protection and due process under the fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and caused his unwarranted and excruciating physical and mental anguish. For these civil rights violations and other causes of action discussed herein, Plaintiff seeks answers and compensation for his damages. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, David Blair is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Dallas

County, Texas. 4. Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS is a municipality located in Dallas County,

Texas. The CITY OF DALLAS operates the DPD. The CITY OF DALLAS funds and operates the DPD, which, along with City Manager Gonzalez, Chief Brown and Mayor Rawlings are responsible for the implementation of the police departments budget, policies, procedures, practices, and customs, as well as the acts and omissions, challenged by this suit. The CITY OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT is also responsible for preventive, investigative, and enforcement services for all citizens of The CITY OF DALLAS. The CITY OF DALLAS may be served with citation herein by and through its agent for service of process, Warren Ernst, City Attorney, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Additional service is

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 2

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 3 of 23 PageID 3

being made on Mayor Mike Rawlings, 1500 Marilla Street, Room 5EN, Dallas, Texas 75201. 5. Defendant Richard Cantu (Cantu), upon information and belief, is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course and scope of his employment for The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant Cantu may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas 75215 or wherever he may be found. 6. Defendant Jesse Aquino (Aquino), upon information and belief, is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course and scope of his employment for The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant Aquino may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas 75215 or wherever he may be found. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction exists in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 as this

action is brought under, inter alia, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to David Blair by constitutional and statutory provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims arising under the laws of the State of Texas. 8. Venue is proper in this court under because the causes of action occurred within

the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 3

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 4 of 23 PageID 4

STATE ACTION 9. To the extent applicable, Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting under the

color of state law when they subjected David Blair to the wrongs and injuries hereinafter set forth. FACTS 10. On or about October 2, 2013, David Blair, upon information and belief, was

confronted by Defendants Dallas Police Officers Cantu and Aquino for no lawful reason. Blair was outside talking on the phone when the police vehicle stopped and the two Dallas Police Officers began to stare at Blair for no lawful reason. The Defendant Officers shined a light in Blairs face which prevented him from knowing what was happening in front of him. The Defendant Officers had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that Blair was or had committed a crime. 11. Blinded by the shining light, Blair asked the officers to stop shining the light in

his face. At that point, the Defendant Officers pulled off but stopped once again and asked Blair to repeat what he said. Blair repeated what he said and at that point the officer driving the vehicle backed up the vehicle and it appeared they were looking to start trouble. 12. Fearing for his life, Blair decided to walk back towards his apartment because he

felt the officers were going to harm him. Blair went inside of his apartment until he thought the officers were gone. Blair's three year son and his mother, Cynthia Oliver ("Oliver") were in the house. Blair told Oliver about his encounter with Defendants Cantu and Aquino and told her he was going outside to make sure everything was okay. As Blair walked outside of his apartment the officers pulled out their service revolvers and fired over 14 shots at Blair for no lawful reason.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 4

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 5 of 23 PageID 5

13.

Blair could hear the bullets striking his apartment, barely missing him, before he

was able to get back inside of his apartment for safe covers. Not only was Blair fearful for his life but for his three year old son and Oliver who were a short distance away from where the bullets struck the apartment. 14. Blair feared that he, his son and Oliver were going to be killed. The officers

continued to shoot so Blair grabbed his son and Oliver and was able to make it to a bedroom where he was able to contact 911 for help. Shortly thereafter an officer contacted Blair on his phone and asked him to have everyone inside come out of the house. When they walked outside one officer grabbed Oliver and another grabbed Blair where he was thrown to the ground and handcuffed him and placed him under arrest for no lawful reason. The officers took possession of Blair's cell phone and has yet to return it. Blair was placed in a police car and driven to the front of his apartment complex until a detective asked to speak to him. Blair was then taken to the front of the Morrell Train Station where he was interrogated. 15. Blair explained what happened and was asked did he own a gun. Blair replied

that he did and at that point the officers stated they were going to search Blairs apartment. Blairs apartment was searched. Blair did not know why he was being asked about his

ownership of guns because he did not have any of his guns in his possession when the officers attempted to kill him. 16. At no time did the Defendant Officers tell Blair why he was being harassed. After

the officers searched Blairs apartment he was told by an unidentified Dallas Police officer that they were taking him to the Lamar Station headquarters for further questioning. One of the officers, an older male, entered the police car Blair was in from the drivers side back seat and reached across Blair to buckle the seat belt around him. The officer told the other officers he

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 5

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 6 of 23 PageID 6

had things handled. It was this point that the officer pretended he was securing the seatbelt around Blair and instead and without warning punched Blair in the jaw. He then told Blair to shut the fuck up as he buckled up the seatbelt around Blair. 17. While enroute to the police station, the officers verbally abused Blair and called

him a bitch and a pussy. The officer driving the car saw what was happening so he began driving extremely fast to prevent the officer from assaulting Blair while he was in handcuffs. 18. Once they arrived to the police station, one of the officers pulled Blair out of the

car and shoved him in the back as they walked towards the building. They were met by a third officer who escorted Blair to the elevator where all three officers and Blair entered It was at this point that one of the arresting officers told the officer who met them at that station that Blair likes to shoot at police officers. The officer responded back by saying if he was there he would have killed Blair. The officers were harassing Blair and acted if they were going to harm Blair, which further caused him to fear for his life. For the first time, Blair realized that he was been falsely accused of firing a handgun at the officers. Blair did not have a handgun in his possession when the officers fired multiple gunshots at him. After hours of questioning, Blair was finally released the next day and was not charged with any crimes, specifically firing shots at the officers as alleged. 19. life. 20. The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew of As a result of the Defendant Officers unlawful attack on Blair, he feared for his

Defendants Cantu and Aquinos behavior and lack of training but did nothing to protect Blair and others from the harm he suffered.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 6

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 7 of 23 PageID 7

21.

Defendant, The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD has a longstanding record of not

providing DPD officers with adequate training and not preventing excessive force by Dallas Police officers. The actual practice or custom of the DPD regarding the use of deadly force was to shoot first and ask questions later. Dallas City Councilman Dwaine Caraway recently

confirmed to newsmakers that the city council and The CITY OF DALLAS had in fact delegated policy-making authority to Chief Brown, giving him the responsibility for setting training policies and that there was training issues which resulted in the killing of an unarmed individual. 22. In fact, City Councilman Caraway acknowledged that there is an issue with

police training. Chief Brown has admitted that there is a need for a foot pursuit policy and additional police training. As a result of the lack of training and the official custom or policies of the DPD, the following incidents have taken place in The CITY OF DALLAS under the direction of City Manager Gonzalez, Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown: Dallas is at the top of the list of police misconduct stats in the South, along with Houston, San Antonio and Irving Dallas ranked #11 in the highest police misconduct rates, ranking higher than all of Orange County, California. Dallas ranked second nationally in police misconduct incidents, behind #1 New Orleans. Since 2001, over 60 unarmed black men have been killed by Dallas Police Department 23. In 2013 alone, there have been at least 12 Dallas Police shootings of unarmed

individuals. On December 10, 2013, 19-year-old Kelvion Walker was still in the vehicle with his hands up when a Dallas police officer shot him. There exist, a persistent, widespread practice of police shootings that results from the training or lack thereof, received by DPD officers. Upon

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 7

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 8 of 23 PageID 8

information and belief, DPD officers are trained by individuals with little or no experience working in the field. 24. Recommendations for revisions in the DPD's policies and procedures regarding

the use of deadly force were made by Geoffrey P. Alpert in 1987. It was stated in the report that to reduce the police use of deadly force in Dallas, and at the same time to protect the safety of the citizens and officers, a new philosophy and a new approach would be required. In order for Dallas to enter the 1990's with a set of police policies, procedures and customs commensurate with its high set of municipal values, a conscious decision must be made to overhaul a system creaking with age and tradition, and made obsolete by the challenges of a new generation of citizens. 25. The Dallas City Council, which authorized this study, outlined the five major

areas to be examined. The areas include: a) The Police Officer Applicant Selection Process; b) Teaching Methods and Materials on the Use of Deadly Force; c) "Shoot-Don't-Shoot" Training; d) Weapons' Training; and e) Policies Relating to the Use of Deadly Force. 26. It was recommended that a formal procedure such as an Early Warning System be

developed and implemented to identify officers who are prone to emotional instability or behavior problems. It was clear that The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew of the Defendant Officers emotional instability, but did nothing to correct the problem as recommended. It was recommended that all officers be required to participate in at least 40 hours of in-service training each year which is selected and designed to update them on departmental philosophy, procedures, skills and techniques. It was recommended that any

training which places recruits or officers in stressful situations should be used to assist in

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 8

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 9 of 23 PageID 9

improving the individual's performance. For example, an Early Warning System which can assist in the identification of officers who are experiencing stress could eliminate harmful consequences of stress or performance problems before they occur. Although no particular set of criteria can determine stress or performance problems, a system can be established to identify those officers who may be experiencing problems. An early warning system makes no conclusions or determination about stress or performance, but does assist supervisory personnel in evaluating potentially troublesome behavior. Simple criteria including complaints made against the officer, number of times officer has used force, involvement in traffic accidents can be among the factors used to identify officers who may be heading for trouble. 27. As aforesaid, the Defendant Officers fired multiple gunshots at Blair, using

excessive force for no lawful reasons. In fact, the Defendant Officers fired at least 14 shots at Blair, which could have not only killed Blair but his three year old son and Oliver. 28. There is no evidence that the Defendant Officers were in imminent danger. There

were no signs of shots fired at the officers that would indicate that the use of deadly force was justified. The DPD Drawing or Displaying Firearms policy requires that a threat or reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or they have reasonable fear for their own safety and/or the safety of others, exist in order to authorize an officer to draw or display her/his firearm. Upon information and belief, DPD officers are not provided with adequate training. Once a year, Chief Brown requires DPD Officers to receive both active and simulating training, with the majority of the training requiring shooting. This policy has led to high number of police shootings in Dallas. 29. Blair posed no risk to the Defendant Officers or any other person in the immediate

area. Blair did not attempt to harm the Defendant Officers and was not committing a crime or reasonably believed to have committed a crime when the officers fired multiple gunshots at him.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 9

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 10 of 23 PageID 10

30.

At the time the Defendant Officers drew their service revolvers, there had been no

previous interaction between Blair and the Defendant Officers, and at no time did Blair do anything that would justify the use of deadly force. The drawing of an Officers weapon inherently assumes that the use of force will cause death or serious bodily injury to the suspect, and is to be applied under very narrowly defined circumstances. According to Dallas Police General Order 906.02(D) Authorization to Use Deadly Force authorized by Chief Brown, Officers will only use deadly force to protect themselves or another person from imminent death or seriously bodily injury. General Order 906.02(E) Drawing or Displaying Firearms; requires that a threat or reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or they have reasonable fear for their own safety and/or the safety of others, exist in order to authorize an officer to draw or display her/his firearm. Blair posed no risk to the Defendant Officers and was not committing a crime while he talked on the telephone outside of his apartment complex. 31. Defendants Cantu and Aquinos unlawful and unwarranted acts, lack of training

and the official customs or policies of the DPD caused David Blairs injuries. 32. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants Cantu and

Aquino were acting in the scope of their employment as agents, servants, and employees of Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, specifically the DPD, within its executive branch and was performing a governmental function. 33. Plaintiff would further show that Defendant Cantu and Aquino's actions were the

result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of the DPD in regards to the use of deadly force for which The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew or should have known but never provided the requisite and proper training.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 10

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 11 of 23 PageID 11

34.

Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the

actions of Defendants Cantu and Aquino described herein would not violate David Blair's rights. In other words, no reasonably prudent police officer under similar circumstances could have believed that Defendants Cantu and Aquino's conduct was justified. 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has sustained

substantial damages and pecuniary loss. 36. Upon information and belief, the DPD has not implemented policies and

procedures to aggressively curtail deadly shooting cases and foot pursuits that have been a major problem since the early eighties when the DPD was the subject of a Federal Investigation and continues to exist today. EXCESSIVE FORCE COUNT I-42 U.S.C. 1983 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquinos actions on the occasion in question were wrongful and constituted gross negligence in depriving Blair of his constitutional rights, as alleged more fully below. 38. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants Cantu and

Aquino had a duty to avoid infliction of unjustified bodily injury to Blair, to protect his bodily integrity and to not trample on his constitutional rights. 39. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino failed to act as a

reasonable police officer would have acted in the same or similar circumstances. That is, Defendants Cantu and Aquino, without justification and the need to do so, fired multiple gunshots at Blair as described above without probable cause and/or legal justification. Blair

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 11

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 12 of 23 PageID 12

never made any threatening gestures towards Defendants Cantu and Aquino nor was he committing any crimes when the Defendant Officers fired multiple gunshots at him. 40. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino fired multiple

shots at Blair, which could not only harmed Blair but his three year old son and Oliver. The excessive and deadly force used by Defendants Cantu and Aquino was not reasonable, justified nor was it necessary under the circumstances. 41. Defendants Cantu and Aquinos actions were not objectively reasonable because

they followed a procedure designed to inflict excessive and deadly force in restraining individuals in a non-life threatening situation. The Defendant Officers fired over 14 gunshots at Blair for no lawful reason. 42. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino denied David Blair his

right to be free from deprivation of his rights without due process of law, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the DPD in regards to the use of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these violations of David Blair's rights, hes suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 43. The force used by Defendants Cantu and Aquino was unnecessary and

unreasonable under the circumstances, as David Blair, simply talking on his cellphone, did not require the use of such excessive and deadly force. Defendants Cantu and Aquino had no probable cause to suspect that a crime was being committed or that their conduct was reasonable.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 12

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 13 of 23 PageID 13

RACIAL PROFILING COUNT II CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION 44. 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-43 as if fully set forth herein. Racial Profiling: Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino clearly

and wrongfully used race as a factor, a proxy, for reasonable suspicion and using excessive force on Blair. Additionally, Plaintiff would show that it is the official customs, policies and practices of the DPD in regards to the use of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown to treat African Americans in a cruel manner regardless of the circumstances or the need to. The facts show that there was no probable cause for Blair's arrest. In fact, Plaintiffs would show that the excessive force used by Defendants Cantu and Aquino was not reasonable nor was it necessary as Blair was not violating any laws. Defendants Cantu and Aquino treated Blair in the manner they did because he was black. The poor treatment of African Americans by the DPD, mainly Defendants Cantu and Aquino, is a well-known fact in Dallas, Texas. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquinos actions were in violation of TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 2.131-137 (Vernon Supp. 2004) and is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff. 46. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting within

established wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of the DPD in regards to the use of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown at the time of the incident and further that Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS knew or should have known of these said malicious customs, policies, practices and/or procedures for which City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew or should have known but never provided the requisite and proper training. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these violations of Blair's rights, hes suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of the

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 13

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 14 of 23 PageID 14

Court. Defendants Cantu and Aquino under the color of law, deprived Blair of his civil rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. FAILURE TO TRAIN COUNT III 42 U.S.C. 1983 47. herein. 48. Defendants Cantu and Aquino, acting under color of law and acting pursuant to Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 as if fully set forth

customs, practices and policies of The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD in regards to the use of excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown deprived Blair of rights and privileges secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by other laws of the United States, by failing to provide proper training in the use of excessive and deadly force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and related provisions of federal law and in violation of the above cited constitutional provisions. The DPD, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown deliberate indifference in failing to train based on the obviousness of the need for training has resulted in a number of shootings involving unarmed individuals. 49. With respect to the claims made the basis of this lawsuit, The CITY OF DALLAS

and the DPD failed to adequately train its employees regarding the use of excessive and deadly force. This failure to train its employees in a relevant respect reflects a deliberate indifference to The CITY OF DALLAS, DPD, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown to the rights of the citys inhabitants and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 50. Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD under the direction of City Manager

Gonzalez and Chief Brown developed and maintained a policy of deficient training of its police force in the use of force, including the use of excessive and deadly force in the apprehension of

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 14

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 15 of 23 PageID 15

individuals. The CITY OF DALLAS ' training is designed and implemented by Chief Brown to act in this regard. The actual practice or custom of the DPD regarding the use of deadly force was to shoot first and ask questions later. 51. The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's failure to provide adequate training to its

police officers regarding the use of deadly force reflects deliberate indifference by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown and reckless and conscious disregard for the obvious risk that officers would use excessive or deadly force on citizens and made the violations of David Blair's constitutional rights, a reasonable probability. 52. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino's actions were the result

of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures for which The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew or should have known but never provided the requisite and proper training. 53. On information and belief, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, DPD, City

Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown, acting through official policies, practices, and customs, and with deliberate, callous, and conscious indifference to the constitutional rights of Blair failed to implement the policies, procedures; and practices necessary to provide constitutionally adequate protection and assistance to Blair during his struggle to survive and implemented policies, procedures, and practices which actually interfered with or prevented with or prevented Blair from receiving the protection, assistance and care he deserved. 54. For instance, the following conduct, policies, and customs, inter alia, by

Defendants violated Blairs constitutional rights: a. The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's failure to adequately train or discipline its officers;

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 15

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 16 of 23 PageID 16

b. Defendants policy on the use of deadly force, which encourages officers to shoot first and ask questions later; c. Defendants foot pursuit policy; d. Failing to recognize officers with emotional problems based on prior violations; g. Failure to conduct the type of investigation that would have been conducted had he not been a minority or a resident in a high crime area; h. Failure to get more police employees properly trained to professionally handle foot pursuits. i. 72-hour waiting period policy allows perpetrators of deadly shootings to walk free. 55. In addition, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, DPD, City Manager Gonzalez

and Chief Brown as applicable, failed and refused to implement customs, policies, practices or procedures, and failed to train its personnel adequately on the appropriate policies, practices or procedures regarding the use of excessive and deadly force. In so doing, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS knew that it was acting against the clear dictates of current law, and knew that as a direct consequence of their deliberate decisions, the very situation that occurred -- i.e., Blairs injuries -- in all reasonable probability would occur. 56. Defendants actions demonstrate that before his injuries Blair was the victim of

purposeful discrimination, either because of his race and/or gender, or due to an irrational or arbitrary state classification unrelated to a legitimate state objective. 57. Additionally, no rational basis existed for The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's

alleged policies of affording minorities less police protection or assistance than other crime victims or giving these victims less investigative attention than other victims. Furthermore, unlike what Defendants Cantu and Aquino did, no reasonably prudent police officer, under similar circumstances, would have used excessive and/or deadly force when no crime had been

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 16

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 17 of 23 PageID 17

committed. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the actions of The CITY OF DALLAS and Defendants Cantu and Aquino described herein would not violate Blairs rights. In other words, no reasonably officer, under similar circumstances, could have believed that their conduct was justified. 58. The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's failure to properly train its police officers

regarding the use of force under the authority of City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown was the proximate cause of the violations of Blair's constitutional rights. FALSE ARREST COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. 1983 59. herein. 60. Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth

and Aquinos actions were objectively unreasonable and done in bad faith in that they arrested Blair without probable cause, after shooting at him for no lawful reason. Blair did not commit a crime as the evidence would show and simply was talking on his cellphone when he was profiled and harassed by the Defendant Officers. Plaintiff would further show that hes suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court as a result of the wrongful arrest and that such arrest was done under color of law. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting within the official customs, policies, practices and/or procedures in regards to the use of excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez, Chief Brown and The CITY OF DALLAS at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful arrest was done in violation of Blairs rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 17

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 18 of 23 PageID 18

Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court as a result of the violations of his rights. 61. Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting under the color of law when they

deprived David Blair of his constitutional right to be free from false arrest. 62. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu

and Aquinos actions were objectively unreasonable and done in bad faith because Defendants Cantu and Aquino was without probable cause to think that Blair had committed a crime. Plaintiff would further show that hes suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court from the wrongful arrest done under color of law. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD in regards to the use of excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful shooting was done in violation of David Blairs rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court as a result of these violations of his rights. ASSAULT AND BATTERY COUNT V 63. herein. 64 Defendants Cantu and Aquino intentionally and without consent placed Blair in Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth

apprehension of imminent harmful contact and caused harmful bodily contact to him. 65. As a proximate result of the foregoing, Blair suffered grievous bodily harm,

substantial physical and emotional pain.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 18

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 19 of 23 PageID 19

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN AND DISCIPLINE COUNT VI 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-65 as if fully set forth herein.

Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD lacked guidelines both to restrict the use of force, including the use of excessive and deadly force or if such guidelines existed, they were grossly inadequate to ensure the proper and restrained use of force by police personnel. 67. Plaintiff would show that Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager

Gonzalez, Chief Brown and Mayor Rawlings endorsed and/or ratified the unfettered use of excessive and deadly force, even in situations where no crime was committed. Plaintiff would show that Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez, Chief Brown and the DPDs failure to properly train, supervise, test, regulate, discipline or otherwise control its employees and the failure to promulgate proper guidelines for the use of force including fire arms constitutes a custom, policy, practice and/or procedure in condoning unjustified use of deadly force in violation of the constitutional rights of Blair. Furthermore, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS' and the DPD's failure to properly train, supervise, test, regulate, discipline or otherwise control its employees in regards to the use of excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown serves to condone the improper behavior previously alleged. As a result of this failure to train and discipline, Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court. As described above, Defendants Cantu and Aquino used excessive and/or deadly force when it was unnecessary despite the lack of any threat necessitating the need to do so.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 19

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 20 of 23 PageID 20

INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS COUNT VII 68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiff would show if Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting in their individual capacity, when they committed the following intentional torts against Blair: a. b. 69. Assault and Battery; and False Imprisonment.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Cantu and Aquino,

Plaintiff suffered loss wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish and severe emotional distress within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 70. Defendants Cantu and Aquino embarked on a willful, malicious, reckless and

outrageous course of conduct that was intended to cause and, in fact, caused Blair to suffer extreme and severe mental and emotional distress, agony and anxiety. 71. Defendants Cantu and Aquinos aggressive and violent attack on an unarmed,

fleeing, and defenseless man offends generally accepted standards of decency and morality. GROSS NEGLIGENCE COUNT VIII 72. herein. 73. Defendants Cantu and Aquino had a duty to employ only reasonable measures in Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as if fully set forth

the treatment of Blair. 74. Notwithstanding said duties, Defendants Cantu and Aquino acted in a wanton and

willful manner, exhibiting such carelessness and recklessness as to evince a conscious disregard for the life and safety of Blair.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 20

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 21 of 23 PageID 21

75.

Defendants Cantu and Aquino were aware that Blair had not committed a crime

and Defendants Cantu and Aquino were not facing any imminent or serious threat of bodily harm or death. Thus, they knew or should have known that they had no right to use any force whatsoever with respect to David Blair. They nonetheless illegally apprehended Blair through their use of deadly force by firing multiple gunshots at him. 76. Defendants Cantu and Aquino knew or should have known that their course of

action of drawing their lethal weapons and firing multiple gunshots at Blair would place him in grave danger of serious injury. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendants Cantu and

Aquino, Plaintiff has suffered damages. DAMAGES ALL DEFENDANTS COUNT IX 78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set forth

herein. Defendants acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the following injuries suffered by Plaintiff: a. Actual damages; b. Loss of wages; c. Pain and suffering and mental anguish suffered by David Blair; d. Mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff; e. Loss of quality of life; f. Exemplary and punitive damages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of court; g. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable laws, Plaintiff should be awarded reasonable attorney's fees for the preparation and trial of this

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 21

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 22 of 23 PageID 22

cause of action, and for its appeal, if required; h. Prejudgment interest; and i. Post judgment interest. 79. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits of the court. PUNITIVE/EXEMPLARY DAMAGES X 80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 79 as if fully set forth

herein. Additionally and in the alternative, the conduct of Defendants Cantu and Aquino was done with malice. As such, Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages to deter this type of conduct in the future. In the alternative, such heedless and reckless disregard of David Blairs rights, safety and welfare is more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence or misjudgment. Such unconscionable conduct goes beyond ordinary negligence, and as such Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages are awarded against Defendants Cantu and Aquino in a sum which is within the jurisdictional limits of this court. COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES 81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 80 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). As such, Plaintiff requests the Court to award costs and attorney fees incurred in Plaintiffs prosecution of this litigation. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 81 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiff would show that Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the negligence and gross negligence, which was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 22

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14

Page 23 of 23 PageID 23

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 83. Plaintiff reserves his rights to plead and prove the damages to which he is entitled

to at the time of trial. All conditions to Plaintiffs recovery have been performed or have occurred. TRIAL BY JURY 84. Plaintiff has paid a jury fee and demands trial by jury. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein; that upon final trial hereof Plaintiff has and recovers judgment from Defendants; actual damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest at the legal rate; interest on said judgment at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief, both general and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Daryl K. Washington DARYL K. WASHINGTON State Bar No. 24013714 LAW OFFICE OF DARYL K. WASHINGTON, P.C. 325 N. St. Paul St., Suite 1975 Dallas, Texas 75201 214 880-4883 214-751-6685 - fax ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 23