INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | BmaraNerormae FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSTPPL D NORTHERN DIVISION OCT -9 2019 LINCOLN LAMPLEY, ANTHONY FOX, DESMOND — BARNEY, ROY DICKERSON, WARREN HULL, fe = MICHAEL TARRIO, RAKASHA ADAMS, ALBERT TAYLOR, ANTHONY THOMPSON, DARRYL ROBINSON AND ENIKE SMITH PLAINTIPRS vs cay action No.2] Peu-TAF-OPFPVR CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI AND CHIBF JAMES DAVIS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT Jury: COME NOW, the Plintifs Lincoln Lampley, Anthony Fox, Desmond Bamey, Roy Dickerson, Warren Holl, Michael Taro, Rakasha Adams, Albert Taylor, Anthony Thompson, ary] Robison, and Enie Smith by and through their respective counsel of record, nd file this ‘heir Complaint against the City of Jackson, Mississippi and in suppor thereof wou show unto the Court the following to-wit: 1. PARTIES: 1. ThePlaintifs are ll adult resident citizens ofthe State of Misissippi. Each Plant? is either a current or former officer withthe Jackson Police Department 2 TheDefeun tut backs Misinsipy isa umunicipal orporaton which ny be served through ts Chief Executive Officer, City Clek or the salut designated representatives. 2. The Defendant, Chief James Davis, isan adult resident citizen of the State of Mississippi wo may be served wherever he may be found Page tof1 INTRODUCTION 4. While engaged in la enforcement avis forthe Jackson Police Department, cach ofthe Paints became involved in some official capacity ina use of fere incident. As a result each ofthese Plains has boon subjected to arbitrary, cprsions, excessive and legal disciplinary ations having 0 legitimate pupooe and bed on no elablichedpolay or procedure, Accordingly, these dssplinny actions volte euch ofthe Paint’ constitutional procedural and substantive du proves ight 5. “Use offore,"in the context of aw enforcement is generally defined asthe amount of effort equred by polie to compel compliance by an unwiling subjet”. The use of| force is standantized by aus of force continuum which addresses the degree af ferce appropriate ina given situation 6. ach successive level of force is meant to describe an escalating eres of actions sm officer may take to resolve a station, and the Jevel of force used rises unly when a lowe devel of force would be infective in deating wit the station. Typically any style ofa use of force continuum wil start wih officer presence lend withthe use of deadly force. 7. The actual pol established and how they are enforced impacts both officer and public safety 8. tthe direction of Chief Davis, the Jackson Police Department is curently sues that is coutaty to its onn general orders on use of Fores. The Defendants pent re ding so through unwriten and unapproved polices and diestivet which appear be designed to discourage proactive law enforcement. This method of operating adversely affests bli safety, a wel as ocr safety, and officer moral Page 20f89. Oninformation and belie, these unten polices ave substantial cause of| cusrent City of Jackson police patrol officer staffing being more than 40% undersrength,a fact ‘which again i a matter of public safety and officer sey 10, Theillegal and excessive dssplne described hee is also bsg cared out by tho Defendant in willl ego of sxablishod Civil Service Releo and Onder 11, Asaresultof these wrongful isipinay ations, each of the Plitif have usted actual damages, losses and harms. ML, VIOLATION OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES 12, Civil Service statutes were enacted to afin state and municipal employees with reasonable job security by protecting them from politcal considerations and partisanship. 13. Consistent wth State statute, the Cty of Jackson established its Civil Service Commission (the “Commission” to provide “a functional, orderly, and uniform system of the dministation of Civil Service on the basis of met, efficiency, and ftness...° The Commission is also responsible for “establishing policies providing for transfers, reintatements demotions, suspensions, removals and discharges of employees [4 The Commission has the authority to affem any disciplinary action, or iit shall find thatthe disciplinary action was made for political reasons ot was aot made in good faith for ‘aus, to order the immediate reinstatement or reemployment of such person in the office, place, position, or employment ftom which such person was rsmoved, expended, demoted, discharged ‘or combination thereof, 15. Chief Davis, asthe Chief law enforcement officer ofthe City of Jackson has control and supervision each ofthe Plaintiffs. He is responsible day to day decisions within his Page 3 of 8partment 16, Inthis eas, the Jackson Police Department atthe direction of Chief James Davis, andor others, willy lated Commission onder respecting diseiplinary action by refusing to timely return certain Plaintiffs to their regular fulltime duties 17. Chief Davis os knowingly, wilfully and intentionally refused to eomply with the Civil Service Commission Order dated July 26, 2019, which is now a final order having noc been, appealed, In doing so he bas personally participated in denying the Plant their constitutional rights. A copy ofthis Onder is attached as Exhibit “A.” IV, SECTION 1983 CLAIMS 18, Fach of the Plaintiffs has a protected property interest in the terms and circumstances oftheir employment by virtue of the fact that they are employed under a civil service system, This guarantees due process while only allowing adverse employment actions to be undertaken for enuse, These include, hut are not limited to, the right tthe police positions that they previously hel, the sight to work overtime, and the right to supplement theit incomes by providing off duty law enforcement-securty services to private businesses. 19, The Fourteenth Amendment probibits any state from depriving “any person of life, ibery, or propesty, without due process of law.” ‘The Due Process Clause encompasses @ _Boatantee ofa far procedure In this case each Plaintiff has procedural due process claims aes st the Defendants beens the Defendants file to provide for natice ad hoaringebafors the depivations at sue herein took place 20. The deprivation of Pais sights secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth ‘Amensiments to the United States Constitution was done under coor of ste law and contrary to Page dof 8official policy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 21, Plaintiffs ace further entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants from continuing to violate the Plaintiffs’ due provess rights and directing the Defendants to comply ‘with all civil service rules and applicable law inthe futur, 22, ‘The Fourteenth Anscisacut also protects property deprivations that arise frem a “Legitimate claim of entitlement” tothe item or benefit question. In this ease the Plants each lai that they have been denied ther entitlement tothe full benefits oftheir positions as JPD “officers. Bach PlaintfY therefore has substantive due process claims because the Defendants have taken actions adversely affecting their protected property interests, 23, The deprivation of Plaintts’ rights secured to them by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments tothe United States Constitution was done under eolor of state law and contrary to oficial City of Jackson poi 24, Bach ofthe Paints entitled toa declwation from the Court recognizing the foregoing violation ofits ight wo substantive due process under the United States Constitution ‘sed on the wrongfl employment ations described herein. V. DAMAGES. 25, Each ofthese officers has suffered adverse effects and damages a a result ofthe vwrongfl ations desribed herein, 26, While improperly and indesaitely Tet on adinistive lave, eal of the Defendants has been denied hisfher sight to supplement their regular pay by working overtime. 27, While improperly and indefinitely let on adainistative leave, the Defendants are not eligible for promotions or advancement testing Page 5 of28, ven when reassigned ta restricted duy status fiom administrative leave the officers at unable o work overtime because overtime is generally only available to them when acting as pat offices 29, While on administrative leave the Defenants were also impropesy denied their ‘ight to supplement their incom by providing off duty scat sevice to private busineaca 30, Until etumed to shor regular duty status the ability of he oies to move «> cer law enforcement organizations is improptl being restsined, 31, Each ofthe offices has suffered compensable emotional distress heease ofthe financial loses, Bach ofthe officers has also sulfered compensable emotional dstess because of ‘he uncersingy surounding their employment stats. Finally, cach ofthe officers has suffered compensable reputational las i the community and within JPD, REQUESTS FOR RELIEF \WHEREPORE, forall ofthe rasons set forth inthe foregoing paragraphs, Psi file ‘his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment snd Injunetive Relief, and demand tral by jury, and in so doing request the following relief @ Baty of final declaratory judgment against Defendants adjudicating and declaring that the employment actions and discipline imposed are invalid, unlawful, and constitute violations of Plaintiffs substantive due process rights, Plaintiffs’ and procedural due proceas right Gi) Enity ofa final declaratory jndament against Defendants adjudicating and declaring tha the Defendants have failed to follow the Rules and Orders of the Civil Service Commission. Page 68(i) Batty ofan onder preliminarily and permanent requiring the Defendants filly comply withthe Civil Serve Commission Order dated July 26,2019 Civ) Baty of m onder pretininaiy and permanent enjoining nd resting Defendants fom engaging in sina comet is theft and immediately esting each PI Pc the postions thy previously hel (©) Avvarding Plants sasonable storeys” fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and 3613(0\2) for cost and foes inured in bringing this action (i) Awarding Plas seus, compensitory, consequential, and incidental damages, inthe amount proven atrial, and for such other Legal or equitable relief the Court deems approptat to compensate Plants fr thir losses based on the foregoing claims, plus prejudgment and post judgment interest and al oss of cour. Respectfilly submitted, this thethes_day of October, 2019, Respectflly Submitted, PLAINTIFFS, ANTHONY FOX, ROY DICKERSON, WARREN HULL, RAKASHA ADAMS and DARRYL ROBINSON BY 2B SHICHAEL V. CORY PLAINTIFES, DESMOND BARNEY and ENIKE. SMITH rwehta Ls pet pelea aie Danks, & Page 708PLAINTIFFS, LINCOLN LAMPLEY, MICHARL TARRIO, ALBERT TAYLOR. \d ANTHONY THOMPSON fous BY INCISS. STRINGER BY: (OF COUNSEL: Michael V. Cory, Jr (MSB #9868) mo@dmclaw.net Dale Danks, Jr. (MSB #5789) ‘danks@idmelaw.net DANKS MILLER & CORY 243 South Lamar Street Juckson, Mississippi (39201) Post Office Box 1759) Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1759 ‘Telephone: 601.957.3101 Facsimile: 601.957.3160 Francis Stare Springer MSB# 103974 ‘Springer Law Office, PLLC 213 South Lamar Sweet Jackson, Mississippi 39201 PO Box 1280 Madison, MS 39130-1280 Phone 601.605.5004 ax $77,605, 5004 ringerlawoffice@gmail.com Page orsEen CIVIL. COVER SHEET 5) 9-¢y-79-0PF-FKR atari an eae rae [i@utLetey Rthony Fox Oearord Barney. Roy Ockoson, | CRFAFSNRAN TBs! and Cit James ovis nis inv ‘ore Hu aache! Taro Rates Adora Tap, Ay | Sr OficalCapacly “Tompson, Oa Renan ae Ene Sa (0) Comat toil it inde ey Reet oa ual Sie 8 Barks Poa Oc Boe 1759, tc, 6S fs, 0167 3161 Fane's Sponge PO Bax 120, Maden, MS 20134, 60-55-5004 BASIS OFFURISDICTIONpiemarvownscowy i: ERENT OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES ric ipncpe rar ca is Sen cama BI 1 nagaatatacnsnae "HO EARREOS a Ta Tiana Raat Oitmaa Tan PSMA [paresis [arene ne pms Se Pisin ra ORIGIN pom rmaaasy Xi pend A gee. fame 04 ster 0 Starrs 96 pas 08 Maier vi cause or acrion tee Fae Sibi si prSonaial ue process alms VI RIQUEEDW— B ceerynmsraamrctor SOaBT Sea TE Cae Geen eons Ta na CS Trane ese ge —— ay ES ee