Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RECEiVED
MAY 1 8 2016
CLER
BY
DEPUTY
CA0455
PLAINTIFF
No
JURY DEMAND
_
COMPLAINT
Come the Plaintiff, JAMES W. MYART, JR. (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "Myart") and
for cause of action would state as follows:
[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
This action arises under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution; under federal law, specifically, 42 U.S.C.
1983 and
1988;
under the Texas governmental tort liability statutes; under Texas common law for
intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, gross
negligence, assault, false imprisonment, false arrest, and civil conspiracy.
While the individual Defendants were acting in the scope of their employment and
under color of state law, they exercised the excessive use of force, official oppression
filing of false reports against the Plaintiff. The Defendants' actions caused severe and
Action is also brought against the City of San Antonio for its failure to properly
train and supervise the individual Defendants in the proper use of force and techniques
used to secure the [person of a detainee and its establishment of policies, procedures,
practices, and customs regarding arrests that result in the excessive use of force.
More, Defendants Scully, McManus, Sepeda, and Walsh are being sued in their
individual capacities for the reason that they have perpetuated and condoned, for years,
the illegal use of force against black and brown persons by City of San Antonio law
enforcement officials, to such an extent that the illegal use of force and excessive have
become a pattern and practice of the Defendants and the City of San Antonio.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
28 U.S.C.
This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
[2]
District Court for the Western district of Texas, San Antonio Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1 391 and 42 USC 1983.
2.
The causes of action alleged herein arise from factual allegations occurring
3.
5.
Ill. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
6.
Antonio Texas.
B. City
7.
OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS and she of same.
8.
The Defendant, Sheryl Sculley, is the City Manager of the City of San
Antonio and she is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was
at all times material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in her capacity as City
Manager employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of state
law.
9.
The Defendant, Erik Walsh, is the Deputy City Manager of the City of San
Antonio over all law enforcement of Defendant City of San Antonio and he is a citizen and
[3]
aH
allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as Deputy City Manager employed by
Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of state law.
10.
The Defendant, Martha Sepeda, is the City Attorney of the City of San
Antonio and she is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was
at all times material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in her capacity as City
Attorney employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of state
law.
11.
and he is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was at all times
material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a law enforcement
official and employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of
state law.
12.
The Defendant, Adam Stalker, is an officer of the City of San Antonio and
he is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was at all times
material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a law enforcement
official and employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of
state law.
13.
The Defendant, Michael Baggett, is an officer of the City of San Antonio and
he is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was at all times
material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a law enforcement
official and employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of
state law.
[4]
he is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was at all times
material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a law enforcement
official and employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of
state law.
15.
The Defendant, Ashlea Bruster, is an officer of the City of San Antonio and
he is a citizen and resident of San Antonio, Bexar County Texas, and was at all times
material to the allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a law enforcement
official and employed by Defendant City of San Antonio and was acting under color of
state law.
16.
State of Texas, for which all officer Defendants are employed as police officers;
Defendant McManus serve as Chief of Police.
subdivision of the State of Texas responsible for the training and supervision of all officer
Defendants. City of San Antonio has established or delegated to Defendant McManus the
22.
Defendant City of San Antonio Magistrate's office where he was beaten by officer
Defendants and refused medical care.1
Plaintiff is awaiting the video tape of this beating. When received, same will be filed with the Court
[5]
23.
- Motorist
Pedestrian Myart accident Plaintiff claims that Morales assumed full-time responsibility
as a law enforcement official when Defendant Morales saw Plaintiff Myart crossing the
freeway as a jaywalker. Defendant Morales saw Plaintiff jaywalking and thus entered a
crime scene, a fact that made Defendant active as a Defendant City of San Antonio police.
Thus, the Defendant City of San Antonio city is liable for a negligent Tort under the Texas
Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff Myart claims that the reporting police officer wrote a slanted
report to protect his colleague - THE THIN BLUE LINE. Plaintiff Myart also contends that
the Traffic Investigation Unit did not appear at the scene also in an effort to protect
Defendant Morales.
24.
of Magistrate Detention Center. A video exist of the beating, same being incorporated
herein as if fully presented verbatim.
brutalized, beaten, and that the Defendant City of San Antonino by and through its'
victim, detainee. The acts of at least seven (7) Detention guards constituted violation of
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the USA Constitution, a hate crime, assault,
excessive force, abuse, violations of the Texas Penal Code, Sections 39.01
39.06,
Official Oppression.
23.
Upon leaving the Detention Center, Plaintiff immediately went to Dr. Leo
Edwards who treated him from his injuries. Dr. Edwards concludes that Plaintiff Myart,
suffering Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Diabetes, High Blood Pressure and
exasperated injuries, "should have been taken to the hospital." Dr. Edwards's medical
[6]
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT
of state law to deprive Plaintiff of certain constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States including, but
not limited to: a) the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; b) the
right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law; c) the right not to be deprived
of property without due process of law; d) the right to be free from excessive use of force
by persons acting under color of state law; e) the right to be free from false arrest; and f)
In violating Plaintiff rights as set forth above and other rights that will be
proven at trial, Defendants acted under color of state law and conducted an unauthorized,
warrantless illegal stop, search, and seizure of Plaintiff. The illegal and warrantless stop
set into motion the chain of events that led to an unauthorized and warrantless illegal
search and seizure and the use of excessive force by Defendants, in violation of Plaintiff
rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.
[71
27.
by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages as alleged in this
reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
Department, and the Defendant, City of San Antonio, implicitly or explicitly adopted and
implemented careless and reckless policies, customs, or practices, that included, among
other things, of allowing employees of the San Antonio Police Department to abuse
citizens and to employ excessive force without any reasonable training and in such a way
as to cause the destruction of citizens' lives without lawful justification.
31.
to commonly allow police officers to illegally injure innocent and compliant citizens
through the use of excessive, sometimes lethal force where less severe alternatives
existed.
[8]
32.
The failure of the Chef of Police William McManus and Defendant City of
San Antonio to adequately train and supervise the Defendants to deliberate indifference
to the rights of the Plaintiff Myart to be free from excessive force and unreasonable
seizures under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.
33.
The failure of the Chief of Police William McManus and Defendant City of
Sab Antonito adequately train and supervise all law enforcement Defendants amounts to
deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff Myart and all other citizens to be free from
excessive force and unreasonable seizures under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
34.
Myart permanently suffered personal injuries and he is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C.
35.
of state law to deprive Plaintiff as alleged herein of certain constitutionally protected rights
including, but not limited to: a) the right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures; b) the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law; c) the right
not to be deprived of property without due process of law; d) the right to be free from
excessive use of force by persons acting under color of state law; and e) the right to just
compensation for taking of property.
COUNT Ill
36.
practices or customs within the San Antonio Police Department that allow, among other
things, the use of excessive force when other more reasonable and less drastic methods
are available.
38.
indifference to the rights of Plaintiff Myart to be free of excessive force and unreasonable
seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States.
39.
City of San Antonio, Texas and its agents, servants and employees, Plaintiff Myart
suffered serious personal injuries ,and he are entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
COUNT IV
Each Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to use due care at or about the times
negligently breached said duty to use due care, which directly and proximately resulted
in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiff as alleged herein.
[10]
COUNT V
Each Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to use due care at or about the time
unknown
dispatching information.
47.
negligently breached said duty to use due care, which directly and proximately resulted
in the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein.
COUNT VI
[11]
49.
proximately injured, damaged, libeled, and caused emotional distress to the Plaintiff
herein.
Count VII
Texas Common Law
(Assault)
51.
Plaintiff aver that the actions of the Defendants breached a duty of care
owed to Plaintiff to not assault them or cause them physical harm or injury, except to the
with gross disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, assaulted Plaintiff Myart them beating him
and throwing him from a wheel chair
pavement in the cell, hog tied and his fingers were sprang and he was kicked him the
face.
54.
Further, Plaintiff Brandon Hayden was shoved into the back seat of a patrol
car and left handcuffed and on his back for more than twenty minutes, in fear.
L12]
55.
suffered both physical and mental injuries and are entitled to relief.
COUNT VIII
- 39.06
OFFICIAL OPPRESSION
56.
All Defendants violated the Texas Penal Code on abuse of office and official
oppression.
That process issue to the Defendants and that they be required to answer
That Plaintiff be awarded those damages to which it may appear they are
entitled by the proof submitted in this cause for their physical and mental pain and
suffering, both past and future; permanent injury and disability; loss of enjoyment of life;
loss of their personality, Patton; and medical and psychological expenses, both past and
future.
[13]
4.
including reasonable attorney and expert fees, pursuant to 42U.S.C. 1 988 (b) and (c).
6.
That the Plaintiff receive any other further and general relief to which it may
Ily submitted,
nAve.
riio, Texas 78210
5155
[14]
LEO I ED WARDS,
2011
IR,
MD
/4
/V'7/
h4't
r)17r
E HOUSTON #1 04-C
SANA2QT0117O,
PHONE.
TX 78202
21 0-225-5047FAX: 210-225-5040
Name
DOB
Myart, James W
10/04/1954
Account# 010748
MRN
10748
CHIEF COMPLAINT:
LEFT THREE DIGITS OF HAND MAY BE SPRAINED BY A POLICE HOLD OF SOME SORT
PATIENTS VEHICULAR INJURIES WERE EXCERBATED BY POLICE USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
PT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE HOSPIITAL
PTS BLOOD SUGAR LEVEL WAS OVER 480 AND WAS NOT MEDICALLY ATTENDED TO
PTS RIGHT ARM HAS A BUMP THAT APPEARS SWOLLEN
REINJURED HIS RIGHT RIBS WHEN THROWN INTO HIS CELL
VICTIM OF EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE POLICE FORCE BY SAN ANTONIO MAGISTRATE AND DET CENTER
--comes in for office visitation after apparently being assaulted by a police officers while being arrested and
had injury to certain areas of his body (FoLlowup visit).
PAST HISTORY:
Page
of
MRNO: 10748
DOB:
10/04/1954 - Continued
1. IODINE
SOCIAL HISTORY:
FAMILY HISTORY:
ADVANCED DIRECTIVES:
Code Status - Code A--(Full Resuscitation)
REVIEW OF SYSTEMS:
GENERAL - Denies fever or chills.
SKIN - No changes in turgor or texture. No rashes. No lesions.
EYES - No changes in vision.
ENT - No changes in hearing. No nasal drainage or congestion. No inhalant allergies. No sore throat or
hoarseness.
RESPIRATORY - No cough, wheezing or dyspnea.
CARDIOVASCULAR - No chest pain, palpitations or edema. No orthopnea or PND. No claudication.
GASTROINTESTINAL - No nausea, vomiting or changes in bowel patterns. No hematochezia or melena. No Hx
of hepatitis or jaundice.
MUSCULOSKELETAL - has discomfort in
the right forearm area where he had his previous surgery and also
noticed some swelling around the surgical scar. Also noticed some swelling in the left hand at the base of the
fourth and third finger
NEUROLOGICAL - No seizures or syncope. No paresthesias, tremor or weakness. No headache or confusion.
ENDOCRINE - No polydipsia or polyuria. Weight and appetite stable. No cold or heat intolerance.
VITAL SIGNS:
B/P - 140/60 Sitting, Left arm, regular cuff
Pulse - 78
Respiration - 16
Weight - 268.00000 lbs.
Height - 68 inches
Glucose: 373
BMI- 40.83 40.83
Weight Change: -9.00 lbs. lost since 04/01/16
EXAMINATION:
CONSTITUTIONAL - Well developed, well nourished, in no distress.
SKIN - Normal
ENT -
anicteric sclera
or thyroid abnormality.
Page
of
MRNO: 10748
DOB:
10/04/1954
Continued
the right forearm area there is a linear laceration that has been surgically closed that looks
good at but there is a lot of swelling around the areas and a lot of tenderness. Also noted the fact that at the
base of the third and fourth finger on the
EXTREMITIES - on
IMMUNOLOGIC - No lymphadenopathy.
He says that he was assaulted by policeman after he was arrested for having outstanding tickets. He was
taken to the area and apparently he had a fall to the floor and could not get up because of the fact that his
left forearm had been injured from his previous accident and also he had problems with his left knee where
he had a meniscus tear and could not really truly get up and this was also complicated by the fact that the
left shoulder area had that is consistent with a possible rotator cuff tear. So he was actually stuck on the
floor and could not get up. He said that they jerked him up into a chair and then well him into ACL and then
pushed him into the the cell and gum 10 on the floor. At this pedicle point in time his sugars were in the
400s and also he had a great deal of pain. He went to the University hospital system and got x-rays of the
areas and will get the reports on those but no one told him that he had any fractures. At this pedicle point
time he still has swelling and soreness in the right forearm area as well as the left hand. Well give him
samples of medications because he has no insurance and so we will give him samples of the vimovo to take
for this process and also need to make sure that he gets samples of insulin for the management of the
diabetes
Pane
of