John Doe Plaintiff Vs Deonte L Hamner City of

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page
1 of 11
CLL I II._iN&L.'tLLI IILL.LJ
Si3I/20I I:4 PvI
03-CV.2() I 6-9(111 81.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY. ALA[3.\M/
TIFFANY B NICCORD, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
OFFICER DEONTE L. HAMNER,

individually and in his official capacity
as a City of Montgomery Police Officer;
CITY OF MONTGOMERY, a municipal
Corporation; and FICTITIOUS PARTY
Defendants, No. 1, whether singular or
plural, that entity or those entities who
or which afforded any insurance
coverage to either the person or the
entity involved in the occurrence made
the basis of this lawsuit; No. 2, whether
singular or plural, that entity or those
entities who or which had responsibility
relative to the selection, hiring,
training, supervision and monitoring
of the persons involved in the
occurrence made the basis of this
lawsuit; No.3, whether singular or
plural, that person or entity who or
which is the successor in interest to the
named or fictitious party Defendants,
Nos. 1 and 2; Plaintiff avers that the
identities of the fictitious party
defendants are otherwise unknown to
the plaintiff at this time, or if their
names are knOwn to the plaintiff at this
time, their identities as proper party
defendants are not known to plaintiff at
this time, but their true names will be
substituted by amendment when
ascertained,
Defendants.
Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 11
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, John Doe, by and through his undersigned attorney
and brings this complaint against Defendants, Officer Deonte L. Hamner and the Cit y of
Montgomer y , as follows:
PARTIES
1.
This is a civil action for damages to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs civil
rights secured by the United States Constitution, The State of Alabama Constitution, and
i'itle 42, U.S.C., Section 1983.
2.
Plaintiff, John Doe, was at all times relevant hereto a citizen of the United
States and of the State of A1abinla and a resident of Montgomery County and the City of
1\'I ontgomcry.
3.
Defendant Deonte L. Hamner (Hamner) was at all times relevant hereto a
dul y appointed, qualified and acting police officer employed by Defendant City of
Montgomery, a municipal corporation. Said Defendants are herein sued in their
individual and in their official capacities.
4.
At all times material hereto, Defendant Cit y of Montgomery provided
Defendant Hamner with official badges and credentials which designated, described and
identified him as a police officer of the City of Montgomery, a municipal corporation.
5.
Defendant Hamner engaged in the conduct complained of in the scope of
his authority and Office, under color of law, and under pretense of the statutes,
ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the Defendant Cit y of Montgomery and in
his capacity as a City of Montgomery Police Officer.
COUNT I
6. On or about June 9, 2015, between approximately 8:00 p.m. and 10:00
p.m., Plaintiff was stopped and detained b y Defendant Hamner in the parking lot of
Plaintiffs apartment complex, The Meadows in Montgomer y, Alabama. After detaining

Plaintiff in the back scat of his police cruiser for almost one hour, Defendant ilaniner let
Plaintiff go and told him to go home, which Plaintiff did.
7. A couple of minutes after Plaintiff returned to his apartment, Hamner
maliciously and with deliberate and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs civil rights,
unlawfully entered Plaintiff's apartment without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent and
without probable cause, threatened him, pulled his gun on him, intimidated him and
sexuall y assaulted him at gunpoint.
8. Defendant Hamner's conduct as described herein was willftil and
unreasonable, it shocks the conscience, and it offends the community's sense of fair play
and decency.
9. Defendant Hamner's conduct deprived Plaintiff of the following rights,
privileges, and immunities secured to him by the Constitution of the United States:
(a)
the right not to be deprived of life, libert y, or property without due process
(b)
the right to the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth
of law;
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

10.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts, Plaintiff
was then and there injured, and he now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder
(P'1'SD), extreme humiliation, anxiet y, nervousness, fear of and a lack of trust in police
3
officers, depression, trouble sleeping, and severe emotional distress and mental anguish.
The event described herein has greatly impacted Plaintiffs abilit y to work and to live his
Life in a normal manner.
11.
As a direct result of Defendants' negligent, wanton and/or reckless acts,
Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated,, and therefore, Plaintiff claims

compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants as to be assessed bya jury.
12.
Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for his injury in addition to his costs
and reasonable attorne's fees incurred herein pursuant to 42 United States Code,
Section 1988.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants Hanmer and the
Cit of Montgomery fora fair and reasonable sum in excess of fifty thousand dollars
($u,000.00) for his injuries, for attorney's fees and costs, and for such other relief as is
just and proper.

COUNT 11
13.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts and allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth herein.

14.
This is a civil action. for damages to redress deprivations under color of
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States-Constitution andTitle 42, U.S.C., Section 1983and the laws of the State
of Alabama.
15.
Defendant Hamner was at all times relevant hereto a duly appointed,
qualified and acting police officer employed by Defendant City of Montgomery, and he
engaged in the conduct complained of in the course and scope of his employment,
authority and office as a police officer for Defendant City of Montgomery.
4
16. At all tinies relevant hereto, Defendant City of Montgomery provided
Defendant Hamner with official badges and credentials which authorized, designated and
identified him as a police officer of and for the City of Montgorner'.
17.
At the time and place set forth herein, Defendant Hamner was guilty of the
following wrongful acts:

a.
He unlawfully entered Plaintiffs private residence;
h.
lie unlmvftilly detained Plaintiff;
c.
He unlawfully pulled his weapon on Plaintiff;
d.
He unlawfully aimed his weapon at Plaintiff;
e.
He unlawfully intimidated and threatened Plaintiff;
f.
He falsel y imprisoned Plaintiff; and
g.
He sexuall y assaulted Plaintiff at gunpoint.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the willful and unreasonable actions of
Defendant Hamner, Plaintiff was injured, he was deprived of his freedom, he was
humiliated, embarrassed, and shocked, and he suffered great and lasting emotional
distress and mental anguish and was thereb y injured and damaged.
19.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover for his injuries along with his costs and
reasonable attorney's fees incurred herein pursuant to 42 United States Code, Section
1988.
20. Defendant City of Montgomery is responsible for the aforesaid violations of
the law committed b y Defendant Hamner pursuant to the doctrine of i'espondeat

superior.
COUNT III
Plaintiff repeats and reafleges the facts and allegations set forth in
21.
Paragraphs
1-20
22.
as if fully set forth herein.
The Cit y of Montgomery is a municipal corporations and it has
responsibility for the selection, hiring, training, supervision, monitoring, and conduct of
its police officers, including Defendant Hamner.
23,
The City of Montgomer y is responsible b y law to enforce regulations and to
ensure that its police officers, including Defendant Haniner, obey the laws of the State of
Alabama and of the United States.
24.
Defendant City of Montgomery failed to train, monitor, and Supervise
Defendant Hamner regarding unlawful detention, the unlawful entr y of a private

residence, and the unlawful use of intimidation and force, which amounts to gross
negligence and/or a deliberate indifference to the safety and lives of the citizens of the
State of Alabama and the United States of America, including Plaintiff.
25.
Defendant City of Montgomery is- directly liable and responsible for the acts
of Defendant Hamner for knowingly failing to enforce the laws of the State of Alabama
and regulations pertaining to unlawful detention, the unlawful entry of a private
residence, and the unlawful use of intimidation and force b y its police officers thereby
creating within the City of Montgomer y Police Department an atmosphere of lawlessness
whereby police officers use excessive and illegal force and violence in the belief that such
acts will he condoned and justified b y their superiors.
26.
The negligence, wantonness, recklessness, and/or deliberate indifference of
Defendants set forth herein was the proximate cause of the violation of Plaintiffs
constitutionl rights as set forth herein.
6
Count IV
27.
paragraphs 1-26 as if full y set forth herein.

28.
At all times relevant hereto, it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant
City of Montgomery to properly select, hire, train, monitor, and supervise its police
officers, including Defendant Hamner, in the conduct of their jobs.
Defendant City of Montgomery breached this duty and responsibilit y , which
29.
was a proximate cause of the violation of John Doe's constitutional rights.

Count V
30.
paragraphs 1-29 as if fully set forth herein.

31.
At all times relevant hereto, it wis the dut y and responsibilit y of the Cit y of
Montgomery to promptly, fairl y and respectfully investigate Fl iuntiffs complaints

relevant to Defendant Hamner's conduct as alleged herein.
32.
Defendant City of Montgomery breached this duty and responsibilit y and
denied Plaintiffs request to have an independent law enforcement agenc y investigate this
matter, which resulted iii Plaintiff being harassed and intimidated b y City of Montgomery
police officers.
Count VI
33.

34.
Because of the willful and unreasonable actions of the Defendants, and as a
proximate cause thereof, Plaintiff was caused to be denied equal protection under the laws
of the United States and the State of Alabama and was subjected to false imprisonment in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Count VII
35.

36.
of the United States and the State of Alabama and was subjected to official misconduct in
Count VIII
37.
Plaintiff repeats and reallegs the facts allegations set forth in paragraphs
1-36 as if fulls' set forth herein.

38.
proximate cause thereof, Plaintiff was caused to be denied equal protection under the
AJ.abuna State Constitution and was subjected to an abuse of the judicial process.
Count IX
39.

40.
Defendants violated and abused Plaintiffs constitutional rights, which
resulted in damage to his person. Further, Defendants conducted themselves in a manner

that was willful, unreasonable, extreme, outrageous, unjustified and be y ond the
boundaries of professionalism and decency. Said actions caused the Plaintiff extreme
emotional distress and mental anguish for which Defendants are jointl y and severally
liable.
8
4 1,
Defendants are directly liable and responsible for the violation of Plaintiffs
rights and his consequential injuries and damages.

Count X
42.

43.
Defendant Cit y of Montgomer y had a duty to train its police officers and to
niomtor and supervise the actions of its police officers, including Defendant Flaniner.
44.
Defendant City of MontgomerY breached that dut y by failing to adequately
train, supervise, control or otherwise monitor the activities of its employee, Defendant
Hainner, along with fictitious parties 1 and 2.
45 , Defendant City of Montgomery caused the injuries described herein to
Plaintiff by virtue of its negligent selection, hiring, training, monitoring and supervision
of Defendant Hamner, for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendants for
violation of his constitutional rights as well as but not limited to his injuries, damages and
/
losses as set forth herein.
CoUnt XI
46.

47.
The aforementioned acts, omissions and violations of Defendants were
willful and unreasonable and were attended by evil intent and were perpetrated with
reckless and/or callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, thus entitling Plaintiff to the
recovery of compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendants as follows:
9
1.
Compensatory damages under each claim in
an
amount which will
adequately compensate Plaintiff for his injuries and damages.

2.
Punitive and exemplary damages under each claim against Defendant
Hamner in an amount which will adequately punish Defendant Hamner for his egregious
actions
3.
Equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction that addresses the
manner in which Defendants engage in police functions of the kind complained of herein.
4.
Order of Judgment in Plaintiffs favor and against Defendants for attorney's
fees as a result of their violation of the Plaintiffs civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
and 1988, including costs of this lawsuit, expert witness fees, witness fees, deposition
costs and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
5.
Such other and further relief as the Court considers just and proper.
i)EiANL) FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.

Respectfully submitted this 31', day August, 2016
is! W. Lee Gresharn, Hi

State Bar: GRE054
Fleninger Garrison Davis, LLC
2224 i st Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
Email: lee@ hgdlawfirim Corn
Attorney for Plaintiff
10
Is! Trov King

State Bar: KIN047
The Law Offices of'I'roy King
Suite 203, 7065 Fain Park Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
Ieicphone: (34) 215-4440
Facsimile: (4) 215-4438
Email: trov@trovkinglaw.com
Attoriiev for Plaintiff
NOTE TO CLERK: PLEASE SERVE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
DEFENDANTS WITH SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT.
Please serve the original complaint and discovery on Defendants by Certified Mail at the
following addresses:
The City of Montgomery
% City Clerk
103 North Perry Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Officer Deonte L. Hamner
2754 The Meadows
11
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO: CV-2016-901180.-JRG

OFFICER DEONTE L. HAMNER t al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO:
Tiffany McCord
Circuit Clerk
251 S. Lawrence Street
W. Lee Gresham, III, Esq.
Henniger Garrison Davis, LLC
2224 1 st Avenue North
Troy King, Esq.
The Law Offices of Troy King
7065 Fain Park Drive, Ste. 203
Take notice that the Defendant, City of Montgomery, Alabama, has on this date filed a
Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern Division, at Montgomery, Alabama, removing the above-entitled action to
that court. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto.
Respectftilly submitted this the
day of October, 2016.
Mic\i1JD. Bryrner (BRY037)

Attom' for Defendant
XHI1BIT
OF COUNSEL:
Legal Department
City of Montgomery
Post Office Box 1111
Montgomery, Alabama 36101-1111
(334)625-2050
(334) 625-2310 (fax)
ASB-01 69-138B
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following by placing a
copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as follows on this
day of October, 2016:
the
W. Lee Gresham, III, Esq.

Henniger Garrison Davis, LLC
2224 1st Avenue North
Troy King, Esq.
7065 Fain Park Drive, Ste. 203
Of C*ksel-
-2-
Court Name: U S DISTRICT COURT - AL/H

Division: 2
Recei ptNumber: 4602042704
Cahier ID: kruff in
Transaction Date: 10/06L2016
Payer Name: CITY OF MON IGOHERY
CIVIL FILING FEE
For: CITY OF MONTGOMERY
Case/Part y : D-ALH-2-16-CV-000807-00 1
AmoUnt:
$400.00
CHECK
Check/Honey Order Nuffi: 606467
Amt Tendered: $400.00
400.00
Total Due:
1400.00
Total Tendered:
Change Amt:
0.00
2:1 6-CV-807
DOE V HAMNER
Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEONTE L. HAMNER, CITY OF
MONTGOMERY,
Defendants,
) Case No.: 2:16-CV-00807

)
) FIRST AMENDED ANSWER by DEONTE
) HAMNER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMES NOW Deonte L. Hamner, by and through undersigned counsel, in answer to the
complaint filed in the above-entitled case, says as follow:
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
1. Defendant Deonte Hamner admits the material allegations contained in item four (4) of
the Complaint;
2. Defendant Deonte Hamner is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
material allegations contained in items one, two, and fourteen of the complaint; defendant, therefore,
denies the material allegations contained therein.
3. Defendant denies the material allegations contained in items three, five, six, seven, eight,
nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty-one, twentysix, twenty-seven, thirty, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-seven, thirty-eight,
thirty-nine, forty, forty-one, forty-two, forty-six, and forty-seven of the Complaint, including all subparts, headings and claims for relief, separately and individually, and demands strict proof thereof;
4. Items twenty, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-eight, twentynine, thirty-one, thirty-two, forty-three, forty-four, and forty-five do not contain allegations against
Defendant Hamner which require a response.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
5. Defendant pleads that he is entitled to qualified immunity on all federal claims lodged
against him;
6. Defendant pleads that he is entitled to discretionary function immunity under 6-5-338
Ala. Code (1975) on all state-law claims;
7. Defendant pleads that he is entitled to state-agent immunity on all state-law claims;
8. Defendant pleads that Plaintiff was, himself, guilty of negligence, wantonness,
recklessness, intentional acts, and criminal acts with proximately caused or contributed to the
injuries and damages claimed;
9. Defendant pleads that Plaintiff knowingly assumed the risks of his own actions which
proximately caused of contributed to the injuries or damages claimed;
10. Defendant pleads that Plaintiff was himself guilty of dishonest or criminal acts which bar
recovery;
11. Defendant pleads the Plaintiff consented to all of the acts alleged in the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Wallace D. Mills

Attorney for Deonte L. Hamner
OF COUNSEL:
Wallace D. Mills, P.C.
621 South Hull St.
wallace@wallacemills.com
(334) 593-8053
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 28th day of November, 2015, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of
such filing to the following parties or counsel:
Walter Lee Gresham, III, Esq.

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
2224 1st Avenue North
lee@hgdlawfirm.com
Michael D. Brymer, Esq.
City of Montgomery Legal Dept.
103 N. Perry St.
mbrymer@montgomeryal.gov
Troy R. King, Esq.
7065 Fain Park Dr., Suite 203
troy@troykinglaw.com
and I hereby certify that I have also mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the
above-named non-CM/ECF participants:
/s/ Wallace D. Mills

OF COUNSEL
Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page

1 of 11
CLL I II._iN&L.'tLLI IILL.LJ
Si3I/20I I:4 PvI
03-CV.2() I 6-9(111 81.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY. ALA[3.\M/
TIFFANY B NICCORD, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
OFFICER DEONTE L. HAMNER,

individually and in his official capacity
as a City of Montgomery Police Officer;
CITY OF MONTGOMERY, a municipal
Corporation; and FICTITIOUS PARTY
Defendants, No. 1, whether singular or
plural, that entity or those entities who
or which afforded any insurance
coverage to either the person or the
entity involved in the occurrence made
the basis of this lawsuit; No. 2, whether
singular or plural, that entity or those
entities who or which had responsibility
relative to the selection, hiring,
training, supervision and monitoring
of the persons involved in the
occurrence made the basis of this
lawsuit; No.3, whether singular or
plural, that person or entity who or
which is the successor in interest to the
named or fictitious party Defendants,
Nos. 1 and 2; Plaintiff avers that the
identities of the fictitious party
defendants are otherwise unknown to
the plaintiff at this time, or if their
names are knOwn to the plaintiff at this
time, their identities as proper party
defendants are not known to plaintiff at
this time, but their true names will be
substituted by amendment when
ascertained,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, John Doe, by and through his undersigned attorney
and brings this complaint against Defendants, Officer Deonte L. Hamner and the Cit y of
Montgomer y , as follows:
PARTIES
1.
This is a civil action for damages to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs civil
rights secured by the United States Constitution, The State of Alabama Constitution, and
i'itle 42, U.S.C., Section 1983.
2.
Plaintiff, John Doe, was at all times relevant hereto a citizen of the United
States and of the State of A1abinla and a resident of Montgomery County and the City of
1\'I ontgomcry.
3.
Defendant Deonte L. Hamner (Hamner) was at all times relevant hereto a
dul y appointed, qualified and acting police officer employed by Defendant City of
Montgomery, a municipal corporation. Said Defendants are herein sued in their
individual and in their official capacities.
4.
At all times material hereto, Defendant Cit y of Montgomery provided
Defendant Hamner with official badges and credentials which designated, described and
identified him as a police officer of the City of Montgomery, a municipal corporation.
5.
Defendant Hamner engaged in the conduct complained of in the scope of
his authority and Office, under color of law, and under pretense of the statutes,
ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the Defendant Cit y of Montgomery and in
his capacity as a City of Montgomery Police Officer.
COUNT I
6. On or about June 9, 2015, between approximately 8:00 p.m. and 10:00
p.m., Plaintiff was stopped and detained b y Defendant Hamner in the parking lot of
Plaintiffs apartment complex, The Meadows in Montgomer y, Alabama. After detaining

Plaintiff in the back scat of his police cruiser for almost one hour, Defendant ilaniner let
Plaintiff go and told him to go home, which Plaintiff did.
7. A couple of minutes after Plaintiff returned to his apartment, Hamner
maliciously and with deliberate and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs civil rights,
unlawfully entered Plaintiff's apartment without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent and
without probable cause, threatened him, pulled his gun on him, intimidated him and
sexuall y assaulted him at gunpoint.
8. Defendant Hamner's conduct as described herein was willftil and
unreasonable, it shocks the conscience, and it offends the community's sense of fair play
and decency.
9. Defendant Hamner's conduct deprived Plaintiff of the following rights,
privileges, and immunities secured to him by the Constitution of the United States:
(a)
the right not to be deprived of life, libert y, or property without due process
(b)
the right to the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth
of law;
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

10.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts, Plaintiff
was then and there injured, and he now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder
(P'1'SD), extreme humiliation, anxiet y, nervousness, fear of and a lack of trust in police
3
officers, depression, trouble sleeping, and severe emotional distress and mental anguish.
The event described herein has greatly impacted Plaintiffs abilit y to work and to live his
Life in a normal manner.
11.
As a direct result of Defendants' negligent, wanton and/or reckless acts,
Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated,, and therefore, Plaintiff claims

compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants as to be assessed bya jury.
12.
Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for his injury in addition to his costs
and reasonable attorne's fees incurred herein pursuant to 42 United States Code,
Section 1988.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants Hanmer and the
Cit of Montgomery fora fair and reasonable sum in excess of fifty thousand dollars
($u,000.00) for his injuries, for attorney's fees and costs, and for such other relief as is
just and proper.

COUNT 11
13.
Paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth herein.

14.
This is a civil action. for damages to redress deprivations under color of
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States-Constitution andTitle 42, U.S.C., Section 1983and the laws of the State
of Alabama.
15.
Defendant Hamner was at all times relevant hereto a duly appointed,
qualified and acting police officer employed by Defendant City of Montgomery, and he
engaged in the conduct complained of in the course and scope of his employment,
authority and office as a police officer for Defendant City of Montgomery.
4
16. At all tinies relevant hereto, Defendant City of Montgomery provided
Defendant Hamner with official badges and credentials which authorized, designated and
identified him as a police officer of and for the City of Montgorner'.
17.
At the time and place set forth herein, Defendant Hamner was guilty of the
following wrongful acts:

a.
He unlawfully entered Plaintiffs private residence;
h.
lie unlmvftilly detained Plaintiff;
c.
He unlawfully pulled his weapon on Plaintiff;
d.
He unlawfully aimed his weapon at Plaintiff;
e.
He unlawfully intimidated and threatened Plaintiff;
f.
He falsel y imprisoned Plaintiff; and
g.
He sexuall y assaulted Plaintiff at gunpoint.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the willful and unreasonable actions of
Defendant Hamner, Plaintiff was injured, he was deprived of his freedom, he was
humiliated, embarrassed, and shocked, and he suffered great and lasting emotional
distress and mental anguish and was thereb y injured and damaged.
19.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover for his injuries along with his costs and
reasonable attorney's fees incurred herein pursuant to 42 United States Code, Section
1988.
20. Defendant City of Montgomery is responsible for the aforesaid violations of
the law committed b y Defendant Hamner pursuant to the doctrine of i'espondeat

superior.
COUNT III
Plaintiff repeats and reafleges the facts and allegations set forth in
21.
Paragraphs
1-20
22.
as if fully set forth herein.
The Cit y of Montgomery is a municipal corporations and it has
responsibility for the selection, hiring, training, supervision, monitoring, and conduct of
its police officers, including Defendant Hamner.
23,
The City of Montgomer y is responsible b y law to enforce regulations and to
ensure that its police officers, including Defendant Haniner, obey the laws of the State of
Alabama and of the United States.
24.
Defendant City of Montgomery failed to train, monitor, and Supervise
Defendant Hamner regarding unlawful detention, the unlawful entr y of a private

residence, and the unlawful use of intimidation and force, which amounts to gross
negligence and/or a deliberate indifference to the safety and lives of the citizens of the
State of Alabama and the United States of America, including Plaintiff.
25.
Defendant City of Montgomery is- directly liable and responsible for the acts
of Defendant Hamner for knowingly failing to enforce the laws of the State of Alabama
and regulations pertaining to unlawful detention, the unlawful entry of a private
residence, and the unlawful use of intimidation and force b y its police officers thereby
creating within the City of Montgomer y Police Department an atmosphere of lawlessness
whereby police officers use excessive and illegal force and violence in the belief that such
acts will he condoned and justified b y their superiors.
26.
The negligence, wantonness, recklessness, and/or deliberate indifference of
Defendants set forth herein was the proximate cause of the violation of Plaintiffs
constitutionl rights as set forth herein.
6
Count IV
27.
paragraphs 1-26 as if full y set forth herein.

28.
At all times relevant hereto, it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant
City of Montgomery to properly select, hire, train, monitor, and supervise its police
officers, including Defendant Hamner, in the conduct of their jobs.
Defendant City of Montgomery breached this duty and responsibilit y , which
29.
was a proximate cause of the violation of John Doe's constitutional rights.

Count V
30.

31.
At all times relevant hereto, it wis the dut y and responsibilit y of the Cit y of
Montgomery to promptly, fairl y and respectfully investigate Fl iuntiffs complaints

relevant to Defendant Hamner's conduct as alleged herein.
32.
Defendant City of Montgomery breached this duty and responsibilit y and
denied Plaintiffs request to have an independent law enforcement agenc y investigate this
matter, which resulted iii Plaintiff being harassed and intimidated b y City of Montgomery
police officers.
Count VI
33.

34.
of the United States and the State of Alabama and was subjected to false imprisonment in
Count VII
35.

36.
of the United States and the State of Alabama and was subjected to official misconduct in
Count VIII
37.
Plaintiff repeats and reallegs the facts allegations set forth in paragraphs
1-36 as if fulls' set forth herein.

38.
proximate cause thereof, Plaintiff was caused to be denied equal protection under the
AJ.abuna State Constitution and was subjected to an abuse of the judicial process.
Count IX
39.

40.
Defendants violated and abused Plaintiffs constitutional rights, which
resulted in damage to his person. Further, Defendants conducted themselves in a manner

that was willful, unreasonable, extreme, outrageous, unjustified and be y ond the
boundaries of professionalism and decency. Said actions caused the Plaintiff extreme
emotional distress and mental anguish for which Defendants are jointl y and severally
liable.
8
4 1,
Defendants are directly liable and responsible for the violation of Plaintiffs
rights and his consequential injuries and damages.

Count X
42.

43.
Defendant Cit y of Montgomer y had a duty to train its police officers and to
niomtor and supervise the actions of its police officers, including Defendant Flaniner.
44.
Defendant City of MontgomerY breached that dut y by failing to adequately
train, supervise, control or otherwise monitor the activities of its employee, Defendant
Hainner, along with fictitious parties 1 and 2.
45 , Defendant City of Montgomery caused the injuries described herein to
Plaintiff by virtue of its negligent selection, hiring, training, monitoring and supervision
of Defendant Hamner, for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendants for
violation of his constitutional rights as well as but not limited to his injuries, damages and
/
losses as set forth herein.
CoUnt XI
46.

47.
The aforementioned acts, omissions and violations of Defendants were
willful and unreasonable and were attended by evil intent and were perpetrated with
reckless and/or callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, thus entitling Plaintiff to the
recovery of compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendants as follows:
9
1.
Compensatory damages under each claim in
an
amount which will
adequately compensate Plaintiff for his injuries and damages.

2.
Punitive and exemplary damages under each claim against Defendant
Hamner in an amount which will adequately punish Defendant Hamner for his egregious
actions
3.
Equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction that addresses the
manner in which Defendants engage in police functions of the kind complained of herein.
4.
Order of Judgment in Plaintiffs favor and against Defendants for attorney's
fees as a result of their violation of the Plaintiffs civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
and 1988, including costs of this lawsuit, expert witness fees, witness fees, deposition
costs and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
5.
Such other and further relief as the Court considers just and proper.
i)EiANL) FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.

Respectfully submitted this 31', day August, 2016
is! W. Lee Gresharn, Hi

State Bar: GRE054
Fleninger Garrison Davis, LLC
2224 i st Avenue North
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
Email: lee@ hgdlawfirim Corn
Attorney for Plaintiff
10
Is! Trov King

State Bar: KIN047
The Law Offices of'I'roy King
Suite 203, 7065 Fain Park Drive
Ieicphone: (34) 215-4440
Facsimile: (4) 215-4438
Email: trov@trovkinglaw.com
Attoriiev for Plaintiff
NOTE TO CLERK: PLEASE SERVE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
DEFENDANTS WITH SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT.
Please serve the original complaint and discovery on Defendants by Certified Mail at the
following addresses:
The City of Montgomery
% City Clerk
103 North Perry Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Officer Deonte L. Hamner
2754 The Meadows
11

John Doe Plaintiff Vs Deonte L Hamner City of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Doe Plaintiff Vs Deonte L Hamner City of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

OFFICER DEONTE L. HAMNER,

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 11

Defendant Deonte L. Hamner (Hamner) was at all times relevant hereto a

At all times material hereto, Defendant Cit y of Montgomery provided

Defendant Hamner engaged in the conduct complained of in the scope of

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 11

Plaintiffs apartment complex, The Meadows in Montgomer y, Alabama. After detaining

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts, Plaintiff

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 11

As a direct result of Defendants' negligent, wanton and/or reckless acts,

Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated,, and therefore, Plaintiff claims

Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for his injury in addition to his costs

just and proper.

Paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth herein.

This is a civil action. for damages to redress deprivations under color of

Defendant Hamner was at all times relevant hereto a duly appointed,

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 11

16. At all tinies relevant hereto, Defendant City of Montgomery provided

following wrongful acts:

He unlawfully entered Plaintiffs private residence;

lie unlmvftilly detained Plaintiff;

He unlawfully pulled his weapon on Plaintiff;

He unlawfully aimed his weapon at Plaintiff;

He unlawfully intimidated and threatened Plaintiff;

He falsel y imprisoned Plaintiff; and

He sexuall y assaulted Plaintiff at gunpoint.

the law committed b y Defendant Hamner pursuant to the doctrine of i'espondeat

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 6 of 11

as if fully set forth herein.

The Cit y of Montgomery is a municipal corporations and it has

The City of Montgomer y is responsible b y law to enforce regulations and to

Defendant City of Montgomery failed to train, monitor, and Supervise

Defendant Hamner regarding unlawful detention, the unlawful entr y of a private

The negligence, wantonness, recklessness, and/or deliberate indifference of

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 7 of 11

paragraphs 1-26 as if full y set forth herein.

was a proximate cause of the violation of John Doe's constitutional rights.

paragraphs 1-29 as if fully set forth herein.

Montgomery to promptly, fairl y and respectfully investigate Fl iuntiffs complaints

Defendant City of Montgomery breached this duty and responsibilit y and

paragraphs 3-32 as if fully set forth herein.

Because of the willful and unreasonable actions of the Defendants, and as a

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 8 of 11

paragraphs 1-34 as if fully set forth herein.

Because of the willful and unreasonable actions of the Defendants, and as a

1-36 as if fulls' set forth herein.

Because of the willful and unreasonable actions of the Defendants, and as a

paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.

Defendants violated and abused Plaintiffs constitutional rights, which

resulted in damage to his person. Further, Defendants conducted themselves in a manner

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 9 of 11

rights and his consequential injuries and damages.

paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth herein.

Defendant City of MontgomerY breached that dut y by failing to adequately

paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein.

The aforementioned acts, omissions and violations of Defendants were

Case 2:16-cv-00807-MHT-WC Document 1-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 10 of 11

Compensatory damages under each claim in

amount which will