class action suit against d.c.p.d. for use of deadly force against bikers

8/22/2019 Class Action Suit Against D.C.P.D. For Use of Deadly Force Against Bikers

1/30

1

UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TERRY THEDALE CAIN :3021 9th Street, SE :

DC 20032 : Civil Action No.:

:JAKWAN (A/K/A JAQUAN) BROWN:1142 Barnaby Terrace, SE :DC 20032 :

:ELLIE JAMES TURNER/BROOKS :1206 Barnaby Terrace, SE :DC 20032 :

:JAMES (CARTER)TURNER :62 Galveston Street, SW :

DC 20032 ::BRITTANI RONNICKA CARNEY :2104 Ridge Crest Courts, SE :DC :

:AAIRON JOHNSON :2584 Firth Sterling Ave. :DC 20020 :

:DON WHITAKER :1202 Barnaby Terrace :DC 20032 :

:ERIC BUTLER :1130 Barnaby Terrace, SE :DC 20032 :

:Plaintiffs : A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED

:v. :

:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA :A municipal corporation :Office of the Attorney General :441 Fourth Street, NW :Washington, DC 20001 :

:Serve: Designee

Case 1:13-cv-01103-JEB Document 1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 30

Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


2/30

2

JOHN DOE MPD :CRUISER DRIVERS :Driver numbers 1 500 :

:Defendants :

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1) This law suit, brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section 1983, seeks

money damages for violations of the rights of the above referenced Plaintiffs

under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution via the

Fourteenth Amendment for unreasonable seizure, excessive deadly force and

violations of Due Process, as well as claims brought under the laws of the District

of Columbia, including common law claims for assault and battery, and

intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence. It also

includes a claim for a FRCP 23 Class Action suit of this insular minority of young

black bikers, predominately male, who have been targeted with excessive and

deadly force by Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers when these MPD

officers intentionally hit young black males with their MPD cruisers. This practice

is acquiesced to and condoned by the District of Columbia as well as by the

hierarchy of the MPD. This class action suit is filed against the District of

Columbia and the MPD officers who target young black bikers under color of law

with the tacit approval of the supervising officers of MPD. DC and the

supervisors of MPD knowingly fail to correct the unconstitutional behavior of its

MPD officers wherein they target said bikers with their cruisers under the color of


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


3/30

3

law. D.C. is liable for the conduct of its MPD officers under the theory of

respondeat superior.

PARTIES

2) Plaintiffs are a class of young black motorbike riders, primarily males, driving

motorbikes of 250 ccs or less. The definition of biker or motorbike driver for

purposes of this law suit includes two wheel motorbikes and all terrain vehicles

(ATVs) that include recreational vehicles often denoted as ATVs, 3 Wheelers

and 4 Wheelers of 250 ccs or less. There are two young black females in this

class whom the MPD mistook for a young black male rider; one young black

female that filed a 12-309 notice and another young black female that did not file

a 12-309 notice. The MPD is targeting these young bikers with deadly force, i.e.

intentionally hitting these bikers off their motorbikes with 250 ccs or less with

their MPD cruisers during the course of their work under color of law acting as

police officers.

3) The individual Plaintiffs include Terry Thedale Cain, JaKwan whose correct

spelling is JaQuan Brown who lives at 1142 Barnaby Terrace (not 1144), Ellie

James Turner Brooks whose correct name is Ellie James Brooks, James (Carter)

Turner whose correct name is James Turner, Brittani Ronnicka Carnery, Aairon

Johnson, Don Whitaker and Eric Butler. Their Declarations under oath are

herein incorporated by reference which have been previously been provided to

DC in docket # 09-2292 of this court and to DC s Office of Risk Management.

Said facts set forth the facts of their case and are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth in this complaint. The above named Plaintiffs have attached their


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


4/30

4

respective Declarations in the Order in which they appear in the style of this

case.

4) The District of Columbia is a municipality and a governmental body within the

federal territory of the District of Columbia.

5) Defendants are the District of Columbia and numerous John Doe MPD

officers, whose names Plaintiffs will attempt to ascertain during discovery, who

drove MPD police cruisers and targeted young bikers with deadly force.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6) Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 USC section 1331 and 1343 as

this suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Pendant

jurisdiction over the claims arising under District of Columbia law (state law

claims) is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367.

7) Personal Jurisdiction is proper as all of the said collisions have taken place in

the District of Columbia.

8) Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 as all material and relevant acts and

inactions involving the collisions occurred within the District of Columbia, most

material witnesses and evidence may be found within the District or nearby, and

the Defendant is the District of Columbia.

9) The actions of which Plaintiffs complain violate Plaintiffs Constitutionally

Protected Rights and were taken under the color of law by MPD officers of the

District of Columbia and/or by the policies, procedures, customs or usages of the

District of Columbia and may be redressed pursuant to 42 USC 1983.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


5/30

5

10) Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights, under the

Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the

laws of the United States, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by

use of excessive force and to be free from deprivation of life or liberty without due

process of law.

11) This act of targeting an insular minority on a racial and class basis as a

system wide pattern and practice which is tolerated by and in some instances

encouraged by D.C. through the MPD is a violation of the Constitutional rights of

this insular minority class based on the holding in Monell v. Department of Soc.

Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

FACTS COMMON TO ALL

12) Plaintiff restates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as

if fully set forth herein.

13) The MPD has engaged in a practice of targeting young black bikers with

deadly force by intentionally striking motorbikes driven by young black bikers,

predominately males, with MPD cruisers.

14) The young black bikers invariably run from the scene after they have been hit

by MPD cruisers if they cant get away on their bikes and leave their bikes at the

scene of the collision.

15) The MPD officers take these motorbikes into custody. Ultimately these

motorbikes are either confiscated by individual police officers or sold by the MPD

and/or by D.C.s Department of Public Works , thus creating a revenue stream for

the District of Columbia. Most bikers would not give up their bikes voluntarily to

the police so that it is a fair conclusion that the vast majority of motorbikes


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


6/30

6

confiscated by the MPD or claimed as abandoned property are motorbikes that

come from bikers that have been hit off their bikes by MPD cruisers.

16) This unconstitutional act of targeting an insular minority of young black

motorbike drivers with deadly force is a discriminatory act of racial and class

profiling that is inherently unconstitutional and is exacerbated by the fact that the

respective bikers are being targeted intentionally with deadly force that can result

in serious injury or death. Consequently, this potentially deadly targeting of

young black bikers with MPD cruisers deprives this class of the rights to life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness. MPD knew or should have known that this

practice has persisted from at least 2009 and before because of the case of the

Estate of Arnell Robinson v. DC et. al., docket number 09-cv-2294 before this

Court. Furthermore, it should be obvious from the large number of motorbikes

taken into the storage facility of the MPD, usually Blue Plains.

17) The Plaintiffs identified in the style of this case have attached their

declarations under oath and are incorporated by reference to this Complaint.

These declarations set forth the facts of their individual claims.

18) These bikers who are filing suit, both on behalf of themselves and behalf of

the class are Terry Thedale Cain, JaKwan (a/k/a JaQuan) Brown, Ellie James

Brooks (Turner), Brittani Ronnicka Carney, James Turner, and Aarion Johnson

(hereinafter Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner and Johnson 12-309 notice

class) . Don Whitaker and Eric Butler (non notice class) are filing on behalf of

themselves and the class but they represent those that have the additional

element that they have not sent a notice to the District of Columbia pursuant to


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


7/30

7

DC Code 12-309. Their Declarations are attached herein and incorporated by

reference as the facts of their individual respective cases. Their declarations

under oath have been previously provided to DC and are incorporated herein by

reference. They are bringing their own individual actions in the event that their

class action claim does not survive judicial scrutiny.

19) Bikers set forth as individual bikers above, with the exception of Don

Whitaker and Eric Butler have given the District notice pursuant to DC Code

section 12-309 and have received acknowledgement of their claims from the D.

C. Office of Risk Management.

20) Defendant John Doe MPD cruiser drivers are jointly and severally liable to

the respective Plaintiffs involved in their individual collisions and are liable as part

of a pattern, practice and custom within the MPD to target young black bikers

with deadly force by hitting them off their bikes with their respective cruisers.

21) Defendant District of Columbia is liable to respective Plaintiffs as individuals

and as part of a class, under the doctrine ofrespondeat superior, for violations of

their respective rights.

22) Plaintiffs are seeking costs and reasonable attorneys fees in this action as

provided in 42 USC section 1988.

23) John Doe officers driving MPD cruisers are targeting said bikers with

deliberate and callous indifference to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

and with deliberate and callous indifference to their safety and health.

DAMAGES


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


8/30

8

24) As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant John

Doe Police officers and Defendant D.C. as stated herein above and in each of

the Counts of this Complaint, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as follows:

a) Bikers have suffered an assortment of bodily injuries, pain and

suffering, disfigurement, inconvenience, mental anguish, disability, fright,

embarrassment, demoralization, deformity, discomfort, humiliation, degradation,

demeaned status and emotional distress.

b) Bikers have sustained damage to their vehicles, suffered loss of

income and other financial losses.

c) Some riders have incurred medical expenses in the treatment of their

injuries they sustained as a result of the deadly and dangerous acts of MPD

officers who target young black bikers.

d) Bikers have incurred costs and reasonable attorneys fees.

COUNT 1

FOURTH AMENDMENT UNREASONABLE SEIZURE

25) The individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their class

restates and allege each and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set

forth.

26) At all times DC and the MPD officers acted under the color of law.

27) On each and every instance set forth as attached herein, Defendants

intentionally used deadly force, i.e. used their police cruiser, as an object to strike

Plaintiffs which is tantamount to a traffic stop with potentially deadly force.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


9/30

9

28) The outrageous and intentional acts of the respective officers exhibit a

degree of malice to warrant punitive damages against said John Doe Drivers as

defendant John Doe DC cruiser drivers were targeting said bikers with deliberate

and callous indifference.

29) The conduct of these respective officers in targeting young black bikers is a

practice and pattern of the type that is customary and usual law enforcement

practice employed by many of the MPD officers in areas where young black

bikers drive motorbikes of 250 ccs or less drive their bikes. It is a pattern and

practice that is condoned and tacitly encouraged by the MPD.

30) The MPD and DC knew or should have known that such a practice is going

on by the large accumulation of abandoned motorbikes that occur after the police

attempt to apprehend the said bikers.

31) One of the motivations that the police had to continue this practice of

targeting said bikers is that DC and its officers sell these bikes which benefits

DC, the MPD and the individual officers where there is little to no accountability

regarding the sale of these bikes.

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney,

Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demand judgment against the District of

Columbia and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in

actual damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages

against each respective John Doe MPD driver individually and also join in the

class action as listed below in the class action count.

COUNT II FOURTH AMENDMENT: EXCESSIVE FORCE


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


10/30

10



forth.

33) At all times the MPD was acting under the color of law.

34) Defendant MPD John Doe drivers seized the respective bikers by targeting

them with their cruisers, struck them and knocked them off their bikes.

35) Such deadly force was clearly and objectively unreasonable in light of the

circumstances known to Defendants as they knew or should have known that

striking a young black biker with a cruiser could cause serious bodily harm or

death.

36) Such use of deadly force was out of proportion to the circumstances

presented by these respective bikers and class of bikers as the mere violation of

a traffic infractions or other relatively minor infraction does not justify the use of

deadly force.

37) At all times incident hereto, Plaintiffs were unarmed.

38) Defendant John Doe MPD officers outrageous intentional wrongful acts

exhibit the degree of malice that warrants punitive damages by their deliberate

and callous indifference to the safety and well being said bikers.

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney,

Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of

Columbia and respective John Doe MPD drivers in the amount of $200,000 in



Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


11/30

11

against each of the respective John Doe Defendant MPD cruiser drivers and also

join in the class action as listed below in the class action count.

COUNT III VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS



forth.

40) At all material times Defendant John Doe MPD officers acted under the color

of law.

41) Plaintiffs have a right to be free from deprivation of life and liberty without due

process of law.

42) Defendants are targeting Plaintiffs with deadly force by knocking them off

their bikes by hitting the bikers with their police cruisers which amounts to

unreasonable governmental interference with Plaintiffs rights to life and liberty.

43) Defendant MPD Officers outrageous, intentional and wrongful acts exhibit a

degree of malice to warrant punitive damages against the John Doe MPD drivers

because of their deliberate and callous indifference to the safety and health of

said bikers.

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, i.e. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney

Johnson, Turner, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of



against each of the respective John Doe drivers for each of the said respective

Plaintiffs and also join in the class action as listed below in the class action count.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


12/30

12

. COUNT IV

1983 MONELL CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF FOURTH AND FIFTH

AMENDEMENT



forth.

45) DC through its MPD Officers, violated the bikers Fourth and Fifth Amendment

Rights.

46) At all times incident hereto, the respective MPD officers who targeted these

bikers acted under the color of law.

47) At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the policy, practice and

custom of Defendant DC and its MPD Officers to encourage and permit officers

on patrol in their vehicles to intimidate and target young black bikers with their

police cruisers in an effort to dislodge the bikers from their bikes.

48) Invariably the biker would flee the scene leaving their bikes in the vicinity of

the respective pursuing police cruiser.

49) Since the bikers have abandoned their vehicles by running from the police,

the sale of these bikes by the D.C. government and confiscation for the personal

use of these bikes by friends of MPD officers and/or the subsequent sale to

unaccounted purchasers, provides a lucrative source of income to generate

revenues for the District and/or the individual police officers who obtained

possession of these bikes.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


13/30

13

50) These practices and customs employed by the MPD Officers were common

place and were knowingly or tacitly condoned and encouraged by supervisors

within the MPD.

51) At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the policy, practice and

custom of Defendant D.C. endemic to the MPD, to condone abuses of police

power by its officers including but not limited to the type of abuse of knocking

bikers off their bikes with MPD cruisers due to supervisor inaction and failure to

investigate and pursue reports of unlawful seizures and use of excessive force,

and failure to deter such behavior by its agents through failing to properly train,

reprimand, suspend or dismiss said MPD officers who target young black bikers

with deadly force.

52) At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the practice and custom of

Defendant D.C., endemic to its MPD, to fail to train and discipline its officers,

creating a situation where its unfit, untrained and undisciplined officers were

certain to violate the constitutional rights of bikers in DC through unreasonable

seizures, use of excessive force, and deprivation of due process of the law,

without fear of consequences.

53) The above described polices and customs demonstrate a deliberate and

callous indifference on the part of policy makers of Defendant DC to deny the

constitutional rights of bikers and said polices and customs are the direct and

proximate cause of the violations of plaintiffs Constitutional rights being violated

as alleged herein.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


14/30

14

54) Defendant DC and its agents adhered to the aforementioned policies,

practices and customs intentionally, and with deliberate indifference to the

obvious eventuality that bikers would be deprived of their Fourth and Fifth

Amendment constitutional rights in the manner described in these Counts herein

(unlawful seizures and uses of excessive force.)

55) As a result of improper training by Defendant D.C., Defendant MPD officers

were incapable to do their jobs without violating the constitutional rights of bikers.

DC allowed its MPD officers to exercise their jobs without providing them proper

training with respect to the constitutional rights of young motorcyclists, with

deliberate and callous indifference to the fact that they were almost certain to

violate the constitutional rights of bikers.

56) While this dangerous practice of targeting young black males continues

unabated, none of the MPD officers are sanctioned for their violations of civil

rights and are often promoted to higher levels of the MPD. Furthermore,

whenever infractions of police misconduct regarding knocking a biker off a bike

with a cruiser is exposed to public scrutiny, the MPD close ranks and place the

errant officer behind the veil of the blue wall of silence and said MPD officers

cover for their errant officers by covering up their misdeeds.

57) As the direct and proximate result of the official and unofficial policies,

procedures, customs, usages and practices of Defendant, D.C., Defendant D.C.

is directly liable under 1983 for the violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.

58) As a direct and proximate result of the above described polices and customs,

the bikers suffered damages described in the damages section of this complaint.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


15/30

15

59) Defendant D. C. drivers outrageous, intentional, reckless, grossly negligent

unconstitutional and wrongful acts exhibit a degree of malice to warrant punitive

damages.

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, e.g. Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney,

Turner, Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of



against each respective John Doe MPD driver and also join in the class action as

listed below in the class action count.

Wherefore, since this deadly practice of targeting young black bikers with

MPD cruisers is clearly excessive force under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of

the Constitution; this practice needs to stop; and DC and the MPD has shown no

ability to stop said practice and that, in fact, they are profiting from this practice,

Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million Dollars) in damages.

Wherefore, since this has been on ongoing practice in the District of

Columbia for years and it must stop immediately, Plaintiffs pray for an Order from

this Court demanding that the MPD cease and desist from the practice knocking

young black bikers off their motorbikes with their cruisers regardless of the traffic

infraction unless deadly force would otherwise be necessary.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs also pray for an Order to D.C. to instruct MPD to

exclude MPD candidates who are be inclined to target young black bikers and

knock them off their bikes and to train its MPD officers not to target drivers of

motorbikes with their police cruisers.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


16/30

16

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for Judgment awarding Plaintiffs their costs and

reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988 and

damages as the presentation of the evidence justifies.

STATE LAW CLAIMS

COUNT V NEGLIGENCE



forth.

61) Defendant DC and its MPD officers had a duty to operate their motor vehicles

in a careful and prudent manner and not target individual bikers on the basis of

race and class and use deadly force to knock young black bikers off their bikes.

62) Defendant DC and its MPD officers had a duty to obey all applicable traffic

regulations, laws, signs and signals, especially in non-emergency situations.

63) Notwithstanding the above referenced duties, and in the breach of such

duties, Defendant John Doe drivers negligently and carelessly failed to operate

their motor vehicles in a careful and prudent manner, and negligently and

carelessly failed to yield the right of way to Plaintiffs but instead targeted said

Plaintiffs.

64) Notwithstanding the above referenced duties, and in breach of such duties,

Defendant John Doe drivers negligently, recklessly, carelessly and without due

care failed to obey all applicable traffic regulations, laws, and instead targeted

young black bikers with deadly force.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


17/30

17

65) Said named Plaintiffs were injured and suffered humiliation and degradation

and were demeaned at the hands of the MPD in violation of Plaintiffs

Constitutional rights.

Wherefore each individual Plaintiff, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner,

Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demand judgment against the District of Columbia

and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual

damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against each respective John Doe

Defendant driver and also join in the class action as listed below in the class

action count.

COUNT VI ASSAULT



forth.

67) At all times material hereto, the said MPD officers acted within the course

and scope of his employment as a servant and/or employee of Defendant D.C.

68) Said MPD Officers drove their cruisers in a manner that intentionally and

unlawfully assaulted Plaintiff by swerving their cruisers into the motorbikes driven

by Plaintiffs.

69) All such damages were solely and proximately caused by the intentional

actions of said MPD officers and the District of Columbia.

70) D. C. by its actions and failure to train such officers contributed to the

proliferation of its MPD officers targeting young black bikers with their MPD

cruisers.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


18/30

18

71) At all times during which these tortuous and unconstitutional acts were being

committed by the MPD officers, said MPD officers were acting within the scope of

their employment.

72) The Defendant DC is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the

aforesaid tortuous acts and omissions of Defendant D.C.

73) Said motorbike Plaintiffs were harmed in their body, humiliated, demeaned

and degraded as a result of being targeted with deadly force by said MPD

officers and said conduct was condoned by the Defendant DC.

74) Damages sought under this count are proper pursuant to District of Columbia

law.


Johnson, Whitaker and Butler, i.e. demands judgment against the District of



against John Doe Defendants and also join in the class action as listed below in

the class action count.

COUNT VII BATTERY



forth.

76) At all times material hereto, Defendant MPD Officers acted within the course

and scope of his employment as a servant and/or employee of Defendant DC.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


19/30

19

77) Said MPD officers intentionally battered Plaintiffs by targeting them with their

respective cruisers with deadly force.

78) As a result of these collisions the said bikers were injured in body and were

humiliated and degraded by the use of official power directed towards Plaintiffs

on a racial and class basis.

79) All such damages suffered by Plaintiffs were the direct and proximate cause

of the collisions.

80) Defendant DC is jointly and severally liable under the doctrine of respondeat

superiorfor the aforementioned tortuous acts and omissions against Plaintiffs.


Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demand judgment against the District of Columbia

and respective John Doe police drivers in the amount of $200,000 in actual

damages for each of the said Plaintiffs and $500,000 in punitive damages

against each respective John Doe MPD driver and also join in the class action as


.

COUNT VIII INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS



forth.

82) At all times material hereto, the MPD Officers who targeted these young

black bikers with deadly force acted within the course and scope of their

employment as a servant and/or employee of Defendant D.C.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


20/30

20

83) Defendant MPD officers drove their respective cruisers in a manner to target

young black bikers in order to cause intentional infliction of emotional distress

causing extreme fear, apprehension and emotional distress.

84) Defendant MPD officers, by targeting these respective biker Plaintiffs, did

cause extreme emotional distress, fear and apprehension.

85) Defendant MPD officers enjoy targeting these young black bikers as if it were

target shooting and/or sport.

86) As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants intentional targeting

Plaintiffs with their motorbikes with deadly force, Plaintiffs have suffered

damages of body and humiliation and degradation.

87) All such damages were proximately and solely caused by the intentional

actions of Defendant MPD officers with the acquiescence and being condoned by

D.C. and the supervisors of the MPD.

88) Defendant D.C. is jointly and severally liable under the doctrine ofrespondeat

superiorfor the aforementioned tortuous acts and omissions of D.C. of said MPD

officers.


Johnson, Whitaker and Butler demands judgment against the District of


actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against each respective

John Doe MPD driver and also join in the class action as listed below in the class

action count.

COUNT XI (DEFENDANT D.C.) NEGLIGENT HIRING AND TRAINING


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


21/30

21



forth.

90) At all times relevant herein, the respective MPD officers who have targeted

young black male motorbike drivers, were employees, agents and/or servants of

D.C. and acted under the direction and control of, and pursuant to the statutes,

rules, regulations, policies, and procedures of Defendant D.C.

91) Defendant D.C. had a duty, through performance of reasonable inquiry, to

hire as police officers, only such individuals who were capable of appreciating the

rights of citizens of the District of Columbia afforded by the United States

Constitution, and to refrain from hiring individuals unfit or unable to enforce the

Districts police powers within Constitutional boundaries.

92) Defendant D.C. had a duty to refrain from retaining, i.e. a duty to suspend

and dismiss, those officers who demonstrate lack of capacity to appreciate the

rights of citizens of the District of Columbia afforded by the United States

Constitution, and to suspend and dismiss individuals unfit or unable to enforce

the Districts police powers within constitutional boundaries.

93) Defendant D.C. had a duty to train Defendant Police officers to effect

searches and seizures within the bounds of the Unites States Constitution, and

not in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of said Constitution.

94) Defendant D.C. had a duty to supervise Defendant John Doe drivers to

ensure that his actions were in conformity with the United States Constitution.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


22/30

22

95) In breach of the aforementioned duties set forth herein, Defendant D.C.

hired Defendant MPD officers, without inquiring into whether or not these officers

were capable of appreciating the rights and citizens of the District of Columbia

afforded by the United States Constitution, when in fact, these officers were unfit

and unable to enforce the Districts police powers within the boundaries of the

United States Constitution.

96) In breach of the aforementioned duties, the MPD failed to suspend and

dismiss officers who the District knew or should have known were violating the

Constitutional Rights of its citizens by unlawful searches and seizure that

involved excessive force by targeting young black bikers with excessive force in

order to knock said bikers off their motorbikes.

97) In breach of the aforementioned duties set forth herein, Defendant D.C. failed

to train said MPD officers to effect searches and seizures within the bounds of

the United States Constitution, and not in violation of the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments of said Constitution.

98) In breach of the aforementioned duties set forth herein, Defendant D.C. failed

to supervise Defendant MPD officers to ensure that their actions were in

conformity with the United States Constitution.

99) As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant D.C. with

respect to its negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision of its errant

MPD officers, the Plaintiffs suffered harm to their bodies, humiliation and

emotional distress and a loss of their freedoms guaranteed to them under the

Constitution.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


23/30

23


Johnson and Whitaker demands judgment against the District of Columbia and in

the amount of $200,000 in actual damages and also join in the class action as




the Constitution; this practice needs to stop; and DC and the MPD has shown no


Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 in damages.

Wherefore, since this has been an ongoing practice in the District of





Plaintiffs also pray for an Order to D.C. to instruct and train its MPD

officers not to target drivers of motorbikes with their police cruisers.


reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988.

CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO RULE 23

100) The aforementioned Plaintiffs, Cain, Brown, Brooks, Carney, Turner,

Johnson, Whitaker and Butler, on behalf of their class restates and allege each

and every allegation as set forth above as if fully set forth. Plaintiffs asserts that


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


24/30

24

there is a pattern and practice in the District of Columbia whereby the MPD is

targeting an insular category of people based on race and class with deadly

force.

101) Plaintiffs further assert that the method by which the MPD is targeting this

insular class is by hitting these young black bikers with their MPD cruisers under

the color of law. Plaintiffs further assert that the MPD is targeting particularly

poor geographic areas in D.C. This way, the MPD can target young black

bikers, most often males, with deadly force with impunity. This class includes

young black bikers, predominately male ones, who drive motorbikes of 250 ccs

or less in the District of Columbia in the poorer areas of town. Targeting poorer

areas in which poor young black bikers are concentrated conceals the MPD

predisposition to target these bikers based on MPD racial and class animus.

102) Almost to the person, a motorbike driver will not voluntarily give up their

motorbike to a police officer.

103) Yet, the District of Columbia has sold a large number of these motorbikes

that have been abandoned or confiscated by the police as a result of targeting

young black bikers with their cruisers, i.e. deadly force, which money goes into

District of Columbia or under that table to those who have control over said bikes.

104) There is a record by the D.C. Inspector General of opportunity for fraud and

abuse in the sale of abandoned cars and trucks that is documented the DC

Inspector General reports.

105) But the same scrutiny has not occurred with respect to abandoned or

confiscated bikes. There appears to be a different procedure for the sale of


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


25/30

25

these motorbikes going through the MPD as opposed to the public works

department. This procedure needs to be flushed out during discovery. Thus, the

ones who are confiscating the bikes are the same ones who have control over

the sale of the bikes. This creates a large potential for fraud and abuse. Thus,

DC and its MPD have a motivation to continue the practice of knocking young

black bikers off their bikes.

106) It appears that the District of Columbia and the MPD have engaged in a

pattern of making money from these confiscated bikes.

107) Since these smaller bikes are not registered and they appear to be

abandoned when the biker runs after being hit by the MPD cruiser, this leaves an

enormous opportunity to exploit their financial gain by selling these bikes.

108) Each time that a motorbike is abandoned or confiscated, a form PD 81 must

be filed.

109) In other litigation pending before this court, i.e. DC Docket number 09-2294,

at the time of the filing of this complaint, the MPD and DC have refused to

provide the PD 81s for the abandoned bikes which MPD has taken pursuant to

this practice of knocking young black bikers of their bikes.

110) There is a line on the MPDs PD 81 form for how much the motorbike is sold

for. The MPD and DC have not been held to account for the disposition of these

bikes as they are not easy to trace.

111) The above referenced plaintiffs have filed notice to the District pursuant to

12-309 with the exception of Don Whitaker and Eric Butler. However, it is

impractical to require all members of this class to do so. Requiring the traditional


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


26/30

26

12-309 notice will only serve to perpetual the practice of targeting young black

bikers with deadly force with impunity and will perpetuate the deprival of Plaintiffs

Constitutional Rights.

112) The above Plaintiffs represent a small proportion of bikers who have been

knocked off bikes in that DC requires a six month notice of the collision as a

prerequisite to filing suit.

113) This instant law suit is necessary to end the ongoing DC practice of

acquiescing to and condoning the practice of MPD officers targeting young black

bikers with deadly force by knocking young bikers off their motorbikes.

114) Plaintiffs allege that this practice of knocking young black bikers off their

bikes by police cruisers, while falling outside the six month notice period, has

persisted for a long time.

115) Plaintiffs have over 200 Declarations of bikers who have been hit by MPD

cruisers during a long period of time, most of which do not fall within the sixth

month notice 12-309 time frame.

116) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.

117) There are questions of law or fact common to the class.

118) The representatives of the parties will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class.

119) Inconsistent or varying adjucations with respect to individual class

members would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party

opposing the case.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


27/30

27

120) Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions

affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other

methods for fairly and efficiently adjucating the controversy.

121) In most instances where young black bikers have been knocked off their

bikes by MPD cruisers driven by MPD officers acting under color of law, there are

insufficient medical bills to justify a personal injury case that is too expensive to

litigate without proper documentation.

122) This class case is a pure Model practice and usage suit that focuses on the

MPDs practice of targeting young black bikers with their cruisers under color of

law. This count is less concerned about the amount of the damage to either the

bike or to the respective plaintiffs personal injuries rather than the individuals

right to be free from excessive force which deprives the Plaintiffs of their

Constitutional Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without due process

of law.

123) This practice has already resulted in the death of at least one young black

male biker that is presently before this Court, e.g. docket # 09 2294.

124) The case brings to light a practice of depriving the disenfranchised and

outcast of their constitutional rights and targeting them with deadly force within

the District of Columbia that would not otherwise come to the attention of this

Court because most bikers run from the scene. In those cases where the injuries

are substantial and the biker is taken to the hospital, individual cases are filed.

So, this pattern and practice of targeting young black males with deadly force, i.e.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


28/30

28

cruiser collisions, has yet to be scrutinized by this court as part of a system wide

pattern and usage.

125) There is an urgency to hold DC and the MPD liable for their conduct of

racial and class profiling of young black bikers, as this dangerous and deadly

practice continues to persist.

126) Foreclosing the litigants who do not have the six month 12-309 notice letters

will perpetuate the practice of knocking young black males off motorbikes.

127) Since this case involves the constitutional rights to be free from excessive

deadly force under the United States Constitution, it is unreasonable to require

the litigants of this class to comply with a burdensome state law of D.C. Code 12-

309. Furthermore, the conduct of the MPD is a violation of this insular class of

US citizens, most of whom are DC residents, of their Constitutional rights to be

free from unlawful seizures and excessive force in which DC, by its condoning

and acquiescing to the MPD practice of targeting young black bikers with deadly

force, and deprives to this class their Constitutional Rights under the Fourth and

Fifth Amendments to be free from unwarranted excessive and deadly force under

the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

128) Thus, this class should be open to all litigants who have suffered at the

hands of the MPD for being targeted with excessive and deadly force, i.e.

intentionally hit with MPD cruisers, and not be limited to those who have filed a

12-309 notice with the District of Columbia as a local statute cannot burden those

inalienable rights belonging to US citizens under the Constitution.


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


29/30

29



the Constitution; this practice needs to stop; DC and the MPD have shown no


Plaintiffs as a class demand $100,000,000.00 in damages.

Wherefore, since this has been on ongoing practice in the District of





Plaintiffs also pray for an Order to D.C. to instruct and train its MPD

officers not to target drivers of motorbikes with their police cruisers.


reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988 and

such damages as the evidence dictates.

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANED

Submitted by:

______________/s/______________________David L. Shurtz


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice


30/30

Attorney at Law1200 North Nash Street, # 835

Arlington, VA 22209(202) [email protected]


Courthou

seNewsS

ervice

class action suit against d.c.p.d. for use of deadly force against bikers

Documents