Diggles Lawsuit

7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit

1/28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

KEYARIKA DIGGLES

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-00361-RC

CITY OF JASPER, TEXAS, RICKY GRISSOM, INDIVIDUALLY, RYAN CUNNINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND LINSEY DAVENPORT, INDIVIDUALLY JAMES M. (MIKE) LOUT,

INDIVIDUALLY, GERALD HALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND DEFENDANT DOES 7 THROUGH 10

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 29


2/28

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................2

Nature of the Case .......................................................................................................................3

Parties ..............................................................................................................................................3

Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................................5

Venue ..............................................................................................................................................5

Factual Background ........................................................................................................................5

Hall and Lout ............................................................12

May 5, 2013 ......................................................................14

Count One Use of Excessive Force ...........................................................................................18

Count Two Race Discrimination ...............................................................................................19

Count Three Policy, Custom or Practice of Excessive Use of Force & Race Discrimination...19

Count Four Conspiracy .23

Relief Requested .........................................................................................................................27

Jury Demand. ...............................................................................................................................27

Prayer ...........................................................................................................................................27



3/28

3

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

COMES NOW, KEYARIKA DIGGLES, complaining of the City of Jasper (Jasper

Police Department), Ricky Grissom, individually, Ryan Cunningham, individually, Linsey

Davenport, individually, James M. (Mike) Lout, individually, Gerald Hall, individually, and

Does 7 through 10, and for cause of action would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court as

follows:

A. Nature of the Case

1. This is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 and the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, seeking damages against Defendants for

committing acts, under color of law, with the intent and for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of

rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

2. Plaintiff has previously filed a Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order and

Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Doc 1). This Court has entered its

Preservation Order (Doc 2) and Order Denying Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Document 4).

B. Parties

3. Plaintiff, KEYARIKA DIGGLES (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff or Diggles), is,

and at all times mentioned was, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas.

Plaintiff is African-American.

4. Defendant, City of Jasper (hereinafter referred to as City or Department), is a

governmental entity located in east Texas, County of Jasper. The City of Jasper has made an

appearance herein and service of the Original Complaint may be made on its counsel of record,

Frank Calvert at Calvert, Eaves, Clarke & Stelly, LLP, 2615 Calder, Suite 1020, Beaumont,



4/28

4

Texas 77702.

5. Defendant, Ryan Cunningham (hereinafter referred to as Cunningham), was at all times

mentioned, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. At all times

relevant to this action, Cunningham was a duly appointed and acting Certified Peace Officer

employed by the Jasper Police Department of Jasper, Texas. As such, Cunningham was a duly

appointed agent authorized to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and was so acting under

color of the law of the State of Texas at all times relevant to this action. Defendant Cunningham

may be served with process at his address of 386 County Road 139 N, Jasper, Texas 75951.

6. Defendant, Ricky Grissom (hereinafter referred to as Grissom), was at all times


relevant to this action, Grissom was a duly appointed and acting Certified Peace Officer

employed by the Jasper Police Department of Jasper, Texas. As such, Grissom was a duly

appointed agent authorized to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and was so acting under

color of the law of the State of Texas at all times relevant to this action. Defendant Grissom may

be served with process at 1180 CR 4560, Spurger, Texas 77660.

7. Defendant, Linsey Davenport (hereinafter referred to as Davenport), was at all times


relevant to this action, Davenport was Jasper Police Department dispatcher employed by the

Jasper Police Department of Jasper, Texas. As an employee of the Jasper Police Department, she

was an appointed agent acting under color of the law of the State of Texas at all times relevant to

this action. Defendant Davenport may be served with process at 305 N. Zavala St., Jasper, Texas

75951.

8. Defendant, James M. Mike Lout (hereinafter referred to as Lout), is, and at all times



5/28

5

mentioned was, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. Defendant may

be served with process at his business address of 465 South Main Street, Jasper, Texas 75951.

9. Defendant, Gerald Hall (hereinafter referred to as Hall), is, and at all times mentioned

was, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. At all times relevant to

this action, Defendant Gerald Hall was the head of the Jasper Police Department and was acting

under the color of State law at all times relevant to this action. Defendant Hall may be served

with process at the Jasper Police Department, 555 South Main Street, Jasper, Texas 75951.

10. Defendant Doe 7 through Defendant Doe 10, inclusive, are under fictitious names. Their

true names and capacities are not known, but each is believed to be a resident of Jasper County,

Texas, or alternatively, believed to be authorized to do business in the State of Texas.

C. Jurisdiction

11. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 and the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction of this

action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 1343, and 28 U.S.C. 1331.

D. Venue

12. Venue is proper in this district under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) (3) because the alleged

excessive use of force was committed in this district. Plaintiff was a resident of the City of

Jasper, Texas which is located in this district, and Defendants are located or reside in this

District.

E. Factual Background

13. Jasper is a home-rule municipality with a council-management government.

14. A lifelong resident of Jasper, Plaintiff is a young, African-American woman. She is a

single mother of two young children.



6/28

6

15. On or about Sunday, May 5, 2013, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Plaintiff became the latest

victim of Jaspers long-standing and now escalating racial tension. She was asleep in her private

residence located in Jasper, Texas. During the early morning hours, Plaintiff was awoken

abruptly by loud banging on her front door the knocking soon came to a halt. Shortly

thereafter, Plaintiff received a call from her grandmother, who lives nearby, letting her know that

Jasper police officers were attempting to make contact with her with regard to an arrest

warrant.

16. Plaintiff subsequently called the Jasper Police Department and spoke to a police

dispatcher who indicated that the Department did not possess an active warrant for her arrest.

17. After the phone call, two Caucasian, Jasper police officers, identified as Ryan

Cunningham and Ricky Grissom, both wearing the standard uniform of a Jasper Police

Department police officer, returned to Plaintiffs door. Again they knocked. Plaintiff answered

the door and made contact with Officers Cunningham and Grissom.

18. The officers informed Plaintiff that she was under arrest for an active warrant that was

issued as a result of an unpaid ticket or citation. Plaintiff actually had been paying monthly

installments on the ticket and had reduced the amount to approximately $100.00 at the time of

her arrest.1 She was further told that her arrest was part of a larger effort a warrant roundup.

An actual copy of the warrant was never displayed to Plaintiff and no copy has been produced to

Plaintiff at the time of this complaints filing.

19. Plaintiff was then formally placed under arrest and handcuffed using standard metal cuffs

with her hands pulled behind her back. The cuffs were tightly secured. She was directed to the

back of the Jasper Police Department patrol unit and hauled off under the color of an active

1 Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiffs counsel has been given an official reason or explanation as to why Plaintiff was

arrested that Sunday morning.



7/28

7

municipal traffic warrant to the Jasper City Jail. She was the only inmate at the jail a sight

uncommon during a warrant roundup.

20. Upon arriving at the jail, Defendant Grissom offered Plaintiff a way out of custody. He

told Plaintiff that she would be released if she could pay the ticket amount in full plus a $50.00

service fee. Plaintiff was further instructed to use a telephone to find someone who could

supply her with the necessary funds to pay the ticket plus the service fee. She complied with

Defendant Grissoms request by calling her mother. While Plaintiff spoke to her mother as

ordered, Defendant Grissom grew angry as Plaintiff attempted to explain her situation to her

mother. His anger quickly escalated until he eventually terminated Plaintiffs phone conversation

in mid-sentence.

21. After ending the phone conversation, Defendant Grissom and Plaintiff exchanged words

words the public cannot hear because the audio either doesnt exist or has never been

produced by the City. Defendant Grissom then cornered Plaintiff against the wall of the police

station. He placed his body within inches of Plaintiff. At that point, Defendant Grissom is joined

by Defendant Cunningham, with Plaintiff still against the wall between these two physically

imposing officers.

22. Defendant Cunningham then assisted by Defendant Grissom grabbed Plaintiff by her hair

and deliberately and intentionally pulled Plaintiff across the office so that he could slam her head

violently and maliciously onto the countertop. (ILLUSTRATION A). Both Defendants

Cunningham and Grissom knew their actions were being recorded, but they were not afraid or

deterred in continuing their assault of Plaintiff because they knew they would be protected by

their supervisors and Defendant City of Jasper.



8/28

8

(ILLUSTRATION A)

23. Even though Plaintiff had been injured and was stunned by the impact of her face and

head onto the countertop, Defendant Cunningham proceeded to body slam Plaintiff onto the

ground and brutally force the metal handcuffs onto Plaintiff yet again. Defendant Cunningham

then attempted to physically drag Plaintiff towards a jail cell by her leg as Defendant Grissom

watched. (ILLUSTRATION B)

(ILLUSTRATION B)

24. While dragging Plaintiff across the floor like an animal, Defendant Cunningham suffered

a quick bit of karma when he slipped and fell to the ground. He then angrily returned to

continue his attack on Plaintiff. (ILLUSTRATION C)



9/28

9

(ILLUSTRATION C)

25. After dragging Plaintiff across the floor, Defendant Cunningham with the help of

Defendant Grissom attempted to force Plaintiff to her feet. During this time, Plaintiff was still

secured in tight, metal handcuffs that had already started to pierce her skin. In attempting to lift

Plaintiff to her feet, the two officers aggressively lifted her by her hands a practice that officers

are specifically taught not to employ due to the serious, painful effects on an arrestees

shoulders. All during the sequence of events, Plaintiff pleaded with the officers to stop and

called for help to the dispatcher, all of which was ignored.

26. After manhandling Plaintiff in an effort to inflict more pain by attempting to jerk her to

her feet, the two officers worked together to drag Plaintiff into an empty cell. Even though

Plaintiff was injured, the officers warned Plaintiff that she would be placed in the restraint

chair if she continued to cause a problem though her hands were still tightly bound by

handcuffs.

27. After being dragged by her feet, into a darkened, isolated cell, Plaintiff was kept there for

hours without any type of medical attention for the injuries that she sustained at the hands of the

two officers. With her hands tightly bound behind her, Plaintiff spent the duration of her time in

the isolated cell with an injured scalp where her hair was ripped from her head, a brace lodged



10/28

10

into her upper lip, a tooth dangling by its root and handcuffs ripping into her wrists.

(ILLUSTRATION D)

28. During the last portion of the brutal attack of Plaintiff, it appeared as though Defendant

Davenport, hearing Plaintiffs pleas for help, would come to her aid and stop the abuse being

inflicted upon Plaintiff. Defendant Davenport did nothing to intervene or render Plaintiff aid, but

instead assisted Defendants Grissom and Cunningham by opening the cell door so that they

could continue the brutalization of Plaintiff. (ILLUSTRATION D). As a police dispatcher,

Defendant Davenport knew that the senseless attack was recorded on the video recording system

and was able to view the attack in the dispatch office. Realizing that Plaintiff had been

brutalized and injured in the assault against her, Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport

and the other Defendants falsely charged Plaintiff with the Class A Misdemeanor charge of

resisting arrest and sent the charge to the District Attorneys Office. Later, the charge was

rejected by the Jasper County Criminal District Attorney due to a lack of probable cause. The

false charging of Plaintiff with the Class A Misdemeanor of resisting arrest was an attempt by

Defendants to coerce and intimidate Plaintiff and to cover up their criminal actions.

29. Based upon information and belief, the policy and procedures of the Jasper Police

Department require and mandate that police officers involved in a use of force situation file



11/28

11

within twenty-four hours a use of force report with the department and the chief of

police or person acting within the scope of responsibilities. The supervisor or superiors of the

officers involved in a use of force situation must acknowledge the use of force report. Likewise,

the chief of police or person acting within the scope of that authority is informed of the use of

force. Evidence (i.e.) video, audio, photographs, statements, etc., must be collected and

maintained by the City of Jasper.

30. Based upon information and belief, the direct supervisor for Defendants Grissom and

Cunningham on May 5, 2013 was Officer Gary Pullen, an officer once fired in part for multiple

wrongful uses of force. As reported by the Beaumont Enterprise on August 19, 2011, during an

incident with Sergeant Pullen, a flashlight was used like a prying tool to attempt to open the

subject's mouth which resulted in injury. The victim was African-American. Also, the

Department found that Sergeant Pullen used excessive force in pepper spraying a person who

was lying face down with his hands cuffed behind him due to verbal provocation. The

victim was African-American. Several prior disciplinary incidents have occurred with Officer

Pullen; one resulted in a one day suspension without pay and another with a three day suspension

without pay. As a result of his history of excessive use of force, Officer Pullens employment

was terminated from the Jasper Police Department. The City of Jasper was forced to pay money

to the victims of Officer Pullens actions of excessive force.

31. After the termination of Police Chief Rodney Pearson2, Defendant City of Jasper and

Defendant Mayor Lout rehired Gary Pullen and placed him in a supervisory role. Upon

information and belief, Officer Pullen was paid nearly $70,000.00 upon his return to the Jasper

Police Department. Defendant City of Jasper and Defendant Mayor Lout also settled an alleged

discrimination case of Gary Pullen which he had filed against the City of Jasper. Upon

2 The City of Jaspers first African-American Chief of Police.



12/28

12

information and belief, Officer Pullen became the direct supervisor and role model of

Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport and other police officers which reinforced the

policy and practice of violence generally and specifically toward the Black and minority

communities.

HALL AND LOUT

32. In February 2011, it was announced that Jaspers then Chief of Police, Todd Hunter, was

moving to Kilgore, Texas.

33. On Friday, February 11, 2011, Defendant Lout, City Manager Tommy Boykin and then-

Police Captain Defendant Hall held a secret and unauthorized meeting in the office of Mr.

Boykin (all three men are white). Defendant Lout asked, Gerald, do you still want the Police

Chief job? Captain Hall stated, yes, I do. Defendant Lout said, do you want the interim

job? Captain Hall stated, Yes sir, I do. Defendant Lout then said, we are going to appoint

you Monday night. City Manager Boykin testified under oath in federal court to the meeting

and conversation of the three men.

34. The duly elected members of the City Council, Terrya Norsworthy (At-large District),

Willie Land (District 4), Tommy Adams (District 3), and Joe Clyde Adams (District 1) were not

aware of the February 11, 2011 meeting between Defendant Lout, Boykin and Defendant Hall.

All four of these Council Members are black.3

35. Defendant Lout knew that Rodney Pearson, who is black, was being considered for

appointment as Interim Police Chief. Defendant Lout did not have authority under the Jasper

City Charter and/or the law of the State of Texas to appoint Defendant Hall as Interim Police

Chief. Defendant Louts statement that, were going to appoint you Monday night was a

violation of the Jasper City Charter and the law of the State of Texas. The City Charter of Jasper

3 This was the first time in the history of Jasper when four of the five Council persons were African American.



13/28

13

reserves the right to hire the Chief of Police to the City Council.

36. On Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 8:17 p.m. outgoing Chief Todd Hunter (who is white)

sent an email to Penny Sullivan with a cc to Defendant Hall, wherein he stated, I am sending a

copy of this email to the Captain who will be named Interim next week.

37. Shortly after the selection of Rodney Pearson as the Interim Police Chief, Former Chief

Hunter stated on Facebook that he recommended Defendant Hall to Defendant Lout and the

Mayor told Gerald he was going to be the Interim. Didnt think I needed to campaign

since it was a done deal. I left Gerald all the stuff because he was ready. Defendant Hall

admitted in an interview that he cancelled a class to attend the February 14 City Council meeting

because he was told by Defendant Mayor Lout he was going to be appointed Interim Police

Chief at the meeting. Defendant Hall and his wife Judy were in attendance at the meeting when

Rodney Pearson was appointed Interim Police Chief.

38. On February 14, 2011, the City Council voted unanimously to appoint Rodney Pearson as

the Interim Chief of Police for the City of Jasper, Texas. The vote was 5-0 including

Councilman Sayers who is white. Rodney Pearson became the first black Chief of Police in the

history of Jasper. Thereafter, Defendant Lout along with others and through the use of KJAS

Radio Station spearheaded a recall of the black City Council who voted for the employment of

Rodney Pearson.4 It was Defendant Louts desire to have a white Police Chief and in particular,

Defendant Hall.

39. Rodney Pearsons employment as Chief of Police was terminated on June 11, 2012, by

the newly elected white-majority City Council. It was leaked by Defendant City of Jasper to the

press in advance of this meeting that Rodney Pearson would be fired.

40. After the executive session, the City Council returned and voted to table any decision on

4 This was the first recall in the history of Jasper, Texas.



14/28

14

the City Manager. Councilwoman Hazel Johnson (white) then made a motion to terminate

Rodney Pearson. The motion was seconded by Councilman McMillian, also white. The Motion

passed 4-1, with all white members of the City Council voting to terminate Rodney Pearson.

When asked if any of the Council Members had any comments after the motion and before the

vote, Councilman Alton Scott, the only black member of the City Council said, this is

racism at its finest. Rodney Pearson has never been given an explanation from the City

Council or anyone from Defendant City of Jasper either verbally or in writing as to why he was

fired.

41. At approximately 9:30 p.m. and after the long and humiliating City Council meeting,

Rodney Pearson was directed to go to the Jasper Police Department to turn in his badge, car keys

and clean out his office. When Rodney Pearson arrived with his son, he was told that he would

have to be monitored to ensure that nothing went missing. Defendant Lout, City Attorney

Ratcliff, Councilman Hopson and Lieutenant Poindexter watched over Rodney Pearson as he

and his son cleaned out the office. As Rodney Pearson cleaned out his office Defendant Hall5

and Garrett Foster6 sat in another room laughing.

MAY 5, 2013

42. By May 5, 2013, Defendant Hall had become the Chief Executive Officer for the

Jasper Police Department with the Texas Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education

following a vote by the City Council and at the request and demand of Defendant Lout. At the

time of brutalization of Plaintiff, Defendant Hall was the senior-most officer at the Department.

Under the Departments use of force policy, he should have received a use of force report

5 Defendant Hall had a pending EEOC claim against the City for the failure of the black majority city council to

select him as Police Chief. He subsequently filed suit against the City.6 Mr. Foster was no longer employed by the Jasper Police Department at the time and in fact had a pending suit

against the City of Jasper. Mr. Foster is the son of Defendant Debbie Foster, the Mayors longtime girlfriend, and is

an employee of KJAS radio.



15/28

15

within 24 hours of the savage beating committed against Plaintiff and should have reviewed the

video. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hall either received the use of force

information and video but made a conscious decision to withhold it from the public or he was

directed by someone within Defendant City of Jasper to withhold the information. Regardless,

Defendant Hall intentionally and deliberately participated in the effort to cover up evidence of

this act of brutality from the public. He has actively engaged in a conspiracy to suppress

evidence showing City of Jasper officials knew of the savage beating, when they knew and what

actions they took to deliberately suppress such evidence. Shamefully, Defendant Hall, as the

CEO of the Jasper Police Department, approved the filing of false charges of resisting arrest

against Plaintiff.

43. Subsequent to the savage beating of Plaintiff by Defendants Grissom and Cunningham,

the attack was made public nearly a month later by ABC News affiliate Channel 12 in

Beaumont, Texas, when the video was aired on Thursday, May 30, 2013. ABC News affiliate

Channel 12 received the video from Jasper City Council Member Alton Scott, the lone African-

American council member on the Jasper City Council. Upon information and belief,

Councilman Scott believed Defendant City of Jasper ignored Plaintiffs written complaint

submitted against the officers. In a statement to Yahoo News, Councilman Scott stated, theres

nothing she said that could have justified what they did. They are supposed to be trained

professionals. They are supposed to be above that. It was inexcusable. In an act of courage,

Councilman Scott provided the video to ABC News affiliate Channel 12 to shed light on the

cover up by Defendant City of Jasper and the other Defendants known or unknown.

44. Plaintiff asserts that during the time between May 5, 2013 and May 30, 2013, Defendants

engaged in an intentional and deliberate effort to cover up the attack from the public. During this



16/28

16

time period, Defendants never produced the video to the general public. There was essentially a

media blackout regarding the attack in Jasper, Texas until the airing of the video on ABC News

affiliate Channel 12 in Beaumont, Texas. This media blackout included the KJAS Radio Station

owned by Defendant Lout which routinely covers every event and incident involving the Jasper

Police Department.

45. The timing of the black-out of this horrible event coincided with the impending Jasper

City Elections. The elections were held on May 11, 2013, just six days following the police

brutality committed against Plaintiff. The Jasper City Mayor, Defendant Mike Lout, had a

contested mayoral election and owned the radio station KJAS in Jasper, Texas. Plaintiff asserts

that based upon information and belief, Defendant Lout was made aware of the attack prior to

the mayoral election. Due to his normal routine as acting both as a self-proclaimed newsman

and a mayor, Defendant Lout was a constant figure at the Jasper Police Department. He

reserved for himself the power of making personnel decisions and was deeply rooted in the daily

operations of the Department. However, with the impending election, the brutal video would

reflect badly upon him and Defendant City of Jasper. Defendant Lout and the white City

Council did not want or desire the public to know about this beating of an unarmed black female

in custody at the Jasper Police Station that he and the white City Council ran and controlled.

This was especially so in that Defendant Lout had and has day-to-day input and control of the

Jasper Police Department by and through Defendant Hall, Officer Pullen, Officer Garret Foster

and others.

46. As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Defendant Hall remains employed with the

Jasper Police Department and was not disciplined nor placed upon leave. Defendant Hall has not

been held accountable for his part in the intentional cover up of the brutalization of Plaintiff, the



17/28

17

false charges filed against her, or the obvious culture of violence within the Jasper Police

Department as exemplified by Officer Pullen and Defendants Cunningham, Grissom and

Davenport. It is clear that but for the public airing of this beating, Defendants Hall and Lout had

no intention of disciplining the officers.

47. Defendants Cunningham and Grissom were terminated on June 2, 2013, following a

unanimous vote to terminate both officers by the Jasper City Council due to those officers roles

in the savage beating of Plaintiff. The Citys action occurred only after, and as a result, of the

airing of the video by ABC News affiliate Channel 12 in Beaumont, Texas, and the outcry by the

public. Defendants Cunningham and Grissom were placed on administrative leave only after

Defendant Lout and the white City Council were confronted with the video and informed by the

ABC News affiliate Channel 12 that it would air the video.

48. A simple and even cursory review of the video reveals the savagery of the beating of

Plaintiff. The video existed as the event was being recorded. Policy and procedures of proper

law enforcement agencies mandate an immediate review of use of force by the superiors of

Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport, especially in light of the charges brought

against Plaintiff. And yet, it took the disclosure of the video by the ABC News affiliate Channel

12 to force Defendant City of Jasper into accountability. One review of the video

immediately reveals the illegal actions of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport. It

should not take 3 weeks to conduct an investigation into the incident involving Plaintiff.

49. Defendant Davenport was not fired along with Defendants Cunningham and Grissom for

failing to intervene in the crimes committed against Plaintiff or for failing to report the

commission of the crimes, but instead was fired only after she assaulted her boyfriend Defendant

Cunningham, was arrested and taken to the Jasper County Jail where she had to be restrained



18/28

18

because of her violent behavior.

COUNT ONE

USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-50 as if more fully set forth herein.

51. As a direct and proximate result of the above-referenced unlawful and malicious abuse

and brutalization of Plaintiff by Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport, committed

under color of law and under their authority as Defendant City of Jasper police officers, Plaintiff

suffered serious bodily harm and was deprived of her right to be secure in her person against

unreasonable violence and seizure of her person, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

52. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport violated Plaintiffs clearly established

rights while either knowing or disregarding that their actions created an excessive risk to

Plaintiffs health and safety.

53. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, malicious and outrageous conduct of

Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered physical

damage and injury to her body, mental anguish and fear for her well-being and safety.

Additionally, Plaintiff suffered special damages in the form of medical expenses and costs for

her defense and bond from the wrongful charges of resisting arrest, and attorney fees and

expenses and other damages. She will suffer additional damages in the future.

54. The acts of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above were

intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive

damages against them in their individual capacities and all other damages as set forth below.



19/28

19

COUNT TWO

RACE DISCRIMINATION

55. By reference, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation and averment set forth in

Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

56. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Grissom and Cunningham arrested her, employed

unreasonable force against her in making the arrest and initiated criminal proceedings against her

on the basis of her race. Defendant Davenport failed to come to the aid of Plaintiff, because of

her race.

57. Plaintiff further asserts that those actions by Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and

Davenport violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

58. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, malicious and discriminatory conduct

of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered

physical damage and injury to her body, mental anguish and fear for her well-being and safety.

Additionally, Plaintiff suffered special damages in the form of medical expenses and costs for

her defense and bond from the wrongful charges of resisting arrest, and attorney fees and

expenses and other damages. She will suffer additional damages in the future.

59. The acts of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above were

intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive

damages against them in their individual capacities and all other damages as set forth below.

COUNT THREE

POLICY, CUSTOM OR PRACTICE OF EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE AND RACE

DISCRIMINATION

60. For cause of action against Defendant, City of Jasper, the Plaintiff states:

61. By reference, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation and averment set forth in



20/28

20

Paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

62. Prior to this incident, Defendant City of Jasper by and through the white City Council

members and Defendant Mayor Lout knew of previous incidents involving Defendants Grissom

and Cunningham and other incidents of excessive force by officers such as Officer Pullen.

Defendant City of Jasper took no action to discipline the officers involved or order them to not

repeat such conduct, thus tacitly authorizing such conduct.

63. In fact, Defendant City of Jasper, through its white City Council and Defendant Lout,

approved of and condoned the culture of fear, violence and oppression exhibited by Defendants

Cunningham, Grissom and Davenport through the rehiring of Officer Pullen and Officer Garret

Foster as well as the selection of Defendant Hall as the CEO or Chief of the Jasper Police

Department. If Defendant City of Jasper had taken remedial action or had not created,

maintained and condoned the culture of violence and unlawfulness within the Jasper Police

Department, the brutalization of Plaintiff would not have occurred.

64. The City Council of Jasper is vested by state law with authority to make policy for the

City of Jasper on the use of force. The City Council members were aware of a pattern of

excessive force by police officers employed by the Jasper Police Department. They were aware

that Defendant City of Jaspers policies regarding the discipline of officers accused of excessive

force were so inadequate that it was obvious a failure to correct them would result in further

incidents of excessive force, and the failure to correct these policies caused the excessive force to

be used upon Plaintiff as set forth above.

65. In fact, the rehiring of Officer Pullen with the settlement of his alleged wrongful

termination suit sent a message to officers inside the Jasper Police Department as well as

individuals in the community, especially the black and minority communities, that not only



21/28

21

would Jasper police officers be protected from claims of excessive force, but as in Officer

Pullens case they would be rewarded with money and a supervisory position at a high salary.

66. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy, practice or custom, Defendants

Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10, and the City of Jasper intentionally, knowingly

and recklessly failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline, on a continuing basis,

Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport, and the officers of the Jasper Police

Department, in their duties to refrain from unlawfully and maliciously assaulting and beating

citizens and otherwise using unreasonable and excessive force before, during or after making an

arrest.

67. Acting under color of law and pursuant to the official policy, practice or custom,

Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper intentionally,

knowingly and recklessly failed to instruct, train and supervise Defendants Grissom,

Cunningham and Davenport, and the officers of the Jasper Police Department on a continuing

basis in the correct procedure for making an arrest, for securing a prisoner who has been subdued

and handcuffed, filing of false charges, using and serving an arrest warrant, reporting a use of

force, review and investigation of a complaint of excessive force, reporting of the use of

excessive force and/or assault and/or brutalization of a citizen by a fellow officer and official, the

proper procedure to stop and/or prevent the illegal assault and/or brutalization of a citizen by a

fellow officer and/or official, and for the improper use of equipment or procedures to house or

hold a citizen in custody who has been injured.

68. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper had

knowledge, or had they diligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control and

discipline on a continuing basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs which were done,



22/28

22

as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall,

Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper had power to prevent or aid in preventing the

commission of said wrongs, could have done so be reasonable diligence, and intentionally,

knowingly and recklessly failed or refused to do so.

69. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper

directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious,

reckless and wanton conduct of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport heretofore

described.

70. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, and the

City of Jasper have instituted a policy, practice or custom of treating black citizens differently

with respect to arrest and detainment, and that the Defendants treatment of Plaintiff was

motivated by her race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment

requires the Defendants to provide equal protection under the law to all citizens regardless of

their race.

71. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually and Does 7-10 were aware of Plaintiffs

constitutionally protected rights to be free from State induced bodily harm and race

discrimination. Moreover, Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, and Does 7-10,

knew or were deliberately indifferent to those rights.

72. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, malicious and outrageous conduct of

Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and City of Jasper as set forth

above, Plaintiff suffered physical damage and injury to her body, and mental anguish and fear for

her well-being and safety. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered special damages in the form of

medical expenses, costs for her defense and bond from the wrongful charges of resisting arrest,



23/28

23

attorney fees and expenses, and other damages. She will suffer additional damages in the future.

73. The acts of Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of

Jasper as set forth above were wanton, malicious and oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff to an

award of punitive damages.

COUNT FOUR

CONSPIRACY

74. For cause of action against Defendants City of Jasper, Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport,

Lout, Hall and Does 7-10, the Plaintiff states:

75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the factual allegations previously made herein.

76. Plaintiff asserts Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout, Hall and Does 7-10

are government officials and/or Jasper police officers and under the color of law violated

Plaintiffs constitutional and civil rights. Plaintiff asserts that in their actions Defendants

Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout and Hall, in their individual capacities, knowingly

violated the law with respect to their treatment of Plaintiff.

77. At the time of the incidents made the basis of this suit, Plaintiff had a clearly defined

constitutional right and protection under the law to be free from the brutalization and intentional

mistreatment she received at the hands of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport who

were acting under color of law. Plaintiff had the constitutional right to equal protection under

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to be free from

wrongful seizure and beating, from targeting her on the basis of her race, and the same right to

protection under the Constitution from having the Police Chief/CEO, Defendant Mayor Lout and

other Defendants conspire and conceal Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenports

unlawful actions by the filing of false claims against Plaintiff in criminal court, in violation of



24/28

24

said Defendants duties under the law and their oaths of office.

78. Instead of protecting Plaintiff, Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout, Hall,

Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper agreed to, planned and undertook certain actions as set forth

above and below to cover up, conceal, justify and ratify the actions of Defendants Cunningham,

Grissom and Davenport. Only after exposed by the media, did Defendants Hall, Lout and the

City of Jasper take any steps to discipline the officers.

79. Plaintiff asserts that each conspirator is jointly and severally liable for acts done by any

of them in furtherance of the unlawful actions. The liability extends to and includes those who

planned, assisted and/or encouraged the unlawful actions to deprive Plaintiff of her statutory and

constitutional rights.

80. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout, Hall, Does 7-10 and the City of

Jasper are liable for any act committed by a conspiracy even if the entity and/or person was not a

part of the conspiracy at the time of the act.

81. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants the City of Jasper, Grissom, Individually, Cunningham,

Individually, Davenport, Individually, Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, and Does 7-10

conspired for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and other statutes, and

depriving Plaintiff of equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under

law. A 1985 conspiracy claim may arise when a private actor conspires with state actors to

deprive a person of their constitutional rights under color of state law.

82. The acts committed by the conspirators in furtherance of their conspiracy include, but are

not limited to, the following:

83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all factual allegations previously made herein.



25/28

25

84. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport unlawfully and maliciously brutalized

Plaintiff at the Jasper Police Station on May 5, 2013, and deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional

right to be secure in her person against unreasonable and excessive violence and seizure of her

person in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United

States and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, et seq.

85. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenports unlawful and malicious use of

excessive force and the denial of aid was motivated by Plaintiffs race.

86. A false charge of resisting arrest was lodged against Plaintiff with the Jasper County

District Attorney. The false charge of resisting arrest was never rescinded by Defendants, and

was only dismissed at the insistence of Plaintiffs attorneys and the review by the Jasper County

District Attorney.

87. The incident in question was recorded on video and that video was possessed by

Defendant City of Jasper beginning on May 5, 2013. A simple and even cursory review of the

video reflects the brutalization of Plaintiff at the hands of Defendants Jasper Police Officers

Cunningham, Grissom and Davenport. Defendants suppressed the video and other evidence of

the illegal acts of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport.

88. The incident involving Plaintiff happened in the Jasper Police Station while she was in

the custody of Defendant City of Jasper. The Rules and procedures require the filing of a use of

force report by any officer using force to apprehend a person, which report must be reviewed by

the officers supervisors and police chief or CEO. Any criminal charge lodged against a

person especially a person who allegedly commits that crime within the confines of the Police

Station while in custody of the Jasper Police Department must be reviewed and approved by the

supervisors of the officers, the watch supervisor, and finally the police chief or CEO.



26/28

26

89. Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Jasper Police Department which was lost,

misplaced and never investigated.

90. Defendant City of Jasper refused to acknowledge that Plaintiff had been brutalized until

the ABC News affiliate Channel 12 in Beaumont, Texas informed Defendant City of Jasper they

had the video and asked for a comment.

91. Police Officers are sworn to protect and serve the public, and to stop and prevent the

commission of a crime. The brutalization of Plaintiff by Defendants Cunningham and Grissom

is and was a crime committed against Plaintiff. Defendant Davenport failed to report the crime

or come to the assistance of Plaintiff, even as she witnessed Defendants Cunningham and

Grissom beating Plaintiff. Every supervisor or person who viewed the video has the duty under

the laws of the State of Texas and the code of conduct of the Jasper Police Department to report

the commission of the crime.

92. Defendant Davenport was not fired along with Defendants Cunningham and Grissom, but

was fired only after she assaulted her boyfriend, Defendant Cunningham, was arrested and taken

to the Jasper County Jail where she had to be restrained because of her violent behavior.

Defendant Hall is reported by KJAS as defending Defendant Davenport in that regarding her

involvement in the Keyarika Diggles incident, Hall said Davenport did not violate any

department policies, and after Diggles calmed down, Davenport searched her and helped her to

change into inmate clothing. Hall said that is standard procedure for female officers or female

dispatchers to assist in that way with female arrestees. (JASPER by Steve W. Stewart/KJAS

and Rayburn Broadcasting Company, Wednesday, June 5, 2013, 01:58 pm CDT). Apparently it

is department policy for officers to stand by and watch while other officers beat detainees.



27/28

27

RELIEF REQUESTED

93. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.

94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff suffered the following

injuries and damages:

A. Actual damages including physical injury past and future, mental anguish past and

future, medical expenses past and future, and costs.

B. Exemplary and punitive damages against all the Defendants, who are sued in their

individual capacity.

C. Attorneys fees and expenses.

D. Costs of Court;

E. Such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

JURY DEMAND

95. Plaintiff respectfully demands trial by jury and has tendered the appropriate fee for same.

PRAYER

96. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Defendants be cited to appear and answer

herein, and that upon final trial hereof, the Court award the relief requested against Defendants

jointly and severally.



28/28

28

Respectfully submitted,

THE BERNSEN LAW FIRM

David E. BernsenTexas Bar No. 02217500Christine L. StetsonTexas Bar No. 00785047Cade BernsenState Bar No. 24073918420 N. MLK, Jr. Pkwy

Beaumont, Texas 77701Telephone: (409) 212-9994Facsimile: (409) 212-9411

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,KEYARIKA DIGGLES


Documents

Diggles Lawsuit