UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

CHAD KISTER,

12871 Parmiter Road Amesville, OH 45711

Plaintiff,

 

v. Case No.____________________

CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY

Metropolitan Police Department 300 Indiana Ave., NW

Washington, DC 2001

individually and in his official capacity,

and

 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

441 4th Street, NW

Washington, DC 2001

Serve: Mayor Anthony Williams

and Robert R. Rigsby, Corporation Counsel

for the District of Columbia,

and

OFFICER JOHN DOE,

Metropolitan Police Department

individually and in

his official capacity,

and

OFFICER RICHARD DOE

Metropolitan Police Department

individually and in

his official capacity,

and

OTHER UNNAMED OFFICERS

Metropolitan Police Department

individually and in

their official capacities,

Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

 

Chad Kister, Plaintiff, files this claim against the Defendants, the District of Columbia, unknown police officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, John Doe, Richard Doe, and other unknown police officers, alleging the following:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the laws of the District of Columbia, particularly D.C. Code §§ 12-301 and 12-309, and the common law.

2. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

3. On September 20, 2000, Plaintiff, pursuant to D.C. Code §12-309 provided written notice to Defendant, the District of Columbia, of his intent to sue based on the incident which is the basis of this complaint. Attachment A, attached to this complaint, is a true copy of this notice.

4. Venue is placed in the District of Columbia because that is where the Defendants are employed and where the events complained of occurred.

II. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is now, and at all times relevant to this claim, has been a resident of the state of Ohio.

6. Defendant, Office John Doe, who is sued in his individual and official capacities, is now, and was at all relevant times, an officer of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

7. Defendant, Office Richard Doe, who is sued in his individual and official capacities, is now, and was at all relevant times, an officer of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

8. Defendants, other unnamed Officers, who are sued in their individual and official capacities, are now, and were at all relevant times, officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

9. Defendant, Chief Charles Ramsey, who is sued in both his individual and official capacities, is now, and was at all relevant times, Chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Chief Ramsey has ultimate supervisory responsibility for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

10. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendant Police Officers and Chief were acting under color of law under their authority as Police Officers of the District of Columbia, and under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usage of the District of Columbia.

11. Defendant, the District of Columbia, is a municipality that owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter "MPD") and is being sued for the unlawful actions of the MPD.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. Plaintiff, Chad Kister, is a 30-year old environmental activist, who resides in Ohio. Mr. Kister participated peacefully in a well-publicized public demonstration in Washington, D.C. on April 16, 2000.

13. On or about Noon of April 16, Mr. Kister was sitting on the ground with a few other persons near the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street, N.W.; specifically. Mr. Kister was sitting with his back against a police barricade.

14. Directly across the street from Mr. Kister and the other demonstrators, more than a dozen MPD officers stood in line. Additional MPD officers on motorcycles were located behind the officers on foot.

15. These MPD officers approached and surrounded Mr. Kister and the other sitting demonstrators while chanting loudly in regimented fashion.

16. As the MPD officers closed in on Mr. Kister, Officer John Doe struck him without provocation, forcefully and repeatedly in the chest, with a baton, and leaned his full weight on Mr. Kister’s chest for several seconds continuously. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Kister was dragged along the asphalt by Officer Richard Doe and other unknown MPD officers, as Officer John Doe continued to strike Mr. Kister in the chest with a baton.

17. Mr. Kister suffered three broken ribs, as well as permanent pulmonary damage to his ribs, chest, and kidney as a result of the beating.

18. Prior to the officers’ unprovoked actions, the demonstrators, including Mr. Kister, were given no warnings or orders to disperse.

19. MPD officers also assaulted and battered, among others, several bystanders and a national news photographer.

20. Lacking any reason to, Mr. Kister was never taken into custody or arrested by the MPD or its officers. The MPD eventually attended to Mr. Kister’s severe injuries by calling for an ambulance.

21. More than an hour after the beating, Mr. Kister who was incapacitated, in a location near to the beating, on a stretcher, was taken by ambulance to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C., where he was treated for, inter alia, cuts, bruises, and broken ribs.

22. The Howard University medical staff conducted a CAT scan which disclosed the presence of broken ribs and other serious injuries. Mr. Kister’s diagnosis by the staff included permanent pulmonary and kidney damage.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Rights Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

23. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-22 of this complaint, though fully set forth here.

24. At no time relevant to this action did Mr. Kister engage in any criminal act.

25. At no time relevant to this action did the Officers have probable cause to detain, search or arrest Mr. Kister.

26. The Officers, as MPD Officers, had a duty to protect Mr. Kister from the deprivation of his rights by Officer John Doe.

27. The Officers, as MPD Officers, had a duty to protect Mr. Kister from the deprivation of his rights by Officer Richard Doe.

28. The Officers, as MPD Officers, had a duty to protect Mr. Kister from the deprivation of his rights by other unnamed MPD Officers.

29. Officer John Doe’s acts of beating, crushing and otherwise injuring Mr. Kister, and Officer Richard Doe’s and other unnamed Police Officers’ acts of providing support and assistance to Officer John Doe and failing to protect Mr. Kister, directly and proximately subjected Mr. Kister to the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the following ways:

a. The beating and severe injury by the Officers deprived Mr. Kister of his right to liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

b. The beating, crushing, and dragging of Mr. Kister without probable cause to do so deprived him of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

c. The beating and crushing of Mr. Kister through the use of excessive and injurious force deprived Mr. Kister of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

d. The beating and crushing of Mr. Kister through the use of excessive and injurious force deprived Mr. Kister of his right to be peacefully express his views in a public forum, in violation of the First Amendment.

30. Officer Richard Doe’s dragging and otherwise injuring Mr. Kister, and other unnamed Police Officers’ acts of providing support and assistance to Officer Richard Doe and failing to protect Mr. Kister, directly and proximately subjected Mr. Kister to the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the following ways:

a. The dragging deprived Mr. Kister of his right to liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

b. The dragging of Mr. Kister without probable cause to do so deprived him of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

c. The dragging of Mr. Kister through the use of excessive and injurious force deprived Mr. Kister of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

d. The dragging of Mr. Kister through the use of excessive and injurious force deprived Mr. Kister of his right to be peacefully express his views in a public forum, in violation of the First Amendment.

31. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers:

a. wore the uniform of the District of Columbia MPD;

b. used the resources and property of the MPD;

c. were on active duty as Officers of the MPD;

d. acted under their authority as officers of the MPD; and

e. acted under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom and usage of the District of Columbia.

32. The Officers knew and intended or should have known that their acts would violate Mr. Kister’s Constitutional rights.

33. Plaintiff, Mr. Kister, is therefore entitled to money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to compensate him for his injuries and for the violation of his Constitutional and civil rights.

34. Mr. Kister is further entitled to punitive damages to punish the Officers for their knowing and intentional misconduct in violating his Constitutional rights.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Assault

35. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-34 of this complaint, as though fully set forth here.

36. Plaintiff was in fear of imminent bodily harm when he witnessed the MPD Officers approaching him, without provocation, chanting in a regimented fashion, raising their batons at the Plaintiff in a striking motion.

37. MPD officers, on foot and motorbikes, intentionally and unlawfully threatened the Plaintiff by approaching him, chanting in a regimented fashion, dressed in riot gear, raising their batons, striking him several times in the chest.

38. Officer John Doe intentionally threatened Plaintiff with imminent bodily harm when he approached Plaintiff in riot gear, chanting, and raising his baton in a striking motion, ultimately striking and crushing Plaintiff several times in the chest.

39. Officer Richard Doe intentionally threatened Plaintiff with imminent bodily harm when he approached Plaintiff in riot gear, chanting, and grabbing Plaintiff’s legs and, subsequently, dragging him along the street while he was being struck by a baton.

40. Other unknown MPD officers intentionally threatened Plaintiff with imminent bodily harm when they approached Plaintiff in riot gear, chanting, and grabbing Plaintiff’s legs and, subsequently, dragging him along the street while he was being struck by a baton.

41. Due notice under all applicable statutes has been given to defendants.

42. The actions of the District of Columbia are the direct cause of the injuries described above. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages which include pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and emotional trauma.

43. The intentional and malicious actions of Officer John Doe and Officer Richard Doe and other unknown MPD Officers are the direct cause for the injuries described above. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages and special damages, including pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and emotional trauma.

VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Battery

44. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-43 of this complaint, as though fully set forth here.

45. MPD officers engaged in harmful and offensive contact of the Plaintiff by raising their batons and striking the Plaintiff, without provocation, while dragging the Plaintiff on the street.

46. The actions of the MPD officers caused serious injuries to the Plaintiff’s ribs and kidneys, and other bodily parts and organs.

47. Officer John Doe engaged in harmful and offensive contact of the Plaintiff by raising his baton and striking Plaintiff several times in the chest, causing permanent damage to his ribs, kidneys and other bodily parts and organs.

48. Officer Richard Doe engaged in harmful and offensive contact of the Plaintiff by forcefully dragging Plaintiff on the street while his was being struck in the chest with a baton, causing permanent damage to his ribs and kidneys, and other bodily parts and organs.

49. Other unknown MPD Officers engaged in harmful and offensive contact of the Plaintiff by forcefully dragging Plaintiff on the street while his was being struck in the chest with a baton, causing permanent damage to his ribs and kidneys, and other bodily parts and organs.

50. Due notice under all applicable statutes has been given to defendants.

51. The actions of the District of Columbia are the direct cause of the injuries described above. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages which include pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and emotional trauma.

52. The intentional and malicious actions of Officer John Doe and Officer Richard Doe and other unknown officers are the direct cause for the injuries described above. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages and special damages which include pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and emotional trauma.

VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy – Police Officers

53. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-52.

Officers John and Richard Doe, and other unnamed Police Officers, by their actions and through common design on April 16, 2001 unlawfully conspired to assault and batter Mr. Kister.

As a result of this conspiracy, Mr. Kister suffered physical and emotional injury and was deprived of his Constitutional and common law rights.

Mr. Kister is therefore entitled to monetary damages to compensate him for all of his injuries.

VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence – Police Officers

57. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-56 of this complaint.

58. On April 16, 2000, Officers John and Richard Doe, and other unnamed Officers, during the course and scope of their employment by the District of Columbia, negligently caused the assault and battery of Mr. Kister.

The Officers had a continuous duty to exercise due care in the arrest of Mr. Kister to insure that he was not subjected to unnecessary injury.

Defendant’s breached their duty of due care and negligently caused injury Mr. Kister.

As a result of the Officers’ actions, Mr. Kister suffered and continues to suffer from extensive pain, discomfort, emotional distress, and psychological trauma.

Mr. Kister is therefore entitled to recover money damages to compensate for his medical expenses, pain, suffering and emotional distress which the Officers negligently inflicted on him.

IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Respondeat Superior – District of Columbia

63. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-62 of this complaint, as though fully set forth here.

64. At all relevant times during the circumstances described in this complaint, the Officers were acting within the scope of their official duty as Police Officers and employees of the District of Columbia.

65. The District of Columbia should, therefore, be held liable for the common law claims against the Defendants Officers and pay appropriate damages to Mr. Kister.

X. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Training and Supervision – District of

Columbia and Chief Charles Ramsey

66. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-65 of this complaint, as though fully set forth here.

67. On or before April 16, 2000, the District of Columbia and the MPD Chief Charles Ramsey wer under duty to properly train, supervise, investigate and correct improper actions of MPD Officers.

68. The District of Columbia and Chief Ramsey, reckless and without regard for the rights of others, breached their duty to properly train, supervise, investigate and correct the improper actions of its employee Police Officers.

69. The District of Columbia’s and Chief Ramsey’s disregard for the rights of others, in particular those of Mr. Kister, was the direct and proximate cause of the substantial and severe injuries Mr. Kister sustained.

70. As a result of the District of Columbia’s and Chief Ramsey’s failure to act, Mr. Kister suffered from and pain and suffering, emotional trauma, extreme humiliation, and deprivation of his Constitutional and civil rights.

71. Mr. Kister is therefore entitled to money damages to compensate for all of his injuries.

XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Chad Kister – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

72. Plaintiff hereby reasserts paragraphs 1-71 of this complaint, as though fully set forth here.

73. Defendant Officers assaulted and battered Mr. Kister intentionally and acted with intentional or reckless disregard of his rights.

74. As a result of the Defendant Officers’ intentional and/or reckless acts, Mr. Kister suffered, and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.

75. Mr. Kister is, therefore, entitled to monetary damages to compensate him for his emotional injury.

76. Mr. Kister is further entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish the Officers for their willful and malicious and/or reckless misconduct toward him.

XI. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Chad Kister hereby sues Defendants the District of Columbia, Officer John Doe, Officer Richard Doe, and other unknown MPD officers, and claims the sum of:

1) pecuniary damages to fully compensate Plaintiff for medical and psychiatric treatment necessitated by Defendants’ acts;

2) compensatory damages in excess of $150,000;

3) punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the court;

4) attorney’s fees per 42 U.S.C. §1983; and

5) any other relief which this court decides is necessary in the interests of justice.

 

XII. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demand trial by a jury of persons on all issues triable by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

 

_______________________

Andrea S. Grill, Bar No. (DC 425164)

Klimaski & Grill, P.C.

1400 K Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 296-5600

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

 

VERIFICATION

I, Chad Kister, have read the above complaint and verify under penalty of perjury that the facts which have been alleged are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this ____ day of April 2001.

 

 

______________________________

Mr. Chad Kister