Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM DAVIS )
143 Gabriel Drive )
Bear, Delaware 19701 ) C.A. No.
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
ISSAC MONTAGUE )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
Plaintiffs )
v. )
)
KIRK NEAL )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
L. NEAL )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
RYAN MADDOX )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
MATTHEW LONG )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
SGT. BRASWELL )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EVANGLETT )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
JOHN DOES )
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
TRUMAN MEARS, WARDEN )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
JON BECK, DEPUTY WARDEN )
Sussex Correctional Institution )
23203 Dupont Blvd. )
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 )
)
Defendants )
)
COMPLAINT
On or about September 18 and October 18, 2021, Defendants engaged in extreme,
unprovoked and unnecessary acts of violence against Isaac Montague and William Davis at Sussex
Correctional Institution. Defendants’ egregious misconduct caused permanent physical harm,
severe emotional distress and violated the Constitutional rights of William Davis and Isaac
Montague. This Complaint seeks damages, an injunction, attorneys’ fees, and any and all other
available remedies.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal
question) and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) and (2) as the
parties are all located in this District, and the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims all
occurred in this District.
2
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff William Davis resides at 143 Gabriel Drive, Bear, Delaware 19701. He is
a citizen of Delaware.
4. Plaintiff Isaac Montague is presently being held in pretrial detention at Sussex
Correctional Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947 (hereinafter “SCI”).
He is a citizen of Delaware.
5. Defendant Kirk Neal is a correctional officer employed at Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. He was working on or about
September 18 and October 18, 2021, and was involved in unprovoked violence against Plaintiffs
Davis and Montague.
6. Defendant Ryan Maddox is a correctional officer employed at Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. He was working on or about
September 18, 2021, and was involved in unprovoked violence against Plaintiff Montague.
Reasonable discovery may show that he was also involved in the unprovoked attacked against
Plaintiff Davis on or about October 18, 2021.
7. Defendant Matthew Long is a correctional officer employed at Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. He oversaw a hearing involving
Plaintiff Montague and prevented Plaintiff Montague from seeking redress.
8. Defendant Sgt. Braswell is a correctional officer employed at Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. He was working on or about
September 18, 2021, and was involved in unprovoked violence against Plaintiff Montague.
Reasonable discovery may show that he was also involved in the unprovoked attacked against
Plaintiff Davis on or about October 18, 2021.
3
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
9. Defendant Evanglett is a correctional officer employed at Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. He was working on or about
October 18, 2021, and was involved in unprovoked violence against Plaintiff Davis. Reasonable
discovery may show that he was also involved in the unprovoked attacked against Plaintiff
Montague on or about September 18, 2021.
10. Defendant John Does are unidentified correctional officers employed at Sussex
Correctional Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947 who were working
on or about September 18, 2021, or October 18, 2021, and were involved in unprovoked violence
against Plaintiff Montague, Plaintiff Davis, or both Plaintiffs. Reasonable discovery, including
but not limited to the videotapes of the attacks, will reveal the identity of the John Doe Defendants.
11. Defendant Truman Mears serves as the Warden of the Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. Reasonable discovery will show
that he was alerted to unprofessional and illegal conduct by Defendant Neal in the attack against
Plaintiff Montague, yet failed to act. His failure to act led to the violent attack on Plaintiff Davis.
12. Defendant Jon Beck serves as the Deputy Warden of the Sussex Correctional
Institution, 23203 Dupont Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. Reasonable discovery will show
that he was alerted to unprofessional and illegal conduct by Defendant Neal in the attack against
Plaintiff Montague, yet he failed to act. His failure to act led to the violent attack on Plaintiffs
Davis.
13. Defendant Sussex Correctional Institution (“SCI”) is located at 23203 Dupont
Blvd., Georgetown, Delaware 19947. The Institution houses and controls persons incarcerated,
both those who have been convicted and those who are being detained prior to trial. The attacks
4
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
on Plaintiffs both occurred at Sussex Correctional Institution, and reasonable discovery will show
the attacks are part of an ongoing and egregious pattern of the use of excessive force at SCI.
FACTS REGARDING ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF MONTAGUE
14. On or about September 18, 2021, while working as a correctional officer at SCI,
Defendant Kirk Neal initiated and engaged in a violent attack against Plaintiff Montague.
15. Defendant Neal lacked any cause or provocation for the violent attack.
16. Plaintiff Montague encountered Defendant Kirk Neal when he lined up to use the
free phone, and obtain his commissary sheet, phone sheet and toilet paper. Defendant Kirk Neal
told him he could not use the phone and needed to go to his cell for “lock in.”
17. Defendant Kirk Neal followed Plaintiff Montague to his cell, asking for his pen
back and telling him to “shut the fuck up.”
18. Defendant Kirk Neal stood in the doorway of Plaintiff Montague’s cell, preventing
Plaintiff Montague from closing his cell door.
19. Defendant Kirk Neal jumped in and out of the doorway, and called “a code.”
20. Upon hearing Defendant Kirk Neal call a code, Plaintiff Montague immediately
laid down on the floor of his cell on his stomach with his hands behind his back.
21. Despite Plaintiff Montague’s passive posture, Defendant Kirk Neal began to assault
Plaintiff Montague.
22. As Plaintiff Montague laid on his stomach with his hands behind his head, trying
his best to defend himself, Defendant Kirk Neal kneed him in the side of his face.
23. Defendants Braswell, L. Neal and Maddox rushed to Plaintiff Montague’s cell and
joined with Defendant Kirk Neal in assaulting Plaintiff Montague.
5
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
24. These Defendants kicked and punched Plaintiff Montague and pulled his
dreadlocks from his head, leaving bald spots.
25. One Defendant used his handcuffs as a weapon, hitting Plaintiff Montague in his
face and causing a permanent scar.
26. Defendants Kirk Neal and Maddox called Plaintiff Montague a racist name.
27. Defendant Maddox inserted the can of pepper spray into Plaintiff Montague’s
mouth and pressed down on the nozzle, forcing large amounts of pepper spray into Plaintiff
Montague’s body.
28. Other Defendants John Does were present and videotaped the assault, but did not
participate. None attempted to halt the assault.
29. The Defendants’ assault was so severe that Plaintiff Montague could not walk when
Defendants finally halted the beatings.
30. Defendant John Doe placed Plaintiff Montague on a gurney and brought him to a
nurse, who patched up his bleeding face.
31. Defendants John Does placed Plaintiff Montague in “the hole” for twenty-one days.
32. Plaintiff Montague was not provided with adequate medical examination or
treatment.
33. Plaintiff Montague repeatedly filed “sick slips” seeking pain relief and treatment
but received only ice for his injuries.
34. Plaintiff Montague’s eye remained swollen shut for multiple days and he could not
breath properly for many days.
35. Even today, months after the assault, Plaintiff Montague’s eye remains darkened.
36. Plaintiff Montague’s shoulder remains injured from the assault.
6
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
37. Plaintiff Montague suffers from sudden sharp pains in his head.
38. Defendant Sgt. Matthew Long prevented Plaintiff Montague from seeking redress
for his injuries by refusing to allow him to call witnesses and refusing to listen to Plaintiff
Montague’s testimony.
39. Plaintiff Montague subsequently filed grievances, all of which were ignored or
disregarded.
FACTS REGARDING ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF DAVIS
40. On or about October 18, 2021, Plaintiff Davis was being detained as SCI despite
the fact that his release had been ordered. SCI failed to promptly implement the release order, and
instead detained Plaintiff Davis for more than 72 hours.
41. Plaintiff Davis, concerned that he was not being released as ordered by the court,
approached the control desk and asked Defendant Kirk Neal about his release.
42. Defendant Kirk Neal ignored Plaintiff Davis’ request.
43. Approximately an hour later, during recreation time, Plaintiff Davis thought he
heard his name called over the public announcement system and approached Defendant Evanglett
at the control center once again to inquire.
44. Defendant Neal screamed at him that his name had not been called.
45. Approximately ten minutes later, Plaintiff Davis heard his name called. He
approached the control desk again, and asked a correctional officer to read the status sheet to him
because he did not have his glasses.
46. Defendant Kirk Neal overhead the request, and began to shout at him with words
to the effect: “Get the fuck over here you fucking dickhead.”
7
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
47. Defendant Kirk Neal grabbed Plaintiff Davis and walked him down the tier, asking
“Where the fuck do you live?”
48. Plaintiff Davis answered that he lived in Newark, but then clarified that he lived in
Bear.
49. The fact that Plaintiff Davis answered with his address out of the facility rather than
with information about his cell block designation enraged Defendant Neal. He slammed Plaintiff
Davis to the ground, and began to kick and beat him.
50. Defendant Evanglett and other as-yet unidentified Defendants joined with
Defendant Kirk Neal to beat and kick Plaintiff Davis.
51. One Defendant held his feet to the ground.
52. Another Defendant repeatedly punched Plaintiff Davis in the head.
53. Yet another Defendant handcuffed Plaintiff Davis’ hands behind his back.
54. Defendants Kirk Neal, Evanglett and the other as-yet unidentified Defendants
continued the violent beating and kicking even after handcuffing Plaintiff Davis.
55. Defendant Evanglett began to spray pepper spray in Plaintiff Davis’ face.
56. Defendant Evanglett inserted the nozzle into Plaintiff Davis’ nose and sprayed
excessive amounts of pepper spray into Plaintiff Davis’ body.
57. The pepper spray caused such extreme pain and harm that Plaintiff Davis formed
the belief that he was going to die and began to have severe difficulty breathing.
58. When the nozzle broke off the pepper spray and began to spew on the Defendants,
they finally stopped assaulting Plaintiff Davis.
59. Defendants took Plaintiff Davis to the booking and receiving.
8
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
60. Defendant Neal then took Plaintiff Davis to a holding cell, and slammed him, face
first, into the tiled concrete floor.
61. Plaintiff Davis was still handcuffed and could not break the fall in any way.
62. Plaintiff Davis did not receive adequate medical evaluation or treatment despite
being visibly injured with serious head injuries.
63. During the next shift, at approximately 8:30pm, SCI belatedly released Plaintiff
Davis to his mother.
64. Plaintiff Davis went to the emergency room and sought medical treatment for his
serious injuries, which included substantial injuries to his head and brain.
65. Plaintiff Davis continues to need medical care and continues to suffer from his
injuries.
FACTS REGARDING LACK OF SUPERVISION
66. Prior to the assault on Plaintiff Davis, Defendant Mears knew about the excessive
force used by Correctional Officer Defendants against Plaintiff Montague.
67. Yet despite knowing the details and having access to a videotaped recording of the
assault, Defendant Mears failed to supervise and take effective disciplinary actions against
Correctional Officer Defendants involved in the assault on Plaintiff Montague.
68. Defendant Mears’ failure to supervise the Correctional Officer Defendants
involved in the attack on Plaintiff Montague is a proximate cause of the same Correctional Officer
Defendants’ subsequent assault on Plaintiff Davis.
69. Prior to the assault on Plaintiff Davis, Defendant Beck knew about the excessive
force used by the Correctional Officer Defendants against Plaintiff Montague.
9
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
70. Yet despite knowing the details and having access to a videotaped recording of the
assault, Defendant Beck failed to take effective disciplinary actions against the Correctional
Officer Defendants involved in the assault on Plaintiff Montague.
71. Defendant Beck’s failure to supervise the Correctional Officer Defendants involved
in the attack on Plaintiff Montague is a proximate cause of the same Correctional Officer
Defendants’ subsequent assault on Plaintiff Davis.
72. Reasonable discovery likely will also that Defendants Mears and Beck knew that
one or more of the Correctional Officer Defendants had previously used excessive force against
an incarcerated person. Their failures to supervise the Correctional Officer Defendants led to the
assault on Plaintiff Montague.
COUNT I – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
73. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
74. Defendants use of excessive force against Plaintiffs violates their Fourteenth
Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
COUNT II – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – LACK OF ADEQUATE MEDICAL
CARE
75. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
76. By failing to provide appropriate medical treatment following their use of excessive
force against the Plaintiffs, Defendants’ actions and omissions were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs.
77. As such, Defendants’ failure to provide adequate medical care violated Plaintiffs’
Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
COUNT III – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – FAILURE TO SUPERVISE
78. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
10
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
79. Defendants Mears and Beck are officials with policymaking authority at SCI and
had either actual or constructive knowledge of the propensity and routine of Correctional Officer
Defendants, including Defendant Kirk Neal, to engage in unnecessary, excessive and punitive
force against incarcerating persons. By failing or refusing to discipline officers employing
excessive force against incarcerated persons, Defendants Mears and Beck were personally
involved in the violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights.
80. Defendants Mears and Buck, by virtue of their own deliberate indifference to
known deficiencies in their policies and procedures, allowed to develop an environment in which
there was an unreasonable risk that a constitutional injury would occur, and their deliberate
indifference caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ injuries.
81. Their failures to supervise were a proximate cause of the assault on Plaintiffs.
COUNT IV – FOURTH AMENDMENT - FAILURE TO INTERVENE
82. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
83. Each of the individual Correctional Officer Defendants and the John Doe
Defendants had actual knowledge of the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by the others.
Each of the individual Correctional Officer Defendants (including the John Doe Defendants) were
present at the scene when Plaintiffs were assaulted and had the opportunity to intervene and protect
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
84. By failing to intervene, the individual Correctional Officer Defendants (including
the John Doe Defendants) violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.
COUNT V – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - STATE-CREATED DANGER
85. Because of Plaintiffs’ status as incarcerated persons and Defendants’ status as
correctional officers and officials, Defendants maintained a level of authority and control over the
Plaintiffs.
11
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
86. The harm caused to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants was foreseeable and direct.
87. The harm caused to the Plaintiffs was intended by the Defendants.
88. By virtue of their authority and control over the Plaintiffs, Defendants created an
opportunity that otherwise would not have existed to cause harm to the Plaintiffs.
89. Defendants are therefore liable to the Plaintiffs under the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 506 (3d Cir. 2003)
COUNT VI – ASSAULT AND BATTERY
90. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
91. Each of the Defendants (including the John Doe Defendants) engaged in acts of
assault and battery against Defendants. Defendants’ assault and battery of Defendants were non-
discretionary acts done in bad faith and with gross or wanton negligence.
92. The Defendants (including the John Doe Defendants) are therefore liable for assault
and battery.
COUNT VI – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
93. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
94. Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiffs Montague and
Davis.
COUNT VII – VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF DIGNITY
95. The foregoing allegations are incorporated in full by reference as if fully set forth.
96. The acts and omissions of the Defendants violated the dignity of Plaintiffs
Montague and Davis.
97. Plaintiffs’ rights to dignity are protected by law.
98. Defendants’ deprivations of Plaintiffs’ rights to dignity are actionable.
12
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court granted the following relief:
A. Award compensatory damages;
B. Award punitive damages against all Defendants;
C. Award attorneys’ fees and costs; and
D. Award any other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON
LLC
/s/ Daniel A. Griffith
Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. (ID # 4209)
The Renaissance Centre, Suite 500
405 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801-3700
Telephone: (302) 357-3254
Email: dgriffith@wtplaw.com
Of Counsel
Susan L. Burke, Esquire
(seeking pro hac admission)
ACLU Delaware
100 W. 10 Street, Suite 706
Wilmington DE 19801
Telephone: (202) 445-1409
Email: sburke@aclu-de.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: December 17, 2021
13
Case 1:21-cv-01773-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 14
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
WILLIAM DAVIS, ISSAC MONTAGUE KIRK NEAL, L. NEAL, RYAN MADDOX, MATTHEW LONG, SGT.
BRASWELL, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EVANGLETT
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff NEW CASTLE County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Sussex
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON LLC, DANIEL A. GRIFFITH, 405
N. KING ST., STE. 500, WILMINGTON, DE 19801
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Protection Act
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration ’ 950 Constitutionality of
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Excessive force by correctional officers upon pretrial detainees
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
12/17/2021 /s/ Daniel A. Griffith (#4209)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
