IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

DEMARIO N. HARRIS, SR., ))

Plaintiff, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDv. )

) Civil Action No. _________ROBERT ARNOLD, in his )official capacity as Sheriff of )Rutherford County, Tennessee, )

)JAMES STEPHEN VANDERVEER, )in his individual and official capacity )as a Deputy Sheriff for )Rutherford County, Tennessee, )

)JESSICA LEIGH GREEN, in her )individual and official capacity )as a Deputy Sheriff for )Rutherford County, Tennessee, )

)Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION.

This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 arising from an assault to Plaintiff Demario

N. Harris, Sr., (Plaintiff Harris) that occurred at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department as

a result of actions and/or inactions of the Defendants, all of whom where acting under color of state

law.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action for violation of a jail inmates rights based on

cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,

1

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

2. Venue is proper in this Court since the allegations which give rise to the cause of action

occurred at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department, 940 New Salem Highway, Murfreesboro,

Tennessee 37129.

III. THE PARTIES.

3. Plaintiff Harris is an adult citizen and resident of Robertson County, Tennessee.

4. Defendant Robert Arnold (Defendant Arnold) was the Sheriff of Rutherford County,

Tennessee at the time of the events described in the Complaint. Defendant Arnold is sued in his

official capacity.

5. Defendant James Stephen Vanderveer (Defendant Vanderveer), Badge No. 301, was

employed by Rutherford County, Tennessee as a deputy and assigned to the Rutherford County

Sheriffs Department. Defendant Vanderveer is sued in his individual, and in his official capacity.

6. Defendant Jessica Leigh Green (Defendant Green), Badge No. 295, was employed by

Rutherford County, Tennessee as a deputy and assigned to the Rutherford County Sheriffs

Department. Defendant Green is sued in her individual, and in her official capacity.

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.

7. On or about December 9, 2013, Plaintiff Harris was arrested for disorderly conduct and

resisting arrest by officers of the Murfreesboro Police Department.

8. At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff Harris and taken to the Rutherford County Sheriffs

Department.

9. Plaintiff Harris was charged with the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct and a

2

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2

bond was set in the amount of $1,500.00.

10. Plaintiff Harris was also charged with resisting arrest and a bond was set in the amount

of $3,000.00.

11. After Plaintiff Harris was brought into the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department and

jail for booking, he was placed in a four-point restraint chair by correctional officers.

12. After Plaintiff Harris was placed in the four-point restraint chair, he complied with all

directives and instructions issued by correctional officers.

13. After Plaintiff Harris was placed in the four-point restraint chair, Defendant Vanderveer

sprayed a chemical agent (Freeze + P) into the eyes of Plaintiff Harris, which caused severe pain.

14. Plaintiff Harris was not resisting, aggressive, or combative at the time Defendant

Vanderveer sprayed the chemical agent into his eyes.

15. Defendant Green stood next to Plaintiff Harris while he was confined to the four-point

restraint chair, and assisted Defendant Vanderveer as he illegally administered the chemical agent

into the eyes of Plaintiff Harris.

16. After the chemical agent was sprayed in the eyes of Plaintiff Harris, Defendants

Vanderveer and Green left Plaintiff Harris confined in the four-point restraint chair for a prolonged

period of time without any opportunity to rinse the chemical agent, and causing further pain and

suffering.

17. On or about December 16, 2013, Plaintiff Harris was released from the Rutherford

County Adult Detention Center.

18. At the time of his release from the jail, Plaintiff Harris suffered from blurred vision, and

other damages and injuries to his eyes as a proximate result of the incident described herein

3

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3

involving Defendants Vanderveer and Green.

V. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES (42 U.S.C. 1983).

A. CLAIM FOR RELIEF AS TO DEFENDANTS VANDERVEER AND GREEN

19. Plaintiff Harris re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above-quoted paragraphs.

20. The actions or inactions of Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green which resulted in the

injuries to Plaintiff Harris were done under color of state law and in a manner which caused Plaintiff

Harris to suffer constitutional violations. Specifically, Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green

operated to violate Plaintiffs right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment as secured

under the Eighth Amendment, and Plaintiffs right to equal protection under the Fourteenth

Amendment. A reasonable person would have known that these constitutional rights were clearly

established at the time of the assault by the Defendants.

21. Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green operated to violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights

as protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

22. The conduct of Defendant Vanderveer in administering the chemical agent into Plaintiff

Harriss eyes when he was not struggling or combative was intentional, reckless, deliberate, and/or

malicious, and was done in a total disregard and indifference for the safety of Plaintiff Harris, and

caused him to endure unnecessary pain and suffering as a proximate result of the constitutional

violations.

23. While Defendant Green may not have personally administered the chemical agent to

Plaintiff Harris, Defendant Green is individually and jointly responsible because she participated in

or assisted in the assault with Defendant Vanderveer, and any reasonable person should have known

that the conduct described herein constituted objectively unreasonable force which created an

4

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4

inevitability of serious injury, and that such was a violation of Plaintiff Harriss clearly established

constitutional rights as to the time of his injuries.

24. The amount of force used by the Defendants in this case was grossly disproportionate

to the need to apply force or maintain discipline at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department.

Plaintiff Harris was confined to a restraint chair and was of no danger to anyone such as guards,

other prisoners, or even himself. There was no emergency or compelling circumstance for the

Defendants to have assaulted Plaintiff Harris when they applied the chemical agent to his eyes.

25. The force used here was not in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.

Rather, Defendants acted maliciously, sadistically, unnecessarily, unprofessionally, and wantonly

with intent or desire to cause harm and pain to Plaintiff Harris.

26. Because there was no emergency for Plaintiff Harris, the heightened standard of

excessive force against a prisoner, which requires subjective proof of malicious or sadistic intent,

does not apply. Rather, because this case involves the planned use of force, Plaintiff Harris need

establish only deliberate indifference and the Defendants were at least aware of the substantial risk

of serious harm and acted or failed to act despite that awareness.

27. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff

Harris was deprived of his civil and constitutional rights.

28. The actions of the Defendants violated Plaintiff Harriss civil rights as protected by the

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.1983. Plaintiff Harris is entitled to damages for the suffering,

harm and damage caused as a proximate result of the actions of the Defendants.

B. CLAIM FOR RELIEF AS TO DEFENDANT ARNOLD.

29. Plaintiff Harris re-allege and incorporate by reference the above-quoted paragraphs.

5

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5

30. The actions and inactions of Defendant Arnold which resulted in the chemical spray

assault of Plaintiff Harris were done under color of state law, and in a manner which caused

Plaintiff Harris to suffer constitutional violations. Specifically, Defendant Arnold through his

failure to adequately train and supervise his staff operated to violate Plaintiff Harriss right to be

free from cruel or unusual punishment as secured to him under the Eighth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States of America, and Plaintiff Harriss right to be accorded equal

protection under the laws as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States. A reasonable person would have known that these constitutional rights were

clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct, and that such conduct violated

these rights.

31. The actions and inactions of Defendant Arnold as alleged in this Complaint were

such that he was or should have been aware of the substantial risk of harm, but he acted or failed

to act despite that awareness and knowledge.

32. With respect to the failure to train, Defendant Arnold was aware that a lack of

training or inadequate training as to Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green created a substantial

risk that detainees would unnecessarily suffer serious harm, yet failed to provide adequate

training despite that awareness and knowledge.

33. Defendant Arnold was aware that the inadequate training or lack of training on the

use of force, and its progression, was likely to lead to constitutional violations.

34. Defendant Arnold was the ultimate supervisor at Rutherford County Sheriffs

Department, and had knowledge of and acquiesced in the constitutional violations committed by

his subordinates, including but not limited to Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green.

6

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6

35. There was a causal connection between Defendant Arnolds actions and inactions in

supervision and the constitutional violations afflicted on Plaintiff Harris.

36. Defendant Arnolds customs and/or policies of providing insufficient training and

oversight as to the correctional officers at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department

constituted deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Harris.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of Defendant Arnold stated

herein, Plaintiff Harris was deprived of his civil rights.

38. The actions of Defendant Arnold violated Plaintiff Harriss civil rights as protected

by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff Harris is entitled to damages for the

suffering and harm occasioned by Defendant Arnolds wrongful conduct, as well as all losses and

damages to Plaintiff Harris.

VI. DAMAGES.

39. Plaintiff Harris re-allege and incorporate by reference the above-quoted paragraphs.

40. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Harris is entitled to recover damages, including reasonable attorneys fees.

The damages for which Plaintiff Harris seeks compensation from the Defendants, both jointly

and severally, include but are not limited to the following:

a. Compensatory damages for the physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering

of Plaintiff Harris as a proximate result of the chemical spray assault.

b. Punitive damages.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Demario N. Harris, Sr. respectfully prays that his Court enter

7

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7

judgment granting him the following:

A. A declaration that the acts and omission described herein violated Plaintiffs rights

under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

B. Compensatory damages to Plaintiff Harris in the amount of $50,000.00 against each

of the Defendants, jointly and severally.

C. Punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.00 against each of the Defendants as a

proximate result of their wrongs and constitutional violations against Plaintiff Harris.

D. A jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

E. Court costs in this action, including attorneys fees and discretionary costs.

F. Any additional relief this court deems just, proper, and equitable.

THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. COOPER, P.C.

s/ David L. Cooper DAVID L. COOPER, BPR # 11445

Third Avenue North Building208 Third Avenue, North, Suite 300Nashville, TN 37201(615) 256-1008

AUBREY GIVENS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

s/ Aubrey T. Givens AUBREY T. GIVENS, BPR# 21491

501 Union StreetSuite 307Nashville, TN 37219(615) 248-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8