First Amended Complaint - T. Dukes

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
TRENESHIA DUKES, )
)
)
Plaintiff, ) CFAN: 1:12-cv-02517-CAP
)
v. )
)
SUZANNE BENNETT )
in her individual capacity; )
NICHOLAS DEATON in )
his individual capacity; )
STEVE BRANHAM, in his )
individual and supervisory capacity; )
and )
JOHN DOE, in his individual )
capacity, )
)
Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Treneshia Dukes (Ms. Dukes) files her first amended
Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1). Ms. Dukes files this civil rights
action for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Constitution
and laws of the State of Georgia, to redress the deprivation of Ms. Dukes
Case 1:12-cv-02517-CAP Document 8 Filed 08/16/12 Page 1 of 36
2

rights caused by named Parties to this civil rights action and the one party
not yet discerned and thus named as John Doe. In further support of her
Complaint, Ms. Dukes alleges, upon verifiable and credible information, the
following:
INTRODUCTION

Ms. Dukes alleges that Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment
right to be free from excessive force, amongst other violated rights under
both state and federal law, by supervising, directly participating in, and/or
otherwise demonstrating liable conduct regarding the following incident or
similar incident: on July 21, 2010, at approximately 5:30 a.m., while
executing a search warrant, and under the supervision of Defendant Steve
Branham, Defendants Nicholas Deaton, Suzanne Bennett, and John Doe of
the Clayton County Police Departments S.W.A.T. violated Ms. Dukes
Fourth Amendment right, amongst other rights, by throwing a flash bang
grenade through a bedroom window onto Ms. Dukes as she laid asleep
(pregnant) in her bed, which was located approximately three feet from said
window. Ms. Dukes suffered severe, excruciating physical injuries as a
direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct. Ms. Dukes spent
approximately three (3) days in Grady Memorial Hospitals Intensive Care
Burn Unit. She was then in a wheel chair for a long period of time.
3

Significantly, Defendants had no arrest warrant for anyone located at 5758
HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B. And, Ms. Dukes was not charged with any crime in
connection with Defendants search of said premises. Less than one ounce of
marijuana was found pursuant to the executed search.
JURISDICTION
1.
The event in question occurred in Clayton County, Georgia.
2.
Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, and 1343, and on
the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate claims arising under
state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
VENUE
3.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and L.R.
3.1, because the events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs claims
occurred in this district.
PARTIES
4.
At all relevant times to this Complaint, Ms. Dukes was a citizen of the
United States and a resident of Clayton County, Georgia. She submits
4

herself to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and is entitled to bring this
action under Georgia and federal law for all general, special, compensatory,
punitive and permissible damages.
5.
At all relevant times, Ms. Dukes had legal rights established by the
Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Georgia,
and laws set forth by federal and state statutes.
6.
On July 21, 2010 Defendant Nicholas Deaton (hereinafter referred to
as Defendant Deaton) deployed a flash bang grenade at 5758 HWY 85
Apt. # 17-B, under the color and pretense of federal and state laws as well as
the ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of Georgia and
the policies, orders, procedures, rules, and regulations of Clayton County
Police Department Police. Evidence indicates that Defendant Deaton
intentionally threw said flash bang grenade through the bedroom window of
the room that Ms. Dukes occupied while asleep in a bed located
approximately three feet from that window. Defendant Deatons conduct
intentionally or recklessly caused Ms. Dukes to suffer severe, traumatizing
injuries that included third degree burns all over her body and subsequent
scarring. Defendant Deatons conduct rose to the level of deliberate
5

indifference to Ms. Dukes constitutional right to be free from objectively
unreasonable force. Defendant Deaton is being sued in his individual
capacity. Defendant Deaton is a resident and citizen of the State of Georgia
who may be served with process at 7911 North McDonough Street,
Jonesboro, GA 30236, which is his place of employment.
7.
On July 21, 2010 Defendant Suzanne Bennett (hereinafter referred to
as Defendant Bennett) deployed a flash bang grenade at 5758 HWY 85
Apt. # 17-B, under the color and pretense of federal and state laws as well as
the ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of Georgia and
the policies, orders, procedures, rules, and regulations of Clayton County
Police Department. Defendant Bennett intentionally threw said flash bang
grenade through the bedroom window of the room that Ms. Dukes occupied
while asleep in a bed approximately three feet from that window. Defendant
Bennetts conduct intentionally or recklessly caused Ms. Dukes to suffer
severe, traumatizing injury. Defendant Bennetts conduct rose to the level of
deliberate indifference to Ms. Dukes constitutional right to be free from
objectively unreasonable force. Defendant Bennett is being sued in her
individual capacity. Defendant Bennett is a resident and citizen of the State
6

of Georgia who may be served with process at 1108 Claridge Park Drive,
Morrow, GA 30260.
8.
On July 21, 2010 Defendant John Doe deployed a flash bang grenade
onto to Ms. Dukes, through her bedroom window, at approximately 5:30
a.m. as she laid sleep in her bed, which was located approximately three feet
from the window the flash bang grenade came through. John Doe deployed
said flash bang grenade under the color and pretense of federal and state
laws as well as the ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State
of Georgia and the policies, orders, procedures, rules, and regulations of
Clayton County Police Department. Said Defendant is sued in both his or her
individual capacity and at all times relevant, was a S.W.A.T member present
at the subject address where he or she deployed a flash bang grenade onto
Ms. Dukes. John Doe is fictitious but evidence through discovery should
reveal his or her identity for service of process. Evidence warrants keeping
John Doe as a Defendant through discovery, because Defendants claim no
one through a flash bang through the subject window even though evidence
and testimony indicates that a flash bang was thrown through the window.
Ms. Dukes expressly asked Clayton County officials, including Defendant
Branham, to reveal John Does identity but they refused to do so.
7

9.
Defendant Captain Steve Branham (hereinafter referred to as
Defendant Branham) at all relevant times had supervisory and managerial
authority, as commander of the Clayton County Special Weapons and
Tactics Team (S.W.A.T.), over Defendants Deaton, Bennett, and John
Doe, and ordered those three Defendants to deploy flash bang grenades
1
on
July 21, 2010 at 5758 HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B. Defendant Branham became
supervisor of S.W.A.T. in June 2007. In his supervisory and managerial
capacity Defendant Branham was responsible for developing the tactical
plan regarding the use of flash bang grenades at 5758 HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B,
on July 21, 2010. Defendant Branham is responsible for following all
relevant policies, orders, procedures, rules, and regulations of Clayton
County Police Department. Clayton County Police Department and/or
Clayton County delegated to Defendant Branham policy making authority,
policy implementation and/or policy enforcement responsibility/authority

1
Our expert testimony established that there is no fundamental difference
between the word flash bang grenade and noise flash diversionary device. In
fact, courts have stated the term flash bang grenade is a mere euphemism for
the word bomb. See Estate of Escobedo v. City of Fort Wayne, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 36852, n. 2 (N.D. Ind. 2008) (stating, [i]ndividual defendants
usually refer to these items as distraction devices rather than flash bangs
or flash bang grenades. The Court will refer to them as flash bang grenades
because that term most accurately describes what the items do and what they
are used for .) (citing Unites States v. Jones, 214 F. 3d 836, 837-38 [7
th

Cir. 2000] [calling them concussion grenades and bombs .)
8

regarding Clayton County Police Departments S.W.A.T. Defendant
Branham failed to ensure that only officers (under his command) who were
certified in the use of flash bang grenades actually deployed those grenades
either in the homes of citizens or in some cases flash bang grenades actually
thrown (deployed) directly at citizens. Defendant Branham also violated
applicable rules and regulations by failing to ensure that officers under his
command received documented training in the use of flash bang grenades
and training that ensured that those officers were proficient in the use of
flash bang grenades. Defendant Branhams conduct proximately caused the
severe injuries suffered by Ms. Dukes. Defendant Branham is being sued in
his individual and supervisory capacity and may be served with process at
7911 North McDonough Street, Jonesboro, GA 30236, which is his place of
employment.
10.
Ms. Dukes has sent Defendants a spoliation letter. (See Ex. 1.)
11.
Ms. Dukes has complied with all pre-requisite Notice of
Claim requirements. (See Ex. 1, for a copy of this Notice and copy of
spoliation letter.)

9

FACTS
A. Failure To Have Any Written Policy Or Procedure Regarding
The Use of Flash Bang Grenades

12.
Clayton County Police Department has admitted that on and before
July 21, 2010, it had no written policy or standard operating procedures
regarding the use of flash bang grenades.
13.
Other police departments within, and without, the Atlanta metro area
do have specific written policies and procedures regarding the use of flash
bang grenades.
B. Clayton County PD Knows Flash Bang Grenades Can Be
Lethal and Thus Cause Death Or Serious Bodily Injury

14.
At the time of the subject incident, Clayton County Police Department
had failed to specifically classify flash bang grenades as either lethal, or less
than lethal, devices in its Policy and Procedural Manual (SOP Manual).

10

15.
A fact relevant to the allegation asserted in paragraph 14 of this
complaint is the fact that Clayton County Police Departments SOP Manual
defines deadly force as [a]ny force that would be expected to cause death or
serious bodily injury when utilized.
16.
A fact relevant to the allegations asserted in paragraphs 14 and 15 of
this complaint is the fact that the manufacture of the flash bang grenades
used by Clayton County Police S.W.A.T. Officers while entering Apt. # 17-
B, located at 5758 HWY 85, has warned Clayton County Police Officers that
said flash bang grenades may cause serious bodily injury or death. (See
Ex. 2, for copy of article which discusses the death of a police officer from a
flash bang grenade.)
17.
The flash bang grenade that injured Ms. Dukes is strictly regulated by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive as a destructive
device. This is the same classification for grenades. (See also, Ex. 3, for a
copy of incident report by Defendant Branham which demonstrates
S.W.A.T. members fear of coming close to a flash bangthey used a robot
when a flash bang failed to detonate in a field exercise.)
11

C. The Use Of Force Incident
18.
On July 21, 2010, the Clayton County Police Departments S.W.A.T.
executed a search warrant at 5758 HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B. While executing
said search warrant, members of S.W.A.T. deployed at least three (maybe
more) flash bang grenades inside 5758 HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B. Defendants
Bennett and Deaton were issued flash bang grenades and did deploy those
grenades at the subject residence on the date and time in question.
19.
The use of the flash bang grenades referred to in paragraph 18
constitutes a use of force by members of Clayton County Police
Departments S.W.A.T.
20.
On July 21, 2010 Officer Mallette of the Clayton County Police
Departments S.W.A.T. deployed a flash bang grenade no more than four
feet from the front door entrance of 5758 HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B.
21.
On July 21 2010, at 5758 HWY 85 Apt. # 17-B, members of Clayton
County S.W.A.T. performed a brake and rake on the window of the bedroom
in which Ms. Dukes was sleeping. Evidence (e.g., the incident report)
12

indicates that Defendant Bennett of Clayton County S.W.A.T., then,
intentionally deployed a flash bang grenade through the window of the
bedroom where Ms. Dukes was sleeping in a bed located approximately 3
feet from that window. Defendant Bennett intentionally threw the flash bang
grenade onto the bed where Ms. Dukes was asleep, because she looked in
the window and saw Ms. Dukes sleeping on the bed located approximately
three feet from the window, before throwing the flash bang grenade. Or
Defendant Bennett deliberately threw said flash bang grenade blindly
(recklessly). Said flash bang grenade thrown by Defendant Bennett landed
on Ms. Dukes and severely burned her body, causing her to spend
approximately three days in the burn unit of Grady Memorial Hospital and
to spend a long period of time afterwards in a wheel chair..
22.
Defendant Bennett and other S.W.A.T members deliberately chose to
perform a brake and rake on, and then throw a flash bang grenade through,
the bedroom window where they knew Ms. Dukes and Jason Ward were
sleeping at approximately 5:30 a.m., evidenced by the fact that the subject
apartment had a different ground-level side bedroom window, with much
easier access that could have been used as a distraction location, and also
evidenced by the fact that S.W.A.T supposedly had been monitoring this
13

location, with real time surveillance, for quite some time before executing its
search warrant.
23.
Defendant John Doe of Clayton County S.W.A.T. intentionally
deployed a flash bang grenade through the window of the bedroom where
Ms. Dukes was sleeping in a bed located approximately 3 feet from that
window. Defendant John Doe intentionally threw the flash bang grenade
onto the bed where Ms. Dukes was asleep, because he or she looked in the
window and saw Ms. Dukes sleeping on the bed located approximately three
feet from the window, before throwing the flash bang grenade. Said flash
bang grenade thrown by Defendant John Doe landed on Ms. Dukes and
severely burned her body, causing her to spend approximately three days in
the burn unit of Grady Memorial Hospital.
24.
Defendant Deaton of Clayton County S.W.A.T. intentionally
deployed a flash bang grenade through the window of the bedroom where
Ms. Dukes was sleeping in a bed located approximately 3 feet from that
window, because he looked in the window and saw Ms. Dukes sleeping on
the bed located approximately three feet from the window, before throwing
the flash bang grenade. Or Defendant Deaton deliberately threw said flash
14

bang grenade blindly. Said flash bang grenade thrown by Defendant Deaton
landed on Ms. Dukes and severely burned her body, causing her to spend
approximately three days in the burn unit of Grady Memorial Hospital.
D. Facts Demonstrating That Flash Bang Was Thrown Through
Subject Bedroom Window Onto To Ms. Dukes

25.
Credible evidence demonstrates that (1) the flash bang grenade that
Defendants deployed through a bedroom window of 5758 HWY 85 Apt. #
17-B burnt a hole through a blanket that covered Treneshia Dukes as the
flash bang grenades hit her while she was sleeping in bed; (2) the blanket
with the burnt hole was never collected as evidence; (3) no photographs
were taken of the blanket; and (3) the blanket cannot be seen in any of the
expansive photographs taken of every other room inside 5758 HWY 85 Apt.
# 17-B, so a reasonable jury could conclude the blanket was in the bedroom,
which no expansive photograph was taken of.
26.
Credible evidence demonstrates expansive photographs were taken of
every room except the bedroom where Ms. Dukes claims the flash bang was
thrown into from her bedroom window. Furthermore, the timing of Officer
Mallette throwing a flash bang nearly 20 feet from the front door and hitting
Ms. Dukes dead on as she ran swiftly pass the hallway is unbelievable,
15

especially given the fact that Officer Mallette and other S.W.A.T. members
who throw flash bangs from front doors routinely state that they throw flash
bangs 2 to 4 feet (not nearly 20 feet) from the front door because they are
trained to throw the flash bangs near the front door, after that door is broken.
27.
Credible evidence demonstrates that photographs were taken of
damaged property within the apartment such as the door that was broken
with a ram. But no photograph was taken of the broken window that
S.W.A.T. broke via a brake and rake and through which Defendants Deaton,
Bennett, and John Doe threw a flash bang grenade. (See Ex. 8, for a copy of
Affidavit of Ricky Marion, who was maintenance supervisor at the time of
the subject incident. His affidavit demonstrates that the subject bedroom
window was broken and that credible evidence indicates that a flash bang
was thrown through the bedroom window.) Mr. Marions affidavit describes
what he saw when he entered the subject bedroom. That is important when
viewed in conjunction with the fact that no member of Clayton Countys
S.W.A.T. or police department took expansive pictures of the room.

16

28.
Eye witness testimony of people who entered the subject bedroom on
the same day of, and shortly after, the incident stated that the room had black
matter like substance on the back wall above the bed where a head board
would be placed and that this black matter like substance extended to the
furthest wall to the right of the bedroom entrance. (See Ex. 8.) Also, this
black matter is the same black matter that is emitted from the flash bang
grenades Defendant Deaton, Bennett, and John Doe deployed at the subject
residence. Witness testimony also states that the room clearly looked as if a
bomb had gone off in it.
29.
After witnessing Treneshia Dukes severe burns, according to witness
testimony, one Clayton County Police Officer said Yall fucked up, this
was not supposed to happen. Yall need to get this cleaned up quickly. You
guys messed her up real bad, I told yall this was not supposed to happen
like this.
30.
Verifiable information indicates that Clayton County S.W.A.T. had a
pattern and practice of performing break and rakes on bedroom windows and
then throwing flash bang grenades through those bedroom windows. So a
17

claim that relevant Defendants threw a flash bang through Ms. Dukes
bedroom window is beyond plausible.
E. Failure To Document Ms. Dukes Injuries
31.
An examination of relevant records demonstrates that no member of
Clayton County Police Department took photographs of Ms. Dukes injuries.
That failure violated established policies and procedures.
32.
Relevant records demonstrate that Defendants violated established
policy and procedure by failing to ensure that a separate use of force report
was done regarding Ms. Dukes injuries until after Ms. Dukes lawyer
decided to provide Clayton County Police Department with a final chance to
investigate this issue before filing suit, by having Ms. Dukes file a complaint
on July 7, 2011-- a notice of claim and request for investigation had been
sent shortly after the incident, to no avail. (See Ex. 4, for copy of expert
report, which discusses the significance of this failure.)

18

33.
During the Internal Affairs investigation, no one interviewed the
victim, Ms. Dukes. Ms. Dukes expert discusses the low-grade investigation
that Clayton County Police Department performed. (See Ex. 4, for a copy of
expert report.)
F. Facts Demonstrating Gross Pattern and Practice of Defendant
Branham Failing To Train Defendants And Other S.W.A.T.
Members
2

The following facts should be considered in light of the fact that the
need to train officers on proper use of flash bang grenades is so obvious that
all officials are on notice that such training is required.
34.
Defendant Branham became supervisor and manager of Clayton
County Police Departments S.W.A.T. in June 2007. Notably, from July 18,
2007 to July 21, 2010 no documented training occurred under his
supervisory and managerial authority. That said, Defendant Branham admits

2
Currently, the only evidence that Defendant Branham was the official
policy maker for Clayton County is a blanket statement. To save time and
resources, Ms. Dukes has not named local government Clayton County as a
defendant that had actual or constructive knowledge of the failure to train
and other egregious conduct that directly and proximately caused Ms.
Dukes severe injury. However, if this Court permits discovery and that
discovery reveals stronger evidence that implicates Clayton County under a
theory of monell liability, Ms. Dukes will move this Court to grant leave
to amend her complaint accordingly. The issue is not going after an entire
county just for the sake of doing it.
19

that that there exist no documented training for the use of flash bang
grenades for over three years prior to Ms. Dukes being nearly blown up by
one of these bombs on July 21, 2010.
35.
On top of admitting that no documented training exist, members of
Clayton County Police Department, including Defendant Branham, failed to
ensure, from at least July 19, 2007 through July 21 2010, that Defendants
Deaton and Bennett, and all other S.W.A.T. members other than Steve Long,
received written test or proficiency scores regarding the use of flash bang
grenades. This is a violation of Clayton County Police Departments own
policy and procedure, which states officer proficiency will be documented
in all training that is use of force related.
36.
Also, deliberate indifference is shown by taking the above facts about
the failure to train in light of another fact: since 2007 Clayton County
S.W.A.T has used approximately 209 flash bang grenades in the homes of
citizens and credible information clearly indicates several, different Clayton
County S.W.A.T. members, with no documented training, have deployed
flash bang grenades during that time.

20

37.
A review of Clayton County S.W.A.T.s field training reports from
2009 through 2010 (2007 and 2008 were requested but none supposedly
exist) demonstrates that flash bang devices are mentioned approximately 3
times out of nearly thirty training reports. Only once was a name associated
with the deployment of a flash bang grenade and that name was not one of
the named Defendants.
38.
A review of Clayton County S.W.A.T.s training reports, incident
reports, and all use of force reports (from 2004-2010) demonstrate that prior
to severely burning Ms. Dukes with a flash bang (1) S.W.A.T. members
burned/injured other people with flash bangs, yet, Defendants and other
relevant S.W.A.T. members violated policy and procedure by failing to write
a separate use of force report related to those burned/injured people; (2)
S.W.A.T. threw a flash bang directly at a person, using the flash bang as a
bomb (deadly) weapon; and (3) S.W.A.T. opened the door of a very small
spaced bathroom and blindly threw at least one flash bang in the bathroom
without any evidence of trying to figure out if someone was in the bathroom
or not. These are just a few examples of the untrained and nonsensical use of
these highly dangerous bombs. Essentially, Clayton County S.W.A.T. thinks
21

flash bang grenades are toys, to be used indiscriminately without any regard
for human life.
39.
On top of failing to document persons burned/injured by flash bang
grenades with a separate use of force report as required (or with photographs
of burn injuries), the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies found that Clayton County Police Department, as a whole, did not
track use of force incidents during 2007 and 2008. Relevantly, during those
years, Clayton County S.W.A.T. deployed nearly 100 flash bang grenades
a reasonable jury could find that Clayton County S.W.A.T. injured
people but failed to report those injuries based on its failure to
document known injuries with separate use of force reports. Notably,
Clayton County S.W.A.T. has used Tasers and injurious open hand
techniques against citizens, yet, still failed to write a separate use of force
report, because these reports go up the chain of command, in accordance
with relevant SOP. (See Ex. 4 Expert Report for discussion on this issue).

22

40.
The same day that Defendants severely injured Treneshia Dukes,
Clayton County S.W.A.T. held a documented, dedicated flash bang grenade
training session, which demonstrates they could have held documented
training during the three years they failed to do any training. Nevertheless,
this training violated Clayton County policies and procedures because it did
not include any documented evidence of test being given or proficiency
scores or any evidence that field exercises were performed and if any were,
there is no evidence who performed the handling and scenario-based
exercises. That failure also directly contradicts the express language of the
training manual allegedly handed out during this documented training
session, a manual that Clayton County Police Department now states
represents its policy on the use of flash bang grenades.
41.
Clayton County Police Department, including Defendant Branham,
never placed Defendants Deaton or Bennett, or any other S.W.A.T member,
on administrative leave after one of them intentionally or blindly threw a
flash bang grenade on Ms. Dukes, causing her to be severely traumatized
and injured. At least from 2007, Clayton County S.W.A.T. never placed any
officer on administrative leave after that officer injured/burned someone
23

with a flash bang grenade. That is important because Clayton County SOP
Manual states that [w]hen an officers use of force results in death or
serious bodily injury, the officer will be placed on Administrative Leave
pending investigation. No investigation was performed until after Ms.
Dukes requested an investigation nearly a year later. A rational jury could
find that failure as deliberate indifference to respecting policies and
procedures that are in place to help prevent severely injuring citizens with a
weapon (flash bang grenade) that can cause death.
G. Other Facts Related To Indiscriminate Use of Flash Bang
Grenades By Clayton Countys S.W.A.T.

42.
Clayton County S.W.A.T. has deployed flash bang grenades while
executing regular search warrants, search warrants that do not have no-
knock provisions.
43.
During the past eight years, Clayton County S.W.A.T. has deployed
flash bang grenades while executing search warrants when the application
for said search warrants indicates that the person suspected of criminal
activity has no prior criminal record or is not a violent criminal. For
example, Jason Ward, the renter of the subject apartment that S.W.A.T.
searched On July 21, 2010 had a non-violent criminal history, according to
24

the criminal background check performed by S.W.A.T. before executing its
search. (See Ex. 5, p. 2, for a copy of relevant criminal background. This
Court should also note, as the Defendants will undoubtedly point out, that a
confidential informant also allegedly stated that Jason Ward was seen in
possession of a firearm and a firearm was found in the subject apartment.)
44.
From January 9, 2009 through November 5 2010, members of Clayton
County S.W.A.T. deployed approximately 150 flash bang grenades while
executing approximately 121 search warrants.
COUNT ONE

42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(As Against Defendants John Doe, Dean, and Bennett)

45.
Ms. Dukes now fully incorporates paragraphs 6,7,8, 16-30, as if each
were set forth verbatim herein, and any other paragraph this Court may deem
applicable.
46.
Defendants violated Ms. Dukes clearly established constitutional right
to be free from excessive use of force by throwing a flash bang grenade, at
approximately 5:30 a.m., directly onto Ms. Dukes through her bedroom
window, while she was asleep in her bed, which was located approximately
25

three feet from the subject window. Defendants knew or had strong reason to
know that Ms. Dukes was present in the apartment because their alleged
tactical plan demonstrates that they had real time surveillance on the
subject apartment, and Ms. Dukes had been seen, by that real time
surveillance, going into the apartment. Indeed, the alleged tactical plan states
enter and secure all those persons inside. Throwing a flash bang
grenade intentionally or blindly into a bedroom window at 5 a.m. onto
people as they sleep is objectively unreasonable because it is a gratuitous use
of deadly force. Defendants did not face an imminent threat of grievous
bodily injury for themselves or another person. There was no objective
evidence indicating that two sleeping people (Ms. Dukes and Jason Ward)
posed an imminent threat. Also, no warning was given before using the flash
bang grenade as a deadly weapon, although a warning could have been given
since the occupants were sleep at 5 a.m. in the morning.
COUNT TWO

SUPERVISORY LIABIITY
(Against Defendant Branham)

47.
Ms. Dukes now fully incorporates paragraphs 9, 10, 12-44, as if each
were set forth verbatim herein, and any other paragraph this Court deems
applicable.
26

48.

Defendant Branham authorized and tolerated, as an institutional
practice and custom, the excessive use of force by Clayton County S.W.A.T.
team officers, by failing to ensure that defendants received adequate (any)
training to help ensure that Defendants did not subject Ms. Dukes and other
Georgia citizens to excessive force in violation of their rights under the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is evidenced by
admissions that no documented training exist between July 18, 2007
3
and
September 21, 2010. Also, the fact that field training reports do not evidence
any adequate trainingdropping flash bang grenades out of helicopters onto
roof tops is not adequate training. This conduct shows deliberate
indifference.

3
Notably, one odd issue surrounding the alleged July 18, 2007 training is
that when Ms. Dukes first asked for a copy of all training field reports for
2007-2008, Defendant Branham answered by saying there were no training
records for that year. Then Ms. Dukes brought to his attention that saying
there exist no training records for that year directly contradicts a previous
statement that flash bang training was done in 2007. Suddenly, Defendant
Branham produced a pencil copy of a flash bang training attendance sheet.
(Ex. 6, for copy of emails along with course completion form and alleged
flash bang manual used during the alleged training.) Again, Defendant
Branham became S.W.A.T Commander in June 2007. From July 2007
through July 2010 S.W.A.T. had no documented training under Branhams
command and flash bangs were used like toys. Coincidently, Defendant
Branham was relieved as S.W.A.T. Commander two days before this
investigation was officially closed. (See Ex. 7.)
27

49.
officers, by failing to properly discipline Defendants who were known to
deploy flash bang grenades in a manner that violated the Fourth Amendment
rights of my clients and other Georgia citizens. This conduct shows
deliberate indifference.
50.
team officers, by failing to properly investigate excessive force incidents that
involved the use of flash bang grenades by Defendants. This conduct shows
deliberate indifference.
51.
team officers, by failing to establish and assure a bona fide and meaningful
departmental policy (written directive) in accordance with Clayton County
Police Departments own certification standards regarding the use of flash
bang grenades. This conduct shows deliberate indifference.
28

52.
officers, by failing to discipline officers using excessive force and by
covering up their misconduct thereby encouraging the use of excessive force
by officers in its Police Department. This conduct shows deliberate
indifference.
53.
team officers, by failing to adequately train and supervise its officers,
including defendants, in the use of flash bang grenades. And also by
violating its own policy and procedure by failing to document proficiency
scores related to each officer that deployed flash bang grenades. There is
zero independent evidence that Defendants (and over 95% of S.W.A.T.
members) received any, or adequate, training on flash bang grenade
use. This conduct encouraged the reckless and deadly use of flash bang
grenades in the homes of, and against, U.S. citizens who are Georgia
residents.

29

54.
Defendant Branham is also liable for the injuries suffered by Ms.
Dukes because despite having actual and constructive knowledge of a
pattern of violations regarding the use of flash bang grenades, Defendant
Branham instituted a custom of deliberately failing to investigate and
document use-of-force incidentsdocumentation demonstrates incidents
where Clayton County S.W.A.T. injured Georgia citizens with flash bang
grenades but there are absolutely no use- of-force reports written or
submitted regarding said incidents in accordance with Policy. This failure to
appropriately document known use of force incidents shows a deliberate
indifference to established policies that are deigned to protect citizens from
gratuitous use of force.
55.
Defendant Branham is liable for the injuries suffered by Ms. Dukes
because despite having actual and constructive knowledge of a pattern of
violations regarding the use of flash bang grenades, Defendants Branham
instituted, and ratified, a custom of failing to require specific flash bang in-
service training in accordance with policy guidelinesdocumentation,
information, and belief demonstrates that various S.W.A.T. team officers
injured Georgia citizens with flash bangs but said officers were never
30

required to undergo in-service training to refine their relevant skills.
Defendant Branham failures are especially egregious since he knows the
danger that flash bang grenades pose if one of these devices detonates on a
human body. (See Ex. 3, for copy of a report demonstrating fear of human
contact with a flash bang that failed to detonate. Significantly, Defendant
Branham was the reporting officer of this report [see lower left hand corner
of the report].)
56.
Defendant Branham is liable for the injuries suffered by Ms. Dukes
because Defendant Branham admits that he ordered Defendants Deaton,
Bennett, and John Doe to intentionally (or blindly) throw the flash bang
grenade through Ms. Dukes bedroom window. Not only is this evidenced by
his own admission, but it is also evidenced by Defendant Branham ordering,
participating in, and ratifying a pattern and practice of executing brake and
rakes on bedroom windows and then blindly or intentionally throwing flash
bang grenades through those windows regardless of whether human beings
were near or at the targeted area of the flash bang grenades, prior to the
subject incident. Also, it is irrefutable that Defendant Braham gave
Defendants unbridled discretion to deploy flash bangs as determined as
needed. That fact coupled with Defendant Branham failure to adequately
31

train on the use of flash bang grenades, or document or discipline egregious
use of flash bang grenades, ratified, encouraged, and authorized the
deployment of a flash bang grenade through a bedroom window at 5:30 a.m.
onto a bed that was approximately three feet from that window, while Ms.
Dukes was asleep on that bed. This conduct along with other specified
conduct throughout this Count demonstrates that a causal connection exist
between Defendant Branhams acts and omissions and Ms. Dukes injuries,
to the degree that the assertion, Defendant Branhams conduct proximately
caused the severe injuries suffered by Ms. Dukes is more than plausible to
state a claim.
COUNT THREE
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
(Against Defendants Bennett, Deaton, and John Doe)

57.

Ms. Dukes now fully incorporates paragraphs, 11, 25-30, as if each
were set forth verbatim herein, and any other paragraph this Court deems
applicable.
58.

Defendant Bennett assaulted Ms. Dukes by intentionally, willfully, and
maliciously throwing a flash bang grenade onto her body while she lay
asleep in bed at approximately 5:30 a.m. in the morning. This use of force
32

was gratuitous, sick, and excessive, as absolutely unnecessary to effectuate
the execution of a search warrant under the facts of this case. A rationale
jury could find that Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously given the
fact that Defendants Deaton, Bennett, and John Doe, claim they are trained
to look before throwing flash bang grenades. So if Defendants looked before
throwing, then, they would have seen a bed approximately three feet from
the window. If that happened, then, Defendants intentionally threw the flash
bang grenade onto the bed (Ms. Dukes). Furthermore, Defendants tactical
plan says there was real time surveillance, with undercover officers, so a
rational jury could find that Defendants knew Ms. Dukes was present in the
subject apartment and therefore likely to be asleep in the bedroom which the
flash bang was thrown into.
59.
Defendant Deaton assaulted Ms. Dukes by intentionally, willfully, and
maliciously throwing a flash bang grenade onto her body while she lay
the execution of a search warrant under the fact of this case.

33

60.
Defendant John Doe assaulted Ms. Dukes by intentionally, willfully,
and maliciously throwing a flash bang grenade onto her body while she lay
the execution of a search warrant under the fact of this case.
COUNT SIX

DAMAGES
(Against All Defendants)
Because of Defendants unconstitutional conduct caused severe injury
to Ms. Dukes, she is entitled to all compensatory, special and general
damages permitted under controlling law.
COUNT SEVEN

PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Because of Defendants unconstitutional conduct that caused severe
injury to Ms. Dukes demonstrates an egregious deliberate indifference
toward Ms. Dukes, Ms. Dukes is entitled to punitive damages, to be
determined by a jury.

34

COUNT EIGHT

ATTORNEY FEES
Due to Defendants bad faith and stubbornly litigious conduct, Ms.
Dukes asks this Court to grant attorney fees and also should Ms. Dukes
prevail on any of her claims, she asks this Court to award attorney fees as a
matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Dukes prays the following relief:
1. Ms. Dukes seeks an amount including all damages from the
Defendants;
2. That Ms. Dukes have a trial by jury on all matters not
adjudicated by this Court;
3. That this Court enter judgment in favor of Ms. Dukes in an
amount allowable by law that compensates Ms. Dukes for all
prayed for damages, including special and general damages,
together with prejudgment interest;
4. That Ms. Dukes recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs in
an amount to be determined by this Court;
5. That Ms. Dukes be awarded exemplary damages based on the
enlightened consciousness of the jury for the willful and wanton
acts of the all Defendants; and
35

6. That Ms. Dukes recover such other, further, and different relief
this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted this 16
th
day of August 2012

s/MARIO WILLIAMS
Mario Williams
GA No. 235254

Williams Oinonen LLC
The Historic Grant Building, Suite 200
44 Broad Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Telephone (404) 654.0288
Facsimile (404) 592.6225
mario@goodgeorgialawyer.com

Counsel for Ms. Dukes

36

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day electronically submitted the
foregoing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint to the Clerk of Court using
the CM/ECF system which will automatically send electronic mail
notification of such filing to counsel of record who are CM/ECF
participants:
Brian Dempsey, Esq
100 Galleria Parkway
Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30339-5948

Respectfully submitted this 16
th
day of August 2012,

s/ MARIO WILLIAMS
Mario Williams
GA Bar No. 234254

WILLIAMS OINONEN, LLC
The Grant Building
44 Broad Street, NW
Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-654-0288
Fax: 404-592-6225


First Amended Complaint - T. Dukes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Amended Complaint - T. Dukes

Original Title:

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Related Interests

You might also like