STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COUR’ ICE SUPERIOR COURT, biistosd COUNTY OF CLEVELAND 21-cvs- 35" M) FEB -1 P37 VELANO COUNT FREIDA K. WINTERS, Administrator of the Estate of JEFFERY TODD DUNN, Plaintiff, v. ALAN NORMAN, officially as Sheriff of Cleveland County, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., as surety for Sheriff Norman, DAVID ACUFF, WAYNE MCCRAW, RICHARD PALMER, JASMINE DYE, ROBERTO MARCIAL, KAYLEIGH YARGER and PHILLIP DENDY, each in their individual and official capacities, COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendants. COMES Plaintiff, through counsel and demanding a jury trial, and alleges the following against the Defendants: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Freida Winters (hereinafter referred to as “PlaintifT” or “Winters”, is the duly appointed Administrator of the Estate of her decedent son, Jeffery Todd Dunn (hereinafter referred to as “Dunn” or “decedent”), who was killed while in custody in the Cleveland County Detention Center (“CCDC”) on April 1, 2019. 2. Defendant Alan Norman is the elected Sheriff of Cleveland County, charged by statute with control and operation of the county jail known as the Cleveland County Detention Center where Dunn was killed. He had a non-delegable legal duty to operate the county jail safely, including the specific responsibility under G.8. § 153-224, to provide continuous custodial supervision of detainees in order “to be at all times informed of the prisoners’ general health and emergency medical needs.” He is sued in his official capacity under G.S. § $8-76-5 and G.S. § 153A-435 and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the final policymaker for policies and practices at the jail that proximately caused the death of Plaintiff's son. Those practices, taken under color of law, were objectively unreasonable and violated the Decedent's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.3. GS. § 153A-224 is designed to protect persons held in custody by imposing an affirmative duty upon Sheriff Norman to provide for continuous custodial supervision of all persons in custody in the jail and “be at all times informed of the prisoners’ general health and ‘emergency medical needs.” A violation of this statutory duty to keep each prisoner “protected” is a misdemeanor and creates an exception to, and precludes application of, governmental immunity from claims of injury resulting from the breach of that duty. 4. Further, on information and belief, Sheriff Norman, through Cleveland County, had, at the time of Dunn’s death, waived governmental or sovereign immunity from the state law tort claims in this case pursuant to G.S. § 153-435, either by participating in a government risk pool or through purchasing commercial insurance that will indemnify him and his agents for any judgment against him or his agents named in this action. 5. Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is sued as the Sheriff's surety under G.S. § 58-76-5. On information and belief, it has issued the statutorily mandated surety bond to cover any injury caused by the neglect or malfeasance of the Sheriff or of those he employs. Sheriff Norman is obligated under state law to obtain and maintain said surety bond. and by doing so, waives sovereign or governmental immunity as to the claims in this matter, at least to the extent of the bond. 6. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants Acuff, McCraw, Yarger, Dye, Marcial, Palmer and Dendy, were citizens and residents of Cleveland County and were employed by Sheriff Norman to work in the jail, the Cleveland County Detention Center (*CCDC”), either as swom deputies or as state-certified detention officers; and all were on duty at the CCDC on the night of March 31, 2019 and/or the morning of April 1, 2019 and failed to protect Plaintifi’s decedent from injury and death. 7. They are sued in their official capacities under the surety bond, under the indemnity coverage provided by the risk pool or commercial insurance, and under G.S. § 153A- 224, all of which waive or defeat any claim to government immunity or its derivative public officer immunity from the claims against them in their official capacities. 8. They are also sued in their individual capacities for violations of state and federal law. To the extent these Defendants assert public officer immunity from the state law claims against them in their individual capacities, each acted outside the scope of their authority and with malice and willful and wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff's decedent, piercing any claim to public officer immunity. 9, They are also sued individually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable actions taken under color of state in failing to supervise and protect Dunn and thereby violated the Fourteenth Amendment and proximately caused his death. JURISDICTI10. The Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Const, Art. IV, § 12(3) and N.C.GS. §7A-240 and §7A-243, as well as jurisdiction of the federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. EAcTS 11, Jeffery Dunn was arrested on March 21, 2019 after a domestic dispute with his mother, Frieda Winters, the Plaintiff, and was taken into custody at the CCDC. 12, _ On March 22, 2019, K. Austin, a nurse at the CCDC, completed a medical screening on Dunn and determined that he was a suicide risk and intoxicated. 13. Dunn was then released from CCDC custody and ordered by a magistrate to stay away from Ms. Winters. 14, Dunn was arrested on March 30, 2019 for disorderly conduct in Cherokee County, South Carolina and released the next morning. 15. On information and belief, Dunn called EMS from outside the jail and expressed that he was overwhelmed mentally and needed medical help. 16. _ EMS transported him to the Gaffney Medical Center where he was assessed and provided medications. 17. A staffer then called Plaintiff and told her Dunn was in the emergency room and asked if she would come pick him up. 18. Plaintiff went to Gaffney and picked Dunn, On their way back to North Carolina, he became paranoid and aggressive in the vehicle, stating that people were after him and breaking the glove box by hitting it 19, _ When they got to Winters’ home, he continued to display paranoia, pacing from window to window and stating that people were trying to kill him. 20. Plaintiff became concemed and went to her neighbor and described Dunn's behavior. The neighbor could see Dunn in the yard, swinging and cursing at imaginary enemies. 21. The neighbor called the Cleveland County Sheriff's Office and deputies came to Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff told the deputies she just wanted Dunn to leave. 22. The deputies first told Dunn to leave on his own, get someone to pick him up or they would to take him to the South Carolina line and leave him there. Otherwise, they would arrest him for trespass. 23. The Deputies then leamed that there was a restraining order in their computer system and arrested Dunn on a charge of violating the restraining order and drove him to theCCDC, arriving close to 5:30 p.m. 24. — Atthe CCDC, Defendant Wayne McCraw, a corporal in the sheriffs department, was the booking officer and shift supervisor. He placed Dunn in holding cell 3 to keep him separate from other detainees while he was processed. 25. _ MeCraw and Defendant David Acuff, also a corporal but a detention officer rather than a sworn deputy, were the day and night shift supervisors; McCraw on the day of March 31, 2019 and Acutff that evening and into the moming of April 1, 2019. 26. MeCraw and Acuff were responsible for setting supervision levels for detainees. 27. __ Acuff later claimed that he had booked Dunn in the past for violent offenses claimed that Dunn was often high on drugs. 28. Though recently documented by a jail nurse as a suicide risk, with a reported history of violent behavior known to the officers, and though the Plaintiff's neighbor had called because of his paranoid behavior, McCraw did not classify Dunn as a “special” watch detainee ‘who would be monitored four times every hour under NCAC 14J.0601(c), the state regulation that governs supervision of persons in custody in local or county confinement facilities like the cepe. 29. Instead, at 18:09, McCraw moved Dunn into cell D-108 with an inmate named Matthew Boheler. 30. The window of cell D-108 had been shattered for months, the spiderweb of cracks causing the glass to turn opaque, obstructing any view into or out of the cell. Officers could only observe persons in the cell by opening the door. 31. Later that same evening, at approximately 12 a.m., a Shelby Police Officer, Caleb Scott Weaver, approached Kenneth Darby in a parking lot in Shelby, North Carolina, as he was acting strangely and reportedly moving erratically. 32. Weaver reported that Darby consented to a search and Weaver found a syringe in his pocket that tested positive for fentanyl. 33. Weaver placed Darby under arrest at 12:26 am. 34. Darby reportedly told Weaver that he had snorted three lines of “meth.” 35. Weaver later told SBI investigators that he had only seen one other person in his, police career as “jacked” on methamphetamine as Darby was when he arrested him. 36. Weaver transported Darby to the CCDC at approximately 1 a.m. 37. Defendant Acuff processed and booked Darby on charges of possession of aSchedule II controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. 38. Conporal Richard Palmer, a sworn CCSO officer, assisted Acuff in booking Darby. 39. Acuff wrote that Darby was approximately 6°2 inches tall and weighed approximately 200 pounds, was babbling and visibly intoxicated with magnified pupils. 40. Palmer reported that Darby was extremely hostile, flexing his muscles and balling-up his fists, and that he exhibited rapid mood swings of erying and raging in anger. 41. Reportedly Darby refused to be strip searched until Palmer pointed a taser at him to foree him to comply. 42. Palmer later denied tasing Darby, but a taser barb was found in Darby’s hair the next morning. 43. Acuff and Palmer then strip-searched Darby and found methamphetamine hidden in his anal cavity and took possession of it. 44. After completing the intake and booking process, Acuff kept Darby in holding cell 3, reportedly to keep him separate from other inmates because of his agitated condition. 45. Darby should have been placed on a “special” watch and monitored four times every hour under NCAC 14J.0601(c) given his crazed behavior and obvious drug impairment, but Acuff did not classify Darby as a special watch detainee. 46. Later that shift, at approximately 3 a.m., Defendant Jasmine Dye received a radio call that the two inmates in cell D108 - Dunn and Boheler - were having a conflict. 47. Deputy Dye, along with Corporal Acuff and Officers Hill and James, went to D- 108 and, unable to see through the window, opened the cell door. 48. Dye later reported that Boheler appeared to be having a panic attack. He was crying and stated that Dunn had been screaming at him, threatening to kill him and claiming Dunn was high on something. 49. Acuff also reported that Boheler was in tears and Dunn’s face was red and he looked angry. 50, Acuff, Dye, Hill and James moved Boheler to cell D-113 and Dye wrote an incident report about removing Boheler from D-108. 51. Acuff, Dye, Hill and James, saw Dunn was visibly angry, and knew he had been screaming at and threatening to kill Boheler; and Dye and Acuff noted Dunn’s behavior inwritten reports they prepared. 52. Boheler told his new cellmate, Jermaine Hunter, that he had pleaded to be moved out of D-108 because Dunn was crazy. 53. Though Acuff would later report that he knew Dunn’s history of violence and drug abuse from booking him on prior occasions, he still did not classify him for special observation. 54. Instead, at 4:40 a.m., either cynically or at least heedlessly, Acuff decided to put his two troubled, unstable and violent detainees together. He reported over the radio that he was moving Darby into D-108. 55. Palmer heard Acuff’s radio message that he was placing Darby in cell D-108 with Dunn. 56. Acuff reported that Darby was still jumpy and unsettled when he moved Darby into D-108. 57. When Acuff opened the cell door, Dunn angrily blocked Darby from entering. 58. Inrresponse, Darby angrily refused to enter the cell. 59. Acuff had to force Darby into the cell against Dunn and Darby’s angry resistance. 60. Inmate Mark Steven Sparks, who was in cell D-107, reported that Darby, after being locked in D-108, yelled words like, “Get me out of this cell or I will kill this motherfucker.” 61. Acuff just walked away. 62. Acuff and his team then ignored Dunn and Darby’s fighting and screaming and barely monitored at all. 63. They could not visually observe the men, a requirement of state law and regulation and all custodial standards, through the shattered widow and there is only one record of the door being opened over the next three hours. 64, Darby later stated that he and Dunn engaged in four or five different physical altercations in D-108. 65. Darby repeatedly hit the intercom button asking to be removed from the cell, including statements that he would kill Dunn, but got no response. 66. Defendant Dendy was in the control room and later confirmed that he heard the multiple calls on the intercom from D-108 asking for help that included threats to “kill”, but thathe did not respond to them. 67. Atapproximately 6:30 a.m. officers Jasmine Dye and Roberto Marcial completed a detainee “count” before the end of the night shift, going cell to cell and checking off each detainee who was present. 68. Because they could not see into cell D-108, Marcial and Dye unlocked the cell door to verify visually that Dunn and Darby were in the cell. 69. This check of D-108 was the only one recorded for the 6:00 to 7:00 a.m. hour; and appears to be the only time the door was opened for visual observation of the detainees in D-108 between 4:40 a.m. until 8 a.m. 70. Marcial placed his foot in the door as he opened it, and Darby immediately attempted to force his way out, 71. — Marcial and Dye were able to block Darby in the cell and keep him from coming out. 72. Darby started yelling incoherently and threatened to fight the officers. 73. Then Dunn also started yelling at Dye and Marcial to get Darby out of the cell. 74. Dye and Marcial reported the tense situation to Defendant Dendy in the control room. He did nothing. 75. Despite this incident, Acuff and Palmer knew of this situation and failed again to classify Dunn or Darby as special watch detainees or separate them. 76. And after Dye and Marcial relocked the door to D-108 and walked away, the surrounding inmates heard Dunn and Darby start fighting. 77. Inmate David Hopper, in cell D-109, heard banging in cell D-108 and someone sereaming for help. 78. —_ Inmate Lewis Ross in cell D-119 heard someone yelling “move me out of this, motherfucker.” 79. Inmate Jermaine Hunter heard someone yell “I’m gonna whip your ass.” 80. Inmate Kyaris Parks heard someone scream for help. 81. Inmate Joshua Lee Skates, in cell D-104, heard someone in D-108 yell “help get him off me.”82. Skates hit the intercom to ask for officers to come to D-108 and intervene, but Dendy would not respond and no officers came. 83. Ataround 7 a.m., Defendant Kaylee Yarger conducted the required check of inmates in D-pod. 84. Yarger later report that she could not see into D-108 due to the condition of the window. Because she was making rounds by herself, she did not open the door to the cell. Thus, she did not visually check on Dunn or Darby as required by state regulation and custodial standards. 85. Noone visually checked on Dunn or Darby until approximately 8 a.m. when the inmates in D-pod scheduled to appear in court were taken out of their cells. Dunn and Darby both were scheduled for first appearances. 86. Officer Jeffrey Willis opened and entered D-108 and found Dunn unresponsive, covered head to toe in blood, and saw more blood was splattered on the wall. 87. Someone called EMS and paramedics arrived around 8:30 a.m. and pronounced ‘Dunn dead at the CCDC at 8:45. 88. Darby, shortly after murdering Dunn, agreed to a videotaped interview. 89. _Asnoted, Darby stated in the interview that he and Dunn had four or five different altercations in D-108 before he killed him. 90. As noted, Darby stated that he repeatedly hit the intercom button asking to get out of the cell but got no response. 91. Darby confessed in the video interview to hitting Dunn multiple times in the back of the head and then choking Dunn until he stopped breathing. 92, Darby also stated that he had been using meth for three or four days straight when he was arrested. 93. An inmate death investigation by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services found compliance violations, including the fact that the window in the door to D-108 was so damaged that officers could not see into the cell during rounds. 94. The investigation also found that only one supervision round occurred between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. on April 1, 2019 in violation of NCAC 141.601 rules on supervision, as well as CCDC Policy. 95, NCAC 143.601 requires officers make supervision rounds and directly observe each inmate in person at least twice per hour, and four times per hour for special watch detainees.96. The CCDC Manual for Policy and Procedure Regarding Classification and Supervision of Inmates requires officers to directly observe each inmate at least twice per hour and four times per hour for “special” detainees. 97. Again, it appears from the SBI file that the Defendants only made one direct, visual observation of Dunn and Darby between 4:40 a.m. and 8:00 am. 98. On April 4, 2019, the broken window in Cell D-108 was replaced. EIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Death — N.C.G.S, 1534-224 99. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 100. _G.S. § 153A-224 is a safety statute expressly enacted to protect a detainee like Dunn whose liberty has been restricted and is held in a local confinement facility 101. The CCDC isa local confinement facility for purposes of G.S. § 153A-224. 102. Acuff, McCraw, Palmer, Dye, Marcial, Yarger, and Dendy, all acting for the Sheriff, owed a statutory duty to Dunn to supervise and keep him in safe custody while confined in the jail. 103. Defendants breached their statutory duty by actions and omissions that included: (1) MeCraw placed Dunn with another inmate in a cell with an obstructed, damaged window that prevented visual observation of detainees in the cell; (2) MeCraw and Acuff failed to classify Dunn as a special watch detainee despite his violent, angry, threatening and impaired conduct ‘that required the removal of Boheler from the cell with Dunn; (3) Acuff and Palmer failed to classify Darby as special watch detainee, knowing he was violent, unstable and visibly impaired on fentanyl and methamphetamine (which they found on him in a strip search); (4) Acuff, with Palmer's knowledge, then placed Darby in the view-obstructed cell D-108 with Dunn, knowing both were violent and unstable and still impaired, but made no adjustment to observing them; (4) Acuff, Palmer, Yarger, Dye, and Marcial failed to directly observe Dunn and Darby even twice per hour in D-108, let alone four times per hour required for special watch detainees; in fact, there appears to have been only one direct visual observation between 4:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.; (8) Dendy failed to respond to repeated intercom calls from D-108 and from at least one other inmate that the situation in the cell was dangerously violent; (6) Acuff, Yarger, Dye, Marcial and Dendy failed to intervene after the struggle and screaming at the 6:30 cell check, and in the period right after it when decedent was screaming for help and had audible struggles with Darby ‘hat others heard and at least one inmate called to Dendy for help. 104, Each of these acts and omissions violated the affirmative statutory duty under N.C.GS. § 153A-224 to keep Dunn safe. They also violated state regulations and written jail policy on direct observation of inmates.105. ‘These breaches of the affirmative duty imposed by a safety statute constituted negligence per se. 106, These breaches of the statutory duty imposed by N.C.G.S. § 1534-224 also precludes application of governmental immunity. Thus, each Defendant is liable in his or her official capacity for the wrongful death of Dunn. 107. The Sheriff's duty to operate the county jail in a safe manner is non-delegable under N.C.G.S. § 162-24. Thus, Sheriff Norman is liable as respondeat superior for the actions of Acuff, McCraw, Yarger, Dye, Marcial and Palmer, that led to Dunn’s death. 108. Further, Acuff, McCraw, Yarger, Dye, Marcial, Palmer and Dendy are liable individually for wrongful death, as the breach of duty took them outside the scope of their authority and showed malice and willful and wanton disregard for the rights and safekeeping of Dunn. Acuff intentionally placed the violent and intoxicated Darby into the cell with an already combative Dunn, in a cell with an obstructed window, over the objections of both violent detainees and without any plan to monitor the dangerous situation Acuff created; Marcial and Dye personally witnessed the dangerous condition at 6:30 a.am. and walked away; Yarger failed in her basic duty to visually observe the detainees and walked away rather than get assistance to check on them; and Dendy willfully ignored repeated calls to the control room from Darby and from another inmate about the violence that caused the death. The willful and intentional breach of their statutory duty to keep Dunn safe pierces any claim to public officer immunity individually. 109. _ Plaintiff, in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate, is entitled to recover from Defendants all damages for wrongful death allowed by N.C.GS., § 28A-18-2(b), including damages for the pain and suffering he experienced while being beaten to death in his cell. 110, Plaintiff also seeks and is entitled under Chapter 1D to punitive damages against the Defendants in their official and individual capacities. Their actions that showed actual malice toward Dunn and willful and wanton disregard of his rights and safety and gross neglect, of their duties. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTI Fourteenth Amendment 111. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 112. _ All actions and omissions complained of herein were taken by persons acting under color of state law that violated the federal constitution and are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 113, The federal rights of pretrial detainees and the conduct of the detention officials towards them are governed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants’ actions must meet a standard of objective reasonableness. 10114. The actions of Defendants that were objectively unreasonable and caused Dunn’s death include the facts that: Their actions and omissions include: (1) McCraw placed Dunn with another inmate in a cell with an obstructed, damaged window that prevented visual observation of detainees in the cell; (2) McCraw and Acuff failed to classify Dunn as a special watch detainee despite his violent, angry, threatening and impaired conduct that required the removal of Boheler from the cell with Dunn; (3) Acuff and Palmer failed to classify Darby as special watch detainee, knowing he was violent, unstable and visibly impaired on fentanyl and methamphetamine (which they found on him in a strip search); (4) Acuff, with Palmer’s knowledge, then placed Darby in the view-obstructed cell D-108 with Dunn, knowing both were violent and unstable and still impaired, but made no adjustment to observing them; (4) Acuff, Palmer, Yarger, Dye, and Marcial failed to directly observe Dunn and Darby even twice per hour in D-108, let alone four times per hour required for special watch detainees; in fact, there appears to have been only one direct visual observation between 4:40 am. and 8:00 a.m.; (5) Dendy failed to respond to repeated intercom calls from D-108 and from at least one other inmate that the situation in the cell was dangerously violent; (6) Acuff, Yarger, Dye, Marcial and Dendy failed to intervene after the struggle and screaming at the 6:30 cell check, and in the period right afier it when decedent was screaming for help and had audible struggles with Darby that others heard and at least one inmate called to Dendy for help. 115, Each of these acts and omissions were objectively unreasonable and violated the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights of Dunn. 116. _ Inthe alternative, Defendants’ conduct described above also rose to the level of deliberate indifference. 117. Further, in addition to violating the objective reasonableness standard, the actions of these Defendants toward Dunn while in their custody were so outrageous as to shock the community conscience and thus violate Dunn's right to substantive due process. 118. _ Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, Dunn was killed and his Estate sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. 119, _ Plaintiff sues Acuff, McCraw, Yarger, Dye, Marcial, Palmer and Dendy individually for compensatory damages and for punitive damages for these violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. 120. Plaintiff also sues Sheriff Norman officially for the violation of Dunn’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. On information and belief, the failure of detention officers to check cells at least twice per hour and the failure to separate inmates who are known to be violent and intoxicated, were practices at the jail known to and accepted by Sheriff Norman. Further, the damaged, obstructed window had been in place for months, and reflected a policy or practice of indifference to safety condoned by Sheriff Norman that was a proximate cause of Dunn’s death. 121, Asa matter of state law, Sheriff Norman is the final policymaker with regards to the operation of the jail and thus is liable in his official capacity. i‘THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF ‘Action under the Bond 122. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference 123, The actions of Defendants Acuff, McCraw, Yarger, Dye, Marcial, Palmer and Dendy, constituted neglect and malfeasance in the course of their employment with and under the auspices of the office of the Sheriff, including the breach of the affirmative statutory duty to protect Dunn. As a proximate result, decedent suffered intense mental and physical injuries and pain and lost his life. 124. Plaintiff brings this action on the Sheriff's bond pursuant to N.C.G.S. 58-76-5 125, Plaintiff, in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate, is entitled to recover on the bond all damages for wrongful death allowed by N.C.G.S., § 28A-18-2(b). She may sue repeatedly on the bond until the full judgment is paid. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF N.C. GEN. STAT. § 162-50 126. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference 127, The actions and omissions of Defendants, imputed to Sheriff Norman under the principle of respondeat superior, constituted a willful failure or neglect to perform duties imposed ‘upon them, entitling Plaintiff to a penalty of five hundred ($500.00) dollars under N.C. Gen. Stat § 162-50, in addition to all other remedies sought herein. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIER N.C. GEN. STAT. § 162-55 128, _All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference 129. The actions and omissions complained of that proximately caused Dunn's injury and death exhibited such a thoughtless disregard of the consequences, and such a heedless indifference to Dunn’s rights and safety, that it subjects the defendants to treble damages under N.C.GS. § 162-55, in both their official and individual capacities. JURY DEMAND, 130. Plaintiff requests that all issues be tried before a jury of her peers. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 12WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, as Administrator of the Estate, upon the trial of this matter before a jury, prays that the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff and order relief as follows: 1. Judgment against Defendants for all wrongful death damages recoverable under N.C.GS. § 28A-18-2(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2. Judgment against Defendants for punitive damages under G.S. § 28A-18-2(b)(5) to extent allowed under Chapter ID; 3. Judgment against Defendants Acuff, McCraw, Yarger, Dye, Marcial, Palmer and Dendy under N.C.G.S. § 162-55 for treble damages; 4. That Defendants pay Plaintiff's costs as allowed under North Carolina law, and 42 U.S.C § 1988, including reasonable attomeys’ fees; and, 5. That the Court grant any other and further relief it deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, this 29" day of January, 2021. Oba bogge ns 5. Luke Largess (N.C-Bar #17486) ‘TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Tel: 704-338-1220 Fax: 704-338-1312 = pues Abraham Rubert-Schewel (N.C. Bar # 56863) TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 119 B. Main Street Durham, NC 27701 Tel: 919-451-9216 Attorneys for Plaintiff B