Lymond Moses Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Case 1:21-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LAKEISHA AFIAH NIX, as Personal : COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Representative of The Estate of Lymond Maurice :
Moses : Civil Action No.:
:
Plaintiff, :
: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
VS :
:
:
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, a municipality of the :
State of Delaware, :
:
NEW CASTLE COUNTY :
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, :
a department of New Castle County, :
:
NEW CASTLE COUNTY POLICE :
DEPARTMENT, a division of the New Castle :
County Department of Public Safety, :
:
OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, in his individual :
capacity and in his official capacity as an :
employee and officer of the New Castle County :
Police Department, :
:
:
:
:

:
Defendants. :
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW Plaintiff Lakeisha Afiah Nix, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Lymond Maurice Moses (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, for their causes of action
against Defendants New Castle County, New Castle Department of Public Safety, New Castle
County Police Department, Defendant Officer John Doe 1, Defendant Officer John Doe 2, and
Defendant Officer John Doe 3 (collectively “Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3”) for violating rights
under the United States Constitution, complains and alleges as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil rights action for the tragic and senseless death of Lymond Maurice Moses
(“Mr. Moses”) who was unlawfully shot and killed by New Castle County Police on
January 13, 2021, shortly after 1:00 a.m., near the area of 24th Street and Rosemont
Avenue in Wilmington, Delaware.
2. This cause of action is for monetary damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to
redress the deprivation under color of state law of Mr. Moses’ clearly established rights as
secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
against (1) Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3, for their respective violations of Mr. Moses’
right to be free from the use of excessive force; and (2) Defendants New Castle County,
2
New Castle Department of Public Safety, and (3) New Castle County Police Department
for its unconstitutional policies, customs and/or practices under Monell and its progeny.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over federal questions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337,
1343, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.
4. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because all incidents, events, and
occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the District of Delaware. Moreover, upon
information and belief, all of the parties reside in this Judicial District.
III. THE PARTIES
5. At all times relevant hereto and until the time of his death on January 13, 2021, Mr. Moses
was a citizen of the United States and resided in Bear, Delaware, New Castle County, State
of Delaware.
6. Lakeisha Afiah Nix (“Plaintiff”) resides in Newark, Delaware and was appointed as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Lymond Maurice Moses on January 30, 2021 (A
true and correct copy of the Letters of Administration appointing Plaintiff as Personal
Representative is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”).
7. Mr. Moses is survived by his next of kin including his children and siblings.
8. Defendant New Castle County is a municipality duly organized, existing and operating
under and pursuant to the applicable laws of the State of Delaware and is and was at all
times material hereto a political subdivision of Delaware.
9. Defendant New Castle County Department of Public Safety is a Department of New Castle
County, Delaware.
3
10. Defendant New Castle County Police Department is a division of the Department of Public
Safety of New Castle County, Delaware.
11. Defendant Officer John Doe 1 (“Officer 1”) is a police officer employed by the Defendants
New Castle County, Delaware Department of Public Safety, and/or the New Castle County
Delaware Police Department on or about January 13, 2021 and was acting both individually
and under color of law as an agent or employee.
12. Defendant Officer John Doe 2 (“Officer 2”) is a police officer employed by the Defendants
New Castle County, Delaware Department of Public Safety, and/or the New Castle County,
Delaware Police Department on or about January 13, 2021 and was acting both individually
and under color of law as an agent or employee.
13. Defendant Officer John Doe 3 (“Officer 3”) is a police officer employed by Defendant
New Castle County, Delaware Department of Public Safety, and/or Defendant New Castle
County, Delaware Police Department on or about January 13, 2021 and was acting both
individually and under color of law as an agent or employee.
14. Defendants New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and Defendant New Castle
County Police Department at all relevant times were the employers of Officer 1, Officer 2,
and Officer 3. It has, and all times material hereto had responsibility for hiring, training,
supervising, disciplining, and retaining of police officers employed by the New Castle
County, Delaware Police Department, including Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.
4
IV. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE ACTION
A. Lymond Moses’ Death
15. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Mr. Moses left his mother’s apartment at 24th Street and
Rosemont Avenue in Wilmington, Delaware to drive back to his home in Bear, Delaware.
16. Mr. Moses got into his legally rented vehicle around 11:00 p.m. and decided to briefly rest
before he began his approximate 30-minute commute home.
17. At the aforementioned date and time, Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 were operating out of
their jurisdiction of New Castle County and were within the city limits of Wilmington,
Delaware, specifically in the Riverside neighborhood of Wilmington, Delaware, allegedly
looking for stolen vehicles.
18. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 came across Mr. Moses’ vehicle as he was resting in his
vehicle.
19. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 despite their alleged purpose of only looking for stolen
vehicles, knew that Mr. Moses’ vehicle was not stolen.
20. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3, despite their knowledge that Mr. Moses’ vehicle was not
stolen, approached Mr. Moses’ Vehicle.
21. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 woke up Mr. Moses in a sudden and startling manner.
22. Defendant Officer 1, without probable cause, broke the plane of Mr. Moses’ vehicle by
turning off the start/stop engine with his ASP baton, in violation of Mr. Moses’ 4th
amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
5
23. Defendant Officers 1 and 2, without probable cause and in violation of Mr. Moses’ 4th
amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, opened the driver and passenger
side doors of Mr. Moses’ vehicle.
24. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 told Mr. Moses that they were looking for stolen vehicles.
25. Mr. Moses informed Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 that the vehicle he was in was not
stolen.
26. Mr. Moses further informed Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 that his mother lived right there
in direct view of vehicle.
27. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 flashed their flashlights in Mr. Moses’ face and vehicle, and
then observed a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle.
28. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 stated to Mr. Moses that they did not care about the
marijuana.
29. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3, without explanation or advising Mr. Moses that he was
under arrest, demanded that Mr. Moses exit his vehicle.
30. Mr. Moses then turned back on the stop/start engine button in his car.
31. Mr. Moses shifted his vehicle from park to drive into gear and drove away from the
Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.
32. Defendant Officer 2 called Mr. Moses, a “motherfucker” after Mr. Moses drove away.
33. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 knew that Mr. Moses was driving in the direction of a street
that ended in a dead-end approximately 250 feet from where Mr. Moses was parked.
6
34. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 ran to their respective patrol vehicles and chased after Mr.
Moses in said vehicles.
35. Mr. Moses made a U-turn at the dead-end street.
36. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 positioned their vehicle in a manner to attempt to prevent
Mr. Moses from having an exit path after he made his U-turn.
37. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and/or 3 placed a large barrel in the middle of the street to prevent
Mr. Moses having an exit path after he made his U-turn.
38. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 exited their vehicles and immediately pointed their guns at
Mr. Moses.
39. Defendant Officer 1 shouted “stop the fucking car” at Mr. Moses as Mr. Moses was backing
his vehicle up after executing his U-turn.
40. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 shouted at Mr. Moses “Don’t do it” presumably meaning
not to drive away.
41. Mr. Moses steered his vehicle forward, angling the vehicle away from the officers, towards
the opposite side of the street from where the Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 were located.
42. Defendant Officers 1 and 2, without uttering any warnings, deliberately shot 9 times at Mr.
Moses’ vehicle.
43. Defendant Officer 3, despite pointing his gun at Mr. Moses’ vehicle, did not fire any rounds
into Mr. Moses’ vehicle.
44. Defendant Officer 1 and Defendant Officer 2 shot at Mr. Moses’ vehicle despite not being
in imminent danger from Mr. Moses’ vehicle.
7
45. Defendant Officer 1 fired four rounds into the front windshield of Mr. Moses’ vehicle.
46. Defendant Officer 1 then fired one round into the driver’s side window of Mr. Moses’
vehicle.
47. Defendant Officer 1’s round went through the driver side window of Mr. Moses’ vehicle,
entered into the left side of Mr. Moses’ head, and existed through the right side of his head.
48. Defendant Officer 1’s round through Mr. Moses head likely resulted in the death of Mr.
Moses.
49. Defendant Officers 1 and 2 shot several shots into the driver’s front windshield and the
back window of Mr. Moses’ vehicle after the point in time when his vehicle was clearly
past the physical location of the officers, and when Mr. Moses’ vehicle clearly posed no
threat to their safety or to the safety of others.
50. Mr. Moses was unarmed during his encounter with Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.
51. New Castle County Police Department, after the shooting death of Mr. Moses’ issued a
false press release that Mr. Moses “drove at a high rate of speed directly at the officers” (A
true and correct copy of the New Castle County Police Press Release published on January
13, 2021 is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”).
52. New Castle County Police Department has refused to release any of the names of
Defendant Officers 1, 2, and/or 3.
8
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Fourth Amendment Violations
Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3, Individually and in Their Official Capacities
53. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as though fully pleaded
herein.
54. The conduct by the officers identified in this count and described herein constituted
excessive and deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and clearly established law.
55. At all material times, Defendants Officers 1, 2, and 3 were each acting under color of state
law, as agents of New Castle County, and within the scope of their employment and
authority as duly certified law enforcement officers of New Castle County.
56. At all material times, Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 had no reason to believe that Mr.
Moses was armed or dangerous.
57. At all material times, Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 did not have a reasonable fear of
imminent bodily harm when they shot at Mr. Moses, nor did they have a reasonable belief
that any other person was in danger of imminent bodily danger from Mr. Moses.
58. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3’s use of deadly force in shooting Mr. Moses was objectively
unreasonable and violated clearly established law and was a violation of Mr. Moses’ rights
under the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments.
59. As a result of the Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3’s unjustified, excessive, illegal, and deadly
use of force, Mr. Moses experienced conscious pain and suffering.
9
60. None of the Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3 ever had a reasonable fear of imminent bodily
harm, nor did they have a reasonable belief that any other person was in danger of imminent
bodily danger from Mr. Moses at any point in time.
61. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions described herein, Mr. Moses
suffered compensatory and special damages as defined under federal common law and in
an amount to be determined by jury.
62. Defendants’ conduct violated, in a similar manner as described above, the rights guaranteed
to Mr. Moses by Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution.
63. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42
U.S.C. § 1988.
64. As a direct and proximate result of these wrongful acts and omissions, Mr. Moses next of
kin have suffered pecuniary loss, including medical and funeral expenses, loss of
consortium, aid, counsel, guidance, advice, assistance, protection, and support in an
amount to be determined by jury.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Monell Liability
Plaintiff v. New Castle County, New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and
New Castle County Police Department
65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as though fully
pleaded herein.
66. The New Castle County Executive, the New Castle County Council, and the Police Chief
had final policymaking authority regarding establishing written policies and training
programs governing the conduct of New Castle County officers performing policing
functions on behalf of New Castle County, Delaware.
10
67. The New Castle County Executive, the New Castle County Council, and the Police Chief
established and/or approved of MPD’s written policies and training governing the conduct
of New Castle County police officers performing policing functions.
68. The written policies and training established and/or approved by the New Castle County
Executive, the New Castle County Council, and the Police Chief constitute the official
policy of the New Castle County and were the moving force behind and the causation of
Plaintiff’s injuries.
69. New Castle County, acting by and through its policymakers, had knowledge of New Castle
County Police’s unconstitutional patterns and practices and knowledge that the same gave
rise to a risk of violations of citizens’ federal rights.
70. New Castle County, acting by and through its policymakers, made a deliberate and/or
conscious decision to disregard the known risk of harm that would result from New Castle
County Police’s unconstitutional patterns and practices and was deliberately indifferent to
and/or tacitly authorized the same.
71. On or prior to January 13, 2021, New Castle County, with deliberate indifference to the
rights of arrestees, detainees, and the like, tolerated, permitted, failed to correct, promoted,
or ratified a number of customs, patterns, or practices that condoned the use of excessive
force by New Castle County officers.
72. On or prior to January 13, 2021, New Castle County, with deliberate indifference to the
rights of arrestees, detainees, and the like, tolerated, permitted, failed to correct, promoted,
fostered or ratified a number of customs, patterns, or practices that condoned and required
officers to treat the members of the black Community of New Castle County differently,
11
including but not limited to, implementing deadly force at a higher rate against black men
who did not pose a threat to officers.
73. The unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs defined herein were the moving force
behind Mr. Moses’ death.
74. Mr. Moses died as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions by New Castle
County.
U.S.C. § 1988.
77. As a direct and proximate result of these wrongful acts and omissions, Mr. Moses’ next of
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Canton Liability
Plaintiff v. New Castle County, New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and New
Castle County Police Department
pleaded herein.
79. Defendant New Castle County failed to properly train or modify its training to Defendant
Officers 1, 2, and 3 and its other officers, including but not limited to, matters related to
12
the reasonable and appropriate use of force during such arrests, and intervention in the
excessive use of force by fellow officers.
80. Effectuating an arrest, using force to effectuate an arrest, and intervening in the use of
force is a usual and recurring situation with which New Castle County law enforcement
officers and other agents encounter on a regular basis.
81. As such, New Castle County was aware of a need for more and different training. New
Castle County specifically knew that its officers needed training regarding the use of prone
restraint and was required to provide its officers with such training.
82. New Castle County also specifically knew that its officers needed specific training on
excessive force and de-escalation practice.
83. New Castle County was aware that deprivation of the constitutional rights of citizens was
likely to result from its lack of training and the failure to modify its training.
84. As such, New Castle County was deliberately indifferent and exhibited reckless disregard
with respect to the potential violation of constitutional rights.
85. The failure to train and/or to appropriately modify training constituted official New Castle
County policies, practices, or customs.
86. New Castle County’s failure to train and/or to modify training was behind the acts and
omissions the Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 made toward Mr. Moses.
87. As a direct and proximate result of New Castle County’s acts and omissions, Mr. Moses
suffered injuries, experienced pain and suffering, and ultimately died.
13
U.S.C. § 1988.
90. As a direct and proximate result of these wrongful acts and omissions, Mr. Moses’ next of
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Excessive Force (Shooting and Killing)
Plaintiff v. All Defendants
pleaded herein.
92. In violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the actions of Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 violated Mr.
Moses’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable seizures as guaranteed to him by
the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution that occurred when
he was shot 9 times causing him to suffer fatal wounds.
93. The shooting of Mr. Moses at the hands of Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 were objectively
unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances.
94. For example, (1) all other reasonable means of apprehension had not been exhausted, (2)
the failure to use deadly force did not create a substantial risk that the person to be arrested
14
would cause death or serious physical injury to others if the apprehension was delayed, (3)
neither was the use of deadly force necessary to prevent the commission of a crime, because
neither precondition had been met in that innocent civilians would not have been
endangered and there was no substantial danger that death or serious physical injury would
be caused to another person if any crime was not prevented by the use of deadly force.
95. Moreover, the use of deadly force was directly contrary to the continuum of force as set
forth in New Castle County Use of Force Directives.
96. Mr. Moses’ unreasonable seizure was the rule of New Castle County’s failure to properly
train its officers on de-escalation techniques and dealing with persons who are disabled and
cognitively impaired, the appropriate tactical response to similar situations, choice of non-
lethal means, and the use of deadly force. Arming officers with both non-lethal and lethal
weapons, while simultaneously failing to properly train them on their use and effects
demonstrates a deliberate indifference on behalf of New Castle County, New Castle County
Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police as to the constitutional
violations that could, and in fact did, occur when Mr. Moses was killed through the use of
excessive force.
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Fourth Amendment Violations
Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3
pleaded herein.
15
98. Defendants use of excessive and unjustified force resulted in Defendants’ intentional
infliction of bodily harm against Mr. Moses without his consent violating his right to be
free from assault and battery under the common law of the State of Delaware.
99. Defendants conduct exhibited wanton negligence and willful and malicious intent.
100. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 were agents, servants and employees of New Castle
County, New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police,
and operated within their scope of their employment.
101. Under the principles of respondent superior and/or vicarious liability, New Castle County,
New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police are
responsible for the assault and battery by Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.
COUNT VI
Excessive Force in violation of Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution
pleaded herein.
103. Defendants’ conduct violated, in a similar manner as described above, the rights
guaranteed to Mr. Moses by Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution.
COUNT VII
Reckless/Wanton Conduct
Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers 1, 2 and 3
pleaded herein.
16
105. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 owed a duty of care to Mr. Moses under the circumstances
then exiting to act as reasonable officers and not use excessive force.
106. Defendants intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and recklessly breached their duty by
shooting Mr. Moses 9 times when such conduct was unjustified, as described above.
107. As a direct and proximate results of Defendants’ recklessness and intentional, willful,
wanton, and reckless acts, Mr. Moses was killed.
108. The actions of Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 were willful, wanton, or oppressive and
merit an award of punitive damages.
109. Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 were agents, servants, and employees of New Castle
County, New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police
when they acted recklessly causing the death of Mr. Moses.
110. Under the principles of respondent superior and/or vicarious liability, New Castle County,
New Castle County Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police are
responsible for the assault and battery by Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.
COUNT VIII
Survival and Wrongful Death Actions
pleaded herein.
112. As a direct and proximate resolve of the actions of the Defendants, Mr. Moses was forced
to endure great conscious pain, suffering, and other torment before his death.
17
113. The Estate of Lymond Moses is entitled to damages for the conscious pain and suffering,
torment, and other loses permitted under the Delaware Survival Statute. 10 Del. Code §
3701, et. seq.
114. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Mr. Moses’ surviving
mother and 3 minor children, suffered great mental anguish and incurred funeral expenses.
115. Mr. Moses’ mother and 3 minor children are entitled to compensatory damages under 10
Del. Code § 3724.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Court Order:
I. A monetary judgment against Defendants Officers for compensatory, special, and
punitive damages and punitive damages together with costs and disbursements,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and prejudgment interest.
II. A monetary judgment against Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3, New Castle County,
Department of Public Safety, New Castle County, and New Castle County Police
Department for compensatory and special damages in an amount to be determined
together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42
U.S.C. § 1988 and prejudgment interest.
III. A monetary judgment against Defendants New Castle County, Department of Public
Safety, New Castle County, and New Castle County Police Department for
compensatory and special damages in an amount to be determined together with costs.
IV. A declaratory judgment declaring the acts of the Defendants to be a violation of Mr.
Moses’ constitutional rights.
18
V. A judgment against Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3, New Castle County, New Castle
County Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police, jointly and
severally, for compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff.
VI. Separate judgements against Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3 for punitive damages.
VII. A judgement against Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3, New Castle County, New Castle
County Department of Public Safety, and New Castle County Police in favor of
Plaintiff for Mr. Moses’ conscious pain and suffering under the survival statute.
VIII. A judgment against Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3, for punitive damages in favor of
Plaintiff under the survival statute.
IX. Any such, other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
PLAINTIFF HEREBY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY A SIX PERSON JURY
THE IGWE FIRM

Renée J. Leverette (Bar No.: 6050)
renee@igwefirm.com
One Commerce Center
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 502
Wilmington, DE 19801
ph: 302-842-2470
fax: 302-440-3746
Attorney for Plaintiff
Appearance for Plaintiff pending pro hac vice application:
THE IGWE FIRM

Emeka Igwe, Esquire
emeka@igwefirm.com
Two Penn Center
1500 JFK BLVD., Suite 1900
Philadelphia, PA 19102
ph: 215-278-9898
fax: 215-893-3812
19

Lymond Moses Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lymond Moses Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LAKEISHA AFIAH NIX, as Personal : COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

OFFICER JOHN DOE 3, in his individual :

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

under the United States Constitution, complains and alleges as follows:

Avenue in Wilmington, Delaware.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1343, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.

III. THE PARTIES

Representative is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”).

times material hereto a political subdivision of Delaware.

Safety of New Castle County, Delaware.

and under color of law as an agent or employee.

and under color of law as an agent or employee.

individually and under color of law as an agent or employee.

County, Delaware Police Department, including Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.

IV. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE ACTION

A. Lymond Moses’ Death

before he began his approximate 30-minute commute home.

Delaware, specifically in the Riverside neighborhood of Wilmington, Delaware, allegedly

looking for stolen vehicles.

vehicles, knew that Mr. Moses’ vehicle was not stolen.

stolen, approached Mr. Moses’ Vehicle.

amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

side doors of Mr. Moses’ vehicle.

in direct view of vehicle.

then observed a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle.

under arrest, demanded that Mr. Moses exit his vehicle.

Defendant Officers 1, 2, and 3.

Moses in said vehicles.

35. Mr. Moses made a U-turn at the dead-end street.

Mr. Moses having an exit path after he made his U-turn.

his vehicle up after executing his U-turn.

not to drive away.

into Mr. Moses’ vehicle.

in imminent danger from Mr. Moses’ vehicle.

threat to their safety or to the safety of others.

13, 2021 is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”).

Defendant Officers 1, 2, and/or 3.

Constitution, and clearly established law.

authority as duly certified law enforcement officers of New Castle County.

Moses was armed or dangerous.

under the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments.

use of force, Mr. Moses experienced conscious pain and suffering.

bodily danger from Mr. Moses at any point in time.

an amount to be determined by jury.

to Mr. Moses by Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution.

consortium, aid, counsel, guidance, advice, assistance, protection, and support in an

amount to be determined by jury.

functions on behalf of New Castle County, Delaware.

of New Castle County police officers performing policing functions.

rise to a risk of violations of citizens’ federal rights.

and/or tacitly authorized the same.

force by New Castle County officers.

who did not pose a threat to officers.

behind Mr. Moses’ death.

an amount to be determined by jury.

consortium, aid, counsel, guidance, advice, assistance, protection, and support in an

amount to be determined by jury.

excessive use of force by fellow officers.

officers and other agents encounter on a regular basis.

excessive force and de-escalation practice.