Court Documents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
David J. Tipton, Jr.

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
) NO.
)
The City of Erwin, Tennessee, and )
Joshua Ollis, individually and in )
his official capacity, )
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Introduction
1. This civil action arises from the excessive use of force by Defendant Josh Ollis
(“Defendant Ollis”) when, acting under color of law and during the course and
scope of his employment with Defendant City of Erwin, Tennessee, he shot
Plaintiff in the face.
2. Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendants pursuant to the United States
Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
3. Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendants pursuant to the rights afforded him
by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated
through the Fourteenth Amendment, because (a) Plaintiff suffered a serious
Case 2:22-cv-00046-CLC-CRW Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1

injury; (b) that resulted directly from Defendant Ollis’s use of excessive force;
and (c) the excessiveness of the force used was unreasonable.
4. Plaintiff also alleges supplemental state law claims against Defendants.
The Parties, Jurisdiction & Venue
5. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Tennessee.
6. Defendant City of Erwin, Tennessee (“City of Erwin”) is a governmental entity
existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Tennessee.
7. Defendant City of Erwin is located in this judicial district.
8. Defendant Josh Ollis is an individual and citizen and resident of Unicoi County,
Tennessee. Defendant Ollis is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
9. At all times relevant to this matter, Defendant Ollis was a police officer with the
City of Erwin Police Department.
10.This civil action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly under
the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and under the laws of the United States, particularly under the Civil
Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983.
11. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court under the provisions of Title 28 of the
United States Code, Sections 1331, 1334 and 1367 (a).
12. Allegations of excessive force are examined under the Fourth Amendment's
prohibition on unreasonable seizures, applicable to the States and individual
2
acting in their official and individual capacity by the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution.
13. Venue is proper in this District as all parties reside in this District and the acts
giving rise to this civil action occurred in this District.
Facts
14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as
if set forth herein verbatim.
15. Defendant City of Erwin is a municipal governmental entity existing pursuant to
the laws of the State of Tennessee and is responsible for the development,
operation and supervision of policing powers.
16. At all times relevant to this civil action, Defendant City of Erwin was and is
responsible for setting policy, procedures and directives for the operation of its
police officers, including but not limited to Defendant Ollis, and to ensure that
policies, procedures and directives are established for the exercise of the police
duties.
17. At all times relevant to this civil action, Defendant City of Erwin further was and
is responsible for the development and implementation of policies and
procedures concerning the selection, evaluation, training and supervisions of its
police officers, including but not limited to Defendant Ollis.
3
18. At all times relevant to this civil action, Defendant City of Erwin had the duty to
develop and implement policies and procedures regarding when, under what
circumstances and in what manner a police officer is permitted to use force
against an individual, including the use of a handgun.
train its police officers regarding the policies and procedures regarding when,
under what circumstances and in what manner a police officer is permitted to use
force against an individual, including the use of a handgun.
supervise its police officers regarding when, under what circumstances and in
what manner a police officer is permitted to use force against an individual,
including the use of a handgun.
21. On or about April 30, 2021, and continuing through the present, Defendant Ollis
is a police officer for Defendant City of Erwin.
22. As a police officer for the City of Erwin, Defendant Ollis was and is charged
with the enforcement of the laws of the State of Tennessee in a fair and equitable
manner consistent with the rights afforded all individuals by the Constitution of
the United States of America.
23. At all times relevant to this civil action, Defendant Ollis was acting under color
of law and color of his authority as a police officer for Defendant City of Erwin.
4
24. At all times relevant to this civil action, Defendant City of Erwin should have
had established and enforced policies, procedures and/or guidelines concerning
the nature of the conduct and interaction any of its police officers may have with
any individual.
had established and enforced policies, procedures and/or guidelines concerning
the manner in which incidents are investigated; when individuals are to be taken
into custody and/or arrested; how stops of individuals are to be effectuated and
conducted and in what manner a police officer, such as Defendant Ollis, is
permitted to use force against an individual, including the use of a handgun.
had policies, procedures and or guidelines concerning the review and supervision
of the actions of its police officers to ensure that they were conforming to police
department policies, procedures and/or guidelines and were discharging their
duties in an appropriate and lawful manner that was consistent with the rights
afforded all individuals by the Constitution of the United States of America.
27. On April 30, 2021, at approximately 11:00 pm, Defendant City of Erwin
dispatched police officers to the area of 3rd Street in Erwin, Tennessee on a report
of a woman screaming.
5
28. Dispatch later informed the officers that the woman screaming may be in the
alleyway between 3rd and 4th Streets.
29. Upon arrival at the scene, City of Erwin police officers interacted with a woman
(“KFA”) who informed the officers Plaintiff had accused her of stealing.
30. KFA accused Plaintiff of yelling at her and putting his hands on her.
31. Neither Defendant Ollis nor any other member of Defendant City of Erwin’s
police department observed the alleged interaction between KFA and Plaintiff.
32. KFA’s description of the alleged interaction between herself and Plaintiff was,
at most, an alleged misdemeanor.
33. Shortly after the interaction with KFA, Defendant Ollis saw Plaintiff in his
vehicle on Gay Street and attempted to stop it.
34. Plaintiff did not stop and a vehicle pursuit ensued.
35. The vehicle pursuit ended at or near Daniels Road and Defendant Ollis continued
to pursue Plaintiff on foot.
36. When Defendant Ollis began his foot pursuit of Plaintiff, Defendant Ollis left
his flashlight in his police car and, instead, used his handgun as a flashlight,
pointing it directly at Plaintiff even though Plaintiff posed no immediate threat to
Defendant Ollis or the public.
37. While Defendant Ollis pursued Plaintiff on foot, Defendant Ollis kept his
handgun drawn and pointed at Plaintiff.
6
38. The foot pursuit ended when Plaintiff could no longer run. Defendant Ollis still
had his handgun drawn and pointed at Plaintiff.
39. At the end of the foot pursuit, Plaintiff fell to the ground – first to his knees and
then lying prone on his stomach. During this time, Defendant Ollis still had his
handgun drawn and pointed at Plaintiff.
40. As Plaintiff was lying prone on the ground, Defendant Ollis placed his handgun
on or within inches of the back of Plaintiff’s head.
41. While Plaintiff was lying prone on the ground and Defendant Ollis had his
handgun on or within inches of the back of Plaintiff’s head, Defendant Ollis
ordered Plaintiff to place his hands behind his (Plaintiff’s back).
42. As Plaintiff attempted to comply with Defendant Ollis’s commands, Defendant
Ollis shot Plaintiff in the face.
43.When Defendant Ollis initiated the traffic stop and vehicle pursuit, he had no
probable cause that Plaintiff had committed a felony.
44. When Defendant Ollis initiated the traffic stop and vehicle pursuit, he had not
observed Plaintiff commit any felony.
45. When Defendant Ollis drew his handgun and pointed it at Plaintiff, Plaintiff did
not pose an immediate threat to the safety of Defendant Ollis or others.
46. At the time that Defendant Ollis shot Plaintiff in the face, Plaintiff did not pose
an immediate threat to the safety of Defendant Ollis or others.
7
47. At the time that Defendant Ollis shot Plaintiff in the face, Defendant Ollis had
other officers for “back-up” only seconds away.
48. As a result of Defendant Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face, Plaintiff was
required to be hospitalized and undergo surgical procedures. He will require
additional medical treatment in the future.
49. As a result of Defendant Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face, Plaintiff lost his left
eye; his nose had to be rebuilt; and he is losing his vision in his right eye.
50. As a result of Defendant Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face, Plaintiff suffered the
following injuries:
a. Fracture of left side medial orbital wall;
b. Fracture of the base of skull;
c. Acute posthemorrhagic anemia;
d. Ocular laceration and rupture with prolapse and loss of left eye;
e. Fracture of left side orbital floor;
f. Fracture of nasal bones;
g. Laceration of the left eyelid and periocular area;
h. Conjunctival hemorrhage of the left eye;
i. Conjunctival edema of the left eye.
51. The nature and extent of the injuries to Plaintiff is necessary to evaluate the
degree of Fourth Amendment intrusion committed by Defendants.
8
52. Handguns fall into the category of lethal, deadly force.
53. All force by police officers, including Defendant Ollis, must be justified by the
need for the specific level of force employed.
54. An officer’s desire to resolve quickly a potentially dangerous situation is not the
type of governmental interest that, standing alone, justifies the use of force that
may cause serious injury.
55. Instead, the objective facts must demonstrate that the suspect poses an immediate
threat to the officer or a member of the public.
56. While the commission of a misdemeanor offense or offenses is not to be taken
lightly, it does not justify shooting an individual in the face when that individual
posed no or an insubstantial threat to the safety of the officers or others.
57. Defendant Ollis’s acts of drawing his handgun on Plaintiff and then shooting
Plaintiff in the face was not appropriate or reasonable in nature and constituted
an excessive use of force against Plaintiff in violation of the rights and
immunities granted to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
58. Defendant City of Erwin failed to establish and/or failed to enforce policies,
procedures and/or guidelines concerning the nature of the conduct and the
interaction any police officer has with any individuals in the discharge of their
duties.
9
59.Defendant City of Erwin failed to establish and/or failed to enforce policies,
procedures and/or guidelines concerning when individuals are to be taken into
custody and arrested.
procedures and/or guidelines concerning when and the method by which traffic
stops are to be effectuated and conducted.
procedures and/or guidelines concerning when foot pursuits are to be effectuated
and conducted.
procedures and/or guidelines concerning under what circumstances and in what
manner police officers, including but not limited to Defendant Ollis, are
permitted to use force against an individual, including but not limited to the use
of handguns.
63. Defendant City of Erwin failed to enforce policies, procedures and/or guidelines
which existed, or should have existed, concerning the training, review and
supervision of the actions of individual police officers, including but not limited
to Defendant Ollis, to ensure that they were conforming to established police
department policies, procedures and/or guidelines and that the police officers,
10
including but not limited to Defendant Ollis, were discharging their duties in an
appropriate and lawful manner.
64. Defendant City of Erwin had an unofficial practice or custom of using excessive
force and engaging in unlawful seizures in the manner in which Defendant Ollis
did in this case.
65. Defendant City of Erwin’s unofficial custom or practice was that its officers
would violate arrestees’ constitutional rights by using excessive force to detain
them in violation of the Fourth Amendment, including by engaging in unlawful
pursuits and unlawful use of their handguns.
66. The acts of Defendant City of Erwin, as alleged in this Complaint, were the direct
or proximate cause that allowed Defendant Ollis to use inappropriate or
unreasonable excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the rights and
immunities guaranteed Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution.
67. The acts of Defendant Ollis, as alleged, were the inappropriate and excessive use
of force against Plaintiff in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution.
Count One – Violation of the Fourth Amendment Rights
11
69. Defendants’ acts, as previously alleged, constituted violations of Plaintiff’s
rights, privileges, and immunities, as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution: the right to body integrity; the
right to be free from the use of excessive force; the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
70. The acts of Defendants, as previously alleged, were performed by Defendants
under color of law and authority and done with the purpose and intent of
depriving Plaintiff of the rights, immunities and privileges afforded him by the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
71. The acts of Defendants, as previously alleged, were done willfully, maliciously
and/or with callous disregard and reckless indifference to and disregard of the
rights, immunities and privileges guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Count Two – Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Rights
73. Defendants’ acts, as previously alleged, constituted violations of Plaintiff’s
rights, privileges and immunities, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution: the right to due process and equal protection under
the law which encompasses his right to body integrity; the right to be free from
12
the use of excessive force; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures.
74. The acts of Defendants, as previously alleged, were performed by Defendants
under color of law and authority and done with the purpose and intent of
depriving Plaintiff of the rights, immunities and privileges afforded him by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
75. The acts of Defendants, as previously alleged, were done willfully, maliciously
and/or with callous disregard and deliberate indifference to and disregard of the
rights, immunities and privileges guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Count Three – Defendant City of Erwin’s Failure to Train, Enact and
Implement Policies and Procedures and to Supervise and Discipline
77. Prior to April 30, 2021, Defendant City of Erwin failed to adequately train,
supervise and/or discipline its police officers in the performance of their duties
and/or undertook actions which were improper or illegal and demonstrated
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals, such as Plaintiff.
78. Prior to April 30, 2021, Defendant City of Erwin had policies and/or customs in
place and/or failed to ensure that policies, procedures and protocols which existed
13
were properly enforced and personnel adequately supervised in the performance
of their duties that enabled police officers, including Defendant Ollis, to act with
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals, such as Plaintiff.
79. Prior to April 30, 2021, Defendant City of Erwin failed to develop and
implement policies and procedures and protocols sufficient to prevent its police
officers from acting with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of
individuals, such as Plaintiff.
80. Defendant City of Erwin’s failures to develop and implement policies and
procedures and protocols were done with deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of individuals, such as Plaintiff.
81. Prior to April 30, 2021, Defendant City of Erwin failed to train, supervise and/or
discipline its police officers.
82. Prior to April 30, 2021, any program that Defendant City of Erwin offered to its
police officers to train, supervise and/or discipline, was inadequate to enable and
ensure that the police officers, including Defendant Ollis, carried out their duties
in an appropriate fashion, operated in a lawful manner and properly observed and
protected the Constitutional Rights of the individuals with whom the police
officers encountered, interacted and/or arrested.
83. Defendant City of Erwin had an unofficial practice or custom of using excessive
force and engaging in unlawful seizures in the manner in which Defendant Ollis
14
did in this case. Defendant City of Erwin’s unofficial custom or practice was that
its officers would violate arrestees’ constitutional rights by using excessive force
to detain them in violation of the Fourth Amendment, including by engaging in
unlawful pursuits and unlawful use of their handguns.
84. Defendant City of Erwin knew or should have known that the failure to properly
train, supervise and/or discipline its police officers was likely to result in the
violation of the Constitutional Rights of individuals.
85. Defendant City of Erwin was aware of the need for improvement in the training,
supervision and discipline of its police officers and the inadequacy of its training
programs and procedures and that the same would result in a violation of an
individual’s Constitutional rights, such as did occur with Plaintiff.
86. Defendant City of Erwin was deliberately indifferent to the need for such
training, supervision, and discipline to protect the Constitutional Rights of
individuals, including Plaintiff.
87. The failure of the City of Erwin to provide and ensure the proper training,
supervision and/or discipline of its police officers caused Plaintiff to suffer the
violation of his Constitutional Rights.
88. The failure of the City of Erwin to provide and ensure the proper training,
supervision and/or discipline of its police officers was done willfully, maliciously
and/or with callous disregard and deliberate indifference to the rights, immunities
15
and privileges guaranteed Plaintiff by Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
89. Defendant City of Erwin’s policymakers were deliberately indifferent to the need
for training, supervision, and discipline of its police officers, including Defendant
Ollis, to protect the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other persons.
90. The failure of Defendant City of Erwin to provide and ensure the proper training,
supervision, and discipline of its police officers, including Defendant Ollis,
caused Plaintiff to suffer a violation of his Constitutional rights and created an
environment that encourages and allows its police officers to take the law into
their own hands.
91. The acts and failures of Defendant City of Erwin, as alleged in this Complaint,
were done willfully, maliciously and/or with a callous disregard and deliberate
indifference to the rights, immunities, and privileges guaranteed Plaintiff by the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Erwin’s acts and/or
failures, as alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff suffered the excessive use of force
that resulted in numerous serious and permanent injuries.
Count Four – Defendant Ollis’s Violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights
93. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint as
16
94. In the alternative, Defendant City of Erwin had in place policies, procedures
and/or guidelines that mandated:
a. A vehicle pursuit can only be initiated when the officer has probable cause
that a felony has occurred;
b. A handgun should not be drawn and pointed at any individual except when
the use of force is reasonably necessary and certainly not as a substitute
for a flashlight;
c. When a suspect is prone and not presenting an immediate threat of danger
to the officer or the public, the officer should wait for backup to effectuate
the arrest;
d. When a suspect is prone and not presenting an immediate threat of danger
to the officer or the public, the officer should not place the handgun at or
within inches of the suspect’s head;
e. When the officer has his handgun drawn and pointed at the suspect’s head
and the barrel within inches of the suspect’s head, the officer should not
demand that the suspect place his hands behind his back while the handgun
is so positioned;
f. The officer should place his finger on the trigger guard of the handgun
(instead of the trigger) unless and until the officer is ready to discharge the
handgun.
17
95. Defendant Ollis knew or should have known about the alleged policies,
procedures and/or guidelines of Defendant City of Erwin.
96. Defendant Ollis knew or should have known that violation of the alleged
policies, procedures and/or guideline of Defendant City of Erwin is likely to
result in the inappropriate or unreasonable excessive force against an individual
in violation of the rights and immunities guaranteed individuals by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
97. Defendant Ollis, in his interactions, arrest and shooting of Plaintiff, violated the
alleged policies, procedures and/or guidelines of Defendant City of Erwin.
98. Defendant Ollis, in his interactions, arrest and shooting of Plaintiff, acted
intentionally, maliciously and with deliberate indifference and shot Plaintiff in
the face in violation of the rights, immunities and privileges guaranteed Plaintiff
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
causing Plaintiff injuries and damages.
99. On April 30, 2021 and May 1, 2021, Defendant Ollis in his interactions, arrest
and shooting of Plaintiff acted with deliberate indifference regarding the policies,
procedures and/or guidelines of Defendant City of Erwin.
100. Defendant Ollis, in violating the alleged policies, procedures and/or
guidelines of Defendant City of Erwin used more force than reasonably was
necessary and shot Plaintiff in the face in violation of the rights, immunities and
18
privileges guaranteed Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution causing Plaintiff injuries and damages.
101. On April 30, 2021 and May 1, 2021, when arresting Plaintiff, Defendant
Ollis’s use of deadly force was not necessary to prevent Plaintiff’s escape.
102. Defendant Ollis’s use of deadly force against Plaintiff when such force was
not necessary to prevent Plaintiff’s escape was not reasonable.
not necessary to prevent Plaintiff’s escape demonstrated Defendant Ollis’s
deliberate indifference to the consequences of his actions.
not necessary to prevent Plaintiff’s escape was unreasonable excessive force
against Plaintiff in violation of the rights and immunities guaranteed individuals
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and
caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
105. On April 30, 2021, and May 1, 2021, when arresting Plaintiff, Defendant
Ollis’s use of deadly force was not necessary because Defendant Ollis did not
have probable cause to believe that Plaintiff posed a significant threat of serious
physical injury to Defendant Ollis or others.
not necessary because Defendant Ollis did not have probable cause to believe
19
that Plaintiff posed a significant threat of serious physical injury to Defendant
Ollis or others was not reasonable.
Ollis or others demonstrated Defendant Ollis’s deliberate indifference to the
consequences of his actions.
Ollis or others resulted in Defendant Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face.
Ollis or others was unreasonable excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of
the rights and immunities guaranteed individuals by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and caused Plaintiff’s injuries and
damages.
20
110. On April 30, 2021, and May 1, 2021, when arresting Plaintiff, it would have
been feasible for Defendant Ollis to give Plaintiff a warning before using deadly
force but Defendant Ollis did not do so.
111. Defendant Ollis’s failure to warn Plaintiff of the intended use of deadly force
against Plaintiff when such warning was feasible, was not reasonable.
against Plaintiff when such warning was feasible demonstrated Defendant Ollis’s
deliberate indifference to the consequences of his actions.
against Plaintiff when such warning was feasible resulted in Defendant Ollis
shooting Plaintiff in the face.
114. Defendant Ollis’s use of deadly force against Plaintiff before warning
Plaintiff of the intended use of deadly force, when such warning was feasible,
was unreasonable excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the rights and
immunities guaranteed individuals by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution and caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
Count Five – Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988
115. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint
as if set forth herein verbatim.
21
116. Plaintiff, in bringing and prosecuting his claims against Defendants for the
violations of the rights, immunities and privileges guaranteed him by the United
States Constitution, has and will incur attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation.
117. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to collect the attorneys’ fees
and costs of litigation incurred in bringing this civil action.
Count Six – Governmental Tort Liability
118. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint
as if set forth herein verbatim.
119. Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiff brings Count Four of the Complaint
against Defendants pursuant to the waiver of immunity contained in T.C.A. § 29-
20-205.
120. Defendant City of Erwin had the duty to exercise reasonable care to train all
of its officers, including Defendant Ollis, in the appropriate methods of pursuing,
apprehending and arresting suspects.
121. Defendant City of Erwin negligently trained Defendant Ollis in policies and
procedures regarding the pursuit, apprehension, and arrest of suspects.
122. Defendant City of Erwin should have trained Defendant Ollis that:
22
for a flashlight;
the arrest;
is so positioned;
handgun.
123. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Erwin failed to train
Defendant Ollis as set forth above.
124. Defendant City of Erwin knew or should have known of its failure to train
Defendant Ollis in its policies and procedures.
23
125. Defendant City of Erwin’s failure to train Defendant Ollis resulted in
Defendant Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face causing him injuries and damages.
126. In the alternative, Defendant City of Erwin had trained Defendant Ollis and
had in place policies and procedures that mandated:
for a flashlight;
the arrest;
is so positioned;
24
handgun.
127. The policy and procedures of Defendant City of Erwin, as alleged previously,
were not optional policies and procedures and Defendant City of Erwin did not
allow its police officers the discretion to violate or disregard the alleged policies
and procedures.
128. Defendant Ollis, on April 30, 2021, violated Defendant City of Erwin policies
and procedures during his interaction with Plaintiff which resulted in Defendant
Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face causing Plaintiff injuries and damages.
129. Defendant Ollis, in violating Defendant City of Erwin policies and
procedures was acting willfully and wantonly or with a conscious disregard for
the consequences of his actions.
130. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-101, et seq. Defendant City of Erwin is
responsible for Defendant Ollis’s violation of its policies and procedures and for
Defendant Ollis’s acts and/or omissions in shooting Plaintiff in the face because
Defendant Ollis, at all times relevant to this civil action, was acting in the course
and scope of his employment with Defendant City of Erwin.
25
131. In the alternative, Defendant Ollis owed to Plaintiff the duty to use reasonable
care in carrying out and effectuating the arrest of Plaintiff so as to prevent the
creation of an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
132. While acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant City
of Erwin, Defendant Ollis breached the standard of care in the following
manners:
a. Initiating a pursuit of Plaintiff without probable cause that a felony had
occurred;
b. Initiating a pursuit of Plaintiff without witnessing the commission of a
felony;
c. Using his handgun as a flashlight and pointing it directly at Plaintiff;
d. Failing to follow appropriate law enforcement protocols when arresting
Plaintiff, including but not limited to, by pointing his handgun at Plaintiff’s
head and neck while it was in close proximity to Plaintiff’s head and neck
while simultaneously demanding that Plaintiff place his hands behind his
back;
e. Keeping his finger on the trigger of his handgun while pointing it at
Plaintiff instead of keeping it on the trigger-guard unless and until
Defendant Ollis was ready to fire the gun.
26
133. Defendant Ollis’s breach of the standard of care, as alleged, resulted in
Defendant Ollis shooting Plaintiff in the face causing Plaintiff injuries and
damages.
134. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-101, et seq. Defendant City of Erwin is
responsible for Defendant Ollis’s violation of its policies and procedures and for
Defendant Ollis’s acts and/or omissions in shooting Plaintiff in the face because
Defendant Ollis, at all times relevant to this civil action, was acting in the course
and scope of his employment with Defendant City of Erwin.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a trial by jury on all issues for which a jury trial
is permitted and for entry of judgment against Defendants as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be shown by the evidence and
determined by the fact-finder;
b. Punitive damages;
c. Attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation;
d. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 27, 2022.
Hall & Lampros, LLP
By: /S/ Andrew Lampros

Andrew Lampros
TN BPR # 020167
400 Galleria Pkwy

Suite 1150
27
Atlanta, GA 30339
404/876-8100
alampros@hallandlampros.com
James R. Miller II Attorney at Law

TN BPR # 013885
200 E. Main St.
Suite 102
Johnson City, TN 37604
(423) 926-2714
jimrmiller2@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
28
01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ0
ÿ0!ÿ"ÿ#76ÿ16
ÿcd
$$e$f$g$hi$ÿ$jk
$$e$fhÿklfÿmn"ÿog
ÿi!iÿg$e$e$g$g$$$$$$ÿ
pqrstÿvwÿxsyz{|}ÿv~w

%&'()*(++,-.
89 8ÿ0ÿ9

xÿszÿ{ÿ~s|}ÿx||ÿq|t
v{qÿs}ÿs|tsrstq

/0+0)1')*,-.
2344562ÿ86ÿ9ÿ:8;8<ÿ9:=856
>ÿ,/0+0)1')*?-ÿ)'A0ÿ')1ÿ'11B0--.ÿÿxÿszÿ{ÿ~s|}ÿx||
ÿÿ{ÿ||ÿsz}ÿq{~
ÿÿÿ|tÿzw
ÿÿ~s|}ÿxÿ
0ÿCÿ#ÿD77ÿ!7EÿFÿG9
H#ÿ ÿEGÿ!7"ÿ7"87ÿ!ÿ#ÿÿÿGÿ5ÿFÿ#7ÿEGÿGÿ"7787EÿÿIÿ"ÿ
4ÿEGÿ!ÿG
"7ÿ#7ÿ7Eÿ7ÿ"ÿÿ7Eÿ7ÿF7GJÿ"ÿÿ!!7"ÿ"ÿ7KG77ÿ!ÿ#7ÿ7Eÿ7ÿE7"D7EÿÿL7E9ÿ69ÿ89
M9ÿ ÿ55 ÿ"ÿ5NÿIÿGÿÿ7"87ÿÿ#7ÿK!!ÿÿC7"ÿÿ#7ÿ#7EÿKÿ"ÿÿÿE7"ÿ67ÿ ÿ!
#7ÿL7E7"ÿ67ÿ!ÿ8ÿM"7E"79ÿÿ#7ÿC7"ÿ"ÿÿÿD7ÿ7"87Eÿÿ#7ÿK!!ÿ"ÿK!!Oÿ"7GJ
C#7ÿ7ÿEÿEE"7ÿ"7> ÿ|t~ÿqy~{
qÿÿqy~{}ÿ
ÿq~sqÿ
szÿ
zq|zq}ÿÿ
!ÿGÿ!ÿÿ"7KEJÿPEF7ÿDGÿE7!ÿCÿD7ÿ77"7EÿFÿGÿ!"ÿ#7ÿ"77!ÿE7E7Eÿÿ#7ÿK9ÿ
Qÿÿÿ!7ÿG"ÿC7"ÿ"ÿÿC#ÿ#7ÿ"9
RSTUVÿWXÿRWYUZ
7>
[(\)'*]B0ÿ^+ÿR&0B_ÿ^Bÿ/0`]*aÿR&0B_
Case 2:22-cv-00046-CLC-CRW Document 1-1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 29

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ0ÿ57ÿ
8ÿ0ÿ9
!ÿ!ÿ#$%&'$
()*+,ÿ,./0+12ÿ,*1345ÿ210ÿ6.ÿ7+4.5ÿ8+0*ÿ0*.ÿ/1390ÿ324.,,ÿ9.:3+9.5ÿ6;ÿ<.5=ÿ>=ÿ?+@=ÿA=ÿBÿ(4CC
DEÿÿFGÿHIJKLÿNOÿPIQPRPQSJTÿJIQÿUPUTLVÿPOÿJIWX
YÿG7787Zÿ[\ÿ7ÿÿHQJULX 9
] ^ÿ_7G\ÿ7G87ZÿE7ÿÿÿE7ÿZ8ZÿÿH`TJaLX
ÿHQJULX bÿG
] ^ÿ7FÿE7ÿÿÿE7ÿZ8ZcÿG7Z77ÿGÿÿ_7ÿFÿ[Z7ÿYEÿHIJKLX
dÿÿ_7GÿFÿ[7ÿ7ÿZÿZG7ÿYEÿG7Z7ÿE7G7d
ÿHQJULX dÿZÿ7Zÿÿ_\ÿÿE7ÿZ8ZcÿÿeYÿZZG7bÿG
] ^ÿ7G87ZÿE7ÿÿÿHIJKLÿNOÿPIQPRPQSJTX dÿYEÿ
ÿZ77Zÿ[\ÿYÿÿ7_ÿ7G87ÿFÿ_G7ÿÿ[7EFÿFÿHIJKLÿNOÿNfgJIPhJUPNIX
ÿHQJULX bÿG
] ^ÿG7G7ZÿE7ÿÿ7i77Zÿ[77 bÿG
] 1E7GÿHj`LaPOWXk
9
l\ÿF77ÿG7ÿm FGÿG87ÿZÿm FGÿ7G87dÿFGÿÿÿFÿm tutt 9
^ÿZ7G7ÿZ7Gÿ_7\ÿFÿ_7GnG\ÿEÿEÿFGÿÿG79
o7p
qLfRLfrjÿjPgIJUSfL
sfPIULQÿIJKLÿJIQÿUPUTL
qLfRLfrjÿJQQfLjj
0ZZÿFGÿG7GZÿ7_7Zÿ7G87dÿ7p

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ0
ÿ0!ÿ"ÿ#76ÿ16
ÿcd
$$e$f$g$hi$ÿ$jk

%&'()*(++,-.
89 8ÿ0ÿ9

v{qÿs}ÿs|tsrstq

/0+0)1')*,-.
2344562ÿ86ÿ9ÿ:8;8<ÿ9:=856
>ÿ,/0+0)1')*?-ÿ)'A0ÿ')1ÿ'11B0--.ÿ
xÿszÿ{ÿ~s|}ÿx||
{ÿsq{~ÿq~ÿqr~
ÿwÿÿrw
~s|}ÿxÿ
4ÿEGÿ!ÿG
qÿÿqy~{}ÿ
ÿq~sqÿ
szÿ
zq|zq}ÿÿ
RSTUVÿWXÿRWYUZ
7>
[(\)'*]B0ÿ^+ÿR&0B_ÿ^Bÿ/0`]*aÿR&0B_

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
8ÿ0ÿ9
!ÿ!ÿ#$%&'$
ÿHQJULX bÿG
ÿHQJULX bÿG
] 1E7GÿHj`LaPOWXk
9
o7p
qLfRLfrjÿjPgIJUSfL
qLfRLfrjÿJQQfLjj

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ0
ÿ0!ÿ"ÿ#76ÿ16
ÿcd
$$e$f$g$hi$ÿ$jk

%&'()*(++,-.
89 8ÿ0ÿ9

v{qÿs}ÿs|tsrstq

/0+0)1')*,-.
2344562ÿ86ÿ9ÿ:8;8<ÿ9:=856
>ÿ,/0+0)1')*?-ÿ)'A0ÿ')1ÿ'11B0--.ÿ
xÿszÿ{ÿ~s|}ÿx||
{ÿx{qÿvwÿ}ÿ}ÿw
xÿÿqÿs~
ÿwÿqs|ÿzw
szÿ
v{|{~{}ÿxÿ
4ÿEGÿ!ÿG
qÿ ÿqy~{}ÿ¡
¢ÿ£q~sqÿ¡¤
szÿ
zq|zq}ÿ£ÿ
RSTUVÿWXÿRWYUZ
7>
[(\)'*]B0ÿ^+ÿR&0B_ÿ^Bÿ/0`]*aÿR&0B_

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
8ÿ0ÿ9
!ÿ!ÿ#$%&'$
ÿHQJULX bÿG
ÿHQJULX bÿG
] 1E7GÿHj`LaPOWXk
9
o7p
qLfRLfrjÿjPgIJUSfL
qLfRLfrjÿJQQfLjj

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ0
ÿ0!ÿ"ÿ#76ÿ16
ÿcd
$$e$f$g$hi$ÿ$jk

%&'()*(++,-.
89 8ÿ0ÿ9

v{qÿs}ÿs|tsrstq

/0+0)1')*,-.
2344562ÿ86ÿ9ÿ:8;8<ÿ9:=856
>ÿ,/0+0)1')*?-ÿ)'A0ÿ')1ÿ'11B0--.ÿÿÿv{qÿs
ÿÿÿÿ~sÿzw
ÿÿÿÿ|s{s}ÿxÿ
4ÿEGÿ!ÿG
C#7ÿ7ÿEÿEE"7ÿ"7> ÿ
|t~ÿqy~{
qÿÿqy~{}ÿ
ÿq~sqÿ
szÿ
zq|zq}ÿÿ
RSTUVÿWXÿRWYUZ
7>
[(\)'*]B0ÿ^+ÿR&0B_ÿ^Bÿ/0`]*aÿR&0B_

01ÿ334ÿ56789ÿ4
8ÿ0ÿ9
!ÿ!ÿ#$%&'$
ÿHQJULX bÿG
ÿHQJULX bÿG
] 1E7GÿHj`LaPOWXk
9
o7p
qLfRLfrjÿjPgIJUSfL
qLfRLfrjÿJQQfLjj

Court Documents

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

Court Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

David J. Tipton, Jr.

scope of his employment with Defendant City of Erwin, Tennessee, he shot

Plaintiff in the face.

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated

through the Fourteenth Amendment, because (a) Plaintiff suffered a serious

Case 2:22-cv-00046-CLC-CRW Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1

and (c) the excessiveness of the force used was unreasonable.

4. Plaintiff also alleges supplemental state law claims against Defendants.

The Parties, Jurisdiction & Venue

5. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Tennessee.

6. Defendant City of Erwin, Tennessee (“City of Erwin”) is a governmental entity

existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Tennessee.

7. Defendant City of Erwin is located in this judicial district.

City of Erwin Police Department.

Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983.

United States Code, Sections 1331, 1334 and 1367 (a).

prohibition on unreasonable seizures, applicable to the States and individual

the United States Constitution.

giving rise to this civil action occurred in this District.

14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as

if set forth herein verbatim.

15. Defendant City of Erwin is a municipal governmental entity existing pursuant to

operation and supervision of policing powers.

is responsible for the development and implementation of policies and

procedures concerning the selection, evaluation, training and supervisions of its

police officers, including but not limited to Defendant Ollis.

circumstances and in what manner a police officer is permitted to use force

against an individual, including the use of a handgun.

force against an individual, including the use of a handgun.

what manner a police officer is permitted to use force against an individual,

including the use of a handgun.

is a police officer for Defendant City of Erwin.

the United States of America.

had established and enforced policies, procedures and/or guidelines concerning

had established and enforced policies, procedures and/or guidelines concerning

conducted and in what manner a police officer, such as Defendant Ollis, is

permitted to use force against an individual, including the use of a handgun.

department policies, procedures and/or guidelines and were discharging their

afforded all individuals by the Constitution of the United States of America.

alleyway between 3rd and 4th Streets.

at most, an alleged misdemeanor.

vehicle on Gay Street and attempted to stop it.

34. Plaintiff did not stop and a vehicle pursuit ensued.

to pursue Plaintiff on foot.

pointing it directly at Plaintiff even though Plaintiff posed no immediate threat to

Defendant Ollis or the public.

handgun drawn and pointed at Plaintiff.

had his handgun drawn and pointed at Plaintiff.

handgun drawn and pointed at Plaintiff.

on or within inches of the back of Plaintiff’s head.

handgun on or within inches of the back of Plaintiff’s head, Defendant Ollis

ordered Plaintiff to place his hands behind his (Plaintiff’s back).

42. As Plaintiff attempted to comply with Defendant Ollis’s commands, Defendant

Ollis shot Plaintiff in the face.

probable cause that Plaintiff had committed a felony.

observed Plaintiff commit any felony.

not pose an immediate threat to the safety of Defendant Ollis or others.

an immediate threat to the safety of Defendant Ollis or others.

other officers for “back-up” only seconds away.

required to be hospitalized and undergo surgical procedures. He will require