Paxton Williams Polk County

E-FILED 2022 MAY 31 10:56 PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

________________________________________________________________________________
PAXTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff, Case No. ______________________
vs.
JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and in their

official capacity as law enforcement officers
for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department;
Sergeant JEFF ROBINSON, individually and
in his official capacity as a law enforcement PETITION AT LAW AND JURY DEMAND
officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police
Department; DANA WINGERT, individually and
in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the
Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; CITY OF
DES MOINES, IOWA,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Paxton Williams, and for his causes of action, respectfully state the
following:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Paxton Williams is an African-American United States citizen and was a resident of Des
Moines and Polk County at all times relevant to the events complained of herein.
2. Defendants John Does 1-10 are believed to be citizens and residents of Iowa who were
employed as law enforcement officers with the Des Moines Police Department (or who were acting as
agents or servants of the Des Moines Police Department) at all times relevant to the events complained
of herein. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of these Doe Defendants and therefore will sue these
Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names when
ascertained.
3. Defendant Sergeant Jeff Robinson is believed to be a citizen and resident of Iowa and was
employed as a law enforcement officer with the Des Moines Police Department at all times relevant to
the events complained of herein.
4. Defendant Dana Wingert is believed to be a citizen and resident of Iowa and was employed as
the Chief of Police with the Des Moines Police Department at all times relevant to the events
complained of herein.
5. Defendant City of Des Moines, Iowa is a municipal corporation organized and authorized to
1
operate under the laws of Iowa and is located at 400 Robert D. Ray Drive, Des Moines, Iowa, 50309.
Defendant City of Des Moines is responsible for maintaining and operating the Des Moines Police
Department.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Venue is proper in the District Court for Polk County pursuant to Iowa Code § 669.4(1) as the
district in which Plaintiff resides and/or in which the acts and omissions complained of occurred.
7. Subject matter jurisdiction of the District Court for Polk County is proper pursuant to Iowa Code
§ 602.6101.
8. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9. All events complained of herein occurred in Polk County, Iowa.
10. In the early evening of June 1, 2020, Plaintiff watched a protest march from the living
room window of his home at 400 E. Locust St. in Des Moines.
11. Like many Americans, Plaintiff was aware of the racial justice protests and marches
that were inspired by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
12. Plaintiff was aware of the pepper-spraying, zip-tying, and arrest of the journalist
Andrea Sahouri on May 31st.
13. The treatment of Ms. Sahouri and reports of questionable and unlawful police tactics were
among the factors that inspired Plaintiff to participate in the march on June 1, so that he could witness
for himself the actions of the marchers and the law enforcement officers present.
14. As an attorney for the State of Iowa, in September 2014 Plaintiff took an oath and
solemnly swore to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
Iowa.
15. Plaintiff left his home and joined the march as it headed west on Locust St.
16. Plaintiff ran into a co-worker, a fellow attorney, during the march and the two shared
that both joined the march to show support for racial justice and to observe and bear witness to the
actions taking place.
17. Plaintiff marched with the group of marchers throughout downtown Des Moines and
then to the Iowa State Capitol.
18. There were a number of individuals associated with the protest who spoke at the Capitol to the
crowd of marchers.
19. The protest at the Capitol was overwhelmingly peaceful.
2
20. Plaintiff recalls the protest speakers and members of the protest crowd loudly and fully
condemning the one instance of someone from the protest crowd throwing a water bottle from the
back of the crowd towards the law enforcement officers lined along the Capitol.
21. Without warning, Plaintiff observed law enforcement officers become aggressive
without cause and engage in reckless, harmful, and unconstitutional activity.
22. Law enforcement officers at the Capitol intentionally used force on peaceful protestors with no
lawful justification.
23. Law enforcement officers at the Capitol knowingly placed protesters in physical danger through
indiscriminate use of excessive force.
24. Plaintiff saw individuals hit by flashbangs, the use of tear gas, and/or other weapons
fired indiscriminately into the crowd by law enforcement, and towards people who were only peacefully
protesting and attempting to get out of harm’s way.
25. Plaintiff watched law enforcement officers run towards and push bicyclists who were
trying to leave the area of the Capitol off of their bikes.
26. Not only did this excessive use of force injure many protestors, journalists, and bystanders, it
also chilled individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights and suppressed speech.
27. Plaintiff was shocked that law enforcement officers would instigate such violence and
escalate it by chasing after individuals, using tear-gas, rubber-bullets, pepper-spray, and tackling,
arresting or otherwise detaining individuals who had simply been excising their Iowa and federal
constitutional rights.
28. Plaintiff and his work colleague ran, like many, from the bedlam and violence caused by
the actions of law enforcement, afraid for their well-being, but stopped briefly to inquire about, and
assist if necessary, an individual who had been injured by some projectile fired into the crowd by law
enforcement.
29. Plaintiff returned safely to his home, and from the entryway of his courtyard watched
as throngs of protesters from the Capitol made their way west on Locust Street.
30. Plaintiff saw many injured people pass him by, and as law enforcement grew closer,
saw many people running as if in fear for their lives.
31. Plaintiff noticed that members of the media who had been filming the group also
started running as the law enforcement officers grew closer.
32. Plaintiff was alone when the law enforcement officers, dressed in riot gear,
approached the sidewalk near the entryway to Plaintiff’s home.
3
33. Plaintiff was clearly engaged in no other activity other than excising his rights of free
speech under the Iowa and federal constitutions when the law enforcement officers approached.
34. Plaintiff did not try to escape, nor was he given any opportunity to access the gate
several feet away to return inside his residence.
35. Law enforcement officers did not issue any order to disperse
36. Law enforcement officers did not ask Plaintiff to return inside.
37. Law enforcement officers did not inquire if Plaintiff lived at the address of the attack.
38. Law enforcement officers ran towards Plaintiff, pepper-sprayed him (or sprayed him
with whatever harmful chemical it is they had), and they forcefully tackled Plaintiff to the ground.
39. Plaintiff was never given a chance to submit to arrest and avoid being sprayed and
tackled, had he chosen to do so.
40. Law enforcement officers used so much pepper spray (or whatever harmful chemical they used)
that Plaintiff could not open his eyes during the ride to wherever he was first processed.
41. Plaintiff feared for his life when he was pepper-sprayed and brutally tackled without
warning.
42. The handcuffs or zip-ties placed on Plaintiff were put so tight as to cause pain
throughout the time they were on.
43. Plaintiff further feared for his life when he was placed into the back of an empty police
van/wagon. With no other individuals in the wagon, Plaintiff remembered the tragedy of Freddie Gray
in Baltimore, who suffered fatal injuries while being transported in a police van.
44. At the first processing site, Plaintiff had to see the medic there to rinse out his eyes as
the pepper-spray used was still causing considerable pain.
45. Plaintiff had no notice of what the law enforcement officers were going to do when
they used such excessive and unwarranted force.
46. Plaintiff was arrested and issued a citation for failure to disperse.
47. Plaintiff was transported to Polk County Jail and was forced to spend the night
incarcerated.
48. Plaintiff was not allowed a telephone call.
49. Plaintiff continued to feel the effects of the pepper-spray at the jail and for several days
following.
50. Plaintiff suffered shoulder, arm, and hip pain, and various other aches and pains, as a
result of being tackled.
4
51. Plaintiff was in jail until he was bailed out Tuesday late morning.
52. Plaintiff felt real concern the events complained of herein would affect his ability to
perform his professional duties. Plaintiff has great respect for law enforcement, and has worked with
law enforcement officers from across the state, prosecuting civil penalties on behalf of the Iowa
Alcoholic Beverages Division.
53. As the assault and battery of Plaintiff occurred in the entryway to his courtyard, every
time Plaintiff leaves his home, such as when he walks to work, he has to pass by a place of great pain for
him.
54. Plaintiff has felt fear and anxiety as a result of the events complained of herein, and
has seen a therapist because of same.
55. Plaintiff filed a complaint online with the Des Moines Police Department for bias
policing, inappropriate use of force, and violation of civil rights on June 4, 2020.
56. Plaintiff received a telephone call from Defendant Robinson within five hours
of Williams’ filing on June 4, 2020.
57. Defendant Robinson informed Plaintiff in that conversation that he had reviewed the
police camera footage and that it had refuted everything in Plaintiff’s claim.
58. Plaintiff was surprised by how quick the telephone call came, and he wondered how
anyone could see the footage and come to that conclusion Defendant Robinson shared, as clearly the
footage could not refute everything in the claim—that Plaintiff was alone when he was arrested, that he
was at his residence, or that there was no “order to disperse” given.
59. Plaintiff soon recognized that Defendant Robinson was not a neutral party
concerned with assessing the situation, but that he was engaging in intimidation as an attempt to stop
Plaintiff from pursuing the matter further.
60. The arrests, the force used against the protesters, and the prolonged pursuit of criminal charges
against the protesters worked to chill their desire to protest and have their voices heard.
61. The response of the Defendants was wholly not warranted given the facts of the situation.
Plaintiff was never a threat, and there was no reason to assume that he was a threat. There is nothing
to suggest that Plaintiff was not where he was for the sole purpose of doing what he was doing—
exercising his constitutionally-protected rights.
CAUSES OF ACTION
5
COUNT 1
ILLEGAL SEIZURE
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VIOLATION OF 4TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Against Defendants John Does 1-10, Individually)
62. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if each paragraph was set forth here.
63. Defendants John Does 1-10 are persons for the purpose of a Section 1983 action for damages
and this Count is brought against him/her in his/her individual capacity.
64. At all times material hereto, Defendants’ actions and omissions were made under the color of
authority as a law enforcement officer for the City of Des Moines, Iowa Police Department.
65. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established federal constitutional rights by seizing Plaintiff
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so and by charging Plaintiff with a crime without
probable cause.
66. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and a reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
constitutional and civil rights.
67. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, unlawful, and in gross disregard of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights, justifying an award in punitive damages.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ illegal and unjustified conduct, Plaintiff was
injured and is entitled to recover for what he has suffered in the past will suffer in the future, including:
a. Deprivation of his constitutional rights;
b. Humiliation, degradation, public ridicule, loss of personal reputation, and emotional
distress;
c. Actual and Compensatory Damages;
d. Punitive Damages;
e. All expenses associated with the prosecution of the instant action, including, but not
limited to, court costs, anticipated discovery costs, anticipated expert expenses, and the
maximum legally allowable judgment interest; and
f. Any other expenses allowed by federal or state law, including but not limited to
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against the aforementioned Defendants as follows:
a. Actual, Compensatory, Consequential, and all other allowable damages against
Defendant in an amount yet to be determined;
b. Compensation for violation of his constitutional rights, mental anguish, and humiliation;
6
c. Plaintiff’s costs in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988;
d. Punitive damages; and
e. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT 2
ILLEGAL SEIZURE
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER ARTICLE I, §8 OF IOWA CONSTITUTION
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 1-10, INDIVIDUALLY)
70. This Count is brought against Defendants John Does 1-10 in his/her individual capacity.
72. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established state constitutional rights by seizing Plaintiff
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so and by charging Plaintiff with a crime without
probable cause.
73. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and a reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights, justifying an award in punitive damages.
distress;
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
7

c. Plaintiff’s costs in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
COUNT 3
EXCESSIVE FORCE
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983
VIOLATION OF 4TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
79. The force used by Defendants was excessive and applied maliciously, wantonly, sadistically, and
tyrannically, for the purpose of causing harm and not in a good faith effort to achieve a legitimate
purpose.
80. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with willfulness, malice, and reckless
indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and others.
81. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
82. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, unlawful, and in gross disregard of Plaintiff’s civil
rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
distress;
8
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1988.
c. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988;
COUNT 4
EXCESSIVE FORCE
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER ARTICLE I, §8 OF IOWA CONSTITUTION
87. The force used by Defendants was excessive and applied maliciously, wantonly, sadistically, and
tyrannically, for the purpose of causing harm and not in a good faith effort to achieve a legitimate
purpose.
88. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with willfulness, malice, and reckless
indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and others.
89. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
90. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, unlawful, and in gross disregard of Plaintiff’s civil
rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
9

distress;
c. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
COUNT 5
RETALIATION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 USC §1983
VIOLATION OF 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
95. Plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment rights and engaging in clearly-protected
speech.
96. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established federal constitutional rights by pepper-
spraying, tackling, hand-cuffing, and arresting Plaintiff and by charging Plaintiff with a crime in
retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.
97. Retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor to Defendants’ decision to pepper-spray,
10
tackle, hand-cuff, and arrest Plaintiff and charge Plaintiff with a crime.
98. Defendants would not have pepper-sprayed, tackled, hand-cuffed, and arrested Plaintiff and
charged Plaintiff with a crime but for their retaliatory motive.
99. Similarly situated individuals who were not engaged in the same sort of protected activity as
Plaintiff were not pepper-sprayed, tackled, hand-cuffed, arrested, and charged with a crime.
100. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights.
civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
102. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ illegal and unjustified conduct,
Plaintiff was injured and is entitled to recover for what he has suffered in the past will suffer in
the future, including:
103. Deprivation of his constitutional rights;
a. Humiliation, degradation, public ridicule, loss of personal reputation, and emotional
distress;
b. Actual and Compensatory Damages;
c. Punitive Damages;
d. All expenses associated with the prosecution of the instant action, including, but not
e. Any other expenses allowed by federal or state law, including but not limited to
42 U.S.C. §1988;
11
COUNT 6
RETALIATION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER ARTICLE I, §7 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION
106. At all times material hereto, Defendants’ actions and omissions were made under the
color of authority as a law enforcement officer for the City of Des Moines, Iowa Police
Department.
107. Plaintiff was exercising his Article I, §7 rights and engaging in clearly-protected speech.
108. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established state constitutional rights by pepper-
spraying, tackling, hand-cuffing, and arresting Plaintiff and by charging Plaintiff with a crime in
retaliation for his exercise of his Article I, §7 rights.
109. Retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor to Defendants’ decision to pepper-
spray, tackle, hand-cuff, and arrest Plaintiff and charge Plaintiff with a crime.
110. Defendants would not have pepper-sprayed, tackled, hand-cuffed, and arrested Plaintiff
and charged Plaintiff with a crime but for their retaliatory motive.
111. Similarly situated individuals who were not engaged in the same sort of protected
activity as Plaintiff were not pepper-sprayed, tackled, hand-cuffed, arrested, and charged with a
crime.
112. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights.
civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
distress;
12
COUNT 7
DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT POLICIES, PRACTICES, CUSTOMS, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §1983
VIOLATION OF 1 , 4TH, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ST
(Against Defendants Wingert, Individually, and City of Des Moines, Iowa)
116. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are persons for the purpose of a
Section 1983 action for damages.
117. At all times material hereto, Defendant Wingert’s actions and omissions were made
under the color of authority as the Chief of Police for the City of Des Moines, Iowa Police
Department and this Count is made against him in his individual capacity.
118. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are responsible for establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing the official policies, procedures, patterns, practices, and/or customs
of the Des Moines Police Department for use of force, including the use of pepper spray.
119. Defendant City of Des Moines, Iowa is charged with the duty to ensure that its law
enforcement officers are properly trained and supervised.
120. As Chief of Police, Defendant Wingert is ultimately responsible for the training and
supervision of his officers.
121. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights by:
a. Permitting City of Des Moines police officers to violate the constitutional rights of
citizens;
13
b. Ratifying and approving the unlawful use of force against citizens;

c. Failing to enforce policies and implement policies preventing the unlawful use of force
against citizens;
d. Tolerating, encouraging, and permitting collusive statements by involved officers in such
situations;
e. Failing to adopt and enforce policies to document citizen interactions that do not result
in arrest or citation;
f. Failing to adopt a system to identify, track, and monitor problematic police behavior
and patterns of unconstitutional conduct;
g. Failing to take adequate disciplinary measures against City of Des Moines police officers
who violate the civil rights of citizens;
h. Failing to train and or/supervise properly Defendants Does 1-10 in the constitutional
requirements for the use of pepper spray and other use of force;
i. Failing to implement adequate maintenance training and properly focused maintenance
training.
122. Defendants’ policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices caused violations of
Plaintiff’s constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other claims and
resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various
available alternatives.
123. The need for the aforementioned training and supervision was obvious and it was
foreseeable that the inadequacy of Defendants’ training and supervision was likely to result in
the violation of constitutional rights.
124. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and/or reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and those similarly situated to them.
125. Defendants’ failure to train and supervise Defendants Does 1-10 caused the violations of
126. Plaintiff hereby requests reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with prosecuting
this action as Defendants’ violation of his constitutional right was oppressive, harsh, cruel,
and/or tyrannical.
14
distress;
42 U.S.C. §1988;
COUNT 8
DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT POLICIES, PRACTICES, CUSTOMS, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, §§ 6, 7, AND 8 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION
(Against Defendants Wingert, Individually, and City of Des Moines, Iowa)
130. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are responsible for establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing the official policies, procedures, patterns, practices, and/or customs
of the Des Moines Police Department for use of force, including the use of pepper spray.
15
131. Defendant City of Des Moines, Iowa is charged with the duty to ensure that its law
enforcement officers are properly trained and supervised.
132. As Chief of Police, Defendant Wingert is ultimately responsible for the training and
supervision of his officers.
133. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s state constitutional rights by:
a. Permitting City of Des Moines police officers to violate the constitutional rights of
citizens;
b. Ratifying and approving the unlawful use of force against citizens;
c. Failing to enforce policies and implement policies preventing the unlawful use of force
against citizens;
d. Tolerating, encouraging, and permitting collusive statements by involved officers in such
situations;
e. Failing to adopt and enforce policies to document citizen interactions that do not result
in arrest or citation;
f. Failing to adopt a system to identify, track, and monitor problematic police behavior and
patterns of unconstitutional conduct;
g. Failing to take adequate disciplinary measures against City of Des Moines police officers
who violate the civil rights of citizens;
h. Failing to train and or/supervise properly Defendants Does 1-10 in the constitutional
requirements for the use of pepper spray and other use of force;
i. Failing to implement adequate maintenance training and properly focused maintenance
training.
134. Defendants’ policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices caused violations of
135. The need for the aforementioned training and supervision was obvious and it was
foreseeable that the inadequacy of Defendants’ training and supervision was likely to result in
the violation of constitutional rights.
136. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and/or reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and those similarly situated to them.
16
137. Defendants’ failure to train and supervise Defendants Does 1-10 caused the violations of
and/or tyrannical.
distress;
COUNT 9
CONSPIRACY
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983
VIOLATION OF 1 , 4 , 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ST TH
(Against Defendants John Does 1-10, Individually, Robinson, Individually, Wingert, Individually, and
City of Des Moines, Iowa)
17
141. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are persons for the purpose of a
Section 1983 action for damages. Defendants Robinson and John Does 1-10 are persons for the
purpose of a Section 1983 action for damages and this Count is brought against him/her in
his/her individual capacity.
143. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
144. Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in violation of the Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and to retaliate for protected speech in violation of the First
Amendment.
145. Defendant Robinson’s telephone call to Plaintiff on June 4, 2020 evidences one example
of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s rights.
distress;
g. Actual, Compensatory, Consequential, and all other allowable damages against
h. Compensation for violation of his constitutional rights, mental anguish, and humiliation;
18
i. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988;
j. Punitive damages; and
k. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT 10
INTENTIONAL AFFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against Defendants John Does 1-10, Individually, and Robinson, Individually)
148. Defendants John Does 1-10 rushed at, pepper-sprayed, tackled, hand-cuffed, and
caused harm and injuries to Plaintiff.
149. Defendant Robinson’s telephone call to Plaintiff was used solely to support the actions
of Defendant Does 1-10 and encourage Plaintiff to not pursue his filing further.
150. There was no legitimate justification for Defendants’ use of force against Plaintiff.
151. The conduct of Defendants was outrageous.
152. Defendants intentionally caused or recklessly disregarded the probability of causing
emotional distress to Plaintiff.
153. Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress because of Defendants’ actions.
154. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff has in the past and will in the
future suffer injuries and damages.
distress;
19
COUNT 11
FALSE ARREST/IMPRISONMENT
157. Defendants detained Plaintiff against his will.
158. The detention of Plaintiff was unlawful.
distress;
20

COUNT 12
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
161. Defendants instigated a criminal prosecution against Plaintiff.
162. The criminal prosecution against Plaintiff was dismissed.
163. There was no probable cause for the charge against Plaintiff.
164. Defendants acted with malice in initiating the charge against Plaintiff.
distress;
COUNT 13
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
21
167. Defendants Does 1-10 subjected Plaintiff to contact of an insulting and provoking
nature.
168. The actions of Defendants Does 1-10 were undertaken without the consent of Plaintiff.
169. The intentional acts of Defendants resulted in bodily contact with Plaintiff that a
reasonable person would deem insulting or offensive.
170. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff has in the past and will in the
future suffer injuries and damages.
171. The actions of Defendants were willful, wanton, unlawful, and in gross disregard of
Plaintiff’s civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.
and/or tyrannical.
distress;
22
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury in this matter on all counts to which Plaintiff are entitled to a jury.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/Paxton Williams_______

Paxton Williams AT0012591
400 E. Locust St. Unit 207
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
T: (219) 308-1752
E: williams.pax@gmail.com
PLAINTIFF
23

Paxton Williams Polk County

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Paxton Williams Polk County

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-FILED 2022 MAY 31 10:56 PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and in their

a. Actual, Compensatory, Consequential, and all other allowable damages against

a. Deprivation of his constitutional rights;

(Against Defendants Wingert, Individually, and City of Des Moines, Iowa)

b. Ratifying and approving the unlawful use of force against citizens;

e. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

e. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

By: /s/Paxton Williams_______

You might also like