IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ESTATE OF DYONTA )
QUARLES JR., deceased, through )
MIKEL QUARLES, representative, ) Case No.
)
Plaintiff, )
) Judge
v. )
) Magistrate Judge
P.O. J. RICCI, P.O. JOHN DOE, )
P.O. JANE DOE, individually, and )
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, a )
Municipal Corporation, )
) JURY DEMAND
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF DYONTA QUARLES JR., by and through its

attorneys, Gregory E. Kulis and Gianna Gizzi of Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd., to bring

this complaint against the Defendants, P.O. J. RICCI, P.O. JOHN DOE, and P.O. JANE DOE,

individually, and ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, as follows:

PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff, Dyonta Quarles Jr (“DJ”)., was 20 years old at the time of his death.

2. At the time of his death, DJ was a resident of the State of Maryland and a United

States citizen.

3. Mikel Quarles is the mother of Dyonta Quarles Jr. and a resident of the State of

Maryland and a United States citizen.

4. At all relevant times, Mikel Quarles has resided in Anne Arundel County

(“AAC”).

1
 5. At all relevant times, the Defendant, P.O. J. RICCI (“Defendant Ricci”) was a

duly appointed Anne Arundel County Police Officer.

6. On January 30, 2022, Defendant Ricci was accompanied by two other, unknown

AAC officers, P.O. John Doe and P.O. Jane Doe (collectively referred to as “Defendant

Officers”).

7. At all relevant times, including January 30, 2022, Defendant Officers were acting

within the scope of their employment and under color of law.

8. The County of Anne Arundel is a statutory body politic and corporate of the State

of Maryland and the employer of the Defendant Officers.

JURISDICTION

9. Jurisdiction is based on Title 28 U.S.C. §1343 through federal question

jurisdiction, and §1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of the State of Maryland.

10. This action is brought pursuant to the laws of the United States Constitution,

specifically, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, and the laws of the State of Maryland, specifically, §3-

904, to redress deprivations of the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff, the Estate of Dyonta Quarles Jr.,

deceased, and his next of kin, Mikel Quarles.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Officers because P.O. J.

Ricci, P.O. John Doe, and P.O. Jane Doe are employed by the Anne Arundel County Police

Department, and thereby are residents of the State of Maryland.

12. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all parties

reside or are located in this district.

\ 2
 ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

Plaintiff asserts that a Notice of Claim was submitted to the County Attorney for Anne

Arundel County, and that the Office of Law for Anne Arundel County acknowledged receipt of

the Notice of Claim form.

FACTS

13. On or about January 30, 2022, Defendant Ricci, along with two other AAC

officers, responded to Ms. Quarles’s residence in Crofton, Maryland.

14. At all relevant times, DJ was residing with his mother in Crofton, Maryland.

15. In the middle of the night on January 30, 2022, DJ woke up and was searching for

his eyeglasses, during which time he became increasingly frustrated.

16. In doing so, DJ woke up his mother, and started becoming progressively more

upset.

17. Ms. Quarles attempted to calm DJ down, but DJ continued to be agitated.

18. In fear for DJ’s health and safety, Ms. Quarles called 911, explaining the situation

to dispatch.

19. Ms. Quarles informed the dispatch personnel that DJ was not armed, nor were

there any firearms in the house.

20. Defendant Officers, one of which was P.O. J. Ricci, were sent to Ms. Quarles’s

residence for a welfare check.

21. At some point prior to or while arriving at the Quarles’s residence, the Defendant

Officers turned on their body-worn cameras.

22. P.O. Ricci unholstered his firearm upon entry into the residence.

\ 3
 23. After gaining entry into the residence, the Defendant Officers proceeded toward

the bedroom where Ms. Quarles and DJ were located.

24. P.O. Ricci had his firearm pointed at the bedroom door, as he kicked the door in

to gain access.

25. When the bedroom door is opened, DJ is sitting on the edge of his mother’s bed,

facing the officers, with his hands up in a surrender position.

26. P.O. Ricci keeps the gun pointed at DJ as he instructs DJ to get on the ground.

27. DJ complies and gets on the floor.

28. Upon seeing a weapon pointed at him, DJ starts to stand up and then runs out of

the bedroom and into the hallway in fear.

29. At some point during the interaction, P.O. Ricci re-holsters his firearm.

30. A brief physical struggle ensued between Defendant Officers and DJ.

31. One of the other officers on scene Tased™ DJ continuously while another officer

restrained him by straddling and kneeling over him on the floor.

32. Moments later, P.O. Ricci unholsters his firearm again and shoots DJ multiple

times.

33. As a result, DJ succumbed to the gunshot wounds and died on scene.

COUNT I – EXCESSIVE FORCE

34. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates his allegations of Paragraphs 1-33

as his respective Paragraph 34 of Count I as though fully set forth herein.

35. At the time P.O. Ricci discharged his firearm, DJ was not an imminent threat of

great bodily harm to anyone.

\ 4
 36. During the entire encounter with the officers, DJ did not have anything in his

hands, including a weapon or object that could be perceived as a weapon, nor did he attempt to

take any weapon from Defendants.

37. At the time Defendant shot DJ, DJ was subdued on the ground, on his back, and

not physically aggressive.

38. The use of deadly force against DJ at that moment was unwarranted.

39. Defendant’s use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable.

40. The actions of the Defendant, P.O. J. Ricci, were intentional, willful, and wanton.

41. The actions of the Defendant, P.O. J. Ricci, were pursuant to the customs,

policies, and practices of the Anne Arundel Police Department.

42. The actions of the Defendant, P.O. J. Ricci, violated DJ Quarles’s constitutional

rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

43. As a result of the actions of Defendant P.O. Ricci, the Plaintiff, DJ Quarles,

suffered severe pain and suffering, economic and non-economic losses, emotional distress, fear

and loss of enjoyment of life, and death.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF DJ QUARLES, prays for judgement against

the Defendant, P.O. J. RICCI, for reasonable compensatory damages, punitive damages,

attorney’s fees plus costs.

COUNT II – FAILURE TO INTERVENE

44. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates its allegations of Paragraphs 1-43

as its respective Paragraph 43 of Count II as though fully set forth herein.

45. During the physical struggle, the Defendant, P.O. John Doe, rather than

attempting to deescalate the situation, yelled multiple times at P.O. Ricci to “shoot him.”

\ 5
 46. The explicit words and actions of Defendant P.O. John Doe failed to intervene in

the situation and in fact provoked Defendant P.O. Ricci to use deadly force on DJ.

47. P.O. John Doe had a legal duty and obligation to intervene in the situation as

opposed to yelling at his fellow officer to “shoot” an unarmed DJ.

48. At no time was there any necessity to use deadly force.

49. The actions of Defendant, P.O. John Doe, were intentional, willful and wanton.

50. The actions of the Defendant, P.O. John Doe, violated DJ Quarles’s constitutional

rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §1983.

51. As a result of the actions, inactions, and words of the Defendant, P.O. JOHN

DOE, the Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and suffering, economic and non-economic losses,

emotional distress, fear and loss of enjoyment of life, and death.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF DJ QUARLES, prays for judgement against

the Defendant, P.O. JOHN DOE, for reasonable compensatory damages, punitive damages, plus

attorneys’ fees and costs.

COUNT III – WRONGFUL DEATH

52. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates its allegations of Paragraphs 1-8

and Paragraphs 13-33 of the Facts Section as its respective Paragraph 52 of Count III as though

fully set forth herein.

53. Plaintiff Mikel Quarles (“Plaintiff Mikel”), Surviving Mother and Personal

Representative of the Estate of Dyonta Quarles Jr., deceased, sues the Defendant in a wrongful

death claim pursuant to Sections 3-901 to 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of

the Maryland Annotated Code, and for a claim states:

\ 6
 54. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Mikel was, and is, a resident of Anne Arundel

County, Maryland.

55. Plaintiff Mikel is the primary beneficiary in this action pursuant to Section 3-904

(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

56. In addition to Plaintiff Mikel, the following persons may be entitled by law to

recover damages: Micah Quarles, sister of the deceased, Erica Thomas, aunt of the deceased,

Myles Thomas-Blanger, cousin of the deceased.

57. On or about January 30, 2022, Defendant, P.O. Ricci, caused the death of DJ

when P.O. Ricci intentionally discharged his firearm at DJ from close range.

58. At all relevant times, P.O. Ricci had a duty to refrain from willful and wanton

conduct in the course of his employment.

59. Notwithstanding that duty, P.O. Ricci was willful and wanton in one or more of

the following respects:

a. Failed to deescalate the situation and his interactions with DJ;

b. Failed to employ nonlethal force to subdue DJ;

c. Failed to reasonably assess the level of threat that DJ posed;

d. Caused, in whole or in part, the escalation of the situation through his actions; and

e. Discharged his firearm, a deadly weapon, at an unarmed civilian.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and/or wrongful acts

as alleged above, DJ Quarles died from multiple gunshot wounds.

61. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful death of DJ Quarles, Plaintiff

Mikel sustained pecuniary loss, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society,

loss of companionship, loss of comfort, loss of protection, and loss of filial care.

\ 7
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mikel Quarles, Surviving Mother and Personal Representative

of the Estate of Dyonta Quarles Jr., deceased, on her own behalf and on behalf of the named use

plaintiffs, demands judgment against Defendant, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of

One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in compensatory damages to be proportioned pursuant to

Section 3-904(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, plus interest and costs.

COUNT IV – SURVIVAL ACTION

62. Plaintiff Mikel Quarles hereby realleges and incorporates the allegations of

Paragraphs 1-8 and 13-33 of the Facts Section and Paragraphs 53-61 of Count III as her

respective Paragraph 62 of Count IV as though fully set forth herein.

63. Plaintiff Mikel is the personal representative for the Estate of Dyonta Quarles Jr.

64. Pursuant to Maryland Estates and Trusts Code Annotated, § 7-401 (y), Mikel

Quarles may prosecute or submit to actions, claims or proceedings in any appropriate

jurisdiction, including the commencement of a personal action which the decedent, DJ Quarles,

may have commenced or prosecuted on her own behalf.

65. As such, Plaintiff Mikel’s claim for damages on behalf of the Estate under

the Survival Action includes medical/funeral expenses, lost wages during DJ Quarles’s otherwise

normal life expectancy, pain, suffering, and mental anguish suffered by the Decedent as a result

of the inflicted injuries, and all other damages permissible under Maryland law.

66. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff Mikel’s

decedent, Dyonta Quarles Jr., died on January 30, 2022.

67. For a period of time after Defendant P.O. Ricci discharged his firearm, the

decedent, DJ Quarles, survived and suffered pain and distress.

\ 8
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mikel Quarles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Dyonta Quarles Jr., demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an

amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit and for all other relief deemed just and proper.

COUNT V – RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

68. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-8 and

Paragraphs 13-33 of the Facts Section and Paragraphs 53-61 of Count III and Paragraphs 63-67

of Count IV as her respective Paragraph 68 of Count V as though fully set forth herein.

69. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants were

members of, and agents of, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, acting all times

relevant within the scope of their employment.

70. Defendant AAC is liable as a principal for all torts committed by their agents.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mikel Quarles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Dyonta Quarles Jr., demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an

amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit and for all other relief deemed just and proper.

COUNT VI – MONELL CLAIM AGAINST ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

71. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-33 of

the Facts Section and Paragraphs 34-51 of Counts I and II, as her respective Paragraph 79 of

Count VI as though fully set forth herein.

72. Defendant P.O. J. Ricci has been a sworn member of the AAC Police Department

for approximately three years.

73. At the time of the fatal shooting of DJ, the AAC Police Department had actual or

constructive notice that DJ Quarles was an individual suffering from mental illness.

\ 9
 74. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant AAC, through Anne Arundel

County police administration, supervisory personnel, and other police officers knew and

understood that it had inadequate practices and procedures in place for calls involving

individuals suffering from mental illness and/or emotionally disturbed individuals.

75. That prior to the time of the incident at issue in this suit, Defendant AAC’s

failure to the appropriately train, supervise, and monitor officers who had occasion to respond to

calls for service involving individuals suffering from mental illness and/or emotionally disturbed

individuals had resulted in police involved shootings.

76. As a result, the AAC Police Department had actual or constructive notice of a

need to more thoroughly train its officers; utilize the Crisis Intervention Team and/or Mobile

Crisis Team in calls with involving individuals known to suffer from mental illness and/or to

emotionally disturbed individuals; and to more thoroughly supervise officers who might be

caused to encounter individuals known to suffer from mental illness and/or to emotionally

disturbed individuals.

77. At the time of the fatal shooting of DJ, the AAC Police Department had

developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the

constitutional rights of citizens suffering from mental illness, which caused the violation of DJ

Quarles’s rights.

78. That it was the policy and/or custom of the Baltimore County Police Department

to inadequately supervise and train its police officers, thereby failing to adequately discourage

further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers.

\ 10
 79. That as a result of the above-described policies and customs, police officers of

AAC believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and

that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned but would be tolerated.

80. That the actions of Defendants were undertaken pursuant to a customs or usages

within the AAC Police Department of quickly directing excessive and deadly force at

emotionally disturbed persons and or persons suffering from mental illness and mental or

emotional crises; and also of failing to utilize the Mobile Response Unit and/or call upon and/or

utilize officers who were trained for encounters involving emotionally disturbed persons.

81. That the above-described policies and practices demonstrate a deliberate

indifference on the part of AAC to the constitutional rights of persons within the County.

82. The above-described AAC policies and practices were the proximate cause of the

violations of DJ’s rights alleged herein, and/or said policies and practices contributed to the

wrong committed upon DJ, and his subsequent death.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF DJ QUARLES, prays for judgement against

the Defendant, P.O. JOHN DOE, P.O. JANE DOE, P.O. J. RICCI, and ANNE ARUNDEL

COUNTY, for reasonable compensatory damages plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

COUNT VII – INDEMNIFICATION

83. The Plaintiff, ESTATE OF DJ QUARLES, hereby re-alleges and incorporates its

allegations of Paragraphs 1-82 of Counts I-VI as his respective allegations of Paragraph 83 of

Count VII as though fully set forth herein.

84. Maryland law provides that local government agencies shall be liable for any

judgment against its employee for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions committed

within the scope of their employment with such government agency.

\ 11
 85. All the Defendant Officers are employees of the Anne Arundel County of

Maryland Police Department, who acted within the scope of their employment in committing the

conduct described herein.

WHEREFORE, should Defendants be found liable for the acts alleged above,

Defendants P.O. J. RICCI, P.O. JOHN DOE, P.O. JANE DOE, and THE COUNTY OF ANNE

ARUNDEL would be liable to pay the Plaintiff any judgment obtained against said Defendants.

JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff, ESTATE OF DJ QUARLES, hereby requests a trial by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

________________________
One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
Gianna Gizzi, No. 6332727
Gregory E. Kulis (No. 6180966)
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2140
Chicago, IL 60602
p: (312) 580-1830 / f: (312) 580-1839
e: ggizzi@kulislawltd.com
e. service@kulislawltd.com

\ 12