Carmon v. Ennis and Town Filed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EASTERN DIVISION
Case No. 4-24-CV-16
DARRON ANTONIO CARMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
THE TOWN OF WINTERVILLE, and JOHN
DEREK ENNIS, in his individual and official JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
capacity,
Defendants.
NOW COMES Plaintiff Darron Carmon, demanding a jury trial and alleging the
following against the Defendants:
INTRODUCTION
1. This matter concerns the extraordinary misconduct of law enforcement officers
from the Winterville Police Department (“WPD”) 1 that caused the conviction and continued
wrongful imprisonment of Plaintiff Darron Carmon (“Mr. Carmon”) for a crime he did not commit.
As a result of their actions or inactions, Mr. Carmon, an innocent man, spent eight years wrongfully
imprisoned and sustained numerous discrete, compensable bodily, personal, and emotional injuries
which were actually and proximately caused by Defendants’ acts, errors, or omissions.
1
Plaintiff has filed suit against the Town of Winterville and other defendants in Case No. 4-23-
CV-0041-M. Given the statute of limitations deadline for filing certain state law claims, Plaintiff
has filed this action rather than filing a motion to amend the pending Complaint to name Officer
John Ennis and to include certain state law claims against the Town of Winterville. Plaintiff has
also filed a Notice of Related Case pursuant to Rule 40.3 of the Local Rules for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 30

2. On February 4, 1994, Mr. Carmon was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to forty
years of imprisonment for the alleged robbery of a Fresh Way convenience store cashier, Robert
Thompson (“Mr. Thompson”), in Winterville, North Carolina on October 29, 1993. Mr. Carmon
was innocent of those charges. Mr. Carmon’s wrongful conviction was the direct result of the
intentional, reckless, negligent and/or grossly negligent misconduct of members of the WPD. The
criminal investigation conducted by the WPD officers focused immediately on Mr. Carmon even
though he did not match the victim’s description of the assailant and no evidence suggested Mr.
Carmon’s involvement in the crime. During the course of that investigation, Defendants engaged
in a pervasive pattern of misconduct aimed at proving Mr. Carmon’s guilt. As further described
below, their unlawful actions occurred at every stage of the investigation, prosecution, and post-
conviction proceedings. They fabricated evidence, manipulated the sole eyewitness into making a
false witness identification, hid exculpatory and impeachment evidence from Mr. Carmon’s
defense team and the prosecutors, and presented untruthful testimony at trial.
3. After his wrongful conviction, Mr. Carmon maintained his innocence and sought
to discover exculpatory evidence in Defendants’ possession that would have reversed his
conviction, caused an earlier release from prison, and mitigated Mr. Carmon’s exposure to prison
conditions. In particular, Defendants had in their possession physical exculpatory evidence—
including exclusionary fingerprint and palmprint lifts from the Fresh Way store as well as other
physical evidence that was ultimately destroyed—that would have exonerated Mr. Carmon.
4. In furtherance thereof, Mr. Carmon sought relief from the North Carolina Court of
Appeals on his direct appeal. In particular, he sought to show the Court of Appeals the need for
his request for a continuance of the trial. The appeal was litigated for a year which ended with a
denial for relief on March 21, 1995. Undeterred, in 1997, Mr. Carmon filed a Motion for

Appropriate Relief (the “1997 MAR”) which was litigated for a year, ending with a final denial of
relief of January 23, 1998, and a second Motion for Appropriate Relief filed February 19, 2000
(the “2000 MAR”) was also denied. Defendants knew about these post-conviction efforts and the
bases for them and had the opportunity and duty to come forward with exculpatory evidence that
established Mr. Carmon’s innocence. Instead, Defendants concealed and/or destroyed evidence of
Mr. Carmon’s innocence and continued to present false and misleading information and statements
to Mr. Carmon, his counsel and the District Attorney. Defendants’ misconduct caused the denial
of Mr. Carmon’s post-conviction efforts to prove his innocence during these years. Defendants
had an ongoing duty to review their file and disclose the existence of all exculpatory evidence,
including finger and palm prints, during the course of multiple post-conviction motions and
investigations.
5. 28 years later defendants finally complied with their continuous and ongoing duty
to disclose the finger and palm print evidence that they had in their possession from the very
beginning of the investigation and throughout years of efforts to investigate and pursue post-
conviction remedies. This evidence, withheld from Mr. Carmon and multiple investigators and
attorneys who acted on his behalf and represented him over the years, proved that he was innocent,
as he had maintained from the beginning. Based on this evidence, his conviction was overturned.
On August 10, 2022, Superior Court Judge Marvin Blount signed a consent Motion for
Appropriate Relief and order overturning Mr. Carmon’s conviction. The motion and consent order
stated in part, “[h]ad the exculpatory fingerprints been produced to the defense, there is a
reasonable probability that—considering the single cross-racial identification, and the absence of
any other physical evidence—the result of the trial would have been different.”

6. Plaintiff Darron Carmon brings this action for compensatory damages and punitive
damages pursuant to North Carolina law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the First, Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Darron Carmon is a resident of Pitt County, North Carolina.
8. Defendant the Town of Winterville (“Town”) is a municipal corporation organized
by charter under Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. It maintains and operates
the Winterville Police Department (“WPD”). Employees of WPD are employees and agents of the
Town, which bears legal responsibility under state law for the negligent acts and omissions of
WPD’s employees in the course of their employment. The Town is responsible for the
appointment, training, supervision, promotion and discipline of police officers and supervisory
police officers, including the individually named defendants herein.
9. Further, on information and belief, the Town of Winterville, at the time of the acts,
errors, omissions, and injuries sustained by Mr. Carmon alleged herein, had waived governmental
or sovereign immunity from the state law tort claims in this case pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160A-
485, by participation in a government risk pool and/or through purchase of commercial insurance
that will indemnify the Town and its agents for any judgment against it or its agents named in this
action.
10. All individual Defendant WPD officers sued herein are entitled under North
Carolina law to indemnification by the Town of Winterville for any liability arising from conduct
described herein.
11. Officer John Derek Ennis is a police officer formerly employed by the Winterville
Police Department, being sued in his individual and official capacity.

JURISDICTION
12. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and
(a)(4) because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the laws of the United States and seek redress for
rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and deprived under color of state law.
13. Plaintiff further invokes this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a) over any and all North Carolina state law claims and causes of action which
derive from the same nucleus of operative facts and are part of the same case or controversy that
gives rise to the federally based claims and causes of action.
VENUE
14. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), and 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), where
Defendants reside and maintain their relevant places of business and where the actions complained
of herein occurred.
FACTS
I. Mr. Carmon Is Wrongfully Convicted for an Alleged Robbery and Sentenced to 40

Years in Prison.
A. The Alleged Robbery.
15. On October 29, 1993, Mr. Carmon was 19 years old.
16. That evening, around 9:30 p.m., Robert Thompson called the WPD and reported
that he had been robbed in his capacity as a clerk at the Fresh Way convenience store on Mills
Street in Winterville, NC (“Fresh Way”). WPD Officers Donnie Greene and Emmanuel Armaos
responded to Fresh Way.

17. Upon arriving at the store, Mr. Thompson informed the officers that he was the
victim of an armed robbery. He claimed that the assailant took $281.22 in U.S. Currency from the
cash register.
18. Mr. Thompson claimed that he had been robbed by a black male with a handgun.
19. Mr. Thompson described the robber as 6’ tall with a large afro-top haircut.
20. No surveillance video footage, no other eyewitness and no evidence of property
damage or signs of disturbance indicative of a robbery were located by the WPD officers.
21. Mr. Thompson was the sole witness to the alleged robbery.
22. His account was uncorroborated by any witnesses or physical evidence.
23. Mr. Thompson was Caucasian.
24. Mr. Thompson claimed the alleged assailant was not someone he knew or
recognized.
25. Officers Greene and Armaos provided Mr. Thompson with a mug shot book—
consisting of pages of individual mug shot photos of black and white males of young and old
ages—from which Mr. Thompson selected a photo of Mr. Carmon.
26. Mr. Carmon is African American.
27. Mr. Carmon is 5’5.
28. In 1993, at the time of the alleged robbery, Mr. Carmon had a short, cropped haircut.
29. At this time, Officer John Derek Ennis was the forensic technician for the WPD.
30. Officer Ennis responded to the Fresh Way and took prints from the scene of the
alleged crime.
31. Officer Greene informed Officer Ennis of locations in the store he believed the
suspect had touched during the alleged robbery.

32. Officer Ennis took print lifts from the locations in the store provided by Greene.
B. Mr. Carmon is Arrested and Taken to the Winterville Police Department.
33. On the morning of October 30, 1993, at approximately 4 a.m., Mr. Carmon was
arrested and taken to the WPD.
34. His father, William Carmon, learned Darron Carmon had been arrested and
immediately drove to the WPD.
35. At the WPD, Officers Greene and Armaos informed William Carmon, that Mr.
Thompson had initially described the alleged robber as being 6’ tall with a large afro-top haircut.
36. Officer Greene stated that Darron Carmon did not match the description given by
Mr. Thompson.
37. Still, the officers charged Darron Carmon with taking $281.22 in U.S. Currency,
while in possession of a firearm.
38. Neither the money alleged to have been stolen, nor any firearm, were found on Mr.
Carmon or ever located.
C. WPD Officers Fabricate Evidence Against Darron Carmon.
39. The following day, WPD Officer Donnie Greene drafted an incident report for the
alleged robbery.
40. The WPD officers knew that armed solely with Mr. Thompson’s faulty
identification they lacked probable cause to charge Mr. Carmon.
41. In an attempt to manufacture probable cause, the officers fabricated key details in
their investigative report, including that Mr. Thompson stated the individual who robbed him was
approximately 5’8 and had a “short” haircut.
42. The officers—to bolster this fabrication—listed Mr. Carmon in their investigative
report as 5’8.

43. These fabricated allegations were provided to the Pitt County District’s Attorney’s
Office.
44. In addition to these fabrications, Officers Greene and Armaos failed to inform the
Pitt County DA that Mr. Thompson had stated—at the time they arrived at the Fresh Way—that
the alleged robber was 6’ tall and had an afro haircut.
D. WPD Officers Suppress Exculpatory Fingerprint Evidence.
45. The WPD Officers knew that Mr. Carmon looked nothing like the description Mr.
Thompson gave of the alleged robber (6 ft tall with an afro haircut), and that the finger and palm
print evidence would exculpate him.
46. On October 31, 1993, the officers submitted an “investigative report” to the DA.
47. The investigative report included a section labeled “Documents and Tangible
Evidence.”
48. Officers Greene and Armaos did not indicate anywhere in the report that they had
taken finger and palm print lifts from the Fresh Way. The investigative report was signed by
Officer Greene.
49. According to Officer Greene, Officer Ennis bore responsibility for failing to
indicate in the investigative report to the DA that prints had been collected from the crime scene.
50. According to Officer Ennis, Officer Greene—the officer in charge of the
investigation—was solely responsible for completing the investigative report to the DA and
including in the report that prints had been collected at the scene.
51. TheWPD Officers never disclosed the existence of the finger and palm print lifts to
the DA.
52. The WPD Officers never turned over the finger and palm print lifts to the DA.

53. The WPD Officers never sent the finger and palm prints lifts to the state crime lab
for comparison or analysis.
E. Trial and Sentencing.
54. Mr. Carmon refused to plead guilty because he was innocent.
55. On February 4, 1994, trial began in the State v. Darron Carmon.
56. When defense counsel made a Brady motion at the start of trial, he was informed
by Clark Everett, the District Attorney, that no relevant material remained to be disclosed.
57. Officer Greene, who was present at trial, knew this was false.
58. Robert Thompson, the Fresh Way clerk, testified that Mr. Carmon was the sole
perpetrator of the robbery.
59. Mr. Thompson testified that other people were present at the gas pumps at the
Winterville Fresh Way, but none of them claimed to have seen the alleged perpetrator.
60. The Defense presented one alibi witness, Earl Whichard.
61. Mr. Whichard testified that he was in Greenville with Mr. Carmon from 7 p.m. to
approximately 10:30 p.m. on the night of the alleged robbery.
62. No fingerprint evidence was ever turned over to the defense or introduced at trial.
63. No surveillance video footage, no other eyewitnesses (despite other people being
at the gas station), and no property damage or signs of a disturbance indicated that a robbery ever
occurred, let alone that Mr. Carmon did it.
64. After a one-day trial, a jury sitting at the Pitt County Superior Court found Darron
Carmon guilty of robbery with a firearm.
65. At sentencing, Judge Duke asked Mr. Carmon to apologize to his parents, who were
sitting in the courtroom, for committing the robbery.

66. Because he is innocent, Mr. Carmon refused to apologize. Judge Duke sentenced
Mr. Carmon to 40 years in prison, the maximum sentence allowable by law for a Class D felony.
II. Mr. Carmon’s Efforts to Secure His Release Are Obstructed by Defendants.
A. Defendants suppress exculpatory evidence in connection with Mr. Carmon’s

post-conviction proceedings.
67. After his conviction, Mr. Carmon continued to proclaim his innocence and fight for
his freedom.
68. Mr. Carmon attempted to secure release from the harms caused by Defendants
through post-conviction proceedings. Mr. Carmon’s direct appeal was litigated for a year which
ended with a denial for relief on March 21, 1995 (the “1995 COA”). Undeterred, in 1997, Mr.
Carmon filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief (the “1997 MAR”) which was litigated for a year,
ending with a final denial of relief of January 23, 1998. A second Motion for Appropriate Relief
filed by attorney Milton Finch on February 19, 2000 (the “2000 MAR”) was likewise denied.
69. Defendants knew about these post-conviction efforts and the bases for them and
had the opportunity and duty to examine their file and produce any and all evidence that might be
exculpatory. Defendants also knew they had legal and constitutional obligations in post-conviction
years to review and verify the district attorney’s erroneous or false representation that no Brady
evidence existed and/or correct the district attorney’s false representation that no Brady evidence
existed. Instead, Defendants failed in their common law, statutory and constitutional duties to
preserve and produce all exculpatory evidence as defined in Brady and its progeny and/or withheld,
concealed and/or destroyed evidence of Mr. Carmon’s innocence. Further, they repeatedly and
continuously failed to correct prior misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the existence of
finger and palm print evidence and/or repeatedly and continuously presented false and misleading
information and statements to Mr. Carmon, his counsel and the District Attorney. Defendants’
10

misconduct caused the denial of Mr. Carmon’s post-conviction efforts to prove his innocence
during these years.
70. Despite having evidence in their possession that was strong enough to eventually
exonerate Mr. Carmon decades later, Defendants violated their legal and constitutional duties by
failing to disclose, concealing and/or suppressing plainly exculpatory forensic evidence and other
material from the post-conviction courts, including but not limited to the following material which
remained under Defendants’ exclusive control: (1) the exculpatory finger and palm print evidence
and (2) the fact that Mr. Thompson, the sole witness to the alleged robbery, had initially identified
someone seven inches taller and of a different hairstyle than Mr. Carmon.
B. Defendants destroy exculpatory evidence.
71. In 1996, Mr. Carmon’s parents hired a private investigator named Carolyn Melvin,
a former police officer of the Farmville Police Department and an advocate for racial justice and
police accountability, to champion Mr. Carmon’s cause and prove his innocence. (Ms. Melvin
formerly led the advocacy group called Citizens for Justice associated with the NAACP, Enough
is Enough, the Coalition Against Racism, and the Coalition for Educating Black Children).
72. Ms. Melvin was known by Defendant Donnie Greene as he joined the Farmville
police department in November 1993 (where he later became chief of police).
73. Ms. Melvin was also known by Defendant John Ennis as he joined the Farmville
police department in 1994.
74. Upon being retained, Ms. Melvin sought all exculpatory information regarding Mr.
Carmon’s case, including from the WPD and the case file from Mr. Carmon’s former trial attorney,
Edward Wells. (The exculpatory fingerprints were not located in Mr. Wells’s file because the
WPD never turned them over).
11

75. However, instead of disclosing the material evidence to Ms. Melvin, the WPD
continued to maintain that no such evidence existed. Worse, the WPD had other physical evidence
(including clothing that Mr. Carmon had allegedly worn on the night of the crime) that had been
collected and could have been forensically tested. Importantly, the clothes worn by Mr. Carmon
on the night of the incident did not match the description given of the clothes worn by the alleged
robber. This evidence could have been used post-conviction to prove Mr. Carmon’s innocence.
Instead of returning this evidence to Mr. Carmon or Ms. Melvin, the WPD destroyed the evidence.
76. Directly as a result of the repeated and ongoing withholding, and/or concealment
of exculpatory evidence, the destruction of other forensic evidence, and the failure of Defendant
Greene to disclose his fabrications, Mr. Carmon’s 1997 MAR was denied.
III. Mr. Carmon Is Released Early and Becomes a Community Leader in Greenville.
77. In 2001, after serving eight years in prison, Mr. Carmon was released early from
prison because of his good behavior. However, he still lives with the trauma and injuries sustained
during his imprisonment, as described further below.
78. Since his release from prison, Mr. Carmon has been an outstanding member of
society.
79. Mr. Carmon currently works full time as a pastor at Rebuild Christian Church.
80. Over the past two decades, he has transformed the lives of many struggling children
and families and has uplifted people across his community.
81. He is widely regarded as a leader across Pitt County and has founded or leads the
following organizations:
12

(a) Rebuild Christian Church (which has lifted up the community in many ways
including providing free meals and supplies to families in need during the COVID-
19 pandemic);
(b) Sikono Mentoring, a non-profit organization that provides father figures for
children whose fathers are not active in their lives;
(c) Winning Without Violence, a non-profit gun awareness program created in
collaboration with Cecil Hardy, a retired Greenville Police Department Captain;
(d) People Against Racism, a non-profit organized to fight systemic racism.
82. Mr. Carmon has also won numerous awards and accolades over the past decade,
including:
(a) 2021 Hero of the Year Award, for service to the Pitt and Greene Community;
(b) 2019 Hero of the Year Award, for service to the Winterville Community;
(c) Excellence in Leadership Award for 2018 from Senate District 5;
(d) Excellence in Leadership Award for 2016 from Senate District 5;
(e) In 2015, the Mayor of Winterville declared the fourth Saturday of every April
Pastor Darron Antonio Carmon Day for his community outreach work with at-
risk youth, ex-offenders, and gang members; 2
(f) Certificate of Appreciation from the North Carolina State Department of
Correction in 2011 for providing volunteer services.
IV. Mr. Carmon Is Finally Exonerated.
83. In 2020, Mr. Carmon retained new post-conviction counsel.
2
Town names a day in honor of Local Pastor, WITN (Apr. 8, 2018, 7:55 PM),
https://www.witn.com/content/news/Town-names-a-day-in-honor-of-local-pastor-
479100863.html#:~:text=Darron%20Carmon%20Day%20will%20be,last%20Saturday%20of%20the%20month.
13

84. On January 19, 2021, Mr. Carmon’s post-conviction counsel made a public records
request for the complete investigative file from the WPD.
85. Included among the materials produced by the WPD were photocopies of
fingerprint and palmprint lifts taken by the WPD from the Fresh Way on Mill Street at 10 p.m. on
the night of the alleged robbery.
86. On February 19, 2021, post-conviction counsel traveled to the WPD to scan and
obtain a high-resolution copy of the original lift of the prints.
87. On Thursday, March 12, 2021, Mr. Carmon gave a palm and fingerprint sample for
comparison purposes to the 1993 prints.
88. These, along with a high-resolution copy of the 1993 lifts, were sent to Glenn
Langenburg, Ph.D., a certified latent print examiner.
89. Mr. Langenburg found “no correspondence” between the palm prints of Mr.
Carmon and the palm print found at the scene of the alleged crime.
90. Mr. Langenburg excluded Mr. Carmon as the source of the prints found at the scene
of the alleged crime.
91. Mr. Langenburg’s conclusion was blind tested and confirmed by a second certified
examiner, Ashley Tate. Ms. Tate reached the same conclusion as Mr. Langenburg, excluding Mr.
Carmon as the source of the 1993 prints.
92. The finger and palm prints taken from the Fresh Way were never produced at trial.
93. In a recent interview, DA Clark Everett stated that if he had possessed any
fingerprint evidence from the scene of the crime, he would have turned it over to the defense.
94. Darron Carmon filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief in June 2021, alleging three
primary claims:
14

a. The State failed to disclose exculpatory fingerprint evidence in violation
of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and there is a reasonable probability
that, had this evidence been disclosed at trial, the jury would have returned a
different verdict.
b. Mr. Carmon is factually innocent.
c. The sole evidence produced by the State—the uncorroborated eyewitness
testimony of the alleged victim—was unreliable and obtained through suggestive
means and may have caused the false identification of Mr. Carmon.
95. After reviewing the motion, the current Pitt DA, Faris Dixon, conducted an
independent investigation of Mr. Carmon’s claims.
96. DA Faris Dixon assigned an investigator to the case who spoke to witnesses and
reviewed evidence.
97. DA Faris Dixon also submitted the newly discovered finger and palmprints to the
North Carolina State Crime Lab for analysis.
98. The results of the analysis by the North Carolina State Crime Lab are that the prints
cannot be attributed to Mr. Darron Carmon.
99. After completing his investigation, DA Faris Dixon consented to a Motion and
Order overturning Mr. Carmon’s conviction.
100. The consent motion and Order stated in pertinent part that:
a. As to Mr. Carmon’s claim of innocence, “the defense has reinvestigated
the matter and the State has also reinvestigated the matter with the States’ new
findings confirming for the most part the defendant’s findings.”
15

b. “Had the exculpatory fingerprints been produced to the defense, there is a
‘reasonable probability’ that—considering the single cross-racial identification,
and the absence of any other physical evidence—the result of the trial would have
been different. State v. Best, 376 N.C. 340, 354, 852 S.E.3d 191, 198, 201 (2020)
(overturning a conviction because of a ‘reasonable probability’ that the ‘jury
would have returned a different verdict’ had the Brady evidence been disclosed to
the defense).”
c. “After a review of all the Defendant’s claims and governing case law, the State
and the Defendant consent to the Defendant’s MAR and agree that this Court
should vacate the Defendant’s conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon
or grant other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”
101. On August 10, 2022, Superior Court Judge Marvin Blount signed the motion and
Order overturning Mr. Carmon’s conviction.
102. On August 12, 2022, DA Faris Dixon dismissed the robbery charge against Mr.
Carmon.
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
103. This action seeks damages on behalf of Mr. Carmon from the period of October 29,
1993 through each and every year to the present.
104. Defendants’ unlawful, intentional, deliberately indifferent, reckless, and/or
negligent acts, omissions, policies, procedures and customs, caused Mr. Carmon to be: wrongly
seized; wrongly convicted; falsely imprisoned; subjected to illegal searches and seizures and cruel-
and-unusual punishment; and forced to serve eight years in prison, followed by approximately five
years on probation—all for a crime he did not commit.
16

105. Defendants’ unlawful, intentional, deliberately indifferent, reckless, and/or
negligent conduct caused Mr. Carmon the following injuries: sickness and disease; pain and
suffering; severe mental anguish; emotional distress; loss of family; loss of companionship; loss
of love; loss of income; infliction of physical and mental illness; humiliation; indignities;
embarrassment; degradation; injury to reputation; permanent loss of natural psychological
development; and restrictions on all forms of personal freedom, including but not limited to diet,
sleep, personal contact, educational opportunity, vocational opportunity, athletic opportunity,
personal fulfillment, travel, enjoyment, and expression. Plaintiff also suffered from substandard
medical care.
106. These injuries were foreseeable to Defendants at the time of their acts and
omissions, continue through the present day, and will continue into the future.
107. Even if the WPD may not have expected or intended to imprison an innocent man
or cause Mr. Carmon’s bodily, physical, and emotional injuries, the WPD is nonetheless legally
responsible because these injuries are the foreseeable result of their policies, procedures, customs,
and failures to train.
108. In particular, Mr. Carmon sustained discrete, traumatic personal and bodily injuries
that were actually and proximately caused by Defendants’ actions, errors, or omissions—not only
their initial investigatory misconduct, but also their unconstitutional post-conviction conduct that
led to Plaintiff’s continued wrongful imprisonment.
109. Specifically, Mr. Carmon seeks compensation for the following injuries resulting
from his prolonged exposure to prison conditions:
a. Severe mental anguish and emotional distress while incarcerated.
17

i. As a man of smaller physical stature—just 5’5 and 130 pounds at the time
he entered prison—he often feared physical and sexual assault. This—
combined with the knowledge that he was an innocent man sentenced to
40 years in prison—made life unbearable. In 1994, Mr. Carmon began
collecting medications from inmates and, when he had collected a cup, he
attempted suicide by swallowing all the pills.
ii. From 1995 through 2001 Plaintiff witnessed multiple violent physical
assaults causing him to fear for his own life. This includes witnessing
another inmate being hit multiple times in the head with a lock in a sock
and witnessing guards beat other inmates while in handcuffs.
iii. From 1995 to 1997 Plaintiff worked in a unit that housed inmates in
solitary confinement. During this period, he often saw inmates being
beaten, hog tied, and pepper sprayed by guards. Plaintiff was routinely
assigned to clean blood from the segregation cells after these incidents.
After reporting this abuse to correctional officials, Plaintiff was subjected
to retaliation by officers. For example, Plaintiff was repeatedly locked in a
solitary cell without cause and was illegally subjected to strip searches and
cavity searches.
b. Back injury, allergic reactions, and exposure to volatile chemicals.
iv. From 1995 through 1997, after his transfer to Foothills Correctional
Center, Plaintiff was assigned work as a floor buffer/ janitor. In this role,
Plaintiff was forced to work grueling hours. His duties included stripping
floors with a chemical solution, scrubbing off prior wax, cleaning
18

surfaces, applying numerous layers of new finish, and buffing and shining
the floors. Plaintiff was unfamiliar with using and operating the buffer
equipment and was knocked to the ground multiple times while working.
v. Due to this work and improper equipment, Plaintiff sustained significant
injury to his back. In 1995, for example, Plaintiff’s back pain was so
intense that he was unable to leave his cell for work and was hospitalized
for treatment.
vi. Plaintiff also suffered severe allergies, including headaches, runny nose,
coughing and other symptoms from repeated exposure, without masks or
protective equipment, to the chemical agent used to strip wax from the
prison’s floors.
c. Physical assault and injury from other inmates and guards.
vii. Each year from 1995 through 2001, Plaintiff experienced and witnessed
numerous prison “riots.” During these “riots,” Plaintiff was pushed,
stepped on, or trampled by inmates in his dorm who had started fighting or
had run into his cell to attack him. Plaintiff sustained bruises cuts and
other injuries during these “riots”. Corrections officers responded to these
incidents by indiscriminately pepper spraying the entire dorm, causing
Plaintiff intense burning, coughing, choking, eye irritation and shortness
of breath.
viii. In 1997, an inmate named Kenneth Sinclair—who was imprisoned for
bludgeoning his girlfriend to death with a hammer—rushed into Plaintiff’s
cell to attack him. Mr. Sinclair grabbed Plaintiff and pushed him against
19

the metal bed and then into metal desk, causing him bruising and redness
before he was subdued by Plaintiff and other inmates. This attack is but
one of the reasons why Mr. Carmon suffers severe emotional trauma and
distress to this day.
d. Other bodily injury while incarcerated.
ix. In 1999, Plaintiff’s left pinky finger was broken. The break caused the
bone to go through his skin. He was left untreated and bleeding through
the night. Because of the delay in treatment his bone was never re-set and
remains misaligned today.
x. In 1999 and 2000, Plaintiff had three dental fillings removed. His teeth
were not properly treated upon removal of the fillings and have
deteriorated. Due to the substandard dental care he received while
incarcerated, Plaintiff must now have three teeth extracted through a root
canal procedure and will require replacement implants.
110. In addition to compensatory damages, Mr. Carmon is entitled to recover his
reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses from Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
I. Pretrial and Fair Trial Claims for Relief (Counts 1-4)
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C § 1983 Violation of Plaintiff’s Procedural and Substantive Due Process Rights
Under the Fourteenth Amendment—For Depriving Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights,
Concealment of Exculpatory Evidence, and Fabrication of False Inculpatory Evidence
111. Plaintiff Darron Carmon repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every
allegation contained in the above paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
20

112. Officer Ennis is sued under this claim in his individual capacity.
113. Officer Ennis is sued for violating Mr. Carmon’s rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment and are liable for damages under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
114. Defendant failed to disclose exculpatory palm and finger print evidence to Mr.
Carmon, his defense counsel, and the Pitt County District Attorney.
115. Defendant, the WPD crime technician, also failed to send the palm and finger
print lifts collected from the scene to the state crime lab for comparison or analysis.
116. These failures were committed both in bad faith and in gross deviation from
routine police conduct.
117. By engaging in this conduct, Defendant acted with deliberate and/or reckless
indifference to Mr. Carmon’s constitutional rights. Defendant could reasonably foresee that their
conduct would result in Mr. Carmon’s wrongful conviction and incarceration.
118. Defendant acted jointly in agreement to deprive Mr. Carmon of his constitutional
rights. Each Defendant performed overt acts in furtherance of that agreement and in furtherance
of their intent to deprive Mr. Carmon of his constitutional rights by failing to disclose
exculpatory evidence, failing to disclose impeachment evidence against their sole eyewitness,
manufacturing false evidence, making false representations to the DA and failing to intervene to
prevent others’ misconduct.
119. After Mr. Carmon filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief, Pitt DA Farris Dixon,
reviewed the evidence and consented to a motion and order overturning Mr. Carmon’s
conviction, and he then dismissed the charge.
120. The consent motion and order stated in part, “[h]ad the exculpatory fingerprints
been produced to the defense, there is a reasonable probability that—combined with Mr.
21

Carmon’s alibi witness, the single cross-racial identification, and the absence of any other
physical evidence—the result of the trial would have been different.”
121. Defendant’s misconduct deprived Mr. Carmon of his liberty without due process
of law, deprived him of his right to a fair trial and deprived him of his access to the courts, in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Mr. Carmon
sustained the injuries and damages described above.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Failure to Intervene in Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
Under 42 U.S.C § 1983
herein.
124. Officer Ennis is sued under this claim in his individual capacity.
125. Officer Ennis is sued for violating Mr. Carmon’s rights under the Fourth
Amendment and is liable for damages under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
126. Officer Ennis was present for and observed the aforementioned unlawful conduct
and had a duty and opportunity to intervene and prevent such conduct but failed to intervene.
127. Accordingly, Officer Ennis, by failing to intervene, violated Mr. Carmon’s rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
128. Officer Ennis knew or should have known that Officer Greene had failed to
disclose to the Pitt DA that finger and palm prints were collected from the scene of the crime.
129. Officer Ennis failed to intervene and inform the Pitt DA that he had collected
finger and palm prints from the scene.
22

130. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Mr. Carmon sustained
the injuries and damages described above.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Common Law Negligence
herein.
132. The Town of Winterville is sued under this claim for the acts of its employees and
officers.
133. The Town of Winterville, on information and belief, has waived immunity for this
claim on behalf of the Town and its officers acting in their official capacities.
134. Defendants had the following duties:
a. to ensure that citizens were not wrongfully arrested and charged with crimes they
did not commit;
b. to ensure that only reliable sources of evidence were used in criminal

prosecutions;
c. to exercise reasonable care when engaging in criminal investigations;
d. to disclose exculpatory material including impeachment information; and
e. to include accurate information in reports describing evidence in their possession.
135. Defendants were negligent and breached duties owed to Mr. Carmon in the
following respects:
a. Defendants wrongfully caused Mr. Carmon to be arrested and charged with

crimes he did not commit;
b. Defendants failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and failed to use this evidence
to conduct an adequate investigation;
23

c. Defendants failed to submit crucial physical evidence (the finger and palm prints
taken from the alleged scene of the crime) for testing;
d. Defendants failed to provide accurate or truthful information in their investigatory

reports related to Mr. Carmon;
e. Defendants failed to thoroughly investigate their sole eyewitness, Robert

Thompson; and
136. In other respects, to be proved through discovery and at trial.
137. Defendants, by and through its agents, were negligent and breached each of the
duties outlined in ¶134 and owed to Mr. Carmon, resulting in Mr. Carmon being deprived of his
right to be free from wrongful imprisonment and causing bodily and personal injuries.
138. Defendant Town of Winterville, as the principal for its agents, including
Defendant Ennis, is responsible under respondeat superior for the bodily and personal injuries,
caused by the acts and omissions alleged herein.
139. Defendant Ennis acted within the course and scope of his employment in the acts
and omissions alleged herein.
140. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Mr. Carmon was
wrongfully arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated, and Mr. Carmon suffered physical,
emotional, and pecuniary damages.
II. Post-trial Claims for Relief (Counts 4-6)
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Deprivation of Due Process and Access to the Courts in Violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C § 1983
herein.
142. Officer Ennis is sued under this claim in his individual and official capacities.
24

143. Officer Ennis is sued for violating Mr. Carmon’s rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments and are liable for damages under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
144. Officer Ennis deprived Mr. Carmon of his constitutional right to due process of
law and meaningful access to the courts by withholding, failing to correct representations or
misrepresentations regarding finger and palm print evidence, covering up and/or concealing from
the courts—including with respect to the 1995 COA, 1997 MAR, and 2000 MAR—evidence that
demonstrated Mr. Carmon’s innocence. See, e.g., Howard v. City of Durham, 68 F.4th 934, 947
(4th Cir. 2023) (plaintiff has constitutionally protected right to demonstrate their innocence in
post-conviction proceedings).
145. As a result of these Defendants’ acts and omissions, Mr. Carmon was deprived of
evidence that would have allowed him to successfully challenge his conviction through post-
conviction remedies that were available to him, including but not limited to his direct appeal and
Motions for Appropriate Relief based on new evidence under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1415(c).
146. Defendant Ennis had an ongoing affirmative obligation to come forward with
withheld and/or suppressed print evidence that eventually led to Mr. Carmon’s conviction being
overturned.
147. Defendant’s actions and omissions directly and proximately deprived Mr. Carmon
of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by unlawfully interfering with his right
of access to the courts and needlessly extended his wrongful incarceration. As a result of
Defendants’ misconduct, Mr. Carmon was wrongfully imprisoned for 6 additional years and 5
years of wrongful probation, and suffered physical, emotional, and pecuniary injuries as
described in this Complaint and to be proved through discovery and at trial.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Common Law Negligence
25

herein.
149. The Town of Winterville is sued under this claim for the acts of its employees.
151. Defendants had a duty to properly train and supervise officers, detectives, and
supervisor employees of the WPD and to provide adequate policies to prevent the above conduct,
including concealing material exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
152. Defendants also had the following duties:
(a) to ensure that citizens were not wrongfully arrested and charged with crimes they
did not commit;
(b) to ensure that only reliable sources of evidence were used in criminal
prosecutions;
(c) to exercise reasonable care when engaging in criminal investigations;
(d) to disclose exculpatory material including impeachment information; and
(e) to include accurate information in reports describing evidence in their
possession; and
(f) to fully comply with statutory obligations regarding turning over evidence held
in their possession in connection with post-conviction proceedings.
153. Defendants, by and through its agents, were negligent and breached each of the
duties outlined in ¶149 and owed to Mr. Carmon, resulting in Mr. Carmon being deprived of his
right to be free from wrongful imprisonment and causing bodily and personal injuries.
26

154. Defendant Town of Winterville, as the principal for its agents, including
Defendant Ennis, is responsible under respondeat superior for the bodily and personal injuries,
caused by the acts and omissions alleged herein.
155. Defendant Ennis acted within the course and scope of his employment in the acts
and omissions alleged herein.
156. This claim is being brought as a post-trial claim pursuant to Limone v. United
States, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143, 229–30 (D. Mass. 2007), aff'd on other grounds, 579 F.3d 79 (1st
Cir. 2009) (“Even had plaintiffs failed to prove their claim of malicious prosecution, the
defendant would still be liable for negligence in failing to intervene to prevent Barboza's perjury
at the Deegan murder trial, failing to adequately supervise front-line FBI agents, and continuing
to sit on the truth for years after.”) (emphasis added).
157. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Mr. Carmon suffered
physical, emotional, and pecuniary damages as described above.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Common Law Obstruction of Justice
herein.
159. The Town of Winterville is sued under this claim for the acts of its employees and
officers.
27

161. The Town and its employees and officers prevented, obstructed, impeded or
hindered public or legal justice, including the exoneration of Mr. Carmon and the prosecution of
the actual robber if one existed.
162. As a direct and proximate result of the obstruction of justice by the Town and its
employees, Mr. Carmon suffered physical, emotional, and pecuniary damages as described
above.
III. Respondeat Superior and Indemnification (Counts 7-8)
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Respondeat Superior
163. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs and further alleges as
follows.
164. In committing the acts alleged in the previous paragraphs, these Defendants were
employees or agents of the Town of Winterville, acting within the scope of their employment.
165. The Town has waived its immunity by purchasing insurance pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 160A-485(a).
166. Therefore, the Town is liable as principal for the torts committed by its agents in
the course and scope of their employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Indemnification
167. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs and further alleges as
follows.
168. The Town of Winterville is permitted by state law and, on information and belief,
has elected to pay any final judgment against an employee that results from an act done or
omission made in the scope and course of his or her employment with the Town.
28

169. In committing the acts alleged in this Complaint, the named Defendants were at all
times employees of the Town of Winterville and acting within the course and scope of their
employment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Darron Carmon prays that the Court enter judgment in his favor
and order relief as follows:
A. Compensatory damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally;
B. Punitive damages against the individual Defendant;
C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and recovery of costs, as well as

reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other
applicable laws;
D. Any other and further relief the Court deems equitable and just.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Darron Carmon respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues in this matter so
triable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
Respectfully submitted this the 29th day of January 2024.
/s/ Abraham Rubert-Schewel

Abraham Rubert-Schewel (NCSB #: 56863)
Email: schewel@tinfulton.com
TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC
119 Orange Street
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 451-9216
/s/ Emily D. Gladden

Emily D. Gladden (NCSB #: 49224)
Email: egladden@tinfulton.com
407 N. Person Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 720-4201
29

Facsimile: (919) 400-4516
/s/ Zachary Ezor

Zachary Ezor (NCSB #: 55070)
Email: zezor@tinfulton.com
119 Orange Street
Durham, NC 27701
Counsel for Plaintiff Darron Carmon
30

Carmon v. Ennis and Town Filed

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

Carmon v. Ennis and Town Filed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DARRON ANTONIO CARMON,

following against the Defendants:

1. This matter concerns the extraordinary misconduct of law enforcement officers

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 30

conditions. In particular, Defendants had in their possession physical exculpatory evidence—

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 2 of 30

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 3 of 30

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

7. Plaintiff Darron Carmon is a resident of Pitt County, North Carolina.

8. Defendant the Town of Winterville (“Town”) is a municipal corporation organized

police officers, including the individually named defendants herein.

Police Department, being sued in his individual and official capacity.

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 4 of 30

13. Plaintiff further invokes this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28

gives rise to the federally based claims and causes of action.

I. Mr. Carmon Is Wrongfully Convicted for an Alleged Robbery and Sentenced to 40

A. The Alleged Robbery.

15. On October 29, 1993, Mr. Carmon was 19 years old.

responded to Fresh Way.

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 5 of 30

20. No surveillance video footage, no other eyewitness and no evidence of property

22. His account was uncorroborated by any witnesses or physical evidence.

23. Mr. Thompson was Caucasian.

ages—from which Mr. Thompson selected a photo of Mr. Carmon.

26. Mr. Carmon is African American.

27. Mr. Carmon is 5’5.

suspect had touched during the alleged robbery.

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 6 of 30

B. Mr. Carmon is Arrested and Taken to the Winterville Police Department.

arrested and taken to the WPD.

immediately drove to the WPD.

while in possession of a firearm.

Carmon or ever located.

C. WPD Officers Fabricate Evidence Against Darron Carmon.

identification they lacked probable cause to charge Mr. Carmon.

approximately 5’8 and had a “short” haircut.

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 7 of 30

the alleged robber was 6’ tall and had an afro haircut.

D. WPD Officers Suppress Exculpatory Fingerprint Evidence.

print evidence would exculpate him.

50. According to Officer Ennis, Officer Greene—the officer in charge of the

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 8 of 30

for comparison or analysis.

E. Trial and Sentencing.

54. Mr. Carmon refused to plead guilty because he was innocent.

55. On February 4, 1994, trial began in the State v. Darron Carmon.

perpetrator of the robbery.

60. The Defense presented one alibi witness, Earl Whichard.

approximately 10:30 p.m. on the night of the alleged robbery.

occurred, let alone that Mr. Carmon did it.

Carmon guilty of robbery with a firearm.

sitting in the courtroom, for committing the robbery.

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 9 of 30

A. Defendants suppress exculpatory evidence in connection with Mr. Carmon’s

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 10 of 30

during these years.

B. Defendants destroy exculpatory evidence.

police department in November 1993 (where he later became chief of police).

police department in 1994.

WPD never turned them over).

Case 4:24-cv-00016-FL Document 1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 11 of 30

during his imprisonment, as described further below.