Lee Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Civil Case No. 4:23-cv-212
SHEILA LEE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, )
OFFICER M. O’HARA, )
in his individual and official capacity, )
OFFICER RODRIGUEZ, )
in his individual and official capacity, ) COMPLAINT
and JOHN DOES 1-3, in their individual ) (Jury Trial Demanded)
and official capacities, GINA HAWKINS, )
in her official capacity as Chief of Police )
for City of Fayetteville, and MITCH )
COLVIN, in his official capacity as Mayor )
of City of Fayetteville. )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
NOW COMES Plaintiff SHEILA LEE, by and through her undersigned counsel, and
complaining of acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, the City of Fayetteville, Officer M.
O’Hara, Officer Rodriguez and John Does 1-3, Gina Hawkins, and Mitch Colvin, demands a jury
trial, and alleges the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. On December 25, 2020, Officer M. O’Hara, Officer Rodriguez, and John Does
1-3, all of which were employees of the Fayetteville Police Department, brutally and without
justification, severely injured Ms. Sheila Lee, a 56-year-old African American woman.
2. Ms. Lee was parked on the street outside another person’s residence when
Defendants M. O’Hara and Rodriguez of the Fayetteville Police Department approached her and
1
Case 5:23-cv-00743-FL Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 23
asked her to leave. Ms. Lee agreed and drove herself home.
3. Once Ms. Lee arrived in her own driveway, Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez
approached her again, claiming that her car tags were “fictitious.” Defendant Rodriguez
demanded identification from Ms. Lee and threatened that she was going to jail for “RDO and
fictitious tag.” Ms. Lee questioned the Defendants about what that means and stayed calm,
although she was already beginning to fear what could happen as she was alone with at least
three white officers surrounding her.
4. The Defendants took it upon themselves to escalate the situation, reaching into
Ms. Lee’s car and pulling at her arms, trying to get them behind her back to place Ms. Lee in
handcuffs while she was still in her car. The Defendants shouted “stop resisting,” ensuring that
their words were recorded by their body cameras. They ignored Ms. Lee’s offer to place her
arms in front of her and her insistence that she had undergone rotator cuff surgery her limited
mobility - she was not physically able to move her arms behind her back.
5. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, went on to physically drag
Ms. Lee from her car with the seat belt still wrapped around her. The Defendants cut the seat
belt and threw Ms. Lee onto the cold pavement and into the mud, knocking out her front teeth,
re-injuring her shoulder, hurting her knee, and pulling at her clothing exposing her body to the
elements and the view of bystanders. Defendants forced Ms. Lee’s arms back as far as they can
and use two sets of handcuffs to restrain Ms. Lee’s arms behind her back.
6. Ms. Lee’s mouth was bleeding from her teeth being knocked out and she spit out
the accumulating blood. Defendants used this to justify placing a mask over her entire face,
limiting Ms. Lee’s ability to see and hear.
7. Ms. Lee began to panic and shout that she could not breathe which the
2
Defendants dismissed with a callous, “You’re fine, ma’am.” However, when paramedics arrive
on the scene to address the physical injuries caused by the Defendants, they informed the
Defendants that she is in fact having a panic attack and they provide her with much-needed
medical attention. In the background, one of the Defendants laughs.
8. As officers move Ms. Lee’s handcuffs to the front of her body, a position that Ms.
Lee had herself offered before the Defendants escalated the encounter, Ms. Lee cries out in fear
when an officer places his hands on her, demanding that he not touch her. Ms. Lee is in the
throes of a panic attack, having been dragged from her car, thrown on the ground, and her senses
intentionally obscured. She feared for her safety and her life.
8. Once in the EMS vehicle, Ms. Lee suffers a second panic attack, this time causing
her to pass out.
9. Ms. Lee posed no threat to anyone’s safety when Defendants O’Hara and
Rodriguez approached her in her driveway. She posed no threat of harm to the Defendants, to
others in the area, or to herself. The Defendants, unreasonably and without justification, used
force on Ms. Lee in dragging her from her car, throwing her onto the ground, and forcing her
arms behind her back. As a result of the action of these Defendants, Ms. Lee suffered injury to
her mouth/teeth, shoulder, knees, and mental health.
10. This egregious conduct of Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3,
falls in line with the customs, practices, and patterns of behavior of the City of Fayetteville’s
police department. Defendant Gina Hawkins, the Chief of Police at the time, and Defendant
Mitch Colvin, Mayor of Fayetteville, have failed to put proper training and supervision programs
in place and have allowed the practice of intimidation and excessive force by the police
department to become routine. The City’s policymakers have acted with deliberate indifference
3
to the rights of its citizens, and the injuries and unlawful arrest of Ms. Lee are a direct result.
11. The Defendants violated Ms. Lee’s individual rights as a citizen of the United
States and the State of North Carolina. This action seeks legal and equitable relief for the
wrongful acts of the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution,
and the statutory and common law of the State of North Carolina.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42
U.S.C. § 1988. The Court has pendant jurisdiction over Ms. Lee’s state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1367(a). Ms. Lee seeks damages in excess of $25,000 on each of the state law claims.
13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the Eastern District of
North Carolina, the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claims occurred.
14. Venue is also proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1391(b)(1), as, upon information and belief, all Defendants reside within the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
PARTIES
15. Plaintiff Sheila Lee, at all times relevant herein, was a resident of Cumberland
County, Fayetteville, North Carolina.
16. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant M. O’Hara was an employee of the
City of Fayetteville Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity and in his official
capacity for acts taken under color of law within the scope of his employment.
17. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Officer Rodriguez was an
employee of the City of Fayetteville Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity
4
and in his official capacity for acts taken under color of law within the scope of his employment.
18. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Defendant John
Does 1-3 were employees of the City of Fayetteville Police Department who participated in the
use of force upon Ms. Lee, and whose identities are not known to the Plaintiff. They are sued in
both their individual capacities and in their official capacities for acts taken under color of law
within the scope of their employment. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of
Fayetteville is aware of the identities of these John Doe officers, and the Plaintiff reserves the
right to substitute the proper name for each John Doe Defendant as she discovers them.
19. The actions of Defendants O'Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 on December
25, 2020, were intentional, malicious, willful, reckless, and outside the scope of their lawful
authority. They are not entitled to any public officer or governmental immunity that might
otherwise shield them from liability under the claims alleged herein.
20. Defendant City of Fayetteville is a municipal corporation organized under the
laws of the State of North Carolina and capable under state statute of bringing and defending
lawsuits, including claims involving its police department. It is vicariously liable for the
wrongful acts of Defendant O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, to the extent they were
acting within the course and scope of their employment with the City of Fayetteville, under
respondent superior and North Carolina law.
21. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Gina Hawkins served as the Chief of
Police for the City of Fayetteville Police Department, and Defendant Mayor Mitch Colvin
served as the duly-elected Mayor of the City of Fayetteville. Upon information and belief,
Defendants Hawkins and/or Colvin were responsible for the training and supervision of the law
enforcement officers for the City of Fayetteville Police Department and served as policymakers
5
for the agency.
22. Upon information and belief, the City of Fayetteville has purchased insurance,
either by contract with an insurance company or by participation in an insurance risk pool, that
covers the claims raised in this action and has thereby waived any defense of sovereign or
governmental immunity.
FACTS
23. On December 25, 2020, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Defendants
O’Hara and Rodriguez responded to a call for assistance at a private residence. Ms. Lee was
present at this scene with her vehicle, legally parked on a public street outside of the residence.
24. Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez asked Ms. Lee to leave the area, and she
complied, getting into her car and driving home.
25. Once Ms. Lee pulled into her driveway, Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez
approached Ms. Lee again, having followed her home. The Defendants accused Ms. Lee of
having “fictitious tags” on her car and demanded that she produce identification.
26. Ms. Lee vehemently denied that these tags were fictitious and asked the
Defendants why she was being stopped.
27. Defendant Rodriguez threatened Ms. Lee, claiming he would take her to jail for
“RDO and fictitious tag.” Ms. Lee did not feel free to leave the situation but did not think that
she was under arrest. Neither Defendant Rodriguez nor O’Hara informed Ms. Lee that she was
under arrest.
28. Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez then grabbed at Ms. Lee’s arms in an attempt
to force them behind her back. O’Hara and Rodriguez shouted vague commands of “stop
resisting” despite Ms. Lee offering no resistance. Ms. Lee states multiple times that she is not
6
resisting and that she has had shoulder surgery and her arms do not fully reach behind her back.
29. Ms. Lee offers to place her arms in front for officers to place the handcuffs on her.
Defendants ignored the offer.
30. Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez continue to aggressively force Ms. Lee’s arms
behind her back, refusing to make any accommodations based on her injury and physical
limitations. Ms. Lee makes no aggressive movements or physical threats to anyone.
31. To prevent the officers from injuring her shoulder any further, Ms. Lee sat down
in the driver’s seat of her car. The car was not running, and Ms. Lee did not move into a position
where she could operate it. As she was sitting, Ms. Lee again offered to be restrained in front as
she could not get her hands behind her back.
32. During this encounter with Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez, Defendant John
Does 1-3 also arrived on the scene. Defendant John Does 1-3 are present on the scene and heard
or should have heard Ms. Lee offer to place her hands in front of her to be restrained if the
officer holding onto her hand lets go. Additionally, Defendant John Does 1-3 are present on the
scene and saw or should have seen that Ms. Lee made no aggressive movements or physical
threats to anyone.
33. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 continue to push, pull, and
otherwise try to force Ms. Lee’s arms behind her back. Ms. Lee took notice that one of the John
Doe officers was not wearing a mask to provide protection from Covid-19 infection and Ms. Lee
repeatedly demanded that the maskless John Doe step back away from her and let another officer
talk to her.
34. Ms. Lee makes repeated requests for a sergeant to come and explain to her why
she is being arrested for a fictitious tag. Officers on scene are not giving her any information.
7
35. Ms. Lee hears one of the Defendants state that his body camera has fallen off and
she asks that an officer with a body camera interact with her as she wants this incident to be
recorded.
36. Ms. Lee requests that the officers wait for a sergeant to arrive on the scene but one
of the Defendants states that she is going into handcuffs now. Ms. Lee had repeatedly offered to
be restrained with her arms in front of her body and had one handcuff on her wrist. She replied
to the officer that she was already in handcuffs.
37. Ms. Lee commented on the physical fitness of one of the officers, and in
immediate response to her statement, multiple Defendants violently grab Ms. Lee by the legs and
yank her out of the car, throwing her head back and dragging her body along the body of the car
and onto the gravel and muddy ground.
38. This unjustified and retaliatory violence from the Defendants knocked out Ms.
Lee’s front teeth, re-injured her shoulder, and caused damage to her knees. In dragging Ms. Lee
out of the car, the Defendants entangled her in the vehicle’s seat belt which caught around her,
pulling her body back towards the car, creating even more tension on her shoulder. Defendants
cut the seat belt without making an effort to untangle her.
39. After yanking Ms. Lee out of her car, Defendants secured both of her wrists in
handcuffs in front of her body. Now being fully restrained and laying on the ground with her
teeth missing and in pain from the encounter, Ms. Lee remains calm.
40. Defendants dragged Ms. Lee across the cold and muddy ground by pulling her by
her restrained wrists, causing her pants to pull down and her bare skin to be exposed to the
elements. She calmly told officers that they pulled her teeth out and they blamed her for the
injury. Ms. Lee, still calm, said no, you punched me.
8
41. Ms. Lee’s mouth began to fill with blood from the injury and she spit some of it
out onto the ground. The Defendants were standing practically on top of her while she laid on
the ground and accused her of spitting on them.
42. The Defendants then forced a mesh bag over Ms. Lee’s head and face, obscuring
her vision and hearing. This “spit mask” caused the blood from her mouth to pool inside it and
interfered with her ability to communicate with anyone.
43. In enduring this stressful-turned-violent encounter with law enforcement, physical
injury, bodily restraint, obscured sight and hearing, being touched by unknown persons, and
blood pooling around her mouth and nose as she is kept lying on the ground, Ms. Lee begins to
hyperventilate and exhibit the first signs of a panic attack.
44. Ms. Lee begins to shout that she can’t breathe and becomes increasingly agitated
and paranoid. One of the Defendants responded dismissively, saying “You’re fine, ma’am.” She
is not fine.
45. Defendant John Doe 1 speaks to witnesses on the scene and jokes about Ms. Lee’s
mental health when in fact she does have mental health issues and was experiencing an acute
panic attack. Defendant John Doe 1, instead of appropriately responding to a person clearly in
crisis, laughs.
46. Paramedics arrive on the scene and acknowledge that Ms. Lee is having a panic
attack and begin to render aid. In the background of the body camera footage, an officer can be
heard laughing.
47. Even with the aid and comfort being offered by paramedics, Ms. Lee’s agitated
and paranoid state continues. The bag also remains over her face. When an unknown person
touches her, Ms. Lee’s panic intensifies. It does so again when faced with the prospect of being
9
injected with a sedative. Even in the midst of this panic, Ms. Lee makes no threats of physical
harm to officers and makes no threatening movements towards anyone.
48. Once secured on a stretcher and inside the ambulance, Ms. Lee’s panic again
intensifies, she begins to hyperventilate again, and she states that she can’t breathe. The
Defendant present in the vehicle with her ignores her complaints and obvious physical condition.
Ms. Lee passes out.
49. Following the encounter, Defendants charged Ms. Lee with
resisting/delaying/obstructing an officer and having fictitious vehicle tag. All charges were
dismissed.
50. Throughout their encounter and interactions with Ms. Lee, Defendants O’Hara,
Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, were acting under color of law as duly-appointed law
enforcement officers of the Defendant City of Fayetteville. Further, Defendant City of
Fayetteville ratified Defendants’ conduct with respect to their excessive use of force and
malicious prosecution of Ms. Lee.
51. As a result of this encounter with the Defendants on December 25, 2020, Ms. Lee
suffered physical injury to her mouth and teeth, shoulder, and knees as well as injury to her
mental health and well-being. Her rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, North
Carolina Constitution, statutory and common law of North Carolina have been violated. Ms. Lee
is entitled to compensation for her physical and mental injuries, economic losses, and loss of
liberty pursuant to the causes of action contained herein.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Fourth Amendment Violations
(Against Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3)
10
52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
53. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes the right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable
searches and seizures and includes the right to be free from unlawful arrest and from
unreasonable uses of force.
54. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez unlawfully restrained
Plaintiff in her driveway by creating a custodial situation and an environment from which the
Plaintiff did not feel free to leave.
55. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez unlawfully seized the
Plaintiff in her driveway by forcibly restraining her and attempting to force her arms beyond
Plaintiff’s physical capability to place her into handcuffs.
56. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, in an
unlawful and excessive use of force, violently and aggressively pulled Plaintiff out of her vehicle
and threw her to the ground.
57. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3
unlawfully arrested Ms. Lee.
58. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3
unreasonably and excessively restrained Ms. Lee when she posed no threat of harm to officers,
other persons, property or herself.
59. The actions of Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 constitute the
unlawful seizure of Ms. Lee, false arrest, and the unlawful use of excessive force under color of
11
law, all in violation of Ms. Lee’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which is applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
60. The use of force by the Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 were
both objectively and subjectively unreasonable.
61. The actions of Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 were taken
under color of state law and are thus actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
62. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 did not act as objectively
reasonable law enforcement officers and are not entitled to qualified immunity.
63. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez,
and John Does 1-3, Plaintiff suffered violations of her civil rights and damages including but not
limited to loss of her teeth; physical injury to her mouth, face, shoulder, and knees; loss of
liberty and loss of security in her person; physical restraint and associated pain and exacerbation
of pre-existing injuries; humiliation, exposure of her body, and invasion of her privacy; physical
trauma and extreme psychological and emotional stress and trauma; pain and suffering; property
damage to her vehicle; lost wages and loss of earning capacity; costs and attorney fees; and other
particulars as the evidence will show.
64. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 violated Ms. Lee’s Fourth
Amendment rights without lawful authority, and in deliberate, willful or reckless disregard for
Ms. Lee’s Fourth Amendment rights.
65. Plaintiff demands and is entitled to nominal, actual, and consequential damages,
in an amount to be determined by a jury, as well as costs and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1988.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Monell liability
12
(Against Defendants Hawkins, Colvin, and City of Fayetteville)
67. On or about December 25, 2020, Defendant Gina Hawkins, in her official
capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Fayetteville, and/or Defendant Mitch Colvin, in his
official capacity as the duly-elected Mayor of the City of Fayetteville, were responsible for
establishing, enforcing, directing, supervising, and controlling the policies, procedures, customs,
practices, and usages applicable to the law enforcement officers of the City of Fayetteville.
68. Defendants Hawkins and Colvin failed to properly train and/or supervise the law
enforcement officers of the City of Fayetteville in the proper and lawful use of force against
persons during a traffic stop, against persons suspected of committing a minor misdemeanor
offense, against persons experiencing medical and/or mental health needs.
69. Defendants Hawkins and Colvin, in failing to properly train and/or supervise the
law enforcement officers of the City of Fayetteville, have established and maintained a policy,
custom, or pattern of (1) failing to adhere to proper standards for law enforcement officers under
North Carolina law; (2) failing to provide adequate training programs for law enforcement
officers; (3) facilitating and condoning aggressive, abusive, and assaultive behavior toward
citizens and while effectuating arrests; (4) facilitating and condoning neglect of serious medical
needs of citizens; (5) permitting the abuse and humiliation of citizens in custody of the City of
Fayetteville Police Department; and (6) other particulars as the evidence will show.
70. Defendants Hawkins and Colvin knew or should have known of the need to
properly train, supervise, and control the behavior of law enforcement officers of the City of
Fayetteville in the proper treatment of citizens during law enforcement encounters; in
13
de-escalation techniques; to refrain from the unnecessary and unreasonable use of force; to
recognize and appropriately respond to serious medical needs; and in such other particulars as
the evidence will show.
71. The conduct of Defendant O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 were consistent
with the inadequate and unlawful practices, patterns, and customs of the City of Fayetteville
Police Department.
72. Defendants Hawkins, Colvin, and City of Fayetteville knew or should have
known that the inadequate and unlawful practices, patterns, and customs of the City of
Fayetteville Police Department would lead to the violation of the rights of citizens by law
enforcement officers of the City of Fayetteville and acted with deliberate indifference to this risk.
73. As a direct and proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Defendants
Hawkins and Colvin and the inadequate and unlawful practices, patterns, and customs of the
Defendant City of Fayetteville, Plaintiff suffered violations of her civil rights and damages
including but not limited to loss of her teeth; physical injury to her mouth, face, shoulder, and
knees; loss of liberty and loss of security in her person; physical restraint and associated pain
and exacerbation of pre-existing injuries; humiliation, exposure of her body, and invasion of her
privacy; physical trauma and extreme psychological and emotional stress and trauma; pain and
suffering; property damage to her vehicle; lost wages and loss of earning capacity; costs and
attorney fees; and other particulars as the evidence will show.
in an amount to be determined by a jury, as well as costs and attorney fees from Defendants
Hawkins, Colvin, and City of Fayetteville pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and Monell v.
Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1977).
14
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Fourteenth Amendment
(Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3)
76. On or about December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does
1-3 arrested the Plaintiff and held her in restraints with her face completely covered, obscuring
her vision and hearing.
77. While held in these restraints lying on the cold ground with her bare skin exposed
to the elements and in full view of bystanders, including around her abdomen and below her
waist, Plaintiff began to experience the symptoms of a panic attack.
78. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff’s rapid and shallow
breathing and panicked demeanor posed a serious medical and/or mental health need.
79. Plaintiff posed no risk of harm as she was physically restrained on the ground and
the continued use of mask over her face and exposure of her body served no legitimate law
enforcement purpose and were used as a means to humiliate and punish Plaintiff.
80. The actions of Defendants in exposing the Plaintiff’s body and keeping her face
covered while she was physically restrained were not related to any legitimate government
objective or interest, or in the alternative, their actions were excessive in relation to the purported
government interest, are repugnant, and serve to shock the conscious.
81. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered
objectively harmful injury and pain to include extended panic attacks and the loss of
consciousness.
82. Defendants failed to act as objectively reasonable officers under the
15
circumstances and are not entitled to qualified immunity.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ willful conduct and/or their
reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff
suffered violations of her civil rights and damages including but not limited to loss of her teeth;
physical injury to her mouth, face, shoulder, and knees; loss of liberty and loss of security in her
person; physical restraint and associated pain and exacerbation of pre-existing injuries;
humiliation, exposure of her body, and invasion of her privacy; physical trauma and extreme
psychological and emotional stress and trauma; pain and suffering; property damage to her
vehicle; lost wages and loss of earning capacity; costs and attorney fees; and other particulars as
in an amount to be determined by a jury, as well as costs and attorney fees from Defendants
O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

North Carolina Constitutional Violations
(Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, John Does 1-3, Hawkins, and Colvin)
86. Pursuant to Article I § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution, no person shall be
deprived of his life, liberty or property but by the law of the land.
87. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 used
excessive force against Plaintiff, caused physical and emotional harm to Plaintiff, deprived
Plaintiff of liberty interests, subjected Plaintiff to actions of humiliation and punishment with no
legitimate government interest, and denied Plaintiff medical care, all in violation of North
16
Carolina law.
88. Defendants Hawkins and Colvin, as policymakers for the City of Fayetteville and
its police department, established a pattern, practice, and custom of promoting, allowing, and
condoning such behavior such that their willful and malicious disregard to the rights of their
citizens and risk to those rights constitute deliberate indifference and are a violation of North
Carolina law.
89. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered violations of her civil
rights under the Constitution of North Carolina and suffered damages including but not limited
to loss of her teeth; physical injury to her mouth, face, shoulder, and knees; loss of liberty and
loss of security in her person; physical restraint and associated pain and exacerbation of
pre-existing injuries; humiliation, exposure of her body, and invasion of her privacy; physical
trauma and extreme psychological and emotional stress and trauma; pain and suffering; property
damage to her vehicle; lost wages and loss of earning capacity; costs and attorney fees; and other
in an amount to be determined by a jury, as well as costs and attorney fees from these
Defendants.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Assault
(Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, John Does 1-3, and City of Fayetteville)
92. By the conduct and actions described above, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and
John Does 1-3 intentionally caused bodily contact with Plaintiff. To the extent Defendants
17
O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 were acting within the course and scope of their
employment with the City of Fayetteville, the Defendant City of Fayetteville is vicariously liable
for their actions.
93. As the direct and proximate cause of the contact from Defendants O’Hara,
Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, individually and/or as employees of the Defendant City of
Fayetteville, Plaintiff suffered both physical pain and injury to her body including but not
limited to her mouth, teeth, face, shoulder, and knees.
94. The Plaintiff did not consent to the bodily contact from these Defendants.
95. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 had no lawful authority to
instigate physical contact with Plaintiff.
96. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to compensatory damages from Defendants O’Hara,
Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, and/or Defendant City of Fayetteville, including but not limited
to medical and pharmaceutical expenses, lost wages, physical and emotional pain and suffering.
97. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, engaged in grossly negligent,
willful, and reckless contact with Plaintiff for the sole purpose of punishing Plaintiff and
inflicting pain.
98. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to punitive damages from Defendants O’Hara,
Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3 as a result of their willful and reckless conduct.
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Arrest/Imprisonment)
Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and City of Fayetteville
100. Defendants O’Hara and Rodriguez, individually and/or on behalf of the City of
18
Fayetteville, restrained Plaintiff without lawful authority by threatening her that she was going to
jail if she did not provide identification.
101. Plaintiff reasonably believed that she was not free to leave the situation.
102. Plaintiff’s restraint, subsequent arrest, and continued unreasonable restraint was
intentional and unlawful.
103. Defendants further continued to unlawfully detain Plaintiff by means of additional
deprivations of her liberty interests in engaging in acts of harassment and humiliation, neglect of
her serious medical and/or psychological need, and unjustified use of excessive restraints
including covering her face and forcing her arms behind her back beyond her physical
limitations.
104. Plaintiff demands and is entitled to actual and punitive damages in an amount to
be determined by a jury.
FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Malicious Prosecution
(Against Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, John Does 1-3, and City of Fayetteville)
106. On December 25, 2020, Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3,
arrested Plaintiff for violation of N.C.G.S. 20-111 and for resisting arrest.
107. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, individually and/or as
employees of the Defendant City of Fayetteville, initiated the criminal process against Plaintiff
without probable cause and with malice.
108. All criminal charges were terminated in Plaintiff’s favor.
109. The conduct of Defendant City of Fayetteville, by and through Defendants
19
O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, was grossly negligent, in bad faith, corrupt, malicious,
reckless, made with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others, and
beyond the scope of lawful authority.
110. As a direct and proximate result of the criminal charges initiated by Defendants,
Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional harm to include physical injury, emotional trauma, loss
of liberty, economic loss, and other damages which the evidence will show.
111. Plaintiff demands and is entitled to actual and punitive damages in an amount to
be determined by a jury.
FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(All Defendants)
113. Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct against Plaintiff by
unreasonably and unjustifiably arresting Plaintiff, unreasonably and unlawfully dragging
Plaintiff onto the ground causing serious injury, ignoring Plaintiff’s serious need for medical
care, deliberately causing physical pain to Plaintiff, intentionally acting in a manner intended to
shame, humiliate, and punish Plaintiff for no legitimate purpose, condoning abusive behavior by
law enforcement officers, creating or permitting practices, patterns, and customs of the City of
Fayetteville which allow for the violations of the rights of citizens, and in such other manners as
114. Defendants’ actions were intended to cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff
or were recklessly indifferent to the likelihood that they would cause severe distress.
115. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
20
116. Plaintiff demands and is entitled to actual and consequential damages in an
amount to be determined by a jury.
FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Gross Negligence
(All Defendants)
118. Defendants O’Hara, Rodriguez, and John Does 1-3, individually and/or in the
course and scope of their employment with the City of Fayetteville, owed a duty of care to
Plaintiff in her capacity as a person interacting with law enforcement and as an arrestee in their
custody and control.
119. Defendants Hawkins and Colvin, individually and/or in their capacity as officials
and policymakers for the City of Fayetteville, owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to properly train
and supervise law enforcement officers employed by the City.
120. Defendants were grossly negligent in the following particulars:
a. Failing to appropriately train and supervise their employees;

b. Failing to adopt and/or enforce appropriate policies, procedures, patterns,
practices, or customs for the use of force by law enforcement officers;
c. Unreasonably harassing Plaintiff while she was on her own property;
d. Unreasonably and without authority demanding that Plaintiff produce
identification or be arrested;
e. Unreasonably and violently dragging the Plaintiff out of her personal vehicle
causing her multiple physical injuries;
f. Unlawfully arresting Plaintiff;
g. Unreasonably restraining Plaintiff by pinning her arms behind her back beyond
the limits of her physical ability;
h. Unreasonably exposing Plaintiff’s body to the elements and in the view of
bystanders;
i. Forcing a mask over the Plaintiff’s head while she was restrained on the ground,
obscuring her vision and hearing;
j. Failing to recognize Plaintiff’s serious medical need;
k. Forcing Plaintiff to endure excruciating pain, suffering and humiliation;
21
l. Failing to remove the mask over Plaintiff’s face when her labored breathing
became evident;
m. Punishing Plaintiff by exposing her body and covering her head and face with a
mask for no legitimate purpose;
n. Escalating a law enforcement encounter through their own actions;
o. Failing to act as a reasonably prudent law enforcement agency under similar
circumstance; and
p. In such other particulars as the evidence may show.
121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ grossly negligent and malicious
conduct, Plaintiff suffered violations of her civil rights and damages including but not limited to
loss of her teeth; physical injury to her mouth, face, shoulder, and knees; loss of liberty and loss
of security in her person; physical restraint and associated pain and exacerbation of pre-existing
injuries; humiliation, exposure of her body, and invasion of her privacy; physical trauma and
extreme psychological and emotional stress and trauma; pain and suffering; property damage to
her vehicle; lost wages and loss of earning capacity; costs and attorney fees; and other
122. Plaintiff demands and is entitled to actual, consequential, and punitive damages in
an amount to be determined by a jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, upon a trial of this matter, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant her the
following relief:
A. For all actual and consequential damages;
B. For reasonable costs associated with this actions;
C. For pretrial interest on each of the judgments for Plaintiff;
D. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and any other
applicable statute;
G. For punitive damages to the extent allowable by law; and
22
H. For all such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Darlene Harris

Darlene Harris
N.C. State Bar No. 46087
Power In Protection
1026 Jay Street B184
Charlotte, NC 28205
Telephone: (704) 313-8816
Email:Darlene@powerinprotection.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
23

Lee Complaint

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

Lee Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Civil Case No. 4:23-cv-212

trial, and alleges the following:

three white officers surrounding her.

limiting Ms. Lee’s ability to see and hear.

medical attention. In the background, one of the Defendants laughs.

her to pass out.

her mouth/teeth, shoulder, knees, and mental health.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42

13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the Eastern District of

rise to the claims occurred.

District of North Carolina.

County, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

20. Defendant City of Fayetteville is a municipal corporation organized under the

respondent superior and North Carolina law.

complied, getting into her car and driving home.

Defendants why she was being stopped.

Defendants ignored the offer.

limitations. Ms. Lee makes no aggressive movements or physical threats to anyone.

she could not get her hands behind her back.

to the officer that she was already in handcuffs.

and onto the gravel and muddy ground.

cut the seat belt without making an effort to untangle her.

the ground and accused her of spitting on them.

interfered with her ability to communicate with anyone.

43. In enduring this stressful-turned-violent encounter with law enforcement, physical

hyperventilate and exhibit the first signs of a panic attack.

harm to officers and makes no threatening movements towards anyone.

Ms. Lee passes out.

49. Following the encounter, Defendants charged Ms. Lee with

enforcement officers of the Defendant City of Fayetteville. Further, Defendant City of

malicious prosecution of Ms. Lee.

liberty pursuant to the causes of action contained herein.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

unreasonable uses of force.

Plaintiff did not feel free to leave.

Plaintiff’s physical capability to place her into handcuffs.

and threw her to the ground.

unlawfully arrested Ms. Lee.

other persons, property or herself.

Constitution, which is applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

both objectively and subjectively unreasonable.

particulars as the evidence will show.

Ms. Lee’s Fourth Amendment rights.

§§ 1983 and 1988.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

offense, against persons experiencing medical and/or mental health needs.

Fayetteville in the proper treatment of citizens during law enforcement encounters; in

the evidence will show.

73. As a direct and proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Defendants

attorney fees; and other particulars as the evidence will show.

Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1977).

her vision and hearing.

waist, Plaintiff began to experience the symptoms of a panic attack.

government interest, are repugnant, and serve to shock the conscious.

82. Defendants failed to act as objectively reasonable officers under the

reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff

the evidence will show.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

86. Pursuant to Article I § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution, no person shall be

particulars as the evidence will show.