Vickie Wright Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE
VICKIE WRIGHT, individually and as next )

friend and wife of David Wright, Deceased, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. : Case No. _____________________
)
SEVIER COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ) JURY DEMANDED
)
BART TYNER, )
)
MARK HUNTER, )
)
CITY OF SEVIERVILLE, TENNESSEE, )
)
JACOB REECE, )
)
JORDAN PAUL, )
)
NESTOR VEREZ, and )
)
JACOB RADEMACHER, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Vickie Wright, individually and as next friend and wife of David Wright,
deceased, through counsel, and for cause of action against these Defendants, respectfully states as
follows.
GENERAL NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is a civil rights, personal injury, and wrongful death action for the wrongful,
unlawful, and unconstitutional acts and omissions of Sevier County, Tennessee, the City of
Sevierville, Tennessee, and the individual Defendants, which led to and caused the death of David
Wright as well as resulting and independent injuries, and damages and losses to Plaintiff Vickie
Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 1

Wright on May 12, 2023.
2. The wrongful, unlawful, and unconstitutional acts and omissions to which the
Wrights were subjected by Defendants occurred on May 12, 2023, while David and Vickie Wright
were in their home.
3. David Wright was shot in the head by one of the individual Defendants while the
individual Defendants were on or near David and Vickie Wright’s property on May 12, 2023; the
bullet that struck Mr. Wright in the head was fired by a high-powered rifle shot by one of the
individual Defendants.
4. Vickie Wright was struck in the face by a piece of shrapnel from the bullet that
struck Mr. Wright in the head which was shot by one of the individual Defendants as aforesaid.
5. The bullet that was shot into David Wright’s head as aforesaid killed Mr. Wright.
6. At the time Mr. Wright was shot and killed and Mrs. Wright was struck in the face
with a bullet fragment as aforesaid, Mr. and Mrs. Wright were in the process of attempting to walk
out the front doorway of their home.
with a bullet fragment as aforesaid, Mr. and Mrs. Wright were unarmed, had nothing in their hands,
and did not pose a threat to anyone.
8. David and Vickie Wright did not pose a threat at any time to any of the individual
Defendants at or near their home on May 12, 2023.
with a bullet fragment as aforesaid, Mr. and Mrs. Wright were obeying all instructions and/or
commands made by any of the individual Defendants who were on or near their property.

10. David and Vickie Wright obeyed all instructions and/or commands made to either
of them by any of the individual Defendants who were on their property on May 12, 2023.
11. Shortly before Mr. Wright was shot and killed and Mrs. Wright was struck in the
face with a bullet fragment as aforesaid, Mr. and/or Mrs. Wright were standing in or near their front
doorway and were in direct communication with one of the individual Defendants who was standing
near the front of the Wrights’ home.
12. While Mr. and Mrs. Wright were standing in or near their front doorway and were
in direct communication with one of the individual Defendants as aforesaid, the Wrights were asked
by the law enforcement officer where Daryl Higdon was and one of the Wrights promptly responded
and told the law enforcement officer that Mr. Higdon was on the back porch of the Wrights’ home.
13. After the Wrights were asked by one of the individual Defendants where Daryl
Higdon was and one of the Wrights promptly responded and told the law enforcement officer that
Mr. Higdon was on the back porch of the Wrights’ home, the individual Defendant with whom the
Wrights were communicating instructed the Wrights to come on out the front of their home to
safety.
14. When Mr. and Mrs. Wright were standing in or near their front doorway and
communicating with one of the individual Defendants as aforesaid, it was evident that the Wrights
were in the process of seeking safety and the protection of the Defendants and, in particular, the
protection of the individual Defendants on or near their property.
15. Previously, as is referenced in further detail below, Daryl Higdon had been
exchanging gun shots with some of the individual Defendants; however, by the time the Wrights
were communicating with one of the individual Defendants as aforesaid, no shot had been fired by

any person for a significant period of time, as Mr. Higdon had been shot and seriously wounded by
one or more of the law enforcement officers at the scene while Mr. Higdon was on the back porch.
16. Indeed, the last and only shot that was fired by any person at or near the Wright’s
home on May 12, 2023, was the bullet fired by a high-powered rifle by one of the individual
Defendants that shot and killed Mr. Wright and injured Mrs. Wright as aforesaid – a shot which
was fired after Mr. Higdon had been shot and seriously wounded as aforesaid, after a significant
amount of time had passed where no shots had been fired by anyone, after the Wrights had been
communicating with one of the individual Defendants as aforesaid, after the Wrights had informed
one of the individual Defendants that Mr. Higdon was on the back porch of their home as aforesaid,
after the Wrights were preparing to walk out of their home to safety through the front doorway of
the Wright’s home, after the Wrights had been instructed to do so by one of the individual
Defendants as aforesaid, and while the Wrights were unarmed, had nothing in their hands, and were
not posing a threat to anyone.
PARTIES AND RELEVANT AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS
17. Plaintiff Vickie Wright is an adult citizen of the United States of America and a
resident of the State of Tennessee and is the wife and next friend of David Wright, deceased.
Plaintiff Vickie Wright sues the Defendants for all damages recoverable under state and federal law
on behalf of herself and on behalf of her deceased husband, David Wright, arising from his death.
18. Plaintiff Vickie Wright brings this action in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.
§§ 20-5-106, 20-5-107, 20-5-113, and other relevant and applicable statutes and common law, as
next friend and wife of David Wright, deceased.
19. Defendant Sevier County, Tennessee, is a governmental entity created under the

laws of the State of Tennessee. Among its other functions, Defendant Sevier County operates and
maintains a law enforcement agency, the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office (“SCSO”). Defendant
Sevier County is responsible for ensuring the establishment and enforcement of rules, regulations,
policies, procedures, and customs for the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office, including training,
supervision, and discipline of law enforcement deputies. Sevier County does not have immunity
for violating the civil rights of citizens. Sevier County is liable for its own conduct and the acts
and omissions of its elected officials, employees, agents, and contractors, including the individually
named Defendants, by virtue of the fact that they acted in conformity with the policies, practices,
and/or customs of Sevier County. Defendant Sevier County was at all material times under a duty
to run its policing activities in a lawful manner so as to preserve the peace of Sevier County and to
preserve to its citizens the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the
constitution and the laws of both the United States and the State of Tennessee. Defendant Sevier
County is responsible for ensuring the establishment and enforcement of rules, regulations,
procedures, policies, practices, and customs for the SCSO, including hiring, training, supervision
and discipline of law enforcement officers and other employees.
20. Sevier County Sheriff’s Office (also known as Sevier County Sheriff’s Department)
(hereinafter referred to as SCSO) is a division of Sevier County and is charged with the law
enforcement responsibilities of Sevier County, Tennessee. The SCSO, by and through Sheriff
Hodges and other deputies of the SCSO, was at all times material hereto under a duty to run its
policing activities in a lawful manner so as to preserve the peace of Sevier County and to preserve
to its citizens the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the
constitution and the laws of both the United States and the State of Tennessee.

21. Sheriff Michael Hodges is the Sheriff of Sevier County (and was at all relevant
times). Sheriff Hodges is the chief law enforcement deputy and final policymaker for the Sevier
County Sheriff’s Office and Sevier County, who is responsible for the establishment and
enforcement of the policies and customs of the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office. Further, as Sheriff
of Sevier County, Hodges is responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of the
law enforcement deputies and other employees, agents, and contractors of the SCSO. Hodges is
under a constitutional duty to run the policing activities of the SCSO in a lawful manner and to
preserve the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed and secured to citizens by the
constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Tennessee. At all times material
hereto, Sheriff Hodges was acting under color of state law.
22. Defendants Sgt. Bart Tyner and Deputy Mark Hunter (collectively “SCSO
Individual Defendants”) are members of the SCSO, and based on information and belief, resident
citizens of Sevier County, Tennessee. At all relevant times, these Defendants were acting by virtue
of their positions as law enforcement officials of the SCSO and under the color of state law. These
Defendants either directly participated in unreasonably seizing and/or using excessive force against
Mr. and Mrs. Wright or failed to intervene to prevent the unreasonable seizure of or use of excessive
force against them.
23. Defendant City of Sevierville, Tennessee, is a governmental entity created under
the laws of the State of Tennessee. Among its other functions, Defendant City of Sevierville
operates and maintains a law enforcement agency, the Sevierville Police Department (“SPD”).
Defendant City of Sevierville is responsible for ensuring the establishment and enforcement of
rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and customs for the City of Sevierville, including training,

supervision, and discipline of law enforcement deputies. City of Sevierville does not have
immunity for violating the civil rights of citizens. City of Sevierville is liable for its own conduct
and the acts and omissions of its elected officials, employees, agents, and contractors, including the
individually named Defendants, by virtue of the fact that they acted in conformity with the policies,
practices, and customs of City of Sevierville. Defendant City of Sevierville was at all material
times under a duty to run its policing activities in a lawful manner so as to preserve the peace of
City of Sevierville and to preserve to its citizens the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed
and secured to them by the constitution and the laws of both the United States and the State of
Tennessee. Defendant City of Sevierville is responsible for ensuring the establishment and
enforcement of rules, regulations, procedures, policies, practices, and customs for the SPD,
including hiring, training, supervision and discipline of law enforcement officers and other
employees.
24. City of Sevierville Police Department (hereinafter referred to as “SPD”) is a
division of City of Sevierville and is charged with the law enforcement responsibilities of City of
Sevierville, Tennessee. The SPD, by and through Chief Joseph Manning and other officers of the
SPD, was at all times material hereto under a duty to run its policing activities in a lawful manner
so as to preserve the peace of City of Sevierville and to preserve to its citizens the rights, privileges,
and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the constitution and the laws of both the United
States and the State of Tennessee.
25. Chief Manning is the Chief of Police of City of Sevierville (and was at all relevant
times). As Chief of City of Sevierville, Manning is the chief law enforcement officer and final
policymaker for the SPD and City of Sevierville, who is responsible for the establishment and

enforcement of the policies and customs of the City of Sevierville Police Office. Further, as Chief
of City of Sevierville Police Department, Manning is responsible for the hiring, training,
supervision, and discipline of the law enforcement officers and other employees, agents, and
contractors of the SPD. Manning is under a constitutional duty to run the policing activities of the
SPD in a lawful manner and to preserve the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed and
secured to citizens by the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Tennessee.
At all times material hereto, Chief Manning was acting under color of state law.
26. Defendants Sgt. Jacob Rademacher, Officer Jordan Paul, Officer Jacob Reece and
Officer Nestor Verez (collectively “SPD Individual Defendants”) are members of the SPD, and
based on information and belief, resident citizens of Sevier County, Tennessee. At all relevant
times, these Defendants were acting by virtue of their positions as law enforcement officials of the
SPD and under the color of state law. These Defendants either directly participated in the
unreasonably seizure of and/or the use of excessive force against Mr. and Mrs. Wright or failed to
intervene to prevent the unreasonable seizure of and/or use of excessive force against them.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
27. This cause of action arises out of an incident which occurred on May 12, 2023, in
the evening, at or near the Wrights’ home on 2739 Holly Drive, in Sevier County, Tennessee.
28. Venue lies with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because all the acts or
omissions which give rise to this cause of action occurred within this district, and based on
information and belief, all the Defendants are residents of and/or conduct business in this district.
29. Jurisdiction lies with this Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1343, based on the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution to the United States of America. Plaintiff
further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising under
state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
30. Each and every act of Defendants was performed under the color of state law and
by virtue of the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the United
States of America, the State of Tennessee, the County of Sevier, the City of Sevierville, and under
the authority of their positions as law enforcement deputies and officers for such state and county.
31. All the wrongs complained of herein occurred within this jurisdiction.
FURTHER FACTUAL BACKGROUND
32. At approximately 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2023, Daryl Higdon was driving a Ford
Taurus in the vicinity of Winfield Dunn Parkway.
33. On information and belief, at or about that time: Officer Jacob Reece of the SPD
was conducting a property check at the Econo Lodge on Winfield Dunn Parkway; Officer Reece
observed Mr. Higdon’s vehicle pull out of a driveway and make a left-hand turn in front of Officer
Reece’s vehicle going south bound on Winfield Dunn Parkway; Officer Reece pulled out into
traffic behind Mr. Higdon’s vehicle and conducted a registration check using his in-vehicle
computer terminal; the registration check showed a photo of Mr. Higdon along with his name and
the address on file for him; it also showed that Mr. Higdon had a suspended driver’s license; at
that time, Mr. Higdon and Officer Reece were driving at approximately the speed limit, which was
35 miles per hour; once the computer check showed that Mr. Higdon’s license was suspended, and
while he was driving on or around North Parkway near Sunnyside Drive, Officer Reece activated
the emergency blue lights on his marked patrol vehicle; Officer Reece intended to perform a traffic

stop and talk to Mr. Higdon about his license status; Officer Reece pursued Mr. Higdon for
approximately one to one and a half miles driving at approximately the speed limit of 35 miles per
hour; Mr. Higdon did not stop and, pursuant to SPD’s no-pursuit policy, Officer Reece eventually
discontinued pursuit due to traffic conditions.
34. Thereafter, Mr. Higdon went to the Wrights’ residence where he had been living
for a few months while he was supposed to be trying to find a job; Mr. Higdon is Mrs. Wright’s
brother and the Wrights allowed him to stay and have a room at their home temporarily because
he had no other place to live.
35. When Mr. Higdon arrived, Mr. and Mrs. Wright were downstairs watching TV and
had no knowledge that Mr. Higdon had any interaction with a law enforcement officer earlier that
evening.
36. After Office Reece discontinued pursuit as aforesaid, SCSO and SPD law
enforcement officers formed a joint venture / joint operation to go to the Wrights’ residence for
the purpose of arresting Mr. Higdon.
37. On information and belief: the SCSO Individual Defendants and SPD Individual
Defendants met in a school parking lot near the Wrights’ residence before collectively surrounding
the Wrights’ home in an effort to arrest Mr. Higdon; Sgt. Rademacher was the ranking SPD officer;
Sgt. Tyner was the ranking SCSO officer; neither department had a policy for who is in charge of
a scene, situation and/or joint venture / joint operation such as this one when each agency works
with another agency; each of these department’s informal policies and/or customs is that each
officer reports to the officer’s own supervisor.
38. On information and belief, the individual Defendants left the school parking lot and
10

went to the Wrights’ home without talking to one another about a plan for handling the scene at
the Wrights’ home or about what they would do once they arrived at the Wrights’ home.
39. Prior to arriving at the Wrights’ home, at least one officer from SPD and one officer
from SCSO had seen a picture of Mr. Higdon and/or Mr. Higdon.
40. On May 12, 2023, prior to approaching David and Vickie Wright’s home at 2739
Holly Drive in Sevier County, Tennessee, said officers had actual or constructive knowledge that
the home belonged to David and Vickie Wright.
41. On May 12, 2023, prior to approaching David and Vickie Wright’s home, the
individual Defendants, individually and collectively, on account of said joint venture / joint
operation on behalf of Sevier County and SCSO and the City of Sevierville and SPD, had a duty
and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of David and Vickie Wright and any other
persons located in the Wrights’ home who were not posing a threat to another person.
42. During said joint venture / joint operation, each individual defendant had a duty not
to engage in conduct that would recklessly endanger citizens who were not posing a threat to
anyone; it has long been and remains clearly established that it is unconstitutional for a law
enforcement officer to discharge a firearm indiscriminately into an area where persons are known
to be located who are not posing a threat to anyone, including but not limited to persons such as a
homeowner, occupant of a premises, or bystander
43. During said joint venture / joint operation, each individual defendant had a duty not
to fire a weapon without first identifying a specific target who was posing a threat of serious bodily
harm to said individual defendant or to a third person; it has long been and remains clearly
established that it is unconstitutional for a law enforcement officer to discharge a firearm into or
11

towards a home without first ascertaining a specific target who is posing an immediate threat of
serious bodily harm to the officer or a third person.
44. On May 12, 2023, prior to approaching David and Vickie Wright’s home, each
individual defendant had a duty and responsibility to ascertain and confirm whether David and
Vickie Wright and perhaps others were at the Wrights’ home prior to engaging in any conduct
which would unnecessarily endanger David and/or Vickie Wright and/or others on the premises
who were not posing a threat to another person.
45. On May 12, 2023, prior to approaching David and Vickie Wright’s home, each
individual defendant had a duty and responsibility to confirm a reasonable plan for attempting to
make contact with and arrest Daryl Higdon at David and Vickie Wright’s residence that would not
create an unnecessary risk of harm to David and/or Vickie Wright and/or others at the Wrights’
home who were not posting a threat to another person.
46. On information and belief, when the individual Defendants approached David and
Vickie Wright’s home, they did so for the purpose of making contact with Daryl Higdon and
arresting Daryl Higdon without a warrant for an offense committed earlier in the day which had
been observed by Defendant Reece within the Sevierville City limits.
47. On information and belief, when the individual Defendants approached the
Wrights’ home that evening, they made no effort to ascertain in advance whether David or Vickie
Wright were home; said individual defendants surrounded the Wrights’ home and one or more of
the individual Defendants had their weapons drawn as they surrounded and approached the
Wrights’ home.
48. On information and belief: when the individual Defendants reached the Wrights’
12

home, Officer Reece and Sgt. Tyner parked their cruisers near the front of the Wrights’ home; Sgt.
Rademacher, Deputy Hunter, and Officer Paul parked their cruisers further away from the
residence off to the left side of the Wrights’ home (from the perspective of the street in front of
the Wrights’ home looking towards the Wrights’ home); Officer Verez parked his cruiser near a
different residence generally behind the Wrights’ home off of New Center School Road; Sgt.
Rademacher headed towards the rear of the Wrights’ home, along with Deputy Hunter, Officer
Paul and Officer Paul’s canine; Officer Verez approached the rear of the Wrights’ home from
behind the Wrights’ home; Sgt. Rademacher and Officer Verez had their service weapons out as
they approached the Wrights’ home; and Officer Reece and his canine and Sgt. Tyner approached
the front of the Wrights’ home.
49. On information and belief: the individual Defendants who approached the rear of
the Wrights’ home were the first to make contact with anyone present at the Wrights’ home; their
initial contact was with Daryl Higdon while Mr. Higdon was on the back porch of the residence;
at the time when that initial contact was made with Mr. Higdon on or near the back porch, two of
the individual Defendants had their guns drawn and some of said officers were on or near the back
porch and/or back porch steps, along with Officer Paul’s canine.
50. On information and belief, Mr. Higdon appeared to be coming out on the back
porch at that time as if getting ready to have a cigarette; Mr. Higdon was wearing a black t shirt,
appeared to have on black pants, was wearing a doo-rag or bandana, and had a goatee; Mr. Higdon
was unarmed; Mr. Higdon went back into the back of the Wrights’ home upon seeing the
approaching officers, some of whom had their weapons out as aforesaid, while some of the officers
began yelling at Mr. Higdon to come back out with his hands up or they would come in the
13

residence.
51. Accordingly, at that time or shortly afterwards, said officers at the scene (Sgt.
Rademacher, Deputy Hunter, Officer Paul, and Officer Verez) had actual notice of Mr. Higdon’s
appearance and/or the appearance of the individual with whom they had contact who was not
responding to their commands and, further had the opportunity then and/or subsequently to
confirm the appearance of that individual with others at the Wrights’ home.
52. On information and belief, because of a lack of appropriate equipment, because of
a lack of training, and/or because of the lack of a plan; and/or because of a failure to account for
various circumstances regarding the respective officers’ equipment at the time, said individual
Defendants did not communicate fully, consistently, and/or effectively with and to one another
either at that time and throughout the course of said joint operation / joint venture.
53. On information and belief, the individual Defendants knew or should have known
that their joint operation / joint venture that evening would need to account for the manner in which
they could or could not communicate fully and effectively with one another to ensure that they
would be able to conduct the joint operation in a manner which would not pose an unreasonable
risk of harm to individuals in or around the Wrights’ home, including but not limited to David and
Vickie Wright; including but not limited to how contact was made with individuals at the Wrights’
residence; avoiding conduct which would escalate the situation; taking opportunities to de-escalate
the situation; and being careful and deliberate about ascertaining and then taking into consideration
the safety and welfare of others in and around the Wrights’ home, including but not limited to
David and Vickie Wright.
54. On information and belief, soon after Mr. Higdon retreated inside the back of the
14

Wrights’ home, Defendant Tyner and Defendant Reece went to the front porch of the Wrights’
home, knocked on the front door, yelled for Mr. Higdon to come to the door, and eventually
threatened to break down the door if he didn’t come out. Mr. Higdon didn’t come out.
55. Mr. Higdon was Vickie Wright’s brother who was and had been unemployed for
an extended time and had served time in jail previously and had been released; Mr. Higdon had
been allowed by the Wrights to stay in a room in their home while Mr. Higdon was trying to get
back on his feet. The Wrights understood that Mr. Higdon would be staying with them while
looking for a job and that he had nowhere else to go.
56. Meanwhile, David and Vickie Wright were watching TV on the lower level of their
home since getting home from their respective jobs earlier that evening, continued to be unaware
of the interaction between Mr. Higdon and Officer Reece earlier that day, and were unaware that
officers had surrounded their home and were attempting to make contact with Daryl Higdon to
arrest him at their home.
57. Eventually, though, Mr. and Mrs. Wright heard noise and commotion upstairs.
David Wright then came up the stairs to investigate, heard the officers yelling at the front door,
and then promptly opened the front door for the officers. Mrs. Wright also came upstairs some
time thereafter to find out what the noise was about.
58. When Mr. Wright opened the front door for the officers, Mr. Wright was cordial
and cooperative with the officers and was not a threat to anyone.
59. On information and belief, after Mr. Wright had opened the door for the officers,
Defendant Tyner saw Mr. Higdon and asked Mr. Wright if that individual was Mr. Higdon. Mr.
Wright replied affirmatively.
15

60. In stark contrast to Mr. Higdon, Mr. Wright had on a light-colored T-shirt, was of
a relatively short and stocky build, and was balding. Accordingly, by that time and from that point
forward, Defendant Tyner of the SCSO and Defendant Reece of SPD, and shortly thereafter the
other officers on the scene, had actual notice that David Wright was home, that David Wright was
acting cooperatively with the officers, that David Wright was unarmed, and of David Wright’s
appearance in contrast to Daryl Higdon’s appearance and/or should have been fully and fairly
informed and advised about those matters through communication among the officers present at
or near the Wrights’ home.
61. On information and belief, shortly thereafter: Mr. Higdon evidently went into the
bedroom he had been using, retrieved a rifle, and came back towards the foyer; Mr. Higdon did
not expose himself to the officers at the front door or point the rifle at anyone (but instead kept it
pointed towards the ceiling); the officers could evidently see the barrel of the rifle; Sgt. Tyner and
Officer Reece drew their service weapons; Officer Reece began backing away from the front door
and down the steps of the front porch of the Wrights’ home; Sgt. Tyner began commanding Mr.
Higdon to put the gun down that Mr. Higdon was holding; and Mr. Wright also began yelling at
Mr. Higdon to put the gun down. However, Mr. Higdon did not obey the officer’s commands (or
Mr. Wright) and continued to hold the rifle with the barrel pointed towards the ceiling.
62. Based upon information and belief, shortly thereafter: despite knowing that Mr.
Wright was present, unarmed, being cooperative, and also trying to convince Mr. Higdon to put
down his gun, and while Mr. Higdon continued to point his rifle towards the ceiling and was not
pointing his gun towards anyone, Defendant Tyner fired two rounds from his service pistol towards
Mr. Higdon.
16

63. On information and believe, Mr. Higdon then fired two rounds into the wall near
but to the right of the front door near the floor and Sgt. Tyner then retreated for cover away from
and off of the front porch.
64. Mr. Wright then took Vickie Wright and went to their bedroom on the left side of
the house for protection from the exchange of gunfire; the Wrights laid down on the floor in that
bedroom as various officers at the scene and Mr. Higdon proceeded to exchange several rounds of
gunfire.
65. David and Vickie Wright were and remained unarmed and fully cooperative with
the individual Defendants throughout the events at their home and did not pose a threat to anyone
at any time.
66. At that time, thereafter, and previously, the individual Defendants had a duty and
responsibility to protect David and Vickie Wright during their joint operation / joint venture.
67. However, once Defendant Tyner started shooting and then Mr. Higdon started
shooting, several of the other officers began firing bullets indiscriminately into the Wrights’ home,
in addition to firing rounds at or towards Mr. Higdon, who had gone back out to the back porch
with his gun.
68. On information and belief, one or more of the individual Defendants to the left front
and/or side of the Wrights’ home initially fired one or more shots through the front siding of the
Wrights’ home to the left of the front doorway and into the foyer near where Mr. Wright was or
just had been standing and near where Vickie Wright either was standing or was coming up the
stairs -- even though the officer(s) who fired in that manner could not see Mr. Higdon at the time
the shots were fired.
17

69. Similarly, several of the individual Defendants subsequently began firing
indiscriminately into the Wrights’ home putting David and Vickie Wright at grave risk; one or
more of the officers fired well more than twenty bullets into the left side of the Wrights’ home –
many of the shots in a line across along much of the left side of their home – the area of the
Wrights’ home where the Wrights’ bedroom was where Mr. and Mrs. Wright had gone to seek
safety. Several of the bullets fired in that manner into the left side of the Wrights’ home
penetrated the closet adjacent to the bedroom where Mr. and Mrs. Wright had sought a place of
safety and one or more of those bullets went all the way through the closet and into the bedroom
where the Wrights were seeking safety; each such instance occurred while the individual
Defendants were acting in concert on a joint venture / joint operation at or near the Wrights’ home
as aforesaid.
70. Each instance when a bullet was fired indiscriminately into the Wrights’ home by
one or more of the individual Defendants constituted an unconstitutional seizure of both David
and Vickie Wright based on law which was well-established prior to the events at issue; each such
instance occurred while the individual Defendants were acting in concert on a joint venture / joint
operation; and at no time when any such shot was fired was there any communication between any
of the officers that those types of shots should not be fired or any communication about David or
Vickie Wright or their safety or welfare.
71. Moreover, on information and belief, Daryl Higdon did not appear at the front of
the Wrights’ home or inside the Wrights’ home on the left side of the home (areas where one or
more of the individual Defendants fired at the Wrights’ home indiscriminately) at any time until
much later when Mr. Higdon was unarmed and in the process of surrendering to the officers, which
18

was well after the shooting had stopped between the officers and Mr. Higdon and well after Mr.
Higdon had been shot multiple times by one or more of the individual Defendants while Mr.
Higdon was on the back porch of Wrights’ home.
72. After the shooting stopped between the individual Defendants and Mr. Higdon and
after Mr. Higdon had been shot multiple times and seriously wounded while he was on the back
porch, a significant amount of time passed without any shots being fired. Accordingly, Mr. and
Mrs. Wright wanted to try to get out of their home to safety and walked from their bedroom to
their front door.
73. Initially, Mrs. Wright (who was wearing a blue t shirt), started to look out of and/or
walk out the front door, but Mr. Wright stopped her and put her behind him as they were in the
foyer and near the front doorway.
74. At that point, the Wrights were in communication with Defendant Tyner, who
based upon information and belief was positioned at the outside right corner of the Wrights’ home
(from the perspective of the street in front of the Wrights’ home); Defendant Tyner asked where
Mr. Higdon was, and one or both of the Wrights responded to Sgt. Tyner that Mr. Higdon was on
the back porch; and Defendant Tyner then instructed the Wrights to come on out the front door.
75. As Mr. Wright prepared to lead Mrs. Wright through the front of their home to
safety, Defendant Hunter shot Mr. Wright in the head with his rifle, fatally injuring Mr. Wright,
and a bullet fragment from the shot that killed Mr. Wright struck Mrs. Wright in the face.
with a bullet fragment as aforesaid, Mr. and Mrs. Wright had nothing in their hands, were fully
cooperating with the officers, and did not pose a threat to anyone.
19

77. After Mr. Wright had been shot in the head immediately in front of her and Mrs.
Wright had been struck with a bullet fragment from the bullet that killed her husband, she was in
shock; after doing her best to check on her husband, who had fallen back into her and then onto
the floor of the foyer, she subsequently walked out the front of her home; when she walked out,
the officers yelled at her for her to show them her hands and to walk toward the area to the left of
her home, where one of the officers handcuffed her behind her back; she told the officers that her
husband had been shot and asked why they were placing her in handcuffs; one or more of the
officers then put Mrs. Wright in the back of a police vehicle while handcuffed behind her back and
left her there for an extended time without giving her any medical attention.
78. At some point thereafter, Daryl Higdon came out of the front door unarmed; the
officers instructed him to get on the ground and Mr. Higdon was handcuffed and taken into
custody.
79. David Wright’s death and the injuries sustained by Vickie Wright were proximately
caused by acts and omissions by or attributable to Defendants, individually and collectively, for
their unconstitutional conduct, deliberate indifference, objective unreasonableness, and use of
excessive force against David Wright and his wife, Vickie Wright, on May 12, 2023.
80. At material times during the joint venture / joint operation referenced above while
the individual Defendants were acting in concert, Defendants violated David and Vickie Wright’s
constitutional rights and were deliberately indifferent to the Wrights’ rights, safety and well-being.
81. Each Defendant’s unconstitutional and wrongful acts and omissions generally
referenced herein, separately and collectively, constituted a proximate cause, legal cause, and
cause in fact of David Wright’s wrongful death and Vickie Wright’s losses, damages and injuries,
20

which Mrs. Wright sustained individually and as next friend and spouse of decedent David Wright.
82. Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law arise, among other things,
out of Defendants’ unconstitutional and wrongful conduct which deprived Plaintiffs of their clearly
established rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and the laws of the United States and
the State of Tennessee and which led to Mr. Wright’s death and Mrs. Wright’s injuries, losses and
damages as outlined herein.
83. Defendants violated the rights of Mr. Wright and Mrs. Wright under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of
Tennessee when they knowingly and with objective unreasonableness and deliberate indifference
to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights unreasonably seized Mr. and Mrs. Wright when they posed no
threat to anyone. Defendants acted under color of state law and proximately caused the deprivation
of the Wrights’ federally protected and state law rights.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I: Federal Constitutional Violations For

Recklessly Endangering and Unreasonably Seizing David Wright
(Against Individual Defendants)
84. Each and every paragraph above is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in
this count.
85. The individual Defendants, acting in concert, unreasonably seized and used
excessive force on David Wright when he was shot by Deputy Hunter when he was not, and did
not objectively appear to be, posing a threat of harm—much less serious physical harm—to any
of the Defendants or anyone else. When he was shot, Wright was unarmed, had nothing in his
hands, and he did not look like Higdon. He was shot moments after he answered a question asked
by one of the officers and was asked to leave the house by that officer.
21

86. Each of individual Defendants committed the actions and/or omissions referenced
in this count under the color of state law and by virtue of their authority as Deputies of the SCSO
or officers of the SPD and substantially deprived Mr. Wright of his rights, privileges and
immunities guaranteed to him as a citizen of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
and 1988, and deprived Mr. Wright of the rights guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution including, but not limited to:
a. The right to freedom from unreasonable seizure of his person;
b. The right to freedom from the use of unreasonable, unjustified, and excessive force;
and
c. The duty of a law enforcement officer to intervene and protect a citizen when the
officer observed or had reason to know that excessive force was being used and the
officer had both the opportunity and means to prevent the harm from occurring.
87. Each of the unconstitutional acts and/or omissions generally described above was
a cause in fact and legal cause of personal injuries, harms, losses, and damages sustained by
decedent David Wright for which Plaintiff seeks recovery herein pursuant to applicable law.
Count II: Federal Constitutional Violations For Recklessly Endangering and Unreasonably
Seizing Vickie Wright
(Against Individual Defendants)
this count.
89. The individual Defendants unreasonably seized Vickie Wright in at least two ways:
by firing indiscriminately into the house, restricting her ability to leave; and by handcuffing her
and leaving her in a law enforcement vehicle for an extended time. Those actions were
objectively unreasonable because, among other reasons, Vickie Wright was not posing a threat,
22

and objectively did not appear to pose a threat, to anyone. She was unarmed. She did not look
like Higdon. Her husband had just been killed. She had been struck by a bullet fragment and
was injured.
90. Additionally, during the events referenced in this count when excessive force was
used against Mrs. Wright, none of the above-referenced defendants on the scene intervened to
protect her from such unconstitutional conduct or to provide adequate medical treatment.
91. By being present at the scene, participating in Mrs. Wright’s constitutional rights
be violated, having the ability to intervene to stop such violations, failing to intervene, and failing
to take reasonable measures to protect her from the other deputies’ or officers’ use of
unconstitutional excessive force, the other deputies and officers at the scene are also liable for
violating Mrs. Wright’s constitutional rights.
92. Each of the defendants referenced in this count committed the above described
actions and/or omissions under the color of state law and by virtue of their authority as officers of
the Knox County Sheriff’s Office and substantially deprived Vickie Wright of her rights, privileges
and immunities guaranteed to him as a citizen of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1988, and deprived Mrs. Wright of the rights guaranteed to her by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution including, but not limited to:
a. The right to freedom from unreasonable seizure of his person;
b. The right to freedom from the use of unreasonable, unjustified, and excessive force;
and
c. The duty of a law enforcement officer to intervene and protect a citizen when the
officer observed or had reason to know that excessive force was being used and the
23

officer had both the opportunity and means to prevent the harm from occurring.
93. Each of the unconstitutional acts and/or omissions generally described above was
a cause in fact and legal cause of personal injuries, harms, losses and damages sustained by Vickie
Wright for which she seeks recovery herein pursuant to applicable law.
Count III: Federal Constitutional Violations – Monell Failure to Train or Supervise for
Using Deadly Force When Innocent Citizens May Be Harmed
(Against Defendant Sevier County)
this count.
95. Sevier County is liable for the violations of David and Vickie Wright’s
constitutional rights described herein because it was deliberately indifferent and failed to
adequately train and supervise SCSO officers to address the foreseeable and obvious risk that they
would regularly encounter situations in which they would have the opportunity and means to use
deadly force in situations where innocent non-suspects could be harmed and, in so doing, would
violate citizens’ rights.
96. It is foreseeable that SCSO officers in the field will routinely and repeatedly have
to approach and attempt to arrest a suspect who is in a residence, including in a residence where
other people are present. Sevier County failed to train and educate its deputies with respect to use
of deadly force which it knew or had reason to know its deputies would encounter in the field, and
which posed a serious risk of personal injury or death to citizens they would encounter. The
failure to provide law enforcement training on topics involving activities which officers engage in
on a routine basis and on topics where there is an obvious need for training illustrates Sevier
County’s and the SCSO’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons
24

encountered by its law enforcement officers, including David and Vickie Wright.
97. Sevier County’s deliberate indifference and failure to adequately train and/or
supervise its officers is evidenced by the circumstances here, including: (i) lack of adequate written
policies and training materials concerning the use of deadly force in situations where innocent
parties could be harmed; (ii) the number and rank of the officers at the scene who either directly
engaged in the use of deadly force or who encouraged and/or condoned the use of deadly force;
(iii) the officers’ utter lack of knowledge or disregard of standard law enforcement procedures for
attempting to arrest a suspect who is inside a house, especially one where others are present.
98. On information and belief, SCSO’s written policies do not appropriately and/or
sufficiently address and train SCSO officers regarding the clearly established law that it is
unconstitutional to use deadly force against a citizen who is not, at the moment of the shooting,
posing a threat of serious or deadly harm to the officers or others.
99. Additionally, Sevier County failed to adequately monitor and evaluate the
performance of its deputies and their use of force applications including the uses of force and
deadly force described herein.
100. The lack of adequate training is evident from, among other things, the fact that
officers were shooting indiscriminately into the home. Although they knew that non-suspects
were in the house, the officers fired blindly and/or indiscriminately into the house. In fact, officers
fired approximately 29 rounds into the east side of the house, the wall near the Wrights’ closet and
bedroom. There was no window on that side of house. The officers had no way to know if the
shots would strike the Wrights.
101. The officers also escalated the situation aggressively and unnecessarily almost from
25

the moment they arrived at the house. Indeed, they already had their firearms drawn as they
approached the house.
102. The officers did not consider obtaining a warrant for Higdon’s arrest.
103. The officers fired the first shots.
104. There was a lack of coordination and communication among the officers. The
radios used by SCSO deputies were not compatible with the radios used by the SPD officers. And
even among themselves, the SCSO officers were not reasonably or adequately communicating.
One SCSO officer shot and killed David Wright moments after another officer asked Mr. Wright
a question and asked him to come out of the house.
105. Multiple SCSO officers at the scene participated in the subject unconstitutional
conduct or witnessed and condoned this conduct and failed to intervene. The various SCSO
personnel included experienced deputies and a sergeant. The conduct involving different SCSO
personnel with different levels of training and experience illustrates that none of them – from the
least to the most experienced officer – had been adequately or sufficiently trained by Sevier
County. The entire group of officers present at the scene participated in some manner and/or
encouraged and condoned a pattern of using deadly force that was indiscriminate.
106. The failure of Sevier County to have adequate policies and training on the issues
noted above, including but not limited to how and when to use deadly force, to attempt to de-
escalate a situation, to establish a perimeter, and to communicate with another law enforcement
agency involved in the situation, reflects that Sevier County, itself and through its final policy
maker for the SCSO, Sheriff Hodges, failed to adequately train SCSO officers and deputies for the
tasks they would be performing and acted with deliberate indifference to the risks that citizens’
26

constitutional rights would be violated.
107. As a direct result of Sevier County’s failure to have adequate written policies and
training and/or Sevier County’s deliberately indifferent training and supervision regarding the
foreseeable situations previously described, David Wright’s and Vickie Wright’s constitutional
rights were violated, including but not limited to by Mr. Wright being shot in the head, causing
him to suffer serious personal injuries and a wrongful death.
108. Each of Sevier County’s unconstitutional acts and/or omissions generally described
in this count was a cause in fact and legal cause of personal injuries, harms, losses and damages
sustained by Vickie Wright and by decedent David Wright for which Plaintiff seeks recovery
herein pursuant to applicable law.
Count IV: Federal Constitutional Violations – Monell Policy, Practice, or Custom of

Permitting and Condoning the Use of Deadly Force Against Non-Threatening Citizens
(Against Defendant Sevier County)
this count.
110. Sevier County is liable for the violations of Mr. Wright’s constitutional rights
referenced above because Sevier County had a custom, practice and/or de facto policy of
permitting and condoning SCSO officers and deputies violating the constitutional rights of the
public at large, including Mr. Wright, by using deadly force against innocent and non-threatening
non-resisting citizens.
111. Sevier County’s custom, practice and/or de facto policy of allowing officers to use
deadly force in a manner that endangers non-threatening citizens is evidenced by the circumstances
here, including the following: (i) multiple officers of different ranks and experience levels
participated in and/or encouraged and condoned the use of deadly force against David and Vickie
27

Wright during the subject events; (ii) the officers’ conduct evidenced utter disregard or lack of
knowledge of basic law enforcement procedure; (iii) Sheriff Hodges gave tacit approval of the
SCSO officers’ conduct;
112. The first two circumstances establishing that Sevier County has a custom, practice
and/or de facto policy of permitting deputies to use deadly force against non-threatening citizens—
that multiple officers of different ranks and experience levels participated in and/or encouraged
and condoned the use of deadly force against David and Vickie Wright during the subject events,
and that the officers’ conduct evidenced utter disregard or lack of knowledge of basic law
enforcement procedure—are addressed in detail above.
113. The third circumstance establishing that Sevier County has an unconstitutional
policy, practice, or custom is that Sheriff Hodges gave tacit approval of the SCSO officers’
conduct, as evidenced by the fact that, on information and belief, Sheriff Hodges failed to
investigate the events described herein for the purpose of determining whether any
unconstitutional or wrongful conduct had occurred.
114. Further, on information and belief, following the killing of Mr. Wright, Sheriff
Hodges also failed to institute any additional or appropriate policies or training concerning the use
of such excessive force. If the SCSO Individual Defendants’ use of excessive force was not in
accordance with Sevier County’s de facto customs, policies, and practices, then there would have
been some reprimand, training, and/or new policies instituted following the subject events.
115. Following Mr. Wright’s death, none of the SCSO officers were disciplined for their
conduct, which indicates that their conduct was found to be in compliance with the policies,
practices, and customs of Sevier County in all respects. See e.g. Marchese v. Lucas, 758 F.2d
28

181, 184, 188-89 (6th Cir. 1985) (affirming trial court judgment of liability against Sheriff and
County based on “[t]he Sheriff’s subsequent failure to order and direct any investigation which
disclosed exactly who were the perpetrators of these brutal violations . . . and to administer censure
and punishment,” which “served to confirm the existence of an unstated ‘policy’ or toleration of
illegal brutality”); Grandstaff v. Borger, 767 F.2d 161, 171 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that the
“disposition of the policymaker may be inferred from his conduct after the events” and inferring a
“preexisting disposition and policy” of permitting excessive and deadly force when after all six
officers on the night shift participated in a pursuit and shot and killed an innocent man, “there were
no reprimands, no discharges, no admissions of error” reflecting that if a “prior policy had been
violated” then “changes would have been made”); see also Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151,
1166-67 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 75 (1989) (upholding admission of post-event
conduct concerning lack of proper internal investigation and failure to discipline officers involved
as evidence of the customs that were in effect prior to the subject incident) (“Post-event evidence
can shed some light on what policies existed in the city on the date of an alleged deprivation of
constitutional right.”).
116. Sevier County’s unlawful customs, practices, and de facto policies of permitting
deputies to use deadly force against non-threatening citizens was the moving force behind and
proximately caused the deprivation of David Wright’s and Vickie Wright’s constitutional rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as described herein.
117. Consistent with and as a direct and proximate result of Sevier County’s
unconstitutional customs, practices and de facto policies described above, David Wright’s and
Vickie Wright’s constitutional rights were violated, including by but not limited to Mr. Wright
29

being shot in the head when he was not posing a threat to anyone, causing him to suffer serious
personal injuries and a wrongful death.
118. Each of Sevier County’s unconstitutional acts and/or omissions generally described
in this count was a cause in fact and legal cause of personal injuries, harms, losses and damages
Count V: Federal Constitutional Violations – Monell Failure to Train or Supervise for

Using Deadly Force When Innocent Citizens May Be Harmed
(Against Defendant City of Sevierville)
this count.
120. City of Sevierville is liable for the violations of David and Vickie Wright’s
constitutional rights described herein because it was deliberately indifferent and failed to
adequately train and supervise SPD officers to address the foreseeable and obvious risk that they
would regularly encounter situations in which they would have the opportunity and means to use
deadly force in situations where innocent non-suspects could be harmed and, in so doing, would
violate citizens’ rights.
121. It is foreseeable that SPD officers in the field will routinely and repeatedly have to
approach and attempt to arrest a suspect who is in a residence, including in a residence where other
people are present. Sevierville failed to train and educate its deputies with respect to use of deadly
force which it knew or had reason to know its deputies would encounter in the field, and which
posed a serious risk of personal injury or death to citizens they would encounter. The failure to
provide law enforcement training on topics involving activities which officers engage in on a
routine basis and on topics where there is an obvious need for training illustrates Sevierville’s and
30

the SPD’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons encountered by its law
enforcement officers, including David and Vickie Wright.
122. Sevierville’s deliberate indifference and failure to adequately train and/or supervise
its officers is evidenced by the circumstances here, including: (i) lack of adequate written policies
and training materials concerning the use of deadly force in situations where innocent parties could
be harmed; (ii) the number and rank of the officers at the scene who either directly engaged in the
use of deadly force or who encouraged and/or condoned the use of deadly force; (iii) the officers’
utter lack of knowledge or disregard of standard law enforcement procedures for attempting to
arrest a suspect who is inside a house, especially one where others are present.
123. On information and belief, SPD’s written policies do not appropriately and/or
sufficiently address and train SPD officers regarding the clearly established law that it is
unconstitutional to use deadly force against a citizen who is not, at the moment of the shooting,
posing a threat of serious or deadly harm to the officers or others.
124. Additionally, Sevierville failed to adequately monitor and evaluate the performance
of its deputies and their use of force applications including the uses of force and deadly force
described herein.
125. The lack of adequate training is evident from, among other things, the fact that
officers were shooting indiscriminately into the home. Although they knew that non-suspects
were in the house, the officers fired blindly and/or indiscriminately into the house. In fact, officers
fired approximately 29 rounds into the east side of the house, the wall near the Wrights’ closet and
bedroom. There was no window on that side of house. The officers had no way to know if the
shots would strike the Wrights.
31

126. The officers also escalated the situation aggressively and unnecessarily almost from
the moment they arrived at the house. Indeed, they already had their firearms drawn as they
approached the house.
127. The officers did not consider obtaining a warrant for Higdon’s arrest.
128. The officers fired the first shots.
129. There was a lack of coordination and communication among the officers. The
radios used by SCSO deputies were not compatible with the radios used by the SPD officers.
130. Multiple SPD officers at the scene participated in the subject unconstitutional
conduct or witnessed and condoned this conduct and failed to intervene. The various SPD
personnel included experienced officers and a sergeant. The conduct involving different SPD
personnel with different levels of training and experience illustrates that none of them – from the
least to the most experienced officer – had been adequately or sufficiently trained by Sevierville.
The entire group of officers present at the scene participated in some manner and/or encouraged
and condoned a pattern of using deadly force that was indiscriminate.
131. The failure of Sevierville to have adequate policies and training on the issues noted
above, including but not limited to how and when to use deadly force, to attempt to de-escalate a
situation, to establish a perimeter, and to communicate with another law enforcement agency
involved in the situation, reflects that Sevierville, itself and through its final policy maker for the
SPD, Chief Manning, failed to adequately train SPD officers and deputies for the tasks they would
be performing and acted with deliberate indifference to the risks that citizens’ constitutional rights
would be violated.
132. As a direct result of Sevierville’s failure to have adequate written policies and
32

training and/or Sevierville’s deliberately indifferent training and supervision regarding the
foreseeable situations previously described, David Wright’s and Vickie Wright’s constitutional
rights were violated, including but not limited to by Mr. Wright being shot in the head, causing
him to suffer serious personal injuries and a wrongful death.
133. Each of Sevierville’s unconstitutional acts and/or omissions generally described in
this count was a cause in fact and legal cause of personal injuries, harms, losses and damages
sustained by decedent David Wright and by Vickie Wright for which Plaintiff seeks recovery
Count VI: Federal Constitutional Violations – Monell Policy, Practice, or Custom of

Permitting and Condoning the Use of Deadly Force Against Non-Threatening Citizens
(Against Defendant City of Sevierville)
this count.
135. Sevierville is liable for the violations of Mr. Wright’s constitutional rights
referenced above because Sevierville had a custom, practice and/or de facto policy of permitting
and condoning SPD officers and deputies violating the constitutional rights of the public at large,
including Mr. Wright, by using deadly force against innocent and non-threatening non-resisting
citizens.
136. Sevierville’s custom, practice and/or de facto policy of allowing officers to use
deadly force in a manner that endangers non-threatening citizens is evidenced by the circumstances
here, including the following: (i) multiple officers of different ranks and experience levels
participated in and/or encouraged and condoned the use of deadly force against David and Vickie
Wright during the subject events; (ii) the officers’ conduct evidenced utter disregard or lack of
knowledge of basic law enforcement procedure; (iii) Chief Manning gave tacit approval of the
33

SPD officers’ conduct;
137. The first two circumstances establishing that Sevierville has a custom, practice
and/or de facto policy of permitting deputies to use deadly force against non-threatening citizens—
that multiple officers of different ranks and experience levels participated in and/or encouraged
and condoned the use of deadly force against David and Vickie Wright during the subject events,
and that the officers’ conduct evidenced utter disregard or lack of knowledge of basic law
enforcement procedure—are addressed in detail above.
138. The third circumstance establishing that Sevierville has an unconstitutional policy,
practice, or custom is that Chief Manning gave tacit approval of the SPD officers’ conduct, as
evidenced by the fact that, on information and belief, Chief Manning failed to investigate the
events described herein for the purpose of determining whether any unconstitutional or wrongful
conduct had occurred.
139. Further, on information and belief, following the killing of Mr. Wright, Chief
Manning also failed to institute any additional or appropriate policies or training concerning the
use of such excessive force. If the SPD Individual Defendants’ use of excessive force was not in
accordance with Sevierville’s de facto customs, policies, and practices, then there would have been
some reprimand, training, and/or new policies instituted following the subject events.
140. Following Mr. Wright’s death, none of the SPD officers were disciplined for their
conduct, which indicates that their conduct was found to be in compliance with the policies,
practices, and customs of Sevierville in all respects. See e.g. Marchese v. Lucas, 758 F.2d 181,
184, 188-89 (6th Cir. 1985) (affirming trial court judgment of liability against Sheriff and County
based on “[t]he Sheriff’s subsequent failure to order and direct any investigation which disclosed
34

exactly who were the perpetrators of these brutal violations . . . and to administer censure and
punishment,” which “served to confirm the existence of an unstated ‘policy’ or toleration of illegal
brutality”); Grandstaff v. Borger, 767 F.2d 161, 171 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that the “disposition
of the policymaker may be inferred from his conduct after the events” and inferring a “preexisting
disposition and policy” of permitting excessive and deadly force when after all six officers on the
night shift participated in a pursuit and shot and killed an innocent man, “there were no reprimands,
no discharges, no admissions of error” reflecting that if a “prior policy had been violated” then
“changes would have been made”); see also Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151, 1166-67 (1st
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 75 (1989) (upholding admission of post-event conduct
concerning lack of proper internal investigation and failure to discipline officers involved as
evidence of the customs that were in effect prior to the subject incident) (“Post-event evidence can
shed some light on what policies existed in the city on the date of an alleged deprivation of
constitutional right.”).
141. Sevierville’s unlawful customs, practices, and de facto policies of permitting
deputies to use deadly force against non-threatening citizens was the moving force behind and
proximately caused the deprivation of David Wright’s and Vickie Wright’s constitutional rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as described herein.
142. Consistent with and as a direct and proximate result of Sevierville’s
unconstitutional customs, practices and de facto policies described above, David Wright’s and
Vickie Wright’s constitutional rights were violated, including by but not limited to Mr. Wright
being shot in the head when he was not posing a threat to anyone, causing him to suffer serious
personal injuries and a wrongful death.
35

143. Each of Sevierville’s unconstitutional acts and/or omissions generally described in
this count was a cause in fact and legal cause of personal injuries, harms, losses and damages
Count VII: Tennessee State Law Assault and Battery

(Against the Individual Defendants)
this count.
145. Based on their conduct described above, the Individual Defendants, individually
and by acting in concert with each other, committed acts of assault and/or battery upon David
Wright and Vickie Wright in the manner referenced above.
146. Each of said Defendants, through the actions described above, did intentionally
engage in each of said acts and each such act was the cause in fact and legal cause of harm, injuries,
mental anguish, damages, and losses to David Wright and Vickie Wright and was a cause in fact
and legal cause of the wrongful death of David Wright as generally described above, rendering
each of them liable to Plaintiff Vickie Wright in accordance with Tennessee law.
Count VIII: Tennessee State Law Intentional and/or Reckless

Infliction of Emotional Distress
this count.
148. Based on their conduct described above, each of the Individual Defendants, by
extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to
David Wright and Vickie Writh, which resulted in bodily harm and/or mental anguish and/or injury
36

to David Wright and to Vickie Wright.
149. Each of the acts and/or omissions of each of said Defendants was so outrageous
that it is not to be tolerated by civilized society.
150. Each of the Individual Defendants’ acts and/or omissions was intentional and/or
reckless and, accordingly, was of such a nature none of the Individual Defendants is entitled to
immunity for any such conduct under applicable Tennessee law.
151. Each of said Defendant’s acts and/or omissions was the cause in fact and legal cause
of harm, injuries, mental anguish, damages, and losses to David Wright and Vickie Wright and
was a cause in fact and legal cause of the wrongful death of David Wright as generally described
above, rendering each of them liable to Plaintiff Vickie Wright in accordance with Tennessee law.
Count IX: Punitive Damages

this count.
153. For each of the actions and omissions of the individual Defendants which was
intentional, reckless, deliberately indifferent, and/or shocking to the conscience and/or
unconstitutional, Plaintiff requests that she be awarded punitive damages in the amount the trier
of fact deems appropriate and just in accordance with applicable law.
Damages and Prayer for Relief
154. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, David
Wright’s and Vickie Wright’s constitutional rights were violated, Vickie Wright sustained injuries
and David Wright sustained grave personal injuries and subsequently a wrongful death. Further,
Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages as a result of David Wright’s wrongful death. The
37

injuries and damages for which Plaintiff seeks compensation from Defendants, both jointly and
severally, include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The wrongful death of David Wright;
b. Mr. Wright’s physical pain and suffering prior to his death;
c. Mr. Wright’s emotional pain and suffering prior to his death;
d. bodily injury of Vickie Wright;
e. physical and emotional pain and suffering of Vickie Wright;
f. Funeral expenses;
g. Loss of enjoyment of life;
h. Loss of wages and earning capacity;
i. Loss of consortium, society, companionship, and services of Mr. Wright;
j. Loss of the right to familial association with Mr. Wright;
k. The full pecuniary value of the life of Mr. Wright as defined by Tennessee or other
applicable law; and
l. All other damages for personal injuries and wrongful death allowed under
applicable law.
155. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment against Defendants,
jointly and severally, granting or awarding the following relief:
a. Compensatory damages for the injuries, damages, and wrongful death of David
Wright in the amount the jury determines appropriate and just, not to exceed
$5,000,000.00, subject to amendment as this matter proceeds;
b. Compensatory damages for the injuries of Vickie Wright in the amount the jury
38

determines appropriate and just, not to exceed $3,000,000, subject to amendment
as this matter proceeds;
c. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury as fair and reasonable
to deter the individual Defendants and others from engaging in similar misconduct;
d. Attorneys’ fees, to the fullest extent allowable by the statutes generally referenced
herein, including but not limited to the extent permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
e. Statutory and discretionary costs;
f. Post- judgment interest; and
g. All such further relief, both general and specific, to which she may be entitled.
156. Plaintiff requests that a jury be impaneled to hear this cause.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of May, 2024.
s/Wayne A. Ritchie II
Wayne A. Ritchie II, BPR No. 013936
James R. Stovall, BPR No. 32512
Samantha I. Ellis, BPR No. 036709
Ritchie, Davies, Johnson & Stovall, P.C.
606 W. Main Street, Suite 300
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Telephone: (865) 637-0661
Facsimile: (865) 524-4623
Email: war@rdjs.law
Email: jstovall@rdjs.law
Email: sellis@rdjs.law
Attorneys for Plaintiff
39

Vickie Wright Lawsuit

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

Vickie Wright Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

VICKIE WRIGHT, individually and as next )

GENERAL NATURE OF THE CASE

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 1

were in their home.

out the front doorway of their home.

and did not pose a threat to anyone.

Defendants at or near their home on May 12, 2023.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 2

near the front of the Wrights’ home.

protection of the individual Defendants on or near their property.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 3

not posing a threat to anyone.

PARTIES AND RELEVANT AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS

next friend and wife of David Wright, deceased.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 4

and discipline of law enforcement officers and other employees.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 5

hereto, Sheriff Hodges was acting under color of state law.

force against them.

23. Defendant City of Sevierville, Tennessee, is a governmental entity created under

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 6

24. City of Sevierville Police Department (hereinafter referred to as “SPD”) is a

States and the State of Tennessee.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 8

state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

FURTHER FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Taurus in the vicinity of Winfield Dunn Parkway.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 9

discontinued pursuit due to traffic conditions.

he had no other place to live.

the purpose of arresting Mr. Higdon.

officer reports to the officer’s own supervisor.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 10

the home belonged to David and Vickie Wright.

homeowner, occupant of a premises, or bystander

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 11

serious bodily harm to the officer or a third person.

who were not posing a threat to another person.

home who were not posting a threat to another person.

been observed by Defendant Reece within the Sevierville City limits.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 12

the front of the Wrights’ home.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 13

52. On information and belief, because of a lack of appropriate equipment, because of

David and Vickie Wright.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 14

looking for a job and that he had nowhere else to go.

arrest him at their home.

time thereafter to find out what the noise was about.

Wright replied affirmatively.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 15

or near the Wrights’ home.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 16

and off of the front porch.

with his gun.

the shots were fired.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 17 of 39 PageID #: 17

Vickie Wright or their safety or welfare.

Case 3:24-cv-00220 Document 1 Filed 05/10/24 Page 18 of 39 PageID #: 18

Higdon was on the back porch of Wrights’ home.