Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 49 FILED

2022 Sep-15 PM 04:18

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

TERRY LEE HAWKINS, JR. ]

]
Plaintiff, ]
]
v. ]
]
DANIEL HOLCOMB; Individually, and in ]
his capacity of a Cherokee County, Alabama ]
Deputy Sheriff; SETH BISHOP ]
Individually and in his capacity as a member ]
of the Cedar Bluff, Alabama Police ]
Department; MICHAEL KILGORE, ]
Individually and in his capacity as a member ]
of the Centre, Alabama Police Department; ]
EMILY TROXTEL, Individually, and as ]
a member of the Centre, Alabama Police ]
Department; LEESBURG, ALABAMA, ]
a municipal corporation; CEDAR BLUFF, ]
ALABAMA, a municipal corporation, ]
CENTRE, ALABAMA, a municipal ]
corporation; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANT ]
A, a member of the Leesburg, Alabama ]
Police Department; FICTITIOUS ]
DEFENDANT B; a member of the ]
Leesburg, Alabama Police Department; ]
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANT C; a member ]
of the Cherokee County Sheriff’s ]
Department; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANT ]
D; a member of the Cherokee County ]
Sheriff’s Department; Sheriff Jeff Shaver, ]
in his capacity as Chief Policy Maker for the ]
Cherokee County, Alabama ]
]
Defendants. ]

1
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 49

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Terry Lee Hawkins, Jr. (“Plaintiff Hawkins”), and files the

following Complaint against the named and fictitiously named defendants herein:

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff

Hawkins’s claims of violations of his constitutional rights are brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court further may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff Hawkins’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

VENUE

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because all of the

complained of acts of malfeasance on the part of each and every defendant named

herein occurred in the geographic location, namely Centre, Alabama within the

Court’s District. Further, each named defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in

this District.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Terry Lee Hawkins (“Plaintiff Hawkins”), at all times relevant and

material, was and is a resident of the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Hawkins was

subjected to unnecessary, excessive and unreasonable force on September 4, 2022.

2. Defendant Daniel Holcomb (“Defendant Holcomb”), at all times relevant

and material, was acting under the color of state law, was a law enforcement officer

2
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 49

certified under the standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training

(“APOST”). At all times relevant and material, Defendant Holcomb was employed

by the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office.

3. Defendant Seth Bishop (“Defendant Bishop”), at all times relevant and

material, was acting under the color of state law, was a law enforcement officer

certified under the standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training

(“APOST”). At all times relevant and material, Defendant Bishop was employed by

the Cedar Bluff, Alabama Police Department.

4. Defendant Michael Kilgore (“Defendant Kilgore”), at all times relevant and

material, was acting under the color of state law, was a law enforcement officer

certified under the standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training

(“APOST”). At all times relevant and material, Defendant Kilgore was employed

by the Centre, Alabama Police Department.

5. Defendant Emily Troxtel (“Defendant Troxtel”), at all times relevant and

material was acting under state, was a law enforcement officer certified under the

standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training (“APOST”). At all times

relevant and material, Defendant Troxtel was employed by the Centre, Alabama

Police Department.

6. Defendant Michael Kilgore (“Defendant Kilgore”), at all times relevant and

material, was a law enforcement officer certified under the standards of the Alabama

3
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 4 of 49

Police Standards and Training (“APOST”). At all times relevant and material,

Defendant Kilgore was employed by the Centre, Alabama Police Department.

7. Fictitious Defendant A (“FDA”), whose identity is unknown at this time, at

all times relevant and material, was a law enforcement officer certified under the

standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training (“APOST”). At all times

relevant and material, FDA was employed by the Leesburg, Alabama Police

Department.

8. Fictitious Defendant B (“FDB”), whose identity is unknown at this time, at

all times relevant and material, was a law enforcement officer certified under the

standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training (“APOST”). At all times

relevant and material, FDB was employed by the Leesburg, Alabama Police

Department.

9. Fictitious Defendant C (“FDC”), whose identity is unknown at this time, at

all times relevant and material, was a law enforcement officer certified under the

standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training (“APOST”). At all times

relevant and material, FDC was employed by the Cherokee County, Alabama

Sherriff’s Department.

10. Fictitious Defendant D (“FDD”), whose true identity is unknown at this

time, at all times relevant and material, was a law enforcement officer certified under

the standards of the Alabama Police Standards and Training (“APOST”). At all

4
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 5 of 49

times relevant and material, FDD was employed by the Cherokee County, Alabama

Sheriff’s Department.

11. Defendant Leesburg, Alabama (“Defendant Leesburg”) is a municipal

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama. Defendant Leesburg

maintains a police department as part of its governmental makeup.

12. Defendant Cedar Bluff, Alabama (“Defendant Cedar Bluff”) is a

municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama. Defendant

Cedar Buff maintains a police department as part of its governmental makeup.

13. Defendant Centre, Alabama (“Defendant Centre”) is a municipal

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama. Defendant Centre

maintains a police department as part of its governmental makeup.

14. Defendant Jeff Shaver (“Defendant Shaver”) is the chief law officer of

Cherokee County, Alabama; responsible for hiring, training and policy of deputies

employed by the Cherokee County, Alabama Sheriff’s Department.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. The conduct of visited upon Plaintiff Hawkins was unjustified, unprovoked,

and grossly disproportionate and amounted to the use of excessive force in violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

16. Therefore, all parties named herein are jointly and severally liable for the

excessive force used against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022.

5
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 6 of 49

17. The actions of all parties named herein were unjustified, unprovoked, and

objectively unreasonable and constitute a violation of their rights under the Fourth

Amendment to be free from the use of excessive force.

18. Further, police officers and deputies employed by both Defendant Centre, the

Cherokee County, Alabama Sheriff Department Defendant Cedar Bluff, and

Defendant Leesburg failed to intervene and stop the violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s

constitutional rights.

19. Police officers and deputies on the scene failed to stop the repeated use of

unconstitutional force visited upon Plaintiff Hawkins.

20. The unconstitutional actions complained of herein became known to, among

others Defendant Centre, the Cherokee County, Alabama Sheriff Department

Defendant Cedar Bluff, and Defendant Leesburg, who failed to adequately

investigate this matter.

21. Therefore, Defendant Centre, the Cherokee County, Alabama Sheriff

Department, Defendant Cedar Bluff, and Defendant Leesburg approved, ratified,

and knowingly acquiesced in the conduct described herein in all respects.

22. The defendants named herein, individually, and in concert with each other

acted under the color of law in their official capacities, to deprive Plaintiff Hawkins

of his rights and freedom from unreasonable seizure and the use of unnecessary,

unjustified excessive force; said rights secured to Plaintiff Hawkins by the Fourth

6
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 7 of 49

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

1988.

23. The use of excessive force on Plaintiff Hawkins was excessive and not

objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances as they existed not in

hindsight, but as they existed on September 4, 2022.

24. On an objective basis, no reasonable competent officer on the scene would

have concluded that the disputed actions should have been taken against Plaintiff

Hawkins.

25. Defendant Centre is under a duty to run its policing activities in a lawful

manner so as to protect not only the peace of Centre, Alabama; but also, to preserve

the rights, privileges, and amenities of residents and visitors to Centre, Alabama; as

those rights, privileges and amenities are guaranteed and secured to those residents

and visitors by the Constitution of the United States, and laws of the State of

Alabama.

26. Defendant Cedar Bluff is under a duty to hire, train and supervise competent

law enforcement officers. Defendant Cedar Bluff is under a duty to run its policing

activities in a lawful manner, and to preserve the rights, privileges, and amenities

guaranteed and secured to United States citizens by the Constitution and laws of the

State of Alabama and to ensure its employed police officers act in the same manner.

7
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 8 of 49

27. Defendant Leesburg is under a duty to hire, train and supervise competent law

enforcement officers. Defendant Leesburg is under a duty to run its policing

activities in a lawful manner, and to preserve the rights, privileges, and amenities

guaranteed and secured to United States citizens by the Constitution and laws of the

State of Alabama; and to ensure its employed police officers act in the same manner.

28. At all times relevant and material, the defendants herein who are natural

persons, including those named fictitiously, were acting by virtue of, and under the

color of their offices as law enforcement officers.

29. On or about September 4, 2022, Plaintiff Hawkins was a patron at Easy Street

Restaurant, Bar and Performance Hall, a venue located at 1605 West Main Street

Centre, Alabama 35960 (“Easy Street”).

30. On September 4, 2022, Plaintiff Hawkins was attending a live music event at

Easy Street with his wife.

31. Plaintiff Hawkins, at the time of the complained of acts, though having

consumed alcohol, was not intoxicated.

32. Just prior to the occurrence of the complained of acts herein, Plaintiff Hawkins

was located at the outside patio seating area of Easy Street.

33. Upon information and belief, prior to the complained of acts herein,

Defendant Holcomb, after first visiting a bar in Gadsden, Alabama where he

8
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 9 of 49

consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication, arrived at Easy Street, where he

continued to consume alcohol.

34. Upon information and belief, prior to the complained of acts herein,

Defendant Bishop, after first visiting a bar in Gadsden, Alabama where he consumed

alcohol to the point of intoxication, arrived at Easy Street with Defendant Holcomb,

where he too continued to consume alcohol.

35. At some point just prior to the occurrence of the complained of acts, Plaintiff

Holcomb’s brother-in-law exited the inside of Easy Street where he and Plaintiff

Holcomb had a verbal disagreement. No punches were thrown, and no physical

altercation occurred.

36. Plaintiff Holcomb encountered Defendant Kilgore in the parking lot of Easy

Street, where without provocation or probable cause, Defendant Kilgore deployed

his Taser into the person of Plaintiff Holcomb causing Plaintiff Holcomb to lose

muscle control and fall to the ground.

37. Plaintiff Hawkins fell to the ground after being tased by Defendant Kilgore,

and Plaintiff Hawkins was then restrained face-down with his arms secured behind

his back by law enforcement.

38. During this time, the prongs of Defendant Kilgore’s Taser remained

embedded in the body of Plaintiff Hawkins.

9
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 10 of 49

39. While Defendant Kilgore’s prongs remained embedded in Plaintiff Hawkins’s

body as he lay face-down on the ground with two law enforcement officers having

a knee in his back and his arms bound behind him, a drunken and intoxicated

Defendant Holcomb stumbled over and began delivering punches and elbow shots

to the back of Plaintiff Hawkins’s head.

40. While Defendant Kilgore’s prongs remained embedded in Plaintiff Hawkins’s

body as he lay face-down on the ground with two law enforcement officers having

a knee in his back and his arms bound behind him, a drunken and intoxicated

Defendant Bishop began delivering punches to the body of Plaintiff Hawkins.

41. The blows by Defendant Holcomb continued unimpeded until Defendant

Holcomb stood, and drunkenly staggered away:

10
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 11 of 49

42. After the defendants concluded their unconstitutional acts, Plaintiff Hawkins

was transported to Defendant Centre’s police station where he was issued citations

by Defendant Troxtel for “resisting arrest” and “disorderly conduct” and then given

a $300.00 appearance bond.

43. On September 4, 2022, Plaintiff Hawkins was subjected to excessive force at

the hands and elbows of Defendant Holcomb.

44. On September 4, 2022, Plaintiff Hawkins was subject to excessive force at the

hands of Defendant Bishop.

45. On September 4, 2022, Plaintiff Hawkins was subject to excessive force at the

hands of Defendant Kilgore.

46. On September 4, 2022, Defendant Troxtel did not intervene to stop the use of

excessive force by Defendant Holcomb, nor Defendant Bishop, nor Defendant

Kilgore.

47. On September 4, 2022, Defendant Bishop did not intervene to stop the use of

excessive force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb.

48. On September 4, 2022, Defendant Kilgore did not intervene to stop the use of

excessive force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb.

49. On September 4, 2022, FDA did not intervene to stop the use of excessive

force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb, nor Defendant Bishop, nor

Defendant Kilgore.

11
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 12 of 49

50. On September 4, 2022, FDB did not intervene to stop the use of excessive

force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb, nor Defendant Bishop, nor

Defendant Kilgore.

51. On September 4, 2022, FDC did not intervene to stop the use of excessive

force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb, nor Defendant Bishop, nor

Defendant Kilgore.

52. On September 4, 2022, FDD did not intervene to stop the use of excessive

force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb, nor Defendant Bishop, nor

Defendant Kilgore.

53. None of the officers on the scene, during the events that give rise to this

lawsuit, acted to intervene against the unconstitutional and unlawful acts of their

fellow officers though they each at the means to do so.

54. Hence, this lawsuit.

COUNT I
Battery as to Defendant Holcomb

55. In addition to the preceding allegations, Plaintiff Hawkins further alleges:

56. Defendant Holcomb is liable for the battery he committed upon the person of

Plaintiff Hawkins in the parking lot of Easy Street on September 4, 2022.

57. Specifically, Defendant Holcomb, with his elbow repeated struck the head and

neck area of Plaintiff Hawkins while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained by law

enforcement officers with his hand bound behind his back.

12
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 13 of 49

58. The striking of Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb with his elbow and

fist was unwanted by Plaintiff Hawkins and was visited upon Plaintiff Hawkins

without his consent.

59. Bystander videos exists of Defendant Holcomb’s action and one such still

frame shows an intoxicated Defendant Holcomb delivering multiple blows with his

elbow and fist to a restrained Plaintiff Hawkins:

60. Specifically, Defendant Holcomb with his elbow and fist repeated struck the

head and neck area of Plaintiff Hawkins while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained by

law enforcement officers with his hand bound behind his back.

61. The striking of Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Holcomb with his elbow and

fist was unwanted by Plaintiff Hawkins and was visited upon Plaintiff Hawkins

without his consent.

13
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 14 of 49

62. Plaintiff Hawkins suffered and suffersactual and real injuries in the form of

bruising, lacerations, blurred vision, headaches, emotional distress, mental anguish,

and pain and suffering.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Hawkins prays for

judgment against Defendant Holcomb both compensatory and punitive in nature in

an amount to be determined by a struck jury.

COUNT II
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to Defendant Kilgore

63. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

64. Defendant Kilgore, acting under the color of state law at all times relevant on

September 4, 2022.

65. Defendant Kilgore is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by his fellow officers.

66. Defendant Kilgore was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb and Defendant Bishop when

Defendant Holcomb repeatedly struck Plaintiff Hawkins with his fist and elbow on

the back of Plaintiff Hawkins’s neck and Defendant Bishop delivered blows while

Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face down on the ground, arms bound and two

(2) officers with knees in Plaintiff Hawkins’s back.

14
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 15 of 49

67. Despite Defendant Kilgore being in a position to intervene to stop the

violation of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free

from unnecessary excessive force, Defendant Kilgore not only failed to intervene

though he was in a position to do so, but he also encouraged and ratified the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb and Defendant Bishop against

Plaintiff Hawkins while he was in a compliant, restrained position and while he was

not a threat to officers or the general public.

68. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb and

Defendant Bishop despite being in a position to do so, Defendant Kilgore acted with

deliberate indifference regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

69. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant Kilgore’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions

against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff Hawkins has and

continues to suffer injury.

COUNT III
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Deprivation
of Constitutional Rights as to Defendant Kilgore

70. Without waive of any preceding allegation, Plaintiff Hawkins further alleges:

71. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendant Kilgore deprived

Plaintiff Hawkins of his clearly established constitutionally protected rights under

15
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 16 of 49

the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited

to:

a) Freedom from unreasonable seizure;

b) The right to be free from unreasonable searches;

c) Freedom from the use of unreasonable, unjustified

and excessive force;

d) Freedom from deprivation of liberty and property

without due process of law;

e) Freedom from summary punishment;

f) Freedom from the prevention of officers from using

excessive force; and

g) Freedom from arbitrary governmental activity that

shocks the conscience of a civilized society.

61. In violating Plaintiff Hawkins’s rights as set forth above, specifically twice

deploying his Taser into the person of Plaintiff Hawkins, Defendant Kilgore acted

under the color of state law and conducted an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff

Hawkins; and used unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable force.

62. Defendant Kilgore, without provocation or reason, twice deployed his

defensive Taser weapon into the person of Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022.

63. Defendant Kilgore carried this act out in the presence of numerous other

police officers and civilian witnesses.

16
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 17 of 49

64. Defendant Kilgore deployed his Taser into Plaintiff Hawkins while Plaintiff

Hawkins was restrained and not resisting the unlawful arrest in any manner.

65. Bystander video of the event giving rise to this lawsuit exists, and still frames

from said videos shows Defendant Kilgore using his Taser on the restrained Plaintiff

Hawkins:

66. Plaintiff Hawkins, neither before not at the time Defendant Kilgore violated

his Fourth Amendment rights, had or was committing any crime.

17
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 18 of 49

67. At the time that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Defendant

Kilgore, Plaintiff Hawkins was not a threat to Defendant Kilgore, nor any other

police officer present, or to the general public.

68. At the time that Defendant Kilgore used excessive force upon Plaintiff

Hawkins, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, Defendant Kilgore had more

than enough time to determine that Plaintiff Hawkins was not a threat to him, other

officers or the general public.

69. At the time that Defendant Kilgore used excessive force on Plaintiff Hawkins,

it should have been clear to a reasonable officer at the scene on September 4, 2022,

that the type and amount of force used and directed on Plaintiff Hawkins by

Defendant Kilgore, specifically deploying his Taser twice on Plaintiff Hawkins was

unreasonable given that Plaintiff Hawkins was not a threat, was not under arrest, and

was restrained by Defendant Kilgore’s fellow officers.

70. The actions of Defendant Kilgore against Plaintiff Hawkins in twice

deploying his Taser against a noncombative, non-threatening person were not

reasonable under the circumstances based on the perspective of a reasonable officer

at the scene.

71. Further, the acts committed by Defendant Kilgore against Plaintiff Hawkins

occurred in the presence of other named and unnamed police officers.

18
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 19 of 49

72. As a result of the acts complained of in this Count, Plaintiff Hawkins suffered

and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT IV
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Deprivation
of Constitutional Rights as to Defendant Holcomb

73. Without waiver of any preceding allegation, Plaintiff Hawkins further alleges:

74. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendant Holcomb deprived

Plaintiff Hawkins of his clearly established constitutionally protected rights under

the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited

to:

a) Freedom from unreasonable seizure;

b) The right to be free from unreasonable searches;

c) Freedom from the use of unreasonable, unjustified

and excessive force;

d) Freedom from deprivation of liberty and property

without due process of law;

e) Freedom from summary punishment;

f) Freedom from the prevention of officers from using

excessive force; and

g) Freedom from arbitrary governmental activity that

shocks the conscience of a civilized society.

19
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 20 of 49

75. In violating Plaintiff Hawkins’s rights as set forth above, Defendant Holcomb

acted under the color of state law and conducted an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff

Hawkins; and utilized unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable force.

76. Defendant Holcomb, while in an intoxicated state, without provocation or

reason, used bodily force against Plaintiff Hawkins by repeatedly striking Plaintiff

Hawkins with his fist and elbow while Plaintiff Hawkins was lying on the ground,

restrained with his arms bound behind his back, being tased by Defendant Kilgore

while two (2) law enforcement officers had knees in Plaintiff Hawkins’s kidney area.

77. Defendant Holcomb carried this act out in the presence of numerous other

police officers and civilian witnesses.

78. Plaintiff Hawkins, neither before not at the time Defendant Holcomb violated

his Fourth Amendment rights had or was committing any crime.

79. At the time that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Defendant

Kilgore, Plaintiff Hawkins was not a threat to Defendant Holcomb, nor any other

police officer present, or to the general public.

80. At the time that Defendant Holcomb used excessive force upon Plaintiff

Hawkins, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, Defendant knew or should

have known that Plaintiff Hawkins was not a threat to him, other officers or the

general public.

20
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 21 of 49

81. At the time that Defendant Holcomb used excessive force on Plaintiff

Hawkins, it should have been clear to a reasonable officer at the scene on September

4, 2022 that the type and amount of force used and directed on Plaintiff Hawkins by

Defendant Holcomb, specifically delivering repeated blows to the back of Plaintiff

Hawkins’s head, that Plaintiff Hawkins was unreasonable given that Plaintiff

Hawkins was not a threat, was not under arrest, and was restrained by Defendant

Holcomb’s fellow officers.

82. The afore-described actions of Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins

were not reasonable under the circumstances based on the perspective of a

reasonable officer at the scene.

83. As a result of the acts complained of in this Count, Plaintiff Hawkins suffered

and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT V
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to Defendant Troxtel

85. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

86. Defendant Troxtel was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

87. Defendant Troxtel is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by her fellow officers.

21
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 22 of 49

88. Defendant Troxtel was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb when Defendant Holcomb repeatedly

struck Plaintiff Hawkins with his fist and elbow on the back of Plaintiff Hawkins’s

neck and head while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face down on the ground,

arms bound and two (2) of Defendant Holcomb’s fellow officers with knees in

Plaintiff Hawkins’s back.

89. Despite Defendant Troxtel being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant Troxtel not only failed to intervene though

she was in a position to do so, but she also encouraged and ratified the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins while he

was in a compliant, restrained position and while he was not a threat to officers or

the general public.

90. Bystander videos of the events giving rise to this lawsuit exist.

91. A still frame of one such video shows Defendant Troxtel standing over

Plaintiff Hawkins with her arms folded as Defendant Holcomb violates the

constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins:

22
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 23 of 49

92. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant Troxtel acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

93. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant Troxtel’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

23
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 24 of 49

COUNT VI
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to Defendant Troxtel

94. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

95. Defendant Troxtel was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

96. Defendant Troxtel is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by her fellow officers.

97. Defendant Troxtel was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Kilgore when Defendant Kilgore repeatedly

deployed his Taser into Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was

restrained on face down on the ground, arms bound and two (2) of Defendant

Holcomb’s fellow officers with knees in Plaintiff Hawkins’s back.

98. Despite Defendant Troxtel being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant Troxtel not only failed to intervene though

she was in a position to do so, but she also encouraged and ratified the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Kilgore against Plaintiff Hawkins while he

was in a compliant, restrained position and while he was not a threat to officers or

the general public.

99. Bystander videos of the events giving rise to this lawsuit exist.

24
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 25 of 49

100. A still frame of one such video shows Defendant Troxtel standing over

Plaintiff Hawkins with her arms folded as Defendant Kilgore violates the

constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins:

101. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Kilgore despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant Troxtel acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

25
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 26 of 49

102. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant Troxtel’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Kilgore against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Hawkins demands

actual damages both compensatory and punitive in nature from Defendant Troxtel

for Count VI in an amount to be determined by a struck jury.

COUNT VII
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to Defendant Troxtel

103. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

104. Defendant Troxtel was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

105. Defendant Troxtel is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by her fellow officers.

106. Defendant Troxtel was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Bishop when Defendant Bishop delivered blows

onto Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face down

on the ground, arms bound and two (2) of Defendant Bishop’s fellow officers with

knees in Plaintiff Hawkins’s back.

26
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 27 of 49

107. Despite Defendant Troxtel being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant Troxtel not only failed to intervene though

she was in a position to do so, but she also encouraged and ratified the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Bishop against Plaintiff Hawkins while he was

in a compliant, restrained position and while he was not a threat to officers or the

general public.

108. As previously shown, bystander videos of the events giving rise to this lawsuit

exist.

109. A still frame of one such video shows Defendant Troxtel standing over

Plaintiff Hawkins with her arms folded as Defendant Bishop violates the

constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins:

27
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 28 of 49

110. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Bishop despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant Troxtel acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

111. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant Troxtel’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Bishop against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

28
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 29 of 49

COUNT VIII
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to Defendant Bishop

112. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

113. Defendant Bishop, though intoxicated, was acting under the color of state law

at all times relevant on September 4, 2022.

114. Defendant Bishop is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by her fellow officers.

115. Defendant Bishop was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb when Defendant Holcomb delivered

blows onto Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face

down on the ground, arms bound and two (2) of Defendant Bishop’s fellow officers

with knees in Plaintiff Hawkins’s back.

116. Despite Defendant Bishop being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant Bishop not only failed to intervene though

he was in a position to do so, but she also encouraged and ratified the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins while he

was in a compliant, restrained position and while he was not a threat to officers or

the general public.

29
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 30 of 49

117. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant Bishop acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

118. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant Bishop’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT IX
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to Defendant Bishop

119. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

120. Defendant Bishop, though intoxicated, was acting under the color of state law

at all times relevant on September 4, 2022.

121. Defendant Bishop is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by his fellow officers.

122. Defendant Bishop was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Kilgore when Defendant Kilgore delivered

repeated Taser shocks into Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was

restrained on face down on the ground, arms bound and two (2) of Defendant

Bishop’s fellow officers with knees in Plaintiff Hawkins’s back.

30
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 31 of 49

123. Despite Defendant Bishop being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant Bishop not only failed to intervene though

he was in a position to do so, but she also encouraged and ratified the

unconstitutional actions of Defendant Kilgore against Plaintiff Hawkins while he

was in a compliant, restrained position and while he was not a threat to officers or

the general public.

124. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Kilgore despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant Bishop acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

125. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant Bishop’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Kilgore against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT X
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to FDA

126. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

127. Defendant FDA was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

31
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 32 of 49

128. Defendant FDA is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights.

129. Defendant FDA was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb when Defendant Holcomb delivered

blows onto Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face

down on the ground, arms bound.

130. Despite Defendant FDA being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant FDA failed to do so.

131. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant FDA acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

132. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant FDA’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT XI
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to FDB

133. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

32
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 33 of 49

134. Defendant FDB was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

135. Defendant FDB is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights.

136. Defendant FDB was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb when Defendant Holcomb delivered

blows onto Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face

down on the ground, arms bound.

137. Despite Defendant FDB being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant FDA failed to intervene though he was in a

position to do so and ratified the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb

against Plaintiff Hawkins while he was in a compliant, restrained position and while

he was not a threat to officers or the general public.

138. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant FDB acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

139. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant FDB’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

33
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 34 of 49

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT XII
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to FDC

140. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

141. Defendant FDC was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

142. Defendant FDC is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights.

143. Defendant FDC was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb when Defendant Holcomb delivered

blows onto Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face

down on the ground, arms bound.

144. Despite Defendant FDC being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, he failed to do so.

145. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant FDC acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

34
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 35 of 49

146. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant FDC’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT XIII
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights and Guarantees & Failure to
Intervene as to FDD

147. Plaintiff Hawkins, without waiver of any preceding allegation further alleges:

148. Defendant FDD was acting under the color of state law at all times relevant

on September 4, 2022.

149. Defendant FDD is liable for failing to intervene and prevent the violation of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights by fellow officers.

150. Defendant FDD was in a position to intervene in the unlawful constitutional

violations carried out by Defendant Holcomb when Defendant Holcomb delivered

blows onto Plaintiff Hawkins’s body while Plaintiff Hawkins was restrained on face

down on the ground, arms bound.

151. Despite Defendant FDD being in a position to intervene to stop the violation

of Plaintiff Hawkins’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from

unnecessary excessive force, Defendant FDD failed to intervene though he was in a

position to do so. FDD encouraged and ratified the unconstitutional actions of

35
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 36 of 49

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins while he was in a compliant,

restrained position and while he was not a threat to officers or the general public.

152. In failing to stop the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Holcomb despite

being in a position to do so, Defendant FDD acted with deliberate indifference

regarding the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Hawkins.

153. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of his constitutional rights

and Defendant FDD’s deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Defendant Holcomb against Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022, Plaintiff

Hawkins has and continues to suffer injury.

COUNT XIV
Failure to Train as to Defendant Shaver

154. Plaintiff Hawkins further alleges:

155. The events that give rise to this lawsuit shows a deliberate indifference on the

part of the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) to properly train its deputies.

156. Specifically, the CCSO, and Defendant Shaver as the chief policy maker has

failed to train its employees to refrain from using deadly force (in this instance the

repeated elbow strikes by Defendant Holcomb) a CCSO employee against a

restrained non-combative subject.

157. By their own admission, the CCSO ratifies such use of excessive force by its

deputies.

36
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 37 of 49

158. Two weeks after the occurrence of the events that give rise to this lawsuit, and

only after the release of video showing the events, the CCSO issued a public

statement that stated in pertinent part that “[A]n and an off-duty deputy deployed

three elbow strikes, a technique officers are trained in the academy, to Hawkins and

he then complied and was cuffed.”

159. This statement was issued despite the CCSO accompanying the statement

with the bystander video that clearly shows a noncombative, nonresistant Plaintiff

Hawkins lying face down being restrained by officers as Defendant Holcomb rains

elbows down to the back of Plaintiff Hawkins’s head.

160. The statement issued by the CCSO, when juxtaposed against the

accompanying video shows that a clear deliberate indifference to excessive force by

its deputies exists in the CCSO.

161. As the chief policy maker for the CCSO, Defendant Shaver, through the

release of the statement ratifies Defendant Holcomb’s use of excessive force.

162. After the occurrence of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Hawkins

and his father contacted Defendant Shaver to lodge a formal complaint against

Defendant Holcomb for his actions on September 4, 2022.

163. Specifically, Plaintiff Hawkins complained to Defendant Shaver that

Defendant Holcomb was heavily intoxicated on September 4, 2022.

37
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 38 of 49

164. Plaintiff Hawkins was informed by Defendant Shaver that his deputies were

on duty twenty-four hours per day and further, are allowed to consume alcoholic

beverages.

165. The need to train deputies not to use excessive force on noncombative,

restrained subjects is well known and obvious.

166. The United States Supreme Court has repeated opined that excessive force

used on compliant individuals is a violation of that individual’s constitutional rights

and thus, CCSO knew or should have known that it has a duty to ensure that its

deputies operate within the confines of the law.

167. The CCSO, through Defendant Shaver has its chief policy maker has breached

that duty to the detriment of Plaintiff Hawkins.

168. Further, it is patently obvious that Defendant Shaver should have a policy in

place that forbids the carrying out of official law enforcement actions while in a

drunken state.

169. Despite the obvious need for such a policy, Defendant Shaver, as the chief

policymaker of the CCSO has established no such policy, the lack of which cased

injuries to Plaintiff Hawkins on September 4, 2022.

COUNT XV
Failure to Supervise as to Defendant Cedar Bluff

170. Without waiver of the preceding allegations, Plaintiff Hawkins further

alleges:

38
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 39 of 49

171. Defendant Cedar Bluff is under a constitutional duty to ensure that all the

police officers in the Cedar Bluff Police Department, act in a manner so as to

preserve the constitutional rights of individuals of the general public.

172. Defendant Cedar Bluff is under a duty to properly train, supervise, and

discipline its officers and to ensure that its police officers operate in a lawful manner,

preserving the rights, privileges, and amenities guaranteed to individuals by the

Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama.

173. The actions of the Defendant Bishop, employed by Defendant Cedar Bluff

complained of herein were unjustified, unreasonable, unnecessary, unconstitutional,

excessive, and constitutes an unreasonable seizure effectuated through the use of

unnecessary excessive force and unreasonable force and the deprivation of Plaintiff

Hawkins’s due process protections in violation of the rights secured by the Fourth

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

174. Defendant Cedar Bluff had and has a duty to supervise and prevent its officers

from violating Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights. Defendant Cedar Bluff

failed in its duty to properly train its officers. That lack of training led to the use of

excessive force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by a drunken Defendant Bishop.

175. Defendant Cedar Bluff is directly liable for the violations of Plaintiff

Hawkins’s constitutional rights due to the following policies or lack thereof, or

practices, or customs which were in effect on September 4, 2022, and which were a

39
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 40 of 49

moving force behind Defendant Bishop’s violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s

constitutional rights:

a. Defendant Cedar Bluff failed to adequately and

properly train and educate their officers with respect
to procedures to employ when interacting with
citizens, including stops, seizures, detentions, and
arrests, the proper use of force, creating an
atmosphere where illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is tolerated and accepted in deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the welfare of
the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins;

b. Defendant Cedar Bluff failed to properly supervise,

train and discipline officers of the Cedar Bluff
Police Department (“CBPD”) with respect to the
violations of the Constitution of the United States,
the Constitution of Alabama, and their own policies
to the extent they exist, regarding the use of force,
creating a pattern, policy, practice, custom or
atmosphere where such illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is tolerated and accepted in deliberate
indifference to the welfare of the public at large,
including Plaintiff Hawkins;

c. Defendant Cedar Bluff failed to adequately monitor

and evaluate the performance of their officers and
their compliance with the laws and policies,
practices, and customs with respect to the use of
force, and consumption of alcohol, with deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the public at
large, including Plaintiff Hawkins.

d. Defendant Cedar Bluff and the CBPD have a

practice, policy, or custom of exonerating officers
regarding complaints of misconduct including but
not limited to the use of force, thus creating an
atmosphere where illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is condoned, tolerated or approved in

40
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 41 of 49

deliberate indifference and reckless disregard to the

rights of the public at large, including Plaintiff
Hawkins;

e. The CBPD, a department and arm of Defendant

Cedar Bluff has a policy, practice or custom of
allowing its officers to use excessive and/or
unreasonable force without fear of discipline
creating an atmosphere where such behavior is
accepted, approved, and ratified, in reckless
disregard and deliberate indifference to the welfare
of the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins.

176. Accordingly, Defendant Cedar Bluff ratified, condoned, and approved the

conduct of Defendant Bishop that occurred on September 4, 2022, in all aspects of

the deprivation of the constitutional rights afforded to Plaintiff Hawkins.

177. As a direct a proximate result of the forgoing and lack of policies, practices,

and customs of the CBPD, Defendant Cedar Bluff is responsible for the violations

of the constitutional rights by Defendant Bishop which were substantially certain to

occur and were a moving force behind the violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s

constitutional rights.

COUNT XVI
Failure to Supervise as to Defendant Centre

178. Without waiver of the preceding allegations, Plaintiff Hawkins further

alleges:

41
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 42 of 49

179. Defendant Centre is under a constitutional duty to ensure that all the police

officers in the Centre Police Department (“CPD”), act in a manner so as to preserve

the constitutional rights of individuals of the general public.

180. Defendant Centre is under a duty to properly train, supervise, and discipline

its officers and to ensure that its police officers operate in a lawful manner,

preserving the rights, privileges, and amenities guaranteed to individuals by the

Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama.

181. The actions and inactions of the Defendant Kilgore and Defendant Troxtel,

employed by Defendant Centre, complained of herein were unjustified,

unreasonable, unnecessary, unconstitutional, excessive, and constitutes an

unreasonable seizure effectuated through the use of unnecessary excessive force and

unreasonable force and the deprivation of Plaintiff Hawkins’s due process

protections in violation of the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States.

182. Defendant Centre had and has a duty to supervise and prevent its officers from

violating Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights. Defendant Centre failed in its

duty to properly train its officers. That lack of training led to the use of excessive

force upon Plaintiff Hawkins by Defendant Kilgore and the failure to intervene by

Defendant Troxtel.

42
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 43 of 49

183. Defendant Centre is directly liable for the violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s

constitutional rights due to the following policies or lack thereof, or practices, or

customs which were in effect on September 4, 2022, and which were a moving force

behind Defendant Kilgore’s violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights,

and Defendant Troxtel’s failure to intervene:

f. Defendant Centre failed to adequately and properly

train and educate their officers with respect to
procedures to employ when interacting with
citizens, including stops, seizures, detentions, and
arrests, the proper use of force, creating an
atmosphere where illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is tolerated and accepted in deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the welfare of
the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins;

g. Defendant Centre failed to properly supervise, train

and discipline officers of the CPD with respect to
the violations of the Constitution of the United
States, the Constitution of Alabama, and their own
policies to the extent they exist regarding the use of
force, creating a pattern, policy, practice, custom or
atmosphere where such illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is tolerated and accepted in deliberate
indifference to the welfare of the public at large,
including Plaintiff Hawkins;

h. Defendant Centre failed to adequately monitor and

evaluate the performance of their officers and their
compliance with the laws and policies, practices,
and customs with respect to the use of force, and
consumption of alcohol, with deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the public at
large, including Plaintiff Hawkins.

43
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 44 of 49

i. Defendant Centre and the CPD have a practice,

policy, or custom of exonerating officers regarding
complaints of misconduct including but not limited
to the use of force, thus creating an atmosphere
where illegal and unconstitutional behavior is
condoned, tolerated or approved in deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the rights of
the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins;

j. The CPD, a department and arm of Defendant

Centre has a policy, practice or custom of allowing
its officers to use excessive and/or unreasonable
force without fear of discipline creating an
atmosphere where such behavior is accepted,
approved, and ratified, in reckless disregard and
deliberate indifference to the welfare of the public
at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins.

184. Accordingly, Defendant Centre ratified, condoned and approved the conduct

of Defendant Kilgore and Defendant Troxtel that occurred on September 4, 2022 in

all aspects of the deprivation of the constitutional rights afforded to Plaintiff

Hawkins.

185. As a direct a proximate result of the forgoing and lack of policies, practices,

and customs of the CPD, Defendant CPD is responsible for the violations of the

constitutional rights by Defendant Kilgore and Defendant Troxtel which were

substantially certain to occur and were a moving force behind the violations of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights.

44
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 45 of 49

COUNT XVII
Failure to Supervise as to Defendant Leesburg

186. Without waiver of the preceding allegations, Plaintiff Hawkins further

alleges:

187. Defendant Leesburg is under a constitutional duty to ensure that all the police

officers in the Leesburg Police Department (“LPD”), act in a manner so as to

preserve the constitutional rights of individuals of the general public.

188. Defendant Leesburg is under a duty to properly train, supervise, and discipline

its officers and to ensure that its police officers operate in a lawful manner,

preserving the rights, privileges, and amenities guaranteed to individuals by the

Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama.

189. The actions and inactions of the FDA and FDB, employed by Defendant

Leesburg, complained of herein were unjustified, unreasonable, unnecessary,

unconstitutional, excessive, and constitutes an unreasonable seizure effectuated

through the use of unnecessary excessive force and unreasonable force and the

deprivation of Plaintiff Hawkins’s due process protections in violation of the rights

secured by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

190. Defendant Leesburg had and has a duty to supervise and prevent its officers

from violating Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights. Defendant Leesburg failed

in its duty to properly train its officers. That lack of training led to the use of the

failure to intervene against excessive force visited upon Plaintiff Hawkins.

45
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 46 of 49

191. Defendant Leesburg is directly liable for the violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s

constitutional rights due to the following policies or lack thereof, or practices, or

customs which were in effect on September 4, 2022, and which were a moving force

behind Defendant FDA’s and Defendant FDB’s failure to intervene against

Defendant Bishop’s violations of Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights:

k. Defendant Leesburg failed to adequately and

properly train and educate their officers with respect
to procedures to employ when interacting with
citizens, including stops, seizures, detentions, and
arrests, the proper use of force, creating an
atmosphere where illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is tolerated and accepted in deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the welfare of
the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins;

l. Defendant Leesburg failed to properly supervise,

train and discipline officers of the LPD with respect
to the violations of the Constitution of the United
States, the Constitution of Alabama, and their own
policies to the extent they exist regarding the use of
force, creating a pattern, policy, practice, custom or
atmosphere where such illegal and unconstitutional
behavior is tolerated and accepted in deliberate
indifference to the welfare of the public at large,
including Plaintiff Hawkins;

m. Defendant Leesburg failed to adequately monitor

and evaluate the performance of their officers and
their compliance with the laws and policies,
practices, and customs with respect to the use of
force, and consumption of alcohol, with deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the public at
large, including Plaintiff Hawkins.

46
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 47 of 49

n. Defendant Leesburg and the LPD have a practice,

policy, or custom of exonerating officers regarding
complaints of misconduct including but not limited
to the use of force, thus creating an atmosphere
where illegal and unconstitutional behavior is
condoned, tolerated or approved in deliberate
indifference and reckless disregard to the rights of
the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins;

o. The LPD, a department and arm of Defendant

Leesburg has a policy, practice or custom of
allowing its officers to use excessive and/or
unreasonable force without fear of discipline
creating an atmosphere where such behavior is
accepted, approved, and ratified, in reckless
disregard and deliberate indifference to the welfare
of the public at large, including Plaintiff Hawkins.

192. Accordingly, Defendant Leesburg ratified, condoned and approved the

conduct of Defendant FDA and Defendant FDB that occurred on September 4, 2022

in all aspects of the deprivation of the constitutional rights afforded to Plaintiff

Hawkins.

193. As a direct a proximate result of the forgoing and lack of policies, practices,

and customs of the LPD, Defendant Leesburg is responsible for the violations of the

constitutional rights by Defendant FDA and Defendant FDB which were

substantially certain to occur and were a moving force behind the violations of

Plaintiff Hawkins’s constitutional rights.

47
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 48 of 49

DAMAGES

194. As a result of the complained of acts herein, Plaintiff Hawkins has suffered

economic and noneconomic damages to-wit:

a. Physical injuries including Taser puncture wounds, head injuries, neck

injuries, abrasions, contusions, scrapes, bruising and concussion-like
injuries;

b. Loss of his civil right to be free from the use of excessive force by law
enforcement officers;

c. Loss of his civil right to be free from unconstitutional and unlawful

seizure;

d. Emotional distress;

e. Mental anguish;

f. Pain and suffering;

g. Nightmares; and

h. Medical cost for treatment

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

195. The Plaintiff prays for the following forms of relief:

196. A grant of compensatory damages against the defendants jointly and severally

for the injuries, damages, and losses listed herein;

197. A grant of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury so as to

deter conduct such as alleged herein in the future;

48
 Case 1:22-cv-01193-CLM Document 1 Filed 09/15/22 Page 49 of 49

198. A grant of all costs, fees, expenses, and attorney fees associated with bringing

this action; and

199. All other such relief this Court deems just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND

200. Plaintiff Hawkins demands trial by struck jury on all issues of fact.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ H. Gregory Harp
H. Gregory Harp (asb-0904-t75h)
GREGORY HARP LLC
Post Office Box 26
Trussville, Alabama 35173
205.291.0088
[email protected]

49