Friday, June 23, 2017

Katherine Thomas Complaint Questions Moody even being Hired as a Police Officer

image_pdfimage_print

While we have a group of ladies and children in front of our County Courthouse shouting ” No More Silence, No More Violence ”
Advocating for Domestic Violence!
We have Katherine Thomas filing a complaint on Officer Moody who shot her son Christopher Thomas 2 years ago.
The interesting part about her complaint is what it says about MOODY’S background history regarding violence against women.
Mrs. Thomas says that the City of Dothan should have never hired Moody as a Dothan Police Officer.
Specifically Mrs. Thomas states the following in her Complaint:

(“The City of Dothan is liable to Mrs. Thomas because both non-police officer personnel and actual police officer personnel for the City violated the City’s detailed policies/procedures and minimum standards—some of which are described as minimum employment standards and procedures—in a neglectful, unskillful and careless manner. The referred to minimum standards and other applicable policies/procedures would have placed, and actually did place, both non-police and police personnel on notice that Moody had violated detailed minimum employment standards and procedures by committing, inter alia (1) acts which would constitute a serious misdemeanor whether criminally prosecuted or not; (2) act or acts that would constitute domestic violence whether criminally Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 21 of 26
22
prosecuted or not; and (3) acts which would give rise to substantial doubts about the applicant’s respect for the law or for the rights of others—such as (1) Moody’s suspension from the Pensacola Police Department, in 1996, for violating Florida’s battery statute when he punched his then girlfriend in the eye while at a public establishment; (2) Moody’s resignation, in 2003, while being investigated (and recommended for termination) for violating moral character standards (characterized by his then Chief as scandalous and disgraceful conduct while on or off duty) related to beating up a different girlfriend; (3) internal allegations of Moody violating policies regarding control of evidence; (4) internal allegations of Moody violating reporting requirements; (5) Moody’s proclivity to make “trivial” traffic stops and turn them into full blown search and seizures based on unlawful grounds; (6) Moody’s “more than experimental use” of marijuana; (7) Chief’s demand that Moody undergo evaluation and counseling for anger management and also a different recommendation, by a different police official, that Moody take diversity training; and more.”
“Mrs. Thomas went on to say that if Moody couldnt work anymore as a police officer in Florida. Then why was he allowed to work in Dotha Ala as a police officer.”:

“By failing to follow its own self-described detailed minimum employment standards and other applicable policies/procedures regarding the hiring of Moody, the City of Dothan placed an officer who never worked as a peace officer in Florida again after 2003 on to the streets of Dothan, Al—in 2008—with a license to use deadly force. Had the City followed its own “extensive” hiring practices, the City would not (and should not) have hired Moody. If the City of Dothan had not hired Moody, we know for sure that Moody would not have fatally shot the Decedent in the capacity of a Dothan Police Officer. Consequently, the City of Dothan is liable to Mrs. Thomas for the Decedent’s death in the form of all damages allowable under controlling law.”)

Entire Complaint Below:Now everybody reading this should ask themselves why did Moody get hired before all the qualified candidates who did not have this background.
Every Dothan resident should ask the City why they hired a person with this background, and importantly why is he still working as a Dothan Police Officer???

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KATHERINE THOMAS, )
individually, and as the administrator )
of the estate of CHRISTOPHER )
JEROME THOMAS; )
)
Plaintiff, ) CAFN: 1:13-cv-920-WHA-SRW
)
v. )
)
DARREN MOODY, )
in his individual capacity; )
)
And )
)
CITY OF DOTHAN, ALABAMA )
) JURY DEMANDED
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff KATHERINE THOMAS, as the administrator of the estate of
CHRISTOPHER JEROME THOMAS (“Decedent”), and through her
undersigned attorney, files this Complaint. Ms. Thomas will use 42 U.S.C. § 1983
as the vehicle to vindicate her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution, to redress the deprivation of the Decedent’s
Constitutional rights by Officer DARREN MOODY, a Defendant in this action.
Ms. Thomas will also seek to hold Defendant Moody liable under Alabama law for
the wrongful death of her son. Regarding the City of Dothan, Ms. Thomas will use
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 26
2
Alabama state law to vindicate her rights against the City. In support of her First Amended Complaint, the Mrs. Thomas alleges the following:
INTRODUCTION
On June 28 2012, Defendant Moody shot and killed a person he claims he mistook for a criminal suspect. On that date, Moody followed the Decedent while initially believing the Decedent was another person, “Booty Bop,” suspected of a crime. Moody even called in “Booty Bop’s” real name on his dispatch radio as he pulled behind the Decedent’s car. Moody, however, knew or had reason to know that the vehicle he was following was not the same vehicle Moody’s suspect, Booty Bop, drove. Further, the Decedent and “Booty Bop” look nothing alike–except the fact that both are African-American. Nevertheless, Moody shot and killed the Decedent as the Decedent sat in a stopped vehicle. At the time of the shooting, the Decedent posed no threat to Moody or to any other person, nor was the Decedent’s car aimed at Moody or anyone else. Moody’s objectively unreasonable use of deadly force violated the Decedent’s Constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. Moody’s unreasonable use of deadly force also directly and proximately caused the Decedent’s wrongful death. Therefore, the Plaintiff files this action on Decedent’s behalf.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 26
3
PARTIES
2.
At all times relevant to this Complaint Katherine Thomas was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Midland City, Alabama. Ms. Thomas is the natural mother of the Decedent and is the administrator of the Decedent’s estate. At all times relevant to this Complaint the Decedent had clearly established legal rights under state and federal law and the United States Constitution. Ms. Thomas submits herself to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and is entitled to bring this action on the Decedent’s behalf under state and federal law for all general, special, compensatory, punitive, and any other permissible damages.
3.
At all times relevant to this Complaint Darren Moody was a United States citizen, an Alabama resident, and a sworn officer of the Dothan Police Department. At all relevant times to this Complaint Defendant Moody was acting under the color of state law. At all relevant times, Defendant Moody was subject to the laws of the State of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States. At all relevant times, Moody was responsible for knowing and acting in accordance with all policies, procedures, orders, special orders, general orders, guidelines and regulations of the Dothan City Police Department, while upholding his responsibility to patrol the streets of Dothan, Alabama as a Dothan City police
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 26
4
officer. When Moody first saw the Decedent, Moody called in the license plate of the vehicle the Decedent was driving. Moody had reason to know, within seconds of pulling behind the Decedent’s car, that the Decedent’s car was not the car of the suspect, Booty Bop, that Moody was looking for. Moody pursued the Decedent nevertheless. The Decedent and Moody’s vehicle entered a spacious and nearly empty parking lot. At that point, Moody misstated over his vehicle radio that the Decedent was trying to ram cars. When the Decedent’s car stopped while in the parking lot, Moody existed his car and circled around the back of his own patrol car. From the rear right side of his own patrol car, Moody approach the left driver side window of the Decedent’s car, and at that time, the Decedent’s car was completely stopped. Moody was several feet away from the subject driver side window while the Decedent’s car was stopped and not facing or moving toward Moody in any manner, and not facing or moving toward anyone in any manner. At that point, Moody saw that (1) the Decedent was unarmed and that (2) the Decedent was not Booty Bop, the suspect who Moody was looking for. Moody never gave the Decedent adequate time to obey any alleged command. Instead, Moody shot the Decedent multiple times, including gunfire to the side of the Decedent’s neck—all while the Decedent’s car was not moving and not facing (endangering) anyone, including Moody. Ms. Thomas is using 42 U.S.C § 1983 as
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 4 of 26
5
the vehicle to sue Moody in his individual capacity regarding federal claims. Moody has been served in this case.
4. The City of Dothan, Alabama is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, County of Houston, and has been so for a period preceding six months prior to the filing of this case. Also, at the time of the subject event that has given rise to this lawsuit, the City of Dothan was the public employer of Defendant Moody.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim in this action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claim raises a federal question under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
6.
This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the state claim in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state and federal claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 5 of 26
6
7.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because he is domiciled in Alabama.
8.
Venue is proper in the Middle District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the Defendant resides in this district and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
9.
When Defendant Moody pursued Christopher Thomas on June 28 2012, Moody was engaged in official law enforcement duties on behalf of the City of Dothan.
10.
The firearm that Moody used to fatally shoot the Decedent was a government issued firearm.
11.
On June 28 2012, an official duty of Defendant Moody, in his capacity as a Peace Officer for the City of Dothan, was to enforce traffic and criminal laws through his power of arrest. Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 6 of 26
7
12.
When Defendant Moody aimed his firearm at the Decedent, Moody was engaged in law enforcement duties, within the course and scope of his employment, as a peace officer for the City of Dothan.
13.
When Defendant Moody discharged his firearm on June 28 2012, he was engaged in law enforcement duties, within the course and scope of his employment, as a peace officer for the City of Dothan.
14.
When Defendant Moody shot Christopher Thomas on June 28 2012, Moody was engaged in official law enforcement duties on behalf of the City of Dothan.
15.
On June 28 2012, when Defendant Moody was communicating with dispatch while following behind the car being drove by the Christopher Thomas, Moody was engaged in law enforcement duties, within the course and scope of his employment, as a peace officer for the City of Dothan.
16.
From the time Moody began pursuing the car Christopher Thomas was driving through the time Moody shot Christopher Thomas, Moody was acting Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 7 of 26
8
within the course and scope of his employment as a peace officer for the City of Dothan.
17.
On June 28, 2012 Defendant Moody was an employee of the City of Dothan.
18.
On June 28, 2012, Defendant Moody had an encounter with an individual known as “Booty Bop” in Dothan, Alabama.
19.
On June 28 2012, the Defendant Moody was patrolling the streets of Dothan when he passed the Decedent’s white SUV going in the opposite direction. Moody mistakenly believed that the driver of the white SUV was “Booty Bop.” In fact, the driver of the white SUV was the Decedent.
20.
At the point the Moody mistakenly believed the Decedent was “Booty Bop,” the Decedent had not committed any crimes in the Defendant’s presence, and the Defendant had no reason to believe that the Decedent had committed any crimes outside of his presence.
21.
In light of the facts above in paragraph 20, Moody nevertheless followed the Decedent into a virtually empty parking lot. Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 8 of 26
9
22.
While in the parking lot, Moody misreported the event on his police radio, stating that the Decedent had “tried to ram an unmarked car.”
23.
While still in the parking lot, the Decedent stopped his vehicle.
24.
Moody stopped his patrol car to the left of the Decedent’s vehicle. Moody then exited his patrol car and moved around its back. From the back right rear of his Patrol car, Moody approached the left side driver’s window of the Decedent’s car.
25.
Moody approached the Decedent’s driver’s side window with his gun drawn, standing at a distance of several feet from the subject driver side window. At this point, Moody saw, and thus knew, that the Decedent was unarmed.
26.
The Decedent’s vehicle had come to a complete stop, he was unarmed, and neither the Defendant nor any other person was in a position to be struck or otherwise harmed by the Decedent.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 9 of 26
10
27.
With his gun drawn, Moody saw the face of the Decedent while approaching the Decedent’s stopped vehicle. At that moment, Moody knew and had every reason to know that the Decedent was not Moody’s suspect, “Booty Bop.” Nevertheless, and before giving the Decedent any time to respond to any alleged command, Moody immediately opened fire on the Decedent, while knowing the subject vehicle was not aimed at (or moving towards) him in any manner, and while knowing the subject vehicle was stopped and not aimed at (or moving toward) anyone.
28.
Moody’s gunfire struck the Decedent five times (twice in the side of the Decedent’s neck), killing him.
29.
At no time prior to, during, or after Moody fatally shot the Decedent, did the Decedent aim his car at Moody or any other police officer or pedestrian.
30.
The Decedent’s autopsy report demonstrates that all five shots entered the Decedent on a left-to-right trajectory (two in the neck from left to right). The trajectory and angle of Moody’s gunfire is consistent with the allegation that Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 10 of 26
11
Moody fatally shot the Decedent while standing to the side of the Decedent’s vehicle out of harm’s way.
Facts Regarding Negligent Hiring Claim
31.
The process regarding the hiring of Moody as a Dothan police officer required decision making by both police personnel/officials and non-police personnel/officials for the City of Dothan. As early as 2005, the City of Dothan represented to this District Court in a previous case that its candidates for the position of police officer underwent “extensive screening prior to hire….” Indeed, the Mayor swore in 2005: “The City also maintains a strict hiring procedure for police officers….”
32.
The process regarding the hiring of Moody as a Dothan police officer required police personnel and non-police personnel for the City of Dothan to follow strict minimum standards and procedures.
33.
Non-law enforcement personnel for the City of East Dublin had strict, minimum standards and other detailed procedures that were required to be followed with respect to hiring Moody.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 11 of 26
12
34.
Law enforcement officers for the Dothan City police department were under strict, minimum standards, as a matter of policy, with respect to hiring Moody.
35.
The minimum standards and other policies/procedures that governed the conduct of both law enforcement personnel and non-law enforcement personnel with respect to hiring Moody are designed to ensure that the best qualified person obtains employment as a police officer for the City of Dothan.
36.
As early as 2005, the City of Dothan represented to this District Court in a previous case that its candidates for the position of police officer underwent “extensive screening prior to hire….” Indeed, the Mayor swore in 2005: “The City also maintains a strict hiring procedure for police officers….”
37.
The strict, minimum standards and procedures that applied to the hiring of Moody did—and should have—provided both law enforcement personnel and non-law enforcement personnel with information about Moody’s disreputable conduct as a police officer, such as (1) Moody’s suspension from the Pensacola Police Department, in 1996, for violating Florida’s battery statute when he punched his then girlfriend in the eye while at a public establishment; (2) Moody’s resignation,
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 12 of 26
13
in 2003, while being investigated (and recommended for termination) for violating moral character standards (characterized by his then Chief as scandalous and disgraceful conduct while on or off duty) related to beating up a different girlfriend; (3) internal allegations of Moody violating policies regarding control of evidence; (4) internal allegations of Moody violating reporting requirements; (5) Moody’s proclivity to make “trivial” traffic stops and turn them into full blown search and seizures based on unlawful grounds; (6) Moody’s “more than experimental use” of marijuana; (7) Chief’s demand that Moody undergo evaluation and counseling for anger management and also a different recommendation, by a different police official, that Moody take diversity training; and more.
38.
Non-police personnel for the City of Dothan presented Moody as a top candidate for hire even despite the fact that those same non-police personnel had information about Moody that disqualified him for a top recommendation per strict procedures and minimum standards.
39.
Based on the strict procedures and minimum standards that governed the conduct of non-police personnel for the City of Dothan with respect to hiring Moody, the subject non-police personnel who hired Moody should have (1) never
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 13 of 26
14
recommended him as a top candidate and also should have (2) disqualified him as a candidate, period.
40.
Police personnel also presented and authorized Moody as a top candidate for hire, despite the fact that strict policy and minimum standards provided these police personnel with information about Moody that disqualified him as a candidate per strict guidelines and minimum standards that governed the conduct of these police personnel with respect to the hiring of Moody.
a. Police personnel also presented and authorized Moody as a top candidate for hire, despite the fact that had these same police personnel performed due diligence in accordance with strict policies/procedures and minimum standards that governed their conduct with respect to hiring Moody, these police personnel would have absolutely gained possession/knowledge of information about Moody that would have disqualified him as a candidate.
b. Non-police personnel recommended Moody as a top candidate for hire, despite the fact that had these same non-police personnel performed due diligence in accordance with strict policies/procedures and minimum standards that governed their conduct with respect to hiring Moody, these non-police personnel would have absolutely gained Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 14 of 26
15
possession/knowledge of information about Moody that would have disqualified him as a candidate.
41.
Based on the strict policies/procedures and minimum standards that governed police personnel for the City of Dothan with respect to hiring Moody, the subject police personnel who hired Moody should have (1) never approved him as a top candidate and also should have (2) disqualified him as a candidate, period.
COUNT ONE (FEDERAL CLAIM) 42 U.S.C. § 1983—FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
(Against Moody)
42.
The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 as if set forth fully herein.
43.
At all times relevant to this Complaint the Decedent had a clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizure by government agents such as the Defendant.
44.
Based on all facts that have been incorporated to support this Count, Moody violated the Decedent’s clearly established right to be free from Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 15 of 26
16
unreasonable seizure by using deadly force on the Decedent when the Decedent posed no threat to the Defendant or to any other person.
45.
Because of Moody’s objectively unreasonable conduct, the Plaintiff therefore seeks all damages permitted by law, including punitive damages, against the Defendant, in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of a jury, together with interest and any costs this Court deems just.
COUNT TWO (STATE CLAIM) ALA. CODE § 6-5-410—WRONGFUL DEATH
(Against Moody)
46.
The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 as if set forth fully herein.
47.
The Plaintiff is the natural mother of the Decedent and the administrator of the Decedent’s estate.
48.
Based on the incorporated facts and claim to support this Count, and while working within the scope of his employment with the City of Dothan, Moody wrongfully killed the deceased by violating the City of Dothan’s policy/regulation regarding the use of deadly force against Dothan residents such as the Decedent. Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 16 of 26
17
49.
Moody’s wrongful conduct, as demonstrated above, directly and proximately caused the Decedent’s death.
50.
Because the Defendant’s wrongful act caused the death of the Decedent, the Plaintiff is entitled to bring this survival action pursuant to ALA. CODE § 6-5-410.
51.
The Plaintiff has complied with all Notice of Claim requirements.
52.
The Plaintiff therefore seeks all damages permitted by law, including punitive damages, against the Defendant, in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of a jury, together with interest and any costs this Court deems just.
COUNT THREE (STATE CLAIM) ALA. CODE § 11-47-190—NEGLECTFULNESS, UNSKILLFULNESS OR CARELESSNESS AGAINST THE CITY OF DOTHAN
The following case is relevant to this section: City of Birmingham v. Thompson, 404 So. 2d 589, 592 (Ala. 1981) (stating, “[t]his case was submitted to the jury on the theory that an agent of the City of Birmingham had used “excessive force” upon the plaintiff, that is, a force which was excessive. That is the equivalent of asserting an assault and battery not measured or patterned for the
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 17 of 26
18
circumstances, or an unskilled response, whether the force used was, as the trial court charged, exerted because of the plaintiff’s failure to respond to an order, or because the force was exerted in meeting a counterforce of the plaintiff. In either case, the lack of a response measured by the circumstances could have been due to his “unskillfulness” as an officer confronted by either of those circumstances. As “unskillful” is used in s 11-47-190, it means “lacking in skill or proficiency.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary at 1510. Cf. Thomason v. Gray, supra. An assault and battery committed under either circumstance, because “unskilled,” would be a negligent assault and battery because it would fall below that response which a skilled or proficient officer would exercise in similar circumstances.”)
53.
The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1-30, 42-52 as if set forth fully herein.
54.
The City of Dothan has policy and procedures that required Moody to call in accurate information regarding his pursuit of the Decedent. Moody violated those procedures by failing to call in information and accurate information, demonstrating unskilled, neglectful, and careless conduct that fell below the standard of a well-trained officer. Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 18 of 26
19
55.
The policy and procedures that governed Moody’s pursuit of the Decedent required Moody to call off—and actually not even begin—the pursuit based on knowledge Moody possessed from the very start of the subject pursuit. Had Moody followed the strict policies and procedures that governed his pursuit of the Decedent, and thereby called off the pursuit, we know for certain that Moody would not have fatally shot the Decedent under the circumstances that took place. By violating the subject policy and procedures, Moody’s conduct fell well below that of a well-trained officer and also led to the assault and battery of the Decedent.
56.
Strict policy and procedures governed Moody’s use of force against the Decedent; these policies and procedures forbade Moody from jumping out of his car and then simultaneously running over to the Decedent while shooting the Decedent in the neck with no adequate warning, and without taking cover behind his own car. The Decedent was sitting in a stopped vehicle while looking at Moody’s gun pointed toward him, as Moody violated strict policy and procedures by exiting his car and simultaneously running over and shooting the Decedent in the neck and body–that response fell well below that of a well-trained officer, especially a well-trained officer of the Dothan Police Department (notably, another officer on the scene was reaching for his taser while the Decedent’s car was Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 19 of 26
20
stopped—a safer alternative according to the City’s use of force policy. But Moody ignored that policy directive and decided to shoot to kill.
57.
At the time Moody fatally shot the Decedent, Moody knew that the use of force was no longer justified according to his policy and procedures because, amongst other reasons, the Decedent’s car was stopped and the Decedent was staring at Moody, yet Moody ran at the Decedent and began shooting him in the neck with no adequate warning to obey any type of command.
58.
Based on the facts and factual statements incorporated into this Count, along with the facts and factual statements expressly stated in this Count, the City of Dothan is liable for Moody’s conduct because his conduct/response constituted neglectful, unskillful, and carless conduct that fell well below that of a well-trained officer. Those same facts and factual statements demonstrate that Moody’s conduct fell below that of a well-trained officer to the extent that Moody committed the act of negligent assault and battery against the Decedent.
59.
For the above reasons in this Count, the City of Dothan is liable to Plaintiff for the neglectfulness, unskillfulness, and carelessness of Defendant Moody.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 20 of 26
21
COUNT FOUR (STATE CLAIM)
ALA. CODE § 11-47-190—NEGLECTFULNESS, UNSKILLFULNESS OR CARELESSNESS AGAINST THE CITY OF DOTHAN FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING
60.
The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1-52, with emphasis on facts 31-41.
61.
Based on the incorporated facts in this Count, the City of Dothan is liable for negligent hiring due to the negligence of both its police personnel and non-police personnel who were responsible for hiring Moody.
62.
The City of Dothan is liable to Mrs. Thomas because both non-police officer personnel and actual police officer personnel for the City violated the City’s detailed policies/procedures and minimum standards—some of which are described as minimum employment standards and procedures—in a neglectful, unskillful and careless manner. The referred to minimum standards and other applicable policies/procedures would have placed, and actually did place, both non-police and police personnel on notice that Moody had violated detailed minimum employment standards and procedures by committing, inter alia (1) acts which would constitute a serious misdemeanor whether criminally prosecuted or not; (2) act or acts that would constitute domestic violence whether criminally Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 21 of 26
22
prosecuted or not; and (3) acts which would give rise to substantial doubts about the applicant’s respect for the law or for the rights of others—such as (1) Moody’s suspension from the Pensacola Police Department, in 1996, for violating Florida’s battery statute when he punched his then girlfriend in the eye while at a public establishment; (2) Moody’s resignation, in 2003, while being investigated (and recommended for termination) for violating moral character standards (characterized by his then Chief as scandalous and disgraceful conduct while on or off duty) related to beating up a different girlfriend; (3) internal allegations of Moody violating policies regarding control of evidence; (4) internal allegations of Moody violating reporting requirements; (5) Moody’s proclivity to make “trivial” traffic stops and turn them into full blown search and seizures based on unlawful grounds; (6) Moody’s “more than experimental use” of marijuana; (7) Chief’s demand that Moody undergo evaluation and counseling for anger management and also a different recommendation, by a different police official, that Moody take diversity training; and more.
63.
The non-police and police officials’ carelessness, unskillfulness, and neglectful (negligent) conduct stems directly from failing to adhere to its own detailed minimum employment standards and other applicable policies/procedures Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 22 of 26
23
with respect to background investigations such as, for example, criminal records check and former employment checks.
64.
By failing to follow its own self-described detailed minimum employment standards and other applicable policies/procedures regarding the hiring of Moody, the City of Dothan placed an officer who never worked as a peace officer in Florida again after 2003 on to the streets of Dothan, Al—in 2008—with a license to use deadly force. Had the City followed its own “extensive” hiring practices, the City would not (and should not) have hired Moody. If the City of Dothan had not hired Moody, we know for sure that Moody would not have fatally shot the Decedent in the capacity of a Dothan Police Officer. Consequently, the City of Dothan is liable to Mrs. Thomas for the Decedent’s death in the form of all damages allowable under controlling law.
ATTORNEY FEES
65.
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees under applicable federal and state law.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 23 of 26
24
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
66.
The wrongful conduct of Moody arose to a level that entitles Mr. Thomas to punitive damages under applicable law regarding Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief:
1. That this Court exercise jurisdiction over this case and grant a jury trial;
2. That this Court decide, as a matter of law, all issues not required to be determined by a jury;
3. That this Court award all permissible damages recoverable from the Defendant, including general, special, compensatory, punitive, and any other damages deemed appropriate, in an amount to be determined at trial;
4. That this Court permit recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be determined by this honorable Court under applicable law; and
5. That this Court grant any additional relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 24 of 26
25
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June 2014,
s/MARIO WILLIAMS
Mario Williams GA Bar No.: 235254
Williams Oinonen, LLC
44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 654-0288 Telephone
(404) 592-6225 Facsimile
Counsel for Mrs. Thomas
s/ M. ADAM JONES______
M. Adam Jones (JON 126)
Al Bar No: ASB-7342-J63M
M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC
206 N. Lena St.
Dothan, AL 36303
Phone: (334) 699-5599
fax: (334) 699-5588
Counsel for Mrs. Thomas
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 25 of 26
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this day PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT has been sent via CM/ECF electronic mail to the following attorneys of record:
D. Kevan Kelly
P.O. Box 2128
Dothan, AL 36302
Counsel for Defendant
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June 2014,
s/MARIO WILLIAMS
Mario Williams, Esq.
GA Bar No. 235254
WILLIAMS OINONEN LLC
The Grant Building, Suite 200
44 Broad Street N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Phone: (404) 654.0288
Fax: (404) 592.6225
Counsel for Ms. Thomas
Case 1:13-cv-00920-WHA-SRW Document 31 Filed 06/12/14 Page 26 of 26

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Directory powered by Business Directory Plugin
Copyright Notice | Anti Spam Policy | Earnings Disclaimer | Health Disclaimers | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy