Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 1 of 19 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHISN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

GEORGE EARL POGUE,

Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, OFFICER JASON AROZAMENA #9602 and OFFICER LOUIS PACHECO #9898, DALLAS COUNTY,TEXAS;

Defendants.

CASE NO. ____________________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF GEORGE EARL POGUES ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES George Earl Pogue, (hereinafter called Plaintiff), complaining of and about the City of Dallas, Texas, Louis Pacheco #9898, Jason Arozamena #9602, and Dallas County, Texas (hereinafter called (Defendants) and/or (Officers), and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following: I. 1.01 PARTIES AND SERVICE

Plaintiff, George Earl Pogue, at all material times referenced herein, is a citizen of

the United States and the State of Texas and resides in Dallas County, Texas.

Page 1 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 2 of 19 PageID 2

1.02

The City of Dallas, Texas is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. It is a

municipal corporation located in Dallas County, Texas. 1.03 1.04 Dallas County, Texas is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The individual Defendants, Louis Pacheco and Jason Arozamena, were employed They are being sued in their

by City of Dallas, Texas, and were Texas Peace Officers. individual capacities. II. JURISDICTION 2.01

This action arises under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

Constitution of the United States and under the laws of the United States, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 2.02 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, if any, under 28

U.S.C. Section 1331, 1343, and 1367 because they arise out of the same case or controversy. III. VENUE 3.01 Venue is in this district because it is where the events complained of occurred. IV. NATURE OF ACTION 4.01 This is an action under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as amended and the U.S.

Constitution to correct unlawful practices and actions of the Defendants as set forth below. All of the defendants, at all times material to this action, were acting under color of state law, custom, practice, and usage. V. 5.01 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

All conditions precedent to jurisdiction have occurred or have been complied with

by Plaintiff, or waived by Defendants.

Page 2 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 3 of 19 PageID 3

VI. FACTS 6.01 On or about June 19, 20121 at approximately 10:00 p.m., plaintiff, a 55 year old

African American male at the time, was operating his motor vehicle while he was on his way home. Plaintiff was accompanied by another male who was a passenger in the front seat, and Plaintiffs three-year old daughter also was a passenger and sitting in the back seat. The incident2 complained of herein occurred at the driveway of plaintiffs neighbor located at 2719 W. Colorado Blvd. Dallas, Texas 75211. 6.02 Plaintiff was traveling west on 2700 block of Ft. Worth Ave, Dallas, Texas when

at this time, Officers Arozamena and Officers Pacheco were facing east on the opposite side of the 2700 block of Fort Worth Ave., Dallas, Texas. As plaintiff proceeded on Ft. Worth Avenue, the defendant officers shined a spotlight on plaintiffs vehicle, made a U-turn, and then followed the plaintiff. At this time, the defendants did not activate their patrol units lights or sirens, or otherwise indicate or instruct plaintiff to pull over his vehicle. According to the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, the officers proceeded to follow plaintiff for a traffic violation for failing to signal his intent to change lanes. 6.03 Plaintiff then turned right on Westmount Avenue to proceed to his home which

was approximately 1,000 feet away. Plaintiff did notice the officers vehicle behind him but did not see any signal lights or hear any sirens to pull over. Plaintiff made one more right on West Colorado Blvd when he then noticed the police signal lights behind him. At this time he was approximately 500 feet away from his home. For the safety of all the parties, including his three1

June 19th is also referred to as Juneteenth Independence Day, Freedom Day, or Emancipation Day. It is a holiday in the United States that commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery. It originated in the State of Texas in 1865 and has spread throughout most of the United States thereafter. Celebrated on June 19th, the term is a combination of June and nineteenth, and is recognized as a state holiday or special day of observance in most states. 2 The incident was captured on video from the patrol unit.

Page 3 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 4 of 19 PageID 4

year old daughter, he pulled over in his neighbors driveway and out of the street. At no time was plaintiff attempting to intentionally flee from the officers. 6.04 Plaintiffs front windows were defective and could not roll down so plaintiff

opened his door with hands up but stayed in car. Neither plaintiff nor his passengers were aggressive or threatened the defendants. At this point, Officers Pacheco and Arozamena rushed to plaintiffs vehicle with guns drawn to both the driver and passenger side of the vehicle. It is known and confirmed, through police car video and the internal affairs investigation of this incident, that the defendants shouted Get his ass out! and Im going to fuck with you motherfucker. Again at no time were plaintiff or his passengers aggressive, or take any

offensive or threatening action toward the defendants. Defendant Arozamena pulled his weapon and pointed it and pushed his weapon against Plaintiffs head while defendant Pacheco had his weapon drawn on the front passengers neck. 6.05 As the defendants had their weapons drawn, Plaintiffs three-year old daughter

cried while in the back seat. Plaintiff was ordered to get on the ground. Plaintiff then attempted to get out of his vehicle feet first with his hands up. He then made a few slow side-steps to his right. At that point, defendant Arozamena pulled his Taser gun and without warning shot plaintiff with the Taser; plaintiff was approximately five (5) feet away at the time he was tased. Plaintiff was not armed, not aggressive, did not attack, did not pull away, and did not take any other offensive action toward the defendants.

Page 4 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 5 of 19 PageID 5

6.06

Plaintiff fell to the ground on his right side back while feeling the effects of the

Taser through his body, including his arms and legs. Plaintiff initially thought that he had been shot by the officers gun as it previously drawn to this head. Plaintiff felt immense pain and began to pull the probes out of his skin to stop the pain. 6.07 Plaintiff was also concerned for his daughters well-being who had witnessed the

attack from the back seat of the vehicle. According to Dallas Police Department (DPD) documents, defendants had to calm plaintiffs daughter down because she thought her daddy had been shot. Plaintiff could hear his daughter cry Daddy, Daddy. 6.08 While Plaintiff was on the ground and on his right sideafter he was tased

defendant Pacheco violently kicked plaintiff in the back and side. Jail infirmary records the next day noted plaintiff to have swelling in that area. Defendant Pacheco then violently struck

plaintiff two times in the back with his hand/forearm. Defendant Arozamena who observed the attack was within a few feet failed to intervene or protect plaintiff. Plaintiff was also picked up by his arms while handcuffed which cause immense pain and dislocation of this shoulder. 6.09 Contrary to the official statements by the officers, the plaintiff never reached in Plaintiff was immediately tased

his waist band area or otherwise indicated he was armed.

without justification a second time approximately within 13 seconds of the initial burst even though he was compliant with defendants commands and on his stomach with both arms to the side. 6.10 Defendant Pacheco can be seen also grabbing plaintiffs right arm and placing his

knee to plaintiffs back. Plaintiff was not aggressive or resisting. At this point, defendant Pachecho had one handcuff on plaintiff and can be seen wrenching plaintiffs arm above his

Page 5 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 6 of 19 PageID 6

head. Plaintiff was not resisting. No other officers were involved in the handcuffing, but witnessed the attack and were within a few feet. 6.11 Plaintiff was ultimately handcuffed and removed from the scene. He was taken

later to a Dallas County jail. However, prior to driven to jail, plaintiff was forced to sit handcuffed and unattended in the officers patrol unit for approximately 30 minutes while these defendants went into a 7-11 convenience store. Defendants could be observed eating food and talking on their cell phones during this time. 6.12 While being booked into jail, plaintiff overhead the individual defendants

bragging about plaintiff being tased. Both defendants stated that tasing plaintiff was good for me. Plaintiff confronted the defendants about their statements. Defendants then threatened plaintiff that they would call child protective services about his daughter. 6.13 Plaintiff received and/or was diagnosed with the following: musculoskeletal pain,

dislocated shoulder, neck, elbow, foot, back, hyperinflaction, and fever. Plaintiff also had open wounds from the Taser. Plaintiff was provided pain medicine due to the pain from the attack. 6.14 While in a Dallas County, Texas jail, plaintiff was provided dirty smelly jail

uniform. He remained in a Dallas County, Texas jail for at least 24 hours before he was bonded out of jail. While incarcerated, Plaintiff vomited and complained of pain. 6.15 On or about June 22, 2012, plaintiff was admitted to Parkland Hospital with

multiple musculoskeletal injuries directly resulting from the June 19, 2012 complained of above. Plaintiff was found to have an arm erythematous left knee. Plaintiff was provided medication and blood cultures were drawn. The blood test results revealed infection of Streptoccoccus pneumonia. The infection traveled to plaintiffs left knee and he was diagnosed with arthralgia.

Page 6 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 7 of 19 PageID 7

Plaintiff was then placed on penicillin and later switched to Ceftriaxone while at home. Plaintiff was required to live with an IV in his arm for 30 days. 6.16 The plaintiffs infection was caused by bacteria entering his body through the

opens wounds which resulted from the Taser. These wounds were not treated or bandaged. Plaintiff was forced to undergo multiple treatments to his body, including surgery to his knee which was caused by bacteria-infested jail clothing. 6.17 The plaintiff was unable to walk without dragging is left leg because of his

swollen knee. Plaintiff also sustained a bone protrusion from the top of his right shoulder and left collar bone. Approximately two months after the incident, plaintiff suffered two (2) strokes and was returned to the hospital. To this day, plaintiff has severe headaches, has weakness in his affected joints, is required to walk with a cane, has left knee pain, has sleep deprivation, poor eye sight, and stress, among other things. DPD Investigation 6.18 i. DPD investigated the following allegations:

It is alleged that on June 19, 2012, Police Officer Louis Pacheco, #9595, used

unnecessary and/or inappropriate force against a citizen. ii. It is alleged that on June 19, 2012, Police Officer Louis Pacheco, #9595, caused to be entered inaccurate or false information in a departmental report. iii. It is alleged that on June 19, 2012, Police Officer Jason Arozamena, #9602, used unnecessary and/or inappropriate force on a citizen. iv. It is alleged that on September 10, 2012, Police Officer Jason Arozamena, #9602, gave misleading statements during an internal investigation.

Page 7 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 8 of 19 PageID 8

6.19

Four of the allegations were sustained including inappropriate force and entering

inaccurate information on a police report. In particular, the officers knowingly falsified the arrest reports of plaintiff and provided inconsistent, conflicting and misleading statements about their conduct. 6.20 Plaintiffs arrest was invalid, unreasonable and lacked probable cause. Further,

the force used by Arozamena and Pacheco was unnecessary, unreasonable, excessive and violated state and federal law. Still more, the actions of defendants Arozamena and Pacheco rose to a level of a constitutional violation[s] on the date of the incident. Plaintiff was unarmed and never presented a physical threat to any defendant or another. 6.21 Contrary to the policies, customs and practices of the Dallas Police Department,

and contrary to state and federal law to provide medical treatment, Plaintiff was then transported by the officers to Lew Sterrett for booking. During transportation, the officers took a pit stop to 7-Eleven for what plaintiff believe to be at least 20 to 30 minutes as he sat in the back of the squad car. It was obvious plaintiff needed further medical attention for his wounds and physical attack. Officers Arozamena and Pacheco talked on the phone, ate, and laughed at the 7-Eleven. 6.22 Plaintiff was then transported to Lew Sterrett and while the officers put their gear

in the trunk Plaintiff overheard the following conversation between the two officers: I havent tased anyone in a good two years. How was it for you, man? It felt good for me. As plaintiff proceeded to be booked, he stated to the officers So you thought, it was funny to tase me, huh? 6.23 Defendants Pacheco and Arozamena attempted to negotiate with plaintiff the

charges against him focusing on what would be the best for both him and the defendants.

Page 8 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 9 of 19 PageID 9

6.24 knowingly:

Plaintiff was falsely accused of and falsely charged with intentionally or

a. Evading Arrest/Vehicle 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. b. Resisting Arrest/Search/Trans 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

Plaintiff was also charged with the Possession of Marijuana. Said charges and arrest were without probable cause. 6.25 On or about July 17, 2012, plaintiff was indicted on the felony charge of

intentionally fleeing. The charge was ultimately dismissed by the District Attorneys Office. 6.26 Plaintiff was the subject of deliberately directed unlawful action and excessive

force, illegal/false arrest, illegal/false charges, illegal search/entry, use of excessive force, racial profiling and the failure to assist or intervene. As the result of the illegal actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered illegal arrest and incarceration; malicious prosecution, improper medical care; severe physical injuries to his head and body when he was attacked; shock; embarrassment; scarring; emotional distress and mental anguish as a direct result of a the false arrest and excessive force. Said actions were also objectively unreasonable. 6.27 The Defendants put in motion certain illegal events which impacted the Plaintiffs

freedoms guaranteed by both the United States and Texas Constitutions. The claims brought

Page 9 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 10 of 19 PageID 10

against the Defendants include claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 6.28 The acts by the Defendants were under color of state law, custom, practice or

usage and deprived Plaintiff of his clearly established and defined rights to be free from this sort of conduct as described above and herein and violated his federal rights, privileges, or immunities. 6.29. The supervision and training by City of Dallas and the Dallas County, regarding

its employees and officers, medical treatment, the use of force, arrest and detention, in particular for its officers, amounted to deliberate indifference. Particularly, City of Dallas did not ensure its citizens were not subject to illegal arrest, illegal detention, illegal prosecution and excessive force when it was aware of such acts pertaining to other arrestees and detainees. Further, City of Dallas allowed his officers to accuse and detain City of Dallas citizens of wrongdoing without probable cause. Additionally, Dallas County, Texas did not ensure its citizens were not subject to improper and illegal medical care as pretrial detainees when it was aware of such acts pertaining to other detainees. Such acts by their employees were done routinely and were commonly known by the City of Dallas and Dallas County, but were ignored. Further, Dallas County and City of Dallas and their supervisors of the individual defendants failed to train and/or supervise the defendants who violated the rights of the Plaintiff. Further, supervisors and City of Dallas knew that the Defendants were prone to such illegal acts and violations as described herein that occurred in the past and pertained to other arrestees or detainees. 6.30 In fact, Officer Pacheco has had several complaints of racial profiling from other

Dallas County citizens, including an incident where an African American male died shortly after

Page 10 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 11 of 19 PageID 11

being detained by defendant Pacheco in a similar attack to plaintiff, including having his arms pulled out-of-socket. Defendant City of Dallas had prior knowledge of the interactions defendant Pacheco had toward African-Americans, like Plaintiff, and knew there was a risk of series harm to other arrestee and detainees, especially those of African-American descent, and intentionally, knowingly, and unreasonably disregarded these risks. 6.31 Dallas County and the City of Dallas customs, policies and practices, whether in

writing or not, for the city employees, in whom they proclaimed and/or acquiesced, directly caused and led to Plaintiffs injuries. Further, these Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the custom, policies and practices, whether in writing or not, which directly caused Plaintiffs injuries. Although not formally approved by an appropriate decision-maker, including the Dallas City Council, Chief of Police, Dallas County Sheriff and County Judge, the same customs and policies were so widespread as to have the force of law. Specifically, these defendants were aware of the following customs and policies which had occurred to other arrestees and detainees: that its employees routinely profiled African-Americans in a way to designed to threaten and intimidate them; routinely used excessive force without justification in order to intimidate and coerce citizens, in particular African Americans by placing and/or pointing their service revolvers to the head or body of its citizens; routinely accused its citizens of false accusations in hopes of obtaining a confession or simply designed to intimidate them; and routinely provided dirty jail clothing to arrestees and detainees. These customs, policies and practices were used regularly by one or more defendants against other arrestees and detainees. 6.32 It was a policy and/or custom of Dallas County and the City of Dallas to

inadequately train and supervise his officers, allow false arrests, allow the use of excessive force

Page 11 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 12 of 19 PageID 12

on African-Americans and provide unsanitary clothing. The custom or policy served as the moving force behind the violations. Further, said policies were inadequate and that it was adopted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants. As the direct and casual result of these policies, practices and/or customs, Pacheco and Arozamena believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by City of Dallas and other supervising officers and entities. Further, these defendants knew that their misconduct would not be investigated, and would be tolerated. 6.33 As the further direct and casual result of the Defendants illegal and unlawful

actions described herein, plaintiff has suffered significant personal injuries, scarring, months of medical treatment, post-traumatic stress, and monetary damages relating to payment of attorney fees and posting a bond. Additionally, plaintiff is forced to walk with a can due to the multiple and serious nature of this physical injuries to in particular his knee. 6.34 Plaintiff seeks redress for violations under the following: unlawful

arrest/detention, filing of false charges, malicious prosecution, unlawful search, excessive force, racial profiling, the failure to provide medical aid, and the failure to intervene or assist Plaintiff. Plaintiff was forced to endure extreme pain, injury, humiliation, emotional distress and mental anguish, among other things. VII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 7.01 7.02 Plaintiff Complain of defendants and for a First Cause of Action alleges: Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1.01 to 6.34 of his first cause of action,

as if expressly set forth at length.

Page 12 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 13 of 19 PageID 13

7.03

The defendants Pacheco and Arozamena at all times mentioned were duly

appointed, employed, and acting officers for the City of Dallas Police Department and acted under color of law, custom or usage. Their actions as identified herein were illegal,

unreasonable, without probable cause and/or in violation of clearly establish rights secured by the Constitution and/or laws of the United States, including the rights to be free from [1] illegal/unlawful arrest and prosecution, [2] illegal/unlawful excessive force, [3] illegal/unlawful seizure [4] unlawful search [5] failure to render medical aid, [6] racial profiling, and [7] illegal/unlawful detention. These defendants willfully and illegally seized, abused, injured, detained and arrested the plaintiff; the search, detention and arrest were without his consent, and without legal authority, justification or probable cause. 7.04 During the above-mentioned period of unlawful assault, unlawful search,

unlawful arrest and unlawful detention, plaintiff was subjected to actions without cause or justification and without his rights being explained. Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly, their conduct was extreme and outrageous, their conduct was directed towards the plaintiff, and/or their conduct caused the plaintiff physical injuries and severe emotional distress. 7.05 Plaintiff was not at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other

time, committing any offenses against the laws of the State of Texas or against the statutes of the Texas or the United States, and Defendants did not have any valid, legal or reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any criminal offense. There was no warrant for his arrest, or search warrant to enter and search his vehicle. 7.06 By reason of the above, Plaintiff has been deprived of his liberty.

Page 13 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 14 of 19 PageID 14

VIII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 8.01 8.02 Plaintiff complains against the Defendants and for second cause of action alleges: Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1.01 to 7.06 of his cause of action, as if

expressly set forth at length. 8.03 Defendants Pacheco and Arozamena used excessive force against plaintiff, and/or

failed to intervene to assist plaintiff while excessive force was being used. As a direct and casual result of the excessive force or failure to intervene, plaintiff sustained severe injury as set forth herein and was treated by Parkland Hospital of Dallas. 8.04. The forced utilized by defendants was excessive, unreasonable and unlawful. The

illegal and excessive force worked to deny the plaintiff of a clearly established and known right and privilege, i.e., a persons protection against the illegal and unlawful use of excessive force. The force used against plaintiff was illegal, objectively unreasonable, and unjustified under established state and federal law and violated the plaintiffs rights, resulting directly from the excessive force. Such rights against the use of illegal and excessive force were well known by defendants Pacheco and Arozamena at the time of the use and application of excessive force. 8.05 As a direct result of defendants Pachecos and Arozamenas concerted, unlawful

and malicious physical abuse of the plaintiff, defendants intentionally with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of plaintiffs rights, deprived plaintiff of his right to be free from the use of excessive force during the course of an arrest or investigatory stop. IX. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

9.01

Plaintiff complains against the Defendant City of Dallas, Texas, in his official and

individual capacity, and for a third cause of action alleges: Page 14 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 15 of 19 PageID 15

9.02 length. 9.03

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1.01 to 8.05, as if expressly set forth at

Defendant, City of Dallas, Texas, under the color of law, custom, practice and/or

usage willfully, deliberately, knowingly and purposefully, or in the alternative acted in a grossly intentional manner, and caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutional rights by: (a) (b) Inadequate supervision of the training and conduct of defendants and others; Failure to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States; and Improper policies and practices concerning investigation, arrest, detention, force, search and seizure. Defendant, City of Dallas, Texas, under the color of law, willfully, knowingly and

(c)

9.04

purposefully, or in the alternative acting in a grossly negligent manner, authorized, permitted and tolerated the custom and practice of the unconstitutional used of force, search, arrest and detention by the members of the Dallas County Police Department and in particular by these Defendants, and others, by:

(a) Appointing, promoting, training and supervising members of the Dallas Police Department who would enforce the laws in effect in Dallas, Texas and who would protect the constitutional rights of the people of Dallas County, Texas; (b) Requiring the City of Dallas, Texas to promulgate procedures and policies regarding use of force, investigation, arrest, detention, search and seizure that were consistent with the fourth amendments to the Constitution, to include, but not limited to, the use of force against Plaintiff; and (c) Permitting the policy and custom of improper investigation, use of force, arrest, detention, search and seizure to be followed by the Dallas Police Department.

Page 15 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 16 of 19 PageID 16

X. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10.01 Plaintiff complains against the defendants, and for a fourth cause of action alleges: 10.02 Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1.01 to 9.04, as if expressly set forth at length. 10.03 Defendants under the color of law, custom, practice and/or usage willfully, deliberately, knowingly and purposefully, or in the alternative acted in a grossly intentional manner, and caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutional rights by: (a) (b) Inadequate supervision of the training and conduct of its employees and agents; Failure to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States; and Improper policies and practices concerning the medical treatment of pretrial detainees and the failure to provide the necessary medical care and treatment and/or required jail clothing.

(c)

10.04 Defendants willfully, knowingly and purposefully, or in the alternative acting in a grossly negligent manner, authorized, permitted and tolerated the custom and practice of the unconstitutional use of improper and dirty clothing and or failing to provide arrestees and pretrial detainees with needed and required medical treatment. Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs serious medical needs, prior to and after booking the plaintiff, meaning that the defendants were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable measures to abate that risk. Even a layman would have recognized the need to clean and protect plaintiffs open wounds prior to being booked into the jail. Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to plaintiffs health or safety. The defendants had actual

Page 16 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 17 of 19 PageID 17

knowledge or a reason to believe that medical care was needed to examine and treat the plaintiff who may have had a serious medical need. As the result, they are not justified in relying on any medical personnel or their opinions or treatment. XI. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11.01 Plaintiff complains against all defendants in their official and individual capacity, and for a fifth cause of action alleges: 11.02 Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1.01 to 10.04, as if expressly set forth at length. 11.03 The actions and omissions of Defendants, and in respective capacities, were taken with deliberate indifference to and deliberate disregard for the known Constitutional rights of plaintiff to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and/or not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law as guaranteed by the laws of the United States. 11.04 Defendants under the color of law, custom, practice and/or usage willfully, deliberately, knowingly and purposefully deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights, or in the alternative acted in a grossly intentional manner, and caused plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutional rights. XII. ATTORNEY FEES 12.01 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable allowance for attorney fees as part of his costs. XIII. DAMAGES 13.01 Plaintiff sustained the following damages as a result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants described hereinabove: a. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate; Page 17 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 18 of 19 PageID 18

b. All reasonable and necessary Attorneys fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff; c. All reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this suit and in any criminal proceedings to extinguish any reference to this matter; d. Emotional pain past and future; e. Expert fees as the Court deems appropriate; f. Inconvenience; g. Prejudgment interest; h. Loss of enjoyment of life; i. Mental pain, anguish and suffering in the past; j. Mental pain, anguish and suffering in the future; k. Severe embarrassment, shock, fear, anxiety, loss of sleep, and emotional distress; l. scarring and physical injuries suffered; m. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will in all reasonable probability be incurred in the past and future; n. interest, pre- and post-judgment; costs of suit; and other equitable relief to which Plaintiff may be deemed entitled under law; and o. incidental and consequential damages, including but not limited to, monies related to the criminal prosecution.

XIV. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Plaintiff will further show that the acts and omissions of the individual defendants in their individual capacities complained of herein were committed with malice or reckless indifference to the protected rights of the plaintiff. In order to punish said defendants for engaging in unlawful business practices and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future, plaintiff also seeks recovery from the individual defendants for exemplary damages. Page 18 of 19

Case 3:13-cv-04702-G Document 1 Filed 11/26/13

Page 19 of 19 PageID 19

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff, George Earl Pogue,

respectfully prays that the defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the plaintiff against defendants, jointly and severally, for damages as set forth above; exemplary damages but only as addressed to each defendant, together with interest as allowed by law; costs of court; and such other and further relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted,

By:/s/Michael P. Kelly______ Michael P. Kelly Texas Bar No: 11227280 P.O. Box 150589 Dallas, Texas 75315-0589 Tel. (214)821-7255 Fax. (214)821-7251 mptkelly@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Page 19 of 19