The family of John Eric Henderson has filed suit in Federal Court in connection with his fatal shooting at a traffic stop in East Chattanooga.
The suit is filed against former officer Chris Gaynor who fired the fatal shot.
It is also brought against another officer on the scene, Moreland Wilson, former Police Chief Jimmie Dotson and the city of Chattanooga.
Officer Gaynor was tried for criminally negligent homicide, but there was a hung jury. The case is to be retried with an out-of-town jury.
Attorney John Wolfe filed the suit.
Here is the full complaint:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ROBBIE R. BROWN, as Administrator *
of the Estate of JOHN ERIC HENDERSON, *
Deceased; and as next friend of *
ANDRE HENDERSON, JOHN E. * Case No._________
HENDERSON, JR., ERICA HENDERSON, *
and JOSHUA HENDERSON, *
and *
RODEANER ROCHELLE * COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
HENDERSON, * OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL
* DEATH, NEGLIGENCE,
Plaintiffs, * VIOLATION OF THE TENNESEE
* HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, ASSAULT
vs. * AND BATTERY, AND * LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
CHRISTOPHER L. GAYNOR, individually * (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon)
and in his official capacity; *
JAMES DOTSON, individually and in *
his official capacity; *
MORELAND WILSON, individually *
and in his official capacity, *
and *
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, *
TENNESSEE, a Tennessee *
Municipal Corporation, *
*
Defendants. *
COMPLAINT
________________________________________________________________________
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is being filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to address injuries suffered by John Eric Henderson for deprivation under color of law of rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court had supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
3. Additionally, Plaintiffs bring state statutory and tort claims against the Defendants for wrongful death, loss of consortium, negligence, negligent hiring, training and supervision, assault and battery, and malicious harassment.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Robbie R. Brown is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and the Administrator of the Estate of John Eric Henderson. She brings a civil rights action on behalf of John Eric Henderson, and other state law claims on behalf of John Eric Henderson’s four minor children, Andre Henderson, John Henderson, Jr., Joshua Henderson, and Erica Henderson.
5. Plaintiff Rodeaner Rochelle Henderson is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee and was the wife of John Eric Henderson. She brings this action on behalf of herself.
6. Defendant Christopher L. Gaynor is a former City of Chattanooga Police Officer, who was a police officer employed the Defendant City of Chattanooga at the time of the shooting and until his termination following his indictment for the criminally negligent homicide of John Eric Henderson. Defendant Gaynor is sued in his individual and official capacity. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Gaynor acted under color of law.
7. Defendant James Dotson is the former City of Chattanooga Chief of Police, who was employed by the Defendant City of Chattanooga as the Chief of Police at the time of the shooting and until February, 2004. Defendant Dotson is sued in his individual and official capacity. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Dotson acted under color of law.
8. Defendant Moreland Wilson is a City of Chattanooga Police Officer, who was a police officer employed the Defendant City of Chattanooga at the time of the shooting and remains as such. Defendant Wilson is sued in his individual and official capacity. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Wilson acted under color of law.
9. Defendant City of Chattanooga is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Tennessee. At all times throughout this Complaint, it is alleged and reincorporated that Defendant Gaynor’s action of shooting and killing John Eric Henderson is part of a continuing pattern of civil rights abuses by City of Chattanooga Police Officers against citizens, that result from the Defendant City’s deliberate conduct in establishing a policy and custom that encourages and acquiesces in Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment civil rights violations. In addition, Defendant Gaynor’s action of shooting and killing Mr. Henderson was a direct result of the City’s deliberate indifference in its screening and hiring of its police officers and in failing to train and discipline its police officers. As a result of the Defendant City’s policies, customs, deliberate indifference, and deliberate conduct as described above, the City is the “moving force” behind Defendant Gaynor’s action of shooting and killing Mr. Henderson.
FACTS
10. Paragraphs 1-9 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
11. On May 29, 2003, Mr. Henderson left his work site to buy lunch for himself and his co-workers.
12. Upon his return to the site, Mr. Henderson, an African-American man, was stopped directly in front of the site on a ‘routine’ traffic stop allegedly for a loud muffler by the Defendant Gaynor, a white police officer, who at the time was an employee of the Chattanooga Police Department.
13. Defendant Gaynor was a rookie police officer, who had only been on unsupervised patrol for four (4) days at the time of the incident.
14. Mr. Henderson exited his vehicle and was approached by Defendant Gaynor.
15. At this time, another officer, Moreland Wilson, arrived at the scene and a discussion was had between Defendants Wilson and Gaynor while John Eric Henderson waited on the sidewalk. Defendant Gaynor then approached Mr. Henderson, who then walked around his car and placed a soda he had on the top of his car leaving his hands empty. Mr. Henderson was then asked by Defendant Gaynor if he had a driver’s license and registration.
16. Mr. Henderson then reached into his vehicle at which time Defendant Gaynor shot and killed John Eric Henderson. Prior to the shooting, Defendant Gaynor never gave Mr. Henderson a verbal command of “stop”, “halt”, or any other similar demand. During the entire traffic stop, Defendant Gaynor never indicated to Mr. Henderson that he should not move. Upon information and belief, Plantiffs state that Mr. Henderson was reaching into the vehicle to retrieve his registration from his glove compartment.
17. Defendant Gaynor shot John Eric Henderson without warning, killing him. John Eric Henderson was unarmed and had no weapons in his vehicle.
18. Defendant Gaynor allegedly reported that he thought Mr. Henderson was reaching for a weapon.
19. There was no weapon on John Eric Henderson’s person or within his vehicle.
20. The next day following the killing, Defendant Dotson, then Chief of the Chattanooga Police Department, held a press conference wherein he ratified Defendant Gaynor’s actions by stating Defendant Gaynor, “feared for his life,” and “felt threatened”, and that whether Mr. Henderson was reaching for a weapon, “depends upon what you consider a weapon.” Dotson further stated, “from what we have been able to gather, it appears [Defendant Gaynor] went through the proper procedures and practices the way he is trained to do.”
21. All of the statements listed in Paragraph 20 were made by Defendant Dotson prior to the completion of any official investigation into the shooting and in ignorance of statements by witnesses at the scene. Plaintiff avers that the statements made by Defendant Dotson were made just hours after any investigation had even commenced. Such statements were in deliberate indifference to the rights of John Eric Henderson and the Plaintiffs and were in tacit authorization of Defendant Gaynor’s actions.
22. A statement was made on May 30, 2003 by Police Department Spokesperson, Edward Buice, that the officers ordered Mr. Henderson to “freeze”. Upon information and belief, this statement was a fabrication created after the shooting and was in contravention of witness statements.
23. A criminal indictment was filed against Defendant Gaynor in Hamilton County, Tennessee, charging him with criminally negligent homicide. The criminal trial resulted in a hung jury. On April 20, 2004, prosecutors announced they would re-try Defendant Gaynor.
24. Prior to Defendant Gaynor being hired by the Chattanooga Police Department, he was a ‘ride along’ with another officer during the arrest of Torris Harris, who died during that arrest. His death was ruled a homicide and was the subject of a civil lawsuit filed by the Harris family. Defendant Gaynor was a defendant in that action based upon his involvement in the death of Torris Harris.
25. The Defendant City of Chattanooga was or should have been aware of Defendant Gaynor’s involvement in the death of Torris Harris prior to hiring him.
26. The acts and omissions of Defendant Gaynor were done in a negligent, or wanton, reckless and malicious manner.
27. Defendant Gaynor is currently under indictment for criminally negligent homicide.
28. The Defendants herein made deceitful claims that the shooting was in self-defense in order to deny Plaintiffs access to the Court to address the civil rights and state law claims.
29. The Defendant City has a written policy that addresses the use of force during an arrest and/or an attempt to subdue an individual suspected of criminal activity.
30. The custom of the Defendant City is to tolerate the use of excessive force by its police officers while making an arrest of suspects or when attempting to subdue individuals suspected of criminal activity, and/or to agitate citizens and approach them in a threatening manner.
31. It is also the custom of the Defendant City to justify such unconstitutional conduct by not properly investigating the incidents, and by not disciplining the officers involved.
32. It is further the custom of the Defendant City to justify such unconstitutional conduct by alleging after the fact, and without genuine investigation, that the officers were acting in self-defense.
33. The Defendant City’s police officers are inadequately trained and/or supervised in how to apprehend and arrest suspects or subdue individuals who are stopped for misdemeanor traffic violations and/or who are wanted on misdemeanor warrants.
34. Defendant City, through its agents and policymakers, including, among others, its Defendant James Dotson, its current Chief of Police, Steven Parks, its Police Department spokesperson, Edward Buice, and its Mayor, Robert Corker, acquiesced and/or ratified the failure to properly investigate these incidents and the failure to properly discipline the officers involved.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and omissions taken under color of state law, John Eric Henderson has been deprived of rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, John Eric Henderson suffered serious anguish and emotional distress, physical injuries, pain and suffering, and was wrongfully deprived of his life.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS: 42 U.S.C §1983
37. Paragraphs 1-36 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
38. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant City of Chattanooga employed the individual defendants herein.
39. During all times mentioned herein, the individual defendants acted under color and pretense of law, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, processes, customs and usages of the Defendant City of Chattanooga. The individual defendants herein deprived John Eric Henderson and Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.
40. On May 29, 2003, Defendant Gaynor, without warning shot and killed John Eric Henderson, as previously described above, which constituted excessive force in violation of and with deliberate indifference to Mr. Henderson’s Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and his due process rights to be free from arbitrary deprivations of life, liberty and property.
41. The above articulated constitutional violations were proximately caused by the Defendant City of Chattanooga’s deliberate indifference to the maintenance, training and control of its officers, and the constitutional violations set forth above were proximately caused by the customs, practices, policies and decisions of Defendant City of Chattanooga and its Police Department, including, but not limited to, negligent screening and hiring of candidates for the police force, inadequately training and supervising employees of the City of Chattanooga Police Department with respect to the use of force and to the proper procedure for restraining and detaining individuals.
42. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that before May 29, 2003, Defendant City of Chattanooga hired, trained, supervised, employed and/or managed Defendant Gaynor with conscious disregard and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of third parties, in that it was or should have been plainly obvious to Defendant City of Chattanooga that Defendant Gaynor was a dangerous and violent employee, prone to assault and batter persons and/or use unnecessary, deadly and/or unlawful physical force without reasonable justification. Since adequate scrutiny of Defendant Gaynor’s background would have led reasonable policymakers within the Defendant City of Chattanooga and its Police Department to conclude that the consequence of the decision to hire Defendant Gaynor would be the deprivation of a third party’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable and excessive force, Defendant City of Chattanooga was deliberately indifferent to John Eric Henderson’s rights.
43. Defendant Gaynor’s shooting and killing of John Eric Henderson was an unconstitutional display of unreasonable and excessive force that violated John Eric Henderson’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the details of this incident have been revealed to the authorized policymakers of the Defendant City of Chattanooga and such policymakers have direct knowledge that the shooting and killing of John Eric Henderson was an unconstitutional display of unreasonable and excessive force. Notwithstanding this knowledge, the authorized policymakers of the Defendant City of Chattanooga made a deliberate choice to approve and ratify Defendant Gaynor’s unjustified assault and killing of John Eric Henderson, and made statements to that effect as described in the foregoing paragraphs. These statements show lax discipline as well as agreement with Defendant Gaynor’s actions and ratification of the unconstitutional acts of Defendant Gaynor. In addition, the statements ratifying Defendant Gaynor’s conduct made by the agents and policymakers of the Defendant City of Chattanooga denied Plaintiffs their Constitutional right of access to the courts.
44. The above acts or omissions were undertaken while under color of state law and resulted in a violation of John Eric Henderson’s and Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, as stated herein. Likewise, the policies, customs, practices and decisions of Defendant City of Chattanooga alleged herein and as applied to John Eric Henderson and Plaintiffs, resulted in a violation of John Eric Henderson’s and Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.
45. John Eric Henderson had a liberty interest to life and the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law. These rights and privileges are secured by the provisions of the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This interest was breached by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants which proximately caused John Eric Henderson’s injuries and death as described herein.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, omissions, customs, practices, policies and decisions of the Defendants, John Eric Henderson suffered great physical and mental pain, suffering, and anguish. Additionally, Plaintiffs have been forced to incur substantial amounts for attorney’s fees, investigations, expenses, and other costs in the prosecution of the above-articulated Constitutional violations.
47. As a result of these acts, John Eric Henderson lost future wages resulting from the incident described herein, in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANTS GAYNOR AND WILSON:
WRONGFUL DEATH PURSUANT TO T.C.A § 20-5-106
48. Paragraphs 1-47 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
49. The wanton and reckless or negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Defendant Gaynor directly and proximately caused the death of John Eric Henderson, and John Eric Henderson’s death resulted in the loss of support, society, services, and in mental anguish to his children, Andre Henderson, John Henderson, Jr., Joshua Henderson, Erica Henderson, and his wife, Rodeaner Rochelle Henderson.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANTS GAYNOR AND WILSON: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
50. Paragraphs 1-49 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
51. The wanton and reckless or negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Defendant Gaynor directly and proximately caused injury and death to John Eric Henderson.
52. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s wanton and reckless or negligent or intentional acts or omissions which resulted in causing fatal injury to John Eric Henderson, he is no longer capable of giving love, affection, society, comfort and support to his children, Andre Henderson, John Henderson, Jr., Joshua Henderson, Erica Henderson, and his wife, Rodeaner Rochelle Henderson.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS: TENNESSE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
53. Paragraphs 1-52 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
54. T.C.A § 4-21-701 provides that creates a civil cause of action for malicious harassment.
55. Defendant Christopher Gaynor, made a traffic stop of Mr. Henderson for the given reason of a loud muffler and at such stop drew his weapon upon Mr. Henderson, then without warning, shot and killed John Eric Henderson, as previously described above.
56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered great physical pain and mental suffering until his ultimate death from the shooting.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS: NEGLIGENCE
57. Paragraphs 1-56 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
58. Defendant Gaynor stopped Mr. Henderson for an alleged loud muffler. During the stop, Defendant Gaynor asked Mr. Henderson for his license and registration, at which time Mr. Henderson reached into his vehicle. Defendant Gaynor then shot and killed John Eric Henderson without warning. Prior to the shooting, Defendant Gaynor never gave Mr. Henderson a verbal command of “stop”, “halt”,
or any other similar demand. During the entire traffic stop, Defendant Gaynor never indicated to Mr. Henderson that he should not move.
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Gaynor shooting Mr. Henderson, Mr. Henderson suffered severe physical and emotional anguish and eventually died from his wounds.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT CITY OF CHATTANOOGA:
NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
60. Paragraphs 1-59 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
61. The Defendant City of Chattanooga has a duty to all citizens to properly train, supervise and retain its police officers.
62. Prior to Defendant Gaynor being hired by the Chattanooga Police Department, he was a ‘ride along’ with another officer during the arrest of Torris Harris, who died during that arrest. His death was ruled a homicide and was the subject of a civil lawsuit filed by the Harris family. Defendant Gaynor was a defendant in that action based upon his involvement in the death of Torris Harris.
63. The Defendant City of Chattanooga was aware of Defendant Gaynor’s involvement in the death of Torris Harris prior to hiring Defendant Gaynor.
64. The Defendant City of Chattanooga did not properly train Defendant Gaynor and placed him on unsupervised patrol before Defendant Gaynor was capable of performing his duties without harm to citizens.
65. The Defendant City of Chattanooga acted negligently or willfully and wantonly in its hiring, training, and supervision of Defendant Gaynor.
66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chattanooga’s negligent, willful and wanton behavior, John Eric Henderson was assaulted and killed by Defendant Gaynor and suffered severe physical and emotional anguish, and as a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chattanooga’s negligent, willful and wanton behavior, Plaintiffs herein have suffered damages, including, but not limited to loss of love, support and society from John Eric Henderson.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT GAYNOR: ASSAULT AND BATTERY
67. Paragraphs 1-66 are respectfully alleged and reincorporated throughout this entire Complaint.
68. The actions of Defendant Gaynor constitute and assault and battery upon the person of John Eric Henderson.
69. The act of Defendant Gaynor in shooting Mr. Henderson resulted in physical and mental anguish, and ultimately resulted in the death of Mr. Henderson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
A. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to pain and suffering of the deceased;
B. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages for their civil rights claim against Defendants an amount to be determined at trial;
C. Award Plaintiffs the reasonable funeral and burial expenses incurred as a result of this wrongful death;
D. Award Plaintiffs damages for their loss of consortium, pain and suffering;
E. Award reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and T.C.A. 4-21-701;
F. Declare Defendants actions unconstitutional and enjoin Defendants from the unconstitutional violations complained of herein;
G. Grant the Plaintiffs a trial by jury; and
H. Grant such other relief as may be just and equitable.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
John M. Wolfe, Jr. (BPR # 010319)
Amelia C. Roberts (BPR # 022555)
707 Georgia Avenue, Suite 201
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(423) 266-8400