CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cy-158 TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: NOW COMES Plaimtifis, Elena Scott, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Antronie Scott, present this their Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint, bringing this action ‘against the City of San Antonio and John Lee, Individually and in his Official Capacity, complaining that said Defendants, jointly and severally, denied Plaintiffs their rights as ‘guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the State of Texas, and in suppor thereof would respectflly show the following:srope in he Wese Distt of Teas, San Antonio Division, os this isthe ditt mh sim arose im accordance with 29 USC. § 1391(b) Plaintiffs bring this ection as the surviving spouse entitled to recover damages arising ftom decedent's wrongful death pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 71.000 et seq. and as applied through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Ls PARTIES 2. Before being shot and killed on February 4, 2016, Antronie Scott was a citizen of the United States and resided in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, 3. Plaintiff Elena Scott was the wife of Antronie Scott and is a resident of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. 4, Defendant, the City of San Antonio, is « municipal corporation operating accarding to the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. The City of San Antonio, can be served with process by serving Leticia M. Vacek, Clerk of the City of San Antonio at Office of the City Clerk 100 Military Plaza City Hall, Third Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205, Defendant, the San Antonio Police Department, is a municipal law enforcement department operating as an agency of the City of San Antonio. Police Chief William McManus was thecase 6 Defendant John Lee, (ereinafier“Defensiant Lee”) was at all times material to this suit, an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. Each of the acts complained of herein arise from the conduct of Defendant while acting under color of state Jaw and was committed within the scope of his employment and authority with the San. Antonio Police Department. Defendant may be served with summons at his place of employment, the San Antonio Police Department, 315 S. Santa Rosa Avenue San Antonio, ‘Texas 78207. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. On February 4, 2016, the decedent, Antronie Scott, was at Wood Hollow Apartments. located at 10362 Sahara in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas 78216 at approximately 6:00 p.m. Mr. Scott was sitting in his vehicle with his wife, Plaintiff Mrs. Elena Scott. 8 A decision was made to arrest Mr. Scott and uniformed officers were called in to make the arrest. 9. Mr. Scott attempted to comply with the officer’s instruction and began to exit the vehicle. Mr. Scott was unarmed and had no weapon in his hand or in his vehicle. At no time did Mr. Scott pose a threat to Defendant Lee or act in any threatening manner. Despite Mr. Scott's compliance and immediately as Mr. Scott was exiting the vehicle, Defendant Lee fired his gun shooting Mr. Scott in the chest. 10. _Antronie Scott was not in possession of a firearm. 11. Mr. Scott survived the shooting for several minutes and was bleeding from the gunshot tarpnieta aCase 5:16-cv-00158-OLG Document 1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4ati5 12. — Incommitting said acts and/or omissions, Defendant Lee was in the course and scope of his employment with the San Antonio Police Department and Defendant was acting under color of state law. 13. Defendant officer’s acts amount to an excessive, unjustified and unnecessary use of force. Said excessive, unjustified and unnecessary use of force was objectively unreasonable, as. no reasonable. police officer and/or law enforcement officer given the same or similar circumstances would have initiated such a vicious and unwarranted attack on Mr, Scott within & second of directing Mr. Scott to show his hands. 14, The San Antonio Police Department's policy and procedure manual gives vague and conflicting instructions to officers on when and under what circumstances force can be used. ‘These conflicting policies ultimately allow officers to determine: if deadly force is required based upon their individual judgment without specific guidelines. Procedure 501.07 states, ‘The use of deadly force is authorized only to protect an officer or another person from what is reasonably believed to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. 1, An officer with an honest and sincere personal belief his life or the life of another person is in imminent danger is justified in using deadly force to preserve that life, 2. Justification for the use of deadly forve is determined by the facts known or perceived by the officer at the time the deadly force is employed.prolong any combat or struggle inorder to satisfy any element of escalation rather than resort to a reasonable method that resolves tbe situation in the safest and most expedient fashion. ‘This policy allows for an officer to skip the increasingly forcefal methods to subdue a suspect and determine in his own judgment the quickest method to bring a situation under Control, even if that method would be deadly force against a suspect. These policies, among others, led to the shooting of Mr. Scott at a time when there was no immediate threat to the lifle of the officer in violation of his constitutional rights. 15. In addition, as Chief McManus has stated, this use of force policy needs to be “re- engineered” so that officers are trained to know when deadly force should be used. 16. — Further, it is apparent that the training provided to SAPD officers on how they communicate with citizens and how they react when citizens are following their instructions is deficient and lead to the tragic deaths of citizens who are trying to comply with an officer's commands. Iv. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT 42 USCS. § 1983 17. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 through 16 are herein incorporated by i Ia nnHh rivileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured fn an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." 42 USCS.§ 1983. 19, The state action requirement for standing under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 has more commonly ‘been referred to as "color of state law," from the statute itself. When committing said acts and/or omissions, Defendant Lee was acting under color of state law within his employment with the San Antonio Police Department. 20. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated decedent Antronie Scott's Fourth ‘Amendment rights. The rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth ‘Amendment, include the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. These rights were violated when Defendant Lee intentionally shot and killed Antronie Scott. ah) The deadly force used by Defendant Lee against the decedent was unjustified and objectively unreasonable under any circumstances, This force was clearly excessive to the need, and this excessiveness was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances at the time of the shooting. 22, Defendant's actions constitute excessive force in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment of eine pe cet rr sed immediate threat of seriousand the San Antonio Police Department 24. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 through 16 are herein incorporated by \ reference, the same as if fully set forth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading. ab. ‘Defendants the City of San Antonio and the San Antonio Police Department are liable under 42'U.S.C.S. § 1983 due to one or more official policies or customs of Defendant the City ‘of San Antonio that deprived Antronie Scott of his constitutional rights. 26. — Itis well-established that municipalities are liable under 42 U.S.C-S. § 1983 for constitutional torts that are the result of compliance with the municipality's customs, practices, policies or procedures. A municipality is liable for constitutional deprivations which arise pursuant to governmental custom even though such custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision making channels. ‘27. Defendant the City of San Antonio are liable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 due to the 1) the inadequacy of their policies, training and supervision relating to the use of deadly force; 2) _ the inadequacy of their policies, training and supervision relating to the use of ‘non-lethal control devices and tactics; 3) the adoption of a completely subjective continuum of force policy that can be expressly avoided and which leaves the use of deadly force exclusively to the ‘unchecked discretion of officers on the scene;ase 5:16-0v-00158-OLG Document 1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 8 of 15 ; were a direct cause in fact and proximate cause ofthe decedent’s deprivation of constitutional tights, 28 well as his death and other injuries and damsages which were sustained. 29, All of these policies and procedures were made by those with final policy making authority or were condoned as the custom and practices of the department by those in authority. 30. ‘These policies and customs reflect a deliberate indifference to the risk that members of risk that members of the public will suffer severe personal injuries and/or death, at the hands of those that are employed to protect them. ¥ DAMAGES: ‘The allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 through 16 are herein incorporated by reference, the same as if fully set forth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading. 31. 32. Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased Mr. Scott and an heir at law to the Estate of Antronie Scott and is thus a statutory beneficiary and brings this suit for damages suffered and ‘sustained by the decedent, Antronie Scott, pursuant to Sections 71.002 et seq. and 71.021 et seq. of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 33. Plaintiff seeks damages for the following: 1) ee ee ae 2) reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred as a result of Antronie Sects injtes cating fo his wrongfal dais { | reasonable and neJoss of consortium; 6) loss of inheritance; 7) severe mental anguish that each Plaintiff has suffered and will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer in the future; and 8) the past and future loss of companionship and society arising from the death of Antronie Scott. 34, In addition, Plaintiffs pray for punitive damages against all individual Defendants. Pumitive damages are designed to punish and deter persons such as Defendants who have engaged in egregious wrongdoing. Punitive damages may be assessed under § 1983 when a Defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally-protected rights of others. While municipal defendants are absolutely immune from § 1983 awards of punitive damages, such damages may be awarded against a public employee or official in their individual capacity. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege and pray for punitive damages against individual Defendant Lee, as such Defendant actually knew that his conduct was unconstitutional, and/or was callously indifferent to its legality. 35. Plaintiffs seek recovery for these damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. vi ATTORNEYS FEES 36, Pursuant to the Civil Rights Attomey's Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing party in a § 1983 case is entitled to recover his or her attomey’s fees. Hence, Plaintiffs further37. Plaintiffs hereby make their demand for a jury tial and acknowledges herein the payment i on this date of the required jury fee. vill. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION 38. Pleading further, the Plaintiffs hereby present their application for temporary restraining order and injunction. 39, Plaintiffs" application for a temporary restraining order is authorized by FEDERAL RULE OF iva. PROCEDURE 65. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order for the purpose of preserving the subject matter of a potential lawsuit, including but not limited to, any audio and video recordings depicting the tragic shooting of Antronie Scott on February 4, 2016 and the events | leading up to said incident, until such time as the lawsuit is resolved by a judgment. | 40. The preservation of said evidence in its original condition, specifically any audio and video recordings of the shooting, requested herein is made for the purpose of determining the exact | ‘events that led to the tragic shooting of Antronie Scott. The Sen Antonio Police Department Chief of Police William McManus has stated to the media that there are audio recordings and a dash cam. ‘video was active atthe time of the shooting. Therefore, itis imperative that this Court onder that thisse 5:16. Cv 00158-016 Document. FiedO2/12N6 Page 11ot15 stein ee tc tei teas 4, 2016, including but not limited to: drafts of statements, final statements, notes pertaining to the investigation, partial statements, fall statements, investigative notes, sir clka erence raed to te tg dotting deh ot Ante Seu ey Si Antonio Police Department Officer Lee on February 4, 2016, regardless of whether said evidence will be presented to a grand jury. 42. It is probable that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their lawsuit. Defendant Lee ‘tragically shot Antronie Scott while Antronie Scott posed no imminent threat to Defendant Lee or others in the moments before he was shot and killed. 43. If Plaintiffs’ application is not granted, they will suffer imminent harm in that the only physical and documentary evidence of their potential claims currently in existence is subject to alteration, modification, or destruction by Defendants. Thus, Defindant has the present ability to (thst nee evden of Psi peti cit, ey evening dete br tte harm for which injunctive relief is appropriate. 44, The harm suffered by Plaintiffs if a temporary restraining order is not issued will be irreparable because the basis of Plaintiffs’ potential claims depends in large part on the content of the audio and video recordings of the tragic shooting of Antronie Scott, and other evidence which ‘may have been acquired. These recordings are unique as they detail and depict the events leading up ‘to and the actual moment of the shooting of Antronic Scott. ‘These recordings cannot be obtained elsewhere as they cannot be reproduced or copied from any other source, Therefore, without ‘intervention by this Court, Plaintiffs may forever lose the only evidence capable of substantiating } «their potential clas, which in tum would prevent them fom ever covering forthe wronghal, 1 Fiedo2i2n6 ii i sbecite right to know all of the events surrounding the shooting of Antronie Scott and the actions which were taken by San Antonio Police Department Officer Lee. The San Antonio Police Department is here to protect and serve the community end residents of the City of San Antonio and the public has a right to observe the actions which were taken by the Officer through the video footage taken of the shooting, in its raw form. 46. The balance of equities unequivocally weighs in Plaintiffs favor when viewing the harm that ‘may befall upon both Plaintiffs and Defendants if said temporary restraining order is entered. There is no harm that would fall upon Defendants in the matter if the audio and video footage is preserved imits raw, unadulterated form. Defendants should keep and store all evidence collected during any investigation in its original form so that all parties have the opportunity to view and study said evidence. This should be the standard procedure and practice of any law enforcement agency. In contrast, Plaintiffs would be immensely harmed by the alteration, enhancing, modifying, repairing, damaging, destroying, selling, abandoning, or otherwise disposing of the audio and video footage of the shooting of Antronie Scott. The basis of Plaintiffs’ potential claims depends in large part on content of the audio and video recordings of the tragic shooting of Antronie Scott. These recordings are unique as they detail and depict the events leading up to and the actual moment of the shooting of Antronie Scott. These recordings cannot be obtained elsewhere as they cannot be reproduced or copied from any other source. On balance, the harm to the Defendants of complying with this injunction is clearly outweighed by the imeparable injury to Plaintiffs and the general public if _ the injunction is not granted, 448 A bond is not necessary in this instance as a district court issuing a preliminary injunction cota restraining order has the discretion to dispense with the secutity requirement of Re 65(0) if ‘a party lacks the financial resources to post a bond or when granting injunctive relief carries no tisk of monetary loss to the party enjoined or restrained. In the instant case, there is no risk of ‘monetary loss to the party enjoined or restrained. However, if the Court determines that a bond is required in this case, Plaintiffs will post bond in an amount to be determined by the Court. 49, Plaintiffs have given notice to the Defendants of this application and due to the urgent and ‘overwhelming need to preserve evidence of Plaintiffs’ claims request that the Court hold an ‘expedited hearing for the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order. As explained above, this need arises from the immediate and irreparable loss that will result if Defendants are not enjoined. prior to notice and bearing. 50, Plaintiffs request that upon hearing of the application for temporary restraining onder, the Court set @ hearing for a temporary injunction. As grounds for Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary injunction, Plintifts incorporate by references if recited verbatim herein all of the foregoing facts and arguments. x PRAYER atari pees eee a te rrATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS service by email to these addresses only