Post on 14-Apr-2018
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
1/28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
KEYARIKA DIGGLES
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-00361-RC
CITY OF JASPER, TEXAS, RICKY GRISSOM, INDIVIDUALLY, RYAN CUNNINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND LINSEY DAVENPORT, INDIVIDUALLY JAMES M. (MIKE) LOUT,
INDIVIDUALLY, GERALD HALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND DEFENDANT DOES 7 THROUGH 10
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 29
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
2/28
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................2
Nature of the Case .......................................................................................................................3
Parties ..............................................................................................................................................3
Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................................5
Venue ..............................................................................................................................................5
Factual Background ........................................................................................................................5
Hall and Lout ............................................................12
May 5, 2013 ......................................................................14
Count One Use of Excessive Force ...........................................................................................18
Count Two Race Discrimination ...............................................................................................19
Count Three Policy, Custom or Practice of Excessive Use of Force & Race Discrimination...19
Count Four Conspiracy .23
Relief Requested .........................................................................................................................27
Jury Demand. ...............................................................................................................................27
Prayer ...........................................................................................................................................27
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 30
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
3/28
3
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
COMES NOW, KEYARIKA DIGGLES, complaining of the City of Jasper (Jasper
Police Department), Ricky Grissom, individually, Ryan Cunningham, individually, Linsey
Davenport, individually, James M. (Mike) Lout, individually, Gerald Hall, individually, and
Does 7 through 10, and for cause of action would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court as
follows:
A. Nature of the Case
1. This is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 and the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, seeking damages against Defendants for
committing acts, under color of law, with the intent and for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of
rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
2. Plaintiff has previously filed a Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order and
Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Doc 1). This Court has entered its
Preservation Order (Doc 2) and Order Denying Application for Temporary Restraining Order
(Document 4).
B. Parties
3. Plaintiff, KEYARIKA DIGGLES (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff or Diggles), is,
and at all times mentioned was, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas.
Plaintiff is African-American.
4. Defendant, City of Jasper (hereinafter referred to as City or Department), is a
governmental entity located in east Texas, County of Jasper. The City of Jasper has made an
appearance herein and service of the Original Complaint may be made on its counsel of record,
Frank Calvert at Calvert, Eaves, Clarke & Stelly, LLP, 2615 Calder, Suite 1020, Beaumont,
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 31
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
4/28
4
Texas 77702.
5. Defendant, Ryan Cunningham (hereinafter referred to as Cunningham), was at all times
mentioned, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. At all times
relevant to this action, Cunningham was a duly appointed and acting Certified Peace Officer
employed by the Jasper Police Department of Jasper, Texas. As such, Cunningham was a duly
appointed agent authorized to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and was so acting under
color of the law of the State of Texas at all times relevant to this action. Defendant Cunningham
may be served with process at his address of 386 County Road 139 N, Jasper, Texas 75951.
6. Defendant, Ricky Grissom (hereinafter referred to as Grissom), was at all times
mentioned, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. At all times
relevant to this action, Grissom was a duly appointed and acting Certified Peace Officer
employed by the Jasper Police Department of Jasper, Texas. As such, Grissom was a duly
appointed agent authorized to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and was so acting under
color of the law of the State of Texas at all times relevant to this action. Defendant Grissom may
be served with process at 1180 CR 4560, Spurger, Texas 77660.
7. Defendant, Linsey Davenport (hereinafter referred to as Davenport), was at all times
mentioned, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. At all times
relevant to this action, Davenport was Jasper Police Department dispatcher employed by the
Jasper Police Department of Jasper, Texas. As an employee of the Jasper Police Department, she
was an appointed agent acting under color of the law of the State of Texas at all times relevant to
this action. Defendant Davenport may be served with process at 305 N. Zavala St., Jasper, Texas
75951.
8. Defendant, James M. Mike Lout (hereinafter referred to as Lout), is, and at all times
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 32
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
5/28
5
mentioned was, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. Defendant may
be served with process at his business address of 465 South Main Street, Jasper, Texas 75951.
9. Defendant, Gerald Hall (hereinafter referred to as Hall), is, and at all times mentioned
was, a resident of the City of Jasper, County of Jasper, State of Texas. At all times relevant to
this action, Defendant Gerald Hall was the head of the Jasper Police Department and was acting
under the color of State law at all times relevant to this action. Defendant Hall may be served
with process at the Jasper Police Department, 555 South Main Street, Jasper, Texas 75951.
10. Defendant Doe 7 through Defendant Doe 10, inclusive, are under fictitious names. Their
true names and capacities are not known, but each is believed to be a resident of Jasper County,
Texas, or alternatively, believed to be authorized to do business in the State of Texas.
C. Jurisdiction
11. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction of this
action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 1343, and 28 U.S.C. 1331.
D. Venue
12. Venue is proper in this district under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) (3) because the alleged
excessive use of force was committed in this district. Plaintiff was a resident of the City of
Jasper, Texas which is located in this district, and Defendants are located or reside in this
District.
E. Factual Background
13. Jasper is a home-rule municipality with a council-management government.
14. A lifelong resident of Jasper, Plaintiff is a young, African-American woman. She is a
single mother of two young children.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 33
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
6/28
6
15. On or about Sunday, May 5, 2013, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Plaintiff became the latest
victim of Jaspers long-standing and now escalating racial tension. She was asleep in her private
residence located in Jasper, Texas. During the early morning hours, Plaintiff was awoken
abruptly by loud banging on her front door the knocking soon came to a halt. Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff received a call from her grandmother, who lives nearby, letting her know that
Jasper police officers were attempting to make contact with her with regard to an arrest
warrant.
16. Plaintiff subsequently called the Jasper Police Department and spoke to a police
dispatcher who indicated that the Department did not possess an active warrant for her arrest.
17. After the phone call, two Caucasian, Jasper police officers, identified as Ryan
Cunningham and Ricky Grissom, both wearing the standard uniform of a Jasper Police
Department police officer, returned to Plaintiffs door. Again they knocked. Plaintiff answered
the door and made contact with Officers Cunningham and Grissom.
18. The officers informed Plaintiff that she was under arrest for an active warrant that was
issued as a result of an unpaid ticket or citation. Plaintiff actually had been paying monthly
installments on the ticket and had reduced the amount to approximately $100.00 at the time of
her arrest.1 She was further told that her arrest was part of a larger effort a warrant roundup.
An actual copy of the warrant was never displayed to Plaintiff and no copy has been produced to
Plaintiff at the time of this complaints filing.
19. Plaintiff was then formally placed under arrest and handcuffed using standard metal cuffs
with her hands pulled behind her back. The cuffs were tightly secured. She was directed to the
back of the Jasper Police Department patrol unit and hauled off under the color of an active
1 Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiffs counsel has been given an official reason or explanation as to why Plaintiff was
arrested that Sunday morning.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 34
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
7/28
7
municipal traffic warrant to the Jasper City Jail. She was the only inmate at the jail a sight
uncommon during a warrant roundup.
20. Upon arriving at the jail, Defendant Grissom offered Plaintiff a way out of custody. He
told Plaintiff that she would be released if she could pay the ticket amount in full plus a $50.00
service fee. Plaintiff was further instructed to use a telephone to find someone who could
supply her with the necessary funds to pay the ticket plus the service fee. She complied with
Defendant Grissoms request by calling her mother. While Plaintiff spoke to her mother as
ordered, Defendant Grissom grew angry as Plaintiff attempted to explain her situation to her
mother. His anger quickly escalated until he eventually terminated Plaintiffs phone conversation
in mid-sentence.
21. After ending the phone conversation, Defendant Grissom and Plaintiff exchanged words
words the public cannot hear because the audio either doesnt exist or has never been
produced by the City. Defendant Grissom then cornered Plaintiff against the wall of the police
station. He placed his body within inches of Plaintiff. At that point, Defendant Grissom is joined
by Defendant Cunningham, with Plaintiff still against the wall between these two physically
imposing officers.
22. Defendant Cunningham then assisted by Defendant Grissom grabbed Plaintiff by her hair
and deliberately and intentionally pulled Plaintiff across the office so that he could slam her head
violently and maliciously onto the countertop. (ILLUSTRATION A). Both Defendants
Cunningham and Grissom knew their actions were being recorded, but they were not afraid or
deterred in continuing their assault of Plaintiff because they knew they would be protected by
their supervisors and Defendant City of Jasper.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 35
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
8/28
8
(ILLUSTRATION A)
23. Even though Plaintiff had been injured and was stunned by the impact of her face and
head onto the countertop, Defendant Cunningham proceeded to body slam Plaintiff onto the
ground and brutally force the metal handcuffs onto Plaintiff yet again. Defendant Cunningham
then attempted to physically drag Plaintiff towards a jail cell by her leg as Defendant Grissom
watched. (ILLUSTRATION B)
(ILLUSTRATION B)
24. While dragging Plaintiff across the floor like an animal, Defendant Cunningham suffered
a quick bit of karma when he slipped and fell to the ground. He then angrily returned to
continue his attack on Plaintiff. (ILLUSTRATION C)
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 36
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
9/28
9
(ILLUSTRATION C)
25. After dragging Plaintiff across the floor, Defendant Cunningham with the help of
Defendant Grissom attempted to force Plaintiff to her feet. During this time, Plaintiff was still
secured in tight, metal handcuffs that had already started to pierce her skin. In attempting to lift
Plaintiff to her feet, the two officers aggressively lifted her by her hands a practice that officers
are specifically taught not to employ due to the serious, painful effects on an arrestees
shoulders. All during the sequence of events, Plaintiff pleaded with the officers to stop and
called for help to the dispatcher, all of which was ignored.
26. After manhandling Plaintiff in an effort to inflict more pain by attempting to jerk her to
her feet, the two officers worked together to drag Plaintiff into an empty cell. Even though
Plaintiff was injured, the officers warned Plaintiff that she would be placed in the restraint
chair if she continued to cause a problem though her hands were still tightly bound by
handcuffs.
27. After being dragged by her feet, into a darkened, isolated cell, Plaintiff was kept there for
hours without any type of medical attention for the injuries that she sustained at the hands of the
two officers. With her hands tightly bound behind her, Plaintiff spent the duration of her time in
the isolated cell with an injured scalp where her hair was ripped from her head, a brace lodged
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 37
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
10/28
10
into her upper lip, a tooth dangling by its root and handcuffs ripping into her wrists.
(ILLUSTRATION D)
28. During the last portion of the brutal attack of Plaintiff, it appeared as though Defendant
Davenport, hearing Plaintiffs pleas for help, would come to her aid and stop the abuse being
inflicted upon Plaintiff. Defendant Davenport did nothing to intervene or render Plaintiff aid, but
instead assisted Defendants Grissom and Cunningham by opening the cell door so that they
could continue the brutalization of Plaintiff. (ILLUSTRATION D). As a police dispatcher,
Defendant Davenport knew that the senseless attack was recorded on the video recording system
and was able to view the attack in the dispatch office. Realizing that Plaintiff had been
brutalized and injured in the assault against her, Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport
and the other Defendants falsely charged Plaintiff with the Class A Misdemeanor charge of
resisting arrest and sent the charge to the District Attorneys Office. Later, the charge was
rejected by the Jasper County Criminal District Attorney due to a lack of probable cause. The
false charging of Plaintiff with the Class A Misdemeanor of resisting arrest was an attempt by
Defendants to coerce and intimidate Plaintiff and to cover up their criminal actions.
29. Based upon information and belief, the policy and procedures of the Jasper Police
Department require and mandate that police officers involved in a use of force situation file
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 38
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
11/28
11
within twenty-four hours a use of force report with the department and the chief of
police or person acting within the scope of responsibilities. The supervisor or superiors of the
officers involved in a use of force situation must acknowledge the use of force report. Likewise,
the chief of police or person acting within the scope of that authority is informed of the use of
force. Evidence (i.e.) video, audio, photographs, statements, etc., must be collected and
maintained by the City of Jasper.
30. Based upon information and belief, the direct supervisor for Defendants Grissom and
Cunningham on May 5, 2013 was Officer Gary Pullen, an officer once fired in part for multiple
wrongful uses of force. As reported by the Beaumont Enterprise on August 19, 2011, during an
incident with Sergeant Pullen, a flashlight was used like a prying tool to attempt to open the
subject's mouth which resulted in injury. The victim was African-American. Also, the
Department found that Sergeant Pullen used excessive force in pepper spraying a person who
was lying face down with his hands cuffed behind him due to verbal provocation. The
victim was African-American. Several prior disciplinary incidents have occurred with Officer
Pullen; one resulted in a one day suspension without pay and another with a three day suspension
without pay. As a result of his history of excessive use of force, Officer Pullens employment
was terminated from the Jasper Police Department. The City of Jasper was forced to pay money
to the victims of Officer Pullens actions of excessive force.
31. After the termination of Police Chief Rodney Pearson2, Defendant City of Jasper and
Defendant Mayor Lout rehired Gary Pullen and placed him in a supervisory role. Upon
information and belief, Officer Pullen was paid nearly $70,000.00 upon his return to the Jasper
Police Department. Defendant City of Jasper and Defendant Mayor Lout also settled an alleged
discrimination case of Gary Pullen which he had filed against the City of Jasper. Upon
2 The City of Jaspers first African-American Chief of Police.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 39
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
12/28
12
information and belief, Officer Pullen became the direct supervisor and role model of
Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport and other police officers which reinforced the
policy and practice of violence generally and specifically toward the Black and minority
communities.
HALL AND LOUT
32. In February 2011, it was announced that Jaspers then Chief of Police, Todd Hunter, was
moving to Kilgore, Texas.
33. On Friday, February 11, 2011, Defendant Lout, City Manager Tommy Boykin and then-
Police Captain Defendant Hall held a secret and unauthorized meeting in the office of Mr.
Boykin (all three men are white). Defendant Lout asked, Gerald, do you still want the Police
Chief job? Captain Hall stated, yes, I do. Defendant Lout said, do you want the interim
job? Captain Hall stated, Yes sir, I do. Defendant Lout then said, we are going to appoint
you Monday night. City Manager Boykin testified under oath in federal court to the meeting
and conversation of the three men.
34. The duly elected members of the City Council, Terrya Norsworthy (At-large District),
Willie Land (District 4), Tommy Adams (District 3), and Joe Clyde Adams (District 1) were not
aware of the February 11, 2011 meeting between Defendant Lout, Boykin and Defendant Hall.
All four of these Council Members are black.3
35. Defendant Lout knew that Rodney Pearson, who is black, was being considered for
appointment as Interim Police Chief. Defendant Lout did not have authority under the Jasper
City Charter and/or the law of the State of Texas to appoint Defendant Hall as Interim Police
Chief. Defendant Louts statement that, were going to appoint you Monday night was a
violation of the Jasper City Charter and the law of the State of Texas. The City Charter of Jasper
3 This was the first time in the history of Jasper when four of the five Council persons were African American.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 40
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
13/28
13
reserves the right to hire the Chief of Police to the City Council.
36. On Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 8:17 p.m. outgoing Chief Todd Hunter (who is white)
sent an email to Penny Sullivan with a cc to Defendant Hall, wherein he stated, I am sending a
copy of this email to the Captain who will be named Interim next week.
37. Shortly after the selection of Rodney Pearson as the Interim Police Chief, Former Chief
Hunter stated on Facebook that he recommended Defendant Hall to Defendant Lout and the
Mayor told Gerald he was going to be the Interim. Didnt think I needed to campaign
since it was a done deal. I left Gerald all the stuff because he was ready. Defendant Hall
admitted in an interview that he cancelled a class to attend the February 14 City Council meeting
because he was told by Defendant Mayor Lout he was going to be appointed Interim Police
Chief at the meeting. Defendant Hall and his wife Judy were in attendance at the meeting when
Rodney Pearson was appointed Interim Police Chief.
38. On February 14, 2011, the City Council voted unanimously to appoint Rodney Pearson as
the Interim Chief of Police for the City of Jasper, Texas. The vote was 5-0 including
Councilman Sayers who is white. Rodney Pearson became the first black Chief of Police in the
history of Jasper. Thereafter, Defendant Lout along with others and through the use of KJAS
Radio Station spearheaded a recall of the black City Council who voted for the employment of
Rodney Pearson.4 It was Defendant Louts desire to have a white Police Chief and in particular,
Defendant Hall.
39. Rodney Pearsons employment as Chief of Police was terminated on June 11, 2012, by
the newly elected white-majority City Council. It was leaked by Defendant City of Jasper to the
press in advance of this meeting that Rodney Pearson would be fired.
40. After the executive session, the City Council returned and voted to table any decision on
4 This was the first recall in the history of Jasper, Texas.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 41
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
14/28
14
the City Manager. Councilwoman Hazel Johnson (white) then made a motion to terminate
Rodney Pearson. The motion was seconded by Councilman McMillian, also white. The Motion
passed 4-1, with all white members of the City Council voting to terminate Rodney Pearson.
When asked if any of the Council Members had any comments after the motion and before the
vote, Councilman Alton Scott, the only black member of the City Council said, this is
racism at its finest. Rodney Pearson has never been given an explanation from the City
Council or anyone from Defendant City of Jasper either verbally or in writing as to why he was
fired.
41. At approximately 9:30 p.m. and after the long and humiliating City Council meeting,
Rodney Pearson was directed to go to the Jasper Police Department to turn in his badge, car keys
and clean out his office. When Rodney Pearson arrived with his son, he was told that he would
have to be monitored to ensure that nothing went missing. Defendant Lout, City Attorney
Ratcliff, Councilman Hopson and Lieutenant Poindexter watched over Rodney Pearson as he
and his son cleaned out the office. As Rodney Pearson cleaned out his office Defendant Hall5
and Garrett Foster6 sat in another room laughing.
MAY 5, 2013
42. By May 5, 2013, Defendant Hall had become the Chief Executive Officer for the
Jasper Police Department with the Texas Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
following a vote by the City Council and at the request and demand of Defendant Lout. At the
time of brutalization of Plaintiff, Defendant Hall was the senior-most officer at the Department.
Under the Departments use of force policy, he should have received a use of force report
5 Defendant Hall had a pending EEOC claim against the City for the failure of the black majority city council to
select him as Police Chief. He subsequently filed suit against the City.6 Mr. Foster was no longer employed by the Jasper Police Department at the time and in fact had a pending suit
against the City of Jasper. Mr. Foster is the son of Defendant Debbie Foster, the Mayors longtime girlfriend, and is
an employee of KJAS radio.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 42
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
15/28
15
within 24 hours of the savage beating committed against Plaintiff and should have reviewed the
video. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hall either received the use of force
information and video but made a conscious decision to withhold it from the public or he was
directed by someone within Defendant City of Jasper to withhold the information. Regardless,
Defendant Hall intentionally and deliberately participated in the effort to cover up evidence of
this act of brutality from the public. He has actively engaged in a conspiracy to suppress
evidence showing City of Jasper officials knew of the savage beating, when they knew and what
actions they took to deliberately suppress such evidence. Shamefully, Defendant Hall, as the
CEO of the Jasper Police Department, approved the filing of false charges of resisting arrest
against Plaintiff.
43. Subsequent to the savage beating of Plaintiff by Defendants Grissom and Cunningham,
the attack was made public nearly a month later by ABC News affiliate Channel 12 in
Beaumont, Texas, when the video was aired on Thursday, May 30, 2013. ABC News affiliate
Channel 12 received the video from Jasper City Council Member Alton Scott, the lone African-
American council member on the Jasper City Council. Upon information and belief,
Councilman Scott believed Defendant City of Jasper ignored Plaintiffs written complaint
submitted against the officers. In a statement to Yahoo News, Councilman Scott stated, theres
nothing she said that could have justified what they did. They are supposed to be trained
professionals. They are supposed to be above that. It was inexcusable. In an act of courage,
Councilman Scott provided the video to ABC News affiliate Channel 12 to shed light on the
cover up by Defendant City of Jasper and the other Defendants known or unknown.
44. Plaintiff asserts that during the time between May 5, 2013 and May 30, 2013, Defendants
engaged in an intentional and deliberate effort to cover up the attack from the public. During this
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 43
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
16/28
16
time period, Defendants never produced the video to the general public. There was essentially a
media blackout regarding the attack in Jasper, Texas until the airing of the video on ABC News
affiliate Channel 12 in Beaumont, Texas. This media blackout included the KJAS Radio Station
owned by Defendant Lout which routinely covers every event and incident involving the Jasper
Police Department.
45. The timing of the black-out of this horrible event coincided with the impending Jasper
City Elections. The elections were held on May 11, 2013, just six days following the police
brutality committed against Plaintiff. The Jasper City Mayor, Defendant Mike Lout, had a
contested mayoral election and owned the radio station KJAS in Jasper, Texas. Plaintiff asserts
that based upon information and belief, Defendant Lout was made aware of the attack prior to
the mayoral election. Due to his normal routine as acting both as a self-proclaimed newsman
and a mayor, Defendant Lout was a constant figure at the Jasper Police Department. He
reserved for himself the power of making personnel decisions and was deeply rooted in the daily
operations of the Department. However, with the impending election, the brutal video would
reflect badly upon him and Defendant City of Jasper. Defendant Lout and the white City
Council did not want or desire the public to know about this beating of an unarmed black female
in custody at the Jasper Police Station that he and the white City Council ran and controlled.
This was especially so in that Defendant Lout had and has day-to-day input and control of the
Jasper Police Department by and through Defendant Hall, Officer Pullen, Officer Garret Foster
and others.
46. As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Defendant Hall remains employed with the
Jasper Police Department and was not disciplined nor placed upon leave. Defendant Hall has not
been held accountable for his part in the intentional cover up of the brutalization of Plaintiff, the
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 44
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
17/28
17
false charges filed against her, or the obvious culture of violence within the Jasper Police
Department as exemplified by Officer Pullen and Defendants Cunningham, Grissom and
Davenport. It is clear that but for the public airing of this beating, Defendants Hall and Lout had
no intention of disciplining the officers.
47. Defendants Cunningham and Grissom were terminated on June 2, 2013, following a
unanimous vote to terminate both officers by the Jasper City Council due to those officers roles
in the savage beating of Plaintiff. The Citys action occurred only after, and as a result, of the
airing of the video by ABC News affiliate Channel 12 in Beaumont, Texas, and the outcry by the
public. Defendants Cunningham and Grissom were placed on administrative leave only after
Defendant Lout and the white City Council were confronted with the video and informed by the
ABC News affiliate Channel 12 that it would air the video.
48. A simple and even cursory review of the video reveals the savagery of the beating of
Plaintiff. The video existed as the event was being recorded. Policy and procedures of proper
law enforcement agencies mandate an immediate review of use of force by the superiors of
Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport, especially in light of the charges brought
against Plaintiff. And yet, it took the disclosure of the video by the ABC News affiliate Channel
12 to force Defendant City of Jasper into accountability. One review of the video
immediately reveals the illegal actions of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport. It
should not take 3 weeks to conduct an investigation into the incident involving Plaintiff.
49. Defendant Davenport was not fired along with Defendants Cunningham and Grissom for
failing to intervene in the crimes committed against Plaintiff or for failing to report the
commission of the crimes, but instead was fired only after she assaulted her boyfriend Defendant
Cunningham, was arrested and taken to the Jasper County Jail where she had to be restrained
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 45
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
18/28
18
because of her violent behavior.
COUNT ONE
USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-50 as if more fully set forth herein.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the above-referenced unlawful and malicious abuse
and brutalization of Plaintiff by Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport, committed
under color of law and under their authority as Defendant City of Jasper police officers, Plaintiff
suffered serious bodily harm and was deprived of her right to be secure in her person against
unreasonable violence and seizure of her person, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
52. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport violated Plaintiffs clearly established
rights while either knowing or disregarding that their actions created an excessive risk to
Plaintiffs health and safety.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, malicious and outrageous conduct of
Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered physical
damage and injury to her body, mental anguish and fear for her well-being and safety.
Additionally, Plaintiff suffered special damages in the form of medical expenses and costs for
her defense and bond from the wrongful charges of resisting arrest, and attorney fees and
expenses and other damages. She will suffer additional damages in the future.
54. The acts of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above were
intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive
damages against them in their individual capacities and all other damages as set forth below.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 46
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
19/28
19
COUNT TWO
RACE DISCRIMINATION
55. By reference, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation and averment set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
56. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Grissom and Cunningham arrested her, employed
unreasonable force against her in making the arrest and initiated criminal proceedings against her
on the basis of her race. Defendant Davenport failed to come to the aid of Plaintiff, because of
her race.
57. Plaintiff further asserts that those actions by Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and
Davenport violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
58. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, malicious and discriminatory conduct
of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered
physical damage and injury to her body, mental anguish and fear for her well-being and safety.
Additionally, Plaintiff suffered special damages in the form of medical expenses and costs for
her defense and bond from the wrongful charges of resisting arrest, and attorney fees and
expenses and other damages. She will suffer additional damages in the future.
59. The acts of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport as set forth above were
intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive
damages against them in their individual capacities and all other damages as set forth below.
COUNT THREE
POLICY, CUSTOM OR PRACTICE OF EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE AND RACE
DISCRIMINATION
60. For cause of action against Defendant, City of Jasper, the Plaintiff states:
61. By reference, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation and averment set forth in
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 47
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
20/28
20
Paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
62. Prior to this incident, Defendant City of Jasper by and through the white City Council
members and Defendant Mayor Lout knew of previous incidents involving Defendants Grissom
and Cunningham and other incidents of excessive force by officers such as Officer Pullen.
Defendant City of Jasper took no action to discipline the officers involved or order them to not
repeat such conduct, thus tacitly authorizing such conduct.
63. In fact, Defendant City of Jasper, through its white City Council and Defendant Lout,
approved of and condoned the culture of fear, violence and oppression exhibited by Defendants
Cunningham, Grissom and Davenport through the rehiring of Officer Pullen and Officer Garret
Foster as well as the selection of Defendant Hall as the CEO or Chief of the Jasper Police
Department. If Defendant City of Jasper had taken remedial action or had not created,
maintained and condoned the culture of violence and unlawfulness within the Jasper Police
Department, the brutalization of Plaintiff would not have occurred.
64. The City Council of Jasper is vested by state law with authority to make policy for the
City of Jasper on the use of force. The City Council members were aware of a pattern of
excessive force by police officers employed by the Jasper Police Department. They were aware
that Defendant City of Jaspers policies regarding the discipline of officers accused of excessive
force were so inadequate that it was obvious a failure to correct them would result in further
incidents of excessive force, and the failure to correct these policies caused the excessive force to
be used upon Plaintiff as set forth above.
65. In fact, the rehiring of Officer Pullen with the settlement of his alleged wrongful
termination suit sent a message to officers inside the Jasper Police Department as well as
individuals in the community, especially the black and minority communities, that not only
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 48
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
21/28
21
would Jasper police officers be protected from claims of excessive force, but as in Officer
Pullens case they would be rewarded with money and a supervisory position at a high salary.
66. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy, practice or custom, Defendants
Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10, and the City of Jasper intentionally, knowingly
and recklessly failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline, on a continuing basis,
Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport, and the officers of the Jasper Police
Department, in their duties to refrain from unlawfully and maliciously assaulting and beating
citizens and otherwise using unreasonable and excessive force before, during or after making an
arrest.
67. Acting under color of law and pursuant to the official policy, practice or custom,
Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper intentionally,
knowingly and recklessly failed to instruct, train and supervise Defendants Grissom,
Cunningham and Davenport, and the officers of the Jasper Police Department on a continuing
basis in the correct procedure for making an arrest, for securing a prisoner who has been subdued
and handcuffed, filing of false charges, using and serving an arrest warrant, reporting a use of
force, review and investigation of a complaint of excessive force, reporting of the use of
excessive force and/or assault and/or brutalization of a citizen by a fellow officer and official, the
proper procedure to stop and/or prevent the illegal assault and/or brutalization of a citizen by a
fellow officer and/or official, and for the improper use of equipment or procedures to house or
hold a citizen in custody who has been injured.
68. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper had
knowledge, or had they diligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control and
discipline on a continuing basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs which were done,
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 49
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
22/28
22
as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall,
Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper had power to prevent or aid in preventing the
commission of said wrongs, could have done so be reasonable diligence, and intentionally,
knowingly and recklessly failed or refused to do so.
69. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper
directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious,
reckless and wanton conduct of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport heretofore
described.
70. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, and the
City of Jasper have instituted a policy, practice or custom of treating black citizens differently
with respect to arrest and detainment, and that the Defendants treatment of Plaintiff was
motivated by her race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment
requires the Defendants to provide equal protection under the law to all citizens regardless of
their race.
71. Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually and Does 7-10 were aware of Plaintiffs
constitutionally protected rights to be free from State induced bodily harm and race
discrimination. Moreover, Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, and Does 7-10,
knew or were deliberately indifferent to those rights.
72. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, malicious and outrageous conduct of
Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and City of Jasper as set forth
above, Plaintiff suffered physical damage and injury to her body, and mental anguish and fear for
her well-being and safety. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered special damages in the form of
medical expenses, costs for her defense and bond from the wrongful charges of resisting arrest,
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 50
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
23/28
23
attorney fees and expenses, and other damages. She will suffer additional damages in the future.
73. The acts of Defendants Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, Does 7-10 and the City of
Jasper as set forth above were wanton, malicious and oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff to an
award of punitive damages.
COUNT FOUR
CONSPIRACY
74. For cause of action against Defendants City of Jasper, Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport,
Lout, Hall and Does 7-10, the Plaintiff states:
75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the factual allegations previously made herein.
76. Plaintiff asserts Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout, Hall and Does 7-10
are government officials and/or Jasper police officers and under the color of law violated
Plaintiffs constitutional and civil rights. Plaintiff asserts that in their actions Defendants
Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout and Hall, in their individual capacities, knowingly
violated the law with respect to their treatment of Plaintiff.
77. At the time of the incidents made the basis of this suit, Plaintiff had a clearly defined
constitutional right and protection under the law to be free from the brutalization and intentional
mistreatment she received at the hands of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport who
were acting under color of law. Plaintiff had the constitutional right to equal protection under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to be free from
wrongful seizure and beating, from targeting her on the basis of her race, and the same right to
protection under the Constitution from having the Police Chief/CEO, Defendant Mayor Lout and
other Defendants conspire and conceal Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenports
unlawful actions by the filing of false claims against Plaintiff in criminal court, in violation of
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 51
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
24/28
24
said Defendants duties under the law and their oaths of office.
78. Instead of protecting Plaintiff, Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout, Hall,
Does 7-10 and the City of Jasper agreed to, planned and undertook certain actions as set forth
above and below to cover up, conceal, justify and ratify the actions of Defendants Cunningham,
Grissom and Davenport. Only after exposed by the media, did Defendants Hall, Lout and the
City of Jasper take any steps to discipline the officers.
79. Plaintiff asserts that each conspirator is jointly and severally liable for acts done by any
of them in furtherance of the unlawful actions. The liability extends to and includes those who
planned, assisted and/or encouraged the unlawful actions to deprive Plaintiff of her statutory and
constitutional rights.
80. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham, Davenport, Lout, Hall, Does 7-10 and the City of
Jasper are liable for any act committed by a conspiracy even if the entity and/or person was not a
part of the conspiracy at the time of the act.
81. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants the City of Jasper, Grissom, Individually, Cunningham,
Individually, Davenport, Individually, Lout, Individually, Hall, Individually, and Does 7-10
conspired for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and other statutes, and
depriving Plaintiff of equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under
law. A 1985 conspiracy claim may arise when a private actor conspires with state actors to
deprive a person of their constitutional rights under color of state law.
82. The acts committed by the conspirators in furtherance of their conspiracy include, but are
not limited to, the following:
83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all factual allegations previously made herein.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 52
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
25/28
25
84. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport unlawfully and maliciously brutalized
Plaintiff at the Jasper Police Station on May 5, 2013, and deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional
right to be secure in her person against unreasonable and excessive violence and seizure of her
person in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, et seq.
85. Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenports unlawful and malicious use of
excessive force and the denial of aid was motivated by Plaintiffs race.
86. A false charge of resisting arrest was lodged against Plaintiff with the Jasper County
District Attorney. The false charge of resisting arrest was never rescinded by Defendants, and
was only dismissed at the insistence of Plaintiffs attorneys and the review by the Jasper County
District Attorney.
87. The incident in question was recorded on video and that video was possessed by
Defendant City of Jasper beginning on May 5, 2013. A simple and even cursory review of the
video reflects the brutalization of Plaintiff at the hands of Defendants Jasper Police Officers
Cunningham, Grissom and Davenport. Defendants suppressed the video and other evidence of
the illegal acts of Defendants Grissom, Cunningham and Davenport.
88. The incident involving Plaintiff happened in the Jasper Police Station while she was in
the custody of Defendant City of Jasper. The Rules and procedures require the filing of a use of
force report by any officer using force to apprehend a person, which report must be reviewed by
the officers supervisors and police chief or CEO. Any criminal charge lodged against a
person especially a person who allegedly commits that crime within the confines of the Police
Station while in custody of the Jasper Police Department must be reviewed and approved by the
supervisors of the officers, the watch supervisor, and finally the police chief or CEO.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 53
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
26/28
26
89. Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Jasper Police Department which was lost,
misplaced and never investigated.
90. Defendant City of Jasper refused to acknowledge that Plaintiff had been brutalized until
the ABC News affiliate Channel 12 in Beaumont, Texas informed Defendant City of Jasper they
had the video and asked for a comment.
91. Police Officers are sworn to protect and serve the public, and to stop and prevent the
commission of a crime. The brutalization of Plaintiff by Defendants Cunningham and Grissom
is and was a crime committed against Plaintiff. Defendant Davenport failed to report the crime
or come to the assistance of Plaintiff, even as she witnessed Defendants Cunningham and
Grissom beating Plaintiff. Every supervisor or person who viewed the video has the duty under
the laws of the State of Texas and the code of conduct of the Jasper Police Department to report
the commission of the crime.
92. Defendant Davenport was not fired along with Defendants Cunningham and Grissom, but
was fired only after she assaulted her boyfriend, Defendant Cunningham, was arrested and taken
to the Jasper County Jail where she had to be restrained because of her violent behavior.
Defendant Hall is reported by KJAS as defending Defendant Davenport in that regarding her
involvement in the Keyarika Diggles incident, Hall said Davenport did not violate any
department policies, and after Diggles calmed down, Davenport searched her and helped her to
change into inmate clothing. Hall said that is standard procedure for female officers or female
dispatchers to assist in that way with female arrestees. (JASPER by Steve W. Stewart/KJAS
and Rayburn Broadcasting Company, Wednesday, June 5, 2013, 01:58 pm CDT). Apparently it
is department policy for officers to stand by and watch while other officers beat detainees.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 54
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
27/28
27
RELIEF REQUESTED
93. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff suffered the following
injuries and damages:
A. Actual damages including physical injury past and future, mental anguish past and
future, medical expenses past and future, and costs.
B. Exemplary and punitive damages against all the Defendants, who are sued in their
individual capacity.
C. Attorneys fees and expenses.
D. Costs of Court;
E. Such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
JURY DEMAND
95. Plaintiff respectfully demands trial by jury and has tendered the appropriate fee for same.
PRAYER
96. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Defendants be cited to appear and answer
herein, and that upon final trial hereof, the Court award the relief requested against Defendants
jointly and severally.
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 55
7/30/2019 Diggles Lawsuit
28/28
28
Respectfully submitted,
THE BERNSEN LAW FIRM
David E. BernsenTexas Bar No. 02217500Christine L. StetsonTexas Bar No. 00785047Cade BernsenState Bar No. 24073918420 N. MLK, Jr. Pkwy
Beaumont, Texas 77701Telephone: (409) 212-9994Facsimile: (409) 212-9411
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,KEYARIKA DIGGLES
Case 1:13-cv-00361-RC Document 5 Filed 08/29/13 Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 56