david blair v dallas

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID BLAIR §

§

Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1515

§

§

v. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, §

RICHARD CANTU AND JESSE §

AQUINO, §

§

Defendants. §


COME NOW, David Blair, complaining of Defendants, The CITY OF DALLAS, Texas,

more particularly The CITY OF DALLAS Police Department, by and through its agents and

servants acting in their official capacity, Officer Richard Cantu, individually and in his official

capacities as a Dallas police officer and Officer Jesse Aquino, individually and in his official

capacities as a Dallas police officer, and for cause would show the Honorable Court as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against The CITY OF DALLAS for

Dallas Police Officers Richard Cantu and Jesse Aquino's use of excessive force, assault,

unlawful arrest and detention resulting in the injuries sustained by David Blair (“Blair”) under

the color of law in violation of his individual rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution and in violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

2. Plaintiff alleges that the City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), who is

responsible for the daily operations of The CITY OF DALLAS and Chief of Police, David O.

Case 3:14-cv-01515-P Document 1 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 1


Brown ("Brown"), delegated with the authority for setting policies, including training of the

Dallas Police Officers, had a duty, but failed to implement and/or enforce policies, practices and

procedures for the Dallas Police Department (“DPD”) that respected David Blair's constitutional

rights to protection and equal treatment under the law. This duty was delegated to Chief Brown

by the Dallas City Council and City Manager Gonzalez. Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS,

City Manager Gonzalez, Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown’s failure to implement the necessary

policies and the implementation of unconstitutional policies deprived David Blair of equal

protection and due process under the fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and caused his

unwarranted and excruciating physical and mental anguish. For these civil rights violations and

other causes of action discussed herein, Plaintiff seeks answers and compensation for his

damages.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, David Blair is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Dallas

County, Texas.

4. Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS is a municipality located in Dallas County,

Texas. The CITY OF DALLAS operates the DPD. The CITY OF DALLAS funds and operates

the DPD, which, along with City Manager Gonzalez, Chief Brown and Mayor Rawlings are

responsible for the implementation of the police department’s budget, policies, procedures,

practices, and customs, as well as the acts and omissions, challenged by this suit. The CITY OF

DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT is also responsible for preventive, investigative, and

enforcement services for all citizens of The CITY OF DALLAS. The CITY OF DALLAS may

be served with citation herein by and through its agent for service of process, Warren Ernst, City

Attorney, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Additional service is



being made on Mayor Mike Rawlings, 1500 Marilla Street, Room 5EN, Dallas, Texas 75201.

5. Defendant Richard Cantu (“Cantu”), upon information and belief, is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course

and scope of his employment for The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant Cantu may be

served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas 75215 or

wherever he may be found.

6. Defendant Jesse Aquino (“Aquino”), upon information and belief, is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course

and scope of his employment for The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant Aquino may be

served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas 75215 or

wherever he may be found.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Jurisdiction exists in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as this

action is brought under, inter alia, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities

guaranteed to David Blair by constitutional and statutory provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the

supplemental jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims

arising under the laws of the State of Texas.

8. Venue is proper in this court under because the causes of action occurred within

the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.



STATE ACTION

9. To the extent applicable, Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting under the

color of state law when they subjected David Blair to the wrongs and injuries hereinafter set

forth.

FACTS

10. On or about October 2, 2013, David Blair, upon information and belief, was

confronted by Defendants Dallas Police Officers Cantu and Aquino for no lawful reason. Blair

was outside talking on the phone when the police vehicle stopped and the two Dallas Police

Officers began to stare at Blair for no lawful reason. The Defendant Officers shined a light in

Blair’s face which prevented him from knowing what was happening in front of him. The

Defendant Officers had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that Blair was or

had committed a crime.

11. Blinded by the shining light, Blair asked the officers to stop shining the light in

his face. At that point, the Defendant Officers pulled off but stopped once again and asked

Blair to repeat what he said. Blair repeated what he said and at that point the officer driving the

vehicle backed up the vehicle and it appeared they were looking to start trouble.

12. Fearing for his life, Blair decided to walk back towards his apartment because he

felt the officers were going to harm him. Blair went inside of his apartment until he thought the

officers were gone. Blair's three year son and his mother, Cynthia Oliver ("Oliver") were in the

house. Blair told Oliver about his encounter with Defendants Cantu and Aquino and told her he

was going outside to make sure everything was okay. As Blair walked outside of his apartment

the officers pulled out their service revolvers and fired over 14 shots at Blair for no lawful

reason.



13. Blair could hear the bullets striking his apartment, barely missing him, before he

was able to get back inside of his apartment for safe covers. Not only was Blair fearful for his

life but for his three year old son and Oliver who were a short distance away from where the

bullets struck the apartment.

14. Blair feared that he, his son and Oliver were going to be killed. The officers

continued to shoot so Blair grabbed his son and Oliver and was able to make it to a bedroom

where he was able to contact 911 for help. Shortly thereafter an officer contacted Blair on his

phone and asked him to have everyone inside come out of the house. When they walked

outside one officer grabbed Oliver and another grabbed Blair where he was thrown to the

ground and handcuffed him and placed him under arrest for no lawful reason. The officers took

possession of Blair's cell phone and has yet to return it. Blair was placed in a police car and

driven to the front of his apartment complex until a detective asked to speak to him. Blair was

then taken to the front of the Morrell Train Station where he was interrogated.

15. Blair explained what happened and was asked did he own a gun. Blair replied

that he did and at that point the officers stated they were going to search Blair’s apartment.

Blair’s apartment was searched. Blair did not know why he was being asked about his

ownership of guns because he did not have any of his guns in his possession when the officers

attempted to kill him.

16. At no time did the Defendant Officers tell Blair why he was being harassed. After

the officers searched Blair’s apartment he was told by an unidentified Dallas Police officer that

they were taking him to the Lamar Station headquarters for further questioning. One of the

officers, an older male, entered the police car Blair was in from the driver’s side back seat and

reached across Blair to buckle the seat belt around him. The officer told the other officers he



had things handled. It was this point that the officer pretended he was securing the seatbelt

around Blair and instead and without warning punched Blair in the jaw. He then told Blair to

“shut the fuck up” as he buckled up the seatbelt around Blair.

17. While enroute to the police station, the officers verbally abused Blair and called

him a “bitch” and a “pussy.” The officer driving the car saw what was happening so he began

driving extremely fast to prevent the officer from assaulting Blair while he was in handcuffs.

18. Once they arrived to the police station, one of the officers pulled Blair out of the

car and shoved him in the back as they walked towards the building. They were met by a third

officer who escorted Blair to the elevator where all three officers and Blair entered It was at

this point that one of the arresting officers told the officer who met them at that station that Blair

likes to shoot at police officers. The officer responded back by saying if he was there he would

have killed Blair. The officers were harassing Blair and acted if they were going to harm Blair,

which further caused him to fear for his life. For the first time, Blair realized that he was been

falsely accused of firing a handgun at the officers. Blair did not have a handgun in his

possession when the officers fired multiple gunshots at him. After hours of questioning, Blair

was finally released the next day and was not charged with any crimes, specifically firing shots

at the officers as alleged.

19. As a result of the Defendant Officers’ unlawful attack on Blair, he feared for his

life.

20. The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew of

Defendants Cantu and Aquino’s behavior and lack of training but did nothing to protect Blair

and others from the harm he suffered.



21. Defendant, The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD has a longstanding record of not

providing DPD officers with adequate training and not preventing excessive force by Dallas

Police officers. The actual practice or custom of the DPD regarding the use of deadly force was

to shoot first and ask questions later. Dallas City Councilman Dwaine Caraway recently

confirmed to newsmakers that the city council and The CITY OF DALLAS had in fact delegated

policy-making authority to Chief Brown, giving him the responsibility for setting training

policies and that there was training issues which resulted in the killing of an unarmed individual.

22. In fact, City Councilman Caraway acknowledged that there is an issue with

police training. Chief Brown has admitted that “there is a need for a foot pursuit policy and

additional police training. As a result of the lack of training and the official custom or policies of

the DPD, the following incidents have taken place in The CITY OF DALLAS under the

direction of City Manager Gonzalez, Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown:

• Dallas is at the top of the list of police misconduct stats in the South, along with

Houston, San Antonio and Irving

• Dallas ranked #11 in the highest police misconduct rates, ranking higher than all of

Orange County, California.

• Dallas ranked second nationally in police misconduct incidents, behind #1 New

Orleans.

• Since 2001, over 60 unarmed black men have been killed by Dallas Police Department

23. In 2013 alone, there have been at least 12 Dallas Police shootings of unarmed

individuals. On December 10, 2013, 19-year-old Kelvion Walker was still in the vehicle with his

hands up when a Dallas police officer shot him. There exist, a persistent, widespread practice of

police shootings that results from the training or lack thereof, received by DPD officers. Upon



information and belief, DPD officers are trained by individuals with little or no experience

working in the field.

24. Recommendations for revisions in the DPD's policies and procedures regarding

the use of deadly force were made by Geoffrey P. Alpert in 1987. It was stated in the report that

to reduce the police use of deadly force in Dallas, and at the same time to protect the safety of

the citizens and officers, a new philosophy and a new approach would be required. In order for

Dallas to enter the 1990's with a set of police policies, procedures and customs commensurate

with its high set of municipal values, a conscious decision must be made to overhaul a system

creaking with age and tradition, and made obsolete by the challenges of a new generation of

citizens.

25. The Dallas City Council, which authorized this study, outlined the five major

areas to be examined. The areas include:

a) The Police Officer Applicant Selection Process;

b) Teaching Methods and Materials on the Use of Deadly Force;

c) "Shoot-Don't-Shoot" Training;

d) Weapons' Training; and

e) Policies Relating to the Use of Deadly Force.

26. It was recommended that a formal procedure such as an Early Warning System be

developed and implemented to identify officers who are prone to emotional instability or

behavior problems. It was clear that The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief

Brown knew of the Defendant Officers’ emotional instability, but did nothing to correct the

problem as recommended. It was recommended that all officers be required to participate in at

least 40 hours of in-service training each year which is selected and designed to update them on

departmental philosophy, procedures, skills and techniques. It was recommended that any

training which places recruits or officers in stressful situations should be used to assist in



improving the individual's performance. For example, an Early Warning System which can

assist in the identification of officers who are experiencing stress could eliminate harmful

consequences of stress or performance problems before they occur. Although no particular set of

criteria can determine stress or performance problems, a system can be established to identify

those officers who may be experiencing problems. An early warning system makes no

conclusions or determination about stress or performance, but does assist supervisory personnel

in evaluating potentially troublesome behavior. Simple criteria including complaints made

against the officer, number of times officer has used force, involvement in traffic accidents can

be among the factors used to identify officers who may be heading for trouble.

27. As aforesaid, the Defendant Officers fired multiple gunshots at Blair, using

excessive force for no lawful reasons. In fact, the Defendant Officers fired at least 14 shots at

Blair, which could have not only killed Blair but his three year old son and Oliver.

28. There is no evidence that the Defendant Officers were in imminent danger. There

were no signs of shots fired at the officers that would indicate that the use of deadly force was

justified. The DPD Drawing or Displaying Firearms policy requires that a threat or reasonable

belief that there is a threat to life or they have reasonable fear for their own safety and/or the

safety of others, exist in order to authorize an officer to draw or display her/his firearm. Upon

information and belief, DPD officers are not provided with adequate training. Once a year, Chief

Brown requires DPD Officers to receive both active and simulating training, with the majority of

the training requiring shooting. This policy has led to high number of police shootings in Dallas.

29. Blair posed no risk to the Defendant Officers or any other person in the immediate

area. Blair did not attempt to harm the Defendant Officers and was not committing a crime or

reasonably believed to have committed a crime when the officers fired multiple gunshots at him.



30. At the time the Defendant Officers drew their service revolvers, there had been no

previous interaction between Blair and the Defendant Officers, and at no time did Blair do

anything that would justify the use of deadly force. The drawing of an Officer’s weapon

inherently assumes that the use of force will cause death or serious bodily injury to the suspect,

and is to be applied under very narrowly defined circumstances. According to Dallas Police

General Order 906.02(D) Authorization to Use Deadly Force authorized by Chief Brown,

“Officers will only use deadly force to protect themselves or another person from imminent

death or seriously bodily injury”. General Order 906.02(E) Drawing or Displaying Firearms;

requires that a threat or reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or they have reasonable fear

for their own safety and/or the safety of others, exist in order to authorize an officer to draw or

display her/his firearm. Blair posed no risk to the Defendant Officers and was not committing a

crime while he talked on the telephone outside of his apartment complex.

31. Defendants Cantu and Aquino’s unlawful and unwarranted acts, lack of training

and the official customs or policies of the DPD caused David Blair’s injuries.

32. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants Cantu and

Aquino were acting in the scope of their employment as agents, servants, and employees of

Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, specifically the DPD, within its executive branch and was

performing a governmental function.

33. Plaintiff would further show that Defendant Cantu and Aquino's actions were the

result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or

procedures of the DPD in regards to the use of deadly force for which The CITY OF DALLAS,

City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew or should have known but never provided the

requisite and proper training.



34. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the

actions of Defendants Cantu and Aquino described herein would not violate David Blair's rights.

In other words, no reasonably prudent police officer under similar circumstances could have

believed that Defendants Cantu and Aquino's conduct was justified.

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has sustained

substantial damages and pecuniary loss.

36. Upon information and belief, the DPD has not implemented policies and

procedures to aggressively curtail deadly shooting cases and foot pursuits that have been a major

problem since the early eighties when the DPD was the subject of a Federal Investigation and

continues to exist today.

EXCESSIVE FORCE

COUNT I-42 U.S.C. § 1983

37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino’s actions on the occasion in

question were wrongful and constituted gross negligence in depriving Blair of his constitutional

rights, as alleged more fully below.

38. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants Cantu and

Aquino had a duty to avoid infliction of unjustified bodily injury to Blair, to protect his bodily

integrity and to not trample on his constitutional rights.

39. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino failed to act as a

reasonable police officer would have acted in the same or similar circumstances. That is,

Defendants Cantu and Aquino, without justification and the need to do so, fired multiple

gunshots at Blair as described above without probable cause and/or legal justification. Blair



never made any threatening gestures towards Defendants Cantu and Aquino nor was he

committing any crimes when the Defendant Officers fired multiple gunshots at him.

40. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino fired multiple

shots at Blair, which could not only harmed Blair but his three year old son and Oliver. The

excessive and deadly force used by Defendants Cantu and Aquino was not reasonable, justified

nor was it necessary under the circumstances.

41. Defendants Cantu and Aquino’s actions were not objectively reasonable because

they followed a procedure designed to inflict excessive and deadly force in restraining

individuals in a non-life threatening situation. The Defendant Officers fired over 14 gunshots at

Blair for no lawful reason.

42. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino denied David Blair his

right to be free from deprivation of his rights without due process of law, in violation of the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff would show that Defendants

Cantu and Aquino were acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the DPD in

regards to the use of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and

Chief Brown at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these

violations of David Blair's rights, he’s suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this

court.

43. The force used by Defendants Cantu and Aquino was unnecessary and

unreasonable under the circumstances, as David Blair, simply talking on his cellphone, did not

require the use of such excessive and deadly force. Defendants Cantu and Aquino had no

probable cause to suspect that a crime was being committed or that their conduct was reasonable.



RACIAL PROFILING

COUNT II CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-43 as if fully set forth herein.

45. Racial Profiling: Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino clearly

and wrongfully used race as a factor, a proxy, for reasonable suspicion and using excessive force

on Blair. Additionally, Plaintiff would show that it is the official customs, policies and practices

of the DPD in regards to the use of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager

Gonzalez and Chief Brown to treat African Americans in a cruel manner regardless of the

circumstances or the need to. The facts show that there was no probable cause for Blair's arrest.

In fact, Plaintiffs would show that the excessive force used by Defendants Cantu and Aquino was

not reasonable nor was it necessary as Blair was not violating any laws. Defendants Cantu and

Aquino treated Blair in the manner they did because he was black. The poor treatment of

African Americans by the DPD, mainly Defendants Cantu and Aquino, is a well-known fact in

Dallas, Texas. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino’s actions were in

violation of TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 2.131-137 (Vernon Supp. 2004) and is

therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

46. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting within

established wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of the DPD in

regards to the use of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and

Chief Brown at the time of the incident and further that Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS

knew or should have known of these said malicious customs, policies, practices and/or

procedures for which City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew or should have known but

never provided the requisite and proper training. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of

these violations of Blair's rights, he’s suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of the



Court. Defendants Cantu and Aquino under the color of law, deprived Blair of his civil rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

FAILURE TO TRAIN

COUNT III 42 U.S.C. § 1983


herein.

48. Defendants Cantu and Aquino, acting under color of law and acting pursuant to

customs, practices and policies of The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD in regards to the use of

excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief

Brown deprived Blair of rights and privileges secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and by other laws of the United States, by failing to provide

proper training in the use of excessive and deadly force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

related provisions of federal law and in violation of the above cited constitutional provisions.

The DPD, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown deliberate indifference in failing to train

based on the obviousness of the need for training has resulted in a number of shootings involving

unarmed individuals.

49. With respect to the claims made the basis of this lawsuit, The CITY OF DALLAS

and the DPD failed to adequately train its employees regarding the use of excessive and deadly

force. This failure to train its employees in a relevant respect reflects a deliberate indifference to

The CITY OF DALLAS, DPD, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown to the rights of the

city’s inhabitants and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

50. Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS and DPD under the direction of City Manager

Gonzalez and Chief Brown developed and maintained a policy of deficient training of its police

force in the use of force, including the use of excessive and deadly force in the apprehension of



individuals. The CITY OF DALLAS ' training is designed and implemented by Chief Brown to

act in this regard. The actual practice or custom of the DPD regarding the use of deadly force

was to shoot first and ask questions later.

51. The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's’ failure to provide adequate training to its

police officers regarding the use of deadly force reflects deliberate indifference by City Manager

Gonzalez and Chief Brown and reckless and conscious disregard for the obvious risk that

officers would use excessive or deadly force on citizens and made the violations of David Blair's

constitutional rights, a reasonable probability.

52. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino's actions were the result

of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures

for which The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown knew or should

have known but never provided the requisite and proper training.

53. On information and belief, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, DPD, City

Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown, acting through official policies, practices, and customs, and

with deliberate, callous, and conscious indifference to the constitutional rights of Blair failed to

implement the policies, procedures; and practices necessary to provide constitutionally adequate

protection and assistance to Blair during his struggle to survive and implemented policies,

procedures, and practices which actually interfered with or prevented with or prevented Blair

from receiving the protection, assistance and care he deserved.

54. For instance, the following conduct, policies, and customs, inter alia, by

Defendants violated Blair’s constitutional rights:

a. The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's failure to adequately train or discipline its officers;



b. Defendants’ policy on the use of deadly force, which encourages officers to shoot first and ask

questions later;

c. Defendants’ foot pursuit policy;

d. Failing to recognize officers with emotional problems based on prior violations;

g. Failure to conduct the type of investigation that would have been conducted had he not been a

minority or a resident in a high crime area;

h. Failure to get more police employees properly trained to professionally handle foot pursuits.

i. 72-hour waiting period policy allows perpetrators of deadly shootings to walk free.

55. In addition, Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, DPD, City Manager Gonzalez

and Chief Brown as applicable, failed and refused to implement customs, policies, practices or

procedures, and failed to train its personnel adequately on the appropriate policies, practices or

procedures regarding the use of excessive and deadly force. In so doing, Defendant The CITY

OF DALLAS knew that it was acting against the clear dictates of current law, and knew that as a

direct consequence of their deliberate decisions, the very situation that occurred -- i.e., Blair’s

injuries -- in all reasonable probability would occur.

56. Defendants’ actions demonstrate that before his injuries Blair was the victim of

purposeful discrimination, either because of his race and/or gender, or due to an irrational or

arbitrary state classification unrelated to a legitimate state objective.

57. Additionally, no rational basis existed for The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's

alleged policies of affording minorities less police protection or assistance than other crime

victims or giving these victims less investigative attention than other victims. Furthermore,

unlike what Defendants Cantu and Aquino did, no reasonably prudent police officer, under

similar circumstances, would have used excessive and/or deadly force when no crime had been



committed. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the actions

of The CITY OF DALLAS and Defendants Cantu and Aquino described herein would not

violate Blair’s rights. In other words, no reasonably officer, under similar circumstances, could

have believed that their conduct was justified.

58. The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD's failure to properly train its police officers

regarding the use of force under the authority of City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown was

the proximate cause of the violations of Blair's constitutional rights.

FALSE ARREST

COUNT IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983


herein.

60. Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu

and Aquino’s actions were objectively unreasonable and done in bad faith in that they arrested

Blair without probable cause, after shooting at him for no lawful reason. Blair did not commit a

crime as the evidence would show and simply was talking on his cellphone when he was profiled

and harassed by the Defendant Officers. Plaintiff would further show that he’s suffered damages

within the jurisdictional limits of this court as a result of the wrongful arrest and that such arrest

was done under color of law. Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu and Aquino were

acting within the official customs, policies, practices and/or procedures in regards to the use of

excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez, Chief Brown

and The CITY OF DALLAS at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would additionally show that

such wrongful arrest was done in violation of Blair’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the

United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that



Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court as a result of the

violations of his rights.

61. Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting under the color of law when they

deprived David Blair of his constitutional right to be free from false arrest.

62. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants Cantu

and Aquino’s actions were objectively unreasonable and done in bad faith because Defendants

Cantu and Aquino was without probable cause to think that Blair had committed a crime.

Plaintiff would further show that he’s suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this

court from the wrongful arrest done under color of law. Plaintiff would show that Defendants

Cantu and Aquino were acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of The CITY OF

DALLAS and DPD in regards to the use of excessive and deadly force as authorized and/or

ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would

additionally show that such wrongful shooting was done in violation of David Blair’s rights

under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states by

the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional

limits of this court as a result of these violations of his rights.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

COUNT V


herein.

64 Defendants Cantu and Aquino intentionally and without consent placed Blair in

apprehension of imminent harmful contact and caused harmful bodily contact to him.

65. As a proximate result of the foregoing, Blair suffered grievous bodily harm,

substantial physical and emotional pain.



NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN AND DISCIPLINE

COUNT VI

66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-65 as if fully set forth herein.

Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto,

Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS and the DPD lacked guidelines both to restrict the use of

force, including the use of excessive and deadly force or if such guidelines existed, they were

grossly inadequate to ensure the proper and restrained use of force by police personnel.

67. Plaintiff would show that Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager

Gonzalez, Chief Brown and Mayor Rawlings endorsed and/or ratified the unfettered use of

excessive and deadly force, even in situations where no crime was committed. Plaintiff would

show that Defendant The CITY OF DALLAS, City Manager Gonzalez, Chief Brown and the

DPD’s failure to properly train, supervise, test, regulate, discipline or otherwise control its

employees and the failure to promulgate proper guidelines for the use of force including fire

arms constitutes a custom, policy, practice and/or procedure in condoning unjustified use of

deadly force in violation of the constitutional rights of Blair. Furthermore, Defendant The CITY

OF DALLAS' and the DPD's failure to properly train, supervise, test, regulate, discipline or

otherwise control its employees in regards to the use of excessive and deadly force as authorized

and/or ratified by City Manager Gonzalez and Chief Brown serves to condone the improper

behavior previously alleged. As a result of this failure to train and discipline, Plaintiff has

suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court. As described above, Defendants

Cantu and Aquino used excessive and/or deadly force when it was unnecessary despite the lack

of any threat necessitating the need to do so.



INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION

OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

COUNT VII

68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiff would show if Defendants Cantu and Aquino were acting in their individual

capacity, when they committed the following intentional torts against Blair:

a. Assault and Battery; and

b. False Imprisonment.

69. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Cantu and Aquino,

Plaintiff suffered loss wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish and severe emotional distress

within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

70. Defendants Cantu and Aquino embarked on a willful, malicious, reckless and

outrageous course of conduct that was intended to cause and, in fact, caused Blair to suffer

extreme and severe mental and emotional distress, agony and anxiety.

71. Defendants Cantu and Aquino’s aggressive and violent attack on an unarmed,

fleeing, and defenseless man offends generally accepted standards of decency and morality.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

COUNT VIII


herein.

73. Defendants Cantu and Aquino had a duty to employ only reasonable measures in

the treatment of Blair.

74. Notwithstanding said duties, Defendants Cantu and Aquino acted in a wanton and

willful manner, exhibiting such carelessness and recklessness as to evince a conscious disregard

for the life and safety of Blair.



75. Defendants Cantu and Aquino were aware that Blair had not committed a crime

and Defendants Cantu and Aquino were not facing any imminent or serious threat of bodily harm

or death. Thus, they knew or should have known that they had no right to use any force

whatsoever with respect to David Blair. They nonetheless illegally apprehended Blair through

their use of deadly force by firing multiple gunshots at him.

76. Defendants Cantu and Aquino knew or should have known that their course of

action of drawing their lethal weapons and firing multiple gunshots at Blair would place him in

grave danger of serious injury.

77. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendants Cantu and

Aquino, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

DAMAGES ALL DEFENDANTS

COUNT IX


herein. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the following

injuries suffered by Plaintiff:

a. Actual damages;

b. Loss of wages;

c. Pain and suffering and mental anguish suffered by David Blair;

d. Mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff;

e. Loss of quality of life;

f. Exemplary and punitive damages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and

costs of court;

g. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, and other applicable laws, Plaintiff should

be awarded reasonable attorney's fees for the preparation and trial of this



cause of action, and for its appeal, if required;

h. Prejudgment interest; and

i. Post judgment interest.

79. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages in an amount that is within the jurisdictional

limits of the court.

PUNITIVE/EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

X


herein. Additionally and in the alternative, the conduct of Defendants Cantu and Aquino was

done with malice. As such, Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages to deter this type

of conduct in the future. In the alternative, such heedless and reckless disregard of David Blair’s

rights, safety and welfare is more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence or

misjudgment. Such unconscionable conduct goes beyond ordinary negligence, and as such

Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages are awarded against Defendants Cantu and

Aquino in a sum which is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES


herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). As

such, Plaintiff requests the Court to award costs and attorney fees incurred in Plaintiff’s

prosecution of this litigation.

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY


herein. Plaintiff would show that Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the negligence

and gross negligence, which was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.



CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

83. Plaintiff reserves his rights to plead and prove the damages to which he is entitled

to at the time of trial. All conditions to Plaintiff’s recovery have been performed or have

occurred.

TRIAL BY JURY

84. Plaintiff has paid a jury fee and demands trial by jury.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to

appear and answer herein; that upon final trial hereof Plaintiff has and recovers judgment from

Defendants; actual damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest at the legal rate; interest

on said judgment at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief, both general

and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Daryl K. Washington

DARYL K. WASHINGTON

State Bar No. 24013714

LAW OFFICE OF DARYL K. WASHINGTON, P.C.

325 N. St. Paul St., Suite 1975

Dallas, Texas 75201

214 880-4883

214-751-6685 - fax

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


david blair v dallas

Documents