Ismael Lopez Civil Complaint

Case: 3:19-cv-00133-NBB-RP Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/19/19 1 of 22 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________________
CLAUDIA LINARES as spouse of ISMAEL )

LOPEZ, Deceased, and Edward T. Autry as )
Administrator of the ESTATE of ISMAEL )
LOPEZ, Deceased, )
)
) 3:19cv133-NBB-RP
Case No.: ____________________
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
) JURY DEMANDED
CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, STEVE PIRTLE, )
in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the )
Southaven Police Department, OFFICER )
SAMUEL MAZE, Individually and in his )
official capacity as a Southaven Police Officer, )
OFFICER ZACHARY DURDEN, Individually )
and in his official capacity as a Southaven )
Police Officer, and JOHN DOES 1-25, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

_____________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs, CLAUDIA LINARES as spouse of Ismael Lopez, Deceased, and Edward T.
Autry as Administrator of the Estate of ISMAEL LOPEZ, Deceased, file this action pursuant to 42
USC § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
of America arising out of the Wrongful Death of Ismael Lopez on or about July 27, 2017, against
the CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, STEVE PIRTLE in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the
Southaven Police Department, Officer SAMUEL MAZE in his individual and in his official
capacity as a Southaven Police Officer, Officer ZACHARY DURDEN in his individual and in his
official capacity as a Southaven Police Officer, and JOHN DOES 1-25, and in support, shows as
follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Claudia Linares is bringing this action in her individual capacity as spouse
of Ismael Lopez, Deceased, who was an adult person residing in the State of Mississippi and was
wrongfully and unconstitutionally killed by Defendants as set forth in this Complaint during the
late evening of July 27, 2017. Claudia Linares resided in Southaven, Desoto County, Mississippi
at all times relevant to this cause of action.
2. Plaintiff Edward. T. Autry is bringing this action in his representative capacity as
the Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Ismael Lopez, Deceased, who was an adult person
residing in the State of Mississippi and was wrongfully and unconstitutionally killed by
Defendants as set forth in this Complaint during the late evening of July 27, 2017. Plaintiff Edward
T. Autry, as the Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Ismael Lopez, Deceased, is a proper party
to bring this action for the Wrongful Death of Ismael Lopez pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §11-7-
13.
3. Plaintiffs Claudia Linares and Edward T. Autry shall be referred to as “Plaintiffs”
throughout this action.
4. Ismael Lopez shall be referred to as “Ismael” or “Ismael Lopez” or
“Decedent” throughout this action.
5. Defendant City of Southaven is a municipality, duly incorporated under the laws of
the State of Mississippi and as such is a political subdivision of the State of Mississippi and, among
its other functions, operates and maintains a law enforcement agency known as the Southaven
Police Department. The City of Southaven is under a duty to operate its policing activities in a
lawful manner and to create and approve policies and procedures so as to preserve the peace of the
2
City of Southaven and the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed and secured to persons
residing in the United States by the constitutions and the laws of the United States and/or the State
of Mississippi. Such municipality is subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The City
of Southaven may be served with this Complaint by serving Robert Hayes, City Attorney, 8710
Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 and/or by serving Mayor Darren Musselwhite, City of
Southaven, at 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 and/or the City Clerk, Andrea Mullen,
City of Southaven, at 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Steve Pirtle (“Chief Pirtle” or “Defendant
Pirtle”) is a person residing in Southaven, Mississippi. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant
Pirtle was the Chief of Police for the Southaven Police Department. Defendant Pirtle was
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Southaven Police Department and was the final
policymaker with respect to law enforcement operations for the City of Southaven at all times
relevant to this action. Defendant Pirtle was under a duty to operate the policing activities of the
Southaven Police Department so as to preserve not only the peace of the City of Southaven but
also to protect persons residing in the City of Southaven, and to preserve their rights, privileges,
and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the constitutions and the laws of the United
States and/or the State of Mississippi. Plaintiffs are bringing this action against Defendant Pirtle
in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the Southaven Police Department. He may be served
with process at 8691 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 or alternatively at his residence or
alternatively by serving this Complaint on Robert Hayes, City Attorney, 8710 Northwest Drive,
Southaven, MS 38671 and/or the City Clerk, Andrea Mullen, City of Southaven, at 8710
Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.
3
7. Defendant Samuel Maze (“Officer Maze” or “Defendant Maze”) is upon
information and belief, is a person residing in Southaven, Mississippi. At all times pertinent
hereto, Defendant Maze was an employee and officer with the Southaven Police Department,
acting under the color of state law and within the course and scope of his employment with the
Southaven Police Department. Plaintiffs are bringing this action against Defendant Maze in both
individual capacity and in his official capacity as an officer for the Southaven Police Department.
Defendant Maze may be served at 8691 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671, or alternatively
at his residence or alternatively by serving this Complaint on Robert Hayes, City Attorney, 8710
Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 and/or the City Clerk, Andrea Mullen, City of Southaven,
at 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.
8. Defendant Zachary Durden (“Officer Durden” or “Defendant Durden”) is upon
information and belief, a person residing in Southaven, Mississippi. At all times pertinent hereto,
Defendant Durden was an employee and officer with the Southaven Police Department, acting
under the color of state law and within the course and scope of his employment with the Southaven
Police Department. Plaintiffs are bringing this action against Defendant Durden in both individual
capacity and in his official capacity as an officer for the Southaven Police Department. Defendant
Durden may be served by serving this Complaint on Robert Hayes, City Attorney, 8710 Northwest
Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 and/or the City Clerk, Andrea Mullen, City of Southaven, at 8710
Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendants 1-25 are persons residing in Southaven,
Desoto County, Mississippi and/or employed by the City of Southaven.
4
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this action as specified in 28 U.S.C.
§1331 because this action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States. Jurisdiction is also just and proper as specified in 28 U.S.C. §1343 because
Plaintiffs bring this action seeking damages for the deprivation of Ismael Lopez’s civil rights under
42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988.
11. Venue is proper in this Honorable Court because a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the causes of action alleged in this Complaint occurred within the Northern
District of Mississippi and more specifically in Southaven, Desoto County, Mississippi.
III. FACTS
12. On the late evening of Sunday, July 27, 2017, Officer Maze and Officer Durden of
the Southaven Police Department were attempting to apprehend a suspect, Samuel Pearman, a
white male, for domestic assault at Mr. Pearman’s home.
13. Officer Maze and Officer Durden did not have a signed warrant to arrest Samuel
Pearman on July 27, 2017.
14. In fact, the arrest warrant for Samuel Pearman was not signed until July 28, 2017,
a day after Ismael Lopez was wrongfully killed by Southaven Police Officers.
15. Samuel Pearman lived in a single-family house at 5878 Surrey Lane, Southaven,
MS 38671.
16. Samuel Pearman’s house was clearly marked with his numerical address “5878”
and a giant letter “P” for Pearman above the front door of his house.
5
17. At the same date and time Ismael Lopez, a Hispanic male, was in bed in his mobile
trailer home sleeping with his wife of more than fifteen (15) years, Claudia Linares, a Hispanic
female.
18. Ismael Lopez and Claudia Linares lived in a mobile trailer home located at 5881
Surrey Lane, Southaven, MS 38671.
19. Ismael Lopez’s mobile trailer home was on the opposite side of the street of Samuel
Pearman’s house.
20. Officer Maze and Officer Durden were trained on which side of the street odd
number and even number addresses are on in the City of Southaven.
21. Officer Maze and Officer Durden went to the wrong home to apprehend Samuel
Pearman, the suspect.
22. In fact, at least one of the officers believed that they were at the wrong home.
23. Upon information and belief, Southaven Police Department had been to Samuel
Pearman’s house prior to the night of July 27, 2017.
24. Upon information and belief, Southaven Police Department had been to Ismael
Lopez’s mobile trailer home prior to the night of July 27, 2017 because Ismael Lopez was a victim
of a crime(s).
25. Officer Maze and Officer Durden pounded on the door to Ismael Lopez’s mobile
trailer home.
26. Officer Maze and Officer Durden had their guns drawn while pounding on Ismael
Lopez’s front door.
27. Ismael Lopez was woken up in the middle of the night in the safe confines of his
home while sleeping next to his wife by someone pounding on his front door.
6
28. According to District Attorney General John Champion and neighbors of Ismael
Lopez, neither Southaven Police Officer announced that they were the Southaven Police as they
pounded on Ismael Lopez’s front door in the middle of the night.
29. Ismael Lopez went to investigate the pounding on his door.
30. Ismael Lopez opened his door to investigate who was at his door.
31. Ismael Lopez immediately closed the door upon seeing two large males dressed in
all black brandishing firearms.
32. Ismael Lopez feared for his life and his wife’s life upon seeing two unidentified
large men dressed in all black (Officer Maze and Officer Durden) with guns drawn.
33. Ismael Lopez attempted to retreat to his bedroom to protect his wife.
34. Mississippi Bureau of Investigation’s report stated that Ismael Lopez’s front door
was open zero (0) to three (3) inches when Officer Durden shot Ismael Lopez in the back of the
head.
35. Officer Maze shot multiple times and struck twice Ismael Lopez’s dog, Coco.
36. Officer Durden shot multiple times through a closed door or in the alternative, if
open then no more than three (3) inches.
37. There are at least three (3) bullet holes in Ismael Lopez’s mobile trailer home front
door.
38. Ismael Lopez was struck once in the back of the head by Officer Durden.
39. Ismael Lopez was killed by Officer Durden.
40. Ismael Lopez was not facing officers when shot in the back of the head by Officer
Durden.
7
41. Ismael Lopez was not a threat to Officer Maze or Officer Durden when he was shot
in the back of the head through a closed door.
42. Ismael Lopez was not in the doorway when shot in the back of the head by Officer
Durden.
43. Ismael Lopez was shot more than six feet away from the front doorway of his home
in the back of the head by Officer Durden.
44. Ismael Lopez did not possess a firearm or any other deadly weapon when shot in
the back of the head by Officer Durden.
45. Ismael Lopez’s fingerprints and DNA were not located on a rifle recovered more
than six (6) feet from his body.
46. Defendant Pirtle admitted that Defendants Maze and Durden went to the wrong
home when searching for Samuel Pearman.
47. District Attorney General John Champion admitted that Defendants Maze and
Durden went to the wrong home when searching for Samuel Pearman.
48. Defendants Maze and Durden were trespassing on Ismael Lopez’s property.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants,
Ismael Lopez was wrongfully killed, and his Constitutional Rights under the United States
Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution were violated.
50. It was foreseeable that Ismael Lopez and his family would sustain significant
damages and devastating losses as a result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants.
51. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Maze and Defendant Durden were acting in
their official capacity as law enforcement officers for the Southaven Police Department and acting
under color of state law.
8
52. The policies, customs, and training of the City of Southaven were the driving force
behind the deprivation of constitutional rights sustained by Ismael Lopez.
53. Alternatively, at all times relevant to the complaint herein, Defendant Maze and
Defendant Durden were acting in their individual capacities.
IV. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY DEFENDANTS
54. The allegations set forth in the previous paragraphs are adopted and incorporated
herein by reference. Further, the below allegations are to read as applicable to every cause of
action against the Defendants.
55. Defendants City of Southaven, Chief Pirtle, Officer Maze, Officer Durden and John
Does 1-25 committed the above described actions and omissions under color of law and under
color of their authority as law enforcement officers, substantially depriving Ismael Lopez of his
rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to him as an individual residing in the United States
in violation of 42 § 1983 and deprived him of rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the
United States of America including, but not limited to, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Specifically, Ismael Lopez was deprived of rights including, but not limited to (a) freedom from
unlawful seizure of his person; (b) freedom from the use of unjustified and excessive force; and
(c) freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process.
56. Prior to July 27, 2017, Defendant City of Southaven permitted, encouraged,
tolerated, and ratified an official pattern, custom, and practice by its officers of shooting first and
asking questions later, using excessive and unjustified force, knowing that said practice violated
decedent’s and others’ free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges secured to them by the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi.
9
57. Defendants directly or with deliberate indifference, under color of law, approved
and/or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of officers. By
failing to enact proper procedures and policies for disciplining officers that violate the civil rights
of persons, such as decedent, or by failing to enforce any such policy or procedure by punishing
or censuring officers, Defendants have approved, condoned, and ratified the unlawful conduct of
officers. Specifically, the City of Southaven law enforcement officers utilized excessive force in
with respect to Ismael Lopez and acted in deliberate indifference to his health and welfare by
escalating the situation in an unnecessary fashion. The direct and proximate result of Defendants’
actions and/or inactions were that Decedent suffered severe physical and emotional injuries,
including death.
58. Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle have allowed police officers to
engage in a pattern of conduct that violates the civil rights of persons residing in the City for years
leading up to the death of Ismael Lopez by failing to enforce policies and procedures and by
ratifying the unconstitutional conduct of officers by not punishing them and instead allowing them
to continue serving as law enforcement officers. Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle
have altogether failed to cultivate a culture of excellence in the police force by sending the clear
message to police officers that it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later if the officer thinks
that there is any chance that a potential suspect or future victim may have a weapon or may pose
a threat to the officer. This pattern of conduct has existed for an extended period of time and the
City of Southaven has done nothing to address this problem, but has instead chosen to allow its
officers to shoot innocent victims under the guise of the officers sensing a potential threat and then
failing to properly investigate the shootings and simply accepting the officer’s excuse that they
felt threatened. The death of Ismael Lopez would be tragic if it were the only officer involved
10
shooting of recent time, but it becomes even more tragic when the overall conduct of the Defendant
City of Southaven is considered and the overall picture is seen of a department that has tolerated,
ratified and almost encouraged the shootings that this City has seen over the past recent time. It is
not enough to have policies that prohibit constitutional violations; Defendants City of Southaven
and Chief Pirtle must also enforce those policies and must send a clear message to officers that
they will not tolerate violations of those policies by officers. Instead of trying to send that message,
Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle have chosen to turn a blind eye to the recent
increase in police shootings and killings.
59. Plaintiffs aver that firing gunshots through a closed door toward an individual who
is unarmed and retreating is excessive and/or unreasonable deadly force against the Decedent and
in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Defendants Durden and Maze committed these actions described herein and/or omissions under
the color of state law and by virtue of their authority as law enforcement officers for the Southaven
Police Department and substantially deprived Ismael Lopez of his clearly established rights,
privileges, and immunities guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1988.
60. Defendants deprived Ismael Lopez of fundamental rights guaranteed under the
United States Constitution including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unlawful seizure
of his person; free from the use of unjustified, unnecessary and excessive force; and free from the
deprivation of life and liberty without due process of law.
61. The unreasonable and excessive use of force against Ismael Lopez deprived him of
his right to be free from unreasonable, excessive and deadly force and unreasonable seizure
through means intentionally applied under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
11
Plaintiffs aver that Defendant Durden knew to a moral certainty that the shots fired at Ismael Lopez
through a closed door as means intentionally applied to seize him were likely to cause severe injury
and/or death.
62. Defendant Durden was not justified in his use of deadly force and further could not
reasonably have believed in good faith that deadly force was warranted and/or necessary. In
support of the Plaintiffs’ claim that the conduct of Defendant Durden violated the Fourth
Amendment rights of Ismael Lopez, the Plaintiffs rely upon the factual allegations set forth in this
Complaint and the custom and pattern of the Southaven Police Department’s officers shooting first
and asking questions second and further custom and pattern of its failing to enforce its own policies
with regard to the use of deadly force. Plaintiffs would assert that Defendant Chief Pirtle and
Defendant City of Southaven have altogether failed to cultivate a culture of excellence within the
Southaven Police Department and have tolerated and ratified the actions of its officers for way too
long and was unlawful through its intentional action at worst or apathy at best. These Defendants
have created the unconstitutional expectations of their officers that it is acceptable to violate the
constitutional rights of persons residing in this City.
63. Defendant City of Southaven does not properly investigate police seizures and use
of excessive force on persons or properly discipline officers for those acts. Defendant City of
Southaven and its relevant policymakers have failed to act to remedy the patterns of abuse
described in the preceding paragraphs, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby tacitly
approving and ratifying the type of misconduct alleged here.
64. Municipal policymakers are aware of, condone and facilitate by their inaction, a
“code of silence” in the Southaven Police Department, by which officers fail to report misconduct
committed by other officers, such as the misconduct in this case.
12
65. The policy, practice and custom of the police code of silence results in police
officers refusing to report instances of police misconduct of which they are aware, despite their
obligation under police department regulations to do so. This conduct includes police officers who
remain silent or give false or misleading information during official investigations in order to
protect themselves or fellow officers from internal discipline or retaliation, civil liability, or
criminal prosecution.
66. The injuries and death of Ismael Lopez could have been avoided had Defendant
City of Southaven provided better or more training as to the proper use of force. This lack of
adequate training amounts to an unconstitutional policy.
67. Defendant City of Southaven was on notice of each and every constitutional
violation alleged herein taking place by Southaven Police Department Officers.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the Defendants,
Ismael Lopez was wrongfully killed and his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution were violated.
69. Plaintiffs aver that Defendant City of Southaven and Defendant Chief Pirtle are
liable for the actions of the Defendants Officer Maze and Officer Durden as set forth above because
Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle permitted, encouraged, tolerated, and ratified an
official pattern, custom, and practice by its law enforcement officers violating the Federal
Constitutional Rights of the public at large during the course of their law enforcement applications.
The actions of Defendant Durden as alleged above were done pursuant to one or more policies,
practices and/or customs of Defendant City of Southaven, including but not limited to the customs
regarding identifying addresses and individuals, shooting through closed doors and shooting
unknown individuals in the back that are retreating in fear.
13
70. After the incident, Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle determined that
Defendants Maze and Durden had acted appropriately and in compliance with the policies,
practices and customs of the Southaven Police Department with respect to the use of force against
Ismael Lopez.
71. However, the actions of Defendants Maze and Durden during this incident were in
direct violations of the policies, practices and customs of Defendant City of Southaven and the
laws of the United States and the State of Mississippi regarding the use of deadly and/or excessive
force.
72. The State of Mississippi found that the death of Ismael Lopez constituted wrongful
conduct and in direct conflict with the laws of the State of Mississippi, and indeed, presented its
belief to a grand jury.
73. Despite violating the policies, practices and customs of the City of Southaven and
state law, Defendants Maze and Durden were not disciplined, reprimanded or terminated.
Accordingly, the Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle ratified, condoned, acquiesced in
or approved the conduct of Defendants Maze and Durden’s in all respects. As the Defendants City
of Southaven and Chief Pirtle determined that the conduct of Defendants Maze and Durden as set
forth herein was in compliance with the policies, practices and customs of the City of Southaven
and the Southaven Police Department, the Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle are
directly liable for the actions and constitutional violations of Defendants Maze and Durden.
74. Moreover, Defendant Maze and Durden have a history of aggression. Defendant
City of Southaven, violated the civil rights of Ismael Lopez through its policies, lack of policies,
and/or customs of hiring, firing, retention and supervision. Such policies and customs were the
moving force behind the damages sustained by Decedent and Plaintiffs in this case.
14
75. The City of Southaven ratifies the killing of Ismael Lopez by failing to even
investigate whether or not excessive force was used upon Ismael Lopez.
76. The City of Southaven believes Defendants Maze and Durden acted in accordance
with its policies and procedures when they shot Coco, the dog, and killed Ismael Lopez.
77. Defendant City of Southaven and its Police Department either intentionally or
willfully maintain an inadequate complaint system for persons residing in the City attempting to
put the City on notice of the bad actions of certain officers.
78. Defendant City of Southaven either intentionally or willfully fails to adequately
investigate complaints against its officers.
79. Defendant City of Southaven, through the Southaven Police Department fails to
document complaints by persons against officers, so there is no way to determine the amount of
complaints against certain officers.
80. Defendant City of Southaven fails to maintain a system that flags officers with
multiple complaints against them, whether such complaints are substantiated or “unsubstantiated.”
81. Defendant City of Southaven has a “non-complaint” policy wherein complaints to
Internal Affairs by persons are often not even recorded as complaints and as such, are not even
investigated
82. Defendant City of Southaven fails to support or maintain an adequate early warning
or early intervention system to monitor the behaviors of its officers.
83. Defendant City of Southaven has a grossly disproportionate amount of its police
officers being arrested for committing crimes when compared to cities of similar size and racial
make-up.
15
84. Defendant City of Southaven denies such a widespread problem exists within its
own force.
85. Such a denial, rather than admission or recognition of an incredibly well-
documented history of illegal and/or corrupt police officers creates a culture within the department
wherein Southaven Police Officers believe they can act in violation of persons constitutional rights
without consequence.
86. That denial and culture directly contributed and/or fostered, and/or caused the
actions of Defendants Maze and Durden the night they killed Ismael Lopez.
87. Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle violated the civil rights of Decedent
in that they were deliberately indifferent to the rights of Decedent and others through their hiring,
firing, supervision and retention of officers.
88. As a matter of both policy and practice, the Southaven Police Department and Chief
Pirtle directly encourage, and are thereby the moving force behind, the very type of misconduct at
issue here by failing to adequately train and/or re-train, supervise and control officers, such that
their failure to do so manifests deliberate indifference.
89. As a matter of law, policy and practice, the Southaven Police Department and Chief
Pirtle deny any wrongdoing or misconduct by Defendants Maze and Durden.
90. As a matter of both policy and procedure, the Southaven Police Department
facilitates the very type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately investigate, punish
and discipline prior instances of similar misconduct and by failing to train or enforce policies and
procedures on the books, if such policies and procedures exist, thereby leading Southaven Police
Officers to believe their actions will never be scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging
future abuses such as those affecting Decedent and Plaintiffs.
16
91. Generally, as a matter of widespread practice so prevalent as to comprise municipal
policy, officers of the Southaven Police Department conduct unlawful seizures and use excessive
force on persons, yet the Southaven Police Department makes findings of wrongdoing in a
disproportionately small number of cases.
92. Defendant City of Southaven does not properly investigate police seizures of
civilians and uses of excessive force or properly discipline officers for those acts.
93. The aforementioned actions and omissions of the Defendants were proximately
caused by the policies, practices and customs of Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle,
which were also the underlying cause of the death of Ismael Lopez.
94. In particular, Plaintiff Claudia avers that she had a constitutional right of familial
association with her husband. Further, Plaintiff Claudia avers that she had a constitutional right
to the society and companionship of her husband. As a direct result of Defendants’ acts and
omissions, Plaintiff Claudia lost her husband and suffered great losses of a personal and pecuniary
nature, including but not limited to the loss of consortium, companionship, society and support of
the Decedent as well as grief, sorrow and mental suffering. Plaintiff Claudia had a close emotional
tie to her husband, Ismael Lopez. Plaintiff Claudia avers that the Defendants violated these rights
and that their actions constituted an unconstitutional termination of their familial association and
society and companionship of her husband under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
95. Defendants committed the above described actions and/or omissions under the
color of state law and by virtue of their authority as officers of the Southaven Police Department
and substantially deprived Ismael Lopez of his clearly established rights, privileges and
17
immunities guaranteed to him by the United States through the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1988.
V. COMMON LAW CLAIMS
96. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates all previous allegations and paragraphs within this
complaint and further refers the below paragraph to the above claims to the extent they are
applicable.
97. Plaintiffs hereby assert the death of Ismael Lopez was a “Wrongful Death” as
contemplated by Mississippi statutory and case law, and the facts as alleged above demonstrate
that each Defendant is liable for the Wrongful Death of Ismael Lopez by their intentional acts,
their acts of negligence, and their willful and wonton conduct. The Defendants each breached
their duties owed to Ismael Lopez and Plaintiffs under the law of the State of Mississippi, which
lead to a foreseeable and predictable result.
98. Plaintiffs further assert that the City of Southaven is liable for the death of Ismael
Lopez and all attending damages by the wrongful and/or negligent hiring, supervision and
retention of not only Officers Maze and Durden, but of a multitude of officers which contributed
to the policies and customs and permissive culture of silence and protection for the acts of one
another.
99. Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for the
negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress as clearly outlined by Mississippi
statutory and case-law.
18
100. Plaintiffs hereby assert and preserve their right to amend this Complaint as further
facts are discovered.
VI. DAMAGES
101. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Ismael
Lopez was wrongfully killed on July 27, 2017, and Plaintiffs, as his wife and Administrator of his
Estate, were injured.
The injuries for which Plaintiffs seeks compensation, include, but are not limited to:
a. Physical injuries, including the death of her husband, Ismael Lopez, and the
resulting loss of familial association with him;
b. Conscious physical and emotional pain and suffering of her husband, Ismael Lopez,
from the time of injury until his death, and his loss of the pleasures of life;
c. Medical expenses incurred for her husband, Ismael Lopez;
d. Funeral expenses incurred for her husband, Ismael Lopez;
e. The pecuniary value of the life of her husband, Ismael Lopez, including but not
limited to the loss of his companionship and;
f. Infliction of emotional distress, negligent, and/or reckless and/or intentional, upon
Plaintiffs;
g. Prejudgment interest and/or post-judgment interest and statutory and discretionary
costs to the extent permitted by law;
h. Attorney fees pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988;
i. Injunctive and/or declaratory relief that the acts and conduct set forth above were
19
unconstitutional, and precluding them from engaging in such activities in the future; and
j. All such further relief, both general and specific, to which they may be entitled
under the premises.
k. It was foreseeable that the above damages would be sustained as a result of the
policies, customs, lack of training, actions, and omissions of Defendants.
VII. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
102. The allegations set forth in the previous paragraphs are adopted and incorporated
herein by reference.
103. The actions of Defendants were performed intentionally, recklessly, fraudulently
and/or maliciously, thus entitling Plaintiffs to a substantial award of punitive damages under
applicable law.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully prays:
1. That proper process be issued against the Defendants requiring them to plead and
answer.
2. That Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment against the Defendants in an amount not less
than EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS ($8,000,000.00) in actual and compensatory damages.
3. That Plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages in an amount not less than TWELVE
MILLION DOLLARS ($12,000,000.00) for Defendants’ grossly negligent, reckless and/or willful
acts and/or omissions in this case, where such actions caused actual damages to the Plaintiffs.
4. That Plaintiffs be awarded funeral and burial expenses in the amount of TWENTY-
20
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00).
5. That Plaintiffs be granted such other relief, general or specific, that this Court
deems equitable and just.
6. That the costs of this action including discretionary costs be awarded to Plaintiff.
7. That a jury of the Plaintiff’s peers be empaneled to try these issues.
8. That Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these pleadings to conform to the facts
of this matter.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ALL CLAIMS ALLOWABLE
BY LAW WHEN THE ISSUES ARE JOINED HEREIN.
Respectfully Submitted,
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

CARR LAW FIRM, PLLC
s//: Michael S. Carr

Michael Carr (MSB# 102138)
Murray B. Wells (Application Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Aaron A. Neglia (Application Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Murray B. Wells (Application Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Aaron A. Neglia (Application Pro Hac Vice Pending)
81 Monroe Avenue, Suite 400
Memphis, TN 38103
Tel: (901) 507-2521
Fax: (901) 507-1791
wells@thewellsfirm.com
neglia@thewellsfirm.com
CARR LAW FIRM, PLLC
21
Michael S. Carr, (MSB #102138)

301 West Sunflower Rd., Suite D
Cleveland, MS 38732
Tel: (662) 441-1529
Fax: (662) 441-1530
mcarr@carrlawpllc.com
22

Ismael Lopez Civil Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ismael Lopez Civil Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case: 3:19-cv-00133-NBB-RP Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/19/19 1 of 22 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CLAUDIA LINARES as spouse of ISMAEL )

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiffs, CLAUDIA LINARES as spouse of Ismael Lopez, Deceased, and Edward T.

at all times relevant to this cause of action.

2. Plaintiff Edward. T. Autry is bringing this action in his representative capacity as

3. Plaintiffs Claudia Linares and Edward T. Autry shall be referred to as “Plaintiffs”

throughout this action.

4. Ismael Lopez shall be referred to as “Ismael” or “Ismael Lopez” or

“Decedent” throughout this action.

5. Defendant City of Southaven is a municipality, duly incorporated under the laws of

City of Southaven, at 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.

Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.

7. Defendant Samuel Maze (“Officer Maze” or “Defendant Maze”) is upon

at 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.

8. Defendant Zachary Durden (“Officer Durden” or “Defendant Durden”) is upon

Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671.

Desoto County, Mississippi and/or employed by the City of Southaven.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988.

District of Mississippi and more specifically in Southaven, Desoto County, Mississippi.

white male, for domestic assault at Mr. Pearman’s home.

Pearman on July 27, 2017.

Surrey Lane, Southaven, MS 38671.

number and even number addresses are on in the City of Southaven.

Pearman, the suspect.

Pearman’s house prior to the night of July 27, 2017.

Lopez’s front door.

pounded on Ismael Lopez’s front door in the middle of the night.

29. Ismael Lopez went to investigate the pounding on his door.

all black brandishing firearms.

open then no more than three (3) inches.

39. Ismael Lopez was killed by Officer Durden.

in the back of the head through a closed door.

in the back of the head by Officer Durden.

the back of the head by Officer Durden.

than six (6) feet from his body.

home when searching for Samuel Pearman.

Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution were violated.

under color of state law.

behind the deprivation of constitutional rights sustained by Ismael Lopez.

Defendant Durden were acting in their individual capacities.

IV. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY DEFENDANTS

action against the Defendants.

(c) freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process.

increase in police shootings and killings.

United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1988.

deprivation of life and liberty without due process of law.

constitutional rights of persons residing in this City.

approving and ratifying the type of misconduct alleged here.

committed by other officers, such as the misconduct in this case.

adequate training amounts to an unconstitutional policy.

violation alleged herein taking place by Southaven Police Department Officers.

Constitution were violated.

unknown individuals in the back that are retreating in fear.

belief to a grand jury.

put the City on notice of the bad actions of certain officers.

78. Defendant City of Southaven either intentionally or willfully fails to adequately

investigate complaints against its officers.

complaints against certain officers.

81. Defendant City of Southaven has a “non-complaint” policy wherein complaints to

or early intervention system to monitor the behaviors of its officers.

85. Such a denial, rather than admission or recognition of an incredibly well-