Tiffany Carver TDCJ Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-00616-MAC Document 1 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
TIFFANY CARVER, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § Civil Action No.________________
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF § Jury Requested
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MARK W. §
STILES UNIT JAIL, SERGEANT §
RODRICK ATWOOD, OFFICER §
HERMAN SMITH, and OFFICER §
KEITH WATSON, §
§
Defendants. §
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff, Tiffany Carver, (“Plaintiff”) files this Original Petition, Request for Disclosures,
and Jury Demand complaining of the conduct of defendants Texas Department of Criminal Justice
“(TDCJ”), Mark W. Stiles Unit Jail (“Unit Jail”), Sergeant Rodrick Atwood (“Atwood”), Officer
Herman Smith, CO V (“Smith”), and Officer Keith Watson, CO V (“Watson”), collectively
referred to as “Defendants” and alleges the following:
I.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
1. Known for sexually exploiting the female jailers and abusing their authority as Sergeant
and Corrections Officers V, Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith sexually assaulted, molested
and invaded Plaintiff’s right of privacy on or about December 9, 2017 in a food service hallway
which they knew to be hidden from video surveillance. Plaintiff, a young mother of two sons, was
targeted in her workplace by her supervising officers, taken into a food service hallway, locked
inside and sexually violated. Defendant Atwood, Watson and Smith aided and abetted their
Page 1 of 19
wrongful conduct by the conscious indifference and grossly negligent conduct of TDCJ and Unit
Jail sued herein who allowed the assault to happen through failure to train, failure to supervise,
and failure to enact and enforce policies designed to protect those under their care. Defendants
Atwood, Watson and Smith’s abusive conduct was known or should have been known by the
owners and operators of the Defendants TDCJ and Unit Jail’s premises, where Plaintiff was being
physically violated and imprisoned. None of the premise owners and operators took any action to
protect Plaintiff from the misconduct and sexual assaults occurring on the premises nor to provide
reasonable security measures to prevent Defendants Atwood, Watson and Smith from abusing
Plaintiff. Rather than protect Plaintiff and others from known dangers, all defendants conspired
and/or actively aided and abetted Defendants Atwood, Watson and Smith in their abuse of
Plaintiff. The defendants cooperated in maintaining the dangerous and known sexual predation
occurring at TDCJ and the Unit Jail premises. Unbeknownst to Defendants TDCJ and the Unit Jail
premises, female corrections officers were involved in inappropriate relationships with their
superior Sergeants and officers. Defendants TDCJ and the Unit Jail allowed for these inappropriate
relationships to form. Because of these relationships not only was the disgusting behavior being
covered up but the female corrections officers were rapidly promoted to higher positions. Because
each Unit Jail and TDCJ’s managers maintained sufficient control over the premises, and/or owed
a duty to Plaintiff to report the sexual abuse but did nothing reasonable to protect plaintiff, they
are now liable for Plaintiff’s actual and punitive damages.
1.2 Based on information and belief, Plaintiff sues all individual defendants in their official
capacity. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts her common law claims against all defendants for damages
resulting from the false imprisonment, assaults, battery, invasion of privacy and reckless conduct
of Defendants, Atwood, Watson, and Smith, which was aided and abetted by the TDCJ and Unit
Page 2 of 19
Jail managers. Defendants Atwood, Watson and Smith performed their reckless conduct against
Plaintiff in their official capacities while working for TDJC. All of the defendants’ conduct
enhanced plaintiff’s damages at the hands of Defendants Atwood, Watson and Smith when she
was imprisoned and assaulted on the property in a food service hallway known to not have any
video surveillance. Defendants conduct was unconscionable. Plaintiff also seeks actual damages
of at least $2,000,000.00 or more and punitive damages.
II.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
2. This case should proceed under a Level 3 discovery plan. An appropriate docket control
order will be requested. TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.4.
III.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
3. Plaintiff, Tiffany Carver, resides in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas.
3.1 Defendant, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is an entity created by the State of Texas,
and this Defendant may be served with process, pursuant to FRCP 5(b)(2)(c), by mailing a copy
of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint to this Defendant at its address: P.O. Box 4004 Huntsville,
Texas 77342-4004, by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
3.2 Defendant Mark W. Stiles Unit Jail may be served with process, pursuant to FRCP
5(b)(2)(c), by mailing a copy of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint to this Defendant at its address:
P.O. Box 4004 Huntsville, Texas 77342-4004, by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
3.3 Defendant, Rodrick Atwood, is an adult who was at all times relevant to this cause of
action, a duly appointed acting sergeant at the Mark W. Stiles Unit within the course and scope of
his employment with the County. This defendant may be served with process, pursuant to FRCP
5(b)(2)(c), by mailing a copy of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint to this Defendant at its address:
Page 3 of 19
4115 Crow Road #24 Beaumont, Texas 77706 or wherever he may be found, by First Class U.S.
Mail, return receipt requested.
3.4 Defendant, Herman Smith, is an adult who was at all times relevant to this cause of action,
a duly appointed acting Correction Officer Level V at the Mark W. Stiles Unit within the course
and scope of his employment with the County. This defendant may be served with process,
pursuant to FRCP 5(b)(2)(c), by mailing a copy of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint to this
Defendant at its address: 6085 Navajo Trail, Beaumont, Texas 77708 or wherever he may be found
by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
3.5 Defendant, Keith Watson, is an adult who was at all times relevant to this cause of action,
a duly appointed acting Correction Officer Level V at the Mark W. Stiles Unit within the course
and scope of his employment with the County. This defendant may be served with process,
pursuant to FRCP 5(b)(2)(c), by mailing a copy of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint to this
Defendant at its address: 5050 Timber Creek Loop # 5, Beaumont, Texas 77708 or wherever he
may be found, by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
V.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, as this is the district
in which the claim arose as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
4.1 Jurisdiction is based upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, which confer jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s constitutional claims for redress in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). This Court
has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4.2 Federal question jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this
action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
VI.
Page 4 of 19
DUTY AND LAW APPLICABLE
5. Plaintiff was subjected to non-consensual sexual assault in violation of the rights
guaranteed to her by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
5.1 Plaintiff commences this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, which provides, in relevant
part, for redress for every person within the jurisdiction of the United States for the deprivation,
under color of state law, or any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 13981, as well as related state law and common law
provisions as discussed below.
5.2 At all times relevant herein, Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were acting under
color of law and are liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
5.3 At all times relevant herein, Defendants TDCJ and Unit Jail were the ultimate policymakers
for jail employees. Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were at all times relevant hereto,
employees of the Unit Jail in Jefferson County, Texas. At all times material hereto, Defendants
were acting within the course and scope of their employment.
VII.
NOTICE OF FACTS
6. On December 9, 2017, Plaintiff was working in her capacity as a Correction Officer IV and
was at her assigned duty spot. While Plaintiff was at her assigned spot, Defendants, Atwood,
Watson, and Smith, informed Plaintiff that they needed to speak to her about a private matter in
the food service area. Plaintiff questioned as to what Defendants Atwood, Watson and Smith
needed to discuss, but was merely told to follow them.
6.1 While hesitant and after asking what the issue was numerous times, Plaintiff followed
Defendant Atwood, Watson, and Smith as she thought the matter was work related and she was
required to follow instructions from her superior officers. Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith
Page 5 of 19
were leading Plaintiff into the food service hallways which Defendants knew was not equipped
with video cameras and afforded Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith privacy and seclusion
to sexually assault Plaintiff, knowing their activities would not be monitored.
6.2 When Plaintiff arrived in food service hallway, Defendant Watson asked Plaintiff to follow
them further down the food service hallway, with Defendant Atwood behind her who immediately
locked the door behind her. Defendant Atwood then stated “Carver, I’m tired of you always going
around here teasing me. You’re going to give it up tonight!”
6.3 Defendant Smith then violently pushed Plaintiff against the wall and proceeded to fondle
Plaintiff’s breasts while unbuttoning her shirt. Plaintiff cried and screamed for them to stop but to
her dismay Defendant Atwood proceeded to unbuckle his pants and say “You’re going to bust it
open right here!” The disgusting sexual violations did not stop there. Defendant Atwood then
started to rub Plaintiff’s buttocks and thighs, while Plaintiff was crying for Defendant Atwood to
stop and open the door.
6.4 Instead, Defendant Smith responded with, “what makes your think this is a game? We ain’t
[sic] playing!” In fear, Plaintiff attempted to open the door but was blocked by Defendant Watson
who removed Plaintiff’s hand from the doorknob and stood in front of the door. The vulgarity
continued when Defendants Smith and Watson asked Plaintiff “Why is it that you don’t want to
fuck [sic] with us? You think you’re too good to get this dick[sic]?” Plaintiff responded in surprise
and questioned where all this lude behavior was coming from. Defendant Smith said that he would
only let Plaintiff out if she agreed to come to his house in the morning so “we can all fuck. [sic]”
Defendant Atwood then approached Plaintiff and repulsively tried to unbuckle Plaintiff’s pants.
Plaintiff moved his hands off of her and cried for him to stop.
Page 6 of 19
6.5 After approximately 7-10 minutes of this horrific incident, when Defendants finally
stopped and before they opened the door to let Plaintiff out, they threatened Plaintiff not to tell
anyone about the incident or else something bad would happen to Plaintiff.
VIII.
DEFENDANTS’ CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS
7. On March 27, 2019, Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were indicted for Official
Oppression and Unlawful Restraint of Public Servant.
7.1 As a result of Defendant Atwood’s indictment, the court gave Defendant Atwood two years
of deferred adjudication in exchange for a guilty plea. Defendant Smith and Watson’s criminal
case is still ongoing.
IX.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1: Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment)
8. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 6-6.5 above, incorporating those allegations in this count,
and further alleges as follows:
8.1 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith committed sexual assault against Plaintiff on
December 9, 2017, without consent or lawful authority by fondling her body and pulling at her
clothing in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
8.2 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith intended to cause this harmful and offensive
contact with Plaintiff in that the fondling and other harmful acts were deliberate and in that the
acts of Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were substantially certain to result in harm and
offense.
8.3 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith exceeded the level of force necessary to
accomplish any legitimate law enforcement purpose or employer employee purpose and used
Page 7 of 19
physical force against Plaintiff under circumstances where no force was necessary or appropriate.
Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith acted in bad faith and with malicious purpose and in a
manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights and safety.
8.4 All Defendants are persons under applicable law.
8.5 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith misused their power, possessed by virtue of state
law and made possible only because Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were clothes with
the authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under
color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
8.6 Defendants TDCJ and Unit Jail exhibited deliberate indifference in failing to adequately
investigate and remedy any prior conduct, in allowing an area in on the premises to be free of any
video surveillance, and in retaining but failing to adequately train, supervise, or discipline
Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith to prevent such harm.
8.7 The foregoing actions of Defendants were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s rights.
8.8 As a direct and proximate result of the above unlawful acts and omissions, Plaintiff
sustained severe damages, including emotion pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of
self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, because of Defendants’, and is therefore entitled to
compensatory damages pursuant to the above provisions.
8.9 Based on the willful and malicious conduct of these Defendants, as is set out herein,
Plaintiff is entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants sue in their
individual capacities.
Page 8 of 19
8.10 Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel to represent her to vindicate her rights. Pursuant
to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs.
Count 2: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

(Fourteenth Amendment)
9. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 6-6.5 above, incorporates those allegations in this Court, and
further alleges as follows:
9.1 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith committed battery against Plaintiff on December
7, 2017, without consent or lawful authority, by fondling her body and pulling at her clothing in
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
9.2 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith intended to cause this harmful and offensive
contact with Plaintiff in that the fondling and other harmful acts were deliberate and in that
Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith threatened and intimidated Plaintiff in the course of the
harmful acts and the acts of Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were substantially certain to
result in harm and offense.
9.3 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith exceeded the level of force necessary to enforce
compliance with lawful commands and acted in bad faith and with malicious purpose and in a
manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, and property.
law and made possible only because Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were clothes with
the authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under
color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Page 9 of 19
9.6 Defendants TDCJ and Unit Jail intentionally furthered Defendants Atwood, Watson, and
Smith’s ability to sexually assault Plaintiff and were therefore responsible for Defendants Atwood,
Watson, and Smith continuing their sexual abuse of Plaintiff or exhibited deliberate indifference
in failing to adequately investigate and remedy the complaints and in retaining but failing to
adequately train, supervise, and discipline Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith to prevent such
harm.
sustained damages, including emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-
esteem, inconvenience and hurt, because of Defendants’ actions, and is therefore entitled to
9.9 Based on the willful and malicious conduct of these Defendants, as is set out herein,
Plaintiff is entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants sued in their
individual capacities.
to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs.
Count 3: Denial of Equal Protection

Page 10 of 19
10.1 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith, by the foregoing actions practiced discrimination
and harassment against Plaintiff based upon her sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S Constitution.
10.3 Plaintiff is a woman and is therefore a member of a protected class within the meaning of
applicable law.
law and made possible because Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were clothed with the
authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under color
of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
10.5 Defendants TDCJ and Unit Jail exhibited deliberate indifference in failing to adequately
investigate and remedy the complaints and in retaining but failing to adequately train, supervise,
and discipline Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith to prevent such harm.
10.6 In promulgating policies which permitted or encouraged or permitted the cover-up of such
actions by its officers, Defendant TDCJ and Unit Jail contributed to the constitutional violation of
Plaintiff.
10.8 The disparate treatment, discrimination, and harassment described herein was based on
Plaintiff’s sex and she was negatively affected thereby.
Page 11 of 19
10.10 Based on the willful and malicious conduct of Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith, as
is set out herein, Plaintiff is entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants
Atwood, Watson, and Smith.
to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs.
Count 4: Violation of Right to Bodily Integrity

11.1 In forcibly seizing and fondling Plaintiff, Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith
intentionally and unlawfully violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity
by coercive sexual misconduct, without legal justification.
11.2 Defendants TDCJ and Unit Jail having notice of the risk of sexual abuse of Plaintiff and
other females, failed to provide safe facilities for the care of women in their jail or provide a safe
alternative.
law and made possible only because Defendants were cloaked with the authority of state law. The
violation of Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under color of state law and is
actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
11.4 The foregoing actions of Defendants were willful and wanton and in deliberate or reckless
disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution.
Page 12 of 19
compensatory damages.
11.6 Based on the willful and malicious conduct of Defendants, as is set out herein, Plaintiff is
entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants.
Count 5: Reckless Abuse, Assault
12. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 6-6.5 above, incorporates those allegations in this Count,
12.1 Plaintiff asserts her common law claim to be free from physical assault and physical abuse.
Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith in their official capacity of Defendants TDCJ and Unit
Jail were reckless and unconscionable in causing and allowing injury and damages to plaintiff.
Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were negligent in their false imprisonment, seduction,
sexual abuse, invasion of privacy, and manipulation of plaintiff which caused life-altering and
enhanced damages. Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive resulting from such conduct.
Count 6: False Imprisonment
13.1. Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith committed wrongful actions on December 9, 2017
including the physical confinement and restraint of Plaintiff against her will and without lawful
purpose or justification.
13.2 The foregoing actions of Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith were willful, wanton,
and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
Page 13 of 19
13.4 Based on the willful and malicious conduct of Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith, as
is set out herein, Plaintiff is entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants.
Count 7: Invasion of Privacy
14.1 Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the integrity of her body would not be invaded
by three men. Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith invaded Plaintiff’s body integrity by
initially locking her in a food service hallway, tearing her uniform blouse open, unzipping her
uniform pants, groping her breasts and thrusting their face into her breasts and pelvic
area…”bumping” into her butt, “squeezing” by her body in such a manner as to have Defendant
Atwood’s groin rub up against the body of Plaintiff, “trapping” plaintiff in a food service hallway
on the Unit Jail premises and eventually groping and feeling on her breasts, butt and other body
parts. Such conduct, even before there was vaginal or oral penetration, were invasions of her
privacy rights for which Plaintiff now brings suit. She seeks actual and punitive damages against
Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith and for her invasion of her privacy rights.
Count 8: Assault and Battery
Page 14 of 19
15.1 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith engaged in reckless sexual assaults and common
law assault against Plaintiff. These defendants are liable for actual and punitive damages for their
unwanted groping and touching of Plaintiff.
Count 9: Unconscionable Conduct
16.1 Defendants Atwood, Watson and Smith’s conduct was unconscionable. Their conduct was
reprehensible and against all reasonable tenets of a civilized society. Such conduct constitutes
indecency and is actionable as unconscionable conduct under Texas common law. Defendant
TDCJ Unit Jail’s cooperation in the silence if equally reprehensible and actionable under Texas
common law.
Count 10: Negligence
17.1 The defendants were all negligent and grossly negligent for which plaintiff seeks actual
and punitive damages.
Aiding and Abetting Claims Against All Defendants
18. In agreeing to conceal, commit, and/or permit the assault on Plaintiff, all defendants acted
in concert with one another with the reasonable knowledge and intent that plaintiff would be
abused and assaulted. To accomplish the object of their agreement, Defendants Atwood, Watson,
and Smith physically assaulted plaintiff while aided, abetted and engaged in a cover-up of the
behavior.
Page 15 of 19
18.1 The conduct of all defendants was committed with legal malice and conscious indifference
to plaintiff’s rights and justifies an award of punitive damages as to each defendant.
18.2 Defendants also breached the contract and oral agreements they made to plaintiff in the
(policies and procedures. Plaintiff also seek breach of contract damages.
Gross Negligence, Unconscionable and Willful Misconduct- Punitive Damages
18.3 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made above.
18.4 Defendants’ conduct constitutes gross negligence, unconscionable and willful misconduct,
and aide and abetting unlawful acts against Plaintiff. All defendants have acted in such a willful
and conscious manner and with disregard for plaintiff’s rights so as to allow for the imposition of
punitive damages. Defendants have specifically intended conduct that has caused substantial injury
to plaintiff and defendants have acted in flagrant disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of
others, and with actual awareness. Defendants’ actions and inactions constitute intentional,
knowing and willful misconduct. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants
exemplary damages in an amount determined by the jury to be appropriate and fitting under the
circumstances.
Count 11: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
19. Plaintiff re-alleges 6-6.5 above, incorporates those allegations in this Count, and further
alleges as follows:
19.1 Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith, by the conduct described herein, including the
victimization of a person in Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith’s charge, the threats against
Plaintiff at the time of the fondling and sexual abuse, the demand for sexual favors and vulgarity,
constitutes outrageous conduct that would shock the conscience of a reasonable person, and
constitutes the actionable tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Page 16 of 19
19.2 As a direct and proximate result of the above unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants’,
Plaintiff sustained damages, including emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss
of self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, because of Defendants’ actions, and is therefore entitled
to compensatory damages pursuant to the above provisions.
19.3 Based on the willful and malicious conduct of Defendants, as is set out herein, Plaintiff is
entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
20. It is anticipated that Defendants will raise, or will attempt to raise, a defense of qualified
immunity. In this regard, Plaintiff pleads that it was well-established law, as of well prior to
December 9, 2017, that every citizen of the United States has a clearly defined constitutional right
to be free from unwanted sexual touching and sexual assault by law enforcement officers in
accordance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as
applied to the several states through the Fourteenth Amendment. No reasonable law enforcement
officer would have acted as the Defendants did under these circumstances. See, e.g., Roe v. Tex.
Dept. Prot. & Reg. Servs., 299 F.3d 395 (5th Cir.2002); Doe v. Taylor Independent School Dist.,
15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1994); Doe v. Clairborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 1996).
Defendants are, therefore, not entitled to protection of qualified immunity for this lawsuit.
ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
21. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of attorneys to represent her in this
complex and difficult proceeding and prosecute this cause of action on her behalf. Plaintiff has
retained the undersigned attorney to represent her, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) of the
Federal Civil Rights Act, she is entitled to recover her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees
incurred for the attorney, and the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the pursuit of this
Page 17 of 19
claim at the trial level, the Court of Appeals level, if the case is appealed to that Court, and the
Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary.
JURY DEMAND
22. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the required jury fee.
DAMAGES
23. Plaintiff now seeks and requests from the Court a jury trial and entry of judgment granting
at least the following relief:
a. Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. These expenses were incurred by
Plaintiff, Tiffany Carver, for the necessary care and treatment of injuries resulting from
the incident complained of herein and such charges are reasonable and were usual and
customary charges for such services in Jefferson County, Texas;
b. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will, in all reasonable
probability, be incurred in the future;
c. Physical pain and suffering in the past;
d. Mental anguish in the past;
e. Physical pain and suffering in the future;
f. Mental anguish in the future;
g. Loss of earnings in the past;
h. Loss of earning capacity which will, in all probability, be incurred in the future;
i. Loss of consortium in the past, including damages to the family relationship, loss of
care, comfort, solace, companionship, protection, services, and/or physical relations;
j. Loss of consortium in the future including damages to the family relationship, loss of
care, comfort, solace, companionship, protection, services, and/or physical relations;
k. Actual damages of 2,000,000.00 or more;
l. Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees through the time of trial, and such further
attorneys’ fees in the event this matter is appealed;
m. Punitive damages;
Page 18 of 19
n. Court costs;
o. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
p. Such other and further relief, general and special, legal and equitable, to which Plaintiff
may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THE COX PRADIA LAW FIRM, PLLC
By:[signed] Troy J. Pradia

Troy J. Pradia
tjp@coxpradialaw.com
State Bar No. 24011945
Fed. Bar No.: 30260
1415 North Loop West, Suite 305
HOUSTON, TX 77008
Tel. (713) 752-2300
Fax. (713)752 2812
Attorney for Plaintiff
Page 19 of 19

Tiffany Carver TDCJ 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

Tiffany Carver TDCJ Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:19-cv-00616-MAC Document 1 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Herman Smith, CO V (“Smith”), and Officer Keith Watson, CO V (“Watson”), collectively

referred to as “Defendants” and alleges the following:

are now liable for Plaintiff’s actual and punitive damages.

of at least $2,000,000.00 or more and punitive damages.

order will be requested. TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.4.

3. Plaintiff, Tiffany Carver, resides in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas.

Texas 77342-4004, by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.

Mail, return receipt requested.

by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.

may be found, by First Class U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.

in which the claim arose as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

DUTY AND LAW APPLICABLE

5. Plaintiff was subjected to non-consensual sexual assault in violation of the rights

provisions as discussed below.

color of law and are liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

were acting within the course and scope of their employment.

needed to discuss, but was merely told to follow them.

to sexually assault Plaintiff, knowing their activities would not be monitored.

around here teasing me. You’re going to give it up tonight!”

stop and open the door.

Oppression and Unlawful Restraint of Public Servant.

case is still ongoing.

Count 1: Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment)

and further alleges as follows:

clothing in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

8.4 All Defendants are persons under applicable law.

color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Defendants Atwood, Watson, and Smith to prevent such harm.

self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, because of Defendants’, and is therefore entitled to

compensatory damages pursuant to the above provisions.

Count 2: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

further alleges as follows:

violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

result in harm and offense.

9.4 All Defendants are persons under applicable law.

color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

compensatory damages pursuant to the above provisions.

Count 3: Denial of Equal Protection

further alleges as follows:

the U.S Constitution.

10.2 All Defendants are persons under applicable law.

of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Plaintiff’s sex and she was negatively affected thereby.

compensatory damages pursuant to the above provisions.

Atwood, Watson, and Smith.

Count 4: Violation of Right to Bodily Integrity

further alleges as follows:

by coercive sexual misconduct, without legal justification.

actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution.

entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages against Defendants.

Count 5: Reckless Abuse, Assault

and further alleges as follows:

Count 6: False Imprisonment

and further alleges as follows:

and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

compensatory damages pursuant to the above provisions.

Count 7: Invasion of Privacy

and further alleges as follows:

Count 8: Assault and Battery