Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc.

#: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT ROBERT BEENE, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI a municipal corporation, and LARRY DAVIS, an individual, and PATRICK WELCH, an individual, and CHRIS GOODSON, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, and JULIUS K. HUNTER, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, and TODD H. EPSTEN, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, VINCENT J. BOMMARITO, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, Defendants. 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Complaint No. _______________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 2 of 9 PageID #: 2

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, for his Complaint alleges the following: 1. Plaintiff at all times relevant to the Complaint is an individual and a resident of the

City of St. Louis and State of Missouri. 2. Defendant, City of St. Louis, is a municipal corporation formed in and existing within

the State of Missouri. 3. Defendants Larry Davis and Patrick Welch at all times relevant to this Complaint

were employed by the City of St. Louis, Missouri as police officers and were police officers of the City of St. Louis and of the State of Missouri. 4. Defendants Chris Goodson, Julius K. Hunter, Todd H. Epsten and Vincent J.

Bommarito at all times relevant to this Complaint were members of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis. 5. The Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis is an agency of the State

of Missouri which established and employed the police force of the City of St. Louis. 6. Defendant Police Officers Larry Davis and Patrick Welch were at all relevant times

acting under color of law and on behalf of the City of St. Louis and the members of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis. 7. Defendant Police Officers Larry Davis and Patrick Welch are each sued individually

and in their official capacities. 8. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1988. Jurisdiction

is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343. Pendant and supplemental jurisdiction is invoked for this Court to decide claims that may arise under State Law. 9. Venue is properly brought in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 2

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 3 of 9 PageID #: 3

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). FACTS 10. On the evening of October 2nd, 2008, the Plaintiff Robert Beene was walking to his

home at 5017 Vermont Avenue in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. 11. cigarettes. 12. Mr. Beene was approached by a person he believes to be Defendant Larry Davis who Mr. Beene had just left a neighborhood convenience store where he had stopped for

ordered Mr. Beene to stop and come toward him. 13. vehicle. 14. Defendant Davis told Mr. Beene that he needed to talk to him and placed him in Defendant Davis was in plain dark clothing and had exited a dark sports utility

handcuffs and pushed him into the SUV. 15. Once inside the vehicle, Mr. Beene was questioned by Defendant Davis and by

another person dressed like Defendant Davis who he believes to be Defendant Patrick Welch. 16. neighborhood. 17. 18. Mr. Beene denied any knowledge of drug activity. Mr. Beene was then called a liar by Defendant Davis and threatened with bodily harm Mr. Beene was questioned about drug activity in a particular building in his

if he did not tell Defendant Davis the truth. 19. The Plaintiff was then driven by Defendants Davis and Welch to a location near the

intersection of Broadway and Davidson in the City of St. Louis and taken from the vehicle. 20. Defendants Davis and Welch walked Mr. Beene near the edge of a bluff overlooking

the Mississippi River. 3

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 4 of 9 PageID #: 4

21.

Mr. Beene was then punched in the face by Defendant Davis which caused him to fall

to his knees and was then kneed in the groin by Defendant Davis. 22. to shut up. 23. He was taken to the edge of the bluff by Defendants Davis and Welch several times Mr. Beene begged Defendants Davis and Welch to stop and let him go, but was told

where they threatened to push him off. 24. Then Defendant Welch instructed Defendant Davis to hold him up and Defendant

Welch then punched Mr. Beene in the body numerous times. 25. The Defendants struck and cursed Mr. Beene and then Defendant Welch placed a

pistol to Mr. Beenes head and asked him if he wanted a closed casket. 26. Mr. Beene continued to plead with them to stop at which time Defendant Welch

moved the pistol from his head to his chest and said that he should shoot Mr. Beene in the chest so his mother would be able to look at him. 27. 28. Mr. Beene was told that he had his choice of the head or the chest. As Mr. Beene continued to plead, Defendant Welch holstered his pistol and Mr.

Beene was released and fell to the ground. 29. Mr. Beene was struck again by Defendant Davis and spit on and told that the next

time the Defendants saw him he should just cooperate. 30. 31. Mr. Beene was then left on the ground and the Defendants drove away. Thereafter Mr. Beene contacted his wife who picked him up at the corner of

Broadway and Davidson. 32. 33. Mr. Beene was not placed under arrest or booked and was not charged with any crime. As a result of the actions of Defendants Davis and Welch as described herein, Mr. 4

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 5 of 9 PageID #: 5

Beene received contusions, abrasions, a chest wall strain, and a fractured rib and other trauma to the body for which he received medical treatment at St. Alexius Hospital and from his personal physician. COUNT I As and for a First Cause of Action against the Defendants: 34. 35. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint. The intentional striking of, kneeing and spitting upon the Plaintiff Robert Beene and

the intentional threatening of his life with a pistol when the Defendant police officers had no lawful authority to arrest him, when he was unarmed and did not pose a threat of injury to the police officers, and when he had not violated any law, was without justification or provocation, and was an excessive use of force and constitutes assault and battery for which the Defendant police officers are individually liable. 36. As a proximate result of the assault and battery committed by the Defendant police

officers, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and suffered pain, both mental and physical which have caused and will continue to cause great pain and suffering, and has incurred medical expenses and bills. COUNT II As and for a Second Cause of Action against the Defendants: 37. 38. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint. Plaintiff was detained, handcuffed, searched and interrogated without cause in that

there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause or lawful basis for Plaintiffs stop, detention, search and interrogation. 39. Defendants actions constituted a violation of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights 5

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 6 of 9 PageID #: 6

under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 40. As a direct result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff was subjected to physical and

emotional injury, loss of liberty and freedom and deprivation of his property. COUNT III As and for a Third Cause of Action against the Defendants: 41. Complaint. 42. The intentional assault and battery of the Plaintiff when he was unarmed and did not Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 40 of the

pose a threat of injury to the Defendants or others was done with willful and wanton indifference to and deliberate disregard for Plaintiffs life and rights and Plaintiff is thus entitled to exemplary damages. COUNT IV As and for a Fourth Cause of Action against the Defendants: 43. 44. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Complaint. The Defendant police officers conspired to violate the Plaintiffs statutory civil rights

as more fully described in the foregoing paragraphs in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 for which they are each individually liable. COUNT V As and for a Fifth Cause of Action against the Defendants: 45. 46. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 44 of the Complaint. The Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the members of the Board of Police

Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, namely Defendant Chris Goodson, Defendant Julius K. Hunter, Defendant Todd H. Epsten and Defendant Vincent J. Bommarito have failed to train, 6

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 7 of 9 PageID #: 7

supervise and discipline Defendant Police Officers Larry Davis and Patrick Welch so as to prevent the unlawful behavior of the officers as described herein. 47. The failure of the Defendant City of St. Louis and the defendant members of the

Board of Police Commissioners to train, supervise, and discipline the Defendant Officers amounts to a deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the officers come into contact, including the Plaintiff herein, and the failure has created and encouraged the unlawful conduct described herein. 48. The failure to train, discipline and supervise the Defendant Officers by the Defendant

City of St. Louis and the Defendant members of the Board of Police Commissioners was an actual cause of the constitutional deprivations and injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. 49. As a direct result of the negligence of the Defendant City of St. Louis and the

Defendant members of the Board of Police Commissioners in failing to train, discipline and supervise the officers, the Plaintiff was subjected to physical and emotional injury and deprivation of liberty, freedom and property. COUNT VI As and for the Sixth Cause of Action against the Defendants: 50. 51. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 49 of the Complaint. It was the policy and practice of the City of St. Louis to authorize police officers,

including the Defendant Officers named herein, to cover up the use of excessive force and unlawful detention of persons despite the lack of probable cause to arrest or any actual violation of law which would justify the issuance of a summons or ticket or the arrest or detention of persons. This policy and practice of the City of St. Louis encouraged and caused constitutional violations by the Citys police officers including the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights by the Defendant police 7

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 8 of 9 PageID #: 8

officers as described herein. 52. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant members of the Board of Police

Commissioners who are charged with establishing and employing the City of St. Louis police force and supervising its officers, encouraged and tolerated the policies and practices described in the foregoing paragraph. The Defendant members of the Board of Police Commissioners refused and failed to adequately train, direct, supervise or control the Defendant police officers so as to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and his injuries received at the hands of the officers. 53. The policies and practices were enforced by the Defendant City of St. Louis and the

Defendant members of the Board of Police Commissioners and were the moving force, proximate cause, or affirmative link behind the conduct causing the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and his injuries. Defendant the City of St. Louis and Defendant members of the Board of Police Commissioners are therefore liable for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and his injuries suffered at the hands of Defendant Police Officers Larry Davis and Patrick Welch. COUNT VII As and for the Seventh Cause of Action against the Defendants: 54. 55. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 53 of the Complaint. The failure of the Defendant City of St. Louis and the Defendant members of the

Board of Police Commissioners to provide adequate training, discipline, and supervision of their officers and to engage in policies and practices as set out above with respect to their officers constitutes a willful and wanton indifference and deliberate disregard for the rights of private citizens, including the Plaintiff; and Plaintiff is, thus, entitled to exemplary damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages sustained in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($200,000.00) as to each 8

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 9 of 9 PageID #: 9

count or cause of action set forth herein, together with a nominal and punitive damage award as to each defendant and Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees to be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1998, together with Plaintiffs costs and expenses incurred in this action. Respectfully submitted, BRASSIL & ROHLFING, P.C.

/s/____________________________ JAMES L. ROHLFING, #6500 4390 Lindell Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 534-5110 FAX (314) 534-5190 Attorney for Plaintiff jlrohlfing@sbcglobal.net

OJS 44 (Rev. 11/04)Case:

4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1-2

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 10 CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a)

PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS
City Of St. Louis, et al.
City of St. Louis
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

ROBERT BEENE

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

James L. Rohlfing, Brassil & Rohlfing, P.C. 4390 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108 314-534-5110

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

1
U.S. Government Plaintiff

(Place an X in One Box Only)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1 DEF 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation

3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

U.S. Government Defendant

4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State

2 3

2 3

5 6

5 6

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT

(Place an X in One Box Only) TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veterans Benefits 160 Stockholders Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury CIVIL RIGHTS 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 440 Other Civil Rights

PERSONAL INJURY 362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS

610 Agriculture 620 Other Food & Drug 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881 630 Liquor Laws 640 R.R. & Truck 650 Airline Regs. 660 Occupational Safety/Health 690 Other LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act 740 Railway Labor Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS

820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC 7609

510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
$ 1
Original Proceeding

(Place an X in One Box Only)

Transferred from 6 Multidistrict another district Removed from Remanded from Reinstated or (specify) State Court Appellate Court Reopened Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Brief description of cause:

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

DEMAND $ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN 1,400,000.00 UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): JUDGE IF ANY
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: Yes No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER

James L. Rohlfing
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print

Save As...

Export as FDF

Retrieve FDF File

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/04)

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1-2

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 11

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section (see attachment). II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an X in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an X in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judges decision. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case: 4:09-cv-00651-TCM Doc. #: 1-3

Filed: 04/27/09 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 12