18BB,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle District (NCMD) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA

DRUMWRIGHT et al v. COLE et al Assigned to: JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES Referred to: MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD Lead case: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA Member case: (View Member Case) Related Case: 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 11/02/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT

represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW REGIONAL OFFICE POB 956 CARRBORO, NC 27510 919-521-8333 Email: ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JASON L. KEITH KEITH LAW & ASSOCIATES 241 SUMMIT AVE., STE. 103 GREENSBORO, NC 27401 336-574-0368 Fax: 336-574-0338 Email: jasonk1906@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTI L. GRAUNKE ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-354-5066 Email: kgraunke@acluofnc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EDITH ANN JONES

DANIEL K. SIEGEL ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-307-9242 Email: dsiegel@acluofnc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-666-7032 Fax: 919-869-2075 Email: jmaffetore@acluofnc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K ST., NW, STE. 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-662-8329 Fax: 202-783-0857 Email: jnwachukwu@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Regional Office PO Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 919-261-3668 Email: mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH

Plaintiff
JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE

Plaintiff ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE
Plaintiff QUENCLYN ELLISON M.E., by and through her guardian

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address)

Quenclyn Ellison; Z.P., by and through his guardian Quenclyn Ellison
Plaintiff FAITH COOK

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL

Plaintiff
MELANIE MITCHELL J.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell; B.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JANET NESBITT
Plaintiff ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD

represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff EDITH WARD

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff AVERY HARVEY
Plaintiff ASHLEY REED BATTEN

MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON L. KEITH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant MARY KRISTINE COLE in her official and individual capacities as Graham Chief of Police
Defendant TERRY JOHNSON in his official and individual capacities as Alamance County Sheriff

represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER ENVISAGE LAW 2601 OBERLIN ROAD SUITE 100 RALEIGH, NC 27608 919-414-0313 Fax: 919-782-0452 Email: ajbiller@envisage.law LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK HOUGHTON FLANAGAN CRANFILL SUMNER AND HARTZOG, L.L.P. POB 30787 CHARLOTTE, NC 28230 704-940-3419 Fax: 704-332-9994 Email: phf@cshlaw.com

Defendant CLIFF PARKER individually and in his capacity as Alamance County Sheriff
Defendant

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL GERARD GESSNER CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP 5420 WADE PARK BLVD., STE. 300 RALEIGH, NC 27607 919-863-8734 Fax: 919-863-3477 Email: pgessner@cshlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM L. HILL FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP POD 1559 GREENSBORO, NC 27402 336-378-7787 Fax: 336-274-7358 Email: whill@frazierlawnc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT ALAMANCE CO. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 15A 124 W. ELM ST. GRAHAM, NC 27253 336-570-4046 Fax: 336-570-6788 Email: clyde.albright@alamancenc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JONATHAN FRANKS in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as consultant to the Alamance County Sheriff and Graham Police Chief
Defendant
ALAMANCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES JOHN AND JANE DOES #1 THROUGH #20 in their individual capacities
Defendant
JOAQUIN VELEZ individually and in his official capacity as Graham Police Lieutenant
Defendant
CITY OF GRAHAM
Defendant
GRAHAM POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOES #21-40 in their individual capacities

Date Filed

# Docket Text

11/02/2020 1

COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND EMERGENCY DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Justice for the Next Generation et al against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0418-2923707.)(Related Case # 1:20-cv-613), filed by GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, Justice for the Next Generation, Edith Ann Jones.(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) Modified on 11/3/2020 to correct event description. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

11/03/2020

Case ASSIGNED to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES and MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

11/03/2020

CASE REFERRED to Mediation pursuant to Local Rule 83.9b of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Court. Please go to our website under Attorney Information for a list of mediators which must be served on all parties. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

11/04/2020 11/09/2020 11/09/2020 11/09/2020 11/09/2020 11/09/2020 11/16/2020 11/18/2020 11/20/2020 11/30/2020 11/30/2020

STANDARD ORDER for civil cases proceeding before JUDGE

2

CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered:

11/04/2020)

3 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney DANIEL K. SIEGEL on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney KRISTI L. GRAUNKE on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION (GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney JACLYN A. MAFFETORE on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION (MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ELIZABETH HADDIX on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney MARK DOROSIN on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION (DOROSIN, MARK) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendant TERRY JOHNSON (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

9 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney PATRICK HOUGHTON FLANAGAN on behalf of Defendant TERRY JOHNSON (FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

10 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER on behalf of Defendant MARY KRISTY COLE (BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT on behalf of Defendant TERRY JOHNSON (ALBRIGHT, CLYDE) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

12 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney PAUL GERARD GESSNER on behalf of Defendant TERRY JOHNSON (GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

11/30/2020

13 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1

11/30/2020

Complaint, by MARY KRISTY COLE, TERRY JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/30/2020)
Motions Referred: RE: 13 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time

12/01/2020 12/01/2020 12/02/2020 12/02/2020 12/02/2020 12/04/2020
12/10/2020

to File Answer re 1 Complaint, to MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

14 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be consolidated with 1:20-cv-00997 by MARY KRISTY COLE, TERRY JOHNSON. Response to Motion due by 12/22/2020 (FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered: 12/01/2020)

BRIEF re 14 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be

15

consolidated with 1:20-cv-00997 by Defendants MARY KRISTY

COLE, TERRY JOHNSON filed by MARY KRISTY COLE,

TERRY JOHNSON. (FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered:

12/01/2020)

TEXT ORDER granting 13 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. TERRY JOHNSON and MARY KRISTY COLE shall answer or otherwise respond by 01/18/2021. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 12/02/2020. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

16 Corrected document re 15
(Entered: 12/02/2020)

Brief. (FLANAGAN, PATRICK)

Motions Submitted: 14 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be consolidated with 1:20-cv-00997 to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

ORDER that the motions are GRANTED and these cases are

17

consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings, and, subject to review

closer to trial, for trial. Allen v. City, 20cv997, is designated as the

lead case. Henceforth all pleadings, motions, briefs, and other

allowable filings shall be filed in that case only. Signed by JUDGE

CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 12/04/2020. Related Case (L)

1:20CV997.(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

18 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2947284.) (NWACHUKWU, JENNIFER) (Entered: 12/10/2020)

12/11/2020 12/14/2020 01/20/2021 01/21/2021
01/21/2021
01/21/2021
03/29/2021

19 First AMENDED COMPLAINT Justice 4 the Next Generation et al against defendant All Defendants, filed by GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, EDITH ANN JONES.(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

First AMENDED COMPLAINT Justice 4 the Next Generation et

20

al against defendant All Defendants, filed by GREGORY

DRUMWRIGHT, FAITH COOK, QUENCLYN ELLISON,

ME.Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-

CCE-LPA(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

21 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ELIZABETH HADDIX on behalf of Plaintiff JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20cv-00998-CCE-LPA(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 01/20/2021)

22 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney KRISTI L. GRAUNKE on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00998CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

23 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney JACLYN A. MAFFETORE on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

24 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney DANIEL K. SIEGEL on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

25 ORDER granting (63) Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem ad Litem. J.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell; B.A., by

03/29/2021 06/02/2021
06/09/2021 06/11/2021

and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell in case 1:20-cv-00997CCE-LPA. Signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 03/29/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv00998-CCE-LPA(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

26 ORDER granting (64) Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem ad Litem, that Quenclyn Ellison is hereby appointed Guardian ad Litem to act on behalf of M.E. and Z.P. in prosecuting this action in case 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA. Signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 03/29/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCELPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE

27

CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 06/02/2021. The City defendants'

motion for leave to exceed word limitation, Doc. 47 , is GRANTED.

The City defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 45 , is GRANTED in

part and the § 1983 claims against Chief Cole, Lt. Velez, and Officer

Franks in their official capacities for violating the plaintiffs First and

Fourth Amendment rights, Doc. 25 at 17582, are DISMISSED. The §

1983 claims against all other defendants will proceed, and the City

defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED as to the

Drumwright complaint. The City's motion is HELD IN ABEYANCE

to the extent it is directed at the Allen complaint, Doc. 24 . The

County defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 52 ,

is DENIED. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-

00998-CCE-LPA(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 06/02/2021)

REVISED STANDARD ORDER for civil cases proceeding before

28

JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES.(Winchester, Robin) (Entered:

06/09/2021)

29 NOTICE of Initial Pretrial Conference Hearing: Initial Pretrial Conference Hearing set for 7/26/2021 09:30 AM in Greensboro Courtroom #1A before MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD. (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 06/11/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

06/25/2021 13:35:50

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

14

Cost:

Eric Gripp
1:20-cv00998-CCELPA
1.40

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH )

ANN JONES, and JUSTICE FOR THE )

NEXT GENERATION;

) Civ. No. ___________

)

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

) COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY

) RESTRAINING ORDER AND

TERRY JOHNSON, in his official and ) EMERGENCY DECLARATORY

individual capacities as Alamance County ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Sheriff, and MARY KRISTY COLE, in )

her official and individual capacities as )

Graham Chief of Police.

)

)

Defendants.

)

Plaintiffs Reverend Gregory Drumwright, Edith Ann Jones, and Justice for the Next Generation, by and through counsel, file this complaint for injunctive relief and damages against Defendants Terry Johnson and Kristy Cole, and allege upon information and belief as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. On October 31, the last day of early voting and same-day voter registration in North Carolina, and three days before the November 2020 General Elections, Defendants and their deputies and officers planned and orchestrated the violent dispersal of a peaceful and nonpartisan march to a polling place in Graham, North Carolina. Participants in the “I Am Change March to the Polls” were physically injured when Defendants’ deputies and officers used

1

Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 22

pepper spray on peaceful marchers, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Terrified by these actions and suffering the painful effects of pepper spray, many participants, including Plaintiff Jones, were unable to proceed to the polls that day. Multiple individuals, including Plaintiff Drumwright, in addition to suffering harm from the pepper spray, were unlawfully arrested by Defendants’ deputies and officers. The Alamance County magistrate banned those arrested from returning to the City of Graham for 72 hours.
2. Defendants’ actions amplify the already charged atmosphere for voters in North Carolina. Defendants’ deputies and officers, by planning and authorizing the excessive force against Plaintiffs and interfering with Plaintiffs’ protected speech and assembly rights, have deprived Alamance County voters, including those who attended the October 31 “I Am Change” March to the Polls in Graham, and members of Plaintiff Justice for the Next Generation (“J4tNG”) of their fundamental right to vote free from intimidation, harassment, threats, or other forms of coercion.
3. Defendants’ actions to suppress and violently disperse a peaceful assembly gathered for the express purpose of encouraging people to vote intimidates and discourages Plaintiff J4tNG’s members and other march participants from voting. It has long been recognized that “voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Burdick v. Takashi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Courts have recognized “[v]oter intimidation presents an ongoing threat to the participation of minority individuals in the political process.” Democratic Nat’l Comm. v.
2
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 22

Republican Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575, 578-79 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d 673 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 1471 (2013).
4. By using excessive force and issuing unlawful orders to disperse, Defendants also violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association and also violated Plaintiffs Drumwright’s and Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive force.
5. Plaintiffs Drumwright and J4tNG plan to hold a get-out-the-vote march in Graham on Election Day, November 3, 2020, and all Plaintiffs intend to continue to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest police violence and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County -- including the Confederate monument in Graham’s public square -- in the days and weeks ahead.
6. J4tNG brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its individual and community group members, to put a stop to Defendants’ actions that violate federal law.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Gregory B. Drumwright is an adult Black resident of Guilford County, North Carolina, a Professor of Communications at High Point University, a community organizer and social justice activist, and Senior Minister of the Citadel Church in Greensboro. Rev. Drumwright is Lead Organizer of Plaintiff J4tNG, helped organize and led the “I Am Change” March to the Polls in Graham on October 31, 2020 and plans to lead a similar march on Election Day, November 3, 2020. He also led a demonstration to protest racialized policing and police brutality against Black people and communities, and to protest the Confederate
3
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 3 of 22

monument in Graham on July 11, 2020. He plans to continue to gather Alamance citizens and protest these same issues in Graham near the Historic Courthouse after the election.
8. Plaintiff J4tNG is an unincorporated association of community organizations organizing for racial justice and an end to police violence and other forms of systemic racial oppression. To fulfill that mission and purpose, Plaintiff JFtNG has organized and participated in “get out the vote” drives for the 2020 election in North Carolina and across the country. Defendants’ unlawful acts on October 31 frustrate Plaintiff J4tNG’s mission and purpose and has caused J4tNG to divert resources away from its other racial justice activities in order to prevent and guard against voter intimidation in Alamance County. Defendants’ unlawful actions on October 31 also caused harm to Plaintiff J4tNG’s individual and organizational members, particularly those voter members who reside in Alamance County.
9. Plaintiff Edith Ann Jones, who goes by Ann Jones, is an adult Caucasian resident of Graham North Carolina, is registered to vote within North Graham Precinct in Alamance County. Plaintiff Jones, a life-long resident of Alamance County, is a member of People for Change, which joined with Plaintiff J4tNG to help organize and participate in the October 31 “I Am Change” March to the Polls. Plaintiff Jones has protested police brutality and white supremacy, including the Confederate monument in Graham, and intends to continue to seek to exercise her First Amendment rights in Graham and Alamance County.
10. Defendant Terry S. Johnson (“Defendant Johnson” or “the Sheriff”) is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Johnson is the chief law enforcement officer of
4
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 4 of 22

Alamance County, and as such has authority to assign duties to sheriff’s deputies and enforce local ordinances in effect throughout the county. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-1 et seq.
11. Defendant Kristy Cole (“Defendant Cole”) is sued in her official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department (GPD), is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Cole has charge of the GPD and as such is authorized to assign duties to GPD officers and is responsible for seeing that GPD officers faithfully perform their duties. See id. Ch. 2, art. IV, div. 1, § 2-120.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) to redress the deprivation, under the color of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution. 13. Plaintiffs have standing to enforce these rights and all rights asserted herein. 14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under federal law, under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action requests equitable or other relief under statues protecting the right to vote and civil rights. 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as residents of North Carolina. 16. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. 17. This Court has the authority to provide the emergency declaratory and injunctive
5
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 5 of 22

relief requested pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
18. The allegations herein justify injunctive relief in order to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Right to Vote Is Protected by Law. 19. The right to vote in an election is guaranteed by, inter alia, the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 20. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (the “Ku Klux Klan Act”) was the last of the Enforcement Acts, passed during Reconstruction to protect the suffrage rights of formerly enslaved people and to protect them and their supporters from violence, intimidation, and harassment. 21. The Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), provides for damages and equitable relief “if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of . . . an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). 22. The Ku Klux Klan Act provides that an action will lie against the conspirators so long as “one or more persons engaged” in the conspiracy “do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy.” Id. 23. Even as to those persons who do not directly participate in those activities, the Ku
6
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 6 of 22

Klux Klan Act makes it unlawful to conspire with others to promote, organize, and otherwise facilitate those efforts.
24. The Voting Rights Act also protects against intimidation in both elections and registration efforts. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act prohibits actual or attempted “intimidation,” “threats,” or “coercion” against a person, either “for voting or attempting to vote” or “for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.” 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b). Section 11(b) authorizes private suits against private actors, even in the absence of any action by a state or state official. Id.
25. Invasions of physical space and intimations of possible future violence, prosecution, or legal action based on a voter’s presence at the polls constitute unlawful voter intimidation. See, e.g., Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican Party, 2016 WL 6542486, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2016) (entering a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting voter intimidation activities); Katzenbach v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 250 F. Supp. 330, 334 (E.D. La. 1965) (pattern of acts and threats of physical violence constituted intimidation of voter’s attempt to exercise their civil rights); United States v. Clark, 249 F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ala. 1965) (baseless arrests and prosecutions of black citizens seeking to vote and voter registration volunteers declared unlawful and violated voters right to vote).
26. It is a federal crime, punishable by financial penalties and imprisonment, to intimidate voters in a presidential election. 18 U.S.C. § 594.
Notwithstanding Legislation and Enforcement Efforts, Voter Intimidation Remains A Problem. 27. Despite significant legislation aimed at allowing people to register to vote and
7
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 7 of 22

cast their ballot without fear of actual or attempted intimidation, threats, or coercion, efforts to
intimidate voters have persisted.
28. In 2000, Black voters in Florida complained about police traffic stops on Election
Day, according to a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.1 And in 2010, advocates
raised concerns regarding voter suppression when North Carolina police set up traffic
checkpoints between primarily Black apartment complexes and polling locations.2 In 2016,
within the first few hours of polls opening, over 4,000 reports of intimidation and suppression
were called into the Election Protection hotline nationally.3 These complaints included, for
example, reports of a crowd aggressively confronting voters as they arrived at a polling
location, causing some of them to leave before casting their ballot, and lines of cars with
Confederate flags driving past polling locations.4 As recently as 2018, voters in Georgia raised
concerns of voter intimidation after police stopped groups of seniors were stopped on their way
to the polls.5 In September 2020, a candidate’s supporters were reported to have intimidated
voters at a Fairfax County, Virginia early voting polling station.6
1 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election (2001), https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm. 2 Nancy McLaughlin and Joe Killian, Dems, blacks question timing of checkpoint, Greensboro News & Record, Nov. 2, 2010, https://greensboro.com/news/political/dems-blacks-question-timing-ofcheckpoint/article_8ad13789-60e3-5520-bfb3-168dc58d5bdc.html. 3 Alan Neuhauser, Voter Intimidation Complaints Surge, U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 8, 2016, https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-08/voter-intimidation-complaints-surge. 4 Id. 5 Astead Herndon, Georgia Voting Begins Amid Accusations of Voter Suppression, N.Y. Times, Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/georgia-voter-suppression.html. 6 Nick Corasaniti and Stephanie Saul, Trump Supporters Disrupt Early Voting in Virginia, N.Y. Times, Sept. 19, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/trump-supporters-early-votingvirginia.html.
8
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 8 of 22

Defendants’ Violent Suppression of a March to the Polls Is Unlawful And Has Intimidated, Threatened, And Coerced Voters, Including Plaintiffs. 29. Plaintiffs are actively involved in community organizing, including mobilizing community members in Alamance County on racial justice and voting rights issues through exercise of their rights to speech and assembly. 30. Plaintiff Drumwright (among others) sued Defendants Johnson and then Graham Police Chief Jeffrey Prichard (among others) on July 2, 2020 to enforce his First Amendment rights to speech and assembly on the streets of Graham, North Carolina. See Peterman, et al, v. NAACP, Alamance Branch, 1:20-cv-00613- CCE-LPA, Dkt. 1, Dkt. 27. In particular, Rev. Drumwright sought to enforce his rights to speak and assemble on the grounds of the Historic Courthouse square in Graham. 31. On July 6, 2020, this Court entered a consent Temporary Restraining Order restraining Graham and Alamance county officials from enforcing a Graham City ordinance prohibiting more than two people from protesting in Graham without a permit. Dkt. 15. Graham’s City Council subsequently repealed the ordinance on July 14, Dkt. 27-1, and on August 14, this Court later entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Alamance County officials from prohibiting all protests on many spaces in and around the Historic Courthouse. Dkt. 63. 32. On Saturday, July 11, 2020, Reverend Drumwright led a peaceful march in the City of Graham to protest police brutality and white supremacy. He applied for and received permission from the City of Graham, the NC Department of Transportation, and Alamance County officials to lead his march in NC Hwy 87 from Burlington to the Confederate
9
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 9 of 22

monument located in Graham’s Historic Courthouse Square for a rally in front of the monument at the junction of North Main Street and Court Square, the rotary which circles the Historic Courthouse. Among other things, he was granted permission to erect a stage in the street and use a public address (“PA”) system powered by a generator.
33. On or about August 21 in response to this Court’s August 14 preliminary injunction, Alamance County introduced a “facility use policy” which laid out rules for large groups wishing to use the Historic Courthouse grounds and a permit process.
34. On October 8, Reverend Drumwright wrote the City of Graham to announce his plans for a non-partisan march to the polls focused on racial justice issues from 11 AM- 2 PM on Saturday, October 31 and to request the City’s permission for the planned march. On October 11, Defendant Cole responded that, due to the City’s current lack of a permitting system, Reverend Drumwright was required to appear at the next City Council meeting to request authorization for his march plans.
35. Reverend Drumwright attended the City’s October 13 Council meeting to request authorization for the march plans. In both his October 8 letter and at the Council meeting, he explained that he intended to conduct the October 31 march to the polls as he had the July 11 event.
36. As described in his permit application and in various subsequent (including inperson) communications with Defendants between October 9 and October 30, the only logistical differences between the July 11 and October 31 events were that the October 31 march was to end at East Elm Street Early Voting location, with the rally (including speaker presentations from a small stage using a PA system) to occur on the Historic Courthouse North
10
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 10 of 22

entrance landing, steps, sidewalks and pedestrian area next to the Confederate monument. Rev. Drumwright requested authorization to erect a stage at the end of North Main as he had been allowed to do on July 11and requested short-term closure of the rotary area at the north end of the Historic Courthouse. On October 20, he also applied for and received a permit from the County to utilize the Historic Courthouse grounds on October 31.
37. At its October 13 meeting, Graham’s attorney instructed the City Council that it had no authority to act on Rev. Drumwright’s requests. The Council advised Rev. Drumwright to coordinate logistics for the march and rally with Defendant Cole. In addition to the written communications with Defendant Cole, Rev. Drumwright met with Defendant Cole in person on October 20 to discuss the route, stage and street closure needs. Defendant Cole told Rev. Drumwright she would not close any streets or allow a stage as had been done on July 11.
38. On Friday, October 30, Rev. Drumwright, with counsel present, met again with Defendants to try to ensure marchers’ safety the following day. Defendant Cole again refused any street closures and refused to authorize the stage in the same location it had been on July 11, but gave no reason for the denial other than that the City Council had not authorized it. The County attorney agreed that Rev. Drumwright could put his stage on the Courthouse grounds.
39. On Saturday morning, October 31, a group of about 200-250 people gathered at Wayman Chapel AME Church in Graham, North Carolina for a walk to the polls. Defendant Cole met the marchers and Plaintiffs in the parking lot near the chapel, stated that she would be closing the street for them to march all the way to the Historic Courthouse grounds, and told them that she had State troopers there to “help close the streets,” and added, “the street is yours.”
11
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 11 of 22

40. Rev. Drumwright spoke to those assembled, reminding them before the march began to spread out and keep their nose and mouth coverings on in compliance with COVID-19 social distancing protocols.
41. The group of participants included the Mayor of Burlington, NC as well as candidates for county commissioner and school board.
42. The March commenced around 11 AM, as participants, including small children and senior citizens, proceeded from Wayman’s Chapel AME Church up North Main Street towards the Confederate monument that fronts the north side of the Historic Courthouse. During that time, marchers were permitted to walk in the road and were escorted by Graham police, as provided in Defendant Cole’s October 28 Letter and as stated by Defendant Cole to Plaintiffs in the parking lot just before the march began .
43. When marchers peacefully passed through the intersection of Hardin Street on North Main, about a block from the Confederate monument and Historic Courthouse, Rev. Drumwright asked them to halt so that he could explain the significance of the space they were about to enter. State Highway Police who were escorting the march from the rear in their patrol cars blocked North Main, and the Graham Police cars that had escorted the march from the front pulled around the Court Square and stopped near the corner of East Elm street, beside Passion Fusion Grill.
44. As he had done since the march began, Rev. Drumwright spoke to the marchers using his portable PA system, powered by a small portable generator. He gave a short speech about Wyatt Outlaw, the first Black elected city official of Graham who was lynched by white supremacists with assistance from local police in 1870, in what the City calls Sesquintennial
12
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 12 of 22

Square but which Plaintiffs call Wyatt Outlaw Memorial Park (“Wyatt Outlaw Park”), on the northeast corner across from the Historic Courthouse. Then George Floyd’s niece addressed the marchers briefly.
45. The participants then remained still and silent for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in symbolic remembrance of the 8 minutes and 46 seconds that George Floyd was pinned to the ground by a police officer’s knee on his neck, killing Mr. Floyd. Spread out in compliance with COVID-19 protocol, the more than 250 participants were kneeling, standing, sitting or lying face down in the section of North Main street and Court Square that was temporarily closed to traffic by the law enforcement vehicles.
46. Plaintiff Jones was kneeling with others in the crosswalk that runs from North Main alongside the Confederate monument to the courthouse north entrance.
47. There was a row of Sheriff deputies at top of the steps in front of the north Courthouse’s entrance, and snipers on top of the building with their guns out pointed at the marchers.
48. Immediately upon the end of that period of silence, Rev. Drumwright told the crowd to wait for a moment while he put up the stage. Rev. Drumwright and several J4tNG members then began erecting the small stage where Defendant Johnson’s deputies (standing at the top of the steps of the Courthouse in front of its North entrance) instructed them: in the crosswalk/pedestrian area adjacent to the Confederate monument which, since August 21, Defendant Johnson’s deputies had referred to as a “safe zone” open to protestors under the Facility Use Policy.
49. Within seconds, suddenly and without warning, Graham Police suddenly and
13
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 13 of 22

without any warning or prior order of dispersal, began spraying the marchers -- many of whom, because of age or disability, were still making their way to their feet -- with pepper spray.
50. Plaintiff Jones instantly felt her eyes and nostrils burning. She smelt a horrible odor from the spray. She turned and warned marchers behind her to move back.
51. Rev. Drumwright began talking to the crowd in a calming voice and saying to Defendant Cole’s officers that they had just sprayed children and elderly, peaceful people.
52. At that point, Plaintiff J4tNG members and other marchers who had been at the Wyatt Outlaw Park were trying to use the crosswalk to get to the courthouse grounds, and Defendant Cole’s officers stopped them and started to arrest them.
53. Rev. Drumwright stepped down from the stage to de-escalate the situation and make sure the J4tNG members and marchers could cross the street and get to the Courthouse grounds. Rev. Drumwright then brought on the first speaker, Burlington’s Mayor, followed by several other speakers.
54. Just before 1:00pm, one of Defendant Johnson’s deputies attempted, without giving warning, to disconnect and remove the generator that served as the power source for rally attendees’ sound amplification system. Rev. Drumwright approached the deputy to ask why the officer was removing his property.
55. Suddenly and again with no warning or dispersal order, Defendants’ officers and deputies begin deploying pepper spray on the marchers.
56. Marchers screamed and tried to get away. Plaintiff Jones saw one of Defendant Johnson’s deputies spraying while a disabled, elderly African American woman in a mobility scooter was convulsing with seizures. Defendants’ officers stood nearby and took no steps to
14
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 14 of 22

help her. 57. Easy access to most sidewalk areas around the square were blocked by city-
erected barricades. 58. Graham Police officers began shouting at marchers to disperse, and without
providing marchers adequate time to disperse, began dispensing large volumes of pepper spray into the crowd, even as marchers tried to leave the area.
59. Defendant Cole’s deputies blocked off the street leading to the nearest early voting location, on Elm Street, effectively preventing marchers from proceeding to that polling site and otherwise fleeing the pepper spray.
60. As many marchers attempted to disperse by taking North Main Street, they were sprayed repeatedly with pepper spray by Defendants’ officers, causing their eyes and noses to burn and water so much they could not walk or see for a period of time.
61. Among the victims of Defendant Johnson’s deputies’ pepper spraying were a three-year-old, who vomited. Defendant Johnson’s deputies also sprayed pepper spray at a five-year-old and an eleven-year-old, causing both to vomit.
62. Defendants’ officers and deputies arrested twenty people, including two poll observers and an Alamance News reporter covering the events.
63. Parts of the events were captured on video, available at https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246861942.html.
64. The video shows an older man being restrained by three police officers (0:521:07), as well as a man with a camera being restrained by two police officers and then approached by two additional police officers who tried to pry his camera from his hands (1:14-
15
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 15 of 22

1:25). 65. In the video, protesters say to a police officer, “You sprayed a kid,” and the police
officer responds, “I did,” (1:25-1:28). 66. The video also shows a police officer shouting “Get moving, you f-g pricks” as he
sprays pepper spray at protesters while they try to walk away along a sidewalk. 67. Because of Defendants’ conduct, the planned march to the polls was abruptly
terminated. Some voters, including Plaintiff Jones were actually deterred from voting. Because of Plaintiff Jones’s pepper spray related injuries, she could not go to the polls that day as planned.
68. Plaintiff J4tNG has dozens of members who are lawfully registered voters in Alamance County, who attended the march and are likely to also be similarly intimidated from voting by Defendants’ violent actions. Therefore, other members of Plaintiff J4tNG are likely to experience both intimidation and an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and coerce such that they will be prevented from exercising their right to vote.
69. Defendants Cole and Johnson and their deputies acted in concert to plan and engage in violent “crowd control” tactics against a march of voters to the polls. These activities constitute an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and coerce citizens, like Plaintiff Jones and members of Plaintiff J4tNG who are Alamance County voters, from participating in the election in a manner that prevents them from exercising their constitutional right to vote and from encouraging others to do so.
70. Despite Defendants’ claims that their actions were taken for “crowd control” purposes, their actions had the actual consequence of harassing, threatening, and intimidating
16
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 16 of 22

voters and peaceful marchers. 71. Since October 31, Defendants have been unrepentant, insisting through
spokespersons that their departments’ violent actions were appropriate and justified. 72. Defendants’ violent suppression of Plaintiffs’ rights to assemble for a march to
the polls constitutes an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and coerce voters such as Plaintiff Jones and Plaintiff J4tNG’s Alamance County voter members in an attempt to prevent and discourage them from exercising their right to vote.
73. The above-referenced conduct violates Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. These violations have caused Plaintiff Jones and J4tNG members who are lawfully entitled to vote in Alamance County irreparable harm and will continue to do so absent preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
74. Individual Plaintiffs and members of J4tNG intend to participate in future nonviolent protests in Graham, including in the Historic Courthouse area.
75. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have also suffered damages, including significant physical, emotional, and mental pain and suffering.
76. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights, of which a reasonable person would have known.
17
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 17 of 22

CAUSES OF ACTION Count I: Violation of the First Amendment (all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
77. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim.
78. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the free expression, free association, and assembly rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff J4tNG asserts this claim on behalf of itself and its members.
79. In the following paragraphs, references to the First Amendment include the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
80. As described above, Defendants’ activities to restrict and suppress Plaintiffs’ speech and assembly in relations to the October 31 march, including their use of unlawful dispersal orders, unlawful arrests, and use of pepper spray to forcibly disperse those marching to the polls, violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Count II: Violation of the Fourth Amendment (all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 81. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth in this claim. 82. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff J4tNG asserts this claim on behalf of itself and its members.
18
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 18 of 22

83. In the following paragraphs, references to the Fourth Amendment include the Fourth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
84. As described above, Defendants’ use of pepper spray to forcibly disperse those marching to the polls unreasonably seized Plaintiffs and violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
Count III: Violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (Plaintiff Jones and J4tNG against all Defendants)
85. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim.
86. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act provides that: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 10302(a), 10305, 10306, or 10308(e) of this title or section 1973d or 1973g of Title 42.
52 U.S.C. § 10307. 87. Defendants violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act by suppressing,
through unlawful dispersal orders and use of pepper spray, the efforts of Plaintiff Jones and other voters to march to the polls.
88. These actions intimidated, threatened or coerced, and/or attempted to intimidate, threaten, or coerce eligible Alamance County voters concerned about racial justice issues.
89. Defendants’ violent conduct would intimidate or attempt to intimidate an objectively reasonable individual and did in fact prevent Plaintiff Jones and other voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote on the last day of the early voting period.
19
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 19 of 22

90. Absent injunctive relief, these Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm and have no
adequate remedy at law.
Count IV: Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (Plaintiff Jones and J4tNG against all Defendants)
91. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth in this claim.
92. Plaintiff Jones and J4tNG bring a claim under the second clause of 42 U.S.C. §
1985(3), which provides that:
[I]f two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
93. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by knowingly conspiring with each
other to unlawfully disperse a march to the polls, with the purpose of discouraging and
intimidating voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
94. Defendants’ deployment of their officers, coordination regarding use of pepper
spray, and detention and arrest of attendees, constituted substantial steps in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
95. Defendants knew or should have known at the time of their actions that such acts
would prevent or deter constitutionally eligible voters like Plaintiff Jones and members of
Plaintiff J4tNG from exercising their right to vote in upcoming elections.
20
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 20 of 22

96. Defendants’ actions would intimidate or attempt to intimidate an objectively reasonable individual because discourage or prevent voters like Plaintiff Jones and members of Plaintiff J4tNG from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
97. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff Jones and members of Plaintiff J4tNG will suffer irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the following relief: (a) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, and enter a declaratory judgment stating that
Defendants’ unlawful dispersal orders and use of pepper spray against peaceful marchers, especially those engaged in marching to the polls, violates all Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and assembly under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Plaintiffs’ rights under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. §1985; (b) Award Plaintiffs their damages, including punitive damages; (c) Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and as otherwise permitted by law; and (d) Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
21
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 21 of 22

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of November,

/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Kristi L. Graunke North Carolina Bar No. 51216 kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel North Carolina Bar No. 46397 dsiegel@acluofnc.org Jaclyn Maffetore North Carolina Bar No. 50849 jmaffetore@acluofnc.org ACLU of North Carolina P. O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Tel: 919-834-3466

/s/ Elizabeth Haddix Elizabeth Haddix North Carolina Bar No. 25818 ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin North Carolina Bar No. 20935 mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law P.O. Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 Tel. 919-914-6106
/s/ Jason L. Keith JasoCnouLnKseeliftohr Plaintiffs North Carolina Bar No:34038 Keith & Associates, PLLC 241 Summit Avenue, Greensboro, NC 27401

22 Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 11/02/20 Page 22 of 22

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

) SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR., DEJUANA ) BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, and ) FUTURE ALAMANCE, on behalf of ) themselves and all other similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF GRAHAM, KRISTI COLE, )

individually and in her official capacity as )

Chief of the Graham Police Department, )

ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY S. )

JOHNSON, individually and in his official )

capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, )

GRAHAM POLICE OFFICERS JOHN and )

JANE DOES #1-15, and ALAMANCE )

COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS JOHN )

AND JANE DOES #16-30,

)

) Defendants.

1:20-CV-00997

GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH )

ANN JONES, and JUSTICE FOR THE )

NEXT GENERATION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

TERRY JOHNSON, in his official and )

individual capacities as Alamance County )

Sheriff, and MARY KRISTY COLE, in her )

official and individual capacities as Graham )

Chief of Police,

)

)

Defendants.

)

1:20-CV-00998

Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 17 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2

ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P 42 (A), all named Defendants in the above captioned matters, excluding Graham Police Officers John and Jane Does #1-15 and Alamance County Deputy Sheriffs John and Jane Does #16-30, made application to consolidate these cases. Counsel for the Plaintiffs in both cases consent to the consolidation. After reviewing the court records and the accompanying Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motions to Consolidate filed in each case, the Court finds that these matters involve a common question of law or fact and that good cause exists and warrants that these matters be consolidated; IT IS NOW ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED and these cases are consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings, and, subject to review closer to trial, for trial. Allen v. City, 20cv997, is designated as the lead case. Henceforth all pleadings, motions, briefs, and other allowable filings shall be filed in that case only. This the 4th day of December, 2020.
______________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 17 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR., DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE, OLIVIA DAVIS, TALAUN WOODS, and ANGELA WILLIS,

Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (“KRISTY”) COLE, individually and in her official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department, ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY A. JOHNSON, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, JOAQUIN VELEZ, individually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Patrol Division of the Graham Police Department, GRAHAM POLICE OFFICERS JOHN and JANE DOES #1-15, and ALAMANCE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS JOHN and JANE DOES #16-30,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1:20-cv-0997

Defendants.

1 Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 51

JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT

GENERATION,

ALAMANCE

ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, GREGORY

DRUMWRIGHT, EDITH ANN JONES,

QUENCLYN ELLISON, M.E., by and

through her guardian Quenclyn Ellison;

Z.P., by and through his guardian

Quenclyn Ellison; FAITH COOK,

MELANIE MITCHELL, J.A., by and

through her guardian Melanie Mitchell;

B.A., by and through her guardian

Melanie Mitchell; JANET NESBITT,

ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD, EDITH

WARD, AVERY HARVEY and

ASHLEY REED BATTEN;

Plaintiffs,

v.

TERRY JOHNSON, individually and in his official capacity as Alamance County Sheriff, CLIFF PARKER, individually and in his official capacity as Alamance County Chief Deputy Sheriff, JONATHAN FRANKS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as consultant to the Alamance County Sheriff and Graham Police Chief , ALAMANCE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES JOHN AND JANE DOES #1 through #20, in their individual capacities, MARY KRISTINE COLE, individually and in her official capacity as Graham City Chief of Police, JOAQUIN VELEZ, individually and in his official capacity as Graham Police Lieutenant, CITY OF GRAHAM, and GRAHAM POLICE

CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1:20-cv-00998

2

Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 51

OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOES #21-40,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Justice 4 the Next Generation (J4tNG), Alamance Alliance 4 Justice (AA4J), Reverend Gregory Drumwright, Edith Ann Jones, Faith Cook, Janet Nesbitt, Quenclyn Ellison on behalf of herself and her minor children , M.E. and Z.P., Melanie Mitchell, on behalf of herself and her minor children J.A. and B.A., Ernestine Lewis Ward, Edith Ward, Avery Harvey and Ashley Reed Batten by and through counsel, file this amended complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2) (Defendants having provided written consent on November 24, 2020) against Defendants Sheriff Terry Johnson, Chief Deputy Sheriff Cliff Parker, Jonathan Franks, Alamance County Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”) Deputies John and Jane Does #1 through #20 (whose names are presently unknown), Graham City Police Chief Mary Kristine “Kristy” Cole, Graham Police Lieutenant Joaquin Velez, Graham City Police Officers John and Jane Does #21 through #40 (whose names are presently unknown), and the City of Graham, and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. On October 31, 2020, the last day of early voting and same-day voter
3
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 51

registration in North Carolina, and three days before the November 2020 General Election, Defendants unlawfully planned and orchestrated the violent dispersal of a peaceful and non-partisan march to the West Elm Street early voting site in Graham, North Carolina. Participants in the October 31 “I am Change March to the Polls” (“the March” or “the October 31 March”) were physically, emotionally, and mentally injured when Alamance County Sheriff’s deputies and City of Graham police officers indiscriminately used pepper spray on peaceful marchers, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Terrified by these actions and suffering the painful effects of pepper spray, many participants, including Plaintiffs Jones, Harvey and Batten, were unable to proceed to the polls that day. Plaintiff Harvey was unable to vote at all in the 2020 election because Defendants’ actions precluded him from registering on October 31.
2. It has long been recognized that “voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Burdick v. Takashi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (cleaned up). “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Courts have recognized “[v]oter intimidation presents an ongoing threat to the participation of minority individuals in the political process.” Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575, 578-79 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d 673 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 1471 (2013).
3. Defendants’ actions aggravated and further escalated the already charged
4
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 51

atmosphere for voters in North Carolina. Defendants’ deputies and officers, by planning, authorizing, and deploying excessive use of force against Plaintiffs, have deprived Alamance County voters, including those who attended the March, and members of Plaintiffs J4TNG and AA4J of their fundamental right to vote free from intimidation, harassment, threats, or other forms of coercion.
4. The right to engage in peaceful protest and to be free from objectively unreasonable force from police authorities are both enshrined in the Constitution. Political protests and marches “ha[ve] always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 467 (1980).
5. By using excessive force, responding to a peaceful march with pepper spray, issuing unlawful orders to disperse, and threatening arrests, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association, and also violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs Drumwright, Jones, Ellison, M.E., Z.P., Cook, Mitchell, J.A., B.A., Nesbitt, Ernestine Ward, Edith Ward, Harvey and Batten (hereinafter “Individual Plaintiffs”) to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive force.
6. Plaintiffs have continued—and intend to continue—to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest police violence and white supremacy, and to encourage voter and other civic participation in Graham and Alamance County in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
7. Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ attempts to exercise their First
5
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 51

Amendment rights since the October 31 March with continued hostility and excessive uses of force.
8. Plaintiffs bring this action to protect their constitutional rights and to stop Defendants’ actions that violate federal and state law.
PARTIES 9. Plaintiff J4tNG is an unincorporated association of community organizations organizing for racial justice and an end to police violence and other forms of systemic racial oppression. To fulfill that mission and purpose, Plaintiff J4tNG organized and participated in “get out the vote” drives for the 2020 election in North Carolina and across the country. Defendants’ unlawful acts at the March frustrate Plaintiff J4tNG’s overall mission and purpose, as well as that of the March itself—to encourage its members and other attendees to vote by marching to the West Elm early voting polling place. 10. Defendants’ unlawful acts have also caused J4tNG to divert resources away from its other racial justice activities in order to prevent and guard against voter intimidation in Alamance County. For example, J4tNG organized the November 3 “We’re Ready 4 Change” march to complete the march to the pools derailed by Defendants on October 31. Defendants’ unlawful actions on October 31 also caused harm to Plaintiff J4tNG’s individual and organizational members. Plaintiff J4tNG brings claims in this action on behalf of itself and its members. 11. Plaintiff Alamance Alliance for Justice (AA4J) is an unincorporated
6
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 51

membership organization of Alamance County community leaders, parents, grandparents and youth with the mission of connecting with like-minded individuals and organizations to empower their voices where it pertains to racism, injustice and oppression. AA4J fights for political, educational, social, and economic equality for all citizens of Alamance County and provides platforms to educate residents on issues relating to systemic injustice and racism while promoting social reforms. To fulfill its mission, AA4J members participate in activities to encourage voting, such as voter registration drives and the October 31 March. AA4J co-organized the October 31 March along with Plaintiff J4tNG.
12. Defendants’ unlawful acts on October 31 frustrated Plaintiff AA4J’s mission and purpose for the March itself—to encourage its members and other attendees to vote by marching to the West Elm early voting polling place. For example, AA4J helped organize the November 3 “We’re Ready 4 Change” march to complete the march to the pools derailed by Defendants on October 31. Defendants’ unlawful actions at the October 31 March, including their use of pepper spray, caused harm to Plaintiff AA4J’s members. AA4J intends to continue its public advocacy and engagement, including public demonstrations and protests for racial justice in Alamance County.
13. Plaintiff Gregory B. Drumwright is a Black resident of Guilford County, North Carolina, a Professor of Communications at High Point University, a community organizer and social justice activist, and Senior Minister of the Citadel Church in Greensboro. He is the Lead Organizer of Plaintiff J4TNG. Plaintiff Drumwright helped
7
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 7 of 51

organize and led the March on October 31, 2020. He will continue to gather Alamance residents and to organize rallies, marches, and protests related to these same issues in Graham and Alamance County in the coming months and years. Plaintiff Drumwright was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray at the March.
14. Plaintiff Edith Ann Jones, who goes by Ann Jones, is a white resident of Graham, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County and is a life-long resident of Alamance County. Plaintiff Jones has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Jones attended the March and intended to go vote with other attendees at the West Elm Street early voting polling place on October 31. She was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, she was unable to vote on October 31.
15. Plaintiff Quenclyn Ellison is a Black resident of Burlington, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County. Plaintiff Ellison is the President of AA4J, which joined with Plaintiff J4tNG to help organize and participate in the March. Plaintiff Ellison has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Ellison attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their unlawful use of pepper spray, during the March. Plaintiff Ellison is a parent and guardian of minors M.E. and Z.P. and brings suit on their behalves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A), as well as her own behalf.
8
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 51

16. Plaintiff M.E. is the fifteen-year-old daughter of Plaintiff Ellison. Plaintiff M.E. attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. Her mother, Plaintiff Ellison, asserts claims on M.E.’s behalf pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A).
17. Plaintiff Z.P. is the eleven-year-old son of Plaintiff Ellison. Plaintiff Z.P. attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. His mother, Plaintiff Ellison, asserts claims on Z.P.’s behalf pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A).
18. Plaintiff Faith Cook is a Black resident of Graham, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County. Plaintiff Cook has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Cook attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray at the March.
19. Plaintiff Melanie Mitchell is a white resident of Graham, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County. Plaintiff Mitchell has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Mitchell attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. Plaintiff Mitchell is a parent and guardian of minors J.A. and B.A. and brings suit on their behalves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A) as well as on her own behalf.
20. Plaintiff J.A. is the eleven-year-old daughter of Plaintiff Mitchell. Plaintiff
9
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 9 of 51

J.A. attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. J.A.’s mother, Plaintiff Mitchell, asserts claims on J.A.’s behalf pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A).
21. Plaintiff B.A. is the five-year-old daughter of Plaintiff Mitchell. Plaintiff B.A. attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. B.A.’s mother, Plaintiff Mitchell, asserts claims on B.A.’s behalf pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A).
22. Plaintiff Janet Nesbitt is a Black resident of Graham, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County. Plaintiff Nesbitt has a disability and uses an electric scooter to move around. Plaintiff Nesbitt has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Nesbitt attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March.
23. Plaintiff Ernestine Lewis Ward is an elderly Black woman and a resident of Burlington, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County. Plaintiff Ernestine Ward has been actively involved in the Alamance County Branch of the North Carolina NAACP since the 1970s and is a longtime community activist. She has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Ernestine Ward attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March.
10
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 10 of 51

24. Plaintiff Edith Ward is a Black resident of Burlington, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Alamance County. Plaintiff Edith Ward attended the October 31 March with her mother, Plaintiff Ernestine Ward, and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March.
25. Plaintiff Avery Harvey is a Black resident of Graham, North Carolina, has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. Plaintiff Harvey attended the October 31 March and was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. He planned to register and vote on October 31 at the Elm Street One-Stop early voting and registration site at the end of the March to the Polls, but Defendants’ actions kept him from doing so. Plaintiff Harvey was therefore unable to vote in the 2020 election.
26. Ashley Reed Batten is a white resident of Hillsborough, North Carolina. She is registered to vote in Orange County. Plaintiff Batten has protested police brutality and white supremacy in Graham and Alamance County and plans to continue doing so. She attended the March and intended to vote in Hillsborough at the end of the March. Plaintiff Batten was injured by Defendants’ unlawful actions, including their use of pepper spray, during the March. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, she was unable to vote on October 31.
27. Defendant Terry S. Johnson (“Defendant Johnson” or “the Sheriff”) is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County and in his individual capacity, is
11
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 51

domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Johnson is the chief law enforcement officer of Alamance County and is responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, and implementation and conduct of Alamance County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) matters. As such, he has the authority to assign duties to sheriff’s deputies and enforce local ordinances in effect throughout the county. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-1 et seq.
28. At all relevant times, Defendant Johnson was acting within the scope of his employment and under color of state law.
29. Defendant Cliff Parker (“Defendant Parker”) is sued in his official capacity as Chief Deputy of the ACSO and in his individual capacity, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Chief Deputy Parker is second in command to Defendant Johnson as law enforcement officer of Alamance County and is responsible for implementing Defendant Johnson’s policies and practices and supervising the conduct of ACSO deputies. As such, he has the authority to assign duties to sheriff’s deputies and enforce local ordinances in effect throughout the county. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-1 et seq.
30. At all relevant times, Defendant Parker was acting within the scope of his employment and under color of state law.
31. Defendant Jonathan R. Franks (“Defendant Franks”) is sued in his official capacity as a “crowd control” consultant hired by the ACSO and/or GPD and in his individual capacity, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of
12
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 51

this Court. Upon information and belief, Defendant Franks is Commanding Officer of Greensboro Police Department’s Special Operations Division and was responsible for giving orders and assigning duties to ACSO’s deputies and Graham Police officers on October 31, 2020, as well as and on other dates when Plaintiffs AA4J and J4tNG and their members have gathered in and around Graham’s public square to protest voter intimidation, police brutality and white supremacy.
32. At all relevant times, Defendant Franks was acting within the scope of his employment and under color of state law.
33. Defendants ACSO Does #1–20, whose true names are unknown to Plaintiffs and could not be discovered by Plaintiffs as of the date of the filing of this action, are all officers, agents, and/or employees of the ACSO. At all relevant times, Defendants ACSO Does #1-20 were acting within the scope of their employment and under color of state law.
34. Defendant City of Graham (“the City”) is a municipal corporation organized under North Carolina law. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-11. The GPD and its police chief operate under the authority of the City. The City, acting through the GPD Chief, is responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all GPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all GPD personnel.
35. At all times relevant to this action, the City Manager delegated his authority to make policy related to policing and control of assemblies, marches, protests and rallies
13
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 13 of 51

in the City to the GPD Chief and authorized her to make final policy related to policing and control of assemblies, marches, protests and rallies in the City.
36. Pursuant to this delegation and City ordinance, GPD Chief was the chief policymaker for the City on matters related to policing and maintaining order related to marches, protests, rallies, and other public assemblies within the City’s jurisdiction. See City of Graham Ordinances, Ch. 2, art. IV, div. 1, § 2-120.
37. At all times relevant to this action, the GPD Chief possessed final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to City police conduct at such events, including the use of force by City police officers, and the timing, location, control and containment of marches, rallies, protests, and other assemblies within the City’s jurisdiction.
38. Defendant Mary Kristine “Kristy” Cole (“Defendant Cole”) is sued in her official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department (GPD) and her individual capacity, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Cole is in charge of GPD and has final authority on the policy, practice, supervision, and implementation and conduct of GPD matters. She is in charge of assigning duties to GPD officers as she “thinks best for the good order of the city” and ensuring that GPD officers “faithfully perform their duties.” City of Graham Ordinances, Ch. 2, art. IV, div. 1, § 2-120; see also Ch. 2, art. IV, div. 1, § 2-126.
39. At all relevant times, Defendant Cole was acting within the scope of her employment and under color of state law.
14
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 51

40. Defendant Joaquin Velez (“Defendant Velez”) is sued in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the GPD and his individual capacity, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. As Patrol Operations Lieutenant, Defendant Velez is responsible for patrol functions supervision, the Special Response Team, and tow inspections and management, and supervises a team of 21 GPD officers.
41. Defendant Velez is responsible for the policy, practice, implementation, and supervision of all matters related to the GPD Patrol Division, the division responsible for first response to the events of October 31, 2020. At all relevant times, Defendant Velez was acting within the scope of his employment and under color of state law.
42. Defendant Velez is responsible for training and supervising all GPD Patrol Division personnel, including by intervening in situations to ensure that GPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina.
43. Defendants GPD officer Does #21–40, whose true names are unknown to Plaintiffs and could not be discovered by Plaintiffs as of the date of the filing of this action, are all officers, agents, and/or employees of the GPD. At all relevant times, Defendant GPD Does #21-40 were acting within the scope of their employment and under color of state law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 44. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3),
15
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 15 of 51

and 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) to redress the deprivation, under the color of state law, of rights secured by federal law and the United States Constitution.
45. Plaintiffs have standing to enforce these rights and all rights asserted herein.
46. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under federal law, under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action requests equitable or other relief under statues protecting the right to vote and civil rights.
47. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims are so related to the federal law claims asserted by Plaintiffs that they are part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
48. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as residents of North Carolina.
49. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
50. This Court has the authority to provide the declaratory and injunctive relief requested pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
16
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 16 of 51

STATEMENT OF FACTS Political Expression Is Protected by Constitution and Statute
51. The Constitution and laws of this country protect the people’s right to lawfully assemble and express their political and social viewpoints, whether at the ballot box or in a public forum. See U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV, XV.
52. Despite the plain text of these constitutional protections, the right to engage in political expression has not been equally enjoyed by all. Specifically, communities of color have historically faced significant interference with these rights by both private and government actors alike, requiring both legislative and judicial intervention. See generally Justin Hansford, The First Amendment Freedom of Assembly as a Racial Project, 127 Yale L.J. F. 685 (2018), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-firstamendment-freedom-of-assembly-as-a-racial-project.
53. Through both the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (the Ku Klux Klan Act”) and Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, Congress has provided statutory protections against voter intimidation, harassment, and violence in order to effectuate the full intent of the constitutionally secured right to vote for all. Under these acts, invasions of physical space and intimations of possible future violence, prosecution, or legal action based on a voter’s presence at the polls constitute unlawful voter intimidation.
54. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the criminalization of, or law enforcement interference with, peaceful protests and demonstrations expressing “dissatisfaction with the policies of this country” infringes on “core . . . First Amendment
17
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 17 of 51

values,” even where the speakers or their viewpoints are politically unpopular or offensive. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 411 (1989); see also, e.g., Cox v. State of La., 375 U.S. 559 (1965). Notwithstanding Legislation and Enforcement Efforts, Official Interference with Political Expression Remains A Problem
55. Despite significant legislation aimed at allowing people to register to vote and cast their ballot without fear of actual or attempted intimidation, threats, or coercion, efforts to intimidate voters have persisted in North Carolina and across the country.
56. In 2000, Black voters in Florida complained about police traffic stops on Election Day, according to a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.1 And in 2010, advocates raised concerns regarding voter suppression when North Carolina police set up traffic checkpoints between primarily Black apartment complexes and polling locations.2 In 2016, within the first few hours of polls opening, over 4,000 reports of intimidation and suppression were called into the Election Protection hotline nationally.3 These complaints included, for example, reports of a crowd aggressively confronting voters as they arrived to a polling location, causing some of them to leave before casting their ballot, and lines of cars adorned with Confederate flags driving past polling
1 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election (2001), https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm. 2 Nancy McLaughlin and Joe Killian, Dems, blacks question timing of checkpoint, Greensboro News & Record, Nov. 2, 2010, https://greensboro.com/news/political/dems-blacks-questiontiming-of-checkpoint/article_8ad13789-60e3-5520-bfb3-168dc58d5bdc.html. 3 Alan Neuhauser, Voter Intimidation Complaints Surge, U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 8, 2016, https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-08/voter-intimidation-complaintssurge.
18
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 18 of 51

locations.4 As recently as 2018, voters in Georgia raised concerns of voter intimidation after police stopped groups of senior citizens on their way to the polls.5
57. Within Alamance County, the October 31 March was not the first and only time that Defendant Johnson’s deputies and Defendant Cole’s officers have acted to interfere with the rights of voters in Alamance County.
58. On October 29, two Latinx organizers from Poder NC Action, a 501(c)(4) organization that promotes civic and leadership development in the Latinx community, and supports candidates that support their values, were in Graham to canvass and provide voter education materials to community members. While they were parked in a Graham parking lot awaiting their canvassing assignment, the organizers were questioned by an ACSO deputy about their activities. After pulling out of the parking lot, the organizers were followed by a second ACSO deputy for 20 to 30 minutes.
59. Similarly, despite longstanding principles protecting the right to peaceful protest, demonstrations against white supremacy and police brutality have faced significant interference and violence by law enforcement in North Carolina and across the country.
60. Outside of North Carolina, at least 68 instances of police officers escalating violence during protests in the wake of George Floyd’s killing have been captured in
4 Id. 5 Astead Herndon, Georgia Voting Begins Amid Accusations of Voter Suppression, N.Y. Times, Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/georgia-voter-suppression.html.
19
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 19 of 51

detail on video and reported upon by one news outlet alone.6 Within North Carolina, law
enforcement officials have followed suit. In Asheville, police were caught on video and
subsequently issued an apology for destroying medical supplies and water bottles at a
medic tent intended to serve anti-racist protestors.7 In addition to Graham, officers have
deployed tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and other “non-lethal” dispersal methods
on anti-racist protestors in Wilmington8, Charlotte9, and Raleigh.10 Whereas unarmed
protestors attending demonstrations against white supremacy and police brutality have
faced arrest across the state, no action was taken against protestors open-carrying
firearms at numerous demonstrations for other causes.11
6 Zipporah Osei, Mollie Simon, Moiz Syed, Lucas Waldron, We are Tracking What Happens to Police After They Use Force on Protestors, Pro Publica, Sept. 9, 2020, https://projects.propublica.org/protest-police-videos/. 7 Minyvonne Burke, N.C. police chief apologizes after video shows officers destroying medic tent set up for protestors, NBC News, June 2. 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/n-cpolice-chief-apologizes-after-video-shows-officers-destroying-n1225716. 8 Johnathan Haynes, Tear gas: Controversial weapon used in Wilmington protests, Star News, June 2, 2020, https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/2020/06/02/tear-gas-controversialweapon-used-in-wilmington-protests/113475580/. 9 Alison Kuznitz, Fred Clasen-Kelly, and Lauren Lindstrom, ‘Wave goodbye, they’re all about to get gassed’: CMPD planned tear gas attack, video shows, The Charlotte Observer, https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article245270810.html. 10 Raleigh police used tear gas 252 times, city spent more than $1 million on George Floyd protests, report says, ABC 11, Sept. 15, 2020, https://abc11.com/raleigh-police-protests-georgefloyd-in-may/6424640/. 11 See, e.g. Armed activists gather in support of Morganton Confederate Statue, June 27, 2020, WBTV, https://www.wbtv.com/2020/06/27/armed-protesters-gather-support-morgantonconfederate-statue/; Josh Shaffer and Andrew Carter, Armed group marches in downtown Raleigh to protest coronavirus stay-at-home order, The News & Observer, May 1, 2020, https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article242428081.html.
20
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 20 of 51

Plaintiffs Frequently March and Demonstrate to Advance Racial Justice and Civic Participation in Graham and Alamance County
61. Plaintiffs are all actively involved in community organizing in Alamance County, including mobilizing residents on racial justice issues and voter participation through exercise of their rights to speech and assembly.
62. Plaintiff Drumwright and others sued Defendants Johnson and thenGraham Police Chief Jeffrey Prichard and local elected officials on July 2, 2020 to enforce First Amendment rights to speech and assembly on the streets of Graham. See NAACP, Alamance Branch v. Peterman, et al., 1:20-cv-00613- CCE-LPA, Dkt. 1, Dkt. 27. In particular, Plaintiff Drumwright and others sought to enforce their rights to speak and assemble on the grounds of the Historic Courthouse in Graham and challenged the city and county policies that prevented them from doing so.
63. On July 6, 2020, this Court entered a consent Temporary Restraining Order restraining Graham and Alamance county officials from enforcing a Graham City ordinance (“the Ordinance”) prohibiting more than two people from protesting in Graham without a permit. Id., Dkt. 15.
64. On July 11, 2020, Plaintiff J4tNG led a peaceful march in the City of Graham to protest police brutality and white supremacy. Plaintiff Drumwright applied for, and received permission from, the City of Graham, the NC Department of Transportation, and Alamance County officials to lead the march on NC Hwy 87 from Burlington to the Confederate monument located in Graham’s Historic Courthouse Square for a rally in front of the monument at the junction of North Main Street and
21
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 21 of 51

Court Square, the rotary which circles the Historic Courthouse. Among other things, he was granted permission to erect a stage in the street and use a public address (“PA”) system powered by a generator.
65. Graham’s City Council subsequently repealed the Ordinance on July 14, 2020, NAACP, et. al. v. Peterman, et. al., Dkt. 27-1, and on August 14, 2020, this Court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Alamance County officials from prohibiting all protests on many spaces in and around the Historic Courthouse. Id., Dkt. 63.
66. AA4J has also organized marches and demonstrations to advance racial justice and civic participation and protest police brutality in Graham and Alamance County since the summer of 2020. Those demonstrations were routinely disrupted or derailed by GPD officers and/or ACSO deputies—even after this Court’s August 14 preliminary injunction enjoining ACSO and the County from continuing their blanket ban on protest on the Historic Courthouse grounds. Plaintiffs Drumwright and J4tNG Sought and Obtained Permission from City and County Officials for the March and Attempted to Work with Officials to Ensure a Peaceful and Safe March
67. On or about August 21, 2020 in response to this Court’s August 14 preliminary injunction order, Alamance County introduced a “Facility Use Policy” which laid out rules for large groups wishing to use the Historic Courthouse grounds and a permit process for reserved use.
68. On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff Drumwright wrote the City of Graham to announce J4tNG’s plans for a peaceful, non-partisan march to the polls focused on racial
22
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 22 of 51

justice issues from 11 AM until 2 PM on Saturday, October 31, and to request the City’s permission for the planned March.
69. On October 11, 2020, Defendant Cole responded that, due to the City’s current lack of a permitting system, Plaintiff Drumwright was required to appear at the next City Council meeting to request authorization for his October 31 March plans.
70. Plaintiff Drumwright attended the City’s October 13 Council meeting to request authorization for the March plans. In both his October 8 letter and at the Council meeting, he explained that he intended to conduct the October 31 March as he had the July 11 event.
71. On October 20, 2020, Reverend Drumwright also applied for and received a permit to utilize the Historic Courthouse grounds on October 31 for the rally portion of the March pursuant to Alamance County’s new Facility Use Policy.
72. As described in Plaintiff Drumwright’s permit application and in various subsequent (including in-person) communications with Defendant Cole and her representatives and Defendant Johnson’s representatives between October 9 and October 30, the only logistical differences between the July 11 and October 31 events were that the October 31 march was to end at the West Elm Street Early Voting location, with the rally (including speaker presentations from a small stage using a PA system) to occur on the Historic Courthouse North entrance landing, steps, sidewalks and pedestrian area next to the Confederate monument.
73. Plaintiff Drumwright requested authorization to erect a stage at the end of
23
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 23 of 51

North Main as he had been allowed to do on July 11, and for short-term closure of the rotary area at the north end of the Historic Courthouse.
74. At its October 13 meeting, the City’s attorney instructed the City Council that it would not act on Plaintiff Drumwright’s requests. The Council advised Plaintiff Drumwright that he must coordinate logistics for the March and rally with Defendant Cole.
75. In addition to the written communications with Defendant Cole, Plaintiff Drumwright met with Defendant Cole in person on October 20 to discuss the route, stage and street closure needs. Defendant Cole told Plaintiff Drumwright she would not close any streets or allow a stage as had been done on July 11, but on October 30 agreed that she would temporarily close streets for the march to proceed from Wayman’s Chapel down North Main Street until marchers arrived on the Historic Courthouse grounds.
76. On October 24, Defendant Cole emailed Plaintiff Drumwright that she would need to increase staffing of police and fire departments for Plaintiff J4tNG’s “parade” on October 31.
77. On October 26, Plaintiff Drumwright wrote to Defendant Cole again about marchers’ safety, and specifically raised concerns about Defendant Cole’s statement that she would be increasing the police presence at the March (emphasis in original):
Given the fact that we convened a safe march on July 11th in the same space we seek to use now, it does not seem necessary to have a large police presence on Oct 31. We especially do not want police occupying the North landing and steps of the courthouse because that is where our rally will be. A large police presence always seems to result in black people and anti-racist protestors getting arrested simply for standing there chanting and holding signs about justice, while neo-
24
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 24 of 51

confederate demonstrators are allowed to be and do and say as they wish, no matter how offensive their words, gestures, or symbols. I want to be clear that I am strongly opposed to Graham or ACSO deploying large numbers of police, particularly police in riot gear brandishing batons, tear gas and other weapons at our demonstration on Oct 31. That show of force has routinely and repeatedly resulted in harm to protestors and chilling of their First Amendment rights. If you are aware of some identifiable threat by counterdemonstrators to our marchers which you believe necessitates large numbers of police in the court square during our march and rally, please advise immediately. 78. Defendant Cole did not raise any concerns to Plaintiff Drumwright about violent counter-protestors, nor did she articulate why a large, armed police presence would be needed at the October 31 March. 79. On October 28, Defendant Cole emailed Plaintiff Drumwright and his undersigned counsel, attaching GPD’s “public safety plan” for the October 31. 80. On October 30, Plaintiff Drumwright, with counsel present, met again with Defendant Cole and Defendant Johnson’s representatives to try to ensure marchers’ safety the following day and to correct the change, indicated in the “public safety plan” that Defendant Cole had made to the final destination of the March, which had always been planned to end at the Elm Street One-Stop Early Voting site. 81. Defendant Cole stated that she would not allow any street closures other than a temporary closure of North Main Street to allow marchers to safely travel to the Historic Courthouse grounds, and refused to agree to close the North end of the traffic rotary at the Courthouse Square during the rally. She also refused to authorize set up of the stage and PA system in the same location it had been on July 11. 82. The County attorney agreed that Plaintiff Drumwright could put a small
25
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 25 of 51

stage on the Courthouse grounds. 83. At no time did Defendants explain why armed police would be deployed or
needed to manage the event. Plaintiffs March on October 31 to Encourage Voting and Support Racial Justice
84. On Saturday morning, October 31, a group of about 200-250 people, including Plaintiffs Drumwright, Jones, Ellison, M.E. and Z.P., Mitchell, J.A., B.A., Cook, Ernestine Ward, Harvey, Batten, and additional members of J4tNG and AA4J gathered at Wayman Chapel AME Church in Graham for the March.
85. Defendant Cole met the marchers in the parking lot near the chapel, stated that she would be closing the street for them to march all the way to the Historic Courthouse grounds, and told them that she had State troopers there to “help close the streets,” and added, “the street is yours.”
86. Plaintiff Drumwright spoke to those assembled, reminding them before the march began to spread out and keep their nose and mouth coverings on in compliance with COVID-19 social distancing protocols.
87. The participants included the Mayor of Burlington, NC as well as candidates for county commissioner and school board.
88. The March commenced around 11:30 AM, as participants, including Plaintiffs Drumwright, Jones, Harvey, Ellison, M.E., Z.P., Mitchell, J.A., B.A., Cook, Ernestine Ward, Batten, and additional members of J4tNG and AA4J, proceeded from Wayman’s Chapel AME Church up North Main Street towards the Confederate
26
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 26 of 51

monument that fronts the north side of the Historic Courthouse. 89. Plaintiff Edith Ward joined the March on the way to the Historic
Courthouse square. 90. The marchers included numerous small children and senior citizens. 91. During that time, marchers were permitted to walk in the road and were
escorted by Graham police, as provided in GPD’s October 28 “public safety plan” and as stated by Defendant Cole in the parking lot just before the march began.
92. When marchers peacefully passed through the intersection of Harden Street and North Main, about a block from the Confederate monument and Historic Courthouse, Plaintiff Drumwright asked them to halt so that he could explain the significance of the space they were about to enter.
93. As he had done since the March began, Plaintiff Drumwright spoke to the marchers using his portable PA system. He gave a short speech about Wyatt Outlaw, the first Black elected city official in Graham who was lynched by white supremacists with assistance from local police in 1870, in what the GPD calls Sesquicentennial Square, on the northeast corner across from the Historic Courthouse.
94. State Highway Police who were escorting the march from the rear in their patrol cars blocked North Main, and the GPD cars that had escorted the march from the front pulled around the Court Square and stopped near the corner of East Elm street, beside Passion Fusion Grill.
95. The March then proceeded to the Courthouse and stopped again for 8
27
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 27 of 51

minutes and 46 seconds of silence in symbolic remembrance of the 8 minutes and 46 seconds that George Floyd was pinned to the ground by a police officer’s knee on his neck, killing Mr. Floyd. Spread out in compliance with COVID-19 protocol, the approximately 250 participants, including Plaintiffs Drumwright, Jones, Ellison, M.E., Z.P, Mitchell, J.A., B.A., Cook, the Wards, Harvey, Batten, and additional members of J4tNG and AA4J were kneeling, standing, sitting or lying face down in the area of North Main street and Court Square that was temporarily closed to traffic by the law enforcement vehicles.
96. There was a row of armed ACSO deputies at the top of the steps in front of the Courthouse’s North entrance, and on top of the Courthouse. Defendants Deploy Pepper Spray and Shut Down the March and Rally
97. Immediately upon the end of that period of silence, Plaintiff Drumwright told the crowd to wait for a moment while he put up the stage. Plaintiff Drumwright and several J4tNG members then began erecting the small stage and sound system on the North landing where Defendant Johnson’s deputies (standing at the top of the steps of the Courthouse in front of its North entrance) instructed them to do so.
98. Easy access to most sidewalk areas around the Courthouse were blocked by city-erected barricades.
99. Within seconds after the silent vigil ended, and without giving the marchers any warning, direction, or opportunity to clear the street, one or more of Doe GPD officers #21-40, working in coordination, suddenly began indiscriminately pepper
28
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 28 of 51

spraying the peaceful marchers—many of whom were still making their way to their feet. 100. Plaintiff Drumwright turned from setting up the stage and, seeing the
actions of Doe GPD officers #21-40, began speaking to the marchers in an effort to calm the situation. Plaintiff Drumwright also alerted the GPD officers that they had just sprayed children and elderly, peaceful people.
101. Plaintiff Jones instantly felt her eyes and nostrils burning. She smelt a horrible odor from the spray. She turned and warned marchers behind her to move back.
102. Plaintiffs M.E. and Z.P., along with Plaintiff Ellison, her mother, her 17 year old and 7 year old nieces, her 9 and 4 year old nephews, and her sister, were all hit by the spray, experiencing burning eyes, nose and throat, confusion and panic.
103. Plaintiff Z.P. vomited from the spray, as did Plaintiff Ellison’s sister and nephews. Plaintiff Ellison saw chaos unfolding around her as people were hit by the spray.
104. Plaintiff Cook felt her eyes burning and started choking. She thought she might be having a panic attack because she did not understand what was happening and thought she might die.
105. Plaintiff Mitchell felt her eyes, nostrils, and throat burning and began coughing. Her five-year-old daughter, Plaintiff B.A., ran away in terror, forcing Mitchell to search for her in the chaos. Mitchell found B.A. near Sesquicentennial Square (also known as Wyatt Outlaw Park), vomiting. Plaintiff J.A., Mitchell’s eleven-year-old daughter was gagging, and at one point asked Mitchell, “Am I going to die?”
29
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 29 of 51

106. Plaintiff Batten was approximately six feet away from one of Defendant Johnson’s deputies Does #1-20 who pepper sprayed her directly as she helped an elderly Black woman in the crowd get away from the area.
107. Plaintiff Edith Ward was indirectly hit by this first round of pepper spray, which entered her eyes, nose, and mouth. She has long suffered from seasonal asthma, and immediately felt a burning sensation in her eyes, nose, mouth, and throat, and began coughing intensely and having some difficulty breathing. After this initial spray, she moved toward the side of the crowd in order to be closer to her mother, Plaintiff Ernestine Ward.
108. Plaintiff Harvey was hit by the spray, and immediately felt its irritation to the skin on his face and his eyes. His breathing was also impacted. He was assisted by a medic, who helped him wash his face and hands with milk and flush his eyes out with water. Plaintiff Harvey then turned to help others who had been hit with the spray.
109. Plaintiff Ernestine Ward was not directly exposed to this first round of pepper spraying. Before the spraying began, she had moved away from most of the crowd of marchers in order to minimize her potential COVID exposure and get a better view of the speakers. She did, however, see GPD officers spraying in the direction of other marchers and witnessed some of the resulting panic.
110. At that point, Plaintiff J4TNG and AA4J members and other marchers who had been at the Wyatt Outlaw Park were trying to use the crosswalk to get to the courthouse grounds, and one or more of Doe GPD officers #21-40 stopped them and
30
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 30 of 51

started to arrest them. 111. Plaintiff Drumwright stepped down from the stage to de-escalate the
situation and make sure the J4tNG members and marchers could cross the street and get to the Courthouse grounds. Plaintiff Drumwright then brought on the first speaker, Burlington’s Mayor, followed by several other speakers.
112. During the first several speakers, Plaintiff Harvey escorted another March participant, who was suffering from the effects of the GPD officer’s initial deployment of pepper spray, from the Courthouse grounds to the Verdict restaurant at the corner of West Elm and Northwest Court Square. Plaintiff Harvey ordered some food and drink from the Verdict and, while waiting for the order on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant, listened to the speakers.
113. GPD Officer Jordan and two or more of Defendant GPD Does #21-40 approached Plaintiff Harvey and told him to move to the “designated area.” After Plaintiff Harvey explained that he was waiting on his food, had a right to be on the sidewalk and therefore would not move, GPD Officer Jordan and two or more Doe GPD Officers #21-40 put hands on Plaintiff Harvey and arrested him.
114. Just before 1:00pm, without giving prior warning or notice, one of Defendants ACSO Does #1-20 attempted to disconnect the sound amplification system. Plaintiff Drumwright approached the deputy to ask what he was doing.
115. Some of Defendants ACSO Does grabbed Plaintiff J4tNG’s equipment, then grabbed Plaintiff Drumwright and members of Plaintiff J4tNG.
31
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 31 of 51

116. Suddenly and again with no warning or dispersal order, Defendants’ officers and deputies, including at least some of Doe ACSO Deputies #1-20 and at least some of Doe GPD officers #21-40, worked in coordination to pepper spray the marchers a second time, including members of Plaintiffs J4tNG and AA4J.
117. Plaintiffs Drumwright and Ernestine and Edith Ward, among others who were there near the stage, were hit with the spray. Marchers and other AA4J and J4tNG members, including Plaintiff Ellison, felt the effects of the spray in their eyes and noses and tried to get themselves and others away.
118. Ms. Ernestine Ward, who is elderly, is allergic to cigarette smoke and was severely affected by the pepper spray. She experienced a burning sensation in her eyes and throat, began having difficulty breathing, and feared for her life. Plaintiff Ernestine Ward later had to be treated by a medical doctor for damage to her respiratory system from the spray.
119. At least one of Defendant ACSO Does #1-20 or Defendant Cole’s officer Does #21-40 sprayed in the direction of Plaintiff Janet Nesbitt. The spray hit Plaintiff Nesbitt in her mouth, nose, and eyes, causing her extreme breathing difficulties. Plaintiff Nesbitt was shaking uncontrollably and felt like she was suffocating.
120. Defendants’ officers stood nearby but did not assist Plaintiff Nesbitt. AA4J members carried her to get help from paramedics who were participating in the march and providing those injured by the spray with medical attention. Plaintiff Nesbitt’s scooter was damaged at some point in the chaos. Plaintiff Edith Ward witnessed Plaintiff
32
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 32 of 51

Nesbitt’s convulsions, and later described feeling deeply traumatized by the scene. 121. Plaintiff Batten was standing next to Plaintiff Nesbitt during this second
deployment of pepper spray. The spray also hit Plaintiff Batten in her mouth, nose, and eyes, causing her extreme breathing difficulties and rendering her unable to see as she tried to assist Plaintiff Nesbitt.
122. Plaintiff Batten was wearing contact lenses and had to receive assistance removing them to flush her eyes. A fellow marcher helped her flush her eyes, walk her to the medic cart, and then took her to the EMS station for further medical attention. Plaintiff Batten later had to be treated by a medical doctor for damage to her respiratory system from the spray.
123. Some of Defendant Johnson’s deputy Does #1-20 and some of Defendant Cole’s officer Does #21-40, working in coordination, began shouting at marchers to disperse.
124. Without providing marchers adequate time to disperse or providing any instruction on where or how they should move, Defendants began dispensing large volumes of pepper spray into the crowd a third time, without warning, even as marchers tried to leave the area.
125. The deputies and officers did not indicate what authority they had to suspend the First Amendment in this way.
126. Marchers, including Plaintiffs Drumwright, Ellison, M.E., Mitchell, Cook, Edith and Ernestine Ward, members of J4tNG and AA4J, were hit by pepper spray,
33
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 33 of 51

experiencing many of the same painful symptoms they experienced before, but at a more intensified level.
127. Plaintiff Drumwright was arrested by ACSO Corporal Bernard Kilmer and additional ACSO deputy Does #1-20, for misdemeanor “failure to leave the premises when riotous activity was occurring,” citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.5. Other J4tNG members were arrested as well.
128. As many marchers, including Plaintiffs Cook, Ellison, Mitchell and the Wards, attempted to disperse, they were chased and sprayed repeatedly with pepper spray by Defendant Cole’s officer Does #21-40.
129. During the dispersal and afterwards, some of Defendant Cole’s deputy Does #21-40 blocked off the street leading to the Elm Street early voting polling location, effectively obstructing marchers from proceeding to that polling site.
130. Plaintiffs Ernestine and Edith Ward attempted with other marchers to flee the pepper spray and get to the polling place located a block away at Elm and Maple; however, one or more of Doe GPD officers #21-40 blocked their path.
131. As they began to head towards North Main Street in compliance with the officers’ orders, multiple Doe GPD officers #21-40 who lined the street pepper sprayed Plaintiffs Ernestine and Edith Ward and the other marchers.
132. Plaintiff Ernestine Ward and other marchers took a long route to the polling place to avoid the officers blocking West Elm Street, traveling north on North Main Street, taking a left onto West Harden Street, taking another left onto North Maple Street,
34
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 34 of 51

and walking two blocks south on Maple Street to the polling place (located at 115 South Maple Street).
133. Plaintiff Cook was able to make her way to the Elm St. early voting site and voted, despite having been pepper sprayed and intimidated by the Defendants, and still coughing and feeling pain from the pepper spray. Feeling unsafe, she asked Plaintiff Mitchell to accompany her and wait outside for her as she went into the polling place.
134. After Plaintiff Cook voted, she walked to the Alamance County Detention Center to check on friends who had been arrested.
135. ACSO deputies warned her to stay on the grass median between the parking lot of the Detention Center and the street or she would also be arrested.
136. Using a megaphone but remaining on the grass, Plaintiff Cook began singing “We’re Ready for Change.”
137. After a few minutes, approximately seven of ACSO deputy Doe officers #1-20 arrested Plaintiff Cook without warning. She was detained for several hours, eventually released with a misdemeanor charge for “inciting a riot.”
138. Altogether, Defendants’ officers and deputies arrested twenty people in connection with the March, including two poll observers and an Alamance News reporter covering the events.
139. At all times during and following the March, Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiff organizations J4tNG and AA4J remained peaceful.
140. Parts of the events were captured on video recorded by the News &
35
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 35 of 51

Observer. (“the News & Observer video”), available at https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article246861942.html.
141. The News & Observer video shows an older man being restrained by three of Defendant GPD officers Does #21-40 (0:52-1:07), as well as a journalist with a camera being restrained by two police officers and then approached by two additional Defendant GPD officers Does #21-40 who tried to pry his camera from his hands (1:141:25).
142. In the video, protesters say to a police officer, “You sprayed a kid,” and the Defendant GPD officer Doe responds, “I did,” (1:25-1:28).
143. The video also shows a Defendant GPD Doe officer shouting “Get moving, you f-g pricks” as he sprays pepper spray at protesters while they try to walk away along a sidewalk.
144. Because of Defendants’ conduct, the planned march to the polls was abruptly terminated. Some voters, including Plaintiffs Jones and Batten, were actually deterred from voting on October 31. Because of their pepper spray-related injuries, they could not go to the polls that day as planned. Plaintiff Harvey was unable to vote at all in the 2020 election because of Defendants’ actions.
145. Following the March, a neo-Confederate counterdemonstrator reported that Defendants had previously warned him and his fellow pro-Confederate counterdemonstrators to move away from the square while the rally at the Courthouse was taking place, and after seeing Defendants pepper spray the marchers, he understood
36
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 36 of 51

why they had been forewarned. 146. On November 3, Election Day, Plaintiff J4tNG members and Plaintiff
Drumwright were leading a second, peaceful march to the polls to complete the objective that Defendants had thwarted on October 31. As part of the November 3 march, Plaintiff Drumwright led marchers past the Graham Community Center polling place, ensuring that the route of the march was well outside of the 50 feet “buffer zone” established by state law.12
147. As they passed, Plaintiff Drumwright encouraged marchers who had not yet voted to stop and do so. Plaintiff Jones, who was prevented from voting by Defendants’ actions at the October 31 March, stopped at the polling site in order to vote.
148. Approximately four GPD officers stationed themselves prominently at the Graham Community Center polling place at the same time the marchers approached. Voters wishing to enter the polling place had to walk through or closely around this group of GPD officers to reach the doors of the polling place.
149. The GPD officers’ cars also obstructed curbside voter access for approximately eight minutes. Even after moving their cars away from the curbside voting area, GPD officers remained at the Community Center polling cite for approximately 30 minutes—long after the march had passed.
150. GPD officers’ presence at the polling place intimidated marchers who had been pepper sprayed a mere three days before, as well as other voters.
12 See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-166.4. 37
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 37 of 51

151. For example, because of her experience at the October 31 March and the police presence at the polling place, Plaintiff Jones did not feel secure walking into the polling place alone. An Elon University film student attending the November 3 March agreed to accompany Plaintiff Jones to the entrance of the polling location, and used his camera equipment to film the police on their way to the entrance, at Plaintiff Jones’s request. Defendants’ Conduct Intimidated Voters in the Exercise of their Fundamental Right to Vote
152. Plaintiff J4tNG has members who are lawfully registered voters in Alamance County, who attended the March and were similarly intimidated from voting by Defendants’ violent actions. Other members of Plaintiff J4tNG experienced both intimidation and an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and coerce such that they were prevented or may be prevented in the future from exercising their right to vote.
153. Plaintiff AA4J has members who are lawfully registered voters in Alamance County who attended the March and were similarly intimidated from voting by Defendants’ violent actions. Other members of Plaintiff AA4J experienced both intimidation and an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and coerce such that they were prevented or may be prevented in the future from exercising their right to vote.
154. Defendants Cole, Parker, Franks, Velez, and Johnson acted in concert to plan, direct, authorize, and approve the violent crowd control tactics employed by GPD officers and ACSO deputies against voters peacefully marching to the polls.
155. Defendants’ activities constitute an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and
38
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 38 of 51

coerce citizens, like Plaintiffs Jones, Harvey, Cook and Batten and members of Plaintiffs AA4J and J4tNG who are Alamance County voters, from participating in the election in a manner that prevents them from exercising their constitutional right to vote and from encouraging others to do so.
156. Defendants’ actions harassed, threatened, and intimidated voters and peaceful marchers.
157. Defendants Johnson, Cole, and the City have insisted through spokespersons that their deputies’ and officers’ violent actions were appropriate and justified because of alleged violations of the Alamance County Facility Use permit and/or permissions granted by Defendant Cole for the October 31 March, specifically: the use of a gas generator to power sound amplification, and the presence of some marchers in the north end of the Courthouse rotary street during the 8 minutes and 46 seconds long moment of remembrance for George Floyd.
158. Defendants’ actions are themselves inconsistent with the enforcement provisions of the Facility Use Policy, the stated intent of which is “to deescalate and secure compliance,” noting that “[e]nforcement should be at a last resort.”
159. The Facility Use Policy states that “[v]iolators will be provided an explanation as to the violation of law being committed and requested to refrain from continuing the conduct or relocate,” and indicates that a written warning should be issued for any violation prior to an arrest.
160. Upon information and belief, Defendants provided no explanations of any
39
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 39 of 51

violations being committed, and no written warnings, before deploying pepper spray and commencing to arrest protestors in alleged violation of their Facility Use Policy.
161. Further, none of these alleged violations constitute cause for use of pepper spray against any Plaintiffs, much less the widespread and indiscriminate use of pepper spray against entirely peaceful marchers, including children and the elderly.
162. Defendants’ violent suppression of Plaintiffs’ rights to assemble for a march to the polls constitutes an attempt to intimidate, threaten, and coerce voters such as Individual Plaintiffs Jones, Cook, Batten, Harvey, and Organizational Plaintiffs J4tNG and AA4J members in an attempt to prevent and discourage them from exercising their right to vote.
163. The above-referenced conduct violates Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. These violations have caused Individual Plaintiffs and J4tNG and AA4J members irreparable harm.
164. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights, of which a reasonable person would have known. Defendants’ Conduct Injured and Chilled Voters and Others in the Exercise of their First Amendment Rights
165. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries entitling them to damages, including significant physical, emotional, and mental pain and suffering.
166. Individual Plaintiffs and members of J4tNG and AA4J intend to participate in future non-violent protests in Graham, including in the Historic Courthouse area.
40
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 40 of 51

167. Because of the violent response of ACSO and City officials, fewer persons will likely attend such events in the future out of fear that law enforcement officers will harm them. Parents will be discouraged from bringing their children even to public assemblies advertised as peaceful, and where the organizers have obtained permit, limiting these parents’ ability to teach their children about values and issues that are important to them, and limiting their own ability to attend if they cannot arrange for childcare. Senior citizens and people with disabilities will be discouraged from participation in future gatherings, because their safety is particularly threatened by Defendants’ violent crowd control tactics.
168. Defendants’ actions were not a reasonable regulation of the time, place, or manner of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment protected activity. These actions were not justified by a compelling—or even substantial—government interest.
169. The actions and inactions of Defendants had the effect of denying people the ability to peaceably assemble, march, vote, and protest. They also represent seizure and objectively unreasonable uses of force.
170. Individual Plaintiffs and members of the organizational Plaintiffs are suffering continuing harm in that they are threatened with objectively unreasonable use of force by Defendants in the future.
171. Defendants have demonstrated continued hostility to Plaintiffs’ attempts to participate in non-violent protests and otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights since the October 31 March.
41
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 41 of 51

172. For example, AA4J and its members organized and participated in a peaceful demonstration in front of the Historic Courthouse in Graham on November 16, 2020. When AA4J members peacefully attempted to attend and offer public comment at the meeting of the Alamance County Board of Commissioners (“BOC”) being held that evening in the Historic Courthouse, Defendants Johnson and ACSO deputies again used excessive force against AA4J members—intimidating and harassing them, and later physically and emotionally injuring some of them during their unlawful arrests as they were leaving the BOC meeting.
173. Further, Defendant Johnson has charged Plaintiff Drumwright with additional felonies and misdemeanors amidst his continued attempts to organize peaceful demonstrations in Alamance County since the October 31 March.
174. Absent judicial intervention, Plaintiffs will continue to face threats for the exercise of their fundamental First Amendment rights.
CAUSES OF ACTION Count I: Violation of the First Amendment (All Plaintiffs against all
Defendants) 175. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim. 176. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the free expression, free association, and assembly rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs J4tNG and AA4J assert this claim on behalf of themselves and their members.
42
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 42 of 51

177. In the following paragraphs, references to the First Amendment include the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
178. As described above, Defendants’ activities to restrict and suppress Plaintiffs’ speech and assembly at the October 31 March, including their use of unlawful dispersal orders, threats of arrest, and use of pepper spray to forcibly disperse and suppress the speech of those peacefully marching to the polls, violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Count II: Violation of the Fourth Amendment (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
179. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim.
180. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs J4TNG and AA4J assert this claim on behalf of their members.
181. In the following paragraphs, references to the Fourth Amendment include the Fourth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
182. As described above, Defendants’ issuance of unlawful dispersal orders and use of pepper spray and arrests to forcibly disperse a peaceful march to the polls and peaceful pro-voting rally unreasonably seized Plaintiffs and violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
43
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 43 of 51

Count III: Violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (Plaintiffs Jones, Harvey, Batten, Cook, J4tNG, and AA4J against all Defendants)
183. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim.
184. The Voting Rights Act also protects against intimidation in both elections and registration efforts.
185. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act provides that: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 10302(a), 10305, 10306, or 10308(e) of this title or section 1973d or 1973g of Title 42.
52 U.S.C. § 10307. 186. Defendants violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act by suppressing,
and attempting to suppress, through unlawful dispersal orders, use of pepper spray, and threats of arrest, the efforts of Plaintiffs Jones, Cook, Harvey, Batten, and other marchers, including members of Plaintiffs J4tNG and AA4J, to march to the polls.
187. These actions intimidated, threatened or coerced, and/or attempted to intimidate, threaten, or coerce eligible Alamance County voters concerned about racial justice issues from going to the polls.
188. Defendants’ violent conduct would intimidate or attempt to intimidate an objectively reasonable individual and did in fact prevent Plaintiff Jones and other voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote on the last day of the early voting period.
44
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 44 of 51

Count IV: Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (Plaintiffs Jones, Harvey, Batten, Cook, J4tNG and AA4J against all Defendants)
189. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth in this claim.
190. Plaintiffs Jones, Cook, Harvey, Batten, and J4tNG, and AA4J, on behalf of
their members, bring a claim under the second clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which
provides that:
[I]f two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
191. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (the “Ku Klux Klan Act”) was the last of
the Enforcement Acts—legislation passed during Reconstruction to protect the suffrage
rights of formerly enslaved people, including by protecting them and their supporters
from violence, intimidation, and harassment.
192. The Ku Klux Klan Act provides for damages and equitable relief “if two or
more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is
lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward
or in favor of . . . an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress
45
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 45 of 51

of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
193. The Ku Klux Klan Act provides that an action will lie against the conspirators so long as “one or more persons engaged” in the conspiracy “do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy.” Id.
194. Even as to those persons who do not directly participate in those activities, the Ku Klux Klan Act makes it unlawful to conspire with others to promote, organize, and otherwise facilitate those efforts.
195. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by knowingly conspiring with each other to unlawfully disperse a march to the polls, with the purpose of discouraging and intimidating voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
196. Defendants Johnson, Parker, Cole, Velez, and Franks, and the City’s deployment of their deputies and officers and all Defendants’ coordination regarding use of pepper spray, and detention and arrest of attendees, constituted substantial steps in furtherance of the conspiracy.
197. Defendants knew or should have known at the time of their actions that they would prevent or deter constitutionally eligible voters like Plaintiffs Jones, Cook, Batten, Harvey and members of Plaintiffs J4tNG and AA4J from exercising their right to vote in elections for President and members of Congress.
198. Defendants’ actions would intimidate, discourage, or prevent an objectively reasonable individual from exercising their right to vote in elections for President and
46
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 46 of 51

members of Congress. 199. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages, including significant physical, emotional, and mental pain and suffering. Count V: Violation of Article I, Section 14 of the North Carolina Constitution (all
Plaintiffs against all Defendants in their official capacities) 200. Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim. 201. Article I, Section 14 of the North Carolina Constitution provides: “Freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained, but every person shall be held responsible for their abuse.” 202. Article I, Section 14 provides at least the same level of protection for free speech as the First Amendment. 203. The North Carolina Constitution authorizes a cause of action for damages against state officials in their official capacity when they violate the rights found in Article I, including the right to free speech. See Corum v. Univ. of N. Carolina Through Bd. of Governors, 330 N.C. 761, 782, 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992) (“A direct action against the State for its violations of free speech is essential to the preservation of free speech.”). 204. Plaintiffs lack an adequate state common law or statutory remedy to recover for a violation of their state constitutional right to free speech. 205. Defendants’ activities to restrict and suppress Plaintiffs’ speech relating to the October 31 March, including their use of unlawful dispersal orders, threats of arrest,
47
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 47 of 51

and use of pepper spray to forcibly disperse those marching to the polls, violates Plaintiffs’ state constitutional right to free speech. Count VI: Violation of Article I, Section 12 of the North Carolina Constitution (all
Plaintiffs against all Defendants in their official capacities) 206. Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim. 207. Article I, Section 12 of the North Carolina Constitution provides: “The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good[.]” 208. The North Carolina Constitution provides a cause of action for damages against state officials in their official capacity when they violate the rights found in Article I. See Corum, 330 N.C. at 782, 413 S.E.2d at 289 (“The civil rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights in Article I of our Constitution are individual and personal rights entitled to protection against state action . . . .”). 209. Plaintiffs lack an adequate state common law or statutory remedy to recover for violations of their state constitutional right to assembly. 210. Defendants’ activities to restrict and suppress Plaintiffs’ assembly relating to the October 31 March, including their use of unlawful dispersal orders, threats of arrest, and use of pepper spray to forcibly disperse those marching to the polls, violates Plaintiffs’ state constitutional right to assembly.
48
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 48 of 51

Count VII: Common Law Assault and Battery/Excessive Force (Individual Plaintiffs against all Doe Defendants in their individual capacities)
211. Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth in this claim.
212. Doe Defendants #1-40 committed assault by making a show of violence in deploying pepper spray against Individual Plaintiffs and committed battery by touching Individual Plaintiffs with pepper spray against their will.
213. In so doing, Doe Defendants used an unreasonable level of force given the circumstances and acted arbitrarily and maliciously.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the following relief: (a) Enjoin, and enter a declaratory judgment stating, that Defendants’ dispersal
orders, use of pepper spray, and arrests against peaceful marchers violated Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and assembly and against unreasonable searches and seizures under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 12 and 14 of the North Carolina Constitution, and (b) Enjoin, and enter a declaratory judgment stating, that Defendants’ dispersal orders, use of pepper spray against, and arrests of peaceful marchers to the polls violates the rights of Plaintiffs Jones, Cook, Harvey and Batten, and members
49
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 49 of 51

of J4tNG and AA4J under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, and 42
U.S.C. §1985;
(c) Award Plaintiffs their damages, including punitive damages;
(d) Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1920, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 52 U.S.C. § 10310, and as otherwise
permitted by law; and
(e) Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of December, 2020.
/s/ Elizabeth Haddix Elizabeth Haddix North Carolina Bar No. 25818 ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin North Carolina Bar No. 20935 mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law P.O. Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 Tel: 919-914-6106
/s/ Jennifer Nwachukwu Jennifer Nwachukwu Maryland Bar No. 20869 jnwachukwu@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1500 K Street N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: 202-662-8300 Notice of Special Appearance Filed
/s/Jaclyn Maffetore Jaclyn Maffetore North Carolina Bar No. 50849 jmaffetore@acluofnc.org
50
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 50 of 51

Kristi L. Graunke North Carolina Bar. No. 51216 kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel North Carolina Bar No. 46397 dsiegel@acluofnc.org ACLU of North Carolina Foundation P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Tel: 919-834-3466 Jason Keith North Carolina Bar No. 34038 Keith & Associates, PLLC 241 Summit Avenue Greensboro, NC 27401 Tel: 919-914-6106 Counsel for Plaintiffs
51
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 51 of 51

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF GRAHAM, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

----------------------------------

)

GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

TERRY JOHNSON, individually and )

in his official capacity as Alamance

)

County Sheriff, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

1:20-CV-997 1:20-CV-998

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge.

These consolidated cases arise out of a political demonstration held on October 31,

2020, in Graham, North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants—the City and

various City and County law enforcement officers—used pepper spray and overly violent

crowd-control tactics to disrupt a peaceful protest and prevent the plaintiffs and others

from voting, violating numerous federal and state rights in the process.

After the defendants moved to dismiss, the Allen parties resolved their disputes,

subject to certain conditions, and the Court has stayed that case. See Docs. 73, 76. This

Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 25

order resolves the motions to dismiss in the companion case, Drumwright v. Cole, 1:20cv-998 (M.D.N.C.).1
The Court concludes that the Drumwright complaint states claims on which relief may be granted, except for the federal constitutional claims against the named City defendants in their official capacities. Those claims will be dismissed as redundant. Otherwise, the motions to dismiss will be denied.
I. The Parties and the Causes of Action The Drumwright plaintiffs include several individuals and two unincorporated
entities. The individuals are Reverend Gregory Drumwright, Edith Ann Jones, Faith Cook, Janet Nesbitt, Quenclyn Ellison, Melanie Mitchell, Ernestine Lewis Ward, Edith Ward, Avery Harvey, and Ashley Reed Batten. Ms. Ellison and Ms. Mitchell bring claims on behalf of themselves and their minor children. The entities are Justice 4 The Next Generation and Alamance Alliance 4 Justice.
The amended complaint identifies seven causes of action. As named in the heading for each cause of action, they are:
1. “Violation of the First Amendment” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;2 2. “Violation of the Fourth Amendment” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;3
1 Because all relevant pleadings and briefs have been filed in Allen v. City of Graham, 1:20cv-997 (M.D.N.C.), the lead case, see Doc. 22 (granting motion to consolidate), the Court will use citations to the Allen docket.
2 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 175–78. 3 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 179–82.
2
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 25

3. “Violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act” under 52 U.S.C. § 10307;4
4. “Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871” under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3);5 5. “Violation of Article I, Section 14 of the North Carolina Constitution;”6 6. “Violation of Article I, Section 12 of the North Carolina Constitution;”7 7. “Common Law Assault and Battery/Excessive Force.”8 In addition to the City of Graham, the plaintiffs bring claims against several named law enforcement officers as well as unidentified law enforcement “Doe” defendants. The defendants can usefully be divided into two groups: the City defendants and the County defendants. The City defendants are the City of Graham; Mary Kristine Cole, individually and in her official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department; Joaquin Velez, individually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Patrol Division of the GPD; Jonathan Franks, individually and in his official capacity as consultant to the Alamance County Sheriff and the Graham Police Chief; and John and Jane Does, presently unknown officers of the GPD.
4 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 183–88. 5 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 189–99. 6 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 200–05. 7 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 206–10. 8 Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 211–13.
3
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 25

The County defendants are Terry Johnson, individually and in his official capacity as Alamance County Sheriff; Cliff Parker, individually and in his official capacity as Alamance County Chief Deputy Sheriff; and John and Jane Does, presently unknown officers of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office.
II. Procedural Posture Before settling with the Allen plaintiffs, the City defendants filed a single motion
to dismiss directed at both the Allen and the Drumright complaints. Doc. 45. The County defendants filed separate dispositive motions directed towards each complaint. See Docs. 50 (directed at Allen), 52 (directed at Drumwright). The motions as to the complaint in Allen will be held in abeyance pending finalization of the settlement.
The pending motions to dismiss the Drumright complaint cite both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(c). Doc. 45 at 1; Doc. 52 at 1. The briefing addresses only Rule 12(b)(6). The Court will assess the standing issues under the standards applicable to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion and the remaining issues under the standards applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.9
III. The Facts as Alleged On the final day of early voting and voter registration for the 2020 general election
in North Carolina, the individual defendants and other officers pepper-sprayed the
9 Technically, challenges to standing are made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), not Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c). See Pitt Cnty. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 553 F.3d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that the district court recharacterized a defendant’s challenge to standing from a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) to a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1)). The Court will treat this aspect of the motions as if made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), given its independent duty to evaluate subject matter jurisdiction.
4
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 4 of 25

plaintiffs while they were participating in the “I am Change March to the Polls,” in the city of Graham. Doc. 25 at ¶ 1. The March was organized as a peaceful “march to the polls” that was “focused on racial justice issues,” like raising awareness of police brutality, and it was intended to encourage members of the community who had not already voted to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 9–12, 68.
The March began at a local church and was scheduled to stop at Court Square, near the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County courthouse where the organizers planned to speak from a small stage with sound amplifiers. Id. at ¶¶ 72, 88. Organizers then planned for the March to continue towards the Elm Street polling place, an early-voting site where attendees could register and vote in the 2020 general election. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 72, 80. The organizers had a permit for the March and rally, id. at ¶¶ 71–72, 75, 91, and a county attorney authorized the plaintiffs to erect a small stage on courthouse grounds. Id. at ¶ 82.
The March began and proceeded peacefully. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 88. The marchers complied with COVID-19 protocols. Id. at ¶¶ 86, 95. When the marchers arrived at Court Square, they were met by armed sheriff’s deputies. Id. at ¶ 96. Counter-protestors were also present but left upon instruction from officers soon after the marchers arrived. Id. at ¶ 145.
Marchers knelt in silence for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in remembrance of George Floyd, who was killed by police a few months earlier. Id. at ¶ 95. Immediately after the remembrance, and before many could even get back up to their feet, officers began indiscriminately discharging pepper spray into the crowd, which included children, the
5
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 5 of 25

elderly, and those with disabilities. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 99–109. The chemical spray irritated and burned the eyes and throats of some plaintiffs. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 101–08. Some March participants who were in a nearby park attempted to cross over to the courthouse grounds but were stopped and arrested by GPD officers. Id. at ¶ 110.
Despite the pepper spray, the rally continued, and Rev. Drumwright was able to set up the stage and a sound system. Id. at ¶¶ 99, 111. After several speakers had spoken, deputies attempted to disconnect the sound system without warning or explanation. Id. at ¶¶ 114–15. Shortly after that, Graham police officers and Alamance County deputy sheriffs worked in coordination to pepper spray the marchers a second time. Id. at ¶ 116. Several of the named plaintiffs and members of Alamance Alliance and Next Generation were hit by the second spray. Id. at ¶¶ 116–22.
GPD and ACSO officers ordered the marchers to leave the area. Id. at ¶ 123. Without providing time to disperse or instruction on where or how to leave the area, the officers began spraying a third round of pepper spray into the crowd. Id. at ¶ 124. Several of the named plaintiffs and members of Alamance Alliance and Next Generation were also hit by this third round of pepper spray. Id. at ¶ 126.
Some of the marchers continued to the Elm Street polling place as planned but took a longer route to avoid officers. Id. at ¶¶ 132–33. Many marchers who had intended to vote that day were unable to because of injuries from the defendants’ pepper spray. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 144, 147. Members of Next Generation and Alamance Alliance, who were lawfully registered voters in Alamance County, were intimidated from voting by the
6
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 6 of 25

defendants’ actions. Id. at ¶¶ 152–53. Multiple individual plaintiffs were fearful of attempting to vote on Election Day, three days after the March. Id. at ¶¶ 150–51.
Other factual allegations will be recited as necessary to address specific issues. IV. The § 1983 Claims Against the Individual City Defendants in Their
Official Capacities The City defendants contend that because the plaintiffs bring their claims against the City, the same claims against the individual City defendants in their official capacity are redundant and should be dismissed. Doc. 46 at 17–18; see Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (treating an official capacity suit “as a suit against the entity”); Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 783 (4th Cir. 2004) (upholding dismissal of officialcapacity claims under § 1983 as redundant). The plaintiffs acknowledge the City defendants’ argument but do not address it. Doc. 56 at 13. The cases cited by the City defendants support dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the individual City defendants in their official capacities. Those claims are redundant to the § 1983 claims against the City and will be dismissed. The City does not explicitly contend that any state claims or federal statutory claims are redundant, nor does it cite any cases addressing anything other than § 1983 claims. See infra note 12. To the extent the motion is directed to any state or federal statutory claims, it will be denied without prejudice. V. Entity Standing Both the County and City defendants challenge the standing of entity-plaintiffs Alamance Alliance and Next Generation. Doc. 46 at 19; Doc. 53 at 5. The defendants
7
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 7 of 25

assert that these unincorporated associations cannot bring suit in North Carolina because they have not filed an assumed business name certification as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-69.1(a)(3). Doc. 46 at 20; Doc. 53 at 5–6. But “standing to sue in any Article III court is a federal question which does not depend on the party’s standing in state court.” Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan, 971 F.3d 199, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up); see also Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Chicago Park Dist., 971 F.3d 722, 731 (7th Cir. 2020) (stating that state law “obviously cannot alter the scope of the federal judicial power.”).
The County and City defendants also contend that the entity plaintiffs have not established Article III standing. Article III standing is a subject matter jurisdiction issue. Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 777 F.3d 712, 715 (4th Cir. 2015).
While the plaintiffs bear the burden of clearly alleging facts “demonstrating that [they are] proper part[ies] to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), the district court should dismiss a case on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999) (cleaned up). When a party moves to dismiss on the basis that a complaint fails to allege facts supporting the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff “is afforded the same procedural protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration.” Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). And where, as here, a defendant has not provided evidence to dispute the veracity of the
8
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 8 of 25

jurisdictional allegations in the complaint, courts accept facts alleged in the complaint as true. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192–93 (4th Cir. 2009).
Unincorporated organizations, like the entity plaintiffs here, may satisfy Article III standing in one of two ways. They may show organizational standing to sue on their own behalf, or they may show associational standing to sue on behalf of one or more of their members. Guilford Coll. v. McAleenan, 389 F. Supp. 3d 377, 388 (M.D.N.C. 2019). Both plaintiff organizations have made a facial showing of Article III standing to pursue their claims.
First, both entities have organizational standing because the allegations make a facial showing that the actions by the City and County defendants impeded their efforts to carry out their organizational missions and purposes. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982) (holding “there can be no question that [an] organization has suffered injury in fact” where defendants’ actions impaired the organization’s ability to provide its services). Next Generation is an unincorporated association of community organizations that promotes social justice and an end to police violence and other forms of systemic racial oppression. Doc. 25 at ¶ 9. Alamance Alliance is an unincorporated organization of Alamance community leaders, parents, and youth with a mission of, among other things, fighting against racism, injustice, and oppression and promoting social equality in Alamance County. Id. at ¶ 11. Both organizations allege that they dedicated time and resources to help organize the March and to encourage their members to participate as a means of furthering their organizational goals. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12. The defendants’ conduct forced the March to end early and directly interfered with each
9
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 9 of 25

group’s mission. The entity plaintiffs do not have to prove their injuries in the complaint, and they have sufficiently alleged that they were injured by the defendants’ conduct. The County defendants’ Lujan contention that the plaintiffs’ injuries are unlikely to be redressed by a favorable decision is conclusory at best.10 See Doc. 53 at 8; see also Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (establishing standing requirements of injury, traceability, and redressability).
Second, both organizations have also made a facial showing of associational standing. An organization has associational standing to sue on behalf of its members if: (1) “at least one of its identified members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;” (2) “the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose;” and (3) “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 983 F.3d 671, 683 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
As to the first element, the complaint alleges that Alamance Alliance President Quenclyn Ellison, Doc. 25 at ¶ 15, and Next Generation’s lead organizer, Gregory Drumright, id. at ¶ 13, were harmed by the defendants, along with many other unnamed members of each organization. Id. at ¶¶ 152–53. The County defendants contend that Next Generation is an unincorporated association of community organizations and does
10 In their brief, the County defendants assert that the plaintiffs must seek relief, which, if granted, will benefit the injured members of the association. Doc. 53 at 8–9 (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). But they do not clearly contend that this requirement has not been met here. The Court will not address this issue, if it is one, on the undeveloped factual record.
10
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 10 of 25

not represent the constitutional rights of individuals. Doc. 53 at 8. The injury to Rev. Drumwright is sufficient to facially satisfy the first element of representational standing.
As to the second element, the interests at stake are germane to each group’s organizational purpose. These interests include the freedom to peacefully protest police violence and racial justice and the freedom to participate in political demonstrations, like the March and other similar get-out-the-vote drives. These interests are within Alamance Alliance’s mission of “fight[ing] for political, educational, social, and economic equality for all citizens of Alamance County,” Doc. 25 at ¶ 11, and Next Generation’s organizational purpose of ending “police violence and other forms of systemic racial oppression.” Id. at ¶ 9. Each organization seeks to promote their mission by organizing and leading public demonstrations like the March and similar vote drives. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11.
As to the third element, the claims asserted and the relief requested will not require evidence and testimony from all individual association members. At most, the litigation will require evidence and testimony from a representative sample of organization members who attended the March. Many courts have found that limited participation by individual members does not defeat associational standing. Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Texas Med. Bd., 627 F.3d 547, 551 (5th Cir. 2010) (approving associational standing where organization could produce “a sampling of evidence from its members”); accord, e.g., Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 874 F.3d 195, 204 (4th Cir. 2017), rev’d and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n, 139 S. Ct. 2067
11
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 11 of 25

(2019) (granting associational standing where case would require testimony and participation by at least some members).
The City defendants contend that organizations do not have standing to assert the rights of their members in § 1983 cases, relying on authority from the Second Circuit. See Doc. 46 at 20. First, as discussed supra, the entity plaintiffs have asserted their own injuries. Second, as to associational standing, other circuits disagree with the Second Circuit, see Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay, 868 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2017) (Jacobs, J., dissenting and collecting cases), and the Fourth Circuit has applied associational standing rules in § 1983 cases. See, e.g., Md. Highways Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Maryland, 933 F.2d 1246, 1251 (4th Cir. 1991).
Alamance Alliance and Next Generation have facially alleged organizational and associational standing to pursue their asserted claims. The motions to dismiss for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction will be denied. As standing “remains open to review at all stages of the litigation,” Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255 (1994), this denial is without prejudice to a summary judgment motion.
VI. Sufficiency of the Allegations “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Legal conclusions “must be supported by factual allegations” that amount to more than “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Id.
12
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 12 of 25

A. The Common Law Assault and Battery Claim In Count VII, the plaintiffs assert a common law assault and battery claim against 40 unnamed John and Jane Does of the GPD and the ACSO in their individual capacities. Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 211–13. The plaintiffs do not assert this claim against any of the named defendants. The County defendants appear to misapprehend this fact, as they contend that the plaintiffs have failed to state an assault and battery claim against Sheriff Johnson and Deputy Sheriff Parker. Doc. 53 at 10–14. But as mentioned, the plaintiffs have not sued any individual defendants for assault and battery. The motion by Sheriff Johnson and Deputy Sheriff Parker as to this claim will be denied as unnecessary. The City defendants contend that the assault claims against the as-yet-unidentified Graham police officers should be dismissed for failing to plead actionable facts sufficient to overcome public official immunity to state claim liability. Doc. 46 at 18. The attorneys for the City have asserted that they do not represent these defendants and have refused to accept service on their behalf. See Doc. 57 at 3 (“On December 14 and 15, 2020, counsel for the City of Graham Defendants . . . declined to accept or facilitate service of the Doe Defendants employed by their clients.”). Because counsel may not move to dismiss claims against defendants they do not represent, the City’s motion as to the unidentified Doe defendants will also be denied.
B. The Claims under the North Carolina Constitution The plaintiffs bring direct claims against the County and City defendants under the North Carolina Constitution for violations of their rights to freedom of speech and
13
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 13 of 25

freedom of assembly. Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 200–10. To assert a direct constitutional claim, “a plaintiff must allege that no adequate state remedy exists to provide relief from the injury.” Copper ex rel. Copper v. Denlinger, 363 N.C. 784, 788, 688 S.E.2d 426, 428 (2010); Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 782, 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992). “An adequate state remedy exists if, assuming the plaintiff’s claim is successful, the remedy would compensate the plaintiff for the same injury alleged in the direct constitutional claim.” Estate of Fennell ex rel. Fennell v. Stephenson, 137 N.C. App. 430, 437, 528 S.E.2d. 911, 915–16 (2000), reversed in part on other grounds, 354 N.C. 327, 554 S.E.2d 629 (2001).
The County and City defendants contend that the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing direct claims under the North Carolina Constitution because they have asserted federal § 1983 claims and state common law claims, which, if successful, would compensate the plaintiffs for their injuries. Doc. 46 at 12–13; Doc. 53 at 14–15. But they do not provide any cases supporting their contention that the plaintiffs’ federal claims are an adequate state remedy for violations of distinct and independent state constitutional rights. See Doc. 4 at ¶ 1 (Standard Order reminding parties that “legal arguments require citation to legal authority”); see also infra note 12. Nor do they support their contention that the plaintiffs’ common law claims for assault and battery are an adequate remedy for free speech and assembly injuries, and North Carolina courts have ruled that no state remedy exists for the violation of the state constitutional right to freedom of speech. Corum, 330 N.C. at 783, 413 S.E.2d at 290 (“Having no other remedy, our common law guarantees plaintiff a direct action under the State Constitution
14
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 14 of 25

for alleged violations of his constitutional freedom of speech rights.”); see also Randleman v. Johnson, 162 F. Supp. 3d 482, 489–90 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (rejecting an unsupported argument that the mere assertion of another state law claim precludes direct action under the state constitution).
The County and City defendants have not shown that the plaintiffs are precluded from advancing direct claims under the North Carolina Constitution. Both motions will be denied as to the state constitutional claims.
C. The Voting Rights Act Claim The plaintiffs bring a cause of action under § 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which is codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10307. See Pa. Democratic Party v. Republican Party of Pa., No. 16-5664, 2016 WL 6582659, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2016). The statute prohibits conduct that “intimidate[s],” “threaten[s],” or “coerce[s]” someone who is “voting, “attempting to vote,” or “urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.” 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b). Multiple courts have found that the statute extends to private conduct and establishes a private cause of action. Nat’l Coal. on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl, No. 20 Civ. 8668 (VM), 2021 WL 480818, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2021) (collecting cases); see also League of United Latin Am. Citizens – Richmond Region Council 4614 (LULAC) v. Pub. Interest Legal Found., No. 1:18-cv-00423, 2018 WL 3848404, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2018) (holding that the statute reaches private conduct). The plaintiffs allege that the County and City defendants used physical force and pepper spray to intimidate and prevent the plaintiffs from voting during a peaceful march
15
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 15 of 25

to the polls, one block from where they intended to register to vote and cast ballots on the final day of early voting in North Carolina. Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 99, 116, 124, 131, 133, 144, 151–53, 155–56, 162, 186. The plaintiffs also allege that many of them felt threatened and intimidated by this unnecessary and excessive force, which halted the march to the polls and deterred many plaintiffs from voting in the 2020 election. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 1, 3, 5, 106, 114–116, 119, 123–27, 133, 144, 151–56, 162, 185–87. The use of physical violence and pepper spray to deter an individual from voting or engaging in votingrelated activity states a plausible § 11(b) claim. See Katzenbach v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 250 F. Supp. 330, 341 (E.D. La. 1965) (citing violence against individuals “participating in a march . . . to protest denial of equal rights” as actionable voter intimidation under § 11(b)’s predecessor statute).
The County defendants contend that the plaintiffs have not alleged that the defendants’ actions were acts of intimidation or attempts to intimidate within the meaning of the statute. Doc. 53 at 18. There is limited case law discussing what “threaten” and “intimidate” mean in the context of § 11(b), but at least one court has held that alleged conduct that “put[s] [an individual] in fear of harassment and interfere[s] with their right to vote” is “intimidation sufficient to support [a] § 11(b) claim.” LULAC, 2018 WL 3848404 at *4. Other courts addressing § 11(b) and similar language in other votingrights statutes have gone so far as to find that even nonviolent actions can constitute impermissible threats, intimidation, or coercion. See Nat’l Coal. on Black Civic Participation, 2021 WL 480818 at *5 (collecting cases). This argument is better addressed on a more developed factual record.
16
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 16 of 25

The City defendants contend that the plaintiffs must allege facts supporting an inference that voting rights were denied based on race or color. Doc. 46 at 6. The one case they cite, Acosta v. Democratic City Comm., 288 F. Supp. 3d 597, 647–48 (E.D. Pa. 2018), does not so hold. The Acosta court construed the complaint as arising under § 2 of the VRA, id. at 647, not § 11(b), and nothing in § 11(b) mentions race or color. And while the Acosta court noted that the plaintiffs did not allege they were denied the right to vote based on race or color, that was simply an example of the dearth of factual allegations in the complaint. The Acosta court made it clear that the claim was dismissed because the plaintiffs made only a passing reference to the Voting Rights Act and did not include any factual allegations to support the claim. Id. This argument is without merit.
The City defendants also contend that the plaintiffs do not allege that they were voting or attempting to vote at the time of the pepper-spraying and that an allegation of misconduct unrelated to voting, but which thereafter has an adverse effect on voting, cannot support a VRA claim. Doc. 46 at 6–7. But the plaintiffs allege that at least some members of their group were on their way to vote. Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 14, 25–26, 144, 152–53, 155. And in any event, the language of the statute does not support the City’s argument, as it specifically protects “urging” others to vote or attempt to vote. 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b). Even the case cited by the City defendants does not directly support their argument, and there are many cases holding that § 11(b) protects not just voting but voting-related conduct, which includes encouraging others to vote or helping register other voters. See, e.g., National Coal. On Black Civic Participation, 2020 WL 6305325 at *12; LULAC, 2018 WL 3848404 at *4.
17
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 17 of 25

The County and City defendants both contend that the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants viewed or treated the March as a voting activity and therefore that the defendant officials did not have the subjective intent to, or purpose of, interfering with the right to vote. Doc. 46 at 7; Doc. 53 at 18. First, neither group of defendants cite any cases supporting their contention that subjective intent to interfere is an element of this claim, and the statute itself does not directly mention intent.11 The Court need not do the legal research on this question if the defendants did not think it worth their time. See Cathey v. Wake Forest Univ. Baptist Med. Ctr., 90 F. Supp. 3d 493, 509 (M.D.N.C. 2015). Even assuming this is an element, the plaintiffs allege that the March was specifically identified as a “March to the Polls,” and the complaint details the plaintiffs’ efforts in planning the March weeks in advance, including by applying for a permit from the County officials and by providing details to both the County and City officials about where, when, and how the plaintiffs planned to proceed with the March. Doc. 25 at 67– 83. It is a plausible inference at this stage that the defendants knew one of the purposes of the March was to support voting. The causation or intent aspects of the cause of action are better evaluated on a factual record with more developed legal argument.
The County and City motions will be denied as to the § 11(b) claim. D. The 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Claim
The plaintiffs bring a claim against the County and City defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 189–99. Section 1985(3)
11 At least one court has held that § 11(b) does not include a specific intent or racial animus element. See LULAC, 2018 WL 3848404 at *3–4.
18
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 18 of 25

creates a private cause of action, in relevant part, “if two or more persons conspire to

prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote”

from voting. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

The County defendants contend that dismissal is warranted because the plaintiffs

have not alleged any facts to support their claim of a conspiracy or agreement. Doc. 53 at

19–20. This is not so. See, e.g., Doc. 25 at ¶ 31 (alleging a consultant gave orders and

assigned duties to both City and County law enforcement officers), ¶ 123 (alleging City

and County officers worked in coordination in shouting at marchers to disperse), ¶ 154

(alleging named City and County actors planned and approved violent crowd-control

tactics used by City and County officers). Drawing all reasonable inferences in the

plaintiffs’ favor, the complaint states a plausible claim.12 The motion to dismiss this

claim will be denied.

E. The § 1983 Claims

1.

The City of Graham’s Municipal Liability

The City defendants contend that the plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient

to establish municipal liability for their federal constitutional claims under § 1983. Doc.

46 at 7–12. It is well established that a municipality may be liable under § 1983 if a

municipal policymaker approves or ratifies unconstitutional acts. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

12 The City defendants offer no substantive argument about this claim, referencing it only in a conclusory footnote. Doc. 46 at 12 n.7. The Local Rules explicitly state that an argument must be supported by citation to the record and legal authority. See LR 7.2(a). An argument is waived where the party fails to cite “legal authority of any kind.” Hayes v. Self-Help Credit Union, No. 13-cv-880, 2014 WL 4198412, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2014).
19
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 19 of 25

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); Semple v. City of Moundsville, 195 F.3d 708, 712 (4th

Cir. 1999). The plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Chief Cole had final

policymaking authority and exercised it to deprive them of their constitutional rights.

Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 35–36. The motion to dismiss the federal constitutional claims against the

City on this basis will be denied.

To the extent that the City defendants contend that Chief Cole did not have actual

authority to ratify the use of pepper spray as a municipal policymaker, or that she did not

ratify the use or pepper spray at all, that factual argument is premature. Whether an

official possesses final authority to establish or ratify municipal policy is a fact-intensive

inquiry usually inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Hunter v.

Town of Mocksville, 897 F.3d 538, 556–57 (4th Cir. 2018) (assessing final policy maker

authority on developed factual record); Davidson v. Loudoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors,

No. 16-cv-932 (JCC/IDD), 2016 WL 4801617, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2016) (“Whether

ratification has taken place is an issue of fact.”).

2.

The First Amendment Claim Against the County

Defendants

The County defendants assert that the facts alleged show that the plaintiffs’ First

Amendment claim cannot succeed. Doc. 53 at 15–16; see Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 175–78. But the

County defendants rely on a selective recitation of only some of the facts alleged and

ignore allegations that disrupt their narrative. The plaintiffs allege that the demonstration

was peaceful and that the defendants used force to prevent the plaintiffs from protesting.

The defendants’ factual assertion that their acts were needed to “stop[] an unlawful

20

Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 20 of 25

assembly” and to “clear[] the streets,” Doc. 53 at 16, are more appropriately raised at

summary judgment.13

3.

The Fourth Amendment Claim Against the County

Defendants

The County defendants move to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 53 at 17. Their argument on this issue amounts to a one

sentence “request” that the Court “find that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim.” Id.

The County defendants’ motion on this issue will be denied. See Landress v. Tier One

Solar, LLC, 243 F. Supp. 3d 633, 639 n.7 (M.D.N.C. 2017) (noting that where a party

fails to develop an issue in its brief, courts have deemed the issue waived and citing Belk,

Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 679 F.3d 146, 152 n.4 (4th Cir. 2012)).

4.

Qualified Immunity

Some of the defendants raise a qualified immunity defense to the claims brought

against them in their individual capacities. Specifically, the City defendants assert

qualified immunity for Lt. Velez, Chief Cole, and Officer Franks, Doc. 46 at 13–17,

13In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions were unreasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on First Amendment activity, Doc. 25 ¶ 168, and the defendants discussed that legal standard in their brief. Doc. 53 at 16; see Perry Educ. Assoc. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assoc., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) (explaining the government’s power to enact speech restrictions on various categories of government-owned property). The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ actions were not justified by a compelling or substantial government interest, Doc. 25 ¶ 168, but in their briefing, they frame the claim more as an incitement of lawlessness issue by citing the “clear and present danger” standard. See Doc. 62 at 11 (citing Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 2006)). As part of the pretrial conference, and certainly before summary judgment briefing, the parties may want to clear up the nature of this claim and the appropriate First Amendment standard so that the briefing is more helpful.
21
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 21 of 25

while the County defendants claim immunity in a conclusory fashion for seemingly all defendants. Doc. 53 at 20–21.
Qualified immunity bars § 1983 actions against government officials in their individual capacities “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Barrett v. Pae Gov’t Servs., 975 F.3d 416, 428–29 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Qualified immunity is, as the City defendants acknowledge, a highly fact-specific inquiry, Doc. 46 at 16, and ordinarily “should be decided at the summary judgment stage.” Willingham v. Crooke, 412 F.3d 553, 558 (4th Cir. 2005). Dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity is inappropriate where its resolution “turn[s] on disputed facts.” Raub v. Bowe, 960 F. Supp. 2d 602, 608 n.8 (E.D. Va. 2013).
As an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 305 (4th Cir. 2006). In their briefing, the defendants focus only on the first qualified immunity prong of whether the named defendants violated a federal statutory or constitutional right; neither set of defendants contends at this point that the federal rights at issue are not wellestablished. See Doc. 46 at 13–17; Doc. 53 at 20–21.14 Because the Court has already decided not to dismiss any of the federal claims against the defendants in their individual
14 The County defendants do assert that “[p]laintiff has alleged no conduct on the part of the Defendants which deprived Plaintiff of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of their actions,” Doc. 53 at 21, but they do not identify the constitutional right allegedly at issue.
22
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 22 of 25

capacities for failure to state a claim, see supra, the defendants have not satisfied the first
qualified immunity element. The plaintiffs have plausibly and specifically alleged that
the individual City and County defendants responded to their lawful and peaceful march,
either directly or in a supervisory capacity,15 with excessive physical force and pepper
spray,16 and that this response violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional
rights. Dismissal on qualified immunity grounds without a more fully developed factual
record would be inappropriate.17
F. Punitive Damages Against the County Defendants
15 Supervisors may be held liable under § 1983 if they “failed or refused to intervene when a constitutional violation took place in [their] presence . . . .” B.J.G. ex rel. McCray v. St. Charles Cnty. Sheriff, No. 4:08-cv-1178 CDP, 2010 WL 1838414, at *3 (E.D. Mo. May 6, 2010), aff'd sub nom. B.J.G. ex rel. McCray v. St. Charles Cnty. Sheriff, 400 F. App'x 127 (8th. Cir. 2010); see also Armstrong v. City of Greensboro, 190 F. Supp. 3d 450, 464 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (noting that supervisory liability under Section 1983 lies for affirmatively approving unconstitutional conduct).
16 See, e.g., Chief Mary Kristine Cole, Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 5, 38–39, 119, 154, 157; Officer Jonathan Franks, id. at ¶¶ 5, 31, 154; Sheriff Terry Johnson, id. at ¶¶ 27–28, 116, 123, 154, 172, 195–96; Deputy Sheriff Cliff Parker, id. at ¶¶ 29–30, 116, 154, 172 195; Lt. Joaquin Velez, id. at ¶¶ 5, 40–42, 154, 196.
17 Courts in this circuit have previously denied qualified immunity to law enforcement acting in retaliation to protected First Amendment activity. See Jordan v. Large, No. 7:16-cv-00468, 2018 WL 1158422, *4–5 (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2018) (finding allegations that officer used force in response to protected speech sufficient to state claim for First Amendment retaliation); Raub, 960 F. Supp. 3d at 614 (denying motion to dismiss because officer arrested plaintiff because of his political views); Lowe v. Spears, No. 3:06-cv-0647, 2007 WL 9718279, at *5 (S.D.W. Va. May 4, 2007) (denying motion to dismiss where officer retaliated at least in part because of plaintiff’s protected speech). Courts in this circuit have also previously denied qualified immunity at the Rule 12 stage in cases where officers were alleged to have used pepper spray on nonviolent persons. See, e.g., Cooper v. Nichols, No. 1:17-cv-1466 (AJT/TCB), 2019 WL 418856, at *4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2019) (denying a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by an officer who allegedly used OC spray on peaceful inmate).
23
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 23 of 25

The County defendants contend that the plaintiffs have not alleged the degree of aggravated conduct necessary to warrant punitive damages and that the claim for punitive damages should be dismissed. Doc. 53 at 21. An award of punitive damages is an intensely fact-bound determination, and federal courts regularly decline to address the availability of that remedy in response to a Rule 12 motion. See, e.g., Davis v. G. Allen Equip. Corp., No. 4:20-CV-49-BO, 2020 WL 4451169, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2020) (holding that a request for punitive damages is not “a separate cause of action” and therefore “dismissal is not warranted”); Taylor v. Bettis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 721, 747 (E.D.N.C. 2013) (“[I]t is premature to foreclose the possibility of punitive damages at this time.”); Jones v. Wake Cnty. Hosp. Sys., 786 F. Supp. 538, 547 (E.D.N.C. 1991) (declining to rule on punitive damages issue on a 12(b)(6) motion). Given the allegations in the complaint concerning the use of excessive force, physical assault by pepper spray, and other allegedly unjustified acts to break up a peaceful and otherwise lawful exercise of First Amendment rights, dismissal of the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages is inappropriate. The County defendants’ motion as to this issue will be denied.
VII. Conclusion The plaintiffs have adequately alleged each of their claims against the City and
County defendants. Both motions will be denied, except as to the redundant §1983 claims against the individual City defendants in their official capacities, which will be dismissed.
It is ORDERED that:
24
Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 24 of 25

1. The City defendants’ motion for leave to exceed word limitation, Doc. 47, is GRANTED.
2. The City defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 45, is GRANTED in part and the § 1983 claims against Chief Cole, Lt. Velez, and Officer Franks in their official capacities for violating the plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights, Doc. 25 at ¶¶ 175–82, are DISMISSED. The § 1983 claims against all other defendants will proceed, and the City defendants’ motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED as to the Drumwright complaint. The City’s motion is HELD IN ABEYANCE to the extent it is directed at the Allen complaint, Doc. 24.
3. The County defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 52, is DENIED.
This the 2nd day of June, 2021.
__________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25 Case 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 06/02/21 Page 25 of 25

 
 18BB,CASSET,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle District (NCMD) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA

ALLEN et al v. CITY OF GRAHAM, NC et al Assigned to: JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES Referred to: MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD Related Case: 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 11/02/2020 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by GERALDINE SUMTER FERGUSON, CHAMBERS & SUMTER, P.A. GRESHAM & SUMTER, P.A. 309 E. MOREHEAD STREET SUITE 110 CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 704-375-8461 Fax: 980-938-4867 Email: gsumter@fergusonsumter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 700 14TH ST. NW SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 646-740-3662 Email: ATHATTE@NAACPLDF.ORG ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ASHOK CHANDRAN NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 RECTOR STREET, 5TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10031 212-965-2200 Fax: 212-226-7592

Email: achandran@naacpldf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS COVINGTON & BURLING LLP THE NEW YORK TIMES BUILDING 620 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10018 212-841-1081 Fax: 646-441-9081 Email: cphillips@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAH C. ADEN NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 RECTOR STREET, 5TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10031 212-965-2200 Fax: 212-226-7592 Email: laden@naacpldf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP ONE CITY CENTER 850 TENTH ST., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-662-5745 Fax: 202-778-5745 Email: mspencer@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS COVINGTON & BURLING 415 MISSION STREET SUITE 5400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 818-585-6999 Email: melewis@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATASHA C. MERLE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

Plaintiff DEJUANA BIGELOW on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff TABATHA DAVIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

40 RECTOR STREET, 5TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10031 212-965-2200 Fax: 212-226-7592 Email: nmerle@naacpldf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALDINE SUMTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHOK CHANDRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAH C. ADEN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATASHA C. MERLE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALDINE SUMTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
FUTURE ALAMANCE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHOK CHANDRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAH C. ADEN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATASHA C. MERLE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALDINE SUMTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHOK CHANDRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TALAUN WOODS

LEAH C. ADEN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATASHA C. MERLE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALDINE SUMTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHOK CHANDRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAH C. ADEN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ANGELA WILLIS
Plaintiff OLIVIA DAVIS

NATASHA C. MERLE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALDINE SUMTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHOK CHANDRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAH C. ADEN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATASHA C. MERLE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALDINE SUMTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE

Plaintiff GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHOK CHANDRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAH C. ADEN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE E. SPENCER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MORGAN E. LEWIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATASHA C. MERLE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW REGIONAL OFFICE POB 956 CARRBORO, NC 27510 919-521-8333 Email: ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. WACKER DR. CHICAGO, IL 60606 312-701-7155 Email: cknight@mayerbrown.com

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-307-9242 Email: dsiegel@acluofnc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. WACKER DR. CHICAGO, IL 60606 312-701-7902 Email: gpipoly@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-666-7032 Fax: 919-869-2075 Email: jmaffetore@acluofnc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K ST., NW, STE. 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-662-8329 Fax: 202-783-0857 Email: jnwachukwu@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-354-5066 Email: kgraunke@acluofnc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION
Plaintiff

MARK DOROSIN Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Regional Office PO Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 919-261-3668 Email: mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDITH ANN JONES
Plaintiff ASHLEY REED BATTEN

represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EDITH WARD

GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD
Plaintiff QUENCLYN ELLISON M.E., by and through her guardian

KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address)

Quenclyn Ellison; Z.P., by and through his guardian Quenclyn Ellison
Plaintiff ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY

Plaintiff FAITH COOK

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE

Plaintiff MELANIE MITCHELL J.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell; B.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell
Plaintiff AVERY HARVEY

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JANET NESBITT

CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CITY OF GRAHAM

JACLYN A. MAFFETORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER ENVISAGE LAW 2601 OBERLIN ROAD SUITE 100 RALEIGH, NC 27608 919-414-0313 Fax: 919-782-0452 Email: ajbiller@envisage.law LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS ENVISAGE LAW 2601 OBERLIN ROAD SUITE 100 RALEIGH, NC 27608 919-755-1317 Email: abanks@envisage.law ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES R. LAWRENCE , III MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP ATRIUM AT BLUE RIDGE 2501 BLUE RIDGE ROAD, SUITE 390

Defendant MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE individually and in her official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department
Defendant ALAMANCE COUNTY

RALEIGH, NC 27607 919-755-1317 Fax: 919-782-0452 Email: jlawrence@envisage.law ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES R. LAWRENCE , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK HOUGHTON FLANAGAN CRANFILL SUMNER AND HARTZOG, L.L.P. POB 30787 CHARLOTTE, NC 28230 704-940-3419 Fax: 704-332-9994 Email: phf@cshlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL GERARD GESSNER CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP 5420 WADE PARK BLVD., STE. 300 RALEIGH, NC 27607 919-863-8734 Fax: 919-863-3477 Email: pgessner@cshlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM L. HILL

Defendant TERRY A. JOHNSON individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County
Defendant GRAHAM POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOES #1-15 Defendant

FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP POD 1559 GREENSBORO, NC 27402 336-378-7787 Fax: 336-274-7358 Email: whill@frazierlawnc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK HOUGHTON FLANAGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL GERARD GESSNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT ALAMANCE CO. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 15A 124 W. ELM ST. GRAHAM, NC 27253 336-570-4046 Fax: 336-570-6788 Email: clyde.albright@alamancenc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALAMANCE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS JOHN AND JANE DOES #16-30 Defendant JOAQUIN VELEZ individually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Patrol Division of the Graham Police Department
Defendant CLIFF PARKER individually and in his official capacity as Alamance County Chief Deputy Sheriff Defendant JONATHAN FRANKS in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as consultant to the Alamance County Sheriff and Graham Police Chief
Defendant ALAMANCE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPUTIES JOHN AND JANE DOES #1 through #20 in their individual capacities Defendant

represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES R. LAWRENCE , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES R. LAWRENCE , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GRAHAM POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOES #21-40

Date Filed 11/02/2020 11/03/2020
11/03/2020 11/03/2020
11/03/2020 11/04/2020 11/12/2020 11/18/2020 11/18/2020

# Docket Text

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt

1

number 0418-2923680.)(Related Case # 1:20-cv-613), filed by

Tabatha Davis, Dejuana Bigelow, Sylvester Allen, Jr, Future

Alamance.(SUMTER, GERALDINE) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

2 Summons Issued as to CITY OF GRAHAM, NC, KRISTI COLE, ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY S. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Summons - Chief Kristi Cole, # 2 Summons - Alamance County, # 3 Summons - Sheriff Terry S. Johnson) (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

3 Notice of Right to Consent. Counsel shall serve the attached form on all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

CASE REFERRED to Mediation pursuant to Local Rule 83.9b of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Court. Please go to our website under Attorney Information for a list of mediators which must be served on all parties. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

Case ASSIGNED to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES and MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

STANDARD ORDER for civil cases proceeding before JUDGE

4

CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered:

11/04/2020)

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed pursuant to

5

FRCP 7.1(a) by Plaintiff FUTURE ALAMANCE. (SUMTER,

GERALDINE) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney PATRICK HOUGHTON FLANAGAN on behalf of Defendants ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY S. JOHNSON (FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

7 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney MORGAN E. LEWIS on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2935217.) (LEWIS, MORGAN) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

11/18/2020 11/18/2020 11/19/2020 11/19/2020 11/20/2020
11/20/2020 11/23/2020 11/24/2020 11/30/2020

8 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney MARIANNE E. SPENCER on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2935254.) (SPENCER, MARIANNE) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
9 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney CLARENCE W. PHILLIPS on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2935262.) (PHILLIPS, CLARENCE) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
10 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney ANUJA DIWAKAR THATTE on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2936030.) (THATTE, ANUJA) (Entered: 11/19/2020)
11 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney LEAH C. ADEN on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2936039.) (ADEN, LEAH) (Entered: 11/19/2020)
12 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE as to ALAMANCE COUNTY served on 11/12/2020, answer due 12/3/2020; CITY OF GRAHAM, NC served on 11/12/2020, answer due 12/3/2020; KRISTI COLE served on 11/10/2020, answer due 12/1/2020; TERRY S. JOHNSON served on 11/10/2020, answer due 12/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cole USPS Tracking, # 2 Exhibit Johnson USPS Tracking, # 3 Exhibit Alamance County USPS Tracking, # 4 Exhibit City of Graham USPS Tracking)(SUMTER, GERALDINE) (Entered: 11/20/2020)
13 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER on behalf of Defendants CITY OF GRAHAM, NC, KRISTI COLE (BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 11/20/2020)
14 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE as to TERRY S. JOHNSON served on 11/18/2020, answer due 12/9/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope Front and Back)(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
15 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendant ALAMANCE COUNTY (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
16 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT on behalf of Defendant TERRY S. JOHNSON (ALBRIGHT, CLYDE) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

11/30/2020 11/30/2020

17 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney PAUL GERARD GESSNER on behalf of Defendants ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY S. JOHNSON (GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 11/30/2020)
18 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1

11/30/2020

Complaint by ALAMANCE COUNTY, CITY OF GRAHAM, NC, KRISTI COLE, TERRY S. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/30/2020)
Motions Referred: RE: 18 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time

12/01/2020 12/01/2020
12/02/2020 12/02/2020 12/02/2020 12/04/2020

to File Answer re 1 Complaint to MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be consolidated

19

with 1:20-cv-00998 by ALAMANCE COUNTY, CITY OF

GRAHAM, NC, KRISTI COLE, TERRY S. JOHNSON. Response to

Motion due by 12/22/2020 (FLANAGAN, PATRICK) (Entered:

12/01/2020)

20

BRIEF re 19 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to

be consolidated with 1:20-cv-00998 by Defendants ALAMANCE

COUNTY, CITY OF GRAHAM, NC, KRISTI COLE, TERRY S.

JOHNSON filed by ALAMANCE COUNTY, CITY OF GRAHAM,

NC, KRISTI COLE, TERRY S. JOHNSON. (FLANAGAN,

PATRICK) (Entered: 12/01/2020)

TEXT ORDER granting 18 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants City of Graham, Kristi Cole, Alamance County, and Terry S. Johnson shall answer or otherwise respond by 01/18/2021. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 12/02/2020. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

21 Corrected document re 20
(Entered: 12/02/2020)

Brief,. (FLANAGAN, PATRICK)

Motions Submitted: 19 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be consolidated with 1:20-cv-00998 to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

ORDER that the motions are GRANTED and these cases are

22

consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings, and, subject to review

closer to trial, for trial. Allen v. City, 20cv997, is designated as the

lead case. Henceforth all pleadings, motions, briefs, and other

allowable filings shall be filed in that case only. Signed by JUDGE

12/11/2020 12/11/2020 12/14/2020 12/18/2020 12/18/2020

CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 12/04/2020. Related Case 1:20CV998.(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

23 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney ASHOK CHANDRAN on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2948474.) (CHANDRAN, ASHOK) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants, filed

24

by TABATHA DAVIS, DEJUANA BIGELOW, SYLVESTER

ALLEN, JR, FUTURE ALAMANCE, TALAUN WOODS,

ANGELA WILLIS, OLIVIA DAVIS.(SUMTER, GERALDINE)

(Entered: 12/11/2020)

First AMENDED COMPLAINT Justice 4 the Next Generation et

25

al against defendant All Defendants, filed by GREGORY

DRUMWRIGHT, FAITH COOK, QUENCLYN ELLISON,

ME.Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-

CCE-LPA(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

26 Summons Issued as to JONATHAN FRANKS. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

27 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by DEJUANA BIGELOW, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, TALAUN WOODS, ANGELA WILLIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE. JOAQUIN VELEZ waiver sent on 12/14/2020, answer due

01/07/2021 01/07/2021 01/07/2021 01/07/2021

2/12/2021. re 24 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants, filed by TABATHA DAVIS, DEJUANA BIGELOW, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, FUTURE ALAMANCE, TALAUN WOODS, ANGELA WILLIS, OLIVIA DAVIS(SUMTER, GERALDINE) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
28 NOTICE of Change of Address by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
30 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ADAM P. BANKS on behalf of Defendants CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ (BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint for CITY OF GRAHAM; JOAQUIN VELEZ;

01/18/2021 01/20/2021 01/21/2021
01/21/2021
01/21/2021
01/22/2021

MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE; and JONATHAN FRANKS. Answer due by 2/12/2021. Signed by John Brubaker, Clerk of Court, on 1/4/2021. (Brubaker, John) (Entered: 01/07/2021)

ANSWER to Amended Complaint by TERRY A. JOHNSON, CLIFF

31

PARKER. (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 01/18/2021)

32 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ELIZABETH HADDIX on behalf of Plaintiff JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20cv-00998-CCE-LPA(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 01/20/2021)

33 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney KRISTI L. GRAUNKE on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00998CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

34 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney JACLYN A. MAFFETORE on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

35 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney DANIEL K. SIEGEL on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

36 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ELIZABETH HADDIX on behalf of Plaintiffs GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, EDITH ANN JONES, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, EDITH WARD, QUENCLYN ELLISON, ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, FAITH COOK, MELANIE MITCHELL, AVERY HARVEY, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/22/2021
01/22/2021
01/22/2021
01/22/2021 01/23/2021 01/25/2021

37 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney KRISTI L. GRAUNKE on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD (GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 01/22/2021)
38 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney JACLYN A. MAFFETORE on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD (MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 01/22/2021)
39 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney DANIEL K. SIEGEL on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/22/2021)
40 MOTION for Leave to File untimely Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint by ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY A. JOHNSON. Response to Motion due by 2/12/2021 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 01/22/2021)
Motions Referred: RE: 40 MOTION for Leave to File untimely Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint to MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 01/23/2021)
41 ORDER ALLOWING ALAMANCE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE FROM THE COURT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE UNTIMELY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 01/25/2021, granting (40) Motion for Leave to File granting 40 Motion for Leave to File. Defendants Alamance County and Terry S. Johnson be and are hereby granted additional time within which to serve a responsive pleading or otherwise respond to the Complaint up to and including February 12, 2021. (Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

02/12/2021 02/12/2021
02/12/2021
02/12/2021 02/12/2021 02/12/2021 02/12/2021 02/12/2021 03/02/2021 03/02/2021

ANSWER to Amended Complaint by ALAMANCE COUNTY,

42

TERRY A. JOHNSON. (GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

43 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney NATASHA C. MERLE on behalf of Plaintiffs SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN WOODS ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-2986927.) (MERLE, NATASHA) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

44 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney MARK DOROSIN on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD (DOROSIN, MARK) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by

45

CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE,

JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ. Response to Motion due

by 3/5/2021 (BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

46 SUPPORT BRIEF re 45 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

47 MOTION for Leave to File by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ. Response to Motion due by 3/5/2021 (BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

48 ANSWER to Amended Complaint Drumwright by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ. (BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

49 ANSWER to Amended Complaint Allen by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JOAQUIN VELEZ. (BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by ALAMANCE

50

COUNTY, TERRY A. JOHNSON. Response to Motion due by

3/23/2021 (GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

MEMORANDUM filed by Defendants ALAMANCE COUNTY, 51
TERRY A. JOHNSON re 50 MOTION for Judgment on the

03/02/2021 03/02/2021 03/05/2021 03/05/2021
03/05/2021
03/05/2021

Pleadings filed by ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY A. JOHNSON. (GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by TERRY A. JOHNSON,

52

CLIFF PARKER. Response to Motion due by 3/23/2021 (GESSNER,

PAUL) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

MEMORANDUM filed by Defendants TERRY A. JOHNSON, 53
CLIFF PARKER re 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by TERRY A. JOHNSON, CLIFF PARKER. (GESSNER, PAUL) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

54 RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by CITY OF GRAHAM, JOAQUIN VELEZ, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS filed by SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN WOODS. Replies due by 3/19/2021 (SUMTER, GERALDINE) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

MOTION for Discovery All Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for

55

Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery and Extend Time Limit for

Service by ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, SYLVESTER

ALLEN, JR, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, DEJUANA BIGELOW,

FAITH COOK, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, GREGORY

DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, FUTURE ALAMANCE,

AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE

NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT,

EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD, ANGELA WILLIS,

TALAUN WOODS. Response to Motion due by 3/19/2021

(MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

56

RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by CITY OF GRAHAM,

JOAQUIN VELEZ, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE,

JONATHAN FRANKS filed by ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR

JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY

DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY,

EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION,

MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD,

ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD. Replies due by 3/19/2021 (HADDIX,

ELIZABETH) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

MEMORANDUM filed by Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE

57

FOR JUSTICE, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, ASHLEY REED

03/10/2021 03/10/2021

BATTEN, DEJUANA BIGELOW, FAITH COOK, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, FUTURE ALAMANCE, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN
WOODS re 55 MOTION for Discovery All Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery and Extend Time Limit for Service filed by ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, DEJUANA BIGELOW, FAITH COOK, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, FUTURE ALAMANCE, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN
WOODS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Plaintiffs' Proposed
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B Plaintiffs' January 21, 2021 Letter to Defendants)(MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 03/05/2021)
58 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney JENNIFER N. NWACHUKWU on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 0418-3004769.) (NWACHUKWU, JENNIFER) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
59 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney CHRISTOPHER A. KNIGHT on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD. ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 04183004973.) (KNIGHT, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 3/11/2021 to correct parties represented per attorney. (Hicks, Samantha). (Entered: 03/10/2021)

03/12/2021

60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as

to 54 Response in Opposition to Motion, 56 Response in

03/16/2021

Opposition to Motion, 55 MOTION for Discovery All Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery and Extend Time Limit for Service by JONATHAN FRANKS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 03/12/2021)
Motions Referred: RE: 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 54 Response in Opposition to Motion, 56

03/16/2021

Response in Opposition to Motion, 55 MOTION for Discovery All Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery to MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 03/16/2021)
TEXT ORDER granting 60 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants City of Graham, police chief Kristi Cole, Graham police Lieutenant Joaquin Velez, and Officer Jonathan Franks shall file any

response to 55 Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery and to Extend Time Limit for Service, and

03/23/2021 03/23/2021

shall file any replies to 54 Response and 56 Response by 04/02/2021. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 03/16/2021. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 03/16/2021)

61

RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 Memorandum filed by TERRY

A. JOHNSON, ALAMANCE COUNTY filed by SYLVESTER

ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA

DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN

WOODS. Replies due by 4/6/2021 (SUMTER, GERALDINE)

(Entered: 03/23/2021)

62 RESPONSE in Opposition re 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by CLIFF PARKER, TERRY A. JOHNSON filed by ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD. Replies due by 4/6/2021 (KNIGHT, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 03/23/2021)

03/25/2021 03/25/2021 03/26/2021 03/29/2021
03/29/2021
04/02/2021

63 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem by MELANIE MITCHELL. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Melanie Mitchell, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 03/25/2021)

64 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem by QUENCLYN ELLISON. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Quenclyn Ellison, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 03/25/2021)

Motions Submitted: 64 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem , 63 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 03/26/2021)

65 ORDER granting (63) Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem ad Litem. J.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell; B.A., by and through her guardian Melanie Mitchell in case 1:20-cv-00997CCE-LPA. Signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 03/29/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv00998-CCE-LPA(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

66 ORDER granting (64) Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem ad Litem, that Quenclyn Ellison is hereby appointed Guardian ad Litem to act on behalf of M.E. and Z.P. in prosecuting this action in case 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA. Signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 03/29/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCELPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

REPLY, filed by Defendants CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY

67

KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN

VELEZ, to Response to 45 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Drumwright Plaintiffs filed by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ. (Attachments: # 1

04/02/2021 68

Exhibit Exhibit A - I am Change March Permit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Haddix Emails to Maness & Cole 10-30-2020 and 10-312020)(BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 04/02/2021)
REPLY, filed by Defendants CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JOAQUIN VELEZ, to Response to 45

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Allen Plaintiffs filed by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JOAQUIN VELEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A- I am Change March Permit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Haddix Emails to Maness & Cole 10-30-2020 and 10-312020)(BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

04/02/2021
04/05/2021 04/07/2021 04/16/2021

69

RESPONSE in Opposition re 55 MOTION for Discovery All

Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early

Discovery and Extend Time Limit for Service filed by TABATHA

DAVIS, OLIVIA DAVIS, AVERY HARVEY, MELANIE

MITCHELL, QUENCLYN ELLISON, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT

GENERATION, EDITH WARD, ASHLEY REED BATTEN,

TALAUN WOODS, ANGELA WILLIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE,

DEJUANA BIGELOW, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR., EDITH ANN

JONES, ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, JANET

NESBITT, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT,

ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD filed by CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY

KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN

VELEZ. Replies due by 4/16/2021 (BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered:

04/02/2021)

Motions Submitted: 45 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 04/05/2021)
70 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney JAMES R. LAWRENCE, III on behalf of Defendants CITY OF GRAHAM, MARY KRISTINE (KRISTY) COLE, JONATHAN FRANKS, JOAQUIN VELEZ (LAWRENCE, JAMES) (Entered: 04/07/2021)
71 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, DEJUANA BIGELOW, FAITH COOK, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, FUTURE ALAMANCE, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN

WOODS, to Response to 55 MOTION for Discovery All Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery and Extend Time Limit for Service filed by ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, DEJUANA BIGELOW, FAITH COOK, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, FUTURE ALAMANCE, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN WOODS. (MAFFETORE, JACLYN) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

04/20/2021 04/20/2021

Motions Referred: RE: 55 MOTION for Discovery All Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery and Extend Time Limit for Service to MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 04/20/2021)
Motions Submitted: 52 MOTION for Judgment on the

05/19/2021 05/19/2021 05/19/2021 05/20/2021
05/20/2021 05/21/2021 05/21/2021

Pleadings , 50 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings , 47 MOTION for Leave to File to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 04/20/2021)

REPORT OF MEDIATOR from Thomas C. Duncan - Mediation

72

Held on 5/10/2021. Complete settlement of the case. (Bond, Melisa)

(Entered: 05/19/2021)

Case Reported Settled at Mediation. (Bond, Melisa) (Entered: 05/19/2021)

Case Reported Settled - Stipulation of Dismissal due by 6/18/2021. (Bond, Melisa) (Entered: 05/19/2021)

73 Joint MOTION to Stay PENDING FINALIZATION AND GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS OF SETTLEMENT by SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN WOODS. Response to Motion due by 6/10/2021 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Stay)(SUMTER, GERALDINE) (Entered: 05/20/2021)

Motions Submitted: 73 Joint MOTION to Stay PENDING FINALIZATION AND GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS OF SETTLEMENT to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 05/20/2021)

AMENDED REPORT OF MEDIATOR from Thomas C. Duncan -

74

Mediation Held on 5/10/2021. Partial settlement of the case. (Bond,

Melisa) (Entered: 05/21/2021)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by

75

MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 05/21/2021, that the instant

Motion (Docket Entry 55 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, in that (A) Plaintiffs shall not serve discovery prior to the entry of a scheduling order following the planning meeting under Rule 26(f) (except as permitted by Rule 26 (d)(2)), and (B) Plaintiffs shall make service of process on any Defendant(s) presently identified in Plaintiffs' operative pleadings as John or Jane

05/24/2021
05/24/2021 06/02/2021

Doe no later than 90 days after the entry of a scheduling order. (Garland, Leah) (Entered: 05/21/2021)

76 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 05/24/2021, that, for good cause shown, the case captioned Allen, et al. vs. City of Graham, et al., 1:20-cv-997-CCE-LPA is hereby stayed pending the finalization and governmental approvals of the settlement between the parties thereto. FURTHER that, no later than July 23, 2021, the Allen parties shall file a joint status report with the Court regarding the finalization and government approvals of their settlement. The Court expects the case to be closed soon thereafter, if the parties want the stay to remain in place. The stay does not apply to the claims in Drumwright, et al. v. Cole, et al., 1:20-CV-00998, which was previously consolidated with the Allen matter. The Drumwright matter is not stayed. Re 73 Motion to Stay. (Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 05/24/2021)

Set Status Report Deadline due by 7/23/2021. (Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 05/24/2021)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE

77

CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 06/02/2021. The City defendants'

motion for leave to exceed word limitation, Doc. 47 , is GRANTED.

The City defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 45 , is GRANTED in part and the § 1983 claims against Chief Cole, Lt. Velez, and Officer Franks in their official capacities for violating the plaintiffs

First and Fourth Amendment rights, Doc. 25 at 17582, are DISMISSED. The § 1983 claims against all other defendants will proceed, and the City defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED as to the Drumwright complaint. The City's motion is HELD IN ABEYANCE to the extent it is directed at the Allen

complaint, Doc. 24 . The County defendants' motion for

06/03/2021

judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 52 , is DENIED. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA, 1:20-cv-00998-CCE-LPA(Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 06/02/2021)
78 NOTICE of Special Appearance by attorney GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY on behalf of Plaintiffs ALAMANCE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, ASHLEY REED BATTEN, FAITH COOK, GREGORY DRUMWRIGHT, QUENCLYN ELLISON, AVERY HARVEY, EDITH ANN JONES, JUSTICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MELANIE MITCHELL, JANET NESBITT, EDITH WARD, ERNESTINE LEWIS WARD ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 04183060601.) (PIPOLY, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 06/03/2021)

06/09/2021 06/25/2021

REVISED STANDARD ORDER for civil cases proceeding before

79

JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES (Winchester, Robin) (Entered:

06/09/2021)

80 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Allen et al. v. City of Graham, et al., 1:20-cv-0997 by SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR, DEJUANA BIGELOW, OLIVIA DAVIS, TABATHA DAVIS, FUTURE ALAMANCE, ANGELA WILLIS, TALAUN WOODS. (SUMTER, GERALDINE) (Entered: 06/25/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

06/25/2021 13:32:02

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

30

Cost:

Eric Gripp
1:20-cv00997-CCELPA
3.00

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA Document 74 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 1

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF GRAHAM, et al.,
Defendants.

1:20–cv–0997-CCE-LPA

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

All parties to the above-captioned action (the “Allen Action”), acting through

counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate,

in consideration of a negotiated settlement executed between them, to the Dismissal with

Prejudice of the Allen Action, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Stipulation of Dismissal is in the Allen Action only and

does not impact the separate action captioned Drumwright, et al. v. Cole, et al., 1:20-CV-

00998, which was consolidated with the Allen Action.

Dated: June 25, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Geraldine Sumter Geraldine Sumter North Carolina Bar No. 11107 gsumter@fergusonsumter.com Ferguson Chambers & Sumter, P.A. 309 East Morehead Street, Suite 110 Charlotte, NC 28202 Tel.: (704) 375-8461

Case 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 3

Leah Aden* laden@naacpldf.org Natasha Merle* nmerle@naacpldf.org Anuja D. Thatte* athatte@naacpldf.org Ashok Chandran* achandran@naacpldf.org NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10031 Tel.: (212) 965-2200
/s/ Anthony Biller Anthony Biller North Carolina Bar No. 24117 ajbiller@envisage.law Envisage Law 2601 Oberlin Rd., Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27608 Tel.: (919) 755-1317
Attorney for City of Graham Defendants

C. William Phillips* cphillips@cov.com Covington & Burling LLP 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 Tel.: (212) 841-1081
Marianne Spencer* mspencer@cov.com Covington & Burling LLP 850 Tenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Tel.: (202) 662-6000
Morgan Lewis* melewis@cov.com Covington & Burling LLP 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel.: (415) 591-6000
Attorneys for Allen Plaintiffs
*Notice of Special Appearance Filed
/s/ William L. Hill William L. Hill North Carolina Bar No. 21095 whill@frazierlawnc.com Frazier Hill & Fury, RLLP POD 1559 Greensboro, NC 27402 Tel.: (336) 378-7787
Attorney for Alamance County Defendants

2 Case 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned has this day filed the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record in the consolidated actions:

Anuja D. Thatte, athatte@naacpldf.org Ashok Chandran, achandran@naacpldf.org Clarence W. Phillips, cphillips@cov.com Marianne Spencer, mspencer@cov.com Leah Aden, laden@naacpldf.org Morgan Lewis, mlewis@cov.com Natasha Merle, nmerle@naacpldf.org Attorneys for Allen Plaintiffs

Anthony Biller, ajbiller@envisage.law Adam P. Banks, abanks@envisage.law James R. Lawrence, III, jlawrence@envisage.law Attorneys for City of Graham Defendants

William L. Hill, whill@frazierlawnc.com Clyde B. Albright, clyde.albright@alamance-nc.com Patrick Houghton Flanagan, phf@cshlaw.com Paul Gerard Gessner, pgessner@cshlaw.com Attorneys for Alamance County Defendants

Elizabeth Haddix, ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Daniel K. Siegel, dsiegel@acluofnc.org Jaclyn A. Maffetore, jmaffetore@acluofnc.org Kristi L. Graunke, kgraunke@acluofnc.org Mark Dorosin, mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Jennifer N. Nwachukwu, jnwachukwu@lawyerscommittee.org Christopher A. Knight, cknight@mayerbrown.com Geoffrey M. Pipoly, gpipoly@mayerbrown.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Drumwright, et al. v. Cole, et al., 1:20-CV-00998

Dated: June 25, 2021

/s/ Geraldine Sumter Geraldine Sumter North Carolina Bar No. 11107 gsumter@fergusonsumter.com

Attorney for Allen Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-00997-CCE-LPA Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 3