U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP

APPEAL

Street et al v. O'Toole et al Assigned to: District Judge Catherine D. Perry Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Alicia Street

represented by James R. Wyrsch KHAZAELI AND WYRSCH LLC 911 Washington Ave. Suite 211 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-288-0777 Email: james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javad M. Khazaeli KHAZAELI AND WYRSCH LLC 911 Washington Ave. Suite 211 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-288-0777 Fax: 314-400-7701 Email: javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kiara Nayo Drake KHAZAELI AND WYRSCH LLC 911 Washington Ave. Suite 211 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-288-0064 Fax: 314-400-7701 Email: kiara.drake@kwlawstl.com

Plaintiff Ronald Harris
Plaintiff Fudail McCain

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Campbell CAMPBELL LAW LLC 20 S. Sarah St. St. Louis, MO 63108 8885885043 Fax: 314-588-9188 Email: alicia@campbelllawllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R. Wyrsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javad M. Khazaeli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kiara Nayo Drake (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R. Wyrsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javad M. Khazaeli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kiara Nayo Drake (See above for address)

Plaintiff Ashley Theis
Plaintiff Nicole Warrington on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R. Wyrsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javad M. Khazaeli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kiara Nayo Drake (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R. Wyrsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javad M. Khazaeli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kiara Nayo Drake (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Campbell

V. Defendant Off. Rebecca Andrews TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lt. Scott Aubuchon TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Joshua D. Becherer TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Joseph Bell TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Bennie Off. Blackmon TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELORS OFFICE - 2 1200 Market Street Room 314 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-622-4378 Fax: 314-622-4956 Email: dierkerr@stlouis-mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Off. Daniel Book TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Timothy Off. Boyce TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Joseph Busso TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Brett Carlson TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Kyle Chandler TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Lance Coats TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Off. Daniel Cora TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sgt. Darnell Dandridge TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Dir. Charlene Deeken Department of Public Safety 1200 Market St. Room 401 St. Louis, MO 63101 TERMINATED: 02/22/2021 Defendant Off. Bradford Ellis TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Orie Figgs TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Michael Flatley TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Derrick Frye TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maj. Daniel Howard TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sgt. John Jones TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Fred Klefisch TERMINATED: 08/31/2020 Defendant Off. Jon Long TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Nicholas Manasco TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sgt. Mark McMurry TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lt. Donnell Moore TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Brandon Moore TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Off. Aaron Mueller TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Ronald Oft TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. William Olsten TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lt. Paul Piatchek TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Lucas Roethlisberger TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Craig Sayer TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sgt. Michael Scego TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Sgt. Timothy Schumann TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Mark Seper TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Stephen Slama TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sgt. Cliff Sommer TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Christopher Tanner TERMINATED: 02/22/2021 Defendant Off. Matt Tesreau TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. Ronald Vaughan TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Off. Joshua Witcik TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Off. James Wurm TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lawrence O'Toole LT. COL. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Gerald Leyshock LT. COL.
Defendant Kenneth Kegel MAJ. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Eric Larson Captain TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steven Mueller Captain TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Allen LT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Scott Boyher LT.
Defendant Daniel Chitwood LT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Donna Garrett LT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Darla Gray LT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Bill Kiphart LT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Christi Marks LT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Mayo LT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Timothy Sachs LT.
Defendant Christy Allen SGT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Keith Barrett SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ronald Bergmann SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Binz SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Boll SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Buckeridge SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Joe Carretero SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Anthony Caruso SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Clark SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Clark SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Adam Duke SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kelly Fisher SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brandt Flowers SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Gentilni SGT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Samuel Gilman SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Patrick Haug SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Richard Hellmeier SGT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Rodney Hickman SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Randy Jemerson SGT.
Defendant Justin Johnson SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew Karnowski SGT.

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Robert Lammert SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joe Lankford SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Robert Laschober SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Tom Long OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kyle Mack SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Mike Mandle SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Marks SGT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Orlando Morrison SGT. TERMINATED: 08/31/2020
Defendant James Murphy SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Dennis Neal SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Patricia Nijkamp SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kenneth Nizick SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Donald Re SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Rossomanno SGT.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Bradley Roy SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant John Sabin SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Daniel Schulte SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Seppi SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Timothy Turner SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Scott Valentine SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Donnell Walters SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Weidler SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nicholas Weite SGT. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Carolyn Wiener SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Anthony Wozniak SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Bain SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kevin Bently DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jason Brandhorst DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Burle DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Daniel Chamblin DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Mickey Christ DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Tracy Cole DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Gaston Coleman DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Deandre Davis DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jesse Dyson DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Edmond DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Richard Edwards DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Amon Figgs DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Shaviste Grandberry DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Tracy Hallquist DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant George Henry DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Janika Humphrey DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn Johnson DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Deneane Jones DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Paul Kosednar DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Douglas McClean DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Terron Murphy DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Michael Shaw DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant James Stagge DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Thomas Strode DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Keaton Strong DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kelli Swinton DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jarred Thacker DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Stephen Walsh, IV DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brandon Webb DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Nijauh Woodard DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Marquise Wren DET. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Brandon Wyms DET. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Gerald Adams OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Alfred Allmon OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jon Amesquita OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant John Anderson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Erica Anderson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kevin Bambrick OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jermaine Banks OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Bryan Barton OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Benjamin Bayless OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew Bedell OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jacob Bias OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Marcus Biggins OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Binder OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Anna Biondolillo OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Timothy Bockskopf OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew Boester OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Tamarris Bohannon OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Dustin Boone OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Christopher Bramley OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Brewer-Moore OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lucas Brockmeyer OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ryan Buscemi OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Calcaterra OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Benjamin Cehic OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Cheli OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Cheli OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kristin Chelucci OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Paul Chester OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Russell Christian OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Marco Christlieb OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brandon Clark OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Daniel Clauss OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Thearn Clements OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kanisha Coleman OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Anthony Coll OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bailey Colletta OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Julius Conner OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Robert Copper OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant David Crocker OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ian Csapo OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nadja Curt OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

represented by John A. Kilo KILO AND FLYNN PC 5840 Oakland Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 314-647-8910 Fax: 314-647-3134 Email: jkilo@kiloflynn.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2021 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Kevin Dang OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steven Daugherty OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Patrick Daut OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jeremy Davis OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Roland Degregorio OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian DeMatteis OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant William Douglas OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Nathan Dresch OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jodie Eaton OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Richard Eaves OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sam Edwards OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew Eernisse OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Emily Davis OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steven Fanz OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Brent Fincher OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steven Fischer OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Zachariah Foltz OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sean Fortune OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Glennon Frigerio OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Gregory Frost OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Aaron Gaddis OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Luis Garibay OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Adam Garibay OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jazmon Dominique Garrett OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant John Gentilini OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ryan Gibbons OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Edward Gonzales OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Gonzales OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dereck Green OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lawrence Lazewski OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Shawn Griggs OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kathleen Gutjahr OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jonathan Haire OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Tom Halfhill OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joshua Hall OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Harbaugh OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Thomas Harger TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Harris III OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Zeme'z Harris OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Benjamin Hawkins OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Amber Hawkins OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Henry Hayden OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Hayden OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Hayes OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Randy Hays OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Andrew Heimberger OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Erin Hein OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nick Henderson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Eric Henry TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Hines OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Timothy Hollman OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nicholas Holt OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Dustin Hoskins OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Taylor Hosna OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Carlus Ingram OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew James OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy Johnson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Reginald Jones OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Courtney Jordan OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Joyner OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Josh Kamper OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Kerth OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Zohaib Khan OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Kim OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant David King OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Austin King OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jeremiah Koerper OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steve Korte OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ryan Kotaska OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Francis Koziacki OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant David Krapf OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Abby Krull OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jared Krumm OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steven Landers OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Amy Laz OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Trenton Lee OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nicholas Lee OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Lemons OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Ryan Lindhorst OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jeffrey Long SGT. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ronald Ludwig OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Alan Malone OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Marcantano OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joshua Martin OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sean Martini OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Nicholas Martorano OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kevin Mataya OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Damon Maxwell OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Collin McAnany OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joshua McBee OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew McComy OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Luke McDonnell OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Jane McKibben OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Timothy McNamara OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Alexander Mesnage OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Missel OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Morrell OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joshua Morrison OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant John Moton OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address)

Defendant Nicholas Muehlheausler OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Aaron Muendlein OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sean Murphy OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Ryan Murphy OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Murphy OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Bianca Myers OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Christopher Myers OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Edward Napier OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Christopher Narez OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Courtney Nash OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Perrin Newman OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Niethe OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Carianne Noga OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant John O'Brien OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael O'Callaghan OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Uzoma Onwumere OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nicola Orlando OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Stephe Ortinau OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Daniel Osorio OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Eric Parrish OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jamie Partee OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Austin Patton OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Keith Paulitsch OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Mark Pfieffer OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Pierce OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Laquan Pierce OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jaimie Pitterle OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Oliver Poggioli OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Powderly OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jack Randolph OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ahman Rasoll OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Patrick Riordan OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Cornell Robinson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Megan Rodgers OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Rodriguez TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Rogers OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Rosa Rojas OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Ronzio OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Geoffrey Rose OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Michael Ross TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Ross OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant David Rudolph OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Ruffin OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Terrence Ruffin TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Trevor Russell OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ronald Rust OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Steven Saito OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Ohmed Samih OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kyle Santa OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Scalzo OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Gregory Schaffer OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Richard Schicker OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Andrew Schmick OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Schmitt OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant April Schnetzer OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Stephen Schroeder IV OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Seger OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jonathan Selbert OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jonathan Senf OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew Shaw OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Keith Shelton OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Matthew Shoults OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Quincy Silver OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tawanna Simms OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Kori Simon OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Mitchel Simpher OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Elijah Simpson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Sisavath Singharath OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ashley Smith OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Quincy Smith OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob Stein OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant William Stevenson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Samuel Stewart OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joslyn Stone OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Thomas Streckfuss OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Brian Strehl OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nathan Strickland OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Strohmeyer OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Robert Stuart OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joseph Tate OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Solomon Thurman OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Anton Treis OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Robert Trim OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant William Triplett OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Tullock OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Anthony Valenza OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jonathan Vanarsdale OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Philip VonderHeydt OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Erich Vonnida OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Nhong Vorachack OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Paul Wactor OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Wall OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Ramelle Wallace OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Martinous Vashon Walls III OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Bradley Walworth OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Jeanine Waters OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Matthew Welle OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Duane Wells OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Welsch OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Lindsey Wethington OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Andre White OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Cristina Widbin OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Joann Williams OFF. TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Defendant Darnell Willis OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Louis Wilson OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Wismar OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Wood OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Wooten OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Samuel Zouglas OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant Richard Zurmuehlen OFF. TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant James Zwilling OFF., in their individual capacities TERMINATED: 02/22/2021
Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri

represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abby J. Duncan ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELORS OFFICE - 2 1200 Market Street Room 314 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-622-3361 Fax: 314-622-4956

Email: duncana@stlouis-mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon D. Laird CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Market Street Law Department 1200 Market St. City Hall, Suite 314 St. Louis, MO 63103 816-889-5012 Fax: 816-889-5006 Email: lairdb@stlouis-mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Kathleen G Bruyns SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP Law Department 100 S. Fourth St. Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 314-621-6115 Fax: 314-621-7151 Email: mbruyns@uselaws.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Dierker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy M. Raimondo ST LOUIS CITY COUNSELORS OFFICE 1200 Market Street #314 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-622-3361 Fax: 314-622-4956 Email: raimondoa@stlouis-mo.gov

Date Filed 09/17/2019
09/17/2019 09/18/2019 10/24/2019 10/24/2019 10/24/2019 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10/29/2019

# Docket Text

COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt

1

number AMOEDC-7466127, in the amount of $400 Jury Demand,,

filed by Nicole Warrington, Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail

McCain, Ashley Theis, City of St. Louis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

A. Stockley Verdict, # 2 Exhibit B. Templeton TRO, # 3 Exhibit C.

Templeton Settlement, # 4 Exhibit D. Transcript of Testimony Vol

1, # 5 Exhibit E. Transcript of Testimony Vol 2, # 6 Exhibit F.

Rossomano Transcript, # 7 Exhibit G. Video, # 8 Exhibit H.

Dismissal of Charges Letter, # 9 Exhibit I. Ahmad Preliminary Injunction Memorandum and Order, # 10 Civil Cover Sheet, # 11

Original Filing Form, # 12 Waiver of Service Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons)(Khazaeli, Javad) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

2 WAIVER of Service issued defendantCity of St. Louis. sent to City of St Louis on 9/17/19 filed by Nicole Warrington, Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis. Waiver of Service due by 10/17/2019. (Khazaeli, Javad) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

Case Opening Notification: Waivers issued to all named defendants in the plaintiffs' complaint, see attachment #12 to plaintiffs' complaint and docket entry #2. Judge Assigned: Honorable Catherine D. Perry. (JWD) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

3 ENTRY of Appearance by James R. Wyrsch for Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

4 ENTRY of Appearance by Kiara Nayo Drake for Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Drake, Kiara) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

5 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert H. Dierker for Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

6 ENTRY of Appearance by Abby J. Duncan for Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Duncan, Abby) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

7 ENTRY of Appearance by Amy M. Raimondo for Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Raimondo, Amy) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

8 ENTRY of Appearance by Brandon D. Laird for Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Laird, Brandon) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

11/08/2019

9 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed preliminary scheduling order)(Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/13/2019 10

STIPULATED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURE [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS]. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/13/2019. (KCB) (Entered: 11/13/2019)

12/12/2019 11

Consent MOTION for Extension of: Deadlines to File Amended Complaint, Motions to Dismiss, and Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Drake, Kiara) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019

12 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 11

Consent MOTION for

Extension of: Deadlines to File Amended Complaint, Motions to

Dismiss, and Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs ;

ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D.

Perry on 12/12/19. (CDP) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

01/15/2020 13

AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Gerald Adams, Christy Allen, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Keith Barrett, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Matthew Bedell, Kevin Bently, Ronald Bergmann, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Michael Binz, Anna Biondolillo, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Michael Boll, Dustin Boone, Scott Boyher, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, James Buckeridge, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Michael Calcaterra, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Daniel Chitwood, Mickey Christ, Marco Christlieb, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brandon Clark, James Clark(SGT.), Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Tracy Cole, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Bailey Colletta, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Adam Duke, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Kelly Fisher, Brandt Flowers, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John

Gentilini, Ryan Gibbons, Samuel Gilman, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Patrick Haug, Amber Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Randy Hays, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Rodney Hickman, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Randy Jemerson, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Austin King, Bill Kiphart, Jeremiah Koerper, Steve Korte, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Robert Lammert, Steven Landers, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Gerald Leyshock, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Tom Long, Ronald Ludwig, Kyle Mack, Alan Malone, Mike Mandle, Joseph Marcantano, Christi Marks, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Michael Mayo, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, Orlando Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, James Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Bianca Myers, Christopher Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Dennis Neal, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Lawrence O'Toole, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Donald Re, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Joseph Scalzo, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Daniel Schulte, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Brian Seppi, Matthew Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian

Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Joseph Tate, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Donnell Walters, Bradley Walworth, Scott Weidler, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Carolyn Wiener, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, James Wood, James Wooten, Anthony Wozniak, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling, Rebecca Andrews, Scott Aubuchon, Joshua D. Becherer, Joseph Bell, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Daniel Book, Timothy Off. Boyce, Curtis Burgdorf, Joseph Busso, Brett Carlson, Kyle Chandler, Lance Coats, Daniel Cora, Darnell Dandridge, Charlene Deeken, Bradford Ellis, Orie Figgs, Michael Flatley, Derrick Frye, Daniel Howard, John Jones, Fred Klefisch, Jon Long, Nicholas Manasco, Mark McMurry, Donnell Moore, Brandon Moore, Aaron Mueller, Ronald Oft, William Olsten, Paul Piatchek, Lucas Roethlisberger, Craig Sayer, Michael Scego, Timothy Schumann, Mark Seper, Stephen Slama, Cliff Sommer, Christopher Tanner, Matt Tesreau, Ronald Vaughan, Joshua Witcik, James Wurm,Terminating Gaston Coleman (DET.), Gregory Frost (OFF.), Donna Garrett (LT.), Nicole Gentilni (SGT.), Darla Gray (LT.), Benjamin Hawkins (OFF.), Richard Hellmeier (SGT.), Deneane Jones (DET.), Daniel Kim (OFF.), David King (OFF.), Michael Marks (SGT.), Steven Mueller (Captain ), Sean Murphy (OFF.), Terron Murphy (DET.), Daniel Osorio (OFF.), David Rudolph (OFF.), Steven Saito (OFF.), Michael Shaw (DET.), Mitchel Simpher (OFF.), Jeanine Waters (OFF.), Brandon Webb (DET.), Nicholas Weite (SGT.), Joann Williams (OFF.), Nijauh Woodard (DET.), Marquise Wren (DET.), Christy Allen (SGT.) and Russell Christian (OFF.) Amendment to 1
Complaint,,, No Summons(es) issued, Waivers issued Yes, Consents issued No, Jury demand, , filed by Nicole Warrington, Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis. Related
document: 1 Complaint,,, filed by City of St. Louis, Missouri, Fudail McCain, Ronald Harris, Nicole Warrington, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Stockley Verdict, # 2 Exhibit B - Templeton TRO, # 3 Exhibit C - Templeton Settlement, # 4 Exhibit D - Ahmad Transcript Vol 1, # 5 Exhibit E -
Ahmad Transcript Vol 2, # 6 Exhibit F - Rossomanno

01/17/2020 02/03/2020 02/03/2020
02/19/2020 03/16/2020

Declaration, # 7 Exhibit G - Video Placeholder, # 8 Exhibit H Letter Dismissing Charges, # 9 Exhibit I - Ahmad TRO, # 10 Waiver of Service Waivers and Summons for All New Defendants)(Khazaeli, Javad) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
14 ENTRY of Appearance by Alicia Campbell for Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Campbell, Alicia) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
15 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 13
Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
16 Docket Text ORDER Re: 15 Consent MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Answer re 13 Amended Complaint by Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Dierker, Robert); ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 2/3/2020. (BRP) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
17 ENTRY of Appearance by Megan Kathleen G Bruyns for Defendant City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Bruyns, Megan) (Entered: 02/19/2020)
18 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert H. Dierker for Defendants Gerald Adams, Kimberly Allen, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, Scott Aubuchon, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Keith Barrett, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Joshua D. Becherer, Matthew Bedell, Joseph Bell, Kevin Bently, Ronald Bergmann, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Michael Binz, Anna Biondolillo, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Michael Boll, Daniel Book, Timothy Off. Boyce, Scott Boyher, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, James Buckeridge, Curtis Burgdorf, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Joseph Busso, Michael Calcaterra, Brett Carlson, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Kyle Chandler, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Daniel Chitwood, Mickey Christ, Marco Christlieb, Brandon Clark, James Clark, James Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Lance Coats, Tracy Cole, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Darnell Dandridge, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Charlene Deeken, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas,

Nathan Dresch, Adam Duke, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Kelly Fisher, Brandt Flowers, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini, Ryan Gibbons, Samuel Gilman, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Patrick Haug, Amber Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Rodney Hickman, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Randy Jemerson, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, John Jones, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Austin King, Bill Kiphart, Jeremiah Koerper, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Robert Lammert, Steven Landers, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Gerald Leyshock, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Tom Long, Ronald Ludwig, Kyle Mack, Alan Malone, Nicholas Manasco, Mike Mandle, Joseph Marcantano, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Michael Mayo, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Donnell Moore, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, James Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Bianca Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Dennis Neal, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Lawrence O'Toole, Ronald Oft, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Paul Piatchek, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Donald Re, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Lucas Roethlisberger, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Steven Saito, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Craig Sayer, Joseph Scalzo, Michael

03/16/2020 03/16/2020 03/16/2020

Scego, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Daniel Schulte, Timothy Schumann, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Mark Seper, Brian Seppi, Matthew Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Stephen Slama, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Joseph Tate, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Ronald Vaughan, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Stephen Walsh, IV, Donnell Walters, Bradley Walworth, Scott Weidler, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Carolyn Wiener, Joann Williams, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, Joshua Witcik, James Wood, James Wooten, Anthony Wozniak, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
19 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants City of St. Louis, Missouri, Charlene Deeken, Lawrence O'Toole. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
20 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendants City of St. Louis, Missouri, Charlene Deeken, Lawrence O'Toole. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed memorandum)(Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
21 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants Kimberly Allen, Keith Barrett, Ronald Bergmann, Michael Binz, Michael Boll, Scott Boyher, James Buckeridge, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Daniel Chitwood, James Clark, James Clark, Adam Duke, Kelly Fisher, Brandt Flowers, Samuel Gilman, Patrick Haug, Rodney Hickman, Randy Jemerson, Justin Johnson, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Bill Kiphart, Robert Lammert, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Gerald Leyshock, Tom Long, Kyle Mack, Mike Mandle, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Michael Mayo, James Murphy, Dennis Neal, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Donald Re, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Daniel Schulte, Brian Seppi, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Donnell Walters, Scott Weidler, Carolyn Wiener, Anthony Wozniak. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020 03/16/2020

22 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendants Kimberly Allen, Keith Barrett, Ronald Bergmann, Michael Binz, Michael Boll, Scott Boyher, James Buckeridge, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Daniel Chitwood, James Clark, James Clark, Adam Duke, Kelly Fisher, Brandt Flowers, Samuel Gilman, Patrick Haug, Rodney Hickman, Randy Jemerson, Justin Johnson, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Bill Kiphart, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Gerald Leyshock, Tom Long, Kyle Mack, Mike Mandle, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Michael Mayo, James Murphy, Dennis Neal, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Donald Re, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Daniel Schulte, Brian Seppi, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Donnell Walters, Scott Weidler, Carolyn Wiener, Anthony Wozniak. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed memorandum)(Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
23 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants Gerald Adams, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Matthew Bedell, Kevin Bently, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Anna Biondolillo, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Michael Calcaterra, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Mickey Christ, Marco Christlieb, Brandon Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Tracy Cole, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini, Ryan Gibbons, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Amber Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Jeremy Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Austin King, Jeremiah

03/16/2020 24

Koerper, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Steven Landers, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Ronald Ludwig, Alan Malone, Joseph Marcantano, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Bianca Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Joseph Scalzo, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Matthew Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Joseph Tate, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Bradley Walworth, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, James Wood, James Wooten, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Gerald Adams, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Matthew Bedell, Kevin Bently, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Anna Biondolillo, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester,

Tamarris Bohannon, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Michael Calcaterra, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Mickey Christ, Marco Christlieb, Brandon Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Tracy Cole, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini, Ryan Gibbons, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Amber Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Jeremy Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Austin King, Jeremiah Koerper, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Steven Landers, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Ronald Ludwig, Alan Malone, Joseph Marcantano, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Bianca Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Joseph Scalzo, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew

Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Matthew Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Joseph Tate, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Bradley Walworth, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, James Wood, James Wooten, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020

25 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants Scott Aubuchon, Joshua D. Becherer, Joseph Bell, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Daniel Book, Timothy Off. Boyce, Curtis Burgdorf, Joseph Busso, Brett Carlson, Kyle Chandler, Lance Coats, Darnell Dandridge, John Jones, Nicholas Manasco, Mark McMurry, Donnell Moore, Ronald Oft, Paul Piatchek, Lucas Roethlisberger, Craig Sayer, Michael Scego, Timothy Schumann, Mark Seper, Stephen Slama, Ronald Vaughan, Joshua Witcik. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020 26

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Scott Aubuchon, Joshua D. Becherer, Joseph Bell, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Daniel Book, Timothy Off. Boyce, Curtis Burgdorf, Joseph Busso, Brett Carlson, Kyle Chandler, Lance Coats, Darnell Dandridge, John Jones, Nicholas Manasco, Mark McMurry, Ronald Oft, Paul Piatchek, Lucas Roethlisberger, Craig Sayer, Michael Scego, Timothy Schumann, Mark Seper, Stephen Slama, Ronald Vaughan, Joshua Witcik. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/17/2020

27 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 22 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation and 20 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/17/2020. (TMT) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/17/2020 28

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Kimberly Allen, Keith Barrett, Ronald Bergmann, Michael Binz, Michael Boll, Scott Boyher, James

Buckeridge, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Daniel Chitwood, James Clark, James Clark, Adam Duke, Kelly Fisher, Brandt Flowers, Samuel Gilman, Patrick Haug, Rodney Hickman, Randy Jemerson, Justin Johnson, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Bill Kiphart, Robert Lammert, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Gerald Leyshock, Tom Long, Kyle Mack, Mike Mandle, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Michael Mayo, James Murphy, Dennis Neal, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Donald Re, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Daniel Schulte, Brian Seppi, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Donnell Walters, Scott Weidler, Carolyn Wiener, Anthony Wozniak. (BRP) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

04/10/2020

29 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Deadlines to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Drake, Kiara) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/13/2020

30 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 29 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Deadlines to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs ; ORDERED GRANTED: plaintiffs shall respond to the motions to dismiss no later than April 29, 2020; plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification no later than November 30, 2020. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 4/13/20. (CDP) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/22/2020

31 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 23 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/23/2020

32 Docket Text ORDER Re 31 : Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case, 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case, 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case, 23 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 04/23/2020. (KCB) (Entered: 04/23/2020)

05/13/2020 33

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/20/2020: # 1 Exhibit A - Correspondence from City Counselor) (TMT). (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/13/2020

34 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Memorandum)(Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/13/2020 35

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/13/2020

36 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Memorandum)(Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/14/2020

37 Docket Text ORDER Re: 34 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James); 36 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington (Wyrsch, James); ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on May 14, 2020. (BRP) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/14/2020 38

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiffs Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (BRP) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/14/2020 39

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (BRP) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/26/2020 40

REPLY to Response to Motion re 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants City of St. Louis, Missouri, Charlene Deeken, Lawrence O'Toole. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/26/2020 41

REPLY to Response to Motion re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Kimberly Allen, Keith Barrett, Ronald Bergmann, Michael Binz, Michael Boll, Scott Boyher, James Buckeridge, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Daniel Chitwood, James Clark, Adam Duke, Kelly Fisher, Brandt Flowers, Samuel Gilman, Patrick Haug, Rodney Hickman, Randy Jemerson, Justin Johnson, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Bill Kiphart, Robert Lammert, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Gerald Leyshock, Tom Long, Kyle Mack, Mike Mandle, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Michael Mayo, James Murphy, Dennis Neal,

Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Donald Re, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Daniel Schulte, Brian Seppi, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Donnell Walters, Scott Weidler, Carolyn Wiener, Anthony Wozniak. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/26/2020 42

REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants James Bain et al. (line officers). (Dierker, Robert) Modified on 5/27/2020 (BRP). (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/26/2020 43

REPLY to Response to Motion re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Scott Aubuchon et al. (Add-on Defendants). (Dierker, Robert) Modified on 5/27/2020 (BRP). (Entered: 05/26/2020)

08/13/2020

44 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 23 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants Gerald Adams, Kimberly Allen, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, Rebecca Andrews, Scott Aubuchon, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Keith Barrett, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Joshua D. Becherer, Matthew Bedell, Joseph Bell, Kevin Bently, Ronald Bergmann, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Michael Binz, Anna Biondolillo, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Michael Boll, Daniel Book, Timothy Off. Boyce, Scott Boyher, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian BrewerMoore, Lucas Brockmeyer, James Buckeridge, Curtis Burgdorf, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Joseph Busso, Michael Calcaterra, Brett Carlson, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Kyle Chandler, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Daniel Chitwood, Mickey Christ, Marco Christlieb, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brandon Clark, James Clark, James Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Lance Coats, Tracy Cole, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, Daniel Cora, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Darnell Dandridge, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Charlene Deeken, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Adam Duke, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Bradford Ellis, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Orie Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Kelly Fisher, Michael Flatley, Brandt Flowers, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Derrick Frye, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini, Ryan Gibbons, Samuel Gilman,

Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Patrick Haug, Amber Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Rodney Hickman, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Daniel Howard, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Randy Jemerson, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, John Jones, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Austin King, Bill Kiphart, Fred Klefisch, Jeremiah Koerper, Steve Korte, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Robert Lammert, Steven Landers, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Gerald Leyshock, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Jon Long, Tom Long, Ronald Ludwig, Kyle Mack, Alan Malone, Nicholas Manasco, Mike Mandle, Joseph Marcantano, Christi Marks, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Michael Mayo, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Mark McMurry, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Brandon Moore, Donnell Moore, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, Orlando Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Mueller, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, James Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Bianca Myers, Christopher Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Dennis Neal, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Lawrence O'Toole, Ronald Oft, William Olsten, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Paul Piatchek, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Donald Re, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Lucas Roethlisberger, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Craig Sayer, Joseph Scalzo, Michael Scego, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Daniel Schulte, Timothy Schumann, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Mark Seper, Brian Seppi, Matthew Shaw, Keith Shelton,

Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Stephen Slama, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, Cliff Sommer, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Christopher Tanner, Joseph Tate, Matt Tesreau, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Ronald Vaughan, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Donnell Walters, Bradley Walworth, Scott Weidler, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Carolyn Wiener, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, Joshua Witcik, James Wood, James Wooten, Anthony Wozniak, James Wurm, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit supplemental authority)(Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/14/2020 45

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), that plaintiffs shall show cause in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Orlando Morrison, Rebecca Andrews, Daniel Cora, Bradford Ellis, Orie Figgs, Michael Flatley, Derrick Frye, Daniel Howard, Fred Klefisch, Jon Long, Brandon Moore, Aaron Mueller, William Olsten, Cliff Sommer, Christopher Tanner, Matt Tesreau, James Wurm, Dustin Boone, Bailey Colletta, Randy Hays, Steve Korte, & Christopher Myers for lack of timely service. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/14/2020. (CLO) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/28/2020

46 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Party Orlando Morrison and Fred Klefisch by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020 47

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 45 Order to Show Cause,, by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/31/2020 48

ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than October 5, 2020, the City Counselors office must enter an appearance on behalf of Defendants Rebecca Andrews, Daniel

Cora, Bradford Ellis, Orie Figgs, Michael Flatley, Derrick Frye, Daniel Howard, Jon Long, Brandon Moore, Aaron Mueller, William Olsten, Cliff Sommer, Christopher Tanner, Matt Tesreau, James Wurm, Dustin Boone, Bailey Colletta, Randy Hays, Steve Korte, & Christopher Myers, or Plaintiffs must serve these Defendants, or the claims against these Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice, and the Defendants will be dismissed as parties from this action. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/31/2020. (NEP) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020 49

ORDER OF DISMISSAL...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs complaint against defendants Orlando Morrison and Fred Klefisch is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Fred Klefisch and Orlando Morrison (SGT.) terminated.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/31/2020. (NEP) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

09/24/2020 50

ENTRY of Appearance by Robert H. Dierker for Defendants Rebecca Andrews, Daniel Cora, Bradford Ellis, Orie Figgs, Michael Flatley, Derrick Frye, Daniel Howard, Jon Long, Brandon Moore, Aaron Mueller, Cliff Sommer, Matt Tesreau, James Wurm. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/25/2020 51

MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

52 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Korte Summons, # 2 Summons Boone Summons, # 3 Summons Coletta Summons, # 4 Summons Hays Summons, # 5 Attachment Notice of Intent to Use Process Server)(Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

10/01/2020

53 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 51 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James); ORDERED GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/01/2020. (ANP) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/01/2020

54 SEALED DOCUMENT . Summonses issued as to Defendants Korte, Hays, Colletta and Boone. Emailed to attorney James Wyrsch this date. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Hays Summons, # 2 Summons Colletta Summons, # 3 Summons Boone Summons)(ANP) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/01/2020 55

Consent MOTION for Extension of: Deadline to Serve Defendants by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/02/2020

56 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 55 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Deadline to Serve Defendants by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) filed by Fudail McCain, Ronald Harris, Nicole Warrington, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/2/2020. (KEK) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/05/2020

57 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert H. Dierker for Defendants Steve Korte, Christopher Myers, William Olsten. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/16/2020 58

Joint MOTION for Extension of: time to file class certification motion by Defendants Gerald Adams, Christy Allen, Kimberly Allen, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, Rebecca Andrews, Scott Aubuchon, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Keith Barrett, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Joshua D. Becherer, Matthew Bedell, Joseph Bell, Kevin Bently, Ronald Bergmann, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Michael Binz, Anna Biondolillo, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Michael Boll, Daniel Book, Dustin Boone, Timothy Off. Boyce, Scott Boyher, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, James Buckeridge, Curtis Burgdorf, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Joseph Busso, Michael Calcaterra, Brett Carlson, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Kyle Chandler, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Daniel Chitwood, Mickey Christ, Russell Christian, Marco Christlieb, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brandon Clark, James Clark, James Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Lance Coats, Tracy Cole, Gaston Coleman, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Bailey Colletta, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, Daniel Cora, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Darnell Dandridge, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Charlene Deeken, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Adam Duke, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Bradford Ellis, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Orie Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Kelly Fisher, Michael Flatley, Brandt Flowers, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Gregory

Frost, Derrick Frye, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Donna Garrett, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini, Nicole Gentilni, Ryan Gibbons, Samuel Gilman, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Darla Gray, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Patrick Haug, Amber Hawkins, Benjamin Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Randy Hays, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Richard Hellmeier, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Rodney Hickman, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Daniel Howard, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Randy Jemerson, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, Deneane Jones, John Jones, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Daniel Kim, Austin King, David King, Bill Kiphart, Fred Klefisch, Jeremiah Koerper, Steve Korte, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Robert Lammert, Steven Landers, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Gerald Leyshock, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Jon Long, Tom Long, Ronald Ludwig, Kyle Mack, Alan Malone, Nicholas Manasco, Mike Mandle, Joseph Marcantano, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Michael Mayo, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Mark McMurry, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Brandon Moore, Donnell Moore, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, Orlando Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Mueller, Steven Mueller, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, James Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Sean Murphy, Terron Murphy, Bianca Myers, Christopher Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Dennis Neal, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Lawrence O'Toole, Ronald Oft, William Olsten, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Daniel Osorio, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Paul Piatchek, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Donald Re, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Lucas Roethlisberger, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, David Rudolph, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs,

10/19/2020

Steven Saito, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Craig Sayer, Joseph Scalzo, Michael Scego, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Daniel Schulte, Timothy Schumann, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Mark Seper, Brian Seppi, Matthew Shaw, Michael Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Mitchel Simpher, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Stephen Slama, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, Cliff Sommer, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Christopher Tanner, Joseph Tate, Matt Tesreau, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Ronald Vaughan, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Donnell Walters, Bradley Walworth, Jeanine Waters, Brandon Webb, Scott Weidler, Nicholas Weite, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Carolyn Wiener, Joann Williams, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, Joshua Witcik, James Wood, Nijauh Woodard, James Wooten, Anthony Wozniak, Marquise Wren, James Wurm, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
59 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 58 Joint MOTION for Extension of: time to file class certification motion by Defendants Gerald Adams, Christy Allen, Kimberly Allen, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, Rebecca Andrews, Scott Aubuchon, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Keith Barrett, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Joshua D. Becherer, Matthew Bedell, Joseph Bell, Kevin Bently, Ronald Bergmann, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Michael Binz, Anna Biondolillo, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Michael Boll, Daniel Book, Dustin Boone, Timothy Off. Boyce, Scott Boyher, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, James Buckeridge, Curtis Burgdorf, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Joseph Busso, Michael Calcaterra, Brett Carlson, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Kyle Chandler, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Daniel Chitwood, Mickey Christ, Russell Christian, Marco Christlieb, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brandon Clark, James Clark,

James Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Lance Coats, Tracy Cole, Gaston Coleman, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Bailey Colletta, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, Daniel Cora, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Darnell Dandridge, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Charlene Deeken, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Adam Duke, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Bradford Ellis, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Orie Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Kelly Fisher, Michael Flatley, Brandt Flowers, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Gregory Frost, Derrick Frye, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Donna Garrett, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini, Nicole Gentilni, Ryan Gibbons, Samuel Gilman, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Darla Gray, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Patrick Haug, Amber Hawkins, Benjamin Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Randy Hays, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Richard Hellmeier, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Rodney Hickman, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Daniel Howard, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Randy Jemerson, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, Deneane Jones, John Jones, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Daniel Kim, Austin King, David King, Bill Kiphart, Fred Klefisch, Jeremiah Koerper, Steve Korte, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Robert Lammert, Steven Landers, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Gerald Leyshock, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Jon Long, Tom Long, Ronald Ludwig, Kyle Mack, Alan Malone, Nicholas Manasco, Mike Mandle, Joseph Marcantano, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Michael Mayo, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Mark McMurry, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Brandon Moore, Donnell Moore, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, Orlando Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Mueller, Steven Mueller, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, James Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Sean Murphy, Terron Murphy, Bianca Myers, Christopher Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Dennis Neal,

Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Lawrence O'Toole, Ronald Oft, William Olsten, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Daniel Osorio, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Paul Piatchek, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Donald Re, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Lucas Roethlisberger, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, David Rudolph, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Steven Saito, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Craig Sayer, Joseph Scalzo, Michael Scego, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker, Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Daniel Schulte, Timothy Schumann, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Mark Seper, Brian Seppi, Matthew Shaw, Michael Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Mitchel Simpher, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Stephen Slama, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, Cliff Sommer, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Christopher Tanner, Joseph Tate, Matt Tesreau, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Ronald Vaughan, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Donnell Walters, Bradley Walworth, Jeanine Waters, Brandon Webb, Scott Weidler, Nicholas Weite, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Carolyn Wiener, Joann Williams, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, Joshua Witcik, James Wood, Nijauh Woodard, James Wooten, Anthony Wozniak, Marquise Wren, James Wurm, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling. (Dierker, Robert) filed by Joseph Schmitt, Eric Larson, Amy Laz, Mitchel Simpher, John Jones, Michael O'Callaghan, Jeremy Davis, Bailey Colletta, Joseph Busso, Sean Martini, Steven Mueller, Kenneth Nizick, Douglas McClean, Kyle Chandler, Tamarris Bohannon, Brandon Webb, Oliver Poggioli, James Bain, Timothy Turner, Christopher Narez, Timothy Schumann, Tracy Cole, Courtney Jordan, Nicholas Martorano, Nicholas Hayden, Luis Garibay, Marilyn Johnson, Lance Coats, Erica Anderson, James Zwilling, Bradford Ellis, Joslyn Stone, Scott Aubuchon, Donnell

Walters, Ramelle Wallace, Daniel Osorio, Brian DeMatteis, Jeremiah Koerper, David Crocker, Taylor Hosna, Jonathan Senf, Nicholas Holt, Thomas Harger, Amon Figgs, Jaimie Pitterle, Richard Eaves, James Binder, Jon Long, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Robert Stuart, Michael Shaw, Nathan Strickland, Paul Piatchek, Jonathan Selbert, Nicholas Manasco, Jane McKibben, Kenneth Kegel, Nick Henderson, Dennis Neal, Brandon Clark, Matthew Karnowski, Kelly Fisher, Andre White, Christopher Bramley, Collin McAnany, Carlus Ingram, Darla Gray, Cristina Widbin, Austin King, Gerald Leyshock, Samuel Zouglas, Lucas Roethlisberger, Timothy McNamara, Brian Lemons, Christi Marks, Edward Napier, Uzoma Onwumere, Mark Seper, Chad Tullock, Joe Carretero, Francis Koziacki, Paul Wactor, Adam Garibay, Anthony Valenza, Matthew McComy, Stephen Schroeder IV, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Bruce Edmond, Kelli Swinton, Joseph Morrell, Jack Randolph, Matthew Shoults, John Gentilini, Luke McDonnell, Ohmed Samih, Jeffrey Long, Timothy Bockskopf, Andrew Wismar, Lindsey Wethington, Stephen Walsh, IV, Kevin Bently, Michael Marks, Erin Hein, Charlene Deeken, Ryan Buscemi, Jacob Stein, Benjamin Bayless, Matthew Burle, Ryan Kotaska, Russell Christian, Eric Parrish, Quincy Silver, Anton Treis, Daniel Schulte, Keith Paulitsch, Nijauh Woodard, Michael Scego, Lawrence Lazewski, Jeremy Johnson, Randall Welsch, Ahman Rasoll, Gaston Coleman, Joshua McBee, Michael Ronzio, Joshua Hall, Brian Murphy, Cliff Sommer, Craig Sayer, Ronald Ludwig, Ryan Gibbons, Michael Calcaterra, Nicole Gentilni, Keaton Strong, Benjamin Cehic, Curtis Burgdorf, Scott Boyher, Alfred Allmon, Janika Humphrey, Donald Re, Joshua Martin, Geoffrey Rose, William Olsten, Robert Trim, Megan Rodgers, Terron Murphy, Orie Figgs, Michael Boll, Josh Kamper, Jacob Bias, Richard Edwards, Abby Krull, David Krapf, James Wooten, Stephen Slama, Joseph Pierce, Zeme'z Harris, Jodie Eaton, Brandon Wyms, Gregory Schaffer, Charles Wall, Bill Kiphart, Trevor Russell, Roland Degregorio, Kristin Chelucci, Jon Amesquita, Reginald Jones, Kori Simon, Trenton Lee, Steven Daugherty, Donnell Moore, Terrence Ruffin, Courtney Nash, Nicholas Harbaugh, Daniel Cora, Sam Edwards, Bryan Barton, Aaron Gaddis, Julius Conner, Brian Gonzales, Derrick Frye, Nhong Vorachack, Matt Tesreau, Joseph Bell, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Deandre Davis, Ashley Smith, Patrick Riordan, Adam Duke, Marquise Wren, Michael Binz, Solomon Thurman, Tom Long, Sean Murphy, Matthew Welle, Joseph Rodriguez, Robert Lammert, Matthew James, Dereck Green, Cornell Robinson, Matthew Bedell, Aaron Muendlein, Nicholas Weite, Daniel Howard, Damon Maxwell, Bradley Roy, Zachariah Foltz, Daniel Kim, Christopher Seger, Nicola Orlando, John Sabin, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Thearn Clements, Patricia Nijkamp,

Benjamin Hawkins, Joshua Morrison, Thomas Strode, Joseph Tate, Christopher Tanner, James Stagge, Kevin Bambrick, Nicholas Lee, Rodney Hickman, Ronald Bergmann, Sean Fortune, Daniel Chamblin, Michael Ross, James Harris III, Elijah Simpson, Jesse Dyson, John Moton, Justin Johnson, Paul Kosednar, Joshua Witcik, Kyle Santa, William Triplett, Brian Strehl, Shawn Griggs, Michael Hines, Carolyn Wiener, Kevin Mataya, Jarred Thacker, Jonathan Haire, Randy Hays, David King, Gerald Adams, Matthew Boester, Sisavath Singharath, John O'Brien, Steven Landers, Lucas Brockmeyer, Duane Wells, William Stevenson, Kyle Mack, Steven Fischer, Matthew Shaw, Steve Korte, Ryan Murphy, Dustin Hoskins, Nadja Curt, James Buckeridge, Marco Christlieb, Michael Missel, John Anderson, Mark Pfieffer, Bradley Walworth, David Rudolph, Jason Brandhorst, Deneane Jones, Brett Carlson, Richard Zurmuehlen, Tracy Hallquist, Daniel Clauss, Steven Strohmeyer, Kimberly Allen, Michael Mayo, Joseph Ross, Jermaine Banks, Tom Halfhill, Marcus Biggins, Timothy Hollman, Edward Gonzales, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Brian Cheli, Keith Barrett, Richard Schicker, Austin Patton, James Clark, Timothy Off. Boyce, Christina Powderly, Mark McMurry, Steven Saito, Christy Allen, Brandon Moore, Louis Wilson, Brian Rossomanno, James Wurm, Michael Cheli, Eric Henry, Joseph Scalzo, Nathan Dresch, Daniel Chitwood, Patrick Haug, William Douglas, Ronald Oft, Jamie Partee, Dustin Boone, George Henry, Joseph Kerth, Darnell Dandridge, Kevin Dang, Rosa Rojas, Brian Seppi, Brandt Flowers, Rebecca Andrews, Scott Valentine, Emily Davis, Stephanie Rogers, Andrew Schmick, Michael Joyner, Michael Flatley, Andrew Heimberger, Ryan Lindhorst, Philip VonderHeydt, Kanisha Coleman, Christopher Myers, Quincy Smith, Joann Williams, Brian Hayes, Richard Hellmeier, Anthony Caruso, Robert Copper, Samuel Stewart, Matthew Eernisse, Ronald Rust, Anna Biondolillo, Joe Lankford, Samuel Gilman, Thomas Streckfuss, Timothy Sachs, James Wood, Erich Vonnida, Darnell Willis, Alan Malone, Gary Ruffin, Shaviste Grandberry, Donna Garrett, Robert Laschober, James Murphy, Perrin Newman, Laquan Pierce, Randy Jemerson, Patrick Daut, Fred Klefisch, Michael Niethe, Anthony Coll, Kathleen Gutjahr, Steven Fanz, Jeanine Waters, April Schnetzer, Orlando Morrison, Joshua D. Becherer, Carianne Noga, Gregory Frost, Keith Shelton, Glennon Frigerio, Zohaib Khan, Jared Krumm, Alexander Mesnage, Tawanna Simms, Aaron Mueller, Joseph Marcantano, Mike Mandle, Henry Hayden, Daniel Book, Bianca Myers, Brent Fincher, Ian Csapo, Stephe Ortinau, Ronald Vaughan, Paul Chester, Brian Brewer-Moore, Mickey Christ, Lawrence O'Toole, Amber Hawkins, Anthony Wozniak, Scott Weidler; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by

10/19/2020 10/19/2020 10/19/2020 01/22/2021

District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/19/2020. (KEK) (Entered: 10/19/2020)
60 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Alicia Street. Dustin Boone served on 10/1/2020, answer due 10/22/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Summons of Civil Action - Boone)(Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 10/19/2020)
61 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Alicia Street. Randy Hays served on 10/5/2020, answer due 10/26/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Summons of Civil Action)(Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 10/19/2020)
62 ENTRY of Appearance by John A. Kilo for Defendant Bailey Colletta. (Kilo, John) (Entered: 10/19/2020)
63 MOTION for Extension of: time to file class certification motion by Defendants Gerald Adams, Christy Allen, Kimberly Allen, Alfred Allmon, Jon Amesquita, Erica Anderson, John Anderson, Rebecca Andrews, Scott Aubuchon, James Bain, Kevin Bambrick, Jermaine Banks, Keith Barrett, Bryan Barton, Benjamin Bayless, Joshua D. Becherer, Matthew Bedell, Joseph Bell, Kevin Bently, Ronald Bergmann, Jacob Bias, Marcus Biggins, James Binder, Michael Binz, Anna Biondolillo, Bennie Off. Blackmon, Timothy Bockskopf, Matthew Boester, Tamarris Bohannon, Michael Boll, Daniel Book, Timothy Off. Boyce, Scott Boyher, Christopher Bramley, Jason Brandhorst, Brian Brewer-Moore, Lucas Brockmeyer, James Buckeridge, Curtis Burgdorf, Matthew Burle, Ryan Buscemi, Joseph Busso, Michael Calcaterra, Brett Carlson, Joe Carretero, Anthony Caruso, Benjamin Cehic, Daniel Chamblin, Kyle Chandler, Brian Cheli, Michael Cheli, Kristin Chelucci, Paul Chester, Daniel Chitwood, Mickey Christ, Russell Christian, Marco Christlieb, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brandon Clark, James Clark, James Clark, Daniel Clauss, Thearn Clements, Lance Coats, Tracy Cole, Gaston Coleman, Kanisha Coleman, Anthony Coll, Julius Conner, Robert Copper, Daniel Cora, David Crocker, Ian Csapo, Nadja Curt, Darnell Dandridge, Kevin Dang, Steven Daugherty, Patrick Daut, Deandre Davis, Emily Davis, Jeremy Davis, Brian DeMatteis, Charlene Deeken, Roland Degregorio, William Douglas, Nathan Dresch, Adam Duke, Jesse Dyson, Jodie Eaton, Richard Eaves, Bruce Edmond, Richard Edwards, Sam Edwards, Matthew Eernisse, Bradford Ellis, Steven Fanz, Amon Figgs, Orie Figgs, Brent Fincher, Steven Fischer, Kelly Fisher, Michael Flatley, Brandt Flowers, Zachariah Foltz, Sean Fortune, Glennon Frigerio, Gregory Frost, Derrick Frye, Aaron Gaddis, Adam Garibay, Luis Garibay, Donna Garrett, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, John Gentilini,

Nicole Gentilni, Ryan Gibbons, Samuel Gilman, Brian Gonzales, Edward Gonzales, Shaviste Grandberry, Darla Gray, Dereck Green, Shawn Griggs, Kathleen Gutjahr, Jonathan Haire, Tom Halfhill, Joshua Hall, Tracy Hallquist, Nicholas Harbaugh, Thomas Harger, Zeme'z Harris, James Harris III, Patrick Haug, Amber Hawkins, Benjamin Hawkins, Henry Hayden, Nicholas Hayden, Brian Hayes, Andrew Heimberger, Erin Hein, Richard Hellmeier, Nick Henderson, Eric Henry, George Henry, Rodney Hickman, Michael Hines, Timothy Hollman, Nicholas Holt, Dustin Hoskins, Taylor Hosna, Daniel Howard, Janika Humphrey, Carlus Ingram, Matthew James, Randy Jemerson, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Johnson, Marilyn Johnson, Deneane Jones, John Jones, Reginald Jones, Courtney Jordan, Michael Joyner, Josh Kamper, Matthew Karnowski, Kenneth Kegel, Joseph Kerth, Zohaib Khan, Daniel Kim, Austin King, David King, Bill Kiphart, Fred Klefisch, Jeremiah Koerper, Steve Korte, Paul Kosednar, Ryan Kotaska, Francis Koziacki, David Krapf, Abby Krull, Jared Krumm, Robert Lammert, Steven Landers, Joe Lankford, Eric Larson, Robert Laschober, Amy Laz, Lawrence Lazewski, Nicholas Lee, Trenton Lee, Brian Lemons, Gerald Leyshock, Ryan Lindhorst, Jeffrey Long, Jon Long, Tom Long, Ronald Ludwig, Kyle Mack, Alan Malone, Nicholas Manasco, Mike Mandle, Joseph Marcantano, Christi Marks, Michael Marks, Joshua Martin, Sean Martini, Nicholas Martorano, Kevin Mataya, Damon Maxwell, Michael Mayo, Collin McAnany, Joshua McBee, Douglas McClean, Matthew McComy, Luke McDonnell, Jane McKibben, Mark McMurry, Timothy McNamara, Alexander Mesnage, Michael Missel, Brandon Moore, Donnell Moore, Joseph Morrell, Joshua Morrison, Orlando Morrison, John Moton, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Aaron Mueller, Steven Mueller, Aaron Muendlein, Brian Murphy, James Murphy, Ryan Murphy, Sean Murphy, Terron Murphy, Bianca Myers, Christopher Myers, Edward Napier, Christopher Narez, Courtney Nash, Dennis Neal, Perrin Newman, Michael Niethe, Patricia Nijkamp, Kenneth Nizick, Carianne Noga, John O'Brien, Michael O'Callaghan, Lawrence O'Toole, Ronald Oft, William Olsten, Uzoma Onwumere, Nicola Orlando, Stephe Ortinau, Daniel Osorio, Eric Parrish, Jamie Partee, Austin Patton, Keith Paulitsch, Mark Pfieffer, Paul Piatchek, Joseph Pierce, Laquan Pierce, Jaimie Pitterle, Oliver Poggioli, Christina Powderly, Jack Randolph, Ahman Rasoll, Donald Re, Patrick Riordan, Cornell Robinson, Megan Rodgers, Joseph Rodriguez, Lucas Roethlisberger, Stephanie Rogers, Rosa Rojas, Michael Ronzio, Geoffrey Rose, Joseph Ross, Michael Ross, Brian Rossomanno, Bradley Roy, David Rudolph, Gary Ruffin, Terrence Ruffin, Trevor Russell, Ronald Rust, John Sabin, Timothy Sachs, Steven Saito, Ohmed Samih, Kyle Santa, Craig Sayer, Joseph Scalzo, Michael Scego, Gregory Schaffer, Richard Schicker,

Andrew Schmick, Joseph Schmitt, April Schnetzer, Stephen Schroeder IV, Daniel Schulte, Timothy Schumann, Christopher Seger, Jonathan Selbert, Jonathan Senf, Mark Seper, Brian Seppi, Matthew Shaw, Michael Shaw, Keith Shelton, Matthew Shoults, Quincy Silver, Tawanna Simms, Kori Simon, Mitchel Simpher, Elijah Simpson, Sisavath Singharath, Stephen Slama, Ashley Smith, Quincy Smith, Cliff Sommer, James Stagge, Jacob Stein, William Stevenson, Samuel Stewart, Joslyn Stone, Thomas Streckfuss, Brian Strehl, Nathan Strickland, Thomas Strode, Steven Strohmeyer, Keaton Strong, Robert Stuart, Kelli Swinton, Christopher Tanner, Joseph Tate, Matt Tesreau, Jarred Thacker, Solomon Thurman, Anton Treis, Robert Trim, William Triplett, Chad Tullock, Timothy Turner, Scott Valentine, Anthony Valenza, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Ronald Vaughan, Philip VonderHeydt, Erich Vonnida, Nhong Vorachack, Paul Wactor, Charles Wall, Ramelle Wallace, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Stephen Walsh, IV, Donnell Walters, Bradley Walworth, Jeanine Waters, Brandon Webb, Scott Weidler, Nicholas Weite, Matthew Welle, Duane Wells, Randall Welsch, Lindsey Wethington, Andre White, Cristina Widbin, Carolyn Wiener, Joann Williams, Darnell Willis, Louis Wilson, Andrew Wismar, Joshua Witcik, James Wood, Nijauh Woodard, James Wooten, Anthony Wozniak, Marquise Wren, James Wurm, Brandon Wyms, Samuel Zouglas, Richard Zurmuehlen, James Zwilling. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/25/2021

64 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 63 MOTION for Extension of: time to file class certification motion by Defendants ; ORDERED GRANTED, class certification deadline now 4/1/21. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 1/25/21. (CDP) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

02/01/2021

65 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendant Bailey Colletta. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 02/01/2021)

02/22/2021 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants' Motions to Dismiss [ECF 19 , 21 , 23 , and 25 are GRANTED in part and denied in part as set forth herein; all defendants except for the City of St. Louis and individual defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Boyher, Rossomanno, Karnowski, and Jemerson are hereby DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts V, X, XI, and XIII are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims for punitive damages from the City of St. Louis are stricken. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Count XVII is denied and Count XVII is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by

03/03/2021 03/04/2021
03/05/2021 03/05/2021 03/24/2021 03/26/2021

District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 02/22/2021., All defendants EXCEPT for City of St. Louis, Leyshock, Sachs, Boyher, Rossomanno, Karnowski, and Jemerson terminated. (ANP) Modified on 2/22/2021 (ANP). (Entered: 02/22/2021)
67 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 66 Memorandum & Order,,,, Add and Terminate Parties,,, by Defendants Scott Boyher, Randy Jemerson, Matthew Karnowski, Gerald Leyshock, Brian Rossomanno, Timothy Sachs. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number AMOEDC-8509049. (Entered: 03/03/2021)
68 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL AND NOA SUPPLEMENT by
clerk to USCA regarding 66 Memorandum & Order,,,, Add and Terminate Parties,,,. Notice of Appeal filed on 3/3/21 by Defendants Scott Boyher, Randy Jemerson, Matthew Karnowski, Gerald Leyshock, Brian Rossomanno, Timothy Sachs. NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTY: FILE REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT WITH DISTRICT COURT CLERKS OFFICE.(BAK) (Entered: 03/04/2021)
69 Initial Notification from USCA for 67 Notice of Appeal, filed by Randy Jemerson, Timothy Sachs, Scott Boyher, Matthew Karnowski, Brian Rossomanno, Gerald Leyshock. USCA Appeal Number: 21-1524.(ANP) (Entered: 03/05/2021)
70 Briefing Schedule from USCA for 67 Notice of Appeal, filed by Randy Jemerson, Timothy Sachs, Scott Boyher, Matthew Karnowski, Brian Rossomanno, Gerald Leyshock. USCA Appeal Number: 21-1524. Transcript due: 03/19/2021 (See attached document for all other deadlines.)(ANP) (Entered: 03/05/2021)
71 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Bailey Colletta ;attorney/firm JOHN A. KILO, MICHAEL W. FLYNN, TIMOTHY W. CALLAHAN/KILO, FLYNN, BILLINGSLEY, TRAME & BROWN, P.C. by Defendant Bailey Colletta. (Kilo, John) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
72 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 71 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Bailey Colletta ;attorney/firm JOHN A. KILO, MICHAEL W. FLYNN, TIMOTHY W. CALLAHAN/KILO, FLYNN, BILLINGSLEY, TRAME & BROWN, P.C. by Defendant Bailey Colletta. (Kilo, John) filed by Bailey Colletta ; ORDERED GRANTED. (Attorney John A. Kilo terminated.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/26/2021. (NEP) (Entered: 03/26/2021)

03/31/2021 04/01/2021 06/10/2021

73 Consent MOTION to Stay by Plaintiffs Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Alicia Street, Ashley Theis, Nicole Warrington. (Wyrsch, James) (Entered: 03/31/2021)
74 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 73 Consent MOTION to Stay ; ORDERED GRANTED, All deadlines in this case are STAYED pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 4/1/21. (CDP) (Entered: 04/01/2021)
75 MEMORANDUM re 69 Initial Notification from USCA request to transmit by Defendant Gerald Leyshock. (Dierker, Robert) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

06/15/2021 07:50:22

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

Woo Kee
4:19-cv-02590CDP 3.00

 
 Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 1 of 75 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ALICIA STREET, RONALD HARRIS, FUDAIL MCCAIN, ASHLEY THEIS, and NICOLE WARRINGTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, LT. COL. GERALD LEYSHOCK, MAJ. KENNETH KEGEL, CAPTAIN ERIC LARSON, CAPTAIN STEVEN MUELLER, LT. KIMBERLY ALLEN, LT. SCOTT BOYHER, LT. DANIEL CHITWOOD, LT. DONNA GARRETT, LT. DARLA GRAY, LT. BILL KIPHART, LT. CHRISTI MARKS, LT. MICHAEL MAYO, LT. TIMOTHY SACHS, SGT. CHRISTY ALLEN, SGT. KEITH BARRETT, SGT. RONALD BERGMANN, SGT. MICHAEL BINZ, SGT. MICHAEL BOLL, SGT. JAMES BUCKERIDGE, SGT. JOE CARRETERO, SGT. ANTHONY CARUSO, SGT. JAMES CLARK, SGT. JAMES CLARK, SGT. ADAM DUKE, SGT. KELLY FISHER, SGT. BRANDT FLOWERS, SGT. NICOLE GENTILINI, SGT. SAMUEL GILMAN, SGT. PATRICK HAUG, SGT. RICHARD HELLMEIER, SGT. RODNEY HICKMAN, SGT. RANDY JEMERSON, SGT. JUSTIN JOHNSON,

Cause No. 4:19-cv-02590 Jury Trial Demanded

1

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 2 of 75 PageID #: 2
SGT. MATTHEW KARNOWSKI, SGT. ROBERT LAMMERT, SGT. JOE LANKFORD, SGT. ROBERT LASCHOBER, SGT. TOM LONG, SGT. KYLE MACK, SGT. MIKE MANDLE, SGT. MICHAEL MARKS, SGT. ORLANDO MORRISON, SGT. JAMES MURPHY, SGT. DENNIS NEAL, SGT. PATRICIA NIJKAMP, SGT. KENNETH NIZICK, SGT. DONALD RE, SGT. BRIAN ROSSOMANNO, SGT. BRADLEY ROY, SGT. JOHN SABIN, SGT. DANIEL SCHULTE, SGT. BRIAN SEPPI, SGT. TIMOTHY TURNER, SGT. SCOTT VALENTINE, SGT. DONNELL WALTERS, SGT. SCOTT WEIDLER, SGT. NICHOLAS WEITE, SGT. CAROLYN WIENER, SGT. ANTHONY WOZNIAK, DET. JAMES BAIN, DET. KEVIN BENTLY, DET. JASON BRANDHORST, DET. MATTHEW BURLE, DET. DANIEL CHAMBLIN, DET. MICKEY CHRIST, DET. TRACY COLE , DET. GASTON COLEMAN, DET. DEANDRE DAVIS, DET. JESSE DYSON, DET. BRUCE EDMOND, DET. RICHARD EDWARDS, DET. AMON FIGGS, DET. SHAVISTE GRANDBERRY, DET. TRACY HALLQUIST, DET. GEORGE HENRY, DET. JANIKA HUMPHREY, DET. MARILYN JOHNSON, DET. DENEANE JONES, DET. PAUL KOSEDNAR, DET. DOUGLAS MCCLEAN, DET. TERRON MURPHY, DET. MICHAEL SHAW, DET. JAMES STAGGE,
2

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 3 of 75 PageID #: 3
DET. THOMAS STRODE, DET. KEATON STRONG, DET. KELLI SWINTON, DET. JARRED THACKER, DET. STEPHEN WALSH IV, DET. BRANDON WEBB, DET. NIJAUH WOODARD, DET. MARQUISE WREN, DET. BRANDON WYMS, OFF. GERALD ADAMS, OFF. ALFRED ALLMON, OFF. JON AMESQUITA, OFF. JOHN ANDERSON, OFF. ERICA ANDERSON, OFF. KEVIN BAMBRICK, OFF. JERMAINE BANKS, OFF. BRYAN BARTON, OFF. BENJAMIN BAYLESS, OFF. MATTHEW BEDELL, OFF. JACOB BIAS, OFF. MARCUS BIGGINS, OFF. JAMES BINDER, OFF. ANNA BIONDOLILLO, OFF. TIMOTHY BOCKSKOPF, OFF. MATTHEW BOESTER, OFF. TAMARRIS BOHANNON, OFF. DUSTIN BOONE, OFF. CHRISTOPHER BRAMLEY, OFF. BRIAN BREWER-MOORE, OFF. LUCAS BROCKMEYER, OFF. RYAN BUSCEMI, OFF. MICHAEL CALCATERRA, OFF. BENJAMIN CEHIC, OFF. MICHAEL CHELI, OFF. BRIAN B CHELI, OFF. KRISTIN CHELUCCI, OFF. PAUL CHESTER, OFF. RUSSELL CHRISTIAN, OFF. MARCO CHRISTLIEB, OFF. BRANDON CLARK, OFF. DANIEL CLAUSS, OFF. THEARN CLEMENTS, OFF. KANISHA COLEMAN, OFF. ANTHONY COLL, OFF. BAILEY COLLETTA, OFF. JULIUS CONNER, OFF. ROBERT COOPER, OFF. DAVID CROCKER, OFF. IAN CSAPO, OFF. NADJA CURT, OFF.
3

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 4 of 75 PageID #: 4
KEVIN DANG, OFF. STEVEN DAUGHERTY, OFF. PATRICK DAUT, OFF. JEREMY DAVIS, OFF. EMILY DAVIS, OFF. ROLAND DEGREGORIO, OFF. BRIAN DEMATTEIS, OFF. WILLIAM DOUGLAS, OFF. NATHAN DRESCH, OFF. JODIE EATON, OFF. RICHARD EAVES, OFF. SAM EDWARDS, OFF. MATTHEW EERNISSE, OFF. STEVEN FANZ, OFF. BRENT FINCHER, OFF. STEVEN FISCHER, OFF. ZACHARIAH FOLTZ, OFF. SEAN FORTUNE, OFF. GLENNON FRIGERIO, OFF. GREGORY FROST, OFF. AARON GADDIS, OFF. LUIS GARIBAY, OFF. ADAM GARIBAY, OFF. JAZMON DOMINIQUE GARRETT, OFF. JOHN GENTILINI, OFF. RYAN GIBBONS, OFF. EDWARD GONZALES, OFF. BRIAN GONZALES, OFF. DERECK GREEN, OFF. SHAWN GRIGGS, OFF. KATHLEEN GUTJAHR, OFF. JONATHAN HAIRE, OFF. TOM HALFHILL, OFF. JOSHUA HALL, OFF. NICHOLAS HARBAUGH, OFF. THOMAS HARGER, OFF. JAMES HARRIS III, OFF. ZEME'Z HARRIS, OFF. BENJAMIN HAWKINS, OFF. AMBER HAWKINS, OFF. HENRY HAYDEN, OFF. NICHOLAS HAYDEN, OFF. BRIAN HAYES, OFF. RANDY HAYS, OFF. ANDREW HEIMBERGER, OFF. ERIN HEIN, OFF. NICK HENDERSON, OFF. ERIC HENRY, OFF. MICHAEL HINES, OFF. TIMOTHY HOLLMAN, OFF. NICHOLAS HOLT, OFF. DUSTIN HOSKINS, OFF. TAYLOR HOSNA, OFF. CARLUS INGRAM, OFF. MATTHEW JAMES, OFF. JEREMY JOHNSON, OFF.
4

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 5 of 75 PageID #: 5
REGINALD JONES, OFF. COURTNEY JORDAN, OFF. MICHAEL JOYNER, OFF. JOSH KAMPER, OFF. JOSEPH KERTH, OFF. ZOHAIB KHAN, OFF. DANIEL KIM, OFF. DAVID KING, OFF. AUSTIN KING, OFF. JEREMIAH KOERPER, OFF. STEVE KORTE, OFF. RYAN KOTASKA, OFF. FRANCIS KOZIACKI, OFF. DAVID KRAPF, OFF. ABBY KRULL, OFF. JARED KRUMM, OFF. STEVEN LANDERS, OFF. AMY LAZ, OFF. LAWRENCE LAZEWSKI, OFF. TRENTON LEE, OFF. NICHOLAS LEE, OFF. BRIAN LEMONS, OFF. RYAN LINDHORST, OFF. JEFFREY LONG, OFF. RONALD LUDWIG, OFF. ALAN MALONE, OFF. JOSEPH MARCANTANO, OFF. JOSHUA MARTIN, OFF. SEAN MARTINI, OFF. NICHOLAS MARTORANO, OFF. KEVIN MATAYA, OFF. DAMON MAXWELL, OFF. COLLIN MCANANY, OFF. JOSHUA MCBEE, OFF. MATTHEW MCCOMY, OFF. LUKE MCDONNELL, OFF. JANE MCKIBBEN, OFF. TIMOTHY MCNAMARA, OFF. ALEXANDER MESNAGE, OFF. MICHAEL MISSEL, OFF. JOSEPH MORRELL, OFF. JOSHUA MORRISON, OFF. JOHN MOTON, OFF. NICHOLAS MUEHLHEAUSLER, OFF. AARON MUENDLEIN, OFF. SEAN MURPHY, OFF. RYAN MURPHY, OFF. BRIAN MURPHY, OFF. BIANCA MYERS, OFF. CHRISTOPHER MYERS, OFF. EDWARD NAPIER, OFF. CHRISTOPHER NAREZ, OFF. COURTNEY NASH, OFF. PERRIN
5

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 6 of 75 PageID #: 6
NEWMAN, OFF. MICHAEL NIETHE, OFF. CARIANNE NOGA, OFF. JOHN O'BRIEN, OFF. MICHAEL O'CALLAGHAN, OFF. UZOMA ONWUMERE, OFF. NICOLA ORLANDO, OFF. STEPHE ORTINAU, OFF. DANIEL OSORIO, OFF. ERIC PARRISH, OFF. JAMIE PARTEE, OFF. AUSTIN PATTON, OFF. KEITH PAULITSCH, OFF. MARK PFIEFFER, OFF. JOSEPH PIERCE, OFF. LAQUAN PIERCE, OFF. JAIMIE PITTERLE, OFF. OLIVER POGGIOLI, OFF. CHRISTINA POWDERLY, OFF. JACK RANDOLPH, OFF. AHMAN RASOOL, OFF. PATRICK RIORDAN, OFF. CORNELL ROBINSON, OFF. MEGAN RODGERS, OFF. JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, OFF. STEPHANIE ROGERS, OFF. ROSA ROJAS, OFF. MICHAEL RONZIO, OFF. GEOFFREY ROSE, OFF. MICHAEL ROSS, OFF. JOSEPH ROSS , OFF. DAVID RUDOLPH, OFF. GARY RUFFIN, OFF. TERRENCE RUFFIN, OFF. TREVOR RUSSELL, OFF. RONALD RUST, OFF. STEVEN SAITO, OFF. OHMED SAMIH, OFF. KYLE SANTA, OFF. JOSEPH SCALZO, OFF. GREGORY SCHAFFER, OFF. RICHARD SCHICKER, OFF. ANDREW SCHMICK, OFF. JOSEPH SCHMITT, OFF. APRIL SCHNETZER, OFF. STEPHEN IV SCHROEDER, OFF. CHRISTOPHER SEGER, OFF. JONATHAN SELBERT, OFF. JONATHAN SENF, OFF. MATTHEW SHAW, OFF. KEITH SHELTON, OFF. MATTHEW SHOULTS, OFF. QUINCY SILVER, OFF. TAWANNA SIMMS, OFF. KORI SIMON, OFF. MITCHEL SIMPHER, OFF. ELIJAH SIMPSON,
6

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 7 of 75 PageID #: 7
OFF. SISAVATH SINGHARATH, OFF. ASHLEY SMITH, OFF. QUINCY SMITH, OFF. JACOB STEIN, OFF. WILLIAM STEVENSON, OFF. SAMUEL STEWART, OFF. JOSLYN STONE, OFF. THOMAS STRECKFUSS, OFF. BRIAN STREHL, OFF. NATHAN STRICKLAND, OFF. STEVEN STROHMEYER, OFF. ROBERT STUART, OFF. JOSEPH TATE, OFF. SOLOMON THURMAN, OFF. ANTON TREIS, OFF. ROBERT TRIM, OFF. WILLIAM TRIPLETT, OFF. CHAD TULLOCK, OFF. ANTHONY VALENZA, OFF. JONATHAN VANARSDALE, OFF. PHILIP VONDERHEYDT, OFF. ERICH VONNIDA, OFF. NHONG VORACHACK, OFF. PAUL WACTOR, OFF. CHARLES WALL, OFF. RAMELLE WALLACE, OFF. MARTINOUS VASHON III WALLS III, OFF. BRADLEY WALWORTH, OFF. JEANINE WATERS, OFF. MATTHEW WELLE, OFF. DUANE WELLS, OFF. RANDALL WELSCH, OFF. LINDSEY WETHINGTON, OFF. ANDRE WHITE, OFF. CRISTINA WIDBIN, OFF. JOANN WILLIAMS , OFF. DARNELL WILLIS, OFF. LOUIS WILSON, OFF. ANDREW WISMAR, OFF. JAMES WOOD, OFF. JAMES WOOTEN, OFF. SAMUEL ZOUGLAS, OFF. RICHARD ZURMUEHLEN, OFF. JAMES ZWILLING, in their individual capacities and CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
On September 17, 2017, officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department
(“SLMPD”) illegally seized and subjected Plaintiffs Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain,
Ashley Theis, and Nicole Warrington (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”), and 118 other individuals
(collectively “putative class”) (the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class are collectively
7

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 8 of 75 PageID #: 8
“Plaintiffs”) to violence without probable cause and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and Missouri law. Defendant Officers1 either directly violated the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class’s civil rights or conspired to do the same. Defendant Officers unlawfully battered, arrested, prosecuted, and inflicted emotional distress on the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class and/or conspired to do the same.
Defendant Officers intentionally concealed their identities using military-like tactical dress and masks, making it exceedingly difficult to identify which Defendant Officer arrested, beat and/or used chemical munitions on each individual Plaintiff, so each Defendant Officer currently believed to be present at the kettling is being named in this suit. However, even if specific individual Defendant Officers cannot be identified, it is unquestionable that all Defendants Officers acted in concert to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights and to inflict terror on each and every one of them, as described below.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff brings this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments, as incorporated as against States and their municipal divisions through the Fourteenth Amendment.

1

The term “Defendant Officers” means those officers identified in Paragraphs 7-9, below.

Plaintiffs note that it has been two years since the fateful events of September 17, 2017. Despite

an alleged, ongoing investigation by the City of St. Louis and a publicly announced investigation

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of

Missouri, the City of St. Louis still has not produced an accurate list of the officers involved in the

kettling of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have pled allegations against these specific Defendants based on

their inclusion on various incomplete lists provided by the City of St. Louis, the police report in

this matter, and testimony of SLMPD officers in other matters. Defendants anticipate dismissing

any named Defendants that are confirmed through discovery to have not been involved in either

the planning or execution of the SLMPD kettling arrests.

8

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 9 of 75 PageID #: 9
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff’s action arises under the Constitution of the United States and § 1343(a)(3) to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.
3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the City of St. Louis.
4. Divisional venue is proper in the Eastern Division because a substantial part of the events leading to the claims for relief arose in the City of St. Louis and Defendants reside in the Eastern Division. E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.07(A)(1), (B)(1).
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the included Missouri state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
6. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). PARTIES
7. Defendant Lawrence O’Toole was employed as a Lt. Colonel with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. On that date he was the acting Chief of Police and responsible for all management and direction of the SLMPD. Defendant O’Toole knew or should have known that there was no probable cause for the arrest of Plaintiffs and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs.
8. Defendants Lt. Colonel Gerald Leyshock, Major Kenneth Kegel, Captain Eric Larson, Captain Steven Mueller, Lieutenant Kimberly Allen, Lieutenant Scott Boyher, Lieutenant Daniel Chitwood, Lieutenant Donna Garrett, Lieutenant Darla Gray, Lieutenant Bill Kiphart, Lieutenant Christi Marks, Lieutenant Michael Mayo, Lieutenant Timothy Sachs, Sergeant Christy Allen, Sergeant Keith Barrett, Sergeant Ronald Bergmann, Sergeant Michael Binz, Sergeant
9

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 10 of 75 PageID #: 10
Michael Boll, Sergeant James Buckeridge, Sergeant Joe Carretero, Sergeant Anthony Caruso, Sergeant James Clark, Sergeant James Clark, Sergeant Adam Duke, Sergeant Kelly Fisher, Sergeant Brandt Flowers, Sergeant Nicole Gentilini, Sergeant Samuel Gilman, Sergeant Patrick Haug, Sergeant Richard Hellmeier, Sergeant Rodney Hickman, Sergeant Randy Jemerson, Sergeant Justin Johnson, Sergeant Matthew Karnowski, Sergeant Robert Lammert, Sergeant Joe Lankford, Sergeant Robert Laschober, Sergeant Tom Long, Sergeant Kyle Mack, Sergeant Mike Mandle, Sergeant Michael Marks, Sergeant Orlando Morrison, Sergeant James Murphy, Sergeant Dennis Neal, Sergeant Patricia Nijkamp, Sergeant Kenneth Nizick, Sergeant Donald Re, Sergeant Brian Rossomanno, Sergeant Bradley Roy, Sergeant John Sabin, Sergeant Daniel Schulte, Sergeant Brian Seppi, Sergeant Timothy Turner, Sergeant Scott Valentine, Sergeant Donnell Walters, Sergeant Scott Weidler, Sergeant Nicholas Weite, Sergeant Carolyn Wiener, and Sergeant Anthony Wozniak were employed as senior officers with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. These Defendants supervised SLMPD Officers during the events in question and knew or should have known that there was no probable cause for the arrest of Plaintiffs and class members and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs.
9. Defendants Detective James Bain, Detective Kevin Bently, Detective Jason Brandhorst, Detective Matthew Burle, Detective Daniel Chamblin, Detective Mickey Christ, Detective Tracy Cole , Detective Gaston Coleman, Detective Deandre Davis, Detective Jesse Dyson, Detective Bruce Edmond, Detective Richard Edwards, Detective Amon Figgs, Detective Shaviste Grandberry, Detective Tracy Hallquist, Detective George Henry, Detective Janika Humphrey, Detective Marilyn Johnson, Detective Deneane Jones, Detective Paul Kosednar, Detective Douglas McClean, Detective Terron Murphy, Detective Michael Shaw, Detective James
10

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 11 of 75 PageID #: 11
Stagge, Detective Thomas Strode, Detective Keaton Strong, Detective Kelli Swinton, Detective Jarred Thacker, Detective Stephen Walsh IV, Detective Brandon Webb, Detective Nijauh Woodard, Detective Marquise Wren, Detective Brandon Wyms, Officer Gerald Adams, Officer Alfred Allmon, Officer Jon Amesquita, Officer John Anderson, Officer Erica Anderson, Officer Kevin Bambrick, Officer Jermaine Banks, Officer Bryan Barton, Officer Benjamin Bayless, Officer Matthew Bedell, Officer Jacob Bias, Officer Marcus Biggins, Officer James Binder, Officer Anna Biondolillo, Officer Timothy Bockskopf, Officer Matthew Boester, Officer Tamarris Bohannon, Officer Dustin Boone, Officer Christopher Bramley, Officer Brian Brewer-Moore, Officer Lucas Brockmeyer, Officer Ryan Buscemi, Officer Michael Calcaterra, Officer Benjamin Cehic, Officer Michael Cheli, Officer Brian B Cheli, Officer Kristin Chelucci, Officer Paul Chester, Officer Russell Christian, Officer Marco Christlieb, Officer Brandon Clark, Officer Daniel Clauss, Officer Thearn Clements, Officer Kanisha Coleman, Officer Anthony Coll, Officer Bailey Colletta, Officer Julius Conner, Officer Robert Cooper, Officer David Crocker, Officer Ian Csapo, Officer Nadja Curt, Officer Kevin Dang, Officer Steven Daugherty, Officer Patrick Daut, Officer Jeremy Davis, Officer Emily Davis, Officer Roland Degregorio, Officer Brian DeMatteis, Officer William Douglas, Officer Nathan Dresch, Officer Jodie Eaton, Officer Richard Eaves, Officer Sam Edwards, Officer Matthew Eernisse, Officer Steven Fanz, Officer Brent Fincher, Officer Steven Fischer, Officer Zachariah Foltz, Officer Sean Fortune, Officer Glennon Frigerio, Officer Gregory Frost, Officer Aaron Gaddis, Officer Luis Garibay, Officer Adam Garibay, Officer Jazmon Dominique Garrett, Officer John Gentilini, Officer Ryan Gibbons, Officer Edward Gonzales, Officer Brian Gonzales, Officer Dereck Green, Officer Shawn Griggs, Officer Kathleen Gutjahr, Officer Jonathan Haire, Officer Tom Halfhill, Officer Joshua Hall, Officer Nicholas Harbaugh, Officer Thomas Harger, Officer James Harris III, Officer Zeme'z Harris, Officer
11

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 12 of 75 PageID #: 12
Benjamin Hawkins, Officer Amber Hawkins, Officer Henry Hayden, Officer Nicholas Hayden, Officer Brian Hayes, Officer Randy Hays, Officer Andrew Heimberger, Officer Erin Hein, Officer Nick Henderson, Officer Eric Henry, Officer Michael Hines, Officer Timothy Hollman, Officer Nicholas Holt, Officer Dustin Hoskins, Officer Taylor Hosna, Officer Carlus Ingram, Officer Matthew James, Officer Jeremy Johnson, Officer Reginald Jones, Officer Courtney Jordan, Officer Michael Joyner, Officer Josh Kamper, Officer Joseph Kerth, Officer Zohaib Khan, Officer Daniel Kim, Officer David King, Officer Austin King, Officer Jeremiah Koerper, Officer Steve Korte, Officer Ryan Kotaska, Officer Francis Koziacki, Officer David Krapf, Officer Abby Krull, Officer Jared Krumm, Officer Steven Landers, Officer Amy Laz, Officer Lawrence Lazewski, Officer Trenton Lee, Officer Nicholas Lee, Officer Brian Lemons, Officer Ryan Lindhorst, Officer Jeffrey Long, Officer Ronald Ludwig, Officer Alan Malone, Officer Joseph Marcantano, Officer Joshua Martin, Officer Sean Martini, Officer Nicholas Martorano, Officer Kevin Mataya, Officer Damon Maxwell, Officer Collin McAnany, Officer Joshua McBee, Officer Matthew McComy, Officer Luke McDonnell, Officer Jane McKibben, Officer Timothy McNamara, Officer Alexander Mesnage, Officer Michael Missel, Officer Joseph Morrell, Officer Joshua Morrison, Officer John Moton, Officer Nicholas Muehlheausler, Officer Aaron Muendlein, Officer Sean Murphy, Officer Ryan Murphy, Officer Brian Murphy, Officer Bianca Myers, Officer Christopher Myers, Officer Edward Napier, Officer Christopher Narez, Officer Courtney Nash, Officer Perrin Newman, Officer Michael Niethe, Officer Carianne Noga, Officer John O'Brien, Officer Michael O'Callaghan, Officer Uzoma Onwumere, Officer Nicola Orlando, Officer Stephe Ortinau, Officer Daniel Osorio, Officer Eric Parrish, Officer Jamie Partee, Officer Austin Patton, Officer Keith Paulitsch, Officer Mark Pfieffer, Officer Joseph Pierce, Officer Laquan Pierce, Officer Jaimie Pitterle, Officer Oliver Poggioli, Officer Christina Powderly, Officer Jack Randolph, Officer
12

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 13 of 75 PageID #: 13
Ahman Rasool, Officer Patrick Riordan, Officer Cornell Robinson, Officer Megan Rodgers, Officer Joseph Rodriguez, Officer Stephanie Rogers, Officer Rosa Rojas, Officer Michael Ronzio, Officer Geoffrey Rose, Officer Michael Ross, Officer Joseph Ross , Officer David Rudolph, Officer Gary Ruffin, Officer Terrence Ruffin, Officer Trevor Russell, Officer Ronald Rust, Officer Steven Saito, Officer Ohmed Samih, Officer Kyle Santa, Officer Joseph Scalzo, Officer Gregory Schaffer, Officer Richard Schicker, Officer Andrew Schmick, Officer Joseph Schmitt, Officer April Schnetzer, Officer Stephen IV Schroeder, Officer Christopher Seger, Officer Jonathan Selbert, Officer Jonathan Senf, Officer Matthew Shaw, Officer Keith Shelton, Officer Matthew Shoults, Officer Quincy Silver, Officer Tawanna Simms, Officer Kori Simon, Officer Mitchel Simpher, Officer Elijah Simpson, Officer Sisavath Singharath, Officer Ashley Smith, Officer Quincy Smith, Officer Jacob Stein, Officer William Stevenson, Officer Samuel Stewart, Officer Joslyn Stone, Officer Thomas Streckfuss, Officer Brian Strehl, Officer Nathan Strickland, Officer Steven Strohmeyer, Officer Robert Stuart, Officer Joseph Tate, Officer Solomon Thurman, Officer Anton Treis, Officer Robert Trim, Officer William Triplett, Officer Chad Tullock, Officer Anthony Valenza, Officer Jonathan Vanarsdale, Officer Philip VonderHeydt, Officer Erich Vonnida, Officer Nhong Vorachack, Officer Paul Wactor, Officer Charles Wall, Officer Ramelle Wallace, Officer Martinous Vashon III Walls III, Officer Bradley Walworth, Officer Jeanine Waters, Officer Matthew Welle, Officer Duane Wells, Officer Randall Welsch, Officer Lindsey Wethington, Officer Andre White, Officer Cristina Widbin, Officer Joann Williams , Officer Darnell Willis, Officer Louis Wilson, Officer Andrew Wismar, Officer James Wood, Officer James Wooten, Officer Samuel Zouglas, Officer Richard Zurmuehlen, and Officer James Zwilling were employed as officers with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. These Defendants knew or should have known that there was no probable cause
13

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 14 of 75 PageID #: 14
for the arrest of Plaintiffs and class members and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs.2
10. Defendant the City of St. Louis, Missouri (hereinafter, “City of St. Louis”) is a firstclass city, and a political subdivision of the State of Missouri duly organized under the Constitution of Missouri.
11. SLMPD is an instrumentality of the City of St. Louis, Missouri organized and controlled pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Missouri.
12. The Public Facilities Protection Corporation of the City of St. Louis insures the SLMPD.
13. Plaintiff Alicia Street is a resident of St. Louis County.
2 Other individuals have filed suit against the City of St. Louis as individual plaintiffs, based on the actions taken by SLMPD officers during the mass arrest or “kettling incident” on the evening of September 17, 2017:
• Fareed Alston v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01569 • Brian Baude v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01564 • Emily Davis v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01574 • Mark Gullet v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01571 • Lindsey Laird and Andre Roberts v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01567 • Alex Nelson and Iris Nelson v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01561 • Dillan Newbold v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01572 • Mario Ortega v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01576 • Christopher Robertson v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01570 • Keith Rose v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01568 • Demetrius Thomas v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01566 • Jonathan Ziegler v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01577
All Defendants should be on notice that they may be an unnamed “John Doe” defendant in one or more of these matters.
14

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 15 of 75 PageID #: 15
14. Plaintiff Ronald Harris is a resident of St. Louis County. 15. Plaintiff Fudail McCain is a resident of the City of St. Louis. 16. Plaintiff Ashley Theis is a resident of St. Charles County. 17. Plaintiff Nicole Warrington is a resident of the City of St. Louis.
FACTS A. Backdrop of Stockley Verdict 18. On Friday, September 15, 2017, after a four-day bench trial, a Missouri circuit court judge acquitted Officer Jason Stockley of the first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. See Exh. A, Stockley Verdict. 19. This acquittal shocked many in the St. Louis community as an audio recording submitted into evidence in the trial captured Officer Stockley saying “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know” in reference to Mr. Smith. Id. at 5. 20. Further, evidence showed that during the incident Officer Stockley was in possession of an assault rifle that had not been issued to him by the SLMPD. Id. at 23. 21. In addition, Officer Stockley claimed to find a gun in Mr. Smith’s car after he killed Mr. Smith. Id. at 25. 22. Only Officer Stockley’s DNA was found on the gun, leading many, including the Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, to believe that Stockley planted the gun on Mr. Smith after Mr. Smith’s death, in an effort to justify the killing. Id. at 12. 23. At trial, Officer Stockley’s partner did not testify in Stockley’s defense. Rather, the partner invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.3
3 See Joel Currier, Partner of Ex-St. Louis Cop Charged with Murder is Given Immunity, Ordered to Testify, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jul 27, 2016, available at
15

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 16 of 75 PageID #: 16
B. Protests Begin After the Verdict 24. Following the announcement of the Stockley Verdict, public protests began at multiple locations in St. Louis and surrounding communities. 25. To many in the St. Louis community, Officer Stockley’s acquittal was yet another example of white St. Louis-area police officers killing African-American citizens with impunity. 26. Further, in the view of the protestors, the acquittal further supported their view that the American criminal justice system does not believe that Black lives matter. 27. In response to the protests, St. Louis Metropolitan police officers amassed at several protests wearing military-like tactical dress, helmets, batons, and full-body riot shields and carrying chemicals, such as tear gas, skunk, inert smoke, pepper gas, pepper pellets, xylyl bromide, and/or similar substances (collectively, “chemical agents”). 28. This is in stark contrast to SLMPD’s appearance at a multitude of other unpermitted protests where the police themselves are not the target of the protest, including an antiDonald Trump march on November 13, 2016, the St. Louis Women’s March on January 21, 2017, the St. Louis LQBTQIA March and Rally on February 22, 2017, and the St. Louis March for Science on April 22, 2017. 29. Virtually all of the protests were non-violent. 30. On three occasions, a handful of protesters committed minor property damage, including broken windows and broken flowerpots.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/partner-of-ex-st-louis-cop-charged-withmurder-is/article_b85140b8-3744-55fb-83ee-3d9474cc70b3.html.
16

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 17 of 75 PageID #: 17
31. During the Stockley protests, SLMPD police officers without warning deployed chemical agents against individuals observing, recording, or participating in protest activity, including but not limited to the following:
a. The afternoon of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Clark and Tucker Avenues.
b. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of McPherson and Euclid Avenues.
c. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Waterman and Kingshighway Boulevards.
d. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Lindell and Euclid Avenues.
e. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Euclid and Maryland Avenues.
f. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Lindell and Kingshighway Boulevards.
g. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Pershing Place.
h. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, on Hortense Place. i. The evening of Sunday, September 17, 2017, near the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue. j. The evening of September 29, 2017 outside of Busch Stadium. 32. These incidents are consistent with the pattern and practice of SLMPD of indiscriminately using chemical agents without warning.
17

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 18 of 75 PageID #: 18
C. Post-Ferguson Federal Court Proceedings 33. In October 2014, SLMPD fired chemical agents at protestors on South Grand. 34. In November 2014, SLMPD officers fired chemical agents at protestors on South Grand as well as into a business where peaceful protestors had congregated. SLMPD officers refused to allow the protestors to leave. 35. On December 11, 2014, a federal judge in this District issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the SLMPD from enforcing any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officials the authority or discretion to: (1) utilize tear gas, inert smoke, pepper gas, or other chemical agents (collectively, “chemical agents”) for the purpose of dispersing groups of individuals who are engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis
(a) without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that such chemical agents will be utilized;
(b) without providing the individuals sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and exit the area;
(c) without minimizing the impact of such chemical agents on individuals who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands; and
(d) without ensuring that there is a means of safe egress from the area that is available to the individuals; and (2) utilize chemical agents on individuals engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis for the purpose of frightening them or punishing them for exercising their constitutional rights.
See Exh. B, Temporary Restraining Order in Templeton v. Dotson, No. 4:14-cv-02019 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 11, 2014) at 3.
36. This suit was in response to SLMPD firing chemical agents into a business where peaceful protestors had congregated without allowing the protestors to leave.
37. The City entered into a settlement agreement on March 25, 2015, where it agreed as follows:
18

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 19 of 75 PageID #: 19
A. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, and representatives, will not enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officials the authority or discretion to:
(1) utilize tear gas, inert smoke, pepper gas, or other chemical agents (collectively, “chemical agents”) for the purpose of dispersing groups of individuals who are engaged in non-criminal activity:
(a) without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that such chemical agents will be utilized;
(b) without providing the individuals sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and exit the area;
(c) without reasonably attempting to minimize the impact of such chemical agents on individuals who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands; and
(d) without ensuring that there is a means of safe egress from the area that is available to the individuals and announcing this means of egress to the group of individuals.
(2) utilize chemical agents on individuals engaged in non-criminal activity for the purpose of frightening them or punishing them for exercising their constitutional rights.
B. Provided, however, that Paragraph A hereof shall not be applicable to situations that turn violent and persons at the scene present an imminent threat of bodily harm to persons or damage to property, and when law enforcement officials must defend themselves or other persons or property against such imminent threat.
See Exh. C, Settlement Agreement in Templeton v. Dotson, No. 4:14-cv-02019 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 25,
2015) at 1-2.
D. SLMPD Violations of the Consent Decree
38. Less than two months after entering into this Consent Decree, SLMPD began to
violate the Decree.
39. On May 19, 2015, in response to protests over the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s
office’s refusal to charge another SLMPD officer for killing another African-American man,
SLMPD officers deployed chemical agents against peaceful, non-criminal protestors without
warning. See Exh. D, Transcript of Testimony, Volume 1, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17-cv-02455
(E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2017) at 69.
19

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 20 of 75 PageID #: 20
40. On August 19, 2015, a protest occurred because SLMPD officers killed another African-American man in the Fountain Park neighborhood. According to the testimony of Sarah Molina, a local attorney, SLMPD officers indiscriminately used chemical agents without giving an audible and intelligible warning at the intersection of Walton Avenue and Page Boulevard. Id. at 50-52. Molina testified that SLMPD officers fired chemical agents at her without giving her an opportunity to leave. Id. SLMPD officers continued using chemical agents against people fleeing the area and even fired chemical agents at people peacefully standing on or in their own properties. Id. Thirty minutes after the protests had dissipated, SLMPD officers returned and fired chemical agents at Ms. Molina, who was standing on property that she owns. Id.
41. On July 21, 2017, SLMPD officers used chemical agents against people protesting the treatment of detainees in the St. Louis City Workhouse. Id. at 71, 91. Although a few people did engage in unlawful activity earlier in the night, SLMPD officers pepper sprayed numerous people, none of whom were involved in criminal activity or were even at the same location as the criminal activity. These protesters were engaged in non-violent protesting when SLMPD officers sprayed them with chemical agents. Id.
42. Defendants’ action in the instant matter follows the same script whereby SLMPD officers violate the Constitutional rights of people expressing their First Amendment right to protest against the police. Defendants’ pattern and practice of illegally arresting and using chemical munitions against peaceful citizens is not only well documented but is detailed in Ahmad and Templeton.
20

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 21 of 75 PageID #: 21
E. The Buildup to the Kettling on September 17, 2017 43. This pattern and practice of utilizing chemical agents on individuals engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity continued on September 17, 2017. 44. According to Defendant Rossomanno, on September 17, 2017, between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM, a handful of individuals broke windows and destroyed flowerpots on the 900, 1000, and 1100 blocks of Olive Street in downtown St. Louis. See Exh. E, Transcript of Testimony, Volume 2, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17-cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2017) at 188. 45. There is no evidence nor allegations that Plaintiff was in any way involved in this destruction of property. 46. Defendants testified that Defendant Leyshock was the incident commander directing all of the supervisors including the other named Defendants. Id. at 191. 47. Defendants testified that Defendant Sachs was in direct command of the officers in tactical gear. Id. 48. Defendant Rossomanno also testified that at approximately 8:48 PM the small number of protestors present at the time were ordered to disperse and could “be subject to arrest and/or chemical munitions.” See Exh. F, Rossomanno Declaration, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2017), Doc. 33-6 at 4. 49. Defendant Rossomanno testified that a second dispersal order was given at 8:51 PM. Id. at 5. 50. Plaintiff was not present for these alleged dispersal orders. 51. Defendants Rossomanno and Jemerson directed people to the intersection of Washington and Tucker, where the Defendants had already decided that they would kettle, pepper spray, beat, and illegally arrest Plaintiff. See Exh. E at 195.
21

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 22 of 75 PageID #: 22
52. Although Defendant Sachs heard some sort of order being given, he testified that he could not make out “exactly what was being said.” See Exh. E at 25.
F. The Kettling 53. Over the next two plus hours, Defendant Officers began blocking roads and directing civilians to the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. 54. Defendant Karnowski testified that he and the officers under his command began to “push (the protestors) north” toward Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. See Exh. E at 125-126. He also testified that he determined that the protest that evening was an “unlawful assembly.” Id. at 136-137. 55. This area is home to many condominiums, apartment buildings, and businesses, including restaurants and bars. 56. Defendant Sachs came up with the plan to arrest everyone present. See Exh. E at 27. He presented his plan to Defendant Leyshock, who approved the plan. Id. The plan was to not let anyone leave that was in the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. Id. at 2740. 57. Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Rossomanno, and Jemerson knew or should have known that their plan to kettle the people that SLMPD directed to the intersection of Washington and Tucker and arrest them, merely for being present, would result in arrests without probable cause and the unjustified use of force to effectuate said arrests. 58. At approximately 11:15 PM or 11:20 PM, Defendant Officers began forming into lines. 59. This was nearly three hours after the windows and flowerpots were broken and many blocks away from the damaged businesses.
22

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 23 of 75 PageID #: 23
60. SLMPD’s Civil Disobedience Team appeared at the scene. 61. A line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Washington Avenue one block west of Tucker Boulevard. 62. A line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Tucker Boulevard one block north of Washington Avenue. 63. A line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Tucker Boulevard one block south of Washington Avenue. 64. All three of these lines were comprised of Defendant Officers all wearing militarylike tactical dress, including helmets. These Defendant Officers were carrying long wooden batons and full-body riot shields. 65. A fourth line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Washington Avenue one half block east of Tucker Boulevard. 66. These Defendant Officers were carrying bicycles and were being directed by Defendant Boyher. See Exh. E at 30-31. 67. Each of the four lines began to approach the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. 68. Without further instruction or warning, Defendant Officers surrounded Downtown residents, business patrons, protestors, observers, and members of the press, cutting off all routes of egress - including via any sidewalk - and prohibiting the people trapped inside from leaving. 69. As they approached, Defendant Officers began banging batons against their riot shields and the street in unison causing a foreboding and terrifying sound, akin to a war march.
23

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 24 of 75 PageID #: 24
70. As Defendant Officers began to close in on the citizens that SLMPD had forced into the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard, Defendant Officers blocked anyone from leaving the area.
71. Video evidence shows multiple citizens approaching Defendant Officers and requesting to be let through. These peaceful and lawful requests were not only ignored but responded to by screams of “get back!” See Exh. G.
72. In addition, the closing phalanxes of Defendant Officers cut off access to all alleys and other means of egress.
73. As the four lines closed, Defendant Officers trapped everyone who was within a one-block radius of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard.
74. This is a law enforcement tactic known as “kettling.” 75. Defendant Officers kettled self-admitted protestors, residents who merely lived in the area, people visiting businesses in the area, reporters, documentarians, a homeless person, and an even an undercover SLMPD officer. 76. Video evidence even shows the officers grabbing an African-American male who was outside of the kettle and throwing him into the kettle. 77. As the kettle closed, video evidence shows many individuals approaching the officers and begging to pass. 78. Not surprisingly, the individuals in the kettle gravitated toward the line of bicycle officers rather than three lines of police in military gear, who were banging wooden batons against their riot shields. 79. Video evidence shows individuals peacefully approaching the bicycle officers with their hands up.
24

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 25 of 75 PageID #: 25
80. In response, the bicycle officers began to aggressively jab at the individuals using their bicycles as battering rams.
81. Defendants Boyher and Karnowski were directing these Defendant Officers. See Exh. E at 30, 119, and 124. Rather than defuse the situation, Defendants Boyher and Karnowski directed Defendant Officers under their command to use force against the peacefully assembled people and supervised the unlawful arrests.
82. Almost instantly and in unison, the other individuals in the kettle put their hands in the air as a sign of peaceful surrender.
83. Video shows Defendant Karnowski instigated the violence by pepper spraying a peaceful, obedient citizen whose hands were up.
84. Many individuals laid prostrate on the ground. Others sat down. And others, who could not fully get to the ground because of the mass of people inside of the kettle, got as close to the ground as possible.
85. Even though video evidence shows that none of the individuals inside the kettle were acting violently or aggressively, the individuals in the kettle were indiscriminately and repeatedly doused with chemical agents without warning by Defendant Officers.
86. Many were kicked, beaten, and dragged by Defendant Officers. 87. Upon information and belief, Defendants Myers, Boone, and Hays arrested and beat an undercover African-American SLMPD police officer who was near the intersection, breaking his jaw and possibly ending his career. Defendants Myers, Boone, and Hays face federal charges for their actions on September 17, 2019. Defendant Colletta has pled guilty to federal charges for her attempts to cover up the beating.
25

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 26 of 75 PageID #: 26
88. Some individuals caught in the kettle had been wearing goggles because they feared the deployment of chemical agents, based on the SLMPD’s well known pattern and practice of using chemical agents against peaceful protestors.
89. Others found paper masks on the ground or other objects in order to protect themselves as it became apparent that SLMPD was preparing to effectuate illegal and likely violent arrests.
90. In response, Defendant Officers roughly removed the goggles and then sprayed some of those individuals directly in the face.
91. At the same time, Defendant Officers screamed derogatory and homophobic epithets at individuals as they were being arrested.
92. These punitive measures were delivered by Defendant Officers without regard to the fact that the individuals were peaceful and compliant.
93. Defendant Rossomanno can be seen on video within arms-length of SLMPD officers who were pepper spraying and beating peaceful and compliant citizens. Rather than instructing these officers to cease violating the civil right of the citizens, Defendant Rossomanno took control of the situation and directed the officers’ unlawful actions.
94. Defendant Officers used hard plastic zip ties to arrest all of the individuals. Over two months later, several continue to suffer from pain and numbness in their hands due to the tightness of the zip ties.
95. Defendant Officers arrested 123 people that night. 96. During and after the arrests, Defendant Officers were observed high fiving each other, smoking celebratory cigars, taking selfies on their personal phones with arrestees against the arrestees will, and chanting “Whose Streets? Our Streets!”
26

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 27 of 75 PageID #: 27 97. That evening, the following celebratory picture was posted on Twitter by an
anonymous person:
98. By the coordinated actions of the officers in circling the assembly into the kettle and the systematic disbursement of the chemical agents, it is clear that these tactics were planned and that senior officials of the SLMPD not only had notice of but actually sanctioned the conduct of Defendants.
99. Defendants’ actions did not occur randomly. Rather, Defendants decided beforehand that they would make an example of the arrestees in an attempt to scare other citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights to protest against the SLMPD’s actions.
100. The next day, Defendant O’Toole, who was the SLMPD Acting Chief on September 17, 2017, reinforced the City’s ratification of the Defendants’ actions when he said, “I'm proud to say the city of St. Louis and the police owned the night,” while standing next to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.
27

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 28 of 75 PageID #: 28
101. The day after the arrests, Mayor Krewson further validated the illegal actions of
Defendant Officers when she thanked the officers “for the outstanding job they have been doing
over the last three days.” She added that she fully supported the actions of the officers.
102. On November 29, 2018, Defendant Myers, Boone, Hays, and Colletta, were
indicted for their actions on September 17, 2017. Emails quoted in the indictment show that the
officers were informed ahead of time that they would be deployed wearing military-like tactical
dress to conceal their identities in order to beat protestors. This is exactly what occurred to Plaintiff,
under the direct supervision and control of Defendants Leyshock, Boyher, Sachs, Jemerson,
Karnowski, and Rossomanno.
G. The Police Department Intentionally Ignored Its Own Policies
103. When detaining individuals in custody who require medical care, the City of St.
Louis and its SLMPD has established the following policy:
PRISONERS REQUIRING MEDICAL ATTENTION (72.6.1)
1. A medical emergency is defined as a condition which a reasonable person would expect a result in loss of life or function. Examples of medical emergencies include severe bleeding, fractures with displacement (bone out of alignment), loss of consciousness, non-responsiveness, and respiratory distress, severe chest pain or severe shortness of breath. This list is not all-inclusive. If you have any doubts, contact the on-duty nurse at the City Justice Center for guidance.
2. Should a prisoner require emergency medical attention, whether the injury or illness occurred during incarceration or not, an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) unit will be requested to respond to the holdover for medical evaluation and if necessary conveyance to the hospital. EMS will determine the destination hospital. An I/LEADS report will be prepared documenting all treatment received by the prisoner. If immediate first aid is administered by a Department employee or the paramedics, the injury and treatment will be noted in the Prisoner’s Log Book by the booking clerk.
3. Should a prisoner require non-emergency medical attention, the on-duty nurse at the City Justice Center will be contacted for guidance.
4. The confidential relationship of doctor and patient extends to prisoner patients and their physician.
5. In the event a prisoner is injured while in custody or shortly before being taken into custody, the Watch Commander will arrange to have photographs taken of any and
28

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 29 of 75 PageID #: 29
all visible injuries. The photographs will be treated as physical evidence. If practical, the photos should be taken both prior to the application of bandages, etc., and after the injury has received appropriate medical attention PRISONER HEALTH SCREENING (72.6.3) The following prisoner medical “receiving screening” information will be obtained and recorded on the Field Booking Form when prisoners are booked and verified upon their transfer to another facility or release: 1. Current health and medical history of the prisoner; (72.6.3.a) 2. Medication taken by the prisoner; (72.6.3.b) 3. Known medication/drug allergies; 4. Behavior, including state of consciousness and mental status; and (72.6.3.c) 5. Body deformities, trauma markings, bruises, lesions, jaundice (a yellowness of the skin and whites of the eyes), and ease of movement (72.6.3.d) NOTE: a copy of the Field Booking Form must be attached to the computerized Arrest Register whenever a prisoner is transferred to the City Justice Center. 104. On information and belief, the SLMPD and City of St. Louis Correctional Staff failed and/or refused to follow this policy when they provided no medical care to any of the people illegally pepper sprayed or who were hurt by the zip-cuffs. 105. Defendants’ decision to ignore the policy constitutes a custom and practice of failing and/or refusing to follow this policy designed to protect the safety and wellbeing of injured individuals in police custody, showing a deliberate indifference by Defendants to the rights of Plaintiff and other injured detainees. 106. Despite this policy, at no time between their arrest and their release from the St. Louis City Justice Center did any police officer or other city official provide any arrestee with medical care or give anything to them to wash the chemical agents out of their eyes, off their bodies, or off their clothes.
29

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 30 of 75 PageID #: 30
H. Arrest and Charges of Kettling Victims 107. Upon their release, all of the Plaintiffs were given summonses showing that they had been charged with “failure to disperse.” They were instructed to appear at St. Louis City Municipal Court on October 18, 2017. 108. They were charged as such even though Defendant Officers provided no means of egress, denied repeated requests to be allowed to leave, and kettled the individuals. 109. In at least one case, a person was thrown from outside of the kettle into the kettle by Defendant Officers and was subsequently arrested for failure to disperse. 110. The press release stated “[m]any of the demonstrators were peaceful, however after dark, the agitators outnumbered the peaceful demonstrators and the unruly crowd became a mob. Multiple businesses also sustained property damage and one officer suffered a serious injury.” 111. SLMPD used its Twitter account to disseminate this false statement to its approximately 70,000 followers. SLMPD subsequently deleted the tweet. 112. The video evidence, as the federal court observed, “shows no credible threat of force or violence to officers or property in this mixed commercial and residential area” – much less a mob. SLMPD also fails to mention that the “one officer who suffered a serious injury” was an undercover officer who was pepper sprayed and beaten by Defendants Myers, Boone, and Hays hours before the unlawful kettling. 113. Egregiously and in an attempt to further punish its victims, the SLMPD publicly released the addresses of Plaintiffs via Twitter. 114. During a preliminary injunction hearing, attorneys representing the City stated that it was the policy of the City of St. Louis that once property damage occurs, SLMPD is justified in declaring an unlawful assembly and then deploying chemical agents regardless of the proximity
30

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 31 of 75 PageID #: 31
of the target individuals in time or space to the property damage and regardless of if the people were engaged in criminal activity. According to the City, officers are justified to use chemical agents or beat and arrest anybody merely for being close to the area, even hours after the criminal activity has occurred.
115. On October 13, 2017, the St. Louis City Counselor’s office issued a letter stating “[a]s of today, the City Counselor is still reviewing the evidence against you in order to decide whether or not to file charges and it is not anticipated that this decision will be made prior to October 18, 2017. Therefore, you are released from any obligation to appear in Municipal Court on October 18, 2017, in connection with the offense being considered. After a review of the matter is completed, should a decision be made to file charges against you, you will be notified by mail of that decision and advised when and where to appear to defend against those charges.” See Exh. H.
I. Federal Court Injunctive Relief 116. On November 15, 2017, a judge in this District barred SLMPD from using many of the tactics described in this complaint. See Exh. I, Memorandum and Order of Preliminary Injunction, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17-cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2017). 117. The Court found that “[p]rotest activity began shortly after the announcement of the verdict on the morning of September 15, 2017. Protesters assembled in front of the state courthouse downtown near Tucker and Market streets. They did not have a permit to protest because the City of St. Louis does not require, and will not provide, a permit for protests.” Id. at 2.
31

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 32 of 75 PageID #: 32
118. The Court found that on September 17, 2017, there was some property damage downtown but Defendant Sachs “testified that he was unaware of any property damage occurring in the downtown area after 8:30 PM”. Id. at 9.
119. The Court found that Defendant Rossomanno gave a dispersal order before 10:00 PM but that “this order did not specify how far protesters had to go to comply with the directive to leave the area.” Id. at 8. The Court noted that Defendant Sachs “could not say ‘exactly how far would be enough’ to comply with this, or any, dispersal order.” Id. at 8-9.
120. The Court found that Defendant Sachs “testified that around 10:00 PM the decision was made to make a mass arrest of people remaining in the area of Tucker and Washington, which is three or four blocks away from where the earlier dispersal order was given.” Id. at 9. Yet, SLMPD continued to “freely allowed people ingress into the area after the initial dispersal order was given.” Id. at 11.
121. The Court found that at approximately 11:30 PM SLMPD began a mass arrest of everyone in the vicinity even though video evidence presented to the Court “does not shows a large crowd congregating in the streets” and “(n)o violent activity by protesters can be observed on the video.” Id. at 10. In fact, the “scene appears calm and most people appear relaxed.” Id. at 10-11. The only signs of disobedience seen on the video are “four to five individuals” sitting on Tucker Avenue, which was closed, and a small group of people yelling at the police. Id. at 10.
122. The video was taken from approximately 10:45 PM to the time of the arrests at 11:30 PM Id. at 12. The Court found that no audible warning could be heard on the video. Id.
123. The video “shows an unidentified officer walking around with a hand-held fogger shooting pepper spray at the arrestees, who all appear to be on the ground and complying with police commands. This officer issues no verbal commands to any arrestee, and no arrestee on the
32

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 33 of 75 PageID #: 33

video appears to be resisting arrest. The video shows other officers shouting at people on the

ground and making threatening gestures at them with mace. An unidentified (person) lying face

down on the ground is picked up by his feet by two officers and dragged across the pavement.” Id.

at 15-16.

124. In an attempt to defend the SLMPD’s actions, the City’s attorney “stated during

closing arguments that ‘the police have the right to tell people, at this point, we’re done for the

evening; there’s no – no more assembling; this assembly is over.’” Id. at 37. Not surprisingly, the

Court did not adopt this rationale as a basis for the arrests and the use of chemical agents.

125.

The Court made the following findings:

a. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims that the policies

or customs of defendant discussed below violate the constitutional rights of plaintiffs. Id.

at 35-36.

b. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are

likely to prevail on their claim that defendant’s custom or policy is to permit any officer to

declare an unlawful assembly in the absence of the force or violence requirement of St.

Louis City Ordinance 17.16.275 and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.060, in violation of plaintiffs’

First and Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 36.

c. Plaintiffs’ evidence of the activities in the Washington and Tucker

intersection on September 17, 2017, shows no credible threat of force or violence to

officers or property in this mixed commercial and residential area. Id. at 37. (Emphasis

added).

d. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence for purposes of awarding

preliminary injunctive relief that defendant’s custom or policy of committing discretionary

33

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 34 of 75 PageID #: 34
authority to police officers to declare unlawful assemblies in the absence of any threat of force or violent activity provides no notice to citizens of what conduct is unlawful, and it permits officers to arbitrarily declare “there’s no more assembling.” Id. at 37-38. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceedings that this discretion was in fact exercised in such a manner in violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Id.
e. Similarly, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on their claim that defendant’s custom or policy is to permit officers to issue vague dispersal orders to protesters exercising their first amendment rights in an arbitrary and retaliatory way and then to enforce those dispersal orders without sufficient notice and opportunity to comply before being subjected to uses of force or arrest, in violation of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 39.
f. Plaintiffs presented sufficient, credible evidence for purposes of awarding preliminary injunctive relief that defendant has a custom or policy, in the absence of exigent circumstances, of issuing dispersal orders to citizens engaged in expressive activity critical of police which are either too remote in time and/or too vaguely worded to provide citizens with sufficient notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply, inaudible and/or not repeated with sufficient frequency and/or by a sufficient number of officers to provide citizens with sufficient notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply, contradictory and inconsistent, not uniformly enforced, and retaliatory. Id. at 40.
g. Plaintiffs have also presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on their claim that defendant has a custom or policy of using chemical agents without warning on citizens engaged in expressive activity that is critical of police
34

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 35 of 75 PageID #: 35
or who are recording police in retaliation for the exercise of their first amendment rights, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 41.
h. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient, credible testimony and video evidence from numerous witnesses that they were maced without warning in the absence of exigent circumstances while they were not engaging in violent activity and either were not in defiance of police commands (because none were given) or were complying with those commands. Id. at 42.
i. The City’s custom or policy of authorizing the use of hand-held mace against non-violent protesters with no warning or opportunity to comply and in the absence of probable cause or exigent circumstances impermissibly circumvents the protections afforded by the Templeton settlement agreement and vests individual officers with unfettered discretion to exercise that authority in an arbitrary and retaliatory manner in violation of constitutional rights. Id. at 43-44.
j. Plaintiffs’ evidence — both video and testimony — shows that officers have exercised their discretion in an arbitrary and retaliatory fashion to punish protesters for voicing criticism of police or recording police conduct. When all of the evidence is considered, plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that they are likely to succeed on their claim that defendant has a custom or policy of deploying hand held pepper spray against citizens engaged in recording police or in expressive activity critical of police in retaliation for the exercise of their first amendment rights, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 44.
k. Plaintiffs have also presented sufficient evidence at this preliminary stage of the proceedings that the aforementioned customs or policies of defendant caused the
35

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 36 of 75 PageID #: 36
violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 44. That is because “it is well-settled law that a loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury” and “it is always in the public interest to protect constitutional rights.” Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 691 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), overruled on other grounds, Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo., 697 F.3d 678 (2012). Id. at 44-45. 126. Upon information and belief, senior officials of the SLMPD were directing such actions and conduct and/or tacitly accepting and encouraging such conduct by not preventing officers from engaging in such conduct and by not disciplining them when they did engage in such actions and conduct.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 127. The Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 128. A class action is a superior means by which Plaintiffs and putative class members can challenge the City’s unlawful actions on September 17, 2017. 129. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a)(1)-(4) and 23(b)(1) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 130. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions. 131. Plaintiffs propose a class defined as all persons who were herded, corralled, trapped and detained by Defendants on September 17, 2017, at the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and
36

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 37 of 75 PageID #: 37

Washington Avenue in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, arrested, and later transported to and

confined at the St. Louis Justice Center.

132. The class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), as

follows:

a. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) are satisfied because the class is

sufficiently numerous that joinder is impractical. There are approximately 123 class

members.

b. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) are satisfied because there are questions

of law or fact common to the class and each of the subclasses. The common questions of

law include:

i.

whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class were seized

when Defendants herded, corralled, and trapped them in the detainment area,

detained them for hours, deprived them the freedom to leave in violation of their

Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and

other constitutional and common law rights;

ii.

whether Defendants lacked the requisite probable cause to seize the

Named Plaintiffs and the putative class, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment

rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and other constitutional and

common law rights;

iii.

whether the Defendants lacked the requisite probable cause to arrest

and take the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class into custody and detain them

at the Justice Center, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment rights to be free

from unreasonable search and seizure other constitutional and common law rights;

37

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 38 of 75 PageID #: 38

iv.

whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class were lawfully

exercising their rights to freedom of speech, association, and assembly when

standing on the streets and sidewalks, as guaranteed by the United States and

Missouri Constitutions;

v.

whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class who were

lawfully on the public streets and sidewalks were acting reasonably within time,

place, and manner restrictions;

vi.

whether Defendants violated the rights of the Named Plaintiffs and

the putative class to freedom of expression, association, press, and assembly when

Defendants falsely detained, arrested and imprisoned Named Plaintiffs and the

putative class;

vii.

whether Defendants conspired to use excessive force, including the

use of chemical munitions, against Named Plaintiffs and the putative class.

viii.

whether the decision to initiate or conduct the mass arrests and the

orders concerning the manner in which Named Plaintiffs and the putative class were

to be herded, corralled, and trapped were made by officers of sufficient rank,

authority, influence, and discretion that they can be deemed policymakers under

Monell and its progeny;

ix.

whether Defendants, including high ranking officials of the

SLMPD, conspired and agreed and/or otherwise acted jointly among and between

themselves to herd, corral, trap and unlawfully detain, arrest and imprison Named

Plaintiffs and the putative class; and

38

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 39 of 75 PageID #: 39

x.

whether the decision to use excessive force, including the use of

chemical munitions, were made by officers of sufficient rank, authority, influence,

and discretion that they can be deemed policymakers under Monell and its progeny;

xi.

whether Defendants, including high ranking officials of the

SLMPD, conspired and agreed and/or otherwise acted jointly among and between

themselves to use excessive force, including the use of chemical munitions, against

Named Plaintiffs and the putative class; and

xii.

whether Defendants maliciously prosecuted Named Plaintiffs and

the putative class by filing false charges, and specifically by falsifying the arrest

reports and criminal complaints by identifying members of the SLMPD who did

not have personal knowledge of the conduct of Named Plaintiffs and the putative

class on September 17, 2017 as arresting officers.

c. The common questions of fact include:

i.

whether Defendants herded, corralled, trapped, and detained Named

Plaintiffs and the putative class preventing them from leaving the detainment area;

ii.

whether the Defendants gave Named Plaintiffs and the putative class

a cognizable order to disperse with sufficient specificity as to how Plaintiffs should

disperse to avoid arrest and the use of force prior to Plaintiffs’ detention and/or

arrest;

iii.

whether the nature and extent of the training SLMPD police officers

receive to conduct mass arrests is sufficient to protect citizens’ constitutionally

guaranteed rights;

39

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 40 of 75 PageID #: 40

iv.

whether Defendants failed to execute proper arrest documents,

including the completion of arrest reports and criminal complaints signed by

officers with the requisite personal knowledge of the offense allegedly committed

by a class member, in violation of the SLMPD’s mass arrest policies;

v.

whether the nature and extent of St. Louis Justice Center

confinement conditions, including food provisions, medical care, phone calls,

necessary toiletries, and the spatial conditions, are sufficient to protect citizens’

constitutionally guaranteed rights ;

vi.

whether there is a tacit or de facto SLMPD policy to intimidate,

abuse and harass demonstrators at rallies and protests; and

133. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) are satisfied because Named Plaintiffs’ claims

are typical of the claims of the class they seek to represent.

134. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) are satisfied because the representative parties

will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class they seek to represent. The Named

Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the members of the class they seek to represent.

Moreover, Named Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in litigating class actions and civil

rights claims.

135. The class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(l) because prosecution of separate

actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or incompatible

standards of conduct by the Defendants.

136. Additionally, the class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because common

questions predominate over individual questions, and prosecution of this action as a class action is

40

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 41 of 75 PageID #: 41
the superior method of adjudication. Factors that militate in favor of certification under Rule 23(b)(3) include:
a. The interest of members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions is minimal and would be burdensome in view of the evidence required and costs of proving the claims alleged herein;
b. It is desirable to concentrate the litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri because the events occurred in this district and involve federally-protected rights; and
c. Certification of the class will achieve great economies of time, effort, and expense and promote uniformity of decisions for the members of the class, thereby making a class action the superior method of adjudicating this controversy.
ALLEGATIONS (STREET) 137. At around 3:00 PM on September 17, 2017, Ms. Street arrived at SLMPD headquarters on Olive Street to participate in a protest of the Stockley verdict. 138. Ms. Street observed a peaceful protest. Protesters were in the intersection, and SLMPD had police vehicles blocking off the road. 139. Ms. Street and the other protesters marched westward, towards Jefferson Avenue, chanting along the way. The police followed behind the march. Eventually, Ms. Street stopped marching and got into the vehicle of a photographer she knew. 140. As Ms. Street and the photographer reached the intersection of Grand and Forest Park Avenue, she saw about 30 officers dressed in riot gear, facing north. After marching and chanting for about 10 minutes, the protesters headed back east, towards SLMPD headquarters. The protest remained peaceful and ended at around 7:00 PM. About 60 protesters remained in the area,
41

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 42 of 75 PageID #: 42
standing on sidewalks. 141. At around 8:00 PM, the remaining protesters started marching towards the Arch.
Ms. Street and another protester stayed behind to chat. About thirty minutes later, Ms. Street started walking, in an attempt to catch up with the other protesters. As she walked down Olive Street, Ms. Street saw a few overturned flowerpots. Ms. Street proceeded down 10th Street, towards Washington Avenue.
142. Between 10:00 PM and 11:00 PM, Ms. Street observed police arrest a man who had been conducting a live video stream. She also observed the scene of accident that was unrelated to the protest.
143. At around 11:00 PM, Ms. Street walked from the intersection of 8th Street and Locust Street, towards Tucker Avenue. Only about 20 protesters remained.
144. Once Ms. Street reached Tucker and Locust, she saw officers dressed in riot gear and protesters on the sidewalks. Ms. Street continued towards Tucker and Washington.
145. Ms. Street heard a dispersal order at about 11:10 PM. She noticed more police in riot gear lined up at Washington and 11th Street, a line at Tucker and St. Charles Street, and a line coming from the north.
146. Ms. Street attempted to leave the area through what she believed to be the only remaining means of egress: towards 14th Street. However, by the time Ms. Street reached Washington and 13th Street, officers had blocked that path as well.
147. As Ms. Street and three strangers approached the line, the officers told them they could not exit. One of those strangers was just coming home from work. Ms. Street and the others walked towards Washington and Tucker.
148. The line of police screamed, “Move back!” repeatedly while moving towards Ms.
42

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 43 of 75 PageID #: 43
Street and everyone else present. At that point, Ms. Street knew she was trapped and that she was being arrested.
149. Defendant Officers started firing pepper spray and yelling for everyone to get on the ground. Ms. Street got on the ground.
150. She could taste the pepper spray, so Ms. Street asked Defendant Jemerson, an SLMPD officer she knew, if she could put the facemask she was carrying over her face. Defendant Jemerson allowed Ms. Street to use her mask.
151. Yet, another officer standing behind Defendant Jemerson jabbed Ms. Street with his baton, yelling, “We said do not move!”
152. The force of the officer’s blow knocked Ms. Street’s glasses from her face. She quickly grabbed them to prevent them from breaking.
153. After about five minutes of kneeling on the concrete, an officer zip tied Ms. Street’s hands tight enough to cause excruciating pain.
154. Defendant Officers moved Ms. Street to the sidewalk in front of 314 City Bar. She waited there for 20 minutes before she was moved to a police van and transported to the St. Louis City Justice Center.
155. Defendant Officers took Ms. Street’s glasses. She was unable to see until she was released from custody at about 11:00 am on September 18, 2017.
ALLEGATIONS (HARRIS) 156. On Sunday, September 17, 2017, Mr. Harris and three of his cousins arrived in downtown St. Louis to observe what they believed could be a historical event in the public outcry against police brutality.
43

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 44 of 75 PageID #: 44
157. Mr. Harris and his cousins parked their vehicle on the parking lot at Soldier’s Memorial between 10:00 or 10:30 PM.
158. The atmosphere appeared to be that of any Sunday night. Many of the protesters had already left. Mr. Harris only noticed a handful of people outside; no one was blocking the road. Mr. Harris and his cousins intended to observe whatever remained of the protest and then head to Nara Café and Hookah Lounge on Washington Avenue.
159. Mr. Harris noticed several riot gear-clad police officers posted at each intersection he and his cousins passed as they walked down Tucker Boulevard en route to Washington Avenue. The officers did not speak to Mr. Harris or his cousins. Mr. Harris received no indication that he was not allowed to be in the area.
160. Once Mr. Harris and his cousins reached Washington Avenue, local press asked him a few questions. He spoke to them for about five minutes.
161. Thereafter, Mr. Harris noticed a line of police officers moving from 14th Street towards Tucker Boulevard. He decided to try to get back to his vehicle at that time, as he was concerned the police were going to get aggressive.
162. As Mr. Harris and his cousins walked past the intersection of Olive Street and Tucker Boulevard, another line of officers blocked their path, carrying shields and banging batons on the ground. The officers told Mr. Harris and his cousins that they had to disperse.
163. Mr. Harris told the officers that he and his cousins were trying to leave, but they needed to pass the police line. The officers refused and told Mr. Harris and his cousins to walk back towards Washington Avenue. Mr. Harris and his cousins complied.
164. Mr. Harris and his cousins walked back to the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue and attempted to turn right onto Washington. However, a line of bicycle
44

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 45 of 75 PageID #: 45
officers confronted them. Mr. Harris explained that he and his cousins were trying to leave, but the officers pushed their bicycles towards them and ordered them to turn back around. Mr. Harris and his cousins complied.
165. Seeing only one remaining path, Mr. Harris and his cousins attempted to turn right onto Tucker Boulevard. Their hopes were immediately dashed as they watched a line of officers approaching the intersection from that direction, carrying pepper spray and shields.
166. With the kettle complete, officers ordered Mr. Harris and everyone else present to get onto the ground, yelling, “You fucking activists! Get down! Get down!”
167. Mr. Harris immediately get down and laid on his stomach, and he urged those around him to do the same.
168. Despite Mr. Harris’s compliance, one officer stood on Mr. Harris’s back. Another stood on Mr. Harris’s neck. Simultaneously, officers sprayed Mr. Harris in the face with a continuous stream of pepper spray that left Mr. Harris choking for air.
169. Mr. Harris felt the officers grabbing for his arms, so he moved them to his back, allowing them to zip tie his hands. Yet, the officers made the zip ties unbearably tight.
170. Additionally, the officers removed Mr. Harris’s cellphone from his hand before cuffing him and threw Mr. Harris’s phone onto the ground. Mr. Harris has not seen his phone since.
171. Mr. Harris advised the officers that the ties were too tight. They gleefully responded, “We don’t care. You’re a fucking activist.”
172. Officers yanked Mr. Harris from the ground by his arms, injuring his back and shoulders.
45

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 46 of 75 PageID #: 46
173. Mr. Harris again advised the officers that his ties were too tight; his hands were numb. The officers repeated that they did not care about activists. Although Mr. Harris attempted to explain that he was not an activist, the officers ignored him and took him to the police wagon.
174. While being moved to the wagon, Mr. Harris asked officers to return his cellphone. They again ignored him and continued their refrain about activists getting what they deserve.
175. Once at the St. Louis City Justice Center, Mr. Harris was cramped into a cell with the other arrestees. There was not enough seating for everyone, the cell was oppressively hot, and, worse, Mr. Harris’s zip ties were still painfully tight. The police did not remove the zip ties until Mr. Harris was booked hours later.
176. Again, Mr. Harris asked for his cellphone, but officers did nothing. 177. Mr. Harris was released at about noon on September 18, 2017. SLMPD never returned Mr. Harris’s cellphone. Officers maintained that it was not among his property when he was booked. 178. For about three days, Mr. Harris had bruises on his back and neck, in the shapes of the officers’ footprints. For a week, Mr. Harris had cuts on his wrists from the zip ties; his hands were swollen and numb. Two years later, Mr. Harris continues to experience intermittent numbness in his hands. 179. Mr. Harris is nervous and afraid around police now. He has no faith in them. He attended a protest as an observer, and he was violently attacked and arrested without justification, as a result. Since the unlawful beating. Mr. Harris has been too afraid to express his constitutional rights by attending or observing protests.
46

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 47 of 75 PageID #: 47
ALLEGATIONS (McCAIN) 180. On Sunday, September 17, 2017, Mr. McCain and three of his family members arrived in downtown St. Louis to socialize and observe the protest. 181. As Mr. McCain and his family walked towards the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue, Mr. McCain encountered small groups of people with whom he discussed the Stockley verdict. 182. Mr. McCain noticed a police presence, but he did not believe anything was amiss. He did not observe any criminal acts or hear any dispersal orders. He had no idea that police were blocking means of egress. 183. Once he and his family reached Tucker and Washington, Mr. McCain noticed people he knew from school, Facebook, and around town, so he approached them to socialize. 184. After about 10-15 minutes at the intersection, a line of officers had reached his corner of the intersection and commanded him to stay back. Mr. McCain attempted to leave the area and return to the vehicle in which he had arrived. 185. However, with the kettle complete, officers told him and everyone present to “get on the ground.” 186. Mr. McCain immediately complied, lying face down on the ground. Yet, officers pepper sprayed him several times. 187. Next, the officers zip tied Mr. McCain’s hands tightly behind his back, causing pain in his hands. Mr. McCain also sustained cuts on his elbows. 188. Finally, officers took a photograph of Mr. McCain and transported him to the St. Louis City Justice Center by police van. 189. Mr. McCain washed the pepper spray from his own eyes when he reached the cell.
47

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 48 of 75 PageID #: 48
190. Mr. McCain was released from jail 12 hours later. ALLEGATIONS (THEIS)
191. On the evening of September 17, 2017, Ms. Theis went downtown with her two children to teach them about peaceful protests.
192. Near SLMPD headquarters, Ms. Theis and her children witnessed a dark blue sedan with darkened windows, which she assumed belonged to law enforcement, circle a group of protesters and then abruptly lunge toward them and reverse, in an attempt to hit peaceful protestors, without warning, before driving off.
193. After realizing that she and her children may have been in danger, Ms. Theis took her children home.
194. Later in the evening, Ms. Theis returned to downtown with a friend, expecting to see large crowds gathering and marching. However, by the time Ms. Theis and her friend arrived downtown, all of the protests had ended.
195. When she and her friend made it to Olive Street, near the Tucker Boulevard intersection, police came out of nowhere and surrounded their vehicle.
196. After the large group of officers passed Ms. Theis, she and her friend decided to get out of their vehicle to record the officers’ actions. Ms. Theis’s friend gave her a camera.
197. Ms. Theis and her friend walked silently on the sidewalk as they recorded the police.
198. The first thing Ms. Theis saw was SLMPD officers dressed in military garb form a line and begin to chant loudly.
199. Ms. Theis changed her position, so she could get a better angle of the police.
48

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 49 of 75 PageID #: 49
200. At that point, a police officer in a white shirt, who Ms. Theis believed to be a supervisor, told Ms. Theis and her friend they were permitted to record as long as they stayed on the sidewalk.
201. Ms. Theis immediately complied and joined members of the media, including a person known as “RebZ,” on a sidewalk corner.
202. It should have been apparent to anyone that Ms. Theis and the people she was gathered with were not protesting. Rather, they were exercising their constitutional rights to record law enforcement.
203. Because she was with an easily identifiable group of media members, Ms. Theis believed that she was safe. Sadly, she was wrong.
204. Throughout, Ms. Theis complied with the few directions that SLMPD officers gave her. When asked to move, she moved.
205. Eventually, it became apparent to her that SLMPD officers were repositioning themselves to surround and kettle everyone present.
206. However, Ms. Theis did not observe anyone disregarding commands or breaking any laws before the officers started corralling them.
207. Ms. Theis then observed a large black SLMPD police truck making an inaudible announcement.
208. At that point, other than some chanting, the police were acting normally. They were smiling.
209. Suddenly, the officers’ demeanors grew hostile. 210. Ms. Theis and her friend attempted to use an alley to get to their car, so they could leave.
49

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 50 of 75 PageID #: 50
211. Ms. Theis encountered an SLMPD officer who blocked her path and directed Ms. Theis to Washington and Tucker. Ms. Theis immediately complied.
212. Upon arriving at the intersection, Ms. Theis saw between 100 to 200 officers. The officers were pounding their batons against their shields and the ground.
213. Terrified, Ms. Theis and her friend again attempted to get to the friend’s car, which he had parked on Washington, just west of Tucker. When Ms. Theis arrived at her friend’s vehicle and attempted to enter it, a large contingent of SLMPD officers prevented Ms. Theis from doing so. The officer was carrying a large baton. Ms. Theis and her friend begged to be allowed to leave.
214. Police prevented Ms. Theis and her friend from getting in the car and leaving despite their desperate pleas.
215. Instead, an SLMPD officer pointed a large can of pepper spray at Ms. Theis and told her to “get out of here or else.” The officer directed Ms. Theis back to the intersection of Washington and Tucker.
216. Ms. Theis complied. When she returned to the intersection, she encountered a large group of terrified people trying to leave the area. Ms. Theis and the rest of the group tried to leave by going east on Washington Avenue.
217. They were prevented from leaving by a phalanx of bike officers spanning across the street and sidewalk.
218. Ms. Theis and others repeatedly asked to be allowed to leave, but they were denied as officers used their shields to push protesters down and on top of each other.
219. Ms. Theis was knocked to the ground, yelling to her friend “They are pushing us!” 220. Within seconds and without warning, SLMPD officers began to indiscriminately pepper spray the people that had been kettled.
50

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 51 of 75 PageID #: 51
221. Ms. Theis heard no instructions. 222. Several officers grabbed Ms. Theis by the arms and legs while she was blinded by the pepper spray. 223. The officers roughly zip-tied Ms. Theis, causing bruising on her wrists and arm. 224. Police asked Ms. Theis for her name and identification, but she was unable to provide her identification because her phone and wallet had been knocked to the ground as she was dragged by officers. 225. As she lay in compliance on the ground, Ms. Theis’s foot and ankle were trampled by officers walking around her. 226. Approximately two minutes after being zip tied, Ms. Theis was thrown into a van with a metal interior. 227. Ms. Theis was still blinded by the pepper spray but heard officers chanting “Everybody goes to jail” and “Whose streets? Our Streets!” as she sat in the van. 228. When Ms. Theis asked for help from officers to ease her discomfort from being sprayed and zip tied, an officer responded, “Fuck you.” 229. At the jail, Ms. Theis asked the nurse for medical attention. Ms. Theis informed the nurse that Ms. Theis suffers from lupus and that her lupus manifests on her skin. The nurse said that the jail did not have anything to help Ms. Theis but that Ms. Theis was required to provide a urine sample to test for pregnancy. Even knowing that Ms. Theis’s skin was extremely susceptible to pain and injury due to her lupus, the nurse made no effort to wash the pepper spray off of Ms. Theis’s body. 230. Ms. Theis spent just under 24 hours in jail, the whole time with pepper spray covering her skin, face, and eyes and causing her to feel like she was being tortured.
51

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 52 of 75 PageID #: 52
231. Ms. Theis continues to suffer pain in her foot and arm as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
232. Ms. Theis experiences anxiety and depression as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
233. Since being pepper sprayed, Ms. Theis continues to experience severe eye pain and has suffered a degradation in her sight.
234. Ms. Theis lost friends and lost her dream of being a journalist as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
235. Ms. Theis’s children are vicariously traumatized by the event, from witnessing their mother’s injuries and changed personality as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
ALLEGATIONS (WARRINGTON) 236. At approximately noon on September 17, 2017, Ms. Warrington headed downtown to observe the protest at the Metropolitan Police Department, 1915 Olive Street. 237. Ms. Warrington documented the goings-on by recording on her cellphone. 238. At about 8:00 PM, the protesters started marching from the police station to the heart of downtown; Ms. Warrington followed to continue her observation. At all times, she did not participate in the lawful protests. 239. By the time the protesters reached the intersection of Olive and Tucker Boulevard, the crowd dispersed, and people began to move more as individuals and small groups. 240. Ms. Warrington continued behind the people traveling down Olive Street. and her fellow observers followed other groups.
52

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 53 of 75 PageID #: 53
241. At approximately 8:30 PM, Ms. Warrington heard the sounds of flowerpots breaking along Olive Street. She was too far away to see who had broken the pots, but she saw the broken pieces on the ground as she passed.
242. As Ms. Warrington entered an alley off of Olive Street, she saw several people running from riot gear-clad police officers who had their weapons drawn.
243. Alarmed, Ms. Warrington decided to meet back up with her fellow observers sometime between 8:30 and 9:00 PM.
244. Ms. Warrington heard that the police were arresting a citizen near the Convention Center, so she and several other observers headed to Washington Avenue and observed that arrest.
245. Afterwards, as Ms. Warrington and the other observers headed down Washington, back towards Tucker Boulevard, she noticed smaller groups of people on Tucker. Ms. Warrington believed people were trying to find the companions they lost track of when the large crowd separated.
246. By about 10:30 PM, Ms. Warrington noticed an increased police presence on Tucker.
247. At about 11:20 PM, Ms. Warrington saw a man pushing a baby in a stroller. Fearing that the larger police presence and potential deployment of pepper spray could create a dangerous environment for the baby, Ms. Warrington separated from the other observers to warn the man to get his baby out of the area.
248. Subsequently, Ms. Warrington rejoined one of her fellow observers and noticed a line of police behind that observers.
249. Some of the other people in the area told Ms. Warrington that there was another line of police blocking another intersection, two blocks away.
53

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 54 of 75 PageID #: 54
250. Ms. Warrington and her acquaintance decided that they needed to find their other friend from whom they had separated and then leave the area.
251. Once they found him, Ms. Warrington and the two other observers tried to exit through an opening between police officers on the southeast side of the intersection of Washington and Tucker.
252. At about 11:25 PM, as Ms. Warrington and the other observers approached the opening, the police dressed in riot gear yelled, “Move back! Move back!” and hit their batons on the ground. One of the officers had his pepper spray out.
253. The officers moved towards Ms. Warrington and her companions, physically pushing them back into the intersection.
254. Other officers pushed in from the other sides, cramming Ms. Warrington’s group and other citizens into the intersection.
255. Ms. Warrington was not committing any criminal acts at that time, nor had she at any point that night.
256. Ms. Warrington did not observe anyone else committing any criminal acts at that time.
257. Yet, with the kettle complete, the officers yelled to the crowd, “You’re under arrest! Get down!”
258. Ms. Warrington and everyone else immediately got on the ground. 259. Ms. Warrington sat down and put her hands in the air. 260. An officer told her to lie down, so Ms. Warrington put her cell phone, which was still recording, on her chest and laid on her back. 261. An officer then told Ms. Warrington to lie on her stomach.
54

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 55 of 75 PageID #: 55
262. Because she thought it safest to keep her hands in the air while she rolled over, Ms. Warrington’s cell phone flew over her head as she turned.
263. One officer picked up Ms. Warrington’s phone and ended the recording. Another officer removed Ms. Warrington’s backpack from her back.
264. Ms. Warrington felt a warm liquid drip over her back and legs. At the time, Ms. Warrington believed an officer was urinating on her. She later learned that the officer sprayed her body with pepper spray.
265. Within a few minutes, an officer zip-tied Ms. Warrington’s hands behind her back. The officer kept pulling the ties tighter and tighter.
266. A few minutes after that, an officer brought Ms. Warrington to her feet and took her to a van for transport to jail.
267. Ms. Warrington was jailed for approximately twelve hours. 268. Ms. Warrington sat in a cell with about three dozen other women. They all coughed and sneezed throughout the night from the pungent odor emanating from the pepper spray. 269. The officers responsible for fingerprinting Ms. Warrington and the other arrestees coughed from the pepper spray, and one of them remarked, “Ah, the smell of justice.” 270. Ms. Warrington did not receive any medical treatment, but she was ordered to urinate in a cup to determine whether she was pregnant. 271. Because the zip ties were applied so tightly, Ms. Warrington had visible marks on her wrists for 24 hours. Her left hand, from her wrist to her thumb, was numb for two weeks. Her right hand, from her wrist to her thumb, was numb for two months.
55

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 56 of 75 PageID #: 56
272. The day after she was arrested, Ms. Warrington saw a motorcycle helmet on a counter as soon as she entered her workplace. At first glance, she thought the helmet was a policeissued and that the police left it there as a warning.
273. Ms. Warrington had to speak to a counselor. 274. As a result of her arrest, Ms. Warrington believes she would be more likely to call a friend than police if she were in danger. 275. Ms. Warrington does not believe police even see protestors as people.
COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
(Against All Defendant Officers) 276. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 277. Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to assemble and express Plaintiffs’ views protected by the freedom of association and freedom of speech clauses of the First Amendment, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 278. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by interfering with Plaintiffs ability to associate freely in public and express Plaintiffs’ views as part of a peaceful demonstration. 279. Observing and recording public protests, and the police response to those protests, is also a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination that is protected by the freedom of speech and freedom of the press clauses of the First Amendment, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
56

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 57 of 75 PageID #: 57
280. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech by interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to gather information and cover a matter of public interest.
281. Defendants engaged in these unlawful actions willfully and knowingly, acting with reckless or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
282. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress;
283. Additionally, Defendants’ actions described herein have had a chilling effect on Plaintiffs, who are now less likely to participate in free public discourse.
284. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 285. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment: Excessive Force
(Against All Defendant Officers) 286. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 287. The use of force against Plaintiffs, by inflicting harm through use of zip-cuffs tightly applied to Plaintiffs’ wrists, was objectively unreasonable. 288. The use of force against Plaintiffs by Defendant Officers, individually and acting concert, including spraying with chemical munitions, kicking, punching, slapping, dragging, and standing on some of Plaintiffs’ necks and backs, was objectively unreasonable.
57

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 58 of 75 PageID #: 58
289. The use of kettling, without warning, was objectively unreasonable and constituted excessive force.
290. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
291. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs suffered physical injury and emotional trauma.
292. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 293. Defendants engaged in these actions willfully and knowingly, acting with reckless or deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs were damaged. 294. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Against All Defendant Officers) 295. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 296. Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs. 297. Defendants unreasonably searched and seized Plaintiffs, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their person in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 298. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated, and/or failed to prevent in the conduct described herein.
58

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 59 of 75 PageID #: 59
299. Further, there was no objectively reasonable belief that Plaintiffs had committed a criminal offense, nor was there even arguable probable cause for the arrest. As such, the search and seizure were unreasonable.
300. Defendants engaged in these unlawful actions willfully and knowingly, acting with reckless or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs were damaged.
301. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 302. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights
(Against All Defendant Officers) 303. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 304. Defendants, acting in their individual capacities and under color of law, conspired together and with others, and reached a mutual understanding to undertake a course of conduct that violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights. 305. The City of St. Louis itself was a member of the conspiracy because throughout the night, the highest levels of the SLMPD, Department of Public Safety, and City government were involved in the planning, monitoring and/or execution of this event. 306. As described above, Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Jemerson, and Rossomanno conspired to design and implement the illegal kettling plan, with the intent to unlawfully arrest and use excessive force on Plaintiffs.
59

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 60 of 75 PageID #: 60
307. Defendants Boyher and Karnowski joined the conspiracy when they directed officers under their control and supervision to execute the illegal kettling plan, with the intent to unlawfully arrest and use excessive force on Plaintiffs.
308. The remaining Defendant Officers joined the conspiracy when they agreed to participate in the illegal kettling plan and then unlawfully arrested and used excessive force on Plaintiff.
309. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
310. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants committed the following overt acts: a. Defendants, acting in concert, kettled and unlawfully seized Plaintiff. They
detained Plaintiff’s in the City Justice Center for between 12 and 24 hours. b. Defendants used excessive force by tying Plaintiffs’ hands in the zip-cuffs. c. Defendants used excessive force by deploying chemical agent against
Plaintiffs. d. Defendants assaulted Plaintiffs. e. Defendants initiated charges against Plaintiffs that would chill a person of
ordinary firmness. 311. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy between Defendants and others as described above, Plaintiffs were subjected to assault; the use of excessive force; the deprivation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and malicious prosecution. 312. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain and injury and emotional trauma.
60

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 61 of 75 PageID #: 61
313. The acts described herein were intentional and callously indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs, thus entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
314. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 315. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT V 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs (Against All Defendants)
316. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
317. SLMPD and City of St. Louis Correctional Staff failed to provide medical care to Plaintiffs who were illegally pepper sprayed and/or hurt by the zip-cuffs.
318. Defendants deliberately ignored Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs by refusing to provide such medical care.
319. The failure to provide medical care exacerbated the pain and injury inflicted on Plaintiffs by Defendants.
320. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
321. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions described herein, Plaintiff suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiff’s own safety, fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress.
322. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law.
61

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 62 of 75 PageID #: 62
323. If Plaintiff prevails, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VI 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Municipal Liability Monell Claim for Failure to Train, Failure to Supervise, and for a Custom of Conducting Unreasonable Search and Seizures and Use of Excessive Force
(Against Defendant City) 324. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 325. Defendant City is liable to Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the remaining Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights because the violations were caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Among the SLMPD policies, practices, or customs that caused constitutional harm to Plaintiffs are the following:
a. SLMPD officers’ routine use of excessive force when policing protests, especially those at which police brutality is being protested;
b. SLMPD’s policy or custom of issuing vague and even contradictory dispersal orders without giving an opportunity to comply;
c. SLMPD’s policy of arbitrarily declaring unlawful assemblies in the absence of any threat or force or violent activity that provides no notice to citizens or unlawful conduct;
d. Additionally, SLMPD has a custom, policy, or practice of violating the Fourth Amendment by regularly conducting unreasonable seizures and arresting individuals without probable cause. 326. Defendant City had notice that its use of force training and officer supervision was inadequate and likely to result in constitutional violations based on multiple incidents of excessive
62

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 63 of 75 PageID #: 63
force against protestors in October 2014, November 2014, July 2015, August 2015, and September 2017.
327. Despite Defendant City’s March 2015 Templeton settlement agreement, SLMPD officers continue to use chemical agents against non-violent citizens, illustrating Defendant City’s deliberate and conscious choice to maintain training and supervision practices that give rise to constitutional violations.
328. Even after the Templeton settlement and the incidents that gave rise to it, Defendant City did not initiate or require comprehensive retraining of its officers, despite repeated, similar constitutional violations perpetrated by SLMPD officers after that settlement and before the incident at issue in this case.
329. In its failures, Defendant City has been deliberately indifferent to the rights of citizens, and these failures, policies, and customs are the moving force behind, and direct and proximate cause of, the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiff as alleged herein.
330. As a direct result of the Defendant City’s failures, policies, and customs as described herein, Plaintiff suffered damages, including physical injury, fear, apprehension, and concern for Plaintiff’s own safety.
331. The decision to initiate or conduct the mass arrests and the orders concerning the manner in which Plaintiffs were kettled was made by officers of sufficient rank, authority, influence, and discretion that they can be deemed policymakers under Monell and its progeny.
332. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
63

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 64 of 75 PageID #: 64
COUNT VII Missouri State Law – Battery
(Against All Defendants) 333. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 334. During the process of being unconstitutionally arrested, Plaintiffs suffered battery at the hands of Defendants. 335. Namely, Defendants’ physically aggressive tactics caused intentional and offensive bodily harm to Plaintiffs. 336. In spraying Plaintiffs with pepper spray — when Plaintiffs were passive and complying with Defendants’ directives — caused further intentional and offensive bodily contact. 337. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 338. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress. 339. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City. 340. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
64

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 65 of 75 PageID #: 65
341. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
342. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
COUNT VIII Missouri State Law – False Arrest
(Against All Defendants) 343. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 344. Plaintiffs were arrested without any legal justification or probable cause by Defendants. 345. Defendants proceeded to constrain and confine Plaintiffs against Plaintiffs’ free will. There was no lawful justification for Defendants restraining and confining Plaintiffs in the above manner. 346. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 347. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, fear, apprehension, and emotional trauma. 348. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
65

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 66 of 75 PageID #: 66
349. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
350. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
351. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
352. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as others similarly-situated individuals from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
COUNT IX Missouri State Law – False Imprisonment
(Against All Defendants) 353. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 354. Defendants intentionally restrained and confined Plaintiffs against Plaintiffs’ will when they took Plaintiffs into custody and detained Plaintiffs. 355. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ actions in removing and confining Plaintiffs in the manner described above, nor in any manner whatsoever.
66

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 67 of 75 PageID #: 67
356. There was no lawful justification for Defendants to restrain and confine Plaintiffs in the manner described above.
357. Defendants held Plaintiffs in confinement for a substantial period of time, spanning several hours.
358. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
359. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ false imprisonment by Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ own safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress.
360. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
361. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
362. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
363. Defendants’ actions in causing the false imprisonment of Plaintiffs, as described above, were carried out with an evil motive and/or reckless indifference and conscious disregard
67

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 68 of 75 PageID #: 68
for Plaintiff’s rights, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendants and others similarly situated from like conduct in the future.
COUNT X Missouri State Law – Abuse of Process
(Against All Defendants) 364. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 365. Defendants made an illegal, improper, and perverse use of process by arresting, charging, and detaining Plaintiffs without any legal justification or probable cause in order to harass and intimidate Plaintiff, which constitutes an improper collateral purpose. 366. Defendants acted willfully and knowingly when they abused legal process for unlawful purposes and with an illegitimate collateral objective, in that Defendants used legal process through their authority for purposes other than the legitimate investigation and prosecution of criminal acts. 367. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 368. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ abuse of process, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ own safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress; lost time; loss of employment opportunity; and loss of faith in society. 369. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
68

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 69 of 75 PageID #: 69
370. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
371. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
372. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
373. Defendants’ abuse of process, as described above, was carried out with an evil motive and/or reckless indifference and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendants and others similarly situated from like conduct in the future.
COUNT XI Missouri State Law – Malicious Prosecution
(Against All Defendants) 374. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 375. Defendants assisted in the filing of charges against Plaintiffs with no probable cause that Plaintiffs had committed a crime or ordinance violation. 376. Such charges were subsequently dismissed against Plaintiffs. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury,
69

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 70 of 75 PageID #: 70
emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ own safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress; lost time; loss of employment opportunity; and loss of faith in society.
377. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
378. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
379. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
380. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
381. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
COUNT XII Missouri State Law – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against All Defendants) 382. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
70

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 71 of 75 PageID #: 71
383. By assaulting Plaintiffs and spraying Plaintiffs with pepper spray, Defendants realized or should have realized that their conduct posed an unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs.
384. Further, Plaintiffs were reasonably in fear for Plaintiffs’ own person because of the actions of Defendants and suffered emotional distress or mental injury that is medically diagnosable and sufficiently severe to be medically significant as a result of Defendants’ actions.
385. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
386. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
387. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
388. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
389. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
71

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 72 of 75 PageID #: 72
COUNT XIII Missouri State Law – Conversion
(Against All Defendants) 390. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 391. SLMPD officers seized, discarded, or destroyed property owned by some Plaintiffs (“Converted Property”) during Plaintiffs’ wrongful and unconstitutional arrest. 392. Plaintiffs were the owners of Converted Property. 393. Defendants took possession of Converted Property without Plaintiffs’ permission. 394. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of the rights of possession of Converted Property. 395. Plaintiffs made demands on Defendants to return Converted Property. 396. Defendants failed to return Converted Property after Plaintiffs made such demands. 397. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of these actions in the form of actual damages for the purchase value of Converted Property, as well as for the loss of use of Converted Property. 398. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 399. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City. 400. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
72

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 73 of 75 PageID #: 73
401. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
COUNT XIV Missouri State Law – Conspiracy (Against All Defendant Officers) 402. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 403. Defendants, acting in their individual capacities and under color of law, conspired together and with others, and reached a mutual understanding to undertake a course of conduct that violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights. 404. Defendants entered into this conspiracy with the intent and objective to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs, as described herein. 405. As described above, Defendants conspired to design, implement, and participate in the illegal kettling plan, with the intent to unlawfully arrest and use excessive force on Plaintiffs. 406. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants committed the following overt acts: a. Defendants, acting in concert, kettled and unlawfully seized Plaintiffs. They detained Plaintiffs in the City Justice Center for many hours. b. Defendants used excessive force by, among other things, tying many Plaintiffs’ hands in zip-cuffs. c. Defendants used excessive force by deploying chemical agents against Plaintiffs. d. Defendants assaulted and battered many members of the putative class. e. Defendants initiated charges against Plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary firmness.
73

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 74 of 75 PageID #: 74
407. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy between Defendants and others as described above, Plaintiffs were subjected to assault; the use of excessive force; the deprivation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and malicious prosecution.
408. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain and injury and emotional trauma.
409. The acts described herein were intentional and callously indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs, thus entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
410. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 411. As members of the conspiracy, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages to Plaintiffs. 412. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City. 413. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.” 414. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against all Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
74

Case: 4:19-cv-02590 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/19 Page: 75 of 75 PageID #: 75

Date: September 17, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC
/s/ Javad M. Khazaeli Javad M. Khazaeli, 53735MO James R. Wyrsch, 53197MO Kiara N. Drake, 67129MO 911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 288-0777 (314) 400-7701 (fax) james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com kiara.drake@kwlawstl.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

75

 
 Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 1 of 68 PageID #: 1466

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ALICIA STREET, et.al

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

LT. COL. LAWRENCE OTOOLE, et. al )

)

Defendants.

)

Cause No. 4:19-cv-02590 Jury Trial Demanded

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

On September 17, 2017, officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”)

illegally seized and subjected Plaintiffs Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis, and

Nicole Warrington (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”), and 118 other individuals (collectively “putative

class” or “Class”) (the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class are collectively “Plaintiffs”) to violence

without probable cause and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and Missouri law. Defendant

Officers either directly violated the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class’s civil rights or conspired to do the same. Defendant Officers1 unlawfully seized, battered, arrested, prosecuted, and inflicted emotional

distress and physical harm on the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class and/or conspired to do the same.

1 The term “Defendant Officers” means those officers identified in Paragraphs 6, 8-10, below. Plaintiffs note that it has been two years since the fateful events of September 17, 2017. Despite an alleged, ongoing investigation by the City of St. Louis and a publicly announced investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, the City of St. Louis still has not produced an accurate list of the officers involved in the kettling and illegal arrest of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have pled allegations against these specific Defendants based on their inclusion on various incomplete lists provided by the City of St. Louis, the police report in this matter, and testimony of SLMPD officers in other matters. Defendants have dismissed Defendants that the City confirmed through discovery to have not been involved in either the planning or execution of the SLMPD kettling arrests.
1

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 2 of 68 PageID #: 1467
The acts were planned, implemented, and directed by the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the acting Chief of Police, Defendants Leyshock, Howard, Marks, Boyher, Karnowski, Sachs, Rossomanno, and Jemerson, acting as supervisors. Before the protests on the night in question, Defendants made plans to terrorize protesters. The plan was not designed to keep the peace, to serve the common good, or to protect citizens. It was designed to deter free speech and assembly. It was motivated by anger at the protesters and their message. It was, from the time it was conceived, and each time it was ratified during the events and after, a violation of clearly established constitutional law, including the First and Fourth Amendment.
Defendant Officers intentionally concealed their identities using military-like tactical dress and masks, making it exceedingly difficult to identify which Defendant Officer arrested, beat and/or used chemical munitions on each individual Plaintiff, so each Defendant Officer currently believed to be present at the kettling is being named in this suit. However, even if specific individual Defendant Officers cannot be identified, it is unquestionable that all Defendants Officers acted in concert to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights and to inflict terror on each and every one of them, as described below. It is equally clear that the kettling required planning and approval by the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department, including the acting Chief of Police. The events were a concerted, ratified plan that was not even arguably carried out within the bounds of state law or constitutional law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff brings this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments, as incorporated as against States and their municipal divisions through the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff’s action arises under the Constitution of the United States and § 1343(a)(3) to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.
2

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 3 of 68 PageID #: 1468
3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the City of St. Louis.
4. Divisional venue is proper in the Eastern Division because a substantial part of the events leading to the claims for relief arose in the City of St. Louis and Defendants reside in the Eastern Division. E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.07(A)(1), (B)(1).
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the included Missouri state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
6. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). PARTIES
7. Defendant Lawrence O’Toole was employed as a Lt. Colonel with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. On that date, he was the acting Chief of Police and, along with Defendant Charlene Deeken, was responsible for all management and direction of the SLMPD. Defendant O’Toole knew or should have known that there was no probable cause for the arrest of Plaintiffs and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs. Defendant O’Toole is a department head and is covered by Article VIII, Section 5 of the Charter of the City of St. Louis. Defendant O’Toole is sued in his individual capacity.
8. Defendant Charlene Deeken was employed as the Director of Public Safety for the City of St. Louis during the events of September 17, 2017. SLMPD is a subdivision of the St. Louis Department of Public Safety. As such, she was the direct supervisor of Defendant O’Toole. On September 17, 2017, Defendant Deeken and Defendant O’Toole were responsible for all management and direction of the SLMPD. Defendant Deeken is a department head and is covered by Article VIII, Section 5 of the Charter of the City of St. Louis. Defendant Deeken is sued in her individual capacity.
3

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 4 of 68 PageID #: 1469
9. Defendants Lt. Colonel Gerald Leyshock, Major Kenneth Kegel, Captain Eric Larson, Lieutenant Kimberly Allen, Lieutenant Scott Boyher, Lieutenant Daniel Chitwood, Lieutenant Bill Kiphart, Lieutenant Christi Marks, Lieutenant Michael Mayo, Lieutenant Timothy Sachs, Sergeant Keith Barrett, Sergeant Ronald Bergmann, Sergeant Michael Binz, Sergeant Michael Boll, Sergeant James Buckeridge, Sergeant Joe Carretero, Sergeant Anthony Caruso, Sergeant James Clark, Sergeant James Clark, Sergeant Adam Duke, Sergeant Kelly Fisher, Sergeant Brandt Flowers, Sergeant Samuel Gilman, Sergeant Patrick Haug, Sergeant Rodney Hickman, Sergeant Randy Jemerson, Sergeant Justin Johnson, Sergeant Matthew Karnowski, Sergeant Robert Lammert, Sergeant Joe Lankford, Sergeant Robert Laschober, Sergeant Tom Long, Sergeant Kyle Mack, Sergeant Mike Mandle, Sergeant Michael Marks, Sergeant James Murphy, Sergeant Dennis Neal, Sergeant Patricia Nijkamp, Sergeant Kenneth Nizick, Sergeant Donald Re, Sergeant Brian Rossomanno, Sergeant Bradley Roy, Sergeant John Sabin, Sergeant Daniel Schulte, Sergeant Brian Seppi, Sergeant Timothy Turner, Sergeant Scott Valentine, Sergeant Donnell Walters, Sergeant Scott Weidler, Sergeant Carolyn Wiener, and Sergeant Anthony Wozniak were employed as senior officers with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. These Defendants supervised SLMPD Officers during the events in question and knew or should have known that there was no probable cause for the arrest of Plaintiffs and class members and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs. These Defendants are sued in their individual capacities.
10. Defendants Detective James Bain, Detective Kevin Bently, Detective Jason Brandhorst, Detective Matthew Burle, Detective Daniel Chamblin, Detective Mickey Christ, Detective Tracy Cole , Detective Deandre Davis, Detective Jesse Dyson, Detective Bruce Edmond, Detective Richard Edwards, Detective Amon Figgs, Detective Shaviste Grandberry, Detective Tracy Hallquist, Detective George Henry, Detective Janika Humphrey, Detective Marilyn Johnson, Detective Paul Kosednar, Detective
4

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 5 of 68 PageID #: 1470
Douglas McClean, Detective James Stagge, Detective Thomas Strode, Detective Keaton Strong, Detective Kelli Swinton, Detective Jarred Thacker, Detective Stephen Walsh IV, Detective Brandon Wyms, Officer Gerald Adams, Officer Alfred Allmon, Officer Jon Amesquita, Officer John Anderson, Officer Erica Anderson, Officer Kevin Bambrick, Officer Jermaine Banks, Officer Bryan Barton, Officer Benjamin Bayless, Officer Matthew Bedell, Officer Jacob Bias, Officer Marcus Biggins, Officer James Binder, Officer Anna Biondolillo, Officer Timothy Bockskopf, Officer Matthew Boester, Officer Tamarris Bohannon, Officer Dustin Boone, Officer Christopher Bramley, Officer Brian Brewer-Moore, Officer Lucas Brockmeyer, Officer Ryan Buscemi, Officer Michael Calcaterra, Officer Benjamin Cehic, Officer Michael Cheli, Officer Brian Cheli, Officer Kristin Chelucci, Officer Paul Chester, Officer Marco Christlieb, Officer Brandon Clark, Officer Daniel Clauss, Officer Thearn Clements, Officer Kanisha Coleman, Officer Anthony Coll, Officer Bailey Colletta, Officer Julius Conner, Officer Robert Cooper, Officer David Crocker, Officer Ian Csapo, Officer Nadja Curt, Officer Kevin Dang, Officer Steven Daugherty, Officer Patrick Daut, Officer Jeremy Davis, Officer Emily Davis, Officer Roland Degregorio, Officer Brian DeMatteis, Officer William Douglas, Officer Nathan Dresch, Officer Jodie Eaton, Officer Richard Eaves, Officer Sam Edwards, Officer Matthew Eernisse, Officer Steven Fanz, Officer Brent Fincher, Officer Steven Fischer, Officer Zachariah Foltz, Officer Sean Fortune, Officer Glennon Frigerio, Officer Aaron Gaddis, Officer Luis Garibay, Officer Adam Garibay, Officer Jazmon Dominique Garrett, Officer John Gentilini, Officer Ryan Gibbons, Officer Edward Gonzales, Officer Brian Gonzales, Officer Dereck Green, Officer Shawn Griggs, Officer Kathleen Gutjahr, Officer Jonathan Haire, Officer Tom Halfhill, Officer Joshua Hall, Officer Nicholas Harbaugh, Officer Thomas Harger, Officer James Harris III, Officer Zeme'z Harris, Officer Amber Hawkins, Officer Henry Hayden, Officer Nicholas Hayden, Officer Brian Hayes, Officer Randy Hays, Officer Andrew Heimberger, Officer Erin Hein, Officer Nick Henderson, Officer Eric Henry, Officer Michael Hines, Officer Timothy Hollman, Officer Nicholas Holt,
5

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 6 of 68 PageID #: 1471
Officer Dustin Hoskins, Officer Taylor Hosna, Officer Carlus Ingram, Officer Matthew James, Officer Jeremy Johnson, Officer Reginald Jones, Officer Courtney Jordan, Officer Michael Joyner, Officer Josh Kamper, Officer Joseph Kerth, Officer Zohaib Khan, Officer Austin King, Officer Jeremiah Koerper, Officer Steve Korte, Officer Ryan Kotaska, Officer Francis Koziacki, Officer David Krapf, Officer Abby Krull, Officer Jared Krumm, Officer Steven Landers, Officer Amy Laz, Officer Lawrence Lazewski, Officer Trenton Lee, Officer Nicholas Lee, Officer Brian Lemons, Officer Ryan Lindhorst, Officer Jeffrey Long, Officer Ronald Ludwig, Officer Alan Malone, Officer Joseph Marcantano, Officer Joshua Martin, Officer Sean Martini, Officer Nicholas Martorano, Officer Kevin Mataya, Officer Damon Maxwell, Officer Collin McAnany, Officer Joshua McBee, Officer Matthew McComy, Officer Luke McDonnell, Officer Jane McKibben, Officer Timothy McNamara, Officer Alexander Mesnage, Officer Michael Missel, Officer Joseph Morrell, Officer Joshua Morrison, Officer John Moton, Officer Nicholas Muehlheausler, Officer Aaron Muendlein, Officer Ryan Murphy, Officer Brian Murphy, Officer Bianca Myers, Officer Christopher Myers, Officer Edward Napier, Officer Christopher Narez, Officer Courtney Nash, Officer Perrin Newman, Officer Michael Niethe, Officer Carianne Noga, Officer John O'Brien, Officer Michael O'Callaghan, Officer Uzoma Onwumere, Officer Nicola Orlando, Officer Stephe Ortinau, Officer Eric Parrish, Officer Jamie Partee, Officer Austin Patton, Officer Keith Paulitsch, Officer Mark Pfieffer, Officer Joseph Pierce, Officer Laquan Pierce, Officer Jaimie Pitterle, Officer Oliver Poggioli, Officer Christina Powderly, Officer Jack Randolph, Officer Ahman Rasool, Officer Patrick Riordan, Officer Cornell Robinson, Officer Megan Rodgers, Officer Joseph Rodriguez, Officer Stephanie Rogers, Officer Rosa Rojas, Officer Michael Ronzio, Officer Geoffrey Rose, Officer Michael Ross, Officer Joseph Ross , Officer Gary Ruffin, Officer Terrence Ruffin, Officer Trevor Russell, Officer Ronald Rust, Officer Ohmed Samih, Officer Kyle Santa, Officer Joseph Scalzo, Officer Gregory Schaffer, Officer Richard Schicker, Officer Andrew Schmick, Officer Joseph Schmitt, Officer April Schnetzer, Officer Stephen
6

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 7 of 68 PageID #: 1472

Schroeder IV, Officer Christopher Seger, Officer Jonathan Selbert, Officer Jonathan Senf, Officer Matthew Shaw, Officer Keith Shelton, Officer Matthew Shoults, Officer Quincy Silver, Officer Tawanna Simms, Officer Kori Simon, Officer Elijah Simpson, Officer Sisavath Singharath, Officer Ashley Smith, Officer Quincy Smith, Officer Jacob Stein, Officer William Stevenson, Officer Samuel Stewart, Officer Joslyn Stone, Officer Thomas Streckfuss, Officer Brian Strehl, Officer Nathan Strickland, Officer Steven Strohmeyer, Officer Robert Stuart, Officer Joseph Tate, Officer Solomon Thurman, Officer Anton Treis, Officer Robert Trim, Officer William Triplett, Officer Chad Tullock, Officer Anthony Valenza, Officer Jonathan Vanarsdale, Officer Philip VonderHeydt, Officer Erich Vonnida, Officer Nhong Vorachack, Officer Paul Wactor, Officer Charles Wall, Officer Ramelle Wallace, Officer Martinous Vashon Walls III, Officer Bradley Walworth, Officer Matthew Welle, Officer Duane Wells, Officer Randall Welsch, Officer Lindsey Wethington, Officer Andre White, Officer Cristina Widbin, Officer Darnell Willis, Officer Louis Wilson, Officer Andrew Wismar, Officer James Wood, Officer James Wooten, Officer Samuel Zouglas, Officer Richard Zurmuehlen, and Officer James Zwilling were employed as officers with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. These Defendants knew or should have known that there was no probable cause for the arrest of Plaintiffs and class members and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs.2 These Defendants are sued in their individual capacities.

2 Other individuals have filed suit in the District as individual plaintiffs against the City of St. Louis and some of these Defendant Officer, based on the mass arrest or “kettling incident” on the evening of September 17, 2017:

•

Fareed Alston v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01569

•

Brian Baude v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01564

•

Emily Davis v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01574

•

Mark Gullet v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01571

•

Lindsey Laird and Andre Roberts v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01567

•

Alex Nelson and Iris Nelson v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01561

•

Dillan Newbold v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01572

7

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 8 of 68 PageID #: 1473
11. Defendants Major Daniel Howard, Lieutenant Scott Aubuchon, Lieutenant Donnell Moore, Lieutenant Paul, Piatchek, Sergeant Curtis Burgdorf, Sergeant Darnell Dandridge, Sergeant John Jones, Sergeant Mark McMurry, Sergeant Michael Scego, Sergeant Timothy Schumann, Sergeant Stephen Slama, Sergeant Cliff Sommer, Officer Rebecca Andrews, Officer Joshua Becherer, Officer Joseph Bell, Officer Bennie Blackmon, Officer Daniel Book, Officer Timothy Boyce, Officer Joseph Busso, Officer Brett Carlson, Officer Kyle Chandler, Officer Lance Coats, Officer Daniel Cora, Officer Bradford Ellis, Officer Orie Figgs, Officer Michael Flatley, Officer Derrick Frye, Officer Fred Klefisch, Officer Jon Long, Officer Nicholas Manasco, Officer Brandon Moore, Officer Aaron Mueller, Officer Ronald Oft, Officer William Olsten 3 , Officer Lucas Roethlisberger, Officer Craig Sayer, Officer Mark Seper, Officer

•

Mario Ortega v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01576

•

Christopher Robertson v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01570

•

Keith Rose v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01568

•

Demetrius Thomas v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01566

•

Jonathan Ziegler v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01577

All Defendants should be on notice that they may be an unnamed “John Doe” defendant in one or more of these matters.

3 Defendant Olsten is currently being prosecuted in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for three felony counts of assault for pepper spraying citizens who were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights to protest the actions of SLMPD at a Stockley protest that occurred 12 days later. He, Defendant Vaughan, and Defendant Chandler are the subjects of several federal civil rights lawsuit pending in this District at that subsequent protest:

• Amir Brandy v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01674 • Crytsal Brown v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01676 • Rasheen Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01677 • Darryl Gray v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01678 • Calvin Kennedy v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-01679 • Heather De Mian v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-80 • Jazmin Franks v. City of St. Louis, et al., Cause No. 4:18-CV-02663

8

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 9 of 68 PageID #: 1474
Christopher Tanner4, Officer Matt Tesreau, Officer Ronald Vaughan, Officer Joshua Witcik, and Officer James Wurm were employed as officers with the SLMPD during the events of September 17, 2017, as detailed in this Complaint. These Defendants knew or should have known that there was no probable cause for the arrest of Plaintiffs and class members and that there was no legal justification to use force against Plaintiffs. These Defendants are sued in their individual capacities.
12. Defendant the City of St. Louis, Missouri (hereinafter, “City of St. Louis”) is a first class city, and a political subdivision of the State of Missouri duly organized under the Constitution of Missouri.
13. SLMPD is an instrumentality of the City of St. Louis, Missouri organized and controlled pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Missouri.
14. The Public Facilities Protection Corporation of the City of St. Louis insures the SLMPD. 15. Plaintiff Alicia Street is a resident of St. Louis County. 16. Plaintiff Ronald Harris is a resident of St. Louis County. 17. Plaintiff Fudail McCain is a resident of the City of St. Louis. 18. Plaintiff Ashley Theis is a resident of St. Charles County. 19. Plaintiff Nicole Warrington is a resident of the City of St. Louis.
FACTS A. Protests Begin After Stockley Verdict 20. On Friday, September 15, 2017, after a four-day bench trial, a Missouri circuit court judge acquitted Officer Jason Stockley of the first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. See Exh. A, Stockley Verdict. 21. Following the announcement of the Stockley Verdict, public protests began at multiple locations in St. Louis and surrounding communities.
4 Defendant Tanner is a Defendant in another federal civil rights lawsuit pending in this District where it is alleged that he used excessive force when he shot an African-American SLMPD Officer. Green v. City of St. Louis, Cause No. 4:19-CV-01711.
9

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 10 of 68 PageID #: 1475
22. To many in the St. Louis community, Officer Stockley’s acquittal was yet another example of white St. Louis-area police officers killing African-American citizens with impunity.
23. Further, in the view of the protestors, the acquittal further supported their view that the American criminal justice system does not believe that Black lives matter.
24. In response to the protests, St. Louis Metropolitan police officers amassed at several protests wearing military-like tactical dress, helmets, batons, and full-body riot shields and carrying chemicals, such as tear gas, skunk, inert smoke, pepper gas, pepper pellets, xylyl bromide, and/or similar substances (collectively, “chemical agents”).
25. This is in stark contrast to SLMPD’s appearance at a multitude of other unpermitted protests where the police themselves are not the target of the protest, including an anti-Donald Trump march on November 13, 2016, the St. Louis Women’s March on January 21, 2017, the St. Louis LQBTQIA March and Rally on February 22, 2017, and the St. Louis March for Science on April 22, 2017.
26. Virtually all of the protests relating to Stockley were non-violent. 27. During the Stockley protests, SLMPD police officers without warning deployed chemical agents against individuals observing, recording, or participating in protest activity, including but not limited to the following:
a. The afternoon of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Clark and Tucker Avenues.
b. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of McPherson and Euclid Avenues.
c. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Waterman and Kingshighway Boulevards.
10

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 11 of 68 PageID #: 1476
d. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Lindell and Euclid Avenues.
e. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Euclid and Maryland Avenues.
f. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Lindell and Kingshighway Boulevards.
g. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, near the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Pershing Place.
h. The evening of Friday, September 15, 2017, on Hortense Place. i. The evening of Sunday, September 17, 2017, near the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue. j. The evening of September 29, 2017 outside of Busch Stadium. 28. These incidents are consistent with the pattern and practice of SLMPD of indiscriminately using chemical agents and force without warning or any arguable belief of legal justification in an effort to deter free speech and assembly, when that speech opposes behavior by the police. 29. The purpose of the police response to the Stockley protests, including the events at issue in this complaint, was to terrorize citizens in order to deter messages the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department opposed. 30. Moreover, as is evident in the indictment filed in federal court by the US Attorney’s office, the violations of Constitutional rights were planned and part of a pattern and practice by SLMPD. For example, the following text messages were sent by police in advance of the events giving rise to this Complaint:
11

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 12 of 68 PageID #: 1477
a. “The more the merrier!!! It’s gonna get IGNORANT tonight!! But it’s gonna be a of lot of fun beating the hell out of these shitheads once the sun goes down and nobody can tell us apart!!!!”
b. “R u guys in [South Patrol Division] prepping anything for the war tonight?” c. “We reloading these fools up on prisoner busses. As they got on we all said in unison ‘OUR STREETS’ haha.” d. “Yeah. A lot of cops gettin hurt, but it's still a blast beating people that deserve it. And I’m not one of the people hurt, so I’m still enjoying each night.” e. “The problem is when they start acting like fools, we start beating the shit out of everyone on the street after we give two warnings.” 31. These messages are additional evidence that Defendants were motivated, before, during and after the events described herein by a common desire to deter speech and assembly, even to punish it. 32. These text messages also reveal a conspiracy to hide their identities, and that police officers viewed these interactions with citizens as a “Us v. Them” situation, rather than an effort to keep the peace while people exercised their constitutional rights. 33. The text messages, and the additional behavior described in this complaint, prove that any alleged justification for the kettling, use of chemical agents, excessive force, and arrests were pretext – attempts to justify the illegal behavior of the Defendants.
B. Post-Ferguson Federal Court Proceedings 34. In October 2014, SLMPD fired chemical agents at protestors on South Grand. 35. In November 2014, SLMPD officers fired chemical agents at protestors on South Grand as well as into a business where peaceful protestors had congregated. SLMPD officers refused to allow the protestors to leave.
12

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 13 of 68 PageID #: 1478
36. On December 11, 2014, a federal judge in this District issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining the SLMPD from enforcing any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officials
the authority or discretion to:
(1) utilize tear gas, inert smoke, pepper gas, or other chemical agents (collectively, “chemical agents”) for the purpose of dispersing groups of individuals who are engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis
(a) without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that such chemical agents will be utilized;
(b) without providing the individuals sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and exit the area;
(c) without minimizing the impact of such chemical agents on individuals who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands; and
(d) without ensuring that there is a means of safe egress from the area that is available to the individuals; and
(2) utilize chemical agents on individuals engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis for the purpose of frightening them or punishing them for exercising their constitutional rights.
See Exh. B, Temporary Restraining Order in Templeton v. Dotson, No. 4:14-cv-02019 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 11,
2014) at 3.
37. This suit was in response to SLMPD firing chemical agents into a business where peaceful
protestors had congregated without allowing the protestors to leave.
38. The City entered into a settlement agreement on March 25, 2015, where it agreed as
follows:
A. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, and representatives, will not enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officials the authority or discretion to:
(1) utilize tear gas, inert smoke, pepper gas, or other chemical agents (collectively, “chemical agents”) for the purpose of dispersing groups of individuals who are engaged in non-criminal activity:
(a) without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that such chemical agents will be utilized;
13

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 14 of 68 PageID #: 1479
(b) without providing the individuals sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and exit the area;
(c) without reasonably attempting to minimize the impact of such chemical agents on individuals who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands; and
(d) without ensuring that there is a means of safe egress from the area that is available to the individuals and announcing this means of egress to the group of individuals.
(2) utilize chemical agents on individuals engaged in non-criminal activity for the purpose of frightening them or punishing them for exercising their constitutional rights.
B. Provided, however, that Paragraph A hereof shall not be applicable to situations that turn violent and persons at the scene present an imminent threat of bodily harm to persons or damage to property, and when law enforcement officials must defend themselves or other persons or property against such imminent threat.
See Exh. C, Settlement Agreement in Templeton v. Dotson, No. 4:14-cv-02019 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 25,
2015) at 1-2.
C. SLMPD Violations of the Consent Decree
39. On May 19, 2015, in response to protests over the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s office’s
refusal to charge another SLMPD officer for killing another African-American man, SLMPD officers
deployed chemical agents against peaceful, non-criminal protestors without warning. See Exh. D,
Transcript of Testimony, Volume 1, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17-cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2017) at
69.
40. On August 19, 2015, a protest occurred because SLMPD officers killed another African-
American man in the Fountain Park neighborhood. According to the testimony of Sarah Molina, a local
attorney, SLMPD officers indiscriminately used chemical agents without giving an audible and intelligible
warning at the intersection of Walton Avenue and Page Boulevard. Id. at 50-52. Molina testified that
SLMPD officers fired chemical agents at her without giving her an opportunity to leave. Id. SLMPD
officers continued using chemical agents against people fleeing the area and even fired chemical agents
at people peacefully standing on or in their own properties. Id. Thirty minutes after the protests had
14

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 15 of 68 PageID #: 1480
dissipated, SLMPD officers returned and fired chemical agents at Ms. Molina, who was standing on property that she owns. Id.
41. On July 21, 2017, SLMPD officers used chemical agents against people protesting the treatment of detainees in the St. Louis City Workhouse. Id. at 71, 91. Although a few people did engage in unlawful activity earlier in the night, SLMPD officers pepper sprayed numerous people, none of whom were involved in criminal activity or were even at the same location as the criminal activity. These protesters were engaged in non-violent protesting when SLMPD officers sprayed them with chemical agents. Id.
42. Defendants’ action in the instant matter follows the same script whereby SLMPD officers violate the Constitutional rights of people expressing their First Amendment right to protest against the police. Defendants’ pattern and practice of illegally arresting and using chemical munitions against peaceful citizens is not only well documented but is detailed in Ahmad and Templeton.
D. The Buildup to the Kettling on September 17, 2017 43. This pattern and practice of utilizing chemical agents on individuals engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity continued on September 17, 2017. 44. According to Defendant Rossomanno, on September 17, 2017, between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM, a handful of individuals broke windows and destroyed flowerpots on the 900, 1000, and 1100 blocks of Olive Street in downtown St. Louis. See Exh. E, Transcript of Testimony, Volume 2, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17-cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2017) at 188. 45. There is no evidence nor allegations that Plaintiffs were in any way involved in this destruction of property. 46. Defendants testified that Defendant Leyshock was the incident commander directing all of the supervisors including the other named Defendants. Id. at 191.
15

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 16 of 68 PageID #: 1481
47. Defendants testified that Defendant Sachs was in direct command of the officers in tactical gear. Id.
48. Defendant Rossomanno also testified that at approximately 8:48 PM the small number of protestors present at the time were ordered to disperse and could “be subject to arrest and/or chemical munitions.” See Exh. F, Rossomanno Declaration, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2017), Doc. 33-6 at 4.
49. Defendant Rossomanno testified that a second dispersal order was given at 8:51 PM. Id. at 5.
50. Defendants Rossomanno and Jemerson directed people to the intersection of Washington and Tucker, where the Defendants had already decided that they would kettle, pepper spray, beat, and illegally arrest Plaintiff. See Exh. E at 195.
51. Although Defendant Sachs heard some sort of order being given, he testified that he could not make out “exactly what was being said.” See Exh. E at 25.
E. The Kettling 52. Over the next two plus hours, Defendant Officers began blocking roads and directing civilians to the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. 53. Defendant Karnowski testified that he and the officers under his command began to “push (the protestors) north” toward Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. See Exh. E at 125-126. 54. This area is home to many condominiums, apartment buildings, and businesses, including restaurants and bars. 55. Defendant Sachs came up with the plan to arrest everyone present. See Exh. E at 27. He presented his plan to Defendant Leyshock, who approved the plan. Id. The plan was to not let anyone leave that was in the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. Id. at 27-40.
16

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 17 of 68 PageID #: 1482
56. Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Rossomanno, and Jemerson knew or should have known that their plan to kettle the people that SLMPD directed to the intersection of Washington and Tucker and arrest them, merely for being present, would result in arrests without probable cause and the unjustified use of force to effectuate said arrests.
57. At approximately 11:15 PM or 11:20 PM, Defendant Officers began forming into lines. 58. This was nearly three hours after the windows and flowerpots were broken and many blocks away from the damaged businesses. 59. SLMPD’s Civil Disobedience Team appeared at the scene. 60. A line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Washington Avenue one block west of Tucker Boulevard. 61. A line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Tucker Boulevard one block north of Washington Avenue. 62. A line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Tucker Boulevard one block south of Washington Avenue. 63. All three of these lines were comprised of Defendant Officers all wearing military-like tactical dress, including helmets. These Defendant Officers were carrying long wooden batons and fullbody riot shields. 64. A fourth line of Defendant Officers extended across all of the street and sidewalk on Washington Avenue one half block east of Tucker Boulevard. 65. These Defendant Officers were carrying bicycles and were being directed by Defendant Boyher. See Exh. E at 30-31. 66. Each of the four lines began to approach the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard.
17

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 18 of 68 PageID #: 1483
67. Without further instruction or warning, Defendant Officers surrounded Downtown residents, business patrons, protestors, observers, and members of the press, cutting off all routes of egress - including via any sidewalk - and prohibiting the people trapped inside from leaving.
68. As they approached, Defendant Officers began banging batons against their riot shields and the street in unison causing a foreboding and terrifying sound, akin to a war march.
69. As Defendant Officers began to close in on the citizens that SLMPD had forced into the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard, Defendant Officers blocked anyone from leaving the area.
70. Video evidence shows multiple citizens approaching Defendant Officers and requesting to be let through. These peaceful and lawful requests were not only ignored but responded to by screams of “get back!” See Exh. G.
71. In addition, the closing phalanxes of Defendant Officers cut off access to all alleys and other means of egress.
72. As the four lines closed, Defendant Officers trapped everyone who was within a one-block radius of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard.
73. This is a law enforcement tactic known as “kettling.” 74. Defendant Officers kettled self-admitted protestors, residents who merely lived in the area, people visiting businesses in the area, reporters, documentarians, a homeless person, and an even an undercover SLMPD officer. 75. Video evidence even shows the officers grabbing an African-American male who was outside of the kettle and throwing him into the kettle. 76. As the kettle closed, video evidence shows many individuals approaching the officers and begging to pass.
18

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 19 of 68 PageID #: 1484
77. Not surprisingly, the individuals in the kettle gravitated toward the line of bicycle officers rather than three lines of police in military gear, who were banging wooden batons against their riot shields.
78. Video evidence shows individuals peacefully approaching the bicycle officers with their hands up.
79. In response, the bicycle officers began to aggressively jab at the individuals using their bicycles as battering rams.
80. Defendants Boyher and Karnowski were directing these Defendant Officers. See Exh. E at 30, 119, and 124. Rather than defuse the situation, Defendants Boyher and Karnowski directed Defendant Officers under their command to use force against the peacefully assembled people and supervised the unlawful arrests.
81. Almost instantly and in unison, the other individuals in the kettle put their hands in the air as a sign of peaceful surrender.
82. Video shows Defendant Karnowski instigated the violence by pepper spraying a peaceful, obedient citizen whose hands were up.
83. Many individuals laid prostrate on the ground. Others sat down. And others, who could not fully get to the ground because of the mass of people inside of the kettle, got as close to the ground as possible.
84. Even though video evidence shows that none of the individuals inside the kettle were acting violently or aggressively, the individuals in the kettle were indiscriminately and repeatedly doused with chemical agents without warning by Defendant Officers.
85. Many were kicked, beaten, and dragged by Defendant Officers. 86. Upon information and belief, Defendants Myers, Boone, Hays, and Korte arrested and beat an undercover African-American SLMPD police officer who was near the intersection, breaking his jaw
19

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 20 of 68 PageID #: 1485
and possibly ending his career. Defendants Myers, Boone, and Korte face federal charges for their actions on September 17, 2019. Defendant Hays pled guilty to his role in beating the officer. Defendant Colletta pled guilty to federal charges for her attempts to cover up the beating.
87. Some individuals caught in the kettle had been wearing goggles because they feared the deployment of chemical agents, based on the SLMPD’s well known pattern and practice of using chemical agents against peaceful protestors.
88. Others found paper masks on the ground or other objects in order to protect themselves as it became apparent that SLMPD was preparing to effectuate illegal and likely violent arrests.
89. In response, Defendant Officers roughly removed the goggles and then sprayed some of those individuals directly in the face.
90. At the same time, Defendant Officers screamed derogatory and homophobic epithets at individuals as they were being arrested. 91. These punitive measures were delivered by Defendant Officers without regard to the fact that the individuals were peaceful and compliant. 92. Defendant Rossomanno can be seen on video within arms-length of SLMPD officers who were pepper spraying and beating peaceful and compliant citizens. Rather than instructing these officers to cease violating the civil right of the citizens, Defendant Rossomanno took control of the situation and directed the officers’ unlawful actions. 93. Defendant Officers used hard plastic zip ties to arrest all of the individuals. 94. Defendant Officers arrested 123 people that night. 95. During and after the arrests, Defendant Officers were observed high fiving each other, smoking celebratory cigars, taking selfies on their personal phones with arrestees against the arrestees will, and chanting “Whose Streets? Our Streets!”
20

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 21 of 68 PageID #: 1486

96. person:

That evening, the following celebratory picture was posted on Twitter by an anonymous

97. By the coordinated actions of the officers in circling the assembly into the kettle and the systematic disbursement of the chemical agents, it is clear that these tactics were planned and that senior officials of the SLMPD not only had notice of but actually sanctioned the conduct of Defendants.
98. Defendants’ actions did not occur randomly. Rather, Defendants decided beforehand that they would make an example of the arrestees in an attempt to scare other citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights to protest against the SLMPD’s actions.
99. The next day, Defendant O’Toole, who was the SLMPD acting Chief of Police on September 17, 2017, reinforced the City’s ratification of the Defendants’ actions when he said, “I’m proud to say the city of St. Louis and the police owned the night,” while standing next to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.
21

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 22 of 68 PageID #: 1487
100. The day after the arrests, Mayor Krewson further validated the illegal actions of Defendant
Officers when she thanked the officers “for the outstanding job they have been doing over the last three
days.” She added that she fully supported the actions of the officers.
101. On November 29, 2018, Defendant Myers, Boone, Hays, and Colletta, were indicted for
their actions on September 17, 2017. Emails quoted in the indictment show that the officers were informed
ahead of time that they would be deployed wearing military-like tactical dress to conceal their identities
in order to beat protestors. This is exactly what occurred to Plaintiff, under the direct supervision and
control of Defendants Leyshock, Boyher, Sachs, Jemerson, Karnowski, and Rossomanno.
102. The actions described here constitute illegal seizures, the use of excessive force, and arrest
without probable cause. The acts occurred to the entire class and constitute constitutional violations
against the entire class.
F. The Police Department Intentionally Ignored Its Own Policies
103. When detaining individuals in custody who require medical care, the City of St. Louis and
its SLMPD has established the following policy:
PRISONERS REQUIRING MEDICAL ATTENTION (72.6.1)
1. A medical emergency is defined as a condition which a reasonable person would expect a result in loss of life or function. Examples of medical emergencies include severe bleeding, fractures with displacement (bone out of alignment), loss of consciousness, nonresponsiveness, and respiratory distress, severe chest pain or severe shortness of breath. This list is not all-inclusive. If you have any doubts, contact the on-duty nurse at the City Justice Center for guidance.
2. Should a prisoner require emergency medical attention, whether the injury or illness occurred during incarceration or not, an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) unit will be requested to respond to the holdover for medical evaluation and if necessary conveyance to the hospital. EMS will determine the destination hospital. An I/LEADS report will be prepared documenting all treatment received by the prisoner. If immediate first aid is administered by a Department employee or the paramedics, the injury and treatment will be noted in the Prisoner’s Log Book by the booking clerk.
3. Should a prisoner require non-emergency medical attention, the on-duty nurse at the City Justice Center will be contacted for guidance.
4. The confidential relationship of doctor and patient extends to prisoner patients and their physician.
22

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 23 of 68 PageID #: 1488
5. In the event a prisoner is injured while in custody or shortly before being taken into custody, the Watch Commander will arrange to have photographs taken of any and all visible injuries. The photographs will be treated as physical evidence. If practical, the photos should be taken both prior to the application of bandages, etc., and after the injury has received appropriate medical attention
PRISONER HEALTH SCREENING (72.6.3) The following prisoner medical “receiving screening” information will be obtained and recorded on the Field Booking Form when prisoners are booked and verified upon their transfer to another facility or release: 1. Current health and medical history of the prisoner; (72.6.3.a) 2. Medication taken by the prisoner; (72.6.3.b) 3. Known medication/drug allergies; 4. Behavior, including state of consciousness and mental status; and (72.6.3.c) 5. Body deformities, trauma markings, bruises, lesions, jaundice (a yellowness of the skin
and whites of the eyes), and ease of movement (72.6.3.d) NOTE: a copy of the Field Booking Form must be attached to the computerized Arrest Register whenever a prisoner is transferred to the City Justice Center. 104. On information and belief, the SLMPD and City of St. Louis Correctional Staff failed and/or refused to follow this policy when they provided no medical care to any of the people illegally pepper sprayed or who were hurt by the zip-cuffs. 105. Defendants’ decision to ignore the policy constitutes a custom and practice of failing and/or refusing to follow this policy designed to protect the safety and wellbeing of injured individuals in police custody, showing a deliberate indifference by Defendants to the rights of Plaintiff and other injured detainees. 106. Despite this policy, at no time between their arrest and their release from the St. Louis City Justice Center did any police officer or other city official provide any arrestee with medical care or give anything to them to wash the chemical agents out of their eyes, off their bodies, or off their clothes.
23

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 24 of 68 PageID #: 1489
G. Arrest and Charges of Kettling Victims 107. Upon their release, all of the Plaintiffs were given summonses showing that they had been charged with “failure to disperse.” They were instructed to appear at St. Louis City Municipal Court on October 18, 2017. 108. They were charged as such even though Defendant Officers provided no means of egress, denied repeated requests to be allowed to leave, and kettled the individuals. 109. In at least one case, a person was thrown from outside of the kettle into the kettle by Defendant Officers and was subsequently arrested for failure to disperse. 110. The press release stated “[m]any of the demonstrators were peaceful, however after dark, the agitators outnumbered the peaceful demonstrators and the unruly crowd became a mob. Multiple businesses also sustained property damage and one officer suffered a serious injury.” 111. SLMPD used its Twitter account to disseminate this false statement to its approximately 70,000 followers. SLMPD subsequently deleted the tweet. 112. The video evidence, as the federal court observed, “shows no credible threat of force or violence to officers or property in this mixed commercial and residential area” – much less a mob. SLMPD also fails to mention that the “one officer who suffered a serious injury” was an undercover officer who was pepper sprayed and beaten by Defendants Myers, Boone, and Hays hours before the unlawful kettling. 113. Egregiously and in an attempt to further punish its victims, the SLMPD publicly released the addresses of Plaintiffs via Twitter. 114. During a preliminary injunction hearing, attorneys representing the City stated that it was the policy of the City of St. Louis that once property damage occurs, SLMPD is justified in declaring an unlawful assembly and then deploying chemical agents regardless of the proximity of the target individuals in time or space to the property damage and regardless of if the people were engaged in
24

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 25 of 68 PageID #: 1490
criminal activity. According to the City, officers are justified to use chemical agents or beat and arrest anybody merely for being close to the area, even hours after the criminal activity has occurred.
115. On October 13, 2017, the St. Louis City Counselor’s office issued a letter stating “[a]s of today, the City Counselor is still reviewing the evidence against you in order to decide whether or not to file charges and it is not anticipated that this decision will be made prior to October 18, 2017. Therefore, you are released from any obligation to appear in Municipal Court on October 18, 2017, in connection with the offense being considered. After a review of the matter is completed, should a decision be made to file charges against you, you will be notified by mail of that decision and advised when and where to appear to defend against those charges.” See Exh. H.
116. No members of the class have been prosecuted for the events in September 2017. This is further evidence the events described herein were never about enforcing the law, keeping the peace, or protecting the public. They were illegal acts, carried out with military-like planning, against citizens, designed to inflict fear in order to deter speech and assembly.
117. Sadly, the plan worked. The acts of the Defendants largely deterred further lawful, Constitutionally sanctioned protests.
H. Federal Court Injunctive Relief 118. On November 15, 2017, a judge in this District barred SLMPD from using many of the tactics described in this complaint. See Exh. I, Memorandum and Order of Preliminary Injunction, Ahmad v. St. Louis, No. 4:17-cv-02455 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2017). 119. The Court found that “[p]rotest activity began shortly after the announcement of the verdict on the morning of September 15, 2017. Protesters assembled in front of the state courthouse downtown near Tucker and Market streets. They did not have a permit to protest because the City of St. Louis does not require, and will not provide, a permit for protests.” Id. at 2.
25

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 26 of 68 PageID #: 1491
120. The Court found that on September 17, 2017, there was some property damage downtown but Defendant Sachs “testified that he was unaware of any property damage occurring in the downtown area after 8:30 PM”. Id. at 9.
121. The Court found that Defendant Rossomanno gave a dispersal order before 10:00 PM but that “this order did not specify how far protesters had to go to comply with the directive to leave the area.” Id. at 8. The Court noted that Defendant Sachs “could not say ‘exactly how far would be enough’ to comply with this, or any, dispersal order.” Id. at 8-9.
122. The Court found that Defendant Sachs “testified that around 10:00 PM the decision was made to make a mass arrest of people remaining in the area of Tucker and Washington, which is three or four blocks away from where the earlier dispersal order was given.” Id. at 9. Yet, SLMPD continued to “freely allowed people ingress into the area after the initial dispersal order was given.” Id. at 11.
123. The Court found that at approximately 11:30 PM SLMPD began a mass arrest of everyone in the vicinity even though video evidence presented to the Court “does not shows a large crowd congregating in the streets” and “(n)o violent activity by protesters can be observed on the video.” Id. at 10. In fact, the “scene appears calm and most people appear relaxed.” Id. at 10-11. The only signs of disobedience seen on the video are “four to five individuals” sitting on Tucker Avenue, which was closed, and a small group of people yelling at the police. Id. at 10.
124. The video was taken from approximately 10:45 PM to the time of the arrests at 11:30 PM Id. at 12. The Court found that no audible warning could be heard on the video. Id.
125. The video “shows an unidentified officer walking around with a hand-held fogger shooting pepper spray at the arrestees, who all appear to be on the ground and complying with police commands. This officer issues no verbal commands to any arrestee, and no arrestee on the video appears to be resisting arrest. The video shows other officers shouting at people on the ground and making threatening gestures
26

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 27 of 68 PageID #: 1492
at them with mace. An unidentified (person) lying face down on the ground is picked up by his feet by two officers and dragged across the pavement.” Id. at 15-16.
126. In an attempt to defend the SLMPD’s actions, the City’s attorney “stated during closing arguments that ‘the police have the right to tell people, at this point, we’re done for the evening; there’s no – no more assembling; this assembly is over.’” Id. at 37. Not surprisingly, the Court did not adopt this rationale as a basis for the arrests and the use of chemical agents.
127. The Court made the following findings: a. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims that the policies or
customs of defendant discussed below violate the constitutional rights of plaintiffs. Id. at 35-36. b. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are likely to
prevail on their claim that defendant’s custom or policy is to permit any officer to declare an unlawful assembly in the absence of the force or violence requirement of St.
Louis City Ordinance 17.16.275 and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.060, in violation of plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 36.
c. Plaintiffs’ evidence of the activities in the Washington and Tucker intersection on September 17, 2017, shows no credible threat of force or violence to officers or property in this mixed commercial and residential area. Id. at 37. (Emphasis added).
d. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence for purposes of awarding preliminary injunctive relief that defendant’s custom or policy of committing discretionary authority to police officers to declare unlawful assemblies in the absence of any threat of force or violent activity provides no notice to citizens of what conduct is unlawful, and it permits officers to arbitrarily declare “there’s no more assembling.” Id. at 37-38. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceedings that this discretion was in fact exercised in such a manner in violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Id.
27

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 28 of 68 PageID #: 1493
e. Similarly, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on their claim that defendant’s custom or policy is to permit officers to issue vague dispersal orders to protesters exercising their first amendment rights in an arbitrary and retaliatory way and then to enforce those dispersal orders without sufficient notice and opportunity to comply before being subjected to uses of force or arrest, in violation of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 39.
f. Plaintiffs presented sufficient, credible evidence for purposes of awarding preliminary injunctive relief that defendant has a custom or policy, in the absence of exigent circumstances, of issuing dispersal orders to citizens engaged in expressive activity critical of police which are either too remote in time and/or too vaguely worded to provide citizens with sufficient notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply, inaudible and/or not repeated with sufficient frequency and/or by a sufficient number of officers to provide citizens with sufficient notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply, contradictory and inconsistent, not uniformly enforced, and retaliatory. Id. at 40.
g. Plaintiffs have also presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on their claim that defendant has a custom or policy of using chemical agents without warning on citizens engaged in expressive activity that is critical of police or who are recording police in retaliation for the exercise of their first amendment rights, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 41.
h. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient, credible testimony and video evidence from numerous witnesses that they were maced without warning in the absence of exigent circumstances while they were not engaging in violent activity and either were not in defiance of police commands (because none were given) or were complying with those commands. Id. at 42.
28

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 29 of 68 PageID #: 1494
i. The City’s custom or policy of authorizing the use of hand-held mace against nonviolent protesters with no warning or opportunity to comply and in the absence of probable cause or exigent circumstances impermissibly circumvents the protections afforded by the Templeton settlement agreement and vests individual officers with unfettered discretion to exercise that authority in an arbitrary and retaliatory manner in violation of constitutional rights. Id. at 43-44.
j. Plaintiffs’ evidence — both video and testimony — shows that officers have exercised their discretion in an arbitrary and retaliatory fashion to punish protesters for voicing criticism of police or recording police conduct. When all of the evidence is considered, plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that they are likely to succeed on their claim that defendant has a custom or policy of deploying hand held pepper spray against citizens engaged in recording police or in expressive activity critical of police in retaliation for the exercise of their first amendment rights, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 44.
k. Plaintiffs have also presented sufficient evidence at this preliminary stage of the proceedings that the aforementioned customs or policies of defendant caused the violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 44. That is because “it is well-settled law that a loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury” and “it is always in the public interest to protect constitutional rights.” Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 691 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), overruled on other grounds, Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo., 697 F.3d 678 (2012). Id. at 44-45. 128. Upon information and belief, senior officials of the SLMPD were directing such actions and conduct and/or tacitly accepting and encouraging such conduct by not preventing officers from engaging in such conduct and by not disciplining them when they did engage in such actions and conduct.
29

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 30 of 68 PageID #: 1495
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 129. The Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 130. The class is defined as: all people who were kettled and arrested on September 17, 2017, at the corner of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue. 131. A class action is a superior means by which Plaintiffs and putative class members can challenge the City’s unlawful actions on September 17, 2017. 132. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a)(1)-(4) and 23(b)(1) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 133. The case also meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) as it presents core issues that, when resolved, drive resolution of liability for the class. 134. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions. 135. The class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), as follows:
a. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) are satisfied because the class is sufficiently numerous that joinder is impractical. There are approximately 123 class members.
b. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) are satisfied because there are questions of law or fact common to the class and each of the subclasses. The common questions of law include:
i. whether the planning, design and implementation of the kettling of protestors was merely pretextual and as a result, the unlawful intent was solely to terrorize and instill fear in citizens so that fewer anti-police protests would take place in violation of citizens’ constitutional rights and Missouri law;
ii. whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class were seized when Defendants herded, corralled, and trapped them in the detainment area, detained them for
30

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 31 of 68 PageID #: 1496
hours, deprived them the freedom to leave in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and other constitutional and common law rights;
iii. whether the Named Plaintiffs and putative class were falsely imprisoned when kettled;
iv. whether Defendants lacked the requisite probable cause to seize the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and other constitutional and common law rights;
v. whether the Defendants lacked the requisite probable cause to arrest and take the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class into custody and detain them at the Justice Center, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure other constitutional and common law rights;
vi. whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class were lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of speech, association, and assembly when standing on the streets and sidewalks, as guaranteed by the United States and Missouri Constitutions;
vii. whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class who were lawfully on the public streets and sidewalks were acting reasonably within time, place, and manner restrictions;
viii. whether Defendants violated the rights of the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class to freedom of expression, association, press, and assembly;
ix. whether Defendants conspired to use excessive force, including the use of chemical munitions, against Named Plaintiffs and the putative class;
x. whether the decision to initiate or conduct the mass arrests and the orders concerning the manner in which Named Plaintiffs and the putative class were to be herded,
31

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 32 of 68 PageID #: 1497
corralled, and trapped were made by officers of sufficient rank, authority, influence, and discretion that they can be deemed policymakers under Monell and its progeny;
xi. whether Defendants, including high ranking officials of the SLMPD, conspired and agreed and/or otherwise acted jointly among and between themselves to herd, corral, trap and unlawfully detain, arrest and imprison Named Plaintiffs and the putative class;
xii. whether the decision to use excessive force, including the use of chemical munitions, were made by officers of sufficient rank, authority, influence, and discretion that they can be deemed policymakers under Monell and its progeny;
xiii. whether Defendants, including high ranking officials of the SLMPD, conspired and agreed and/or otherwise acted jointly among and between themselves to use excessive force, including the use of chemical munitions, against Named Plaintiffs and the putative class;
xiv. whether Defendants maliciously prosecuted Named Plaintiffs and the putative class by filing false charges. c. The common questions of fact include:
i. whether Defendants herded, corralled, trapped, and detained Named Plaintiffs and the putative class preventing them from leaving the detainment area;
ii. whether the Defendants had any legal right to require Named Plaintiff and the putative class to disperse;
iii. whether the kettling, force, and arrests were part of a cohesive plan to deter speech and assembly;
iv. whether the kettling, force, and arrests were pre-planned to occur regardless of the behavior of the protesters;
32

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 33 of 68 PageID #: 1498
v. whether each and every defendant was part of a conspiracy to carry out the plan to deter speech and assembly;
vi. whether the nature and extent of the training SLMPD police officers receive to conduct mass arrests is sufficient to protect citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights;
vii. whether there is a tacit or de facto SLMPD policy to intimidate, abuse and harass demonstrators at rallies and protests when those protests have messages that are critical of the police. 136. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) are satisfied because Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class they seek to represent. 137. The requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) are satisfied because the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class they seek to represent. The Named Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the members of the class they seek to represent. Moreover, Named Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in litigating class actions and civil rights claims. 138. The class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(l) because prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or incompatible standards of conduct by the Defendants. 139. Additionally, the class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions predominate over individual questions, and prosecution of this action as a class action is the superior method of adjudication. Factors that militate in favor of certification under Rule 23(b)(3) include: a. The interest of members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions is minimal and would be burdensome in view of the evidence required and costs of proving the claims alleged herein;
33

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 34 of 68 PageID #: 1499
b. It is desirable to concentrate the litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri because the events occurred in this district and involve federallyprotected rights; and
c. Certification of the class will achieve great economies of time, effort, and expense and promote uniformity of decisions for the members of the class, thereby making a class action the superior method of adjudicating this controversy;
d. A single action preserves court resources and avoids undue complication and costs; e. A single action preserves the resources of the City of St. Louis.
ALLEGATIONS (STREET) 140. At around 3:00 PM on September 17, 2017, Ms. Street arrived at SLMPD headquarters on Olive Street to participate in a protest of the Stockley verdict. 141. Ms. Street observed a peaceful protest. Protesters were in the intersection, and SLMPD had police vehicles blocking off the road. 142. Ms. Street and the other protesters marched westward, towards Jefferson Avenue, chanting along the way. The police followed behind the march. Eventually, Ms. Street stopped marching and got into the vehicle of a photographer she knew. 143. As Ms. Street and the photographer reached the intersection of Grand and Forest Park Avenue, she saw about 30 officers dressed in riot gear, facing north. After marching and chanting for about 10 minutes, the protesters headed back east, towards SLMPD headquarters. The protest remained peaceful and ended at around 7:00 PM. About 60 protesters remained in the area, standing on sidewalks. 144. At around 8:00 PM, the remaining protesters started marching towards the Arch. Ms. Street and another protester stayed behind to chat. About thirty minutes later, Ms. Street started walking, in an attempt to catch up with the other protesters. Ms. Street proceeded down 10th Street, towards Washington Avenue.
34

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 35 of 68 PageID #: 1500
145. Between 10:00 PM and 11:00 PM, Ms. Street observed police arrest a man who had been conducting a live video stream. She also observed the scene of accident that was unrelated to the protest.
146. At around 11:00 PM, Ms. Street walked from the intersection of 8th Street and Locust Street, towards Tucker Avenue. Only about 20 protesters remained.
147. Once Ms. Street reached Tucker and Locust, she saw officers dressed in riot gear and protesters on the sidewalks. Ms. Street continued towards Tucker and Washington.
148. Ms. Street attempted to leave the area through what she believed to be the only remaining means of egress: towards 14th Street. However, by the time Ms. Street reached Washington and 13th Street, officers had blocked that path as well.
149. As Ms. Street and three strangers approached the line, the officers told them they could not exit. One of those strangers was just coming home from work. Ms. Street and the others walked towards Washington and Tucker.
150. The line of police screamed, “Move back!” repeatedly while moving towards Ms. Street and everyone else present. At that point, Ms. Street knew she was trapped and that she was being arrested.
151. Defendant Officers started firing pepper spray and yelling for everyone to get on the ground. Ms. Street got on the ground.
152. She could taste the pepper spray, so Ms. Street asked Defendant Jemerson, an SLMPD officer she knew, if she could put the facemask she was carrying over her face. Defendant Jemerson allowed Ms. Street to use her mask.
153. Yet, another officer standing behind Defendant Jemerson jabbed Ms. Street with his baton, yelling, “We said do not move!”
154. The force of the officer’s blow knocked Ms. Street’s glasses from her face. She quickly grabbed them to prevent them from breaking.
35

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 36 of 68 PageID #: 1501
155. After about five minutes of kneeling on the concrete, an officer zip tied Ms. Street’s hands tight enough to cause excruciating pain.
156. Defendant Officers moved Ms. Street to the sidewalk in front of 314 City Bar. She waited there for 20 minutes before she was moved to a police van and transported to the St. Louis City Justice Center.
157. Defendant Officers took Ms. Street’s glasses. She was unable to see until she was released from custody at about 11:00 am on September 18, 2017.
ALLEGATIONS (HARRIS) 158. On Sunday, September 17, 2017, Mr. Harris and three of his cousins arrived in downtown St. Louis to observe what they believed could be a historical event in the public outcry against police brutality. 159. Mr. Harris and his cousins parked their vehicle on the parking lot at Soldier’s Memorial between 10:00 or 10:30 PM. 160. The atmosphere appeared to be that of any Sunday night. Many of the protesters had already left. Mr. Harris only noticed a handful of people outside; no one was blocking the road. Mr. Harris and his cousins intended to observe whatever remained of the protest and then head to Nara Café and Hookah Lounge on Washington Avenue. 161. Mr. Harris noticed several riot gear-clad police officers posted at each intersection he and his cousins passed as they walked down Tucker Boulevard en route to Washington Avenue. The officers did not speak to Mr. Harris or his cousins. Mr. Harris received no indication that he was not allowed to be in the area. 162. Once Mr. Harris and his cousins reached Washington Avenue, local press asked him a few questions. He spoke to them for about five minutes.
36

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 37 of 68 PageID #: 1502
163. Thereafter, Mr. Harris noticed a line of police officers moving from 14th Street towards Tucker Boulevard. He decided to try to get back to his vehicle at that time, as he was concerned the police were going to get aggressive.
164. As Mr. Harris and his cousins walked past the intersection of Olive Street and Tucker Boulevard, another line of officers blocked their path, carrying shields and banging batons on the ground.
165. Mr. Harris told the officers that he and his cousins were trying to leave, but they needed to pass the police line. The officers refused and told Mr. Harris and his cousins to walk back towards Washington Avenue. Mr. Harris and his cousins complied.
166. Mr. Harris and his cousins walked back to the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue and attempted to turn right onto Washington. However, a line of bicycle officers confronted them. Mr. Harris explained that he and his cousins were trying to leave, but the officers pushed their bicycles towards them and ordered them to turn back around. Mr. Harris and his cousins complied.
167. Seeing only one remaining path, Mr. Harris and his cousins attempted to turn right onto Tucker Boulevard. Their hopes were immediately dashed as they watched a line of officers approaching the intersection from that direction, carrying pepper spray and shields.
168. With the kettle complete, officers ordered Mr. Harris and everyone else present to get onto the ground, yelling, “You fucking activists! Get down! Get down!”
169. Mr. Harris immediately get down and laid on his stomach, and he urged those around him to do the same.
170. Despite Mr. Harris’s compliance, one officer stood on Mr. Harris’s back. Another stood on Mr. Harris’s neck. Simultaneously, officers sprayed Mr. Harris in the face with a continuous stream of pepper spray that left Mr. Harris choking for air.
37

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 38 of 68 PageID #: 1503
171. Mr. Harris felt the officers grabbing for his arms, so he moved them to his back, allowing them to zip tie his hands. Yet, the officers made the zip ties unbearably tight.
172. Additionally, the officers removed Mr. Harris’s cellphone from his hand before cuffing him and threw Mr. Harris’s phone onto the ground. Mr. Harris has not seen his phone since.
173. Mr. Harris advised the officers that the ties were too tight. They gleefully responded, “We don’t care. You’re a fucking activist.”
174. Officers yanked Mr. Harris from the ground by his arms, injuring his back and shoulders. 175. Mr. Harris again advised the officers that his ties were too tight; his hands were numb. The officers repeated that they did not care about activists. Although Mr. Harris attempted to explain that he was not an activist, the officers ignored him and took him to the police wagon. 176. While being moved to the wagon, Mr. Harris asked officers to return his cellphone. They again ignored him and continued their refrain about activists getting what they deserve. 177. Once at the St. Louis City Justice Center, Mr. Harris was cramped into a cell with the other arrestees. There was not enough seating for everyone, the cell was oppressively hot, and, worse, Mr. Harris’s zip ties were still painfully tight. The police did not remove the zip ties until Mr. Harris was booked hours later. 178. Again, Mr. Harris asked for his cellphone, but officers did nothing. 179. Mr. Harris was released at about noon on September 18, 2017. SLMPD never returned Mr. Harris’s cellphone. Officers maintained that it was not among his property when he was booked. 180. For about three days, Mr. Harris had bruises on his back and neck, in the shapes of the officers’ footprints. For a week, Mr. Harris had cuts on his wrists from the zip ties; his hands were swollen and numb. Two years later, Mr. Harris continues to experience intermittent numbness in his hands.
38

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 39 of 68 PageID #: 1504
181. Mr. Harris is nervous and afraid around police now. He has no faith in them. He attended a protest as an observer, and he was violently attacked and arrested without justification, as a result. Since the unlawful beating. Mr. Harris has been too afraid to express his constitutional rights by attending or observing protests.
ALLEGATIONS (McCAIN) 182. On Sunday, September 17, 2017, Mr. McCain and three of his family members arrived in downtown St. Louis to socialize and observe the protest. 183. As Mr. McCain and his family walked towards the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Washington Avenue, Mr. McCain encountered small groups of people with whom he discussed the Stockley verdict. 184. Mr. McCain noticed a police presence, but he did not believe anything was amiss. He did not observe any criminal acts or hear any dispersal orders. He had no idea that police were blocking means of egress. 185. Once he and his family reached Tucker and Washington, Mr. McCain noticed people he knew from school, Facebook, and around town, so he approached them to socialize. 186. After about 10-15 minutes at the intersection, a line of officers had reached his corner of the intersection and commanded him to stay back. Mr. McCain attempted to leave the area and return to the vehicle in which he had arrived. 187. However, with the kettle complete, officers told him and everyone present to “get on the ground.” 188. Mr. McCain immediately complied, lying face down on the ground. Yet, officers pepper sprayed him several times.
39

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 40 of 68 PageID #: 1505
189. Next, the officers zip tied Mr. McCain’s hands tightly behind his back, causing pain in his hands. Mr. McCain also sustained cuts on his elbows.
190. Finally, officers took a photograph of Mr. McCain and transported him to the St. Louis City Justice Center by police van.
191. Mr. McCain washed the pepper spray from his own eyes when he reached the cell. 192. Mr. McCain was released from jail 12 hours later.
ALLEGATIONS (THEIS) 193. On the evening of September 17, 2017, Ms. Theis went downtown with her two children to teach them about peaceful protests. 194. Near SLMPD headquarters, Ms. Theis and her children witnessed a dark blue sedan with darkened windows, which she assumed belonged to law enforcement, circle a group of protesters and then abruptly lunge toward them and reverse, in an attempt to hit peaceful protestors, without warning, before driving off. 195. After realizing that she and her children may have been in danger, Ms. Theis took her children home. 196. Later in the evening, Ms. Theis returned to downtown with a friend, expecting to see large crowds gathering and marching. However, by the time Ms. Theis and her friend arrived downtown, all of the protests had ended. 197. When she and her friend made it to Olive Street, near the Tucker Boulevard intersection, police came out of nowhere and surrounded their vehicle. 198. After the large group of officers passed Ms. Theis, she and her friend decided to get out of their vehicle to record the officers’ actions. Ms. Theis’s friend gave her a camera. 199. Ms. Theis and her friend walked silently on the sidewalk as they recorded the police.
40

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 41 of 68 PageID #: 1506
200. The first thing Ms. Theis saw was SLMPD officers dressed in military garb form a line and begin to chant loudly.
201. Ms. Theis changed her position, so she could get a better angle of the police. 202. At that point, a police officer in a white shirt, who Ms. Theis believed to be a supervisor, told Ms. Theis and her friend they were permitted to record as long as they stayed on the sidewalk. 203. Ms. Theis immediately complied and joined members of the media, including a person known as “RebZ,” on a sidewalk corner. 204. It should have been apparent to anyone that Ms. Theis and the people she was gathered with were not protesting. Rather, they were exercising their constitutional rights to record law enforcement. 205. Because she was with an easily identifiable group of media members, Ms. Theis believed that she was safe. Sadly, she was wrong. 206. Throughout, Ms. Theis complied with the few directions that SLMPD officers gave her. When asked to move, she moved. 207. Eventually, it became apparent to her that SLMPD officers were repositioning themselves to surround and kettle everyone present. 208. However, Ms. Theis did not observe anyone disregarding commands or breaking any laws before the officers started corralling them. 209. At that point, other than some chanting, the police were acting normally. They were smiling. 210. Suddenly, the officers’ demeanors grew hostile. 211. Ms. Theis and her friend attempted to use an alley to get to their car, so they could leave. 212. Ms. Theis encountered an SLMPD officer who blocked her path and directed Ms. Theis to Washington and Tucker. Ms. Theis immediately complied.
41

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 42 of 68 PageID #: 1507
213. Upon arriving at the intersection, Ms. Theis saw between 100 to 200 officers. The officers were pounding their batons against their shields and the ground.
214. Terrified, Ms. Theis and her friend again attempted to get to the friend’s car, which he had parked on Washington, just west of Tucker. When Ms. Theis arrived at her friend’s vehicle and attempted to enter it, a large contingent of SLMPD officers prevented Ms. Theis from doing so. The officer was carrying a large baton. Ms. Theis and her friend begged to be allowed to leave.
215. Police prevented Ms. Theis and her friend from getting in the car and leaving despite their desperate pleas.
216. Instead, an SLMPD officer pointed a large can of pepper spray at Ms. Theis and told her to “get out of here or else.” The officer directed Ms. Theis back to the intersection of Washington and Tucker.
217. Ms. Theis complied. When she returned to the intersection, she encountered a large group of terrified people trying to leave the area. Ms. Theis and the rest of the group tried to leave by going east on Washington Avenue.
218. They were prevented from leaving by a phalanx of bike officers spanning across the street and sidewalk.
219. Ms. Theis and others repeatedly asked to be allowed to leave, but they were denied as officers used their shields to push protesters down and on top of each other.
220. Ms. Theis was knocked to the ground, yelling to her friend “They are pushing us!” 221. Within seconds and without warning, SLMPD officers began to indiscriminately pepper spray the people that had been kettled. 222. Ms. Theis heard no instructions. 223. Several officers grabbed Ms. Theis by the arms and legs while she was blinded by the pepper spray.
42

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 43 of 68 PageID #: 1508
224. The officers roughly zip-tied Ms. Theis, causing bruising on her wrists and arm. 225. Police asked Ms. Theis for her name and identification, but she was unable to provide her identification because her phone and wallet had been knocked to the ground as she was dragged by officers. 226. As she lay in compliance on the ground, Ms. Theis’s foot and ankle were trampled by officers walking around her. 227. Approximately two minutes after being zip tied, Ms. Theis was thrown into a van with a metal interior. 228. Ms. Theis was still blinded by the pepper spray but heard officers chanting “Everybody goes to jail” and “Whose streets? Our Streets!” as she sat in the van. 229. When Ms. Theis asked for help from officers to ease her discomfort from being sprayed and zip tied, an officer responded, “Fuck you.” 230. At the jail, Ms. Theis asked the nurse for medical attention. Ms. Theis informed the nurse that Ms. Theis suffers from lupus and that her lupus manifests on her skin. The nurse said that the jail did not have anything to help Ms. Theis but that Ms. Theis was required to provide a urine sample to test for pregnancy. Even knowing that Ms. Theis’s skin was extremely susceptible to pain and injury due to her lupus, the nurse made no effort to wash the pepper spray off of Ms. Theis’s body. 231. Ms. Theis spent just under 24 hours in jail, the whole time with pepper spray covering her skin, face, and eyes and causing her to feel like she was being tortured. 232. Ms. Theis continues to suffer pain in her foot and arm as a result of the events of September 17, 2017. 233. Ms. Theis experiences anxiety and depression as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
43

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 44 of 68 PageID #: 1509
234. Since being pepper sprayed, Ms. Theis continues to experience severe eye pain and has suffered a degradation in her sight.
235. Ms. Theis lost friends and lost her dream of being a journalist as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
236. Ms. Theis’s children are vicariously traumatized by the event, from witnessing their mother’s injuries and changed personality as a result of the events of September 17, 2017.
ALLEGATIONS (WARRINGTON) 237. At approximately noon on September 17, 2017, Ms. Warrington headed downtown to observe the protest at the Metropolitan Police Department, 1915 Olive Street. 238. Ms. Warrington documented the goings-on by recording on her cellphone. 239. At about 8:00 PM, the protesters started marching from the police station to the heart of downtown; Ms. Warrington followed to continue her observation. At all times, she did not participate in the lawful protests. 240. By the time the protesters reached the intersection of Olive and Tucker Boulevard, the crowd dispersed, and people began to move more as individuals and small groups. 241. Ms. Warrington continued behind the people traveling down Olive Street and her fellow observers followed other groups. 242. As Ms. Warrington entered an alley off of Olive Street, she saw several people running from riot gear-clad police officers who had their weapons drawn. 243. Alarmed, Ms. Warrington decided to meet back up with her fellow observers sometime between 8:30 and 9:00 PM. 244. Ms. Warrington heard that the police were arresting a citizen near the Convention Center, so she and several other observers headed to Washington Avenue and observed that arrest.
44

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 45 of 68 PageID #: 1510
245. Afterwards, as Ms. Warrington and the other observers headed down Washington, back towards Tucker Boulevard, she noticed smaller groups of people on Tucker. Ms. Warrington believed people were trying to find the companions they lost track of when the large crowd separated.
246. By about 10:30 PM, Ms. Warrington noticed an increased police presence on Tucker. 247. At about 11:20 PM, Ms. Warrington saw a man pushing a baby in a stroller. Fearing that the larger police presence and potential deployment of pepper spray could create a dangerous environment for the baby, Ms. Warrington separated from the other observers to warn the man to get his baby out of the area. 248. Subsequently, Ms. Warrington rejoined one of her fellow observers and noticed a line of police behind that observers. 249. Some of the other people in the area told Ms. Warrington that there was another line of police blocking another intersection, two blocks away. 250. Ms. Warrington and her acquaintance decided that they needed to find their other friend from whom they had separated and then leave the area. 251. Once they found him, Ms. Warrington and the two other observers tried to exit through an opening between police officers on the southeast side of the intersection of Washington and Tucker. 252. At about 11:25 PM, as Ms. Warrington and the other observers approached the opening, the police dressed in riot gear yelled, “Move back! Move back!” and hit their batons on the ground. One of the officers had his pepper spray out. 253. The officers moved towards Ms. Warrington and her companions, physically pushing them back into the intersection. 254. Other officers pushed in from the other sides, cramming Ms. Warrington’s group and other citizens into the intersection.
45

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 46 of 68 PageID #: 1511
255. Ms. Warrington was not committing any criminal acts at that time, nor had she at any point that night.
256. Ms. Warrington did not observe anyone else committing any criminal acts at that time. 257. Yet, with the kettle complete, the officers yelled to the crowd, “You’re under arrest! Get down!” 258. Ms. Warrington and everyone else immediately got on the ground. 259. Ms. Warrington sat down and put her hands in the air. 260. An officer told her to lie down, so Ms. Warrington put her cell phone, which was still recording, on her chest and laid on her back. 261. An officer then told Ms. Warrington to lie on her stomach. 262. Because she thought it safest to keep her hands in the air while she rolled over, Ms. Warrington’s cell phone flew over her head as she turned. 263. One officer picked up Ms. Warrington’s phone and ended the recording. Another officer removed Ms. Warrington’s backpack from her back. 264. Ms. Warrington felt a warm liquid drip over her back and legs. At the time, Ms. Warrington believed an officer was urinating on her. She later learned that the officer sprayed her body with pepper spray. 265. Within a few minutes, an officer zip-tied Ms. Warrington’s hands behind her back. The officer kept pulling the ties tighter and tighter. 266. A few minutes after that, an officer brought Ms. Warrington to her feet and took her to a van for transport to jail. 267. Ms. Warrington was jailed for approximately twelve hours. 268. Ms. Warrington sat in a cell with about three dozen other women. They all coughed and sneezed throughout the night from the pungent odor emanating from the pepper spray.
46

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 47 of 68 PageID #: 1512
269. The officers responsible for fingerprinting Ms. Warrington and the other arrestees coughed from the pepper spray, and one of them remarked, “Ah, the smell of justice.”
270. Ms. Warrington did not receive any medical treatment, but she was ordered to urinate in a cup to determine whether she was pregnant.
271. Because the zip ties were applied so tightly, Ms. Warrington had visible marks on her wrists for 24 hours. Her left hand, from her wrist to her thumb, was numb for two weeks. Her right hand, from her wrist to her thumb, was numb for two months.
272. The day after she was arrested, Ms. Warrington saw a motorcycle helmet on a counter as soon as she entered her workplace. At first glance, she thought the helmet was police-issued and that the police left it there as a warning.
273. Ms. Warrington had to speak to a counselor. 274. As a result of her arrest, Ms. Warrington believes she would be more likely to call a friend than police if she were in danger. 275. Ms. Warrington does not believe police even see protestors as people.
COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
(Against All Defendant Officers) 276. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 277. Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to assemble and express Plaintiffs’ views protected by the freedom of association and freedom of speech clauses of the First Amendment, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 278. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by interfering with Plaintiffs ability to associate freely in public and express Plaintiffs’ views as part of a peaceful demonstration.
47

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 48 of 68 PageID #: 1513
279. Observing and recording public protests, and the police response to those protests, is also a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination that is protected by the freedom of speech and freedom of the press clauses of the First Amendment, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
280. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech by interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to gather information and cover a matter of public interest.
281. Defendants engaged in these unlawful actions willfully and knowingly, acting with reckless or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
282. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress;
283. Additionally, Defendants’ actions described herein have had a chilling effect on Plaintiffs, who are now less likely to participate in free public discourse.
284. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 285. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment: Excessive Force
(Against All Defendant Officers) 286. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 287. The use of force against Plaintiffs, by inflicting harm through use of zip-cuffs tightly applied to Plaintiffs’ wrists, was objectively unreasonable.
48

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 49 of 68 PageID #: 1514
288. The use of force against Plaintiffs by Defendant Officers, individually and acting concert, including spraying with chemical munitions, kicking, punching, slapping, dragging, and standing on some of Plaintiffs’ necks and backs, was objectively unreasonable.
289. The use of kettling, without warning, was objectively unreasonable and constituted excessive force.
290. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
291. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs suffered physical injury and emotional trauma.
292. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 293. Defendants engaged in these actions willfully and knowingly, acting with reckless or deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs were damaged. 294. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Against All Defendant Officers) 295. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 296. Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs. 297. Defendants unreasonably searched and seized Plaintiffs, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their person in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
49

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 50 of 68 PageID #: 1515

298. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated, and/or failed to prevent in the conduct described herein.

299. Further, there was no objectively reasonable belief that Plaintiffs had committed a criminal

offense, nor was there even arguable probable cause for the arrest. As such, the search and seizure were

unreasonable.

300. Defendants engaged in these unlawful actions willfully and knowingly, acting with

reckless or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. As a direct and proximate result

of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs were damaged. 301. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law.

302. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988.

COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights
(Against All Defendant Officers)

303. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

304. Defendants, acting in their individual capacities and under color of law, conspired together

and with others, and reached a mutual understanding to undertake a course of conduct that violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights.
305. The City of St. Louis itself was a member of the conspiracy because throughout the night, the highest levels of the SLMPD, Department of Public Safety, and City government were involved in the

planning, monitoring and/or execution of this event.

306. As described above, Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Jemerson, and Rossomanno conspired

to design and implement the illegal kettling plan, with the intent to unlawfully arrest and use excessive

force on Plaintiffs.

50

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 51 of 68 PageID #: 1516
307. Defendants Boyher and Karnowski joined the conspiracy when they directed officers under their control and supervision to execute the illegal kettling plan, with the intent to unlawfully arrest and use excessive force on Plaintiffs.
308. The remaining Defendant Officers joined the conspiracy when they agreed to participate in the illegal kettling plan and then unlawfully arrested and used excessive force on Plaintiff.
309. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
310. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants committed the following overt acts: a. Defendants, acting in concert, kettled and unlawfully seized Plaintiff. They
detained Plaintiff’s in the City Justice Center for between 12 and 24 hours. b. Defendants used excessive force by tying Plaintiffs’ hands in the zip-cuffs. c. Defendants used excessive force by deploying chemical agent against Plaintiffs. d. Defendants assaulted Plaintiffs. e. Defendants initiated charges against Plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary
firmness. 311. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy between Defendants and others as described above, Plaintiffs were subjected to assault; the use of excessive force; the deprivation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and malicious prosecution. 312. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain and injury and emotional trauma. 313. The acts described herein were intentional and callously indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs, thus entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants. 314. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law.
51

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 52 of 68 PageID #: 1517
315. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT V 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs (Against All Defendants) 316. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 317. SLMPD and City of St. Louis Correctional Staff failed to provide medical care to Plaintiffs who were illegally pepper sprayed and/or hurt by the zip-cuffs. 318. Defendants deliberately ignored Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs by refusing to provide such medical care. 319. The failure to provide medical care exacerbated the pain and injury inflicted on Plaintiffs by Defendants. 320. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 321. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions described herein, Plaintiff suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiff’s own safety, fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress. 322. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 323. If Plaintiff prevails, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
52

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 53 of 68 PageID #: 1518

COUNT VI 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Municipal Liability Monell Claim for Failure to Train, Failure to Supervise, and for a Custom of Conducting Unreasonable Search and Seizures and Use of Excessive Force (Against Defendant City)

324. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

325. Defendant City is liable to Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the remaining Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights because the violations were caused by a policy, practice, or

custom of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Among the SLMPD policies, practices, or

customs that caused constitutional harm to Plaintiffs are the following:

a. SLMPD officers’ routine use of excessive force when policing protests, especially

those at which police brutality is being protested; b. SLMPD’s policy or custom of issuing vague and even contradictory dispersal

orders without giving an opportunity to comply;

c. SLMPD’s policy of arbitrarily declaring unlawful assemblies in the absence of any

threat or force or violent activity that provides no notice to citizens or unlawful conduct;

d.

Additionally, SLMPD has a custom, policy, or practice of violating the Fourth

Amendment by regularly conducting unreasonable seizures and arresting individuals without

probable cause.

326. Defendant City had notice that its use of force training and officer supervision was

inadequate and likely to result in constitutional violations based on multiple incidents of excessive force

against protestors in October 2014, November 2014, July 2015, August 2015, and September 2017.

327. Despite Defendant City’s March 2015 Templeton settlement agreement, SLMPD officers

continue to use chemical agents against non-violent citizens, illustrating Defendant City’s deliberate and conscious choice to maintain training and supervision practices that give rise to constitutional violations.

53

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 54 of 68 PageID #: 1519
328. Even after the Templeton settlement and the incidents that gave rise to it, Defendant City did not initiate or require comprehensive retraining of its officers, despite repeated, similar constitutional violations perpetrated by SLMPD officers after that settlement and before the incident at issue in this case.
329. In its failures, Defendant City has been deliberately indifferent to the rights of citizens, and these failures, policies, and customs are the moving force behind, and direct and proximate cause of, the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiff as alleged herein.
330. As a direct result of the Defendant City’s failures, policies, and customs as described herein, Plaintiff suffered damages, including physical injury, fear, apprehension, and concern for Plaintiff’s own safety.
331. The decision to initiate or conduct the mass arrests and the orders concerning the manner in which Plaintiffs were kettled was made by officers of sufficient rank, authority, influence, and discretion that they can be deemed policymakers under Monell and its progeny.
332. If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VII Missouri State Law – Battery (Against All Defendants) 333. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 334. During the process of being unconstitutionally arrested, Plaintiffs suffered battery at the hands of Defendants. 335. Namely, Defendants’ physically aggressive tactics caused intentional and offensive bodily harm to Plaintiffs. 336. In spraying Plaintiffs with pepper spray — when Plaintiffs were passive and complying with Defendants’ directives — caused further intentional and offensive bodily contact.
54

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 55 of 68 PageID #: 1520
337. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
338. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress.
339. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
340. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
341. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
342. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
COUNT VIII Missouri State Law – False Arrest (Against All Defendants) 343. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 344. Plaintiffs were arrested without any legal justification or probable cause by Defendants.
55

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 56 of 68 PageID #: 1521
345. Defendants proceeded to constrain and confine Plaintiffs against Plaintiffs’ free will. There was no lawful justification for Defendants restraining and confining Plaintiffs in the above manner.
346. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
347. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, fear, apprehension, and emotional trauma.
348. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
349. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
350. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
351. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
352. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as others similarly-situated individuals from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
56

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 57 of 68 PageID #: 1522
COUNT IX Missouri State Law – False Imprisonment (Against All Defendants) 353. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 354. Defendants intentionally restrained and confined Plaintiffs against Plaintiffs’ will when they took Plaintiffs into custody and detained Plaintiffs. 355. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ actions in removing and confining Plaintiffs in the manner described above, nor in any manner whatsoever. 356. There was no lawful justification for Defendants to restrain and confine Plaintiffs in the manner described above. 357. Defendants held Plaintiffs in confinement for a substantial period of time, spanning several hours. 358. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 359. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ false imprisonment by Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ own safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress. 360. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City. 361. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
57

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 58 of 68 PageID #: 1523
362. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
363. Defendants’ actions in causing the false imprisonment of Plaintiffs, as described above, were carried out with an evil motive and/or reckless indifference and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendants and others similarly situated from like conduct in the future.
COUNT X Missouri State Law – Abuse of Process (Against All Defendants) 364. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 365. Defendants made an illegal, improper, and perverse use of process by arresting, charging, and detaining Plaintiffs without any legal justification or probable cause in order to harass and intimidate Plaintiff, which constitutes an improper collateral purpose. 366. Defendants acted willfully and knowingly when they abused legal process for unlawful purposes and with an illegitimate collateral objective, in that Defendants used legal process through their authority for purposes other than the legitimate investigation and prosecution of criminal acts. 367. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 368. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ abuse of process, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ own safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress; lost time; loss of employment opportunity; and loss of faith in society.
58

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 59 of 68 PageID #: 1524
369. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
370. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
371. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
372. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
373. Defendants’ abuse of process, as described above, was carried out with an evil motive and/or reckless indifference and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendants and others similarly situated from like conduct in the future.
COUNT XI Missouri State Law – Malicious Prosecution (Against All Defendants) 374. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 375. Defendants assisted in the filing of charges against Plaintiffs with no probable cause that Plaintiffs had committed a crime or ordinance violation.
59

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 60 of 68 PageID #: 1525
376. Such charges were subsequently dismissed against Plaintiffs. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical injury, emotional trauma, great concern for Plaintiffs’ own safety; fear, apprehension, depression, anxiety, consternation and emotional distress; lost time; loss of employment opportunity; and loss of faith in society. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
377. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
378. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
379. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
380. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
COUNT XII Missouri State Law – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants)
381. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
60

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 61 of 68 PageID #: 1526
382. By assaulting Plaintiffs and spraying Plaintiffs with pepper spray, Defendants realized or should have realized that their conduct posed an unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs.
383. Further, Plaintiffs were reasonably in fear for Plaintiffs’ own person because of the actions of Defendants and suffered emotional distress or mental injury that is medically diagnosable and sufficiently severe to be medically significant as a result of Defendants’ actions.
384. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein.
385. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City.
386. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
387. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
388. The actions of Defendants as described above were carried out in bad faith and with malice, and done with actual, wanton intent to cause injury, such that punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants and to deter them, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, from engaging in similar conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
COUNT XIII Missouri State Law – Conversion (Against All Defendants) 389. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
61

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 62 of 68 PageID #: 1527
390. SLMPD officers seized, discarded, or destroyed property owned by some Plaintiffs (“Converted Property”) during Plaintiffs’ wrongful and unconstitutional arrest.
391. Plaintiffs were the owners of Converted Property. 392. Defendants took possession of Converted Property without Plaintiffs’ permission. 393. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of the rights of possession of Converted Property. 394. Plaintiffs made demands on Defendants to return Converted Property. 395. Defendants failed to return Converted Property after Plaintiffs made such demands. 396. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of these actions in the form of actual damages for the purchase value of Converted Property, as well as for the loss of use of Converted Property. 397. All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, personally participated in, and/or failed to prevent the conduct described herein. 398. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City. 399. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.” 400. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
COUNT XIV Missouri State Law – Conspiracy (Against All Defendant Officers) 401. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
62

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 63 of 68 PageID #: 1528
402. Defendants, acting in their individual capacities and under color of law, conspired together and with others, and reached a mutual understanding to undertake a course of conduct that violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights.
403. Defendants entered into this conspiracy with the intent and objective to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs, as described herein.
404. As described above, Defendants conspired to design, implement, and participate in the illegal kettling plan, with the intent to unlawfully arrest and use excessive force on Plaintiffs. 406.
In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants committed the following overt acts: a. Defendants, acting in concert, kettled and unlawfully seized Plaintiffs. They
detained Plaintiffs in the City Justice Center for many hours. b. Defendants used excessive force by, among other things, tying many Plaintiffs’ hands in zip-cuffs. c. Defendants used excessive force by deploying chemical agents against Plaintiffs. d. Defendants assaulted and battered many members of the putative class. e. Defendants initiated charges against Plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary
firmness. 405. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy between Defendants and others as described above, Plaintiffs were subjected to assault; the use of excessive force; the deprivation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and malicious prosecution. 406. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain and injury and emotional trauma. 407. The acts described herein were intentional and callously indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs, thus entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
63

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 64 of 68 PageID #: 1529
408. At all times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 409. As members of the conspiracy, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages to Plaintiffs. 410. Defendant City of St. Louis obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation, a not for profit corporation into which the City pays funds yearly. The funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City. 411. Alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis, Missouri states “[t]he PFPC is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.” 412. By possessing such insurance or self-insurance, the City has waived sovereign immunity on state claims, pursuant to § 537.610.1, RSMo.
COUNT XV Failure to Intervene (Against All Defendant Officers) 413. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 414. Defendants Officers witnessed the tortious and unconstitutional actions of other officers at the scene and failed to intervene to prevent it from occurring and/or to lessen its severity. 415. Defendant Officers knew that seizure of the putative class was unreasonable, without probable cause, and illegal. 416. Defendant Officers knew that the force used against the putative class was unreasonable under the circumstances and was clearly excessive.
64

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 65 of 68 PageID #: 1530
417. Defendant Officers had the opportunity and means to prevent the harm to the putative class from occurring but failed to intercede by stopping the illegal seizure of and use of excessive force against the putative class.
418. Defendant Officers acted under color of law. 419. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Officers’ failure to intervene in the unlawful seizure and use of excessive force against the putative class, the putative class has suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries and has suffered and will continue to suffer pain of the body and mind, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, and stress. 420. The conduct of the Defendant Officers and each of them jointly and separately was reckless and callously indifferent to the constitutional rights of the putative class, malicious and wanton with respect to those rights, making an award of punitive damages warranted and necessary to punish them in their individual capacities and to deter each of them and others from the same or similar misconduct in the future
COUNT XVI Procedural Due Process (Against All Defendants) 421. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 422. Defendants claim that the basis for the arrest of Plaintiffs and the Class was a violation of St. Louis Code of Ords. 15.52.010 and 17.16.275 (“Ordinances”). 423. The Ordinances are unconstitutionally vague on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs and do not provide fair notice to a reasonable person as to how to comply with the law. 424. Defendants have maintained that citizens are subject to arrest pursuant to the Ordinances for clearly constitutionally protected activity, such as peacefully congregating on sidewalks.
65

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 66 of 68 PageID #: 1531
425. The due process rights of the putative class were violated when the City of St. Louis, through its agent officers, failed to provide sufficient warning about the deployment of chemical agents, failed to provide an opportunity to disperse, failed to leave open routes of egress, and failed to enforce St. Louis Code of Ords. 15.52.010 and 17.16.275 in a way that a person of ordinary intelligence could understand and comply with.
426. St. Louis Code of Ords. 15.52.010 and 17.16.275, and the City of St. Louis’ policies and customs related to their enforcement, permit arbitrary enforcement at the unbridled discretion of an individual police officer(s), without adequate notice or an adequate opportunity to comply, in a way that does not provide a person of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is permitted and prohibited, and in a way that authorizes and encourages discrimination based on the content of the message of a person engaged in expressive activity.
427. Moreover, the City of St. Louis has enacted and follow a custom or procedure of refusing to negotiate or dismiss any charges under these ordinances without a release of liability, which encourages its officers to act with impunity and in violation of the civil rights of their citizens.
COUNT XVII Vicarious Liability Under City Charter (Against Defendants O’Toole and Deeken) 428. Article VIII, Section 5 of the Charter of the City of St. Louis states that “[e]ach head of a department, office or division shall be responsible for the acts or omissions of officers and employees appointed by him, and may require bonds or other securities from them to secure himself.” (Emphasis added). 429. Defendant Officers are officers and employees of the Director of Public Safety and the Chief of Police. 430. Defendant Officers were acting in the scope of their employment when they committed the offenses described in Counts I-XVI.
66

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 67 of 68 PageID #: 1532 431. Accordingly, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5, the Director of Public Safety and the Chief
of Police are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the Defendant Officers, as described in Counts I-XVI.
432. The Director of Public Safety and the Chief of Police are therefore responsible for any damages awarded to Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of the injuries suffered at the hands of the Defendants Officers as described above in Counts I-XVI.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against all Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, declare St. Louis Code of Ords. 15.52.010 and 17.16.275 unconstitutional, and for any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
67

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/15/20 Page: 68 of 68 PageID #: 1533

Date: January 15, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC
/s/ Javad M. Khazaeli Javad M. Khazaeli, 53735MO James R. Wyrsch, 53197MO Kiara N. Drake, 67129MO 911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 288-0777 (314) 400-7701 (fax) james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com kiara.drake@kwlawstl.com
CAMPBELL LAW LLC
/s/ Alicia Campbell Alicia Campbell, #59586 John Campbell, #59318 3470 S. Jefferson St. Louis, Missouri 63114 alicia@campbelllawllc.com john@campbelllawllc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

68

 
 Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 1 of 39 PageID #: 2623

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALICIA STREET, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. LAWRENCE O’TOOLE, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:19 CV 2590 CDP

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Five named plaintiffs filed this putative class action arising out of the mass

arrest “kettling” incident that occurred in the City of St. Louis on September 17,

2017. Their First Amended Complaint names as defendants the City of St. Louis,

the then-acting Chief of Police Lawrence O’Toole, the Director of Public Safety

Charlene Deeken, and more than three hundred individual police officers.

Plaintiffs bring their claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Missouri state law. They

make specific factual allegations against only a handful of the individual

defendants, although most of the seventeen counts are brought against either all

defendants or all defendant police officers; most of the factual allegations are made

against “defendants.” All defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

I conclude that all claims against the several hundred defendants against

whom no specific allegations are made must be dismissed without prejudice. I will

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 2 of 39 PageID #: 2624
also dismiss the punitive damages claims against the City, the § 1983 claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and the state law claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conversion, and failure to intervene. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the novel state-law claim that the St. Louis City Charter imposes vicarious liability for all actions of the police on September 17, 2017 and will dismiss that claim without prejudice.
Factual Background1 A. The Protests and Mass Arrests
On Friday, September 15, 2017, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis issued its verdict in State of Missouri v. Stockley,2 prompting anti-police demonstrations and protests in the City of St. Louis and surrounding areas. Although most of the protests were peaceful, officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) amassed at several protest sites wearing military-like tactical dress and armed with riot gear. As the protests continued throughout the weekend in different city locations, there were multiple instances of police use of chemical agents such as pepper spray to disperse crowds.
1 These facts are taken from plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and are assumed as true for purposes of defendants’ motions to dismiss. 2 Case No. 16220CR02213-01 (Mo. 22nd Jud. Cir. Sept. 25, 2017). After a bench trial, Police Officer Jason Stockley was found not guilty of the first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith.
2

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 3 of 39 PageID #: 2625
On the evening of Sunday, September 17, 2017, protesters had gathered in downtown St. Louis. After property damage was found in one area of downtown, police began blocking roads and directing civilians to the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Blvd. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Lt. Timothy Sachs and Lt. Col. Gerald Leyshock planned to “kettle” or gather everyone into that intersection, not allow anyone in the area to leave, and arrest them all. They allege that supervisory defendants Sgt. Scott Boyher, Sgt. Matthew Karnowski, Sgt. Randy Jemerson and Lt. Brian Rossomanno supervised and directed line officers under their command to form lines of officers blocking each of the four streets leading to the intersection in anticipation of the mass arrests. They allege that defendants knew or should have known that this action would result in the arrests of people without probable cause.
Shortly after 11:00 p.m. and without warning, the four lines of officers began to converge and plaintiffs were informed that they were all under arrest. Plaintiffs allege that the protesters had not been engaged in any violence or illegal behavior before the incident, and many of the gathered people were residents of the area, members of the press, and others peacefully watching the protests. Plaintiffs allege that they instantly put their hands in the air to surrender, and that they all attempted to get to the ground when ordered to do so. Regardless, SLMPD officers indiscriminately sprayed members of the crowd with pepper spray and
3

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 4 of 39 PageID #: 2626
kicked and beat those in the crowd, most of whom were not resisting in any way. Officers then tightly handcuffed every individual with plastic zip ties and the approximately 120 arrestees3 were transported to the St. Louis City Justice Center (CJC), where they all remained confined without receiving medical assistance for their injuries. Plaintiffs were released 12-24 hours later.
Upon release, all were given summonses showing they had been charged with “failure to disperse” and instructing them to appear at St. Louis City Municipal Court on October 18, 2017. On October 13, 2017, the St. Louis City Counselor’s office withdrew the summonses. None of the plaintiffs were subsequently charged.
B. Named Plaintiffs’ Allegations The named plaintiffs offer similar accounts of the night in question. Plaintiff
Alicia Street alleges that she observed and participated in several peaceful marches throughout downtown St. Louis on the day of September 17, 2017. Around 11:00 p.m. she arrived at the intersection of Tucker and Washington and saw that officers were beginning to block the streets. She attempted to leave, but officers ordered her to move back towards the center of the intersection. When the mass arrest began, Street got on the ground as ordered; she could taste pepper spray, so she
3 These arrestees form the putative class in this case. 4

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 5 of 39 PageID #: 2627
asked defendant Jemerson, whom she knew, if she could put on a facemask she was carrying. An unknown officer standing behind him then jabbed Street with a baton, knocking her glasses off. She was then restrained with a painful plastic zip tie, transported to the CJC, and released from custody approximately twelve hours later. Her glasses were returned when she was released from custody.
Plaintiff Ronald Harris was observing the protests in downtown St. Louis with his three cousins. Around 10:30 P.M., they began following a small group of protesters heading north along Tucker. Harris noticed the police lines forming and attempted to leave the area; officers prevented him from leaving and ordered him to turn around. As the arrest unfolded, Harris got on his stomach on the pavement as ordered; however, unknown officers then stood on his back and neck while simultaneously spraying him with a continuous stream of pepper spray. He was then tightly handcuffed with a plastic zip tie and officers removed his cell phone from his hand and threw it on the ground. Throughout the process, officers insulted him and made derogatory comments about “activists.” Harris was transported to the CJC, remained tightly handcuffed for several hours, and was released about twelve hours later. Harris had bruises on his back and neck, cuts on his wrists from the cuffs, and permanent intermittent numbness in his hands.
Plaintiff Fudail McCain was socializing with friends and family members at the intersection of Tucker and Washington when he noticed the growing police
5

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 6 of 39 PageID #: 2628
presence in the area and chanting from SLMPD officers. He did not observe any criminal acts or hear any dispersal orders that would have indicated that anything was amiss. When the lines of police officers began converging, he attempted to leave and was ordered to turn back around. McCain got on the ground and was sprayed several times with pepper spray. He was cuffed with a painful plastic zip tie, brought to the CJC, and released twelve hours later.
Plaintiff Ashley Theis was observing protests and was recording police activity in downtown St. Louis on the evening of September 17, 2017. An unknown SLMPD supervisor told Theis she could record officers at the Olive and Tucker intersection if she joined a group of press and media personnel gathered on the sidewalk, so she joined that group. As the night wore on, Theis became frightened of the SLMPD officers chanting and beating their batons against their shields, so she attempted to leave the area to get to her friends’ nearby car; officers threatened her with pepper spray, prevented her from leaving, and directed her back toward the middle of the Tucker and Washington intersection. When the lines of officers converged, she was knocked to the ground, pepper sprayed, roughly zip-tied, and trampled by officers walking around her, injuring her foot and ankle. Upon arrival at the CJC she informed a nurse that she has lupus and that the pepper spray covering her skin, face, and eyes was causing extreme pain and discomfort. The nurse made no effort to clean the pepper spray off or
6

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 7 of 39 PageID #: 2629
otherwise assist Theis for the 24 hours that she spent in jail. Theis continues to suffer from anxiety and depression, as well as ongoing pain in her foot, arm, and eyes.
Plaintiff Nicole Warrington observed several protests throughout St. Louis on the day in question. That evening, she was recording police activity with a small group of other observers near Tucker and Washington when she noticed the growing police presence in the area. At around 11:25 P.M., Warrington attempted to leave between a gap in the lines of SLMPD officers, but unknown officers stopped her and pushed her back towards the center. When the police yelled that everyone was under arrest, Warrington got on the ground and felt pepper spray on her back and legs. An SLMPD officer took her backpack and cellphone, stopping it from recording. She was then arrested, transported to the CJC, and confined for 12 hours; she had marks and numbness on her hands and wrists for weeks and sought counseling.
C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Plaintiffs bring their Amended Complaint in seventeen counts. Counts I –
VI are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first four counts are brought against “all defendant officers” and allege violations of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to assembly, association, speech, and press (Count I); Fourth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force (Count II) and from unlawful seizures (Count III); and
7

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 8 of 39 PageID #: 2630
conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their civil rights (Count VI). Count V is brought against “all defendants” and alleges they were deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs’ serious medical needs. Count VI seeks to impose municipal liability of the City of St. Louis for the underlying § 1983 violations alleged in the earlier counts. Plaintiffs additionally assert Missouri state law claims for battery (Count VII); false arrest (Count VIII); false imprisonment (Count IX); abuse of process (Count X); malicious prosecution (Count XI); negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count XII); conversion (Count XIII); civil conspiracy (Count XIV); and failure to intervene (Count XV). Count XVI raises a challenge that two St. Louis City Ordinances (Count XVI) violate due process, both facially and as applied. Finally, Count XVII brings a novel claim based on the St. Louis City Charter against defendants O’Toole and Deeken only, alleging that they are vicariously liable for both the § 1983 and the state-law violations committed by the individual officers.4
Legal Standards A. Rule 12(b)(6) Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for dismissal if a party fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
4 In their brief opposing one of the motions to dismiss, plaintiffs state that Count XVII is the only count brought against defendants O’Toole and Deeken. ECF 33 at pg. 1 fn. 1.
8

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 9 of 39 PageID #: 2631
true, to state a claim to relief “that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint must allege facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Additionally, though a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, “[c]ourts must not presume the truth of legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Hager v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932 (1986)). “Courts should dismiss complaints based on ‘labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
B. Section 1983 Liability Plaintiffs are required to plead direct, personal involvement in constitutional misconduct in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights. Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). Because liability for damages under § 1983 is personal, “each defendant’s conduct must be
9

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 10 of 39 PageID #: 2632
independently assessed. Section 1983 does not sanction tort by association.” Smith v. City of Minneapolis, 754 F.3d 541, 547–48 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 805–06 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also S.M. v. Krigbaum, 808 F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2015).
Relatedly, a municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory—that is, a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). In order to state a proper claim for §1983 liability against the City, the plaintiffs must show that a constitutional violation resulted from 1) an official municipal policy; 2) an unofficial custom; or 3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. Corwin v. City of Independence, 829 F.3d 695, 699 (8th. Cir. 2016).
C. Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from suit under § 1983 if his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Kelsay v. Ernst, 933 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). When a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the burden falls on plaintiffs to prove: “(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,
10

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 11 of 39 PageID #: 2633
demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1155 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In order for the right to be clearly established, “existing precedent must have placed the constitutional question beyond debate” so that “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. (citing Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann, 800 F.3d 985, 989 (8th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted)).
Discussion A. Individual Defendants Against whom no Specific Allegations are Made Plaintiffs make specific allegations only against Acting Chief of Police Lawrence O’Toole, Director of Public Safety Charlene Deeken, Lt. Brian Rossomanno, Lt. Colonel Gerald Leyshock, Lt. Timothy Sachs, Sgt. Randy Jemerson, Sgt. Matthew Karnowski and Lt. Scott Boyher. As to all other defendants there are no individual allegations. All claims against the individual defendants against whom no specific allegations are made will be dismissed. The Eighth Circuit instructs that the conduct of each defendant must be assessed independently in § 1983 actions, see Smith, 754 F.3d at 547, but the only facts plaintiffs have alleged in this case about each individual is that each defendant was employed by the SLMPD “during the events of September 17,
11

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 12 of 39 PageID #: 2634
2017.”5 ECF 13 at ¶¶ 9-11. Defendants cannot be held liable merely because they were employed by the SLMPD on the night some members of that department may have violated plaintiffs’ rights—liability under § 1983 requires proof of a causal link between each defendant and the specific wrongs that defendant committed. Put differently, asserting broad, sweeping allegations that a group of defendants committed constitutional misconduct is not sufficient to satisfy plaintiffs’ pleading obligations as to each defendant within that group. See, e.g. Crew v. Minor, No. 2:18CV27 CAS, 2018 WL 4922218, at *8 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2018) (dismissing § 1983 claim asserted against a group of police officers where plaintiff failed to specify each defendants’ direct responsibility). Absent specific and plausible factual allegations, plaintiffs’ claims are merely legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2002) (“While the court must accept allegations of fact as true . . . the court is free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations”). Moreover, plaintiffs’ vague allegations fail to provide each defendant with “fair notice of
5 Plaintiffs admit that they still do not have an accurate or comprehensive list of the officers involved in the kettling and mass arrest, and they admit that many of these defendants may have been on duty in other locations. This is not necessarily plaintiffs’ fault—plaintiffs allege that many defendant officers wore tactical gear and masks to conceal their identities, and that the SLMPD failed maintain accurate police reports from that evening.
12

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 13 of 39 PageID #: 2635
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Accordingly, all claims against the defendants against whom no specific allegations are made must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
B. Direct § 1983 Claims against Rossomanno, Leyshock, Sachs, Jemerson, Karnowski and Boyher (Counts I, II, III, & V: First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Violations)
Plaintiffs allege that defendant Sachs planned and defendant Leyshock approved the plan to arrest everyone who was in the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. ¶ 55. They allege that Rossomano and Jemerson directed people into the area, knowing that they would be arrested and knowing that there was not probable cause to arrest them. ¶ 50, 56. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants knew it was likely that the unjustified use of force would be used. ¶ 56. All of the named plaintiffs allege that they were arrested without probable cause and that excessive force was used in their arrest. In particular, they allege that defendant Karnowski indiscriminately pepper sprayed the crowd, including spraying plaintiffs and other members of the crowd who were not resisting. ¶ 82. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Boyher and Karnowski supervised a line of officers who used bicycles to push people into the intersection and directed officers to use force against and arrest members of the class. ¶ 80. Plaintiffs further allege that defendant Rossomanno stood within arms’ length of SLMPD officers under his command and directed them to pepper spray and beat non-resisting plaintiffs
13

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 14 of 39 PageID #: 2636
during the course of the mass arrest. ¶ 92. They allege that defendant Jemerson stood nearby while an SLMPD officer under his command struck plaintiff Street with a baton and knocked her glasses off as she lay on the ground. ¶ 153.
For the reasons that follow, the allegations are sufficient to state claims for violations of § 1983 for violating plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to be free from the use of excessive force as alleged in Count II and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as alleged in Count III.6 Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because these allegations, when taken as true for purposes of their motion to dismiss, sufficiently show that these defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.
In determining whether a particular use of force was excessive, the court must consider whether it was “objectively reasonable under the circumstances, ‘rely[ing] on the perspective of a reasonable officer present at the scene rather than the ‘20/20 vision of hindsight.’” Perry v. Woodruff Cty. Sheriff Dep’t by & through Barker, 858 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644, 649 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted)). Supervisory officers may be held liable only “1) if the supervisor
6 Count I alleges that these actions were taken in retaliation for their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to assembly, association, free speech, and a free press. Defendants’ various motions do not offer any specific qualified immunity or other challenges to Count I.
14

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 15 of 39 PageID #: 2637
directly participated in the constitutional violation; 2) if the supervisor failed or refused to intervene when a constitutional violation took place in his presence; 3) if the supervisor’s failure to train or supervise the employee caused the constitutional violation; or 4) if the supervisor created a policy or custom under which the constitutional violation occurred.” B.J.G. ex rel. McCray v. St. Charles City Sheriff, No. 4:08CV1178 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 County Sheriff, 400 F. App’x 127 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:18CV1677 CAS, 2019 WL 1695982, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2019).
At the time of this event, it was “clearly established that force is least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not flee or actively resist arrest and pose little or no threat to the security of the officers or the public.” Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 499 (8th Cir. 2009). It was also clearly established that it is unreasonable to use pepper spray on a non-resisting, nonfleeing individual suspected of a non-violent misdemeanor. Tatum v. Robinson, 858 F.3d 544, 548-550 (8th Cir. 2017); see also Johnson v. Carroll, 658 F.3d 819, 828 (8th Cir. 2011) (defendants’ actions in macing and throwing a non-violent, non-threatening suspected misdemeanant to the ground were unlawful); Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 566 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he use of . . . gratuitous force
15

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 16 of 39 PageID #: 2638
against a suspect who is handcuffed, not resisting, and fully subdued is objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”). In light of this Eighth Circuit precedent, defendant Karnowski’s deployment of pepper spray against a nonresisting individual was not objectively reasonable, nor was the use of force which defendants Boyher, Rossomanno, and Jemerson allegedly supervised and directed. Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.
Defendants argue that they had at least “arguable” probable cause to arrest plaintiffs, and so they are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful seizure claim. See White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064, 1074 (8th Cir. 2017). But taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, as I must for purposes of this motion to dismiss, defendants had no reason to believe that the plaintiffs here were the persons who had caused property damage in a different part of downtown several hours earlier. “Probable cause exists when the totality of facts known at the time of the arrest would justify a reasonable person in believing that the individual has committed or is committing an offense.” Baude v. City of St. Louis, et al., No. 4:19CV1564 RWS, ECF 44 pg. 10 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 8, 2020) (citing Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002, 1009 (8th Cir. 2017)).
To the extent defendants rely on Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2012), to assert that they arguably believed the plaintiffs were part
16

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 17 of 39 PageID #: 2639
of a unit that had violated the law, the argument fails. Plaintiffs allege that the individuals arrested at the intersection of Tucker and Washington had arrived there either alone or in small groups, from different areas around the city, at different times, with different purposes. Many plaintiffs, including most of the named plaintiffs, attempted to leave the area before the mass arrest and were prevented from doing so. Some who were arrested were directed into the kettle after a dispersal order had allegedly been given. Plaintiffs’ allegations thus paint the picture of a far more disparate, unrelated group than the organized, chanting mass of individuals who were determined to be a “unit” in Bernini. Id.
Moreover, unlike Bernini, defendants did not have any reasonable basis to conclude that any plaintiff at the intersection was violating the law. Plaintiffs allege that the scene at the intersection was relatively calm—while a handful of individuals continued to voice protests against the gathered SLMPD officers, most individuals were simply milling about, socializing, and observing the waning protests. The only reports of violence or property damage that evening had occurred several hours earlier and several blocks away from the intersection; defendants had no reason to believe—and made no effort to determine—that any of the arrested plaintiffs were responsible for that property damage. Defendants Sachs and Leyshock, who issued the order to arrest plaintiffs, and defendants Boyher, Karnowski, Rossomanno, and Jemerson, each of whom are alleged to have
17

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 18 of 39 PageID #: 2640
personally directed and overseen the unlawful arrests, are not entitled to qualified immunity at this motion to dismiss stage of the case.
Count V alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs’ serious medical needs after their arrests. Plaintiffs variously allege that they were injured by pepper spray, by being thrown to the ground or beaten, and/or by being placed in overly tight restraints. They allege that they asked for medical care after they were taken to the CJC and while they were being held, but received none.
“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (quotations and citation omitted). A pretrial detainee’s right to medical treatment is similarly protected and is clearly established in this Circuit. McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974, 980 (8th Cir. 2009). “Deliberate indifference has both an objective and a subjective component.” Vaughn v. Gray, 557 F.3d 904, 908 (8th Cir.2009). “The objective component requires a plaintiff to demonstrate an objectively serious medical need.” Id. “The subjective component requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, such need.” Id.
Even if plaintiffs’ complaints of skin and eye irritation from pepper spray, cuts and bruises, and too-tight restraints were serious enough to constitute objectively serious medical needs, there is no allegation that any defendant knew
18

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 19 of 39 PageID #: 2641
of such needs and disregarded them. Only one of the named plaintiffs alleges that she requested medical attention while at the CJC, and none are alleged to have sought medical treatment for their injuries after their release from confinement. Plaintiff Harris allegedly told the officers who arrested him that his zip tie cuffs were too tight, and plaintiff Theis alleges that she asked the officers transporting her to the CJC for help to ease her discomfort from being pepper sprayed and ziptied, and that she then requested care from a nurse at the CJC. But plaintiffs have not sued any of the CJC staff, so their conclusory assertion that all the police officer defendants deliberately ignored constitutionally cognizable injuries defies plausibility. Count V is dismissed in its entirety.
C. Counts IV & XIV: Conspiracy to Deprive of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Missouri State Law
In Counts IV and XIV, plaintiffs allege that the defendant officers are liable under § 1983 and under state law for conspiring to violate their civil rights. Plaintiffs’ theory of liability can be traced as follows: Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Jemerson, and Rossomanno conspired to “design and implement” the kettling plan; defendants Boyher and Karnowski joined the conspiracy when they “directed officers under their control and supervision” to execute the kettling; the remaining mass of supervisors and officers then joined the conspiracy when they “agreed to participate” in the kettling, and these officers then committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy by confining, arresting, and assaulting plaintiffs;
19

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 20 of 39 PageID #: 2642
applying zip cuffs and deploying pepper spray; and maliciously initiating charges against plaintiffs.7
Defendants move to dismiss on several grounds. They first contend that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars conspiracy claims against police officers employed by the same municipality. Alternatively, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 conspiracy claim because the law regarding the application of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine is unsettled and thus not “clearly established.” Defendants also argue that even aside from the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, there is no precedent in the Eighth Circuit which clearly establishes that every officer involved in a mass arrest can be held liable for a conspiracy to commit an unlawful mass arrest. Finally, defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim, asserting that plaintiffs have not alleged any facts showing a conspiratorial “agreement” between defendants Sachs and Leyshock, the defendants who allegedly developed the kettling plan, and the multitude of officers who effectuated the mass arrest.
The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine generally “allows corporate agents acting within the scope of their employment to be shielded from constituting a
7 Dismissal of the other officers does not affect whether the remaining defendants can be held liable for conspiring with one another and with other officers who are no longer defendants.
20

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 21 of 39 PageID #: 2643
conspiracy[.]” Myers v. Starke, 420 F.3d. 738, 742 (8th Cir. 2005). Although the Eighth Circuit has extended the doctrine to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, see L.L. Nelson Enterprises, Inc. v. Cty. of St. Louis, 673 F.3d 799, 812 (8th Cir. 2012), it has not addressed whether the doctrine applies to claims of § 1983 conspiracy. For this reason, courts in this district have generally declined to apply the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine at the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., Newbold v. City of Saint Louis, No. 4:18CV1572 HEA, 2019 WL 3220405, at *6 (E.D. Mo. July 16, 2019) (collecting cases). I echo their reasoning and will decline to apply the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in the absence of guidance from the Eighth Circuit.
Next, defendants contend that the Eighth Circuit’s silence on the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to § 1983 claims renders the law in this Circuit so unsettled that SLMPD officers could not have reasonably known that they could be subject to § 1983 conspiracy liability—thus entitling them to qualified immunity on all of plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims. See, e.g., Baude, No. 4:19CV1564 RWS, at pg. 25. I respectfully disagree. The Eighth Circuit has consistently recognized § 1983 conspiracy claims against police officers from the same police department if those police officers conspire to violate clearly established constitutional rights. See, e.g., Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1010 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming the denial of qualified immunity in a § 1983
21

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 22 of 39 PageID #: 2644
conspiracy claim against two police officers alleged to have conspired to fabricate reports seeking arrest warrants); S.L. ex rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep’t Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 843, 852-54 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming the denial of qualified immunity in a § 1983 conspiracy claim against SLMPD officers alleged to have conspired to prevent plaintiff from filing a § 1983 claim following her false arrest). Accordingly, on September 17, 2017, a reasonable SLMPD officer would have known that he or she could be subjected to § 1983 conspiracy liability by conspiring with other SLMPD officers to violate plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim by virtue of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.
As for plaintiffs’ state law conspiracy claim, Missouri law recognizes that “[t]here can be no conspiracy between an agent and a principal.” Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 618 S.W.2d 698, 702 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). However, the Court finds no Missouri precedent supporting defendants’ contention that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to bar conspiracy claims asserted against police officers sued in their individual capacities, and not as agents of their municipal employer. I will decline to dismiss the state law conspiracy claim on this basis as well.
In addition, Counts IV and XIV properly allege facts supporting the elements of conspiracy. In order to prove a § 1983 and Missouri state law
22

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 23 of 39 PageID #: 2645
conspiracy, plaintiffs must show: “(1) two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action to be taken; (4) the commission of one or more unlawful overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result of the conspiracy.” Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340, 360–61 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Lenderman, 725 F.3d at 850. “[P]laintiffs must allege ‘specific facts’ showing ‘there was a mutual understanding, or a meeting of the minds’ among the alleged conspirators.” Brown v. City of Pine Lawn, No. 4:17CV1542 ERW, 2018 WL 950211, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2018) (quoting Schwartz v. Pridy, 874 F.Supp. 256, 258 (8th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted)); White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 816 (8th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiffs allege that defendants Boyher, Karnowski, Rossomanno, and Jemerson participated in the conspiracy and committed overt acts in furtherance thereof, as they allegedly directed lines of officers to form the kettle around plaintiffs and use force against them in accordance with defendant Sachs’ plan. Plaintiffs have thus satisfied their burden of alleging “specific facts showing . . . a meeting of the minds” relative to the conspiracy. Brown, 2018 WL 950211, at *6. I will deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts IV and XIV.
D. Counts VII – XIII: Tort Claims under Missouri State Law Plaintiffs bring tort claims of battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress and
23

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 24 of 39 PageID #: 2646
conversion against the individual officers and the City itself. As threshold matters, the City invokes sovereign immunity as a reason to dismiss these counts as to it, and the other defendants invoke official immunity. I conclude that both arguments must be rejected.
Sovereign immunity protects public entities from suit unless it is waived or an exception applies. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist. V. City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, 476 S.W.3d 913, 921-22 (Mo. 2016). Missouri law provides an exception to sovereign immunity when a political subdivision purchases liability insurance to cover certain tort claims. R.S.Mo. § 537.610.1; see also Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832, 841 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs must plead facts showing this exception applies. Epps v. City of Pine Lawn, 353 F.3d 588, 594 (8th Cir. 2003).
In each of their state law claims, plaintiffs plead that the City obtains insurance from the Public Facilities Protection Corporation (PFPC), a not-forprofit corporation into which the City pays yearly funds; that the funds are later disbursed by the corporation to pay claims against the City; and that, alternatively, the City’s relationship with the PFPC serves as a self-insurance plan because of language in the 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of St. Louis stating that its “sole purpose is to provide the City with a defined and funded self-insurance program for claims, judgments, and other related legal matters.”
24

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 25 of 39 PageID #: 2647
See, e.g., ECF 13 at ¶¶ 339-341. The motion to dismiss the state law claims on the basis of sovereign immunity is denied.
Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute the City’s contention that it cannot be held liable for punitive damages as a matter of law. RSMo. § 537.610.3 The City is correct. See A.H. v. St. Louis Cty., No. 4:14CV2069 CEJ, 2015 WL 4426234, at *8 (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2015). Accordingly, I will strike plaintiffs’ requests for punitive damages against the City on the state law claims.
The individual defendants assert the defense of official immunity to the state law claims. “Official immunity . . . protects public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts.” State ex rel. Alsup v. Kanatzar, 588 S.W.3d 187, 190 (Mo. banc 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “An officer’s decision to use force in the performance of his duties is discretionary.” Quraishi v. St. Charles Cty., No. 4:16CV1320 NAB, 2019 WL 2423321, at *11 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2019) (citing Boude v. City of Raymore, 855 F.3d 930, 935 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted)). Official immunity does not apply to discretionary acts done in bad faith or with malice. Id; Green v. Lebanon R-III Sch. Dist., 13 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 2000)).
25

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 26 of 39 PageID #: 2648
Plaintiffs allege that defendants acted with malice in carrying out the kettling and arrests. They cite the contrast between the SLMPD’s militarized response to the Stockley protests and their response to protests that do not relate to police misconduct, inflammatory and disparaging remarks made by SLMPD officers before, during, and after the kettling, and the unnecessary use of force against nonresisting plaintiffs. These allegations sufficiently “describe a conscious abuse of official duty and power and an intent to injure that give rise to a reasonable inference of malice or bad faith, and are adequate to survive a motion to dismiss.” Aldridge, 2019 WL 1695982, at *14.
The remaining defendants all also summarily argue that Counts VII through XIII alleging Missouri torts of battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress and conversion must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I agree that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against any of the remaining defendants for the counts alleging abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and conversion. I will therefore dismiss Counts X, XI, and XIII but will deny the motion as to the remaining counts.
As to battery (Count VII), plaintiffs allege that defendant Karnowski indiscriminately pepper sprayed them and that the other supervisors directed and supervised line officers to batter plaintiffs; plaintiffs thus properly allege the
26

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 27 of 39 PageID #: 2649
unconsented touching required for that tort, and the facts necessary to sustain a claim for supervisory liability. Quraishi, 2019 WL 2423321, at *11. As to the false arrest and false imprisonment claims (Counts VIII and IX), plaintiffs allege that they were arrested without legal justification or probable cause and that they were restrained with zip ties and transported to jail. These allegations are sufficient for both claims, and the complaint sufficiently alleges that the remaining defendants either made the arrests or supervised or ordered them. Day v. Wells Fargo Guard Serv. Co., 711 S.W.2d 503, 504–05 (Mo. 1986); Brown v. City of Pine Lawn, No. 4:17CV01542 ERW, 2018 WL 950211, at *7 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2018) (citing Sastry v. City of Crestwood, 4:10CV215, 2011 WL 2938163 (E.D. Mo. July 19, 2011)).
The result is different with regard to the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution (Counts X and XI). A claim for abuse of process requires the plaintiff to allege “1) the defendant made an illegal, improper, perverted use of process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the process; 2) the defendant had an improper purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of process; and 3) damage resulted.” Ritterbusch v. Holt, 789 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Mo. banc 1990) (citations omitted); see also Nitcher v. Does, 956 F.2d 796, 799 (8th Cir. 1992). Under Missouri law, the elements of malicious prosecution are: “1) commencement of an earlier suit against plaintiff; 2) instigation of the suit by
27

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 28 of 39 PageID #: 2650
defendant; 3) termination of the suit in plaintiff’s favor; 4) lack of probable cause for the suit; 5) malice by defendant in instituting the suit; and 6) damage to plaintiff resulting from the suit.” State ex rel. Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Mummert, 875 S.W.2d 553, 555 (Mo. 1994). Plaintiffs do not allege any facts that show that that any defendant had any role in the initiation of proceedings against any plaintiff. Although plaintiffs allege that every defendant “assisted in the filing of charges against plaintiffs,” the factual allegations do not show that defendants’ interactions with plaintiffs went beyond their arrests. There is no allegation that the defendants were involved in the issuance of formal charges.8 Both Counts X and XI are dismissed.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count XII) must be dismissed because the conduct which allegedly caused the emotional distress mirrors the conduct asserted in plaintiffs’ battery claim, relying on K.G. v. R.T.R., 918 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Mo. banc 1996), as quoted in State ex rel. Halsey v. Phillips, 576 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. banc 2019). While this may be true of claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs only allege a negligent infliction claim, so K.G. and Halsey do not bar this claim.
8 Although plaintiffs were given summonses to appear in court when they were released, they do not allege that defendants were involved in the issuance of those summonses. The summonses and all charges against plaintiffs were dismissed before any court appearances.
28

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 29 of 39 PageID #: 2651
Negligent infliction of emotional distress claims require plaintiffs to plead and prove: 1) the defendants “realized or should have realized that their conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing distress;” and 2) the plaintiff “suffered emotional distress or mental injury that is medically diagnosable and sufficiently severe to be medically significant.” Gordon v. City of Kansas City, 241 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2001). Assuming the truth of plaintiffs’ allegations, defendants should have realized that their conduct before and during the kettling would distress plaintiffs. Further, two of the named plaintiffs suffered lasting psychological damage that required counseling. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count XII is denied.
I will grant the motion to dismiss as to conversion (Count XIII), because plaintiffs’ claim that “SLMPD officers seized, discarded, or destroyed property owned by some Plaintiffs” is conclusory and provides no notice of who allegedly took what from whom. Conversion is “any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over one’s property, in denial of his right or inconsistent with it.” In re Estate of Boatright, 88 S.W.3d 500, 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). Plaintiff Street alleges that unknown defendant officers took her glasses when she was arrested, and that she was unable to see until she got them back when she was released. ECF 13 at ¶ 157. Plaintiff Harris alleges officers removed his cellphone from his hand and threw it on the ground during his arrest, and that it was not returned. ¶
29

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 30 of 39 PageID #: 2652
172. Plaintiff Warrington alleges officers picked up her cellphone off the ground to stop a recording, and that they “removed” her backpack, although she does not allege that either item was subsequently taken. ¶ 263. Plaintiffs do not assert any of these allegations against any specific defendant, and the allegations are not sufficient to support a claim against any of the remaining defendants for conversion. Count XVIII is dismissed.
E. Municipal Liability In Count VI, plaintiffs allege that the City of St. Louis is liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for the individual officers’ violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights as alleged in the Counts I through V. A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory—that is, a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). In order to state a proper claim for §1983 liability against the City, the plaintiffs must show that a constitutional violation resulted from 1) an official municipal policy; 2) an unofficial custom; or 3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. Corwin v. City of Independence, 829 F.3d 695, 699-700 (8th. Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs allege that the following SLMPD policies, practices, or customs caused their constitutional injuries:
30

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 31 of 39 PageID #: 2653
a. SLMPD officers’ routine use of excessive force when policing protests, especially those at which police brutality is being protested;
b. SLMPD’s policy or custom of issuing vague and even contradictory dispersal orders without giving an opportunity to comply;
c. SLMPD’s policy of arbitrarily declaring unlawful assemblies in the absence of any threat of force or violent activity that provides no notice to citizens of unlawful conduct;
d. SLMPD’s custom, policy, or practice of violating the Fourth Amendment by regularly conducting unreasonable seizures and arresting individuals without probable cause.
ECF 13 at ¶ 325. Plaintiffs additionally allege that the SLMPD’s failure to train and supervise its officers with respect to their use of force caused their constitutional injuries. The City moves to dismiss, asserting that plaintiffs fail to adequately plead a plausible Monell claim under either an unconstitutional custom or failure to train theory.
In the context of §1983 Monell liability, the term “policy” refers to “official policy, a deliberate choice of a guiding principle or procedure made by the municipal official who has final authority regarding such matters.” Corwin, 829 F.3d at 700 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A “custom” refers to a practice that, although not formally approved as a policy, “is so widespread as to
31

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 32 of 39 PageID #: 2654
have the force of law.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). To plead a claim for “custom” liability, plaintiffs must show: 1) the existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity’s employees; 2) deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity’s policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and 3) that they were injured by acts pursuant to the governmental entity’s custom, i.e., that the custom was a moving force behind the constitutional violation. Johnson v. Douglas Cty. Med. Dep’t, 725 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiffs allege that the defendant officers’ constitutional violations during the kettling and mass arrest are part of a pattern and practice of SLMPD officers using excessive force and deploying chemical munitions without warning against non-violent citizens protesting issues related to police brutality. They reference fifteen separate instances between October 2014 and September 2017 in which St. Louis police used excessive force and deployed chemical agents against civilian protestors and nearby observers. These presumptively true factual allegations reflect the existence of a pattern of unconstitutional misconduct with regard to excessive force and use of chemical agents, and are sufficient for those claims to withstand dismissal on the pleadings. See, e.g. Alston v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:18CV1569, (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2019), Doc. No. 53 at 6-7 (citing Laird v. City of
32

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 33 of 39 PageID #: 2655
Saint Louis, No. 4:18CV1567 AGF, 2019 WL 2647273 at *6 (E.D. Mo. June 27, 2019)); Rose v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 4:18CV1568 RLW, 2019 WL 4602829, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 23, 2019).9 Plaintiffs also sufficiently allege that the City had notice of the past unconstitutional conduct by virtue of a settlement agreement the City entered into in March 2015 in Templeton.10 The Consent Decree in that case provided that the City would refrain from enforcing any rule, policy, or practice granting officials discretion to utilize chemical agents without warning or for the purpose of deterring citizens from exercising their constitutional rights, which mirrors some of the misconduct alleged in this case. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint further alleges that various policymakers had notice of the SLMPD’s alleged misconduct. Finally, plaintiffs plainly allege that the City’s policies or customs were the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries they suffered. As plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to plead a custom or policy, the City’s motion to dismiss Count VI is denied.
9 Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, 430 F.Supp.3d 595, 620 (E.D. Mo. 2019), relied on by defendants, was decided on summary judgment and so is distinguishable from this motion to dismiss case. It concluded that plaintiffs did not provide evidence sufficient to show a custom, and relied on the Fifth Circuit decision of Webster v. Houston 735 F.2d 838, 842 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc)). Webster appears to adopt a test which has not been adopted in the Eighth Circuit and which requires the conduct to have occurred some undefined, yet statistically significant number of times in the past. I need not determine at this time if that is an appropriate evidentiary standard, as this motion to dismiss is directed to pleadings, not evidence. 10 Templeton v. Dotson, No. 4:14CV2019 CEJ at pg. 3 (E.D. Mo. Dec 11, 2014).
33

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 34 of 39 PageID #: 2656
Plaintiff’s claim based on failure to train or supervise also survives dismissal. This theory requires plaintiffs to plead facts sufficient to show that: 1) the City’s police officer training and supervision practices were inadequate; 2) the City was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting these practices, such that the City’s failure to train and supervise was a result of deliberate and conscious choices; and 3) the City’s training and supervision deficiencies caused Plaintiff’s constitutional deprivation. Ulrich v. Pope Cty., 715 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2013). Ultimately, plaintiffs must prove that the City “‘had notice that the training procedures and supervision were inadequate and likely to result in a constitutional violation.’” Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 803 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340, 356 (8th Cir. 2012)).
Plaintiffs again point to the Templeton settlement agreement, which memorialized several changes to the SLMPD’s use of force and supervision procedures in order to prevent future constitutional injury. Plaintiffs allege that SLMPD officers were not trained in procedures necessary to comply with the settlement agreement. ECF 13 at ¶ 38. Plaintiffs further allege facts which demonstrate that even after the Templeton consent decree, SLMPD officers repeatedly used excessive force against protestors in a similar manner as was challenged in Templeton. ECF 13 at ¶ 326. From these facts, a plausible inference could be drawn that the City failed to train and supervise its officers in proper use
34

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 35 of 39 PageID #: 2657
of force procedures, that said failure was the result of a conscious and deliberate choice, and that the failure to train resulted in their constitutional injuries. The City’s motion to dismiss Count VI as to plaintiffs’ failure to train or supervise claim is denied.
F. Count XVI: Unconstitutionally Vague City Ordinances Plaintiffs assert procedural due process claims against all defendants, alleging that two city ordinances which purportedly formed the bases of their arrests are unconstitutionally vague on their face and as applied to plaintiffs. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that St. Louis Ordinances 15.52.010 and 17.16.275 grant defendants unbridled discretion to subject citizens to arrest for protected constitutional activity without providing fair notice or an adequate opportunity to comply. A statute or ordinance violates the Due Process Clause if it fails to give fair warning that the allegedly violative conduct was prohibited. Stahl v. City of St. Louis, 687 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2012). “Such a law offends due process because it ‘may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits.’” Id. (citation omitted)). When a law fails to provide sufficient guidance, it “entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat, . . . furnishes a convenient tool for harsh and discriminatory enforcement by prosecuting officials against particular groups
35

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 36 of 39 PageID #: 2658
deemed to merit their displeasure, . . . and confers on police a virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 360 (1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that both ordinances could be interpreted as providing police officers with the discretion to arrest citizens for constitutionallyprotected conduct without providing fair notice to a reasonable person as to how to comply with the law.11 Plaintiffs allege that defendants have relied on the ordinances as a basis for the mass arrests and have alleged facts indicating that the ordinances were arbitrarily enforced to plaintiff’s constitutional injury. ECF 14 at ¶¶ 423-25. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim and so the City’s motion to dismiss Count XVI is denied.
G. Claims Against Defendants O’Toole and Deeken based on City Charter In Count XVII, plaintiffs assert that defendants Deeken, the Director of Public Safety, and O’Toole, the Acting Chief of Police, are vicariously liable for all of the alleged misconduct of the individual defendants by virtue of Article VII, Section 5 of the Charter of the City of St. Louis. Section 5 reads: “Each head of a department, office or division shall be responsible for the acts or omissions of
11 The Court may take judicial notice of the ordinances under Fed. R. Evid. 201; defendants’ argument that the claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs did not include the text of the ordinances in their First Amended Complaint fails.
36

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 37 of 39 PageID #: 2659
officers and employees appointed by him, and may require bonds or other securities from them to secure himself.” Charter, Art. VII § 5. Section 5 of the Charter has been in effect since 1914. Despite many cases filed since then alleging police use of excessive force or other police misconduct, neither the parties nor the Court can identify a single instance in which Section 5 has been held by a Missouri court to impose vicarious liability for the acts of police officers such as is alleged here. Because this state-law claim raises novel and complex issues, I will exercise my discretion and decline to consider it, as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
Plaintiffs’ claim raises statutory construction issues and conflict-of-law questions that would be more appropriately resolved first by Missouri state courts. For example, defendants have asserted defenses that would require this Court to assess 1) the intent of St. Louis officials when they drafted Section 5 in 1914; 2) the precise contours of Missouri law regarding officials’ vicarious liability; 3) whether and to what extent Section 5 conflicts with Missouri law; 4) whether Missouri law preempts the Charter; and 5) the effects of preemption on the validity of the Charter itself. See Missouri Bankers Ass’n, Inc. v. St. Louis Cnty., 448 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo. banc 2014); Coop. Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 514 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Mo. 2017). This Court is not the proper forum to litigate complex and unsettled questions of state law preemption over obscure municipal
37

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 38 of 39 PageID #: 2660
ordinances. I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count XVII and will dismiss the claim without prejudice.
Conclusion For the reasons set out above, all claims against the officers against whom no specific allegations were made are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference to medical needs claim (Count V) is dismissed in its entirety. The state-law claims of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and conversion (Counts X, XI and XIII) are also dismissed for failure to state a claim. The claims for punitive damages against the City of St. Louis are stricken, but the City’s motion to dismiss is otherwise denied. Finally, Count XVII, which is the only claim against defendants O’Toole and Deeken, is a novel claim based on state law and the City charter over which I decline to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), so it is also dismissed without prejudice. The claims and defendants remaining in this case are: • Counts I, II, III, IV, XIV and XV against defendants Lt. Brian Rossomanno, Lt. Col. Gerald Leyshock, Lt. Timothy Sachs, Sgt. Randy Jemerson, Sgt. Matthew Karnowski and Lt. Scott Boyher; • Count VI seeking to impose municipal liability on the City of St. Louis for the actions taken by the remaining individual defendants in Counts I, II, III and IV; and
38

Case: 4:19-cv-02590-CDP Doc. #: 66 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 39 of 39 PageID #: 2661
• Counts VII, VIII, IX, XII and XVI against the City and defendants Rossomanno, Leyshock, Sachs, Jemerson, Karnowski and Boyher. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF
19, 21, 23, and 25] are GRANTED in part and denied in part as set forth herein; all defendants except for the City of St. Louis and individual defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Boyher, Rossomanno, Karnowski, and Jemerson are hereby DISMISSED from this action without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts V, X, XI, and XIII are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims for punitive damages from the City of St. Louis are stricken.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Count XVII is denied and Count XVII is dismissed without prejudice.
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 22nd day of February, 2021.
39