Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

JURY,MEDIATION,TYPE-L

U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ

HORSE et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al Assigned to: Judge Amy Berman Jackson Cases: 1:18-cv-00120-ABJ
1:20-cv-00130-ABJ Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 06/21/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff SHAY HORSE

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW Ste 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-601-4266 Fax: 202-457-0805 Email: artspitzer@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Michelman AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street, NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 457-0800 Fax: (202) 457-0805 Email: smichelman@acludc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

ELIZABETH LAGESSE
Plaintiff JUDAH ARIEL
Plaintiff MILO GONZALEZ
Plaintiff GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON
Plaintiff

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

A. S.
V. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 400 6th Street NW Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 805-7640 Fax: (202) 730-1833 Email: duane.blackman@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 400 6th Street NW Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-7272 Fax: (202) 730-1833 Email: micah.bluming@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 4th Street, NW Suite 630 South

Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-5691 Fax: (202) 741-8934 Email: amanda.montee@dc.gov TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 Fourth Street NW Suite 600 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-7854 Fax: (202) 741-8907 Email: eric.johnson@dc.gov TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 400 6th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202-442-9774 Email: matthew.blecher@dc.gov TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL/DC Public Interest Division/Civil Enforcement Section 441 4th Street, NW Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 807-0368 Fax: (202) 741-0577 Email: rachel.browder@dc.gov TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 5th St, NW Suite 6400 South Washington, DC 20530

Defendant PETER NEWSHAM Chief, Metropolitan Police Department, in his individual capacity
Defendant JOHN/JANE DOE MPD OFFICERS 1-150 TERMINATED: 01/02/2018 Defendant JOHN/JANE SOE SUPERVISORY MPD OFFICERS 1-20

202-305-1837 Email: scott.p.kennedy@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020

in their individual capacities TERMINATED: 01/02/2018 Defendant KEITH DEVILLE
Defendant LAMAR GREENE

represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant ROBERT ALDER

Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019

Defendant JEFFERY CARROLL
Defendant PAUL NIEPLING

Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant MICHAEL WHITESIDE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder

Defendant SEAN HILL
Defendant ANTHONY ALIOTO

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming

Defendant MICHAEL MURPHY

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019

Defendant MICHAEL HOWDEN
Defendant GREGORY ROCK

Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant DANIEL THAU

Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher

Defendant MELVIN WASHINGTON
Defendant DENNIS BALDWIN

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address)

Defendant COURTNEY FLASH

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018

Defendant TIMOTHY STEFFES
Defendant

Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020

LEONARD ROCCATO
Defendant BRUCE BASKERVILLE

represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson

Defendant DIANE BROOKS

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020

Defendant PHOKHAM VONGKEO
Defendant FERNEY DENNIS

represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019

Defendant KENNETH PARKER

Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy

Defendant SEQUITA WILLIAMS
Defendant JOSEPH MASCI

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant AULIO ANGULO

Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019

Defendant DONALD BOGARDUS
Defendant HARVY HINOSTROZA

Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Duane Gordon Blackman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
JOHN DOE MPD OFFICER

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2019
Rachel A. Browder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Scott Patrick Kennedy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2020
represented by Danny C. Onorato SCHERTLER & ONORATO 901 New York Ave NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 (202) 309-0912 Fax: (202) 628-4177 Email: donorato@schertlerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda J. Montee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2019
Eric Uriol Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2018
Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez DOJ-CIV Civl Division 175 N St. NE

Ste 7th Floor Washington DC, DC 20002 202-598-3888 Email: joseph.a.gonzalez@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/07/2021
Matthew Robert Blecher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2018

Date Filed 06/21/2017
06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/22/2017
06/23/2017 06/23/2017

# Docket Text

COMPLAINT against ALL DEFENDANTS with Jury Demand (

1

Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4999882) filed by JUDAH

ARIEL, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY

HORSE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

2 MOTION File complaint without listing addresses re 1

Complaint, by Judah Ariel, Milo Gonzalez, Shay Horse, Elizabeth Lagesse (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

Case Assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (md) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their complaint without listing their home addresses is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall file a complaint under seal that lists their home addresses. They must also file on the public docket a version of the complaint with their addresses redacted. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/22/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

3 SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM, District of Columbia Attorney General, and the District of Columbia Mayor. (Attachments: # 1

Notice of Consent) (zmd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

4 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE(This

document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/23/2017 5

NOTICE OF FILING REDACTED DOCUMENT to 4 Sealed Document, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE (The original PDF Document contained privacy information and was restricted pursuant to the E-Government Act.) (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Complaint)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

07/07/2017 6

MOTION for Discovery to identify "John Doe" defendants by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/11/2017

MINUTE ORDER. The 6 motion for discovery will be denied without prejudice at this time since the District of Columbia has not yet had the opportunity to be heard on the issue, and the statute of limitations does not pose an immediate concern. Plaintiffs may renew their motion after the District has been served and an attorney for the District has entered an appearance. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/11/2017.(lcabj3) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/12/2017

7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the District of Columbia Attorney General. Date of Service Upon District of Columbia Attorney General 7/7/2017. Answer due for ALL D.C. DEFENDANTS by 7/28/2017. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/12/2017

8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Date of Service Upon the Mayor for the District of Columbia on 07/07/2017. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/12/2017

9 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. PETER NEWSHAM served on 7/7/2017 (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/17/2017

10 NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda Montee on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM (Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 11

NOTICE of Appearance by Arthur B. Spitzer on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/18/2017 12
07/20/2017 13
07/21/2017 14
07/21/2017
08/22/2017 15
08/22/2017
08/30/2017 16
09/08/2017 17

NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Robert Blecher on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM (Blecher, Matthew) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
NOTICE of Appearance by Eric Uriol Johnson on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM (Johnson, Eric) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting defendants' 14 consent motion for an extension of time. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading by September 26, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/21/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
MOTION for Discovery EXPEDITED, to identify unknown defendants, by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A proposed interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B - sample photographs, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
MINUTE ORDER. If defendants wish to be heard on their objections to proposed interrogatory 1 and the production of the
photographs, they shall file an opposition to the 15 motion for expedited discovery by September 8, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/22/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
MOTION to Stay Deadline to File Answer, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER
NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
RESPONSE re 16 MOTION to Stay Deadline to File Answer MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017 09/08/2017
09/11/2017 09/13/2017 09/13/2017

18 Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Discovery EXPEDITED, to identify unknown defendants, filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Gonzalez Profile Picture)(Blecher, Matthew) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
MINUTE ORDER. Given plaintiffs' stated interest in expedition of this matter, plaintiffs shall inform the Court by Wednesday September 13, 2017, whether they oppose the government's proposal to resolve the disputed portions of the pending 15
motion for discovery, that is, that the defense will 1) provide plaintiffs with the names of the officers who arrested and searched them; 2) make photographs of the officers in the area available for inspection by plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel at MPD headquarters, at their convenience; and 3) provide the information needed to name any officers recognized and identified as Doe defendants through that process. Def.'s 18 Opp. at 2. If this is not an acceptable resolution, plaintiffs must explain why additional discovery is needed to accomplish the stated purpose of the requested early discovery. The Court also wishes to advise counsel that this case is in its very early stages, and that the pleadings to be filed in the future will be more effective and better received if the emphasis is placed on factual and legal arguments rather than on casting aspersions on opposing counsel. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/8/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall inform the Court by 9/13/2017, whether they oppose the government's proposal to resolve the disputed portions of the pending Motion for Discovery. (jth) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
19 REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Discovery EXPEDITED, to identify unknown defendants, filed by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - revised proposed interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B - redlined interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit C - social media examples, # 4 Exhibit D - MPD award brochures)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
20 NOTICE Regarding Proposed Discovery Procedure by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE re Order,,,, (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/14/2017

21 REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION to Stay Deadline to File Answer MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM. (Johnson, Eric) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/18/2017 22

ORDER. Plaintiffs' 15 motion for expedited discovery is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs may propound the revised interrogatories that were attached to their reply brief [Dkt. # 19-1]. Defendant MPD must produce the photographs called for by Interrogatory Number 1, subject to a protective order.

Defendants' 16 motion to stay the deadline to file a responsive pleading, or for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, is GRANTED IN PART. The following schedule will govern further proceedings in this matter: The District shall respond to the interrogatories by October 13, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint and return the photographs by November 3, 2017. And defendants shall file a responsive pleading by November 29, 2017. See Order for complete details. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/18/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

10/11/2017

23 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) Modified event title on 10/12/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/12/2017 24

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (see the order for complete details). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/12/2017. (jth) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

11/02/2017

25 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 1

Complaint, by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/03/2017

MINUTE ORDER granting 25 plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file amended complaint by November 7, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/03/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/07/2017

26 Consent MOTION for Discovery to identify "Doe" defendants, Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 1

Complaint, and to Respond to Amended Complaint by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed interrogatories), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/08/2017

MINUTE ORDER. The Court grants the consent motion allowing plaintiffs to serve three additional interrogatories on defendants for the purpose of obtaining the identities of the "Doe" defendants. These three interrogatories will not count against plaintiffs' limit under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also grants the request for an extension of time and sets the following schedule: Defendants shall respond to the interrogatories by December 11, 2017. Plaintiffs shall amend the complaint by January 2, 2018. Defendants shall file their response by February 16, 2018. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/08/2017. (lcabj3) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

01/02/2018

27 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, Gwen Frisbie-Fulton, A. S. re Order on Motion for Discovery,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Amend,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, 1

Complaint, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/02/2018

28 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE to new defendants re 27 Sealed Document, filed by JUDAH ARIEL, A. S., ELIZABETH LAGESSE, Gwen Frisbie-Fulton, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE. Related document: 27 Sealed Document, filed by JUDAH ARIEL, Gwen Frisbie-Fulton, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, A. S.. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons, # 16 Summons, # 17 Summons, # 18 Summons, # 19 Summons, # 20 Summons, # 21 Summons, # 22 Summons, # 23 Summons, # 24 Summons, # 25 Summons, # 26 Summons)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/03/2018 29

AMENDED COMPLAINT with addresses redacted against All Defendants with Jury Demand filed by ELIZABETH LAGESSE,

01/04/2018 30
02/07/2018 31

SHAY HORSE, A. S., Gwen Frisbie-Fulton, JUDAH ARIEL, MILO GONZALEZ.(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
SUMMONS (27) Issued Electronically as to ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. (znmw) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. ROBERT ALDER served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; ANTHONY ALIOTO served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; AULIO ANGULO served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; DENNIS BALDWIN served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; BRUCE BASKERVILLE served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; DONALD BOGARDUS served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; DIANE BROOKS served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; JEFFERY CARROLL served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; FERNEY DENNIS served on 2/1/2018, answer due 2/22/2018; KEITH DEVILLE served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; COURTNEY FLASH served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; LAMAR GREENE served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; SEAN HILL served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; HARVY HINOSTROZA served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; MICHAEL HOWDEN served on 2/1/2018, answer due 2/22/2018; JOSEPH MASCI served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; MICHAEL MURPHY served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; PAUL NIEPLING served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; KENNETH PARKER served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; LEONARD ROCCATO served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; GREGORY ROCK served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; TIMOTHY STEFFES served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; DANIEL THAU served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; PHOKHAM VONGKEO served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; MELVIN WASHINGTON served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; MICHAEL WHITESIDE served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018; SEQUITA WILLIAMS served on 1/24/2018, answer due 2/14/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of service, # 2 Affidavit of service, # 3 Affidavit of service, # 4 Affidavit of service, # 5 Affidavit of

02/08/2018 32
02/08/2018 33
02/08/2018 34
02/09/2018
02/09/2018 35
03/28/2018 36

service, # 6 Affidavit of service, # 7 Affidavit of service, # 8 Affidavit of service, # 9 Affidavit of service, # 10 Affidavit of service, # 11 Affidavit of service, # 12 Affidavit of service, # 13 Affidavit of service, # 14 Affidavit of service, # 15 Affidavit of service, # 16 Affidavit of service, # 17 Affidavit of service, # 18 Affidavit of service, # 19 Affidavit of service, # 20 Affidavit of service, # 21 Affidavit of service, # 22 Affidavit of service, # 23 Affidavit of service, # 24 Affidavit of service, # 25 Affidavit of service, # 26 Affidavit of service, # 27 Affidavit of service)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 29
Amended Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda J. Montee on behalf of All Defendants (Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda J. Montee on behalf of JOSEPH MASCI (Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 32 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants must file a responsive pleading by March 30, 2018. If defendants file a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition is due on May 21, 2018, and defendants' reply is due on June 29, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/9/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
NOTICE of Appearance by Eric Uriol Johnson on behalf of ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Johnson, Eric) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS,

03/29/2018
03/30/2018 37
03/30/2018 38

DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants may file a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss that is up to 70 pages, and plaintiffs may file an opposition of up to 70 pages. The Court hopes that 60 pages will be sufficient. The pleadings need not restate allegations already set out in considerable detail in the amended complaint, and the parties are strongly encouraged to endeavor to eliminate repetition as much as possible. Looking forward to the submission of defendants' reply, it may not repeat arguments set out in the memorandum in support of the motion, but must be limited to a reply to arguments advanced in plaintiffs' opposition. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/29/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Robert Blecher on behalf of ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Blecher, Matthew) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
MOTION to Dismiss by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER

03/30/2018 39
03/30/2018 40
04/05/2018
04/06/2018 41
04/19/2018 42
05/03/2018 43

NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
Consent MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal by JOHN DOE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment by JOHN DOE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 39 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits A, B, and H Under Seal. To the extent that the exhibits are audio or video files, defendant must deliver the files directly to chambers, where they will be maintained under seal, and provide copies of the files to plaintiffs. Defendant must then file a notice on the docket that it has done so. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/5/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
NOTICE by JOHN DOE (Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIEFULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott). Added MOTION to Name and Join Party on 4/23/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 04/19/2018)
Memorandum in opposition to re 42 MOTION to Strike 40
MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Name and Join Party filed by JOHN DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/08/2018 44

REPLY to opposition to motion re 42 MOTION to Strike 40

MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Name and Join Party filed by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/21/2018

45 Memorandum in opposition to re 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

06/21/2018 46

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply as to 38 MOTION to Dismiss by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/22/2018

MINUTE ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants must file a reply in support of

their 40 motion to dismiss by July 20, 2018. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/22/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

07/20/2018

47 REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN,

09/28/2018 48
11/20/2018

JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JOHN DOE, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. Attorney Eric Uriol Johnson terminated. (Johnson, Eric) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendant John Doe has filed 40 a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, and
plaintiffs have moved 42 to strike the motion. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and 12, plaintiffs' motion to
strike 42 is procedurally improper because a motion to motion to strike is limited to pleadings, and a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is not a pleading. See Modaressi v. Vedadi, 441 F. Supp. 2d 51, 54 (D.D.C. 2006). Thus, the Court will treat plaintiffs motion to strike as an opposition to defendant John Doe's motion to dismiss. See Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 n.1 (D.D.C. 2007). After consideration of the motion and the opposition, Doe's Motion to
Dismiss or for Summary Judgment 40 is hereby DENIED without prejudice on the grounds that it is premature. Defendant John Doe has not yet been served or named in the case, and so he "cannot be dismissed... from a lawsuit to which [he is] not a part[y]." Maverick Entmt Grp., Inc. v. Does 1-2, 115, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1, 16 (D.D.C. 2011); see also Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does, 2012 WL 3296582, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2012) (finding that it is "improper as a matter of law" to evaluate motions to dismiss for lack of venue and personal jurisdiction where the defendants have not yet been named); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-11, No. CV 12-

767, 2012 WL 13063445, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 2012) (denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as premature because defendant John Doe was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit). It is therefore ORDERED that defendant District of Columbia must inform plaintiffs and the Court, under seal, of John Doe's identity by November 30, 2018. If plaintiffs intend to proceed with the allegations against him, plaintiffs must serve him and respond to his request to remain anonymous in this litigation by December 14, 2018. Since defendant John Doe has already filed a responsive pleading, the Court is hopeful that counsel will agree to accept service on his behalf. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant John Doe may then renew his motion to dismiss based on the previously filed memorandum of points and authorities, and plaintiffs must file a substantive opposition within 14 days. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/20/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/30/2018 49

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Identify Defendant John Doe by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montee, Amanda) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018 50

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant John Doe by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/03/2018

MINUTE ORDER granting 49 50 Motions for Extension of Time. Defendant District of Columbia must file a notice, under seal, informing plaintiffs and the Court of defendant John Doe's identity by December 7, 2018. Plaintiffs must serve defendant John Doe by January 7, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/3/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/07/2018 51

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez on behalf of JOHN DOE Substituting for attorney Amanda Montee and Matthew Blecher (Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2018)

12/07/2018

52 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JOHN DOE(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2018)

12/07/2018

53 ENTERED IN ERROR.....SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY

HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S. re 29 Amended

12/13/2018 54
12/13/2018
12/13/2018
12/19/2018
01/03/2019 55
01/07/2019 56

Complaint, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,,,,, (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Summons TO BE ISSUED UNDER SEAL)(Michelman, Scott) Modified on 12/19/2018 (zjf). (Entered: 12/07/2018)

NOTICE of Acceptance of Service of the Amended Complaint and Joint Notice Regarding Use of the John Doe Pseudonym by JOHN DOE (Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

MINUTE ORDER. Defendant John Doe must respond to the amended complaint by January 3, 2019. He may continue to proceed in this case under a pseudonym pending the resolution of that motion. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/13/2018. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant John Doe must respond to the Amended Complaint by January 3, 2019. (jth) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 53 Sealed Document, was entered in error. Counsel served

amended complaint by other means. (See Docket Entry 54 to view document)(zjf) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment by JOHN

DOE (Attachments: # 1 (Entered: 01/03/2019)

Exhibit C-G)(Gonzalez, Joseph)

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Rachel A. Browder on behalf of ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS Substituting for attorney Amanda J. Montee (Browder, Rachel) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/17/2019

57 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY

HORSE. re 55 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration of M. Gonzalez, # 3 Declaration of S. Horse, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/17/2019 58

NOTICE of Filing of Redacted Documents by MILO GONZALEZ,
SHAY HORSE re 55 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment , 57 Sealed Opposition, (Attachments: # 1 Opposition brief, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of M. Gonzalez, # 4 Declaration of S. Horse, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/18/2019

MINUTE ORDER. The parties are reminded that in the future, notwithstanding the Court's December 13, 2018 minute order, any pleading sought to be filed under seal must be accompanied with a motion for leave to file under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.1(h). SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/18/2019. (lcabj2) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/22/2019 59

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as
to 55 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment by JOHN DOE (Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

MINUTE ORDER granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant John Doe's reply to plaintiff's opposition 57 , in support

of his motion to dismiss 55 , must be filed by January 31, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/22/2019. (lcabj2) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/31/2019

60 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by JOHN DOE re 55

MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

01/31/2019 61

NOTICE of Redacted Document by JOHN DOE re 60 Sealed Reply (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Reply Brief)(Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

09/11/2019 62
09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/27/2019 09/27/2019
63
09/27/2019

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. Attorney Rachel A. Browder terminated. (Browder, Rachel) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: A Status Conference in case numbers: 17-cv1216 and 18-cv-120 is set for Friday, September 20, 2019, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (jth) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: The Status Conference in case numbers: 17-cv1216 and 18-cv-120 presently set for Friday, September 20, 2019, at 1:30 PM is reset for Friday, September 27, 2019, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (jth) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: The Status Conference in case numbers: 17-cv1216 and 18-cv-120 presently set for Friday, September 27, 2019, at 1:30 PM is reset for Friday, September 27, 2019, at 2:00 PM (NEW STARTING TIME) in Courtroom 3 before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (jth) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Patrick Kennedy on behalf of ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
Minute Entry for Proceedings held before Judge Amy Berman Jackson: Status Conference in case numbers 17-cv-1216 (ABJ) and

10/18/2019 64
10/18/2019 65
10/18/2019 66

18-cv-120 (ABJ) held on 9/27/2019. For the reasons stated on the record in 17-cv-1216 (ABJ) Defendants' (DC, et al.,) motion to
dismiss the Horse complaint 38 is granted as to claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14. The motion is denied as to all other claims. Plaintiffs' constitutional claims against the District cannot proceed on the final policymaker theory of municipal liability, but they may proceed on failure to train / failure to supervise grounds. Defendant
John Does's 55 motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment as to Count 16 is denied. For the reasons stated on the record in 18-cv-120 (ABJ) Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Schultz complaint 12 is granted as to claims 3 and 6. All other claims will move forward; however, the Schultz plaintiffs' constitutional claims against the District cannot proceed on the final policymaker theory of municipal liability, although they may proceed on failure to train / failure to supervise grounds. The parties shall file a notice with the Court by 10/18/2019 informing the Court if they seek early mediation either through the Court's Mediation Program, with a Magistrate Judge or with any other proposal they have. Class certification litigation is stayed pending further order of the Court. (Court Reporter: Janice Dickman) (jth) (Entered: 09/29/2019)
NOTICE of Appearance by Micah Ian Bluming on behalf of ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
MOTION Leave to File Publicly Forthcoming Motion to Amend Complaint by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) Modified event on 10/23/2019 (znmw). (Entered: 10/18/2019)
Joint STATUS REPORT by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE

10/22/2019 67
10/24/2019 68

BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
ORDER. With the consent of the parties on October 18, 2019 66
, it is ORDERED that this matter is referred to the Court's Mediation Program to commence as of October 22, 2019. Mediation efforts shall conclude by December 17, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by December 17, 2019, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. See Order for complete details. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/22/2019. (lcabj2) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amy Berman Jackson held on September 27, 2019; Page Numbers: 1-98. Date of Issuance:October 24, 2019. Court Reporter: Janice Dickman, Telephone number: 202-354-3267, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenc ed above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 11/14/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/24/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2020.(Dickman, Janice) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

10/25/2019 69
11/01/2019 70
11/01/2019 71
11/04/2019 72
11/07/2019
12/16/2019 73
12/17/2019

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Matthew Robert Blecher terminated. (Blecher, Matthew) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
NOTICE of Appearance by Danny C. Onorato on behalf of JOHN DOE (Onorato, Danny) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
RESPONSE re 65 MOTION for Leave to File filed by JOHN DOE. (Onorato, Danny) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
REPLY to opposition to motion re 65 MOTION for Leave to File Publicly filed by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
MINUTE ORDER. In consideration of plaintiffs' motion 65 ,
defendant John Doe's response 71 , and plaintiffs' reply 72
, plaintiffs' motion to file publicly a forthcoming amended
complaint 65 is denied, without prejudice to reconsideration, if the case is still pending at the close of mediation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/7/2019. (lcabj2) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation and for Extension of Stay by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
MINUTE ORDER granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time. Mediation shall conclude by February 7, 2020. The parties shall

submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by February 7, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/17/2019. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

01/31/2020 74

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Defendants. Case related to Case No. 20-00130. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

02/03/2020

MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that the parties must file a joint or separate submissions by noon on February 6, 2020 informing the Court of plaintiffs' position on whether the case designated as

related in defendants' notice 74 , Cantu v. District of Columbia, 20-cv-130, should be transferred to this Court as related and defendants' position on (1) whether they intend to respond to the complaint in that case in full or in part with a dispositive motion; and (2) whether the notice means it is the defendants' intention to join the new case to the ongoing mediation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/3/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/05/2020 75

Joint STATUS REPORT by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/07/2020

76 Joint STATUS REPORT by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN

02/07/2020
02/21/2020 77
02/26/2020
04/03/2020 78
04/07/2020

WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 76 , it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by February 21, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by February 21, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/7/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI, MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 77
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by April 3, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by April 3, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/26/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 78
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by May 15, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by May 15, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/7/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 04/07/2020)

04/10/2020 79
05/14/2020 80
05/15/2020
06/12/2020 81
06/12/2020
07/09/2020 82
07/15/2020
07/21/2020 83

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Scott Patrick Kennedy terminated. (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 80
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by June 12, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by June 12, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/15/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 81
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by July 10, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by July 10, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/12/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 82
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by August 10, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by August 10, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/15/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
NOTICE of Appearance by Duane Gordon Blackman on behalf of ROBERT ALDER, ANTHONY ALIOTO, AULIO ANGULO, DENNIS BALDWIN, BRUCE BASKERVILLE, DONALD BOGARDUS, DIANE BROOKS, JEFFERY CARROLL, FERNEY DENNIS, KEITH DEVILLE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURTNEY FLASH, LAMAR GREENE, SEAN HILL, HARVY HINOSTROZA, MICHAEL HOWDEN, JOSEPH MASCI,

08/07/2020 84
08/10/2020
09/10/2020 85
09/14/2020
10/13/2020 86
10/14/2020

MICHAEL MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, PAUL NIEPLING, KENNETH PARKER, LEONARD ROCCATO, GREGORY ROCK, TIMOTHY STEFFES, DANIEL THAU, PHOKHAM VONGKEO, MELVIN WASHINGTON, MICHAEL WHITESIDE, SEQUITA WILLIAMS (Blackman, Duane) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 84
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by September 11, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by September 11, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/10/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 85
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by October 13, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by October 13, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/14/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 09/14/2020)
Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 10/13/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' joint status report 86
, it is ORDERED that mediation shall conclude by December 14, 2020. The parties shall submit a report to this Court on the status of the mediation by December 14, 2020, and if the case settles in whole or in part, both parties shall immediately advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/14/2020. (lcabj2) (Entered: 10/14/2020)

10/14/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Mediation shall conclude by 12/14/2020. The parties shall submit a report to the Court on the status of mediation by 12/14/2020. (jth) (Entered: 10/14/2020)

12/14/2020 87

Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Blackman, Duane) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020

MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' 87 joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that the stay in this case will be extended until January 25, 2021. The parties must file a status report informing the Court of the status of the matter by January 25, 2021, if the case has not been resolved in the interim. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/14/20. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

01/25/2021 88

Joint STATUS REPORT by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIEFULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/25/2021 89

Unopposed MOTION for Telephone Conference by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/26/2021

MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiffs' 89 motion for status conference. The Court is prepared to give defendants additional time to obtain further approval, but the parties are ORDERED to attend a status conference on February 26, 2021, at 10:00 AM by phone before Judge Amy Berman Jackson if the case has not been dismissed by that time. The Court's Deputy Clerk will provide counsel with the dial-in number and passcode to access the call. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/26/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

02/26/2021

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amy Berman Jackson: Telephone Conference Call held on 2/26/2021. The parties shall file another Status Report by March 25, 2021. (Court Reporter: Janice Dickman) (jth) (Entered: 02/26/2021)

03/25/2021

90 Joint STATUS REPORT by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIEFULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 03/25/2021)

03/31/2021

MINUTE ORDER. The parties must submit a joint status report by April 6, 2021. In the event the matter has not been resolved by that time, the Court will hold an in person status conference in

Courtroom 3 on April 12 at 2:00 pm, and a person with supervisory responsibilities in either the Office of the Mayor or the Office of the Attorney General, who can speak knowledgably about the specific reasons for the delay, must attend. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/31/2021. (lcabj1) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

04/06/2021 91

Joint STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 04/06/2021)

04/07/2021

92 Second MOTION Leave to File On Public Docket a Motion to Amend the Complaint by JUDAH ARIEL, GWEN FRISBIEFULTON, MILO GONZALEZ, SHAY HORSE, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, A. S.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

04/07/2021

93 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JOHN DOE. Attorney Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez terminated. (Gonzalez, Joseph) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

04/07/2021

MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that the status hearing scheduled for April 12, 2021, is VACATED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit another joint status report by April 13, 2021, if the case has not been resolved by that time. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/7/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

04/08/2021 15:46:37

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

1:17-cv-01216ABJ
3.00

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAY HORSE, JUDAH ARIEL, ELIZABETH LAGESSE, and MILO GONZALEZ,*
Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA c/o Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001,
JOHN/JANE DOE MPD OFFICERS 1-150, in their individual capacities c/o Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001,
JOHN/JANE SOE SUPERVISORY MPD OFFICERS 1-20, in their individual capacities c/o Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001, and
PETER NEWSHAM Chief, Metropolitan Police Department, in his individual capacity c/o Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. _______________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Violation of constitutional and D.C.-law rights of Inauguration Day demonstrators)

* A motion for leave to omit plaintiffs’ addresses is being filed contemporaneously.

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 41
INTRODUCTION On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. Exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech and assembly, people from all over the country took to the streets of the nation’s capital to express their disapproval of his policies. Journalists came to report on the demonstrations. Legal observers came to document any violations of the demonstrators’ legal rights. During the course of demonstrations in the District of Columbia that day, several acts of vandalism occurred. In response, the District’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) rounded up and arrested hundreds of people, including people who engaged in no illegal activity, by chasing them and blocking streets so as to force them into a confined area (a “kettle”) on a D.C. street corner. During the chase and then while detaining demonstrators for hours, police fired pepper spray, tear gas, and flash-bang grenades at crowds of demonstrators, journalists, and legal observers, frequently without warning or justification. In the course of the roundup and subsequent processing of demonstrators, police held detainees for hours without food, water, or access to toilets; handcuffed detainees so tightly as to cause injury or loss of feeling; and subjected some detainees to manual rectal probing. Much of MPD’s misconduct has been independently documented by the District of Columbia’s Office of Police Complaints. Plaintiffs are two individuals who came to the District to express their views concerning the inauguration, a photojournalist who covered the demonstrations, and a legal observer who was present at the scene. Each of them suffered one or more of the constitutional, statutory, and common law violations described here.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 41
Among the violations committed by MPD and its officers were the following: Plaintiff Horse, a photojournalist, was pepper-sprayed while he was taking a photograph of demonstrators and neither posing a safety threat nor breaking the law; he was subsequently arrested even though he was not participating in any unlawful activity. Plaintiff Lagesse was arrested even though she did not participate in any acts of vandalism and was not even close enough to witness any; she was marching to express her views when she was caught up in the stampede created by MPD’s pursuit of the demonstrators and its use of chemical irritants. Plaintiff Ariel, a clearly identified legal observer, was pepper-sprayed without warning and for no apparent reason other than standing near the corner where MPD was detaining demonstrators. Pepper spray and tear gas were used against all plaintiffs without justification and without warning. While Plaintiffs Lagesse, Horse, and Gonzalez were detained on a D.C. street corner and later in police transport vehicles, they were unreasonably denied food, water, and access to a toilet for periods ranging from 7 to 16 hours; arresting officers unnecessarily prolonged the arrest process in order to keep detainees in a state of anxiety, hunger, thirst, and other discomfort. Plaintiffs Lagesse and Horse were handcuffed so tightly that one of Plaintiff Lagesse’s wrists bled and Plaintiff Horse lost feeling in several fingers, some of which were numb for months afterward. During processing, Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez were subjected to intrusive, humiliating, and unjustified manual rectal probing and grabbing of their testicles.
To obtain compensation for their injuries and to vindicate their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, the D.C. First Amendment Assemblies Act, and the common law, plaintiffs now seek relief in this Court.
3

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 41

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, because the plaintiffs’ claims arise under the First, Fourth and Fifth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and are asserted here pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiffs’ claims under the statutory and common law of the District of Columbia

arise from the same events as the constitutional claims and are within the Court’s

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the

events giving rise to all claims occurred in the District of Columbia.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff Shay Horse is an adult resident of New York and a freelance

photojournalist whose work has been purchased by Getty Images and Associated Press and

published in a variety of outlets including Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera America, and The

Intercept. On January 20, he was in Washington, D.C. to photograph the Inauguration Day

demonstrations.

4.

Plaintiff Judah Ariel is an adult resident of the District of Columbia and a

licensed attorney. On January 20, he was serving as a legal observer to document any

violations of the rights of counter-inaugural demonstrators.

5.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Lagesse is an adult resident of Maryland. On January 20,

she traveled to Washington, D.C. for the purpose of expressing her opposition to the policy

positions of the new President.

4

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 41

6.

Plaintiff Milo Gonzalez is an adult resident of New York. On January 20,

he was in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of expressing his opposition to the policy

positions of the new President and assisting journalists covering the demonstrations.

7.

Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation, the local

government of Washington, D.C. It operates and governs the MPD pursuant to the laws of

the District of Columbia. In this case, the District of Columbia acted through its agents,

employees, and servants, including all of the individual Defendants.

8.

Defendant MPD Officers John/Jane Doe 1-150 are sworn officers who are

employed by the MPD and whose real names are unknown at this time. At the time of the

events at issue, all Doe officers were acting within the scope of their employment and under

color of law of the District of Columbia. They are sued in their individual capacities.

9.

Defendant MPD Supervisory Officers John/Jane Soe 1-20 are sworn

officers who are employed by the MPD and whose real names are unknown at this time.

The Soe defendants supervised the Doe defendants as indicated herein. At the time of the

events at issue, the Soe defendants were acting within the scope of their employment and

under color of law of the District of Columbia. They are sued in their individual capacities.

10. Defendant Peter Newsham is the Chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Department. At the time of the events at issue, he was the Interim Chief of Police and was

acting within the scope of his employment and under color of law of the District of

Columbia. He is sued in his individual capacity.

5

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 6 of 41
FACTS Police Weapons 11. On Inauguration Day 2017, MPD officers who interacted with demonstrators were equipped with several types of non-lethal weapons, including: a. Oleoresin Capsicum spray dispensers, which resemble small fire extinguishers containing 14-48 ounces of solution, depending on the model, with a typical range of 25-30 feet. The solution, commonly known as pepper spray, produces a burning sensation on a person’s skin and in a person’s eyes and lungs, vision problems, and breathing problems including coughing and choking. b. “Stingers,” which are explosive devices that release smoke, rubber pellets, and a chemical irritant within a radius of approximately 50 feet. c. Smoke flares, which are explosive devices that release smoke. d. Concussion grenades, which are devices that produce loud explosive noises. e. Flash-bang grenades, which are devices that produce loud explosive noises and bright flashes of light. f. Long range acoustic devices, or LRADs, which are devices that emit an excruciatingly loud tone. Demonstrators March Down 13th Street NW 12. On January 20, 2017, thousands of people demonstrated in the District of Columbia to express their opposition to the new President.
6

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 7 of 41
13. The overwhelming majority of the demonstrators were peaceful and lawabiding.
14. Between 10 and 11 a.m. on January 20, hundreds of demonstrators walked south on 13th Street NW from Logan Circle toward the National Mall.
15. Plaintiff Shay Horse was walking alongside the demonstrators in order to photograph the demonstration for journalistic purposes. He intended to sell his photographs commercially, and had a well-founded expectation that he would be able to do so.
16. Mr. Horse was wearing dark jeans, a hooded sweatshirt with the hood down, a leather jacket, and a camera around his neck. He carried a bag onto which he had affixed silver duct tape to make the bag more identifiable.
17. Between 10 and 11 a.m. on January 20, some demonstrators engaged in acts of vandalism on or near 13th Street NW between Logan Circle and Franklin Square.
18. The individuals who engaged in vandalism were dressed in all-black clothing with hoods over their heads and masks over their faces.
19. Mr. Horse was not wearing a hood or a mask. Police Confront the Demonstrators
20. As demonstrators walking south on 13th Street NW reached Franklin Square, they encountered a group of MPD officers, who diverted protestors away from Franklin Square to the east.
21. Many demonstrators and Mr. Horse moved away from the police down streets to the east and south of Franklin Square.
7

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 8 of 41
22. Additional police officers converged on the demonstrators as they were diverted down side streets, and some began discharging pepper spray and various types of noise-emitting devices at the demonstrators.
23. Plaintiff Horse continued to take photographs of the events, including photographs of a few demonstrators in hoods and masks breaking a storefront window and a photograph of Defendant Officer John Doe 1 as he pepper-sprayed demonstrators. A photograph of Officer John Doe 1 is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A.
24. Although Officer John Doe 1 had observed Mr. Horse with a large, professional-quality camera around his neck taking photographs, Office John Doe 1 pepper-sprayed Mr. Horse without warning.
25. At the time Officer John Doe 1 pepper-sprayed Mr. Horse, Mr. Horse was not engaged in any unlawful or dangerous activity. He was not disobeying any orders by any police officer.
26. As a result of the pepper spray, Mr. Horse choked and gasped for breath. As the pepper spray flooded his eyes, they began to burn.
27. As Mr. Horse and a number of demonstrators ran away from the police assault, Defendant Officers Doe 1-60 confronted them on the streets immediately east and/or south of Franklin Square and discharged pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, stingers, smoke flares, and LRADs at demonstrators and other individuals in the vicinity, including Plaintiff Horse.
28. Neither Defendant Officers Doe 1-60, nor any other MPD officers or officials, ordered anyone to disperse, halt, or turn back, before Does 1-60 deployed their weapons.
8

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 9 of 41
29. Defendant Officers Doe 1-60 deployed pepper-spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, stingers, smoke flares, and LRADs against individuals (including Mr. Horse) in many instances in which the officers faced no threat to themselves or to public safety or disobedience of any commands they had given.
30. Defendant Supervisory Officers Soe 1-10 directed the Doe defendants to deploy their weapons against individuals (including Mr. Horse) in many instances in which the Doe defendants faced no threat to themselves or to public safety or disobedience of any commands they had given.
31. Using pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, stingers, smoke flares, and LRADs, Defendant Officers Doe 1-60 chased Mr. Horse and many of the demonstrators back to the north and west.
Plaintiff Lagesse Marches Down 13th Street NW 32. Plaintiff Elizabeth Lagesse arrived at Logan Circle later than most of the demonstrators. She walked south down 13th Street NW from Logan Circle approximately thirty minutes after most of the demonstrators had begun marching. 33. Ms. Lagesse was wearing a black and white T-shirt, a bright-colored inner jacket, and a long grey rain jacket that she removed as she marched, and she was carrying a multi-colored bag. She did not wear a hood or mask. Having encountered overzealous police officers using pepper spray at prior demonstrations, Ms. Lagesse brought a bandana and a pair of lab safety goggles she owned. They were not on her face as she walked south from Logan Circle. 34. Ms. Lagesse did not engage in or witness any acts of vandalism.
9

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 10 of 41
Continued Police Assault and Mass Detentions 35. On or near 13th Street NW, Defendant Officers Doe 1-60 deployed pepper spray and/or tear gas against individuals, including Mr. Horse and Ms. Lagesse, without warning or a dispersal order, and in many instances in which the officers faced no threat to themselves or to public safety or disobedience of any commands they had given. 36. Defendant Supervisory Officers Soe 1-10 directed the Doe defendants to deploy pepper spray against individuals (including Mr. Horse and Ms. Lagesse) in many instances in which the Doe defendants faced no threat to themselves or to public safety or disobedience of any commands they had given. 37. The pepper spray caused Mr. Horse’s and Ms. Lagesse’s eyes to burn. 38. Ms. Lagesse put on her safety goggles and pulled her bandana from around her neck to cover her mouth in an attempt to protect herself from the pepper spray that MPD officers were discharging. 39. Although neither Ms. Lagesse nor Mr. Horse had committed any unlawful act, the police conduct put each of them in fear for their safety and so they ran away from the police, ultimately heading north on 14th Street NW. 40. Defendant Officers Doe 61-90 strategically blocked numerous alternative egress routes in order to force Mr. Horse, Ms. Lagesse, and many demonstrators to flee north up 14th Street NW and then east on L Street NW to the corner of 12th and L Streets NW. 41. At the corner of 12th and L Streets NW, Defendant Officers Doe 91-140 established a blockade to trap individuals running east on L Street NW.
10

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 11 of 41

42. Although some individuals on L Street NW managed to escape by evading

the MPD blockade before it closed in, Ms. Lagesse, Mr. Horse, and most of the other

individuals on L Street NW were detained by police at the northwest corner of 12th and L

Streets NW and on L Street NW itself.

43. Defendant Officers Doe 91-140 detained more than 200 individuals in the

cordoned area (the “kettle”) they had created at 12th and L Streets NW.

44. Defendant Supervising Officers Soe 11-15 supervised and/or commanded

MPD officers to act in a coordinated manner to funnel individuals into the kettle by chasing

them to 12th and L Streets NW and by blocking off alternative routes of dispersal.

45. Neither Defendant Officers Doe 61-140 nor Defendant Supervisory

Officers Soe 11-15 took any actions to try to ensure that only individuals whom they had

probable cause to believe had committed crimes would be detained in the kettle.

46.

Defendant Supervising Officers Soe 11-15 were well aware that the police

had no ability to identify which, if any, of the kettled individuals had committed crimes.

47. Defendant Newsham later acknowledged to the Washington Post that his

officers strategically maneuvered the demonstrators to trap them in the kettle. On

information and belief, Defendant Newsham ordered or approved this action at the time it

took place, and/or approved the continued detention and arrest of the kettled demonstrators

despite becoming aware that the police had no ability to identify which, if any, of these

individuals had committed crimes.

48. Because of Defendants’ intentional and coordinated action in chasing

individuals north on 14th Street NW, then east on L Street NW, while driving them on by

using pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, and stingers, and blocking

11

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 12 of 41
their egress via different routes, the individuals who were trapped in the kettle at 12th and L Streets NW were not there by virtue of having acted unlawfully but merely because they were present on particular downtown D.C. streets on the morning of January 20 and then tried to disperse when police chased and assaulted them.
49. Mr. Horse did not engage in any vandalism or other unlawful activity on the streets of Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2017. He did not encourage anyone to do so or cheer for anyone who did so. He was not dressed the same as anyone who did so.
50. Mr. Horse was detained in the kettle without probable cause and merely because he was exercising his First Amendment right to document the demonstrations as a photojournalist, was present on particular downtown D.C. streets on the morning of January 20, and tried to run away when police officers chased and assaulted him.
51. Ms. Lagesse did not engage in any vandalism or other unlawful activity on the streets of Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2017. She did not encourage anyone to do so or cheer for anyone who did so. She was not dressed the same as anyone who did so.
52. Ms. Lagesse was detained in the kettle without probable cause and merely because she wished to exercise her First Amendment right to demonstrate peacefully in opposition to the Inauguration, was present on particular downtown D.C. streets on the morning of January 20, and tried to run away when police officers chased and assaulted her.
In the Kettle 53. The kettle of detainees at 12th and L Streets NW was formed by Defendants at about 10:45 a.m.
12

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 13 of 41
54. Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse were detained there along with approximately 200 other individuals, one of whom was Plaintiff Milo Gonzalez.
55. Plaintiffs, Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez were detained in the kettle for hours.
56. While individuals were detained in the kettle, Defendant Officers Doe 91140 repeatedly deployed pepper spray and tear gas against individuals or groups of individuals in the kettle, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez.
57. Many of these deployments came without warning or dispersal order— indeed, the individuals in the kettle were physically prevented from dispersing—and were carried out in the absence of any threat to officer or public safety or any disobedience of police orders on the part of the detainees.
58. Defendant Supervisory Officers Soe 16-20, overseeing the conduct of officers at the kettle, directed the Doe defendants to deploy pepper spray against individuals (including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez) in many instances in which the Doe defendants faced no threat to themselves or to public safety or disobedience of any commands they had given.
59. The pepper spray and tear gas were so thick that at times they created a haze over the kettle and all the individuals detained there.
60. The repeated deployment of chemical irritants caused panic among the kettled detainees, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, because they were having difficulty breathing, were tightly pressed together with other detainees, and could not escape the kettle.
13

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 14 of 41
61. Each time Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez were hit with pepper spray or tear gas, their eyes began to burn painfully, and they began to cough and to gasp for breath.
62. Because Plaintiff Lagesse had goggles on by this time, her eyes were protected, but the pepper spray caused her to cough, to have difficulty breathing, and to experience a burning sensation on the uncovered part of her face.
63. While Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez were detained in the kettle, the defendants failed to provide them with food, water, or access to a toilet.
64. Many demonstrators, including Ms. Lagesse and Mr. Gonzalez, specifically requested food, water, and access to a toilet.
65. While the detainees were kettled, Defendant Officers Doe 91-95 threw edible food in a garbage can in view of the detainees, including Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez, to taunt them. Mr. Gonzalez specifically asked the officers for food that they were throwing away and they refused to provide it. Defendant Officers Doe 91-95 laughed at Mr. Gonzalez as they threw their food away.
66. Hungry, Mr. Horse and Mr. Gonzalez both resorted to rummaging in a city trashcan for the food the officers had discarded.
67. One of the MPD officers, Defendant Officer John Doe 96, made clear to the detainees that no toilets would be made available by stating in response to one detainee’s request that she should “shit [her] pants” to prove she needed a toilet.
68. Having no other place to urinate, some of the demonstrators urinated on the street or against the side of buildings. Some demonstrators rummaged in the trash for empty bottles in which to urinate. At least one demonstrator crouched against the side of a building and defecated into a paper bag.
14

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 15 of 41
69. Mr. Gonzalez badly needed to use a toilet, but, fearing that he could be charged with public urination, did not dare to urinate on the street.
70. Holding his bladder was painful for Mr. Gonzalez. 71. Defendant Officer John Doe 97 taunted Mr. Gonzalez, saying “If you wanted to go to the bathroom, you shouldn’t have gotten arrested.” 72. In the early afternoon, MPD began handcuffing detainees and placing them into vehicles for transport to detention facilities. 73. Neither Defendant Officers Doe 91-140 nor Defendant Supervisory Officers Soe 16-20 took any actions to try to ensure that only individuals whom they had probable cause to believe had committed crimes would be handcuffed and transported to detention facilities. 74. Defendant Officers John Doe 91-140 purposefully proceeded slowly with the arrests to maximize the detainees’ discomfort. 75. The level of coordination in slow-walking the formal arrest of detainees reflects that Defendant Supervisory Officers Soe 16-20 instructed the arresting officers to process the detainees slowly to maximize their discomfort.
Bystanders and Legal Observers Are Pepper-Sprayed 76. Plaintiff Judah Ariel had started working as a legal observer at 6:30 a.m. on January 20 at various demonstrations throughout the District. He was dressed in a brown jacket and blue jeans, and he was wearing the distinctive bright neon green hat commonly worn by legal observers to identify themselves. He was not wearing a hood or mask. 77. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Mr. Ariel was walking east from McPherson Square on K Street NW.
15

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 16 of 41
78. Because Mr. Ariel had heard from another legal observer about police activity in the area of 12th and L Streets NW, he walked north on 12th Street NW toward that intersection to see if he could be of use as a legal observer there.
79. Mr. Ariel joined a crowd of people at the southeast corner of 12th and L Streets NW, outside the kettle. The crowd included multiple legal observers along the sidewalk, clearly identifiable by on their bright neon green hats.
80. The south side of the intersection was cordoned off by yellow police tape and blocked by a row of police motorcycles. In the intersection, and extending west on L Street NW, a row of MPD officers lined up facing south towards the crowd. Additional MPD officers were lined up behind the first police line.
81. Mr. Ariel observed the kettled group of detainees surrounded by police at the northwest corner of the intersection.
82. Many members of the crowd outside the kettle shouted at the police to demand the release of the people being detained.
83. While Mr. Ariel was present, neither he nor the other individuals outside the kettle menaced, threatened, or assaulted the police or their vehicles.
84. At approximately 1:45 p.m., suddenly and without warning or a dispersal order, Defendant Officers Doe 141-149 began to pepper-spray the people outside the kettle, including Mr. Ariel, on the south side of L Street NW.
85. When the pepper-spraying began, there was no threat to public or officer safety, and neither Mr. Ariel nor other individuals in the crowd were disobeying police orders.
16

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 17 of 41
86. The coordinated action by multiple officers reflects that Defendant Supervisory Officers Soe 16-20, overseeing the conduct of officers at the kettle, ordered the pepper-spraying of bystanders, despite the absence of a threat to officer or public safety or disobedience of any officer’s command.
87. The crowd began to retreat from the spray. 88. Officers Doe 141-149 moved forward down 12th Street NW, advancing on the retreating crowd, continuing to deploy pepper spray indiscriminately on people in the crowd. 89. One MPD officer, Defendant Officer John Doe 141, held his spray gun in front of him, sweeping the spray back and forth across the crowd. 90. Mr. Ariel coughed and felt his lungs and eyes burn from the spray. 91. Mr. Ariel covered his mouth with a cloth but a few seconds later, he began to choke. 92. Fearing for his safety, Mr. Ariel fled. He felt that he was on the verge of passing out.
The Formal Arrests 93. The pace of the formal arrests of the kettled detainees speeded up in the mid- to late afternoon. 94. When Mr. Horse was formally arrested, Defendant Officer John Doe 101 handcuffed him (using zipties) so excessively tightly that he lost feeling in some of the fingers on both of his hands.
17

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 18 of 41
95. Mr. Horse complained to Defendant Officer John Doe 102 that the zipties were painfully tight, but the officer refused to remove them, explaining that the zipties were not supposed to be comfortable.
96. Mr. Horse’s zipties were not removed for approximately three hours. 97. When Ms. Lagesse was arrested, Defendant Officer John Doe 103 handcuffed her using zipties so excessively tightly that one of her wrists was cut and began to bleed. 98. Ms. Lagesse complained to Defendant Officer John Doe 104 that the zipties were painfully tight, but the officer refused to remove them. 99. Ms. Lagesse’s zipties were not removed for approximately two hours. 100. Mr. Horse was detained in the kettle for approximately 7 hours. 101. By the time Mr. Horse was formally arrested and transported to a detention facility, he had gone approximately 9-10 hours without access to a toilet. 102. Mr. Horse was not given food or drink until later in the evening; he was detained an approximate total of 10-11 hours without being provided food or drink. 103. Ms. Lagesse was detained on the street for approximately 5-6 hours. 104. By the time Ms. Lagesse was formally arrested, transported to a detention facility, and had her belongings inventoried, she had gone approximately 7-8 hours without access to a toilet. 105. The toilet to which Ms. Lagesse was finally given access had no toilet paper. Several of the women detained with her asked for toilet paper but none was provided. 106. Ms. Lagesse was not given access to water until late that night; she was detained an approximate total of 11-12 hours without water.
18

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 19 of 41
107. Ms. Lagesse did not receive food at the detention facility until the early hours of the following morning; she was detained an approximate total of 13-16 hours before she was given food.
108. Mr. Gonzalez was detained on the street for approximately 7 hours. 109. By the time Mr. Gonzalez was formally arrested, transported to a detention facility, and given the opportunity to use a toilet, he had gone approximately 9-10 hours without access to a toilet. 110. By the time he was allowed to urinate, Mr. Gonzalez was in pain from having held his urine for so long. 111. When Mr. Gonzalez was allowed to use a portable toilet, MPD officers held the door open and watched him urinate. They rushed Mr. Gonzalez out of the toilet before he had finished emptying his bladder. 112. Mr. Gonzalez was not given food or drink until later in the evening; he was detained an approximate total of 10-11 hours without being provided food or drink.
The Rectal Searches 113. After Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez were arrested, they were detained at a facility they believe to have been the Metropolitan Police Academy on Blue Plains Drive SW, off I-295 near the Maryland state line. 114. MPD officers took them inside the facility to what appeared to be an officertraining area that was set up to look like a mock street. There the officers searched both of them along with several other detainees. 115. Defendant Officer John Doe 150, who was wearing rubber gloves, ordered Mr. Horse, Mr. Gonzalez, and three other detainees to remove their pants.
19

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 20 of 41
116. Without warning, Defendant Officer John Doe 150 grabbed Mr. Horse’s testicles and yanked on them.
117. He then put his finger into Mr. Horse’s rectum, through his underwear. 118. As Defendant Officer John Doe 150 pushed his finger into Mr. Horse’s rectum, he ordered Mr. Horse not to flinch. 119. Defendant Officer John Doe 150 pushed his finger an inch deep into Mr. Horse’s rectum and wiggled it around for several seconds. 120. Defendant Officer John Doe 150 then reached inside Mr. Gonzalez’s underwear and fondled his testicles. 121. Defendant Officer John Doe 150 reached inside Mr. Gonzalez’s underwear and put his finger into Mr. Gonzalez’s rectum. 122. As the Defendant Officer John Doe 150 pushed his finger into Mr. Gonzalez’s rectum, he ordered Mr. Gonzalez not to resist. 123. Defendant Officer John Doe 150 and other officers laughed at Mr. Gonzalez while this degrading search was performed. 124. Defendant Officer John Doe 150 then moved down the line and subjected the other three detainees there to similar treatment; Mr. Horse heard another detainee yelp. 125. Defendant Officer John Doe 150 did not change gloves when he moved from one individual to the next. 126. The manual rectal searches were performed in the presence of several other detainees and approximately five to ten other MPD officers, including at least one or two female officers.
20

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 21 of 41
127. No circumstances provided reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect Mr. Horse or Mr. Gonzalez of concealing contraband in any body cavity.
128. No contraband was found on either Mr. Horse or Mr. Gonzalez. Plaintiff Horse’s Injuries
129. As a result of Defendants’ use of pepper spray and tear gas, Plaintiff Horse suffered severe pain as his eyes burned from the pepper spray. Pepper spray remained in his hair throughout his detention, which lasted more than 24 hours; every time his long hair touched his face, it caused a burning sensation and coughing. Mr. Horse had a rash on his scalp for a week after his arrest. Mr. Horse suffered emotional distress from the panic at being trapped and unable to breathe while he was pepper-sprayed during the kettle.
130. As a result of his arrest without probable cause and in response to his exercise of his First Amendment rights, Mr. Horse was detained for approximately 33 hours.
131. Because Mr. Horse’s arrest and detention led to the confiscation of his photographs and camera for approximately two months, Mr. Horse lost income because he was unable to sell his photographs of the January 20 demonstrations in a timely manner and did not have the equipment he needed to cover other newsworthy protests in the weeks following his arrest.
132. As a result of the application of excessively tight zipties, Mr. Horse experienced pain in his hands and lost feeling in several fingers on both hands. Several fingers on his left hand remained numb for more than four months after his arrest. Because of the numbness, Mr. Horse has had difficulty with important daily tasks, including typing
21

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 22 of 41
on a keyboard and operating his camera. Mr. Horse had scarring on his left wrist from the zipties for more than two months after the arrest.
133. As a result of the denial of food, water, and access to a toilet, Mr. Horse experienced hunger, thirst, discomfort, and anxiety.
134. As a result of Defendants’ manual rectal probing and grabbing of his testicles, Mr. Horse suffered humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress. He feels as if he has been raped. Mr. Horse’s anus was sore for a day or two after the intrusion. Mr. Horse has felt irritable and withdrawn from other people, and he has found it harder to trust and confide in other people. The emotional distress has negatively affected Mr. Horse’s relationships, including impinging on his sex drive and performance. Mr. Horse remains haunted by what he experienced.
135. As a result of the defendants’ conduct described above, particularly the kettling and the rectal probing, Mr. Horse has suffered bouts of anxiety and has had difficulty sleeping since January 20. He suffers from nightmares filled with violent imagery and wakes up approximately every three hours, often in a panicked state. Covering demonstrations—a crucial part of Mr. Horse’s job—heightens his anxiety as he remembers what happened to him on January 20.
Plaintiff Lagesse’s Injuries 136. As a result of Defendants’ use of pepper spray and tear gas, Plaintiff Lagesse coughed, had difficulty breathing, and experienced a burning sensation on her face and in her eyes. Ms. Lagesse also suffered emotional distress from the panic at being trapped and unable to breathe when she was pressed in a crush of people and peppersprayed while being detained in the kettle.
22

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 23 of 41
137. As a result of her exposure to pepper spray, the skin on Ms. Lagesse’s face was peeling for more than a week after the arrest.
138. As a result of her arrest without probable cause and in response to her exercise of her First Amendment rights, Ms. Lagesse was detained for approximately 37 hours.
139. As a result of Defendants’ application of excessively tight zipties, Ms. Lagesse’s wrist bled and she experienced pain in her wrists and hands. More than four months after her arrest, she still has a quarter-inch-long scar on her right wrist.
140. As a result of the denial of food, water, and access to a toilet, Ms. Lagesse experienced hunger, thirst, discomfort, and anxiety.
141. As a result of the defendants’ conduct described above, Ms. Lagesse suffered stress, anxiety, and emotional distress both on January 20 and subsequently. For weeks after her arrest, she experienced heightened anxiety whenever she heard helicopters or loud noises such as fireworks. She continues to feel increased anxiety around police officers. Ms. Lagesse participated in many political demonstrations prior to January 20, but is now reluctant to do so because she fears that she may again be subjected to police violence through no fault of her own. Although she has nevertheless attended two demonstrations since January 20, she was nervous while demonstrating, constantly watching for police and worrying about their whereabouts, and she sometimes avoided chanting or carrying a sign because she feared that if she called attention to herself she might be again become a target of police violence.
23

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 24 of 41
Plaintiff Ariel’s Injuries 142. As a result of Defendants’ use of pepper spray and tear gas, Plaintiff Ariel coughed, choked, had difficulty breathing, and experienced a burning sensation in his eyes and lungs. He feared he would pass out and suffer further injury. 143. As a result of Defendants’ unjustified and sudden pepper-spraying, Mr. Ariel suffered emotional distress and anxiety during and after his encounter with the police. He often continues to feel increased anxiety around police officers.
Plaintiff Gonzalez’s Injuries 144. As a result of Defendants’ use of pepper spray and tear gas, Plaintiff Gonzalez coughed, had difficulty breathing, and experienced a burning sensation in his eyes, on his face, and in his lungs and chest. He experienced extreme panic when he was being pepper-sprayed in the kettle and felt unable to breathe and unable to escape. When Mr. Gonzalez attended a Chinese New Year celebration shortly after his arrest, the fireworks caused Mr. Gonzalez to panic and feel as if concussion grenades were being detonated near him. 145. As a result of the denial of food, water, and access to a toilet, Mr. Gonzalez experienced hunger, thirst, discomfort, and anxiety. Specifically, Mr. Gonzalez experienced pain and discomfort in his midsection as a result of holding his bladder; the pain persisted for two weeks after his arrest. Additionally, Mr. Gonzalez experienced difficulty urinating for two weeks after his arrest. He sought medical attention for both of these conditions.
24

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 25 of 41
146. As a result of Defendants’ manual rectal probing and the grabbing of his testicles, Mr. Gonzalez suffered humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress. He feels more withdrawn from people and has had difficulty relating to people since the search.
147. As a result of all the conduct described here, Mr. Gonzalez has had difficulty sleeping since January 20. He has regular nightmares about being chased, attacked, or locked up by the police. He frequently cannot sleep for hours and occasionally goes all night without sleeping. Mr. Gonzalez also feels nervous about attending protests. When he encounters police, he becomes extremely fearful, and begins to shake and sweat. After experiencing these symptoms at several demonstrations after January 20, he has ceased attending demonstrations entirely because of his fear and anxiety.
The District’s Responsibility for Plaintiffs’ Injuries 148. The actions of the Defendants described above were taken pursuant to a municipal policy, practice and custom of responding to demonstrations at which some lawbreaking occurs by using excessive force against participants who have not broken the law. 149. Chief Newsham has acknowledged that the Defendant Officers’ kettling of detainees was not mere happenstance but a coordinated strategy. Indeed, all of the Defendants Officers’ actions in pepper-spraying, assaulting with additional noise- and light-emitting weaponry, and detaining demonstrators were carried out in a coordinated manner. 150. Chief Newsham spent the day on January 20 in an MPD command center, where he was well aware of and (on information and belief) directed the massive and coordinated MPD response to the march down 13th Street NW, in accordance with MPD Standard Operating Procedure 16-01 (“Handling First Amendment Assemblies And Mass
25

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 26 of 41
Demonstrations”), which provides (at page 11) that “During periods in which the Department is fully mobilized for mass demonstration operations . . . [t]he Chief of Police, as the commanding official of the MPD, shall oversee all police activities ….”
151. To whatever extent Chief Newsham did not direct the coordinated MPD response himself, he nonetheless was aware of the large-scale MPD actions taken against the individuals who marched down 13th Street NW, and he deliberately failed to supervise and restrain Defendants under his command from violating the rights of Plaintiffs and others repeatedly and continually throughout January 20.
152. The coordinated MPD response is part of a custom of the District of Columbia of responding with overwhelming and unlawful force to non-violent demonstrators at largely peaceful demonstrations where some law-breaking is occurring. For instance, MPD has:
a. Used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained demonstrators during the counter-inaugural demonstrations in Adams Morgan in January 2005; the pepper-spraying and arrest of numerous peaceful demonstrators led to lawsuits resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence.
b. Used excessive force against demonstrators during the counterinaugural demonstrations near the White House in January 2005 after other demonstrators had removed a portion of security fencing; the pepper-spraying of law-abiding demonstrators led to a lawsuit resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence.
26

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 27 of 41
c. Used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained demonstrators during the World Bank protests in Pershing Park in September 2002; the mass arrests and hogtying of protestors led to lawsuits resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence.
d. Used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained antiglobalization demonstrators in April 2000, including kettling, use of pepper spray, and denying detainees of access to food and water, all of which led to lawsuits resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence. 153. The prior incidents in which MPD used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained peaceful demonstrators where some law-breaking occurred made clear to the District that its officers required training regarding the constitutional limits of their authority to detain demonstrators and use force against them. To whatever extent the individual Defendants’ actions described here did not reflect municipal custom or carry out affirmative instructions from Chief Newsham, these actions were the result of the District’s failure to train, or its inadequate training of, MPD officers. 154. Dozens of individuals detained by MPD on January 20, including individuals who were transported to detention facilities at various times during the afternoon and evening, report that MPD officers subjected them to manual cavity searches and other molestations similar to those experienced by Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez. 155. The widespread and pervasive nature of MPD’s abusive cavity searches demonstrates that they were undertaken pursuant to a central policy or pervasive custom of the District to humiliate and degrade individuals arrested for demonstrating.
27

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 28 of 41
156. When asked to comment on the conduct of MPD officers on January 20, Chief Newsham responded by ratifying the officers’ conduct in an interview with WTOP radio, in which he stated: “[A]ll the police officers were outstanding in the judgment that they used. They used the least amount of force necessary to bring those folks safely and respectfully into custody. I couldn’t be more proud of the way this department responded.” Chief Newsham further stated to WTOP that he was “very, very pleased” with the way police responded to the demonstration.
157. Following a report by the Office of Police Complaints raising concerns about MPD’s conduct on Inauguration Day, an official MPD spokesperson reaffirmed that its officers’ actions conformed to the District’s expectations: “The Metropolitan Police Department stands by its assertion that our officers acted responsibly and professionally during Inauguration Day,” MPD spokesperson Rachel Reid said in a statement emailed to the news media.
Notice of Claim 158. Plaintiffs have timely given notice in writing to the Mayor of the District of Columbia of the “approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances” of their injuries, pursuant to D.C. Code § 12-309. The Notice of Claim letter was hand-delivered to the D.C. Office of Risk Management on June 12, 2017.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Claim 1: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – arrest without probable cause (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 61-140,
Soe 11-20, and Newsham) 159. The actions of Defendants Doe 61-140, namely the warrantless arrests of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse without probable cause, and the actions of Defendants Soe
28

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 29 of 41
11-20 and Newsham in ordering or approving such arrests, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
160. Defendants Doe 61-140, Soe 11-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
161. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 2: First Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – arrest for protected speech (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 61-140,
Soe 11-20, and Newsham) 162. The actions of Defendants Doe 61-140, namely the arrest of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse for exercising their First Amendment freedoms to report the news or to express their views, respectively, and the actions of Defendants Soe 11-20 and Newsham in ordering or approving such arrests, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides for the freedoms of speech and press. 163. Defendants Doe 61-140, Soe 11-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights. 164. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
29

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 30 of 41
Claim 3: False arrest / false imprisonment (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 61-140,
Soe 11-20, and Newsham) 165. The actions of Defendants Doe 61-140, namely the warrantless arrest of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse without probable cause, and the actions of Defendants Soe 11-20 and Newsham in ordering or approving such arrests, constituted false arrest and false imprisonment under the laws of the District of Columbia. 166. Defendants Doe 61-140, Soe 11-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse for these tortious acts. 167. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer. Claim 4: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – kettling (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Soe 11-20,
and Newsham) 168. The actions of Defendants Soe 11-20 and Newsham, namely ordering the kettling or encircling of Plaintiffs, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse under the First Amendment Assemblies Act because Defendants lacked “probable cause to believe that a significant number or percentage of the persons located in the area or zone have committed unlawful acts” and because the police did not “have the ability to identify those individuals.” D.C. Code § 5-331.08 (emphasis added). 169. Defendants Soe 11-20 and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
30

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 31 of 41
170. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 5: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – failure to give dispersal order
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Ariel against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 1-149, Soe 1-20, and Newsham)
171. The actions of Defendants Doe 1-149, namely the failure to give Plaintiffs “at least one clearly audible and understandable order to disperse using an amplification system or device” and to “provide the participants a reasonable and adequate time to disperse and a clear and safe route for dispersal” violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Ariel under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. D.C. Code § 5331.07(e)(1).
172. Defendants Soe 1-20 and Newsham are liable for these actions of Doe 1149 because Soe 1-20 and Newsham ordered the police to assault the plaintiffs without a dispersal order or knew about, condoned, and failed to correct this conduct.
173. Defendants Doe 1-149, Soe 1-20 and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Ariel for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
174. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
31

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 32 of 41
Claim 6: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – excessive force (use of chemical irritants)
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 1-60 & 91-149, Soe 1-10 & 16-20, and Newsham)
175. The actions of Defendants Doe 1-60 & 91-149, namely the use of pepper spray and tear gas against nonviolent and non-resisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders, and the actions of Defendants Soe 1-10 & 16-20 and Newsham in ordering or approving such use of pepper spray and tear gas, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
176. Defendants Doe 1-60 & 91-149, Soe 1-10 & 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
177. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 7: Assault and battery – use of chemical irritants (Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of
Columbia, Doe 1-60 & 91-149, Soe 1-10 & 16-20, and Newsham) 178. The actions of Defendants Doe 1-60 & 91-149, namely the use of pepper spray and tear gas against nonviolent and non-resisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders, and the actions of Defendants Soe 1-10 & 16-20 and Newsham in ordering or approving such use of pepper spray and tear gas, constituted the torts of assault and battery against Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez. 179. Defendants Doe 1-60 & 91-149, Soe 1-10 & 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for these tortious acts.
32

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 33 of 41
180. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 8: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – unlawful use of chemical irritants
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 1-60 & 91-149, Soe 1-10 & 16-20, and Newsham)
181. The actions of Defendants Doe 1-60 & 91-149, namely the use of pepper spray and tear gas against nonviolent and non-resisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders, and the actions of Defendants Soe 1-10 & 16-20 and Newsham in ordering or approving such use of pepper spray and tear gas, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez under the First Amendment Assemblies Act because Defendants used “[l]arge scale canisters of chemical irritant” when not “reasonable and necessary to protect officers or others from physical harm or to arrest actively resisting subjects” and because they used “[c]hemical irritant … to disperse a First Amendment assembly” absent a circumstance where “assembly participants or others are committing acts of public disobedience endangering public safety and security.” D.C. Code § 5331.16(b).
182. Defendants Doe 1-60 & 91-149, Soe 1-10 & 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
33

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 34 of 41
183. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 9: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – excessive force (zipties)
(Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants Doe 101-04) 184. The actions of Defendants Doe 101-04, namely the excessively and painfully tight handcuffing of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse and the refusal to remove the restraints despite knowing that they were too tight, violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. 185. Defendants Doe 101-04 are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
Claim 10: Fourth and Fifth Amendments / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – unconstitutional conditions of pre-trial confinement
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20, and Newsham)
186. The actions of Defendants Doe 91-140, namely the detention of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez for a prolonged period without access to food, water or toilets, and the decision of Defendants Soe 16-20 and Newsham to order or approve such prolonged detention under these conditions, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to due process of law.
34

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 35 of 41
187. Defendants Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
188. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 11: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – unreasonable delay in providing food to arrestees
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20, and Newsham)
189. The actions of Defendants Doe 91-140, namely the failure to provide food to detainees “not released within a reasonable time of arrest,” and the decision of Defendants Soe 16-20 and Newsham to order or approve such prolonged detention under these conditions, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. D.C. Code § 5-331.12(b)(2).
190. Defendants Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
191. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
35

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 36 of 41
Claim 12: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – failing to process arrestees promptly
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20, and Newsham)
192. The actions of Defendants Doe 91-140, namely the failure to “promptly process any person arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly to determine whether the person is eligible for immediate release pursuant to a lawful release option,” and the decision of Defendants Soe 16-20 and Newsham to order or approve delays in processing, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. D.C. Code § 5-331.12(a)(1).
193. Defendants Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
194. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 13: Intentional infliction of emotional distress – denial of access to toilets (Plaintiff Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Doe 91-140, Soe 16-20,
and Newsham) 195. The actions of Defendants Doe 91-140, namely the detention of Plaintiff Gonzalez for a prolonged period without access to toilets, and the decision of Defendants Soe 16-20 and Newsham to order or approve such prolonged detention under these conditions, constituted extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly caused Plaintiff Gonzalez severe emotional distress.
36

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 37 of 41
196. Defendants Doe 91-149, Soe 16-20, and Newsham are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Gonzalez for these tortious acts.
197. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 14: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – unreasonable search (Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia and John
Doe 150) 198. The actions of Defendant John Doe 150, namely the manual rectal probing of Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez and the grabbing of their testicles without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches. 199. Defendant John Doe 150 is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights. 200. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 15: Assault and battery – bodily invasion (Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia and John
Doe 150) 201. The actions of Defendant John Doe 150, namely the manual rectal probing of Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez and the grabbing of their testicles, constituted the torts of assault and battery against Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez.
37

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 38 of 41

202. Defendant Doe 150 is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez for these

tortious acts.

203. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat

superior for the damages inflicted by its agent while acting within the scope of his

employment as an MPD officer and on behalf of and in the interest of his employer.

Claim 16: Intentional infliction of emotional distress – bodily invasion (Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia and John
Doe 150)

204. The actions of Defendant John Doe 150, namely the manual rectal probing

of Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez and the grabbing of their testicles, constituted extreme

and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly caused Plaintiffs severe emotional

distress.

205. Defendant Doe 150 is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez for these

tortious acts.

206. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat

superior for the damages inflicted by its agent while acting within the scope of his

employment as an MPD officer and on behalf of and in the interest of his employer.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

(a)

RULE that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the First,

Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment

Assemblies Act, and the law of the District of Columbia;

(b)

ENTER JUDGMENT awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages against

all Defendants in an amount appropriate to the evidence adduced at trial;

38

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 39 of 41

(c)

ENTER JUDGMENT awarding Plaintiffs punitive damages against

Defendants John/Jane Doe 1-150, John/Jane Soe 1-20, and Newsham in an amount

appropriate to the evidence adduced at trial;

(d)

ENTER JUDGMENT awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable

attorneys’ fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

(e)

GRANT Plaintiffs such further relief as this Court may deem just and

proper.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

June 21, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Shana Knizhnik† American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 434 Washington, D.C. 20008 Tel. 202-457-0800 Fax 202-457-0805 smichelman@acludc.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

† Admitted in New York. Practicing in D.C. under supervision of a D.C. Bar member while D.C. Bar application pending, pursuant to D.C. Ct. App. R. 49(c)(8).
39

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 40 of 41 Exhibit A

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 41 of 41

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1-2 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the _______D_i_s_triDctisotfriCctoolufm__b_ia_______

Í¸¿§ Ø±®-»ô Ö«¼¿¸ ß®·»´ô Û´·¦¿¾»¬¸ Ô¿¹»--»ô Ó·´± Ù±²¦¿´»¦
Plaintiff(s)
v. Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ô Ö±¸²ñÖ¿²» Ü±» ÓÐÜ Ñºº·½»®ïóïëðô Ö±¸²ñÖ¿²» Í±» Í«°»®ª·-±®§ ÓÐÜ Ñºº·½»®-
ïóîðô Ð»¬»® Ò»©-¸¿³
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. ïéó½ªó

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ü×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÔËÓÞ×ß ½ñ± Ñºº·½» ±º ¬¸» ß¬¬±®²»§ Ù»²»®¿´ ììï ì¬¸ Í¬®»»¬ô ÒòÉò É¿-¸·²¹¬±²ô ÜòÝò îðððï

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Í½±¬¬ Ó·½¸»´³¿²
ß³»®·½¿² Ý·ª·´ Ô·¾»®¬·»- Ë²·±² ±º ¬¸» Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ ìíðï Ý±²²»½¬·½«¬ ßª»²«»ô ÒòÉòô Í«·¬» ìíì É¿-¸·²¹¬±²ô ÜòÝò îðððè

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1-2 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. ïéó½ªó

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) ß¬¬±®²»§ Ù»²»®¿´ ±º ¬¸» Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿

was received by me on (date)

.

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

ðòðð

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1-3 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the _______D_i_s_triDctisotfriCctoolufm__b_ia_______

Í¸¿§ Ø±®-»ô Ö«¼¿¸ ß®·»´ô Û´·¦¿¾»¬¸ Ô¿¹»--»ô Ó·´± Ù±²¦¿´»¦
Plaintiff(s)
v. Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ô Ö±¸²ñÖ¿²» Ü±» ÓÐÜ Ñºº·½»®ïóïëðô Ö±¸²ñÖ¿²» Í±» Í«°»®ª·-±®§ ÓÐÜ Ñºº·½»®-
ïóîðô Ð»¬»® Ò»©-¸¿³
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. ïéó½ªó

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ü×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÔËÓÞ×ß ½ñ± Ó¿§±® ±º ¬¸» Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ ììï ì¬¸ Í¬®»»¬ô ÒòÉò É¿-¸·²¹¬±²ô ÜòÝò îðððï

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Í½±¬¬ Ó·½¸»´³¿²
ß³»®·½¿² Ý·ª·´ Ô·¾»®¬·»- Ë²·±² ±º ¬¸» Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ ìíðï Ý±²²»½¬·½«¬ ßª»²«»ô ÒòÉòô Í«·¬» ìíì É¿-¸·²¹¬±²ô ÜòÝò îðððè

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1-3 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. ïéó½ªó

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) Ó¿§±® ±º ¬¸» Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿

was received by me on (date)

.

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

ðòðð

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1-4 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the _______D_i_s_triDctisotfriCctoolufm__b_ia_______

Í¸¿§ Ø±®-»ô Ö«¼¿¸ ß®·»´ô Û´·¦¿¾»¬¸ Ô¿¹»--»ô Ó·´± Ù±²¦¿´»¦
Plaintiff(s)
v. Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ô Ö±¸²ñÖ¿²» Ü±» ÓÐÜ Ñºº·½»®ïóïëðô Ö±¸²ñÖ¿²» Í±» Í«°»®ª·-±®§ ÓÐÜ Ñºº·½»®-
ïóîðô Ð»¬»® Ò»©-¸¿³
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. ïéó½ªó

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) ÐÛÌÛÎ ÒÛÉÍØßÓ Ý¸·»ºô Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿² Ð±´·½» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ½ñ± Ñºº·½» ±º ¬¸» ß¬¬±®²»§ Ù»²»®¿´ ììï ì¬¸ Í¬®»»¬ô ÒòÉò É¿-¸·²¹¬±²ô ÜòÝò îðððï

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Í½±¬¬ Ó·½¸»´³¿²
ß³»®·½¿² Ý·ª·´ Ô·¾»®¬·»- Ë²·±² ±º ¬¸» Ü·-¬®·½¬ ±º Ý±´«³¾·¿ ìíðï Ý±²²»½¬·½«¬ ßª»²«»ô ÒòÉòô Í«·¬» ìíì É¿-¸·²¹¬±²ô ÜòÝò îðððè

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 1-4 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. ïéó½ªó

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) Ð»¬»® Ò»©-¸¿³

was received by me on (date)

.

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

ðòðð

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAY HORSE [Address redacted pursuant to court order] JUDAH ARIEL [Address redacted pursuant to court order] ELIZABETH LAGESSE [Address redacted pursuant to court order] MILO GONZALEZ [Address redacted pursuant to court order] GWEN FRISBIE-FULTON [Address redacted pursuant to court order] A.S., a minor, through his mother Gwen Frisbie-Fulton [Address redacted pursuant to court order],

Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; PETER NEWSHAM; KEITH DEVILLE; LAMAR GREENE; ROBERT ALDER; JEFFERY CARROLL; PAUL NIEPLING; MICHAEL WHITESIDE; SEAN HILL; ANTHONY ALIOTO; MICHAEL MURPHY; MICHAEL HOWDEN; GREGORY ROCK; DANIEL THAU; MELVIN WASHINGTON; DENNIS BALDWIN; COURTNEY FLASH; TIMOTHY STEFFES; LEONARD ROCCATO; BRUCE BASKERVILLE; DIANE BROOKS; PHOKHAM VONGKEO; FERNEY DENNIS; KENNETH PARKER; SEQUITA WILLIAMS; JOSEPH MASCI; AULIO ANGULO; DONALD BOGARDUS; HARVY HINOSTROZA; JOHN DOE MPD OFFICER, c/o Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001,

No. 1:17-cv-01216 (ABJ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Violation of constitutional and D.C.-law rights of Inauguration Day demonstrators)

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 2 of 51
INTRODUCTION On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. Exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech and assembly, people from all over the country took to the streets of the nation’s capital to express their disapproval of his policies. Journalists came to report on the demonstrations. Legal observers came to document any violations of the demonstrators’ legal rights. During the course of demonstrations in the District of Columbia that day, several acts of vandalism occurred. In response, the District’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) rounded up and arrested hundreds of people, including people who engaged in no illegal activity, by chasing them and blocking streets so as to force them into a confined area (a “kettle”) on a D.C. street corner. During the chase and then while detaining demonstrators for hours, police fired pepper spray, stingballs, and flash-bang grenades at crowds of demonstrators, journalists, and legal observers, frequently without warning or justification. In the course of the roundup and subsequent processing of demonstrators, police held detainees for hours without food, water, or access to toilets; handcuffed detainees so tightly as to cause injury or loss of feeling; and subjected some detainees to manual rectal jabbing. Much of MPD’s misconduct has been independently documented by the District of Columbia’s Office of Police Complaints. Plaintiffs are individuals who came to the District to express their views concerning the inauguration, a photojournalist who covered the demonstrations, and a legal observer who was present at the scene. Each of them suffered one or more of the constitutional, statutory, and common law violations described here.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 3 of 51
Among the violations committed by MPD and its officers were the following: Plaintiff Horse, a photojournalist, was pepper-sprayed while he was taking a photograph of demonstrators and neither posing a threat nor breaking the law; he was subsequently arrested even though he was not participating in any unlawful activity. Plaintiff Lagesse was arrested even though she did not participate in any acts of vandalism and was not even close enough to witness any; she was marching to express her views when she was caught up in the stampede created by MPD’s pursuit of the demonstrators and its use of chemical irritants. At one point, multiple MPD officers pepper-sprayed into a large and peaceful crowd of individuals without warning and for no apparent reason other than they were standing near the corner where MPD was detaining demonstrators; among the victims of this attack were Plaintiff Ariel, a clearly identified legal observer, and Plaintiffs FrisbieFulton and her ten-year-old son A.S., who were peaceful demonstrators. Pepper spray and other chemical irritants were used against all plaintiffs without justification and without warning. While Plaintiffs Lagesse, Horse, and Gonzalez were detained on a D.C. street corner and later in police transport vehicles, they were unreasonably denied food, water, and access to a toilet for periods ranging from 7 to 16 hours; arresting officers unnecessarily prolonged the arrest process in order to keep detainees in a state of anxiety, hunger, thirst, and other discomfort. Plaintiffs Lagesse and Horse were handcuffed so tightly that one of Plaintiff Lagesse’s wrists bled and Plaintiff Horse lost feeling in several fingers, some of which were numb for months afterward. During processing, Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez were subjected to intrusive, humiliating, and unjustified manual rectal jabbing.
3

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 4 of 51

To obtain compensation for their injuries and to vindicate their rights under the

First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, the D.C. First Amendment

Assemblies Act, and the common law, plaintiffs now seek relief in this Court.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, because the plaintiffs’ claims arise under the First, Fourth and Fifth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and are asserted here pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiffs’ claims under the statutory and common law of the District of Columbia

arise from the same events as the constitutional claims and are within the Court’s

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the

events giving rise to all claims occurred in the District of Columbia.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff Shay Horse is an adult resident of New York and a freelance

photojournalist whose work has been purchased by Getty Images and Associated Press and

published in a variety of outlets including Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera America, and The

Intercept. On January 20, 2017, he was in Washington, D.C. to photograph the Inauguration

Day demonstrations.

4.

Plaintiff Judah Ariel is an adult resident of the District of Columbia and a

licensed attorney. On January 20, he was serving as a legal observer to document any

violations of the rights of counter-inaugural demonstrators.

4

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 5 of 51

5.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Lagesse is an adult resident of the District of Columbia.

On January 20, she traveled to Washington, D.C. from Baltimore, where she then lived, for

the purpose of expressing her opposition to the policy positions of the new President.

6.

Plaintiff Milo Gonzalez is an adult resident of New York. On January 20,

he was in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of expressing his opposition to the policy

positions of the new President and assisting journalists covering the demonstrations.

7.

Plaintiff Gwen Frisbie-Fulton is an adult resident of North Carolina. On

January 20, she was in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of expressing her opposition to

the policy positions of the new President.

8.

Plaintiff A.S. is the minor son of Plaintiff Gwen Frisbie-Fulton and a

resident of North Carolina. On January 20, A.S. was ten years old and was in Washington,

D.C. for the purpose of expressing his opposition to the policy positions of the new

President.

9.

Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation, the local

government of Washington, D.C. It operates and governs the MPD pursuant to the laws of

the District of Columbia. In this case, the District of Columbia acted through its agents,

employees, and servants, including all of the individual Defendants.

10. Defendant Peter Newsham is the Chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Department. At the time of the events at issue, he was the Interim Chief of Police and was

acting within the scope of his employment and under color of law of the District of

Columbia. He supervised, directed, or ordered the conduct of other MPD officers as

described below. He is sued in his individual capacity.

5

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 6 of 51
11. Defendants Cmdr. Keith Deville (Badge No. DC40), Asst. Chief Lamar Greene, Asst. Chief Robert Alder, Cmdr. Jeffery Carroll (Badge No. DC36), Lt. Paul Niepling (Badge No. L178), Lt. Michael Whiteside (Badge No. L323), Sgt. Sean Hill (Badge No. S723) and Sgt. Anthony Alioto (Badge No. S473), are sworn officers of the MPD who supervised, directed, or ordered the conduct of other MPD officers as described below. At the time of the events at issue, Defendants Deville, Greene, Alder, Carroll, Niepling, Whiteside, Hill, and Alioto were acting within the scope of their employment and under color of law of the District of Columbia. They are sued in their individual capacities.
12. Defendants Ofcr. Michael Murphy (Badge No. 1473), Ofcr. Michael Howden (Badge No. 3344), Ofcr. Gregory Rock (Badge No. 3547), Ofcr. Daniel Thau (Badge No. SOS80), Ofcr. Melvin Washington (Badge No. 4123), Ofcr. Dennis Baldwin (Badge No. 5101), Ofcr. Courtney Flash (Badge No. 4167), Ofcr. Timothy Steffes (Badge No. S521), Ofcr. Leonard Roccato (Badge No. 2084), Ofcr. Bruce Baskerville (Badge No. 3872), Ofcr. Diane Brooks (Badge No. 3328), Ofcr. Phokham Vongkeo (Badge No. 5348), Ofcr. Ferney Dennis (Badge No. 5107), Ofcr. Kenneth Parker (Badge No. 2064), Ofcr. Sequita Williams (Badge No. 4703), Ofcr. Joseph Masci (Badge No. 2904), Ofcr. Aulio Angulo (Badge No. 2841), Ofcr. Donald Bogardus (Badge No. 3807), and Ofcr. Harvy Hinostroza (Badge No. 2388) are sworn officers of the MPD. At the time of the events at issue, these defendants were acting within the scope of their employment and under color of law of the District of Columbia. They are sued in their individual capacities.
13. Defendant John Doe MPD Officer is a sworn officer who is employed by the MPD and whose real name is unknown at this time. At the time of the events at issue,
6

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 7 of 51
he was acting within the scope of his employment and under color of law of the District of Columbia. He is sued in his individual capacity.
FACTS Police Weapons 14. On Inauguration Day 2017, MPD officers who interacted with demonstrators were equipped with several types of chemical or other weapons, including: a. Oleoresin Capsicum spray dispensers, which resemble small fire extinguishers containing 14-48 ounces of solution, with a typical range of 2530 feet. The solution, commonly known as pepper spray, produces a burning sensation on a person’s skin and in a person’s eyes and lungs, vision problems, and breathing problems including coughing and choking. b. “Stingballs,” which are explosive devices that release smoke, rubber pellets, and a chemical irritant within a radius of approximately 50 feet. c. Smoke flares, which are explosive devices that release smoke. d. Concussion grenades, which are devices that produce loud explosive noises. e. Flash-bang grenades, which are devices that produce loud explosive noises and bright flashes of light. f. Long range acoustic devices, or LRADs, which are devices that emit an excruciatingly loud tone. Demonstrators March Down 13th Street NW 15. On January 20, 2017, thousands of people demonstrated in the District of Columbia to express their opposition to the new President.
7

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 8 of 51
16. The overwhelming majority of the demonstrators were peaceful and lawabiding.
17. Between 10 and 11 a.m. on January 20, hundreds of demonstrators walked south on 13th Street NW from Logan Circle toward the National Mall.
18. The number of demonstrators walking down 13th Street NW was sufficiently large that they took up two or three blocks.
19. Plaintiff Shay Horse was walking alongside the demonstrators in order to photograph the demonstration for journalistic purposes. He intended to sell his photographs commercially, and he had a well-founded expectation that he would be able to do so.
20. Mr. Horse was wearing dark jeans, a hooded sweatshirt with the hood down, a leather jacket, and a camera around his neck. He carried a bag onto which he had affixed silver duct tape to make the bag more identifiable.
21. Between 10 and 11 a.m. on January 20, some demonstrators engaged in acts of vandalism on or near 13th Street NW between Logan Circle and Franklin Square.
22. The individuals who engaged in vandalism were dressed in all-black clothing with hoods over their heads and masks over their faces.
23. Mr. Horse was not wearing a hood or a mask. The Police Assault
24. When demonstrators began to march down 13th Street NW from Logan Circle, MPD had approximately 100 officers present, including Defendant Cmdr. Keith Deville, along with approximately 10 police vans and five or six additional police vehicles.
25. Cmdr. Deville was the on-scene commander who directed the MPD officers on the ground as they responded to the march.
8

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 9 of 51
26. Cmdr. Deville, in turn, received orders from top MPD officials in MPD’s command center.
27. Among the officials directing Cmdr. Deville from the command center was Defendant Asst. Chief Lamar Greene.
28. Defendant Chief Peter Newsham has acknowledged that he was stationed in the command center on January 20.
29. On information and belief, Chief Newsham himself was overseeing and directing the actions of Asst. Chief Green, Cmdr. Deville, and other top MPD officials as they, in turn, directed MPD’s actions regarding the demonstrators who marched down 13th Street NW between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on January 20.
30. MPD officers witnessed acts of vandalism on and around 13th Street NW and made Cmdr. Deville, Asst. Chief Greene and (on information and belief) Chief Newsham aware of these acts.
31. Cmdr. Deville, under the direction of Defendants Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene, did not order MPD officers to identify or apprehend individuals committing acts of vandalism.
32. Instead, approximately 15 minutes after demonstrators began to march south down 13th Street NW, and after a few acts of vandalism had been committed by a few people, Cmdr. Deville declared to MPD officers that the march was a “riot” and ordered MPD officers to stop the marchers from continuing further south.
33. Cmdr. Deville received the order to stop the march from Asst. Chief Greene at the command center, where (on information and belief) he received direction from Chief Newsham.
9

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 10 of 51
34. Cmdr. Deville knew that not all of the individuals who were marching were committing acts of vandalism when he declared the march a “riot.” He was also aware that some of the individuals walking down 13th Street NW were journalists photographing the march or otherwise documenting the march.
35. Throughout the time when demonstrators were moving south on 13th Street NW, both before and after acts of vandalism occurred, some individuals joined the march and others left it. Not all individuals who were part of the march were aware of the acts of vandalism that occurred.
36. Neither when Cmdr. Deville declared a “riot” nor at any time for the rest of the day, did Cmdr. Deville or his supervisors — from Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene to the officers on the ground — distinguish or attempt to distinguish between individuals who were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights and individuals who were committing unlawful acts.
37. A number of MPD officers had ready access to bullhorns and to loudspeakers on their vehicles.
38. Nonetheless, at no time did Chief Newsham, Asst. Chief Greene, Cmdr. Deville, or any other MPD official order that demonstrators be given a dispersal order, be given an opportunity to disperse, or be given a safe route to disperse. No order to disperse, opportunity to disperse, or safe route to disperse was ever provided.
39. Instead, Cmdr. Deville, under the direction of Defendants Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene, ordered that MPD officers use pepper spray against the demonstrators.
10

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 11 of 51
40. Among MPD officers’ weapons for discharging pepper spray on January 20 were large canisters that fire a steady stream of pepper spray as if from a small hose. Officers refer to these weapons as “supersoakers.”
41. Cmdr. Deville told his officers: “any time you need pepper [spray], use it.” 42. A few minutes later, Cmdr. Deville, under the direction of Defendants Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene, authorized the use of stingballs, which shoot out rubber pellets and chemical irritants at people. 43. At their commanders’ orders, MPD officers used stingballs, “supersoakers” of pepper spray, and noise-emitting crowd-control devices against the demonstrators. 44. At least some of the time, officers fired chemical irritants at people without regard for whether these weapons were necessary to prevent unlawful conduct or subdue a person who was resisting officers.
Plaintiff Horse Is Unjustifiably Pepper-Sprayed 45. As MPD officers confronted demonstrators at Franklin Square, many demonstrators and Mr. Horse moved away from the police down streets to the east and south of Franklin Square. 46. Plaintiff Horse continued to take photographs of the events, including photographs of a few demonstrators in hoods and masks breaking a storefront window and a photograph of Defendant Ofcr. Michael Murphy as he pepper-sprayed demonstrators. 47. Although Ofcr. Murphy had observed Mr. Horse with a large, professionalquality camera around his neck taking photographs, Ofcr. Murphy pepper-sprayed Mr. Horse without warning.
11

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 12 of 51
48. At the time Ofcr. Murphy pepper-sprayed Mr. Horse, Mr. Horse was not engaged in any unlawful or dangerous activity. He was not disobeying any orders by any police officer.
49. As a result of the pepper spray, Mr. Horse choked and gasped for breath. As the pepper spray flooded his eyes, they began to burn.
50. As Mr. Horse and a number of demonstrators ran away from the police assault, MPD officers confronted them on the streets immediately east and/or south of Franklin Square and discharged pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, stingballs, smoke flares, and LRADs at demonstrators and other individuals in the vicinity, including Plaintiff Horse.
51. Using pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, stingballs, smoke flares, and LRADs, MPD officers chased Mr. Horse and many of the demonstrators back toward Franklin Square.
Plaintiff Lagesse Marches Down 13th Street NW 52. Throughout demonstrators’ chaotic flight from the police, some demonstrators left the Franklin Square area, while other individuals were still arriving to demonstrate. 53. Plaintiff Elizabeth Lagesse began marching later than most of the demonstrators. She walked south down 13th Street NW toward Franklin Square approximately thirty minutes after most of the demonstrators had begun marching. 54. Ms. Lagesse was wearing a black and white T-shirt, a bright-colored inner jacket, and a long grey rain jacket that she removed as she marched, and she was carrying a multi-colored bag. She did not wear a hood or mask. Having encountered overzealous
12

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 13 of 51
police officers using pepper spray at prior demonstrations, Ms. Lagesse brought a bandana and a pair of lab safety goggles she owned. They were not on her face as she walked south down 13th Street NW.
55. Ms. Lagesse did not engage in or witness any acts of vandalism. Continued Police Assault and Mass Detentions
56. On or near 13th Street NW, MPD officers deployed pepper spray and/or stingballs against individuals, including Mr. Horse and Ms. Lagesse, without warning or a dispersal order, often in circumstances where the officers faced no threat to themselves or to public safety or disobedience of any commands they had given.
57. The pepper spray caused Mr. Horse’s and Ms. Lagesse’s eyes to burn. 58. Ms. Lagesse put on her safety goggles and pulled her bandana from around her neck to cover her mouth in an attempt to protect herself from the pepper spray that MPD officers were discharging. 59. Although neither Ms. Lagesse nor Mr. Horse had committed any unlawful act, the police conduct put each of them in fear for their safety, causing them to run away from the police, ultimately heading north on 14th Street NW. 60. Cmdr. Deville, under the direction of Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene, ordered MPD officers to block numerous alternative egress routes in order to force Mr. Horse, Ms. Lagesse, and many other demonstrators to flee north up 14th Street NW and then east on L Street NW to the corner of 12th and L Streets NW. Defendants Newsham, Greene, and Deville thus caused MPD officers to act in a coordinated manner to funnel individuals to that location.
13

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 14 of 51
61. Cmdr. Deville, under the direction of Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene, ordered MPD officers to establish a blockade at the corner of 12th and L Streets NW to trap individuals proceeding east on L Street NW.
62. Defendant Ofcrs. Michael Howden, Gregory Rock, Daniel Thau, and Melvin Washington were among the MPD officers who established the blockade.
63. Sgt. Anthony Alioto was among the MPD officers who supervised the establishment of the blockade.
64. Although some individuals on L Street NW managed to escape by evading the MPD blockade before it closed in, Ms. Lagesse, Mr. Horse, and most of the other individuals on L Street NW were detained by police at the northwest corner of 12th and L Streets NW and on L Street NW itself.
65. MPD officers detained more than 200 individuals in the cordoned area (the “kettle”) they had created at 12th and L Streets NW.
66. Neither the MPD officials who ordered the creation of the kettle — including Defendants Newsham, Greene and Deville — nor the MPD officers who established the kettle — including Ofcrs. Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, and Washington — took any actions to try to ensure that only individuals whom they had probable cause to believe had committed crimes would be detained in the kettle.
67. Chief Newsham (on information and belief), Asst. Chief Greene, and Cmdr. Deville were aware that the size of the march had fluctuated dramatically since demonstrators left Logan Circle, and they were aware that numerous demonstrators had joined or left the march throughout its disorganized progress until the point at which a number of demonstrators were forced into the kettle and prevented from leaving. Chief
14

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 15 of 51
Newsham, Asst. Chief Greene, Cmdr. Deville, and the officers involved in forming the kettle had no ability to identify which, if any, of the kettled individuals had committed crimes. Chief Newsham, Asst. Chief Greene, and Cmdr. Deville knew that neither they nor their officers had the ability to identify which, if any, of the kettled individuals had committed crimes.
68. As Cmdr. Deville subsequently testified regarding the decision to detain demonstrators, “I wasn’t differentiating who was demonstrating and who was rioting.”
69. Chief Newsham later acknowledged to the Washington Post that his officers strategically maneuvered the demonstrators to trap them in the kettle. The MPD official in charge at the scene, Cmdr. Deville, was in constant contact with the MPD command center, where Defendant Newsham was stationed throughout the day. On information and belief, Defendant Newsham ordered or approved trapping demonstrators in the kettle at the time this action took place, and/or approved the continued detention and arrest of the kettled demonstrators despite his awareness that the police had no ability to identify which, if any, of these individuals had committed crimes.
70. Because of Defendants’ intentional and coordinated action in chasing individuals north on 14th Street NW, then east on L Street NW, while driving them on by using pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, and stingballs, and blocking their egress via alternate routes, the individuals who were trapped in the kettle at 12th and L Streets NW were not there by virtue of having acted unlawfully but merely because they were present on particular downtown D.C. streets on the morning of January 20 and then tried to flee when police chased and assaulted them.
15

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 16 of 51
71. Mr. Horse did not engage in any vandalism or other unlawful activity on the streets of Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2017. He did not encourage anyone to do so or cheer for anyone who did so. He was not dressed the same as anyone who did so.
72. Mr. Horse was detained in the kettle without probable cause and merely because he was exercising his First Amendment right to document the demonstrations as a photojournalist, was present on particular downtown D.C. streets on the morning of January 20, and tried to run away when police officers chased and assaulted him.
73. Ms. Lagesse did not engage in any vandalism or other unlawful activity on the streets of Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2017. She did not encourage anyone to do so or cheer for anyone who did so. She was not dressed the same as anyone who did so.
74. Ms. Lagesse was detained in the kettle without probable cause and merely because she wished to exercise her First Amendment right to demonstrate peacefully in opposition to the Inauguration, was present on particular downtown D.C. streets on the morning of January 20, and tried to run away when police officers chased and assaulted her.
In the Kettle 75. The kettle of detainees at 12th and L Streets NW was formed at about 10:45 a.m. 76. Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse were detained there along with approximately 200 other individuals, one of whom was Plaintiff Milo Gonzalez. 77. Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez were detained in the kettle for hours.
16

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 17 of 51
78. Defendant Cmdr. Deville, under the direction of Defendants Chief Newsham and Asst. Chief Greene, declared that all the detainees were under arrest and ordered that no one was to leave the kettle. Defendants Ofcr. Howden and Sgt. Alioto were among those primarily responsible for ensuring that the detainees could not leave.
79. While individuals were detained in the kettle, MPD officers repeatedly deployed pepper spray and stingballs containing chemical irritants against individuals or groups of individuals in the kettle, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez.
80. Many of these deployments came without warning or dispersal order— indeed, the individuals in the kettle were physically prevented from dispersing—and were carried out when there was no threat to officer or public safety or any disobedience of police orders on the part of the detainees. For instance:
a. Defendant Ofcr. Washington discharged pepper spray into the crowd of individuals, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, being herded into the kettle, even though the detainees were not disobeying orders or posing a threat.
b. Defendant Ofcr. Thau discharged pepper spray into the crowd of kettled individuals, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, as detainees retreated from the line of officers on the east side of the kettle and at a time when detainees were not disobeying orders or posing a threat.
c. Defendant Ofcr. Thau discharged a stingball into the crowd of kettled individuals, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, as detainees retreated from the line of officers on the east side of the kettle and at a time when detainees were not disobeying orders or posing a threat.
17

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 18 of 51
d. Defendant Ofcr. Rock discharged a stingball into the crowd of kettled individuals, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, as detainees retreated from the line of officers on the east side of the kettle and at a time when detainees were not disobeying orders or posing a threat.
81. Defendant Ofcr. Howden remarked to his supervisor that the police had been “extremely wild” with their use of pepper spray.
82. Although Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez are unsure whether they were targeted personally by any of the officers’ uses of pepper spray or stingballs, the tight packing of the detainees into a small space ensured that everyone in the kettle would feel the effects of spray directed at the crowd of detainees.
83. The pepper spray and other chemical irritants were so thick that at times they created a haze over the kettle and all the individuals detained there.
84. The repeated deployment of chemical irritants caused panic among the kettled detainees, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, because they were having difficulty breathing, were tightly pressed together with other detainees, and could not escape the kettle.
85. Each time Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez were hit with pepper spray or other chemical irritants, their eyes began to burn painfully, and they began to cough and to gasp for breath.
86. Because Plaintiff Lagesse had goggles on by this time, her eyes were protected, but the pepper spray caused her to cough, to have difficulty breathing, and to experience a burning sensation on the uncovered part of her face.
18

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 19 of 51
87. Defendants Asst. Chief Robert Alder, Cmdr. Jeffery Carroll, and Lt. Paul Niepling supervised the continued maintenance of the kettle. These officials continued to communicate with and receive orders from the MPD command center, where Defendant Chief Newsham was overseeing the operation.
88. During the many hours that Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez were detained in the kettle, MPD officers, under the supervision and direction of Chief Newsham, Asst. Chief Alder, Cmdr. Carroll, and Lt. Niepling, failed to provide them with food, water, or access to a toilet.
89. Many demonstrators, including Ms. Lagesse and Mr. Gonzalez, specifically requested food, water, and/or access to a toilet.
90. While the detainees were kettled, several MPD officers threw edible food in a garbage can in view of the detainees, including Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez, to taunt them. Mr. Gonzalez specifically asked the officers for the food that they were throwing away, and they refused to provide it. The officers laughed at Mr. Gonzalez as they threw their food away.
91. Hungry, Mr. Horse and Mr. Gonzalez both resorted to rummaging in a city trashcan for the food the officers had discarded.
92. One MPD officer made clear to the detainees that no toilets would be made available by stating in response to one detainee’s request that she should “shit [her] pants” to prove she needed a toilet.
93. Having no other place to urinate, some of the demonstrators urinated on the street or against the side of buildings. Some demonstrators rummaged in the trash for empty
19

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 20 of 51
bottles in which to urinate. One demonstrator crouched against the side of a building and defecated into a paper bag.
94. Mr. Gonzalez badly needed to use a toilet, but, fearing that he could be charged with public urination, did not dare to urinate on the street.
95. Holding his bladder was painful for Mr. Gonzalez. 96. One officer taunted Mr. Gonzalez, saying “If you wanted to go to the bathroom, you shouldn’t have gotten arrested.” 97. Within 30 to 45 minutes of the formation of the kettle, by 11:30 a.m., MPD had prisoner vans and processing officers at the scene and was ready for the processing of detainees. 98. Nonetheless, the handcuffing of detainees and placing them into vehicles for transport to detention facilities stretched on for hours, with some of the detainees, including Plaintiff Lagesse, remaining at the corner of 12th and L Streets NW until the late afternoon and others, including Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez, remaining until after sunset. 99. The gap in time between the point at which MPD was prepared to take detainees into formal custody and the point at which the detainees were actually processed reflects that MPD officers, under the supervision and direction of Chief Newsham, Asst. Chief Alder, Cmdr. Carroll, and Lt. Niepling, purposefully conducted the arrest process unnecessarily slowly in order to maximize the detainees’ discomfort.
Bystanders and Legal Observers Are Pepper-Sprayed 100. Plaintiffs Gwen Frisbie-Fulton and her ten-year-old son A.S. were also present at the intersection of 12th and L Streets NW in the early afternoon of January 20.
20

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 21 of 51
101. Plaintiffs Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. have engaged together in a variety of demonstrations over the years. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton, a single mother, has a strong sense of social responsibility, having worked for over two decades with non-profit organizations that help poor and marginalized communities. She currently works at a food bank; she has previously served as co-director of a homeless shelter and before that was employed at an organization supporting survivors of domestic violence. She has been active in public demonstrations for approximately twenty years in order to speak out against social injustice. After A.S. became old enough, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton began bringing A.S. to peaceful demonstrations in order to expose him to important issues of public concern, to illustrate the power of peaceful political protest, and to educate him about his First Amendment rights.
102. Over the years, A.S. has attended a few dozen protests with his mother and has come to feel strongly about expressing his political opinions. Among the causes for which Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. have demonstrated together are racial justice, economic justice, and environmental protection. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton takes care to be keenly aware of her surroundings when she is with her son at a demonstration so that she can avoid exposing him to any risk of harm.
103. A.S. followed the 2016 election closely, asking his mother to be allowed to stay up past his bedtime to watch the presidential debates and to follow the election returns. A.S. was strongly opposed to candidate Donald Trump because of his hostile views toward a variety of groups, especially immigrants, and because A.S. thinks that Trump said terrible things during the campaign. A.S. was deeply disappointed and concerned for the future of the country when Donald Trump was elected.
21

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 22 of 51
104. As Inauguration Day approached, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton wanted to come to Washington, D.C. to protest, in particular by attending the Women’s March on the day after the inauguration. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton also wanted to show A.S. how citizens of a democracy can respond peacefully and constructively to an election result they disagree with: by exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Because of his own strong feelings of opposition to Donald Trump, A.S. decided, together with his mother, that he would join her in protesting the inauguration.
105. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. traveled to D.C. with a number of their friends from their tight-knit community in North Carolina.
106. On January 20, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. had spent about three hours participating in various peaceful demonstrations around Washington, D.C. when Ms. Frisbie-Fulton learned via text message in the early afternoon that a friend from their hometown had been detained by police at the corner of 12th and L Streets NW. Ms. FrisbieFulton and A.S. were three blocks away and decided to walk to the intersection to check on their friend.
107. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton was wearing a black windbreaker and jeans. A.S. was wearing a gray sweater, jeans, a red bandana, and a gray Star Wars hat. Both Ms. FrisbieFulton’s and A.S.’s faces were uncovered, and neither was wearing a hood or mask.
108. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. arrived at the southeast corner of 12th and L Streets NW at approximately 1:00 p.m. They saw the group of detainees kettled on the northwest corner of the intersection. A large group of bystanders, protestors, and legal observers had gathered outside the kettle on the south side of the intersection of 12th and L Streets NW.
22

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 23 of 51
109. The south side of the intersection was cordoned off by yellow police tape and blocked by a row of police motorcycles and bicycles. In the intersection, and extending west on L Street NW, a row of MPD officers lined up facing south towards the crowd. Additional MPD officers were lined up behind the first police line.
110. After about five minutes, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. moved to the southwest corner of the intersection. From there, A.S. saw their friend in the kettle and boosted himself up by holding onto a streetsign in order to wave at their friend.
111. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. were present at the intersection of 12th and L Streets NW for approximately 45 minutes.
112. Plaintiff Judah Ariel was also present at the intersection of 12th and L Streets NW.
113. He had started working as a legal observer at 6:30 a.m. on January 20 at various demonstrations throughout the District. He was dressed in a dark green jacket and blue jeans with a blue and red backpack, and he was wearing the distinctive bright neon green baseball cap commonly worn by some legal observers to identify themselves. He was not wearing a hood or mask.
114. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Mr. Ariel was walking east from McPherson Square on K Street NW.
115. Because Mr. Ariel had heard from another legal observer about police activity in the area of 12th and L Streets NW, he walked north on 12th Street NW toward that intersection to see if he could be of use as a legal observer there.
23

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 24 of 51
116. Mr. Ariel joined a crowd of people at the southeast corner of 12th and L Streets NW, outside the kettle. The crowd included multiple legal observers along the sidewalk, clearly identifiable by their bright neon green hats.
117. Mr. Ariel observed the kettled group of detainees surrounded by police at the northwest corner of the intersection.
118. Many members of the crowd outside the kettle shouted at the police to demand the release of the people being detained.
119. While Mr. Ariel, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton, and A.S. were present, neither they nor any of the other individuals outside the kettle menaced, threatened, or assaulted the police or their vehicles.
120. At approximately 1:45 p.m., suddenly and without warning or a dispersal order, Defendants Lt. Michael Whiteside, Ofcr. Dennis Baldwin, Ofcr. Courtney Flash, Ofcr. Timothy Steffes, Ofcr. Leonard Roccato, Ofcr. Bruce Baskerville, Ofcr. Diane Brooks, Ofcr. Phokham Vongkeo, Ofcr. Ferney Dennis, Ofcr. Kenneth Parker, and Ofcr. Sequita Williams began to pepper-spray the people outside the kettle, including Mr. Ariel on the south side of L Street NW.
121. When the pepper-spraying began, there was no threat to public or officer safety, and none of the individuals in the crowd outside the kettle — including Mr. Ariel, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton, and A.S. — was disobeying police orders.
122. Defendants Lt. Michael Whiteside and Sgt. Sean Hill walked behind the line of officers speaking to them moments before the spraying began. This conduct, in combination with the coordinated action by multiple officers, reflects that Defendants Lt.
24

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 25 of 51
Whiteside and Sgt. Hill ordered the pepper-spraying of bystanders, despite the absence of a threat to officer or public safety or disobedience of any officer’s command.
123. Defendants Ofcrs. Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams moved forward down 12th Street NW, advancing on the retreating crowd, continuing to deploy pepper spray indiscriminately on people in the crowd.
124. One of these officers held his spray gun in front of him, sweeping the spray back and forth across the crowd.
125. Mr. Ariel coughed and felt his lungs and eyes burn from the spray. 126. Mr. Ariel covered his mouth with a cloth but a few seconds later, he began to choke. 127. Fearing for his safety, Mr. Ariel fled. He felt that he was on the verge of passing out. 128. As soon as Ms. Frisbie-Fulton saw the pepper-spraying begin, she feared for A.S.’s safety and her own and so told to A.S. that it was time to go. A.S. hopped down from the streetsign he had been holding onto and began to hurry ahead of his mother west on L Street NW away from the intersection where the officers were pepper-spraying the crowd. 129. Without warning or provocation, a line of police officers, including Ofcr. Joseph Masci and Ofcr. Aulio Angulo, rushed forward. Ofcrs. Masci and Angulo collided with A.S., knocking him to the ground. 130. Defendants Lt. Michael Whiteside and Sgt. Sean Hill walked behind the line of officers speaking to them moments before the charge. This conduct, in combination
25

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 26 of 51
with the coordinated action by multiple officers, reflects that Defendants Lt. Whiteside and Sgt. Hill ordered the charge into nonviolent protestors, despite the absence of a threat to officer or public safety or disobedience of any officer’s command.
131. A.S. felt his ribs scrape against the curb of the sidewalk as he hit the ground. 132. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton instinctively threw her body on top of her son, and she felt herself pushed from behind as police and demonstrators collided and became tangled. 133. Scared and confused why he had been assaulted while trying to flee, A.S. began to cry. From his mother’s arms at the bottom of the pile of people, he hoped the officers would hear him and permit them to leave. 134. As she tried to round her back to create space to protect A.S. from being crushed under her, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton felt terror at the possibility that her son could be injured or that she could be injured and unable to see him to safety. 135. After approximately half a minute, people began to stand up from the crush of bodies, and Ms. Frisbie-Fulton managed to stand up. She picked up A.S., who was sobbing, and looked for an escape route. 136. L Street NW was clear to the west except for a group of police officers. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton asked the officers whether she and A.S. could leave in that direction, but an officer responded that she could not and chastised Ms. Frisbie-Fulton, “You shouldn’t have come here with your child.” 137. From behind her, an MPD officer tapped Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and told her to follow him. Carrying A.S., she complied. The officer led Ms. Frisbie-Fulton back toward the intersection of 12th and L Streets NW, moving through the line of officers, whom he asked to let the pair pass.
26

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 27 of 51
138. Soon, however, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. became separated from the officer who had tried to help them. Other officers, including Lt. Whiteside and Ofcrs. Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams, continued to pepper-spray the retreating crowd. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. attempted to flee south on 12th Street NW with the rest of the crowd.
139. The street was clouded with pepper spray. 140. As they ran, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton inhaled pepper spray from the officers’ barrage and began to cough and choke. She felt unable to carry A.S. any further. 141. Another demonstrator indicated his willingness to help, so Ms. FrisbieFulton handed A.S., terrified and crying, to the demonstrator, who carried him further down 12th Street NW away from the officers as Ms. Frisbie-Fulton struggled to keep up. 142. Pepper spray landed on A.S.’s Star Wars winter hat. A.S. felt his throat clogged from either his own crying or the effects of the pepper spray, and he began to cough uncontrollably. 143. Both Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. feared losing each other in the crowd. At one point, A.S. lost sight of his mother and became terrified. 144. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. were able to reunite at the end of the block. They hurried away from the area as A.S. continued to cough.
The Formal Arrests 145. Defendant Asst. Chief Greene ordered the formal arrests of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez, which took place after they had been detained for several hours. Defendant Ofcr. Harvy Hinostroza took Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez into formal custody. Defendant Ofcr. Borgardus took Plaintiff Lagesse into formal custody.
27

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 28 of 51
146. When Mr. Horse was formally arrested, Defendant Ofcr. Hinostroza handcuffed him using zipties so excessively tightly that he lost feeling in some of the fingers on both of his hands.
147. Mr. Horse complained to Ofcr. Hinostroza that the zipties were painfully tight, but Ofcr. Hinostroza refused to remove them, explaining that the zipties were not supposed to be comfortable.
148. Mr. Horse’s zipties were not removed for approximately three hours. 149. When Ms. Lagesse was arrested, Defendant Ofcr. Borgardus handcuffed her using zipties so excessively tightly that one of her wrists was cut and began to bleed. 150. Ms. Lagesse complained to Ofcr. Borgardus that the zipties were painfully tight, but he refused to remove them. 151. Ms. Lagesse’s zipties were not removed for approximately two hours. 152. Mr. Horse was detained in the kettle for approximately 7 hours. 153. By the time Mr. Horse was formally arrested and transported to a detention facility, he had gone approximately 9-10 hours without access to a toilet. 154. Mr. Horse was not given food or drink until later in the evening; he was detained an approximate total of 10-11 hours without being provided food or drink. 155. Ms. Lagesse was detained on the street for approximately 5-6 hours. 156. By the time Ms. Lagesse was formally arrested, transported to a detention facility, and had her belongings inventoried, she had gone approximately 7-8 hours without access to a toilet. 157. The toilet to which Ms. Lagesse was finally given access had no toilet paper. Several of the women detained with her asked for toilet paper but none was provided.
28

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 29 of 51
158. Ms. Lagesse was not given access to water until late that night; she was detained an approximate total of 11-12 hours without water.
159. Ms. Lagesse did not receive food at the detention facility until the early hours of the following morning; she was detained an approximate total of 13-16 hours before she was given food.
160. Mr. Gonzalez was detained on the street for approximately 7 hours. 161. By the time Mr. Gonzalez was formally arrested, transported to a detention facility, and given the opportunity to use a toilet, he had gone approximately 9-10 hours without access to a toilet. 162. By the time he was allowed to urinate, Mr. Gonzalez was in pain from having held his urine for so long. 163. When Mr. Gonzalez was allowed to use a portable toilet, MPD officers held the door open and watched him urinate. They rushed Mr. Gonzalez out of the toilet before he had finished emptying his bladder. 164. Mr. Gonzalez was not given food or drink until later in the evening; he was detained an approximate total of 10-11 hours without being provided food or drink. 165. Neither the officials in charge of the kettle and/or the arrests — Defendants Chief Newsham, Asst. Chief Greene, Asst. Chief Alder, Cmdr. Carroll, Cmdr. Deville, and Lt. Niepling — nor arresting officers Defendants Hinostroza and Borgardus took any actions to ensure that only individuals whom they had probable cause to believe had committed crimes would be handcuffed and transported to detention facilities.
29

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 30 of 51
The Rectal Searches 166. After Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez were arrested, they were detained at the Metropolitan Police Academy on Blue Plains Drive SW, off I-295 near the Maryland state line. 167. MPD officers took them inside the facility to what appeared to be an officertraining area that was set up to look like a mock street. There each of them was subjected to a search. 168. Defendant Officer John Doe patted Mr. Horse down and then jabbed into Mr. Horse’s rectum, through his pants. 169. As Defendant Officer John Doe pushed his finger into Mr. Horse’s rectum, he ordered Mr. Horse not to flinch. 170. Several minutes later, Defendant Officer John Doe patted Mr. Gonzalez down and ordered him to spread his legs, then to spread them again, wider. 171. Defendant Officer John Doe then reached inside Mr. Gonzalez’s underwear and fondled his testicles. 172. Defendant Officer John Doe reached inside Mr. Gonzalez’s underwear and put his finger into Mr. Gonzalez’s rectum. 173. As the Defendant Officer John Doe jabbed into Mr. Gonzalez’s rectum, he ordered Mr. Gonzalez not to resist. 174. No officer had reason to believe that Mr. Horse or Mr. Gonzalez possessed contraband. No contraband was found on either Mr. Horse or Mr. Gonzalez.
30

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 31 of 51
Plaintiff Horse’s Injuries 175. As a result of Defendants’ unjustified use of pepper spray and other chemical irritants, Plaintiff Horse suffered severe pain as his eyes burned from the pepper spray. Pepper spray remained in his hair throughout his detention, which lasted more than 24 hours; every time his long hair touched his face, it caused a burning sensation and coughing. Mr. Horse had a rash on his scalp for a week after his arrest. Mr. Horse suffered emotional distress from the panic at being trapped and unable to breathe while he was pepper-sprayed during the kettle. 176. As a result of his arrest without probable cause and in response to his exercise of his First Amendment rights, Mr. Horse was detained for approximately 33 hours. 177. Because Mr. Horse’s arrest and detention led to the confiscation of his photographs and camera for approximately two months, Mr. Horse lost income because he was unable to sell his photographs of the January 20 demonstrations in a timely manner and did not have the equipment he needed to cover other newsworthy protests in the weeks following his arrest. 178. As a result of the application of excessively tight zipties, Mr. Horse experienced pain in his hands and lost feeling in several fingers on both hands. Several fingers on his left hand remained numb for more than four months after his arrest. Because of the numbness, Mr. Horse has had difficulty with important daily tasks, including typing on a keyboard and operating his camera. Mr. Horse had scarring on his left wrist from the zipties for more than two months after the arrest.
31

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 32 of 51
179. As a result of the denial of food, water, and access to a toilet, Mr. Horse experienced hunger, thirst, discomfort, and anxiety.
180. As a result of Defendants’ manual rectal jabbing, Mr. Horse suffered humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress. He feels as if he has been raped. Mr. Horse’s anus was sore for a day or two after the intrusion. Mr. Horse has felt irritable and withdrawn from other people, and he has found it harder to trust and confide in other people. The emotional distress has negatively affected Mr. Horse’s relationships, including impinging on his sex drive and performance. Mr. Horse remains haunted by what he experienced.
181. As a result of the defendants’ conduct described above, particularly the kettling and the rectal jabbing, Mr. Horse has suffered bouts of anxiety and has had difficulty sleeping since January 20. He suffers from nightmares filled with violent imagery and wakes up approximately every three hours, often in a panicked state. Covering demonstrations—a crucial part of Mr. Horse’s job—heightens his anxiety as he remembers what happened to him on January 20.
Plaintiff Lagesse’s Injuries 182. As a result of Defendants’ unjustified use of pepper spray and other chemical irritants, Plaintiff Lagesse coughed, had difficulty breathing, and experienced a burning sensation on her face and in her eyes. Ms. Lagesse also suffered emotional distress from the panic at being trapped and unable to breathe when she was pressed in a crush of people and pepper-sprayed while being detained in the kettle. 183. As a result of her exposure to pepper spray, the skin on Ms. Lagesse’s face was peeling for more than a week after the arrest.
32

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 33 of 51
184. As a result of her arrest without probable cause and in response to her exercise of her First Amendment rights, Ms. Lagesse was detained for approximately 37 hours.
185. As a result of Defendants’ application of excessively tight zipties, Ms. Lagesse’s wrist bled and she experienced pain in her wrists and hands. More than four months after her arrest, she still has a quarter-inch-long scar on her right wrist.
186. As a result of the denial of food, water, and access to a toilet, Ms. Lagesse experienced hunger, thirst, discomfort, and anxiety.
187. As a result of the defendants’ conduct described above, Ms. Lagesse suffered stress, anxiety, and emotional distress both on January 20 and subsequently. For weeks after her arrest, she experienced heightened anxiety whenever she heard helicopters or loud noises such as fireworks. She continues to feel increased anxiety around police officers. Ms. Lagesse participated in many political demonstrations prior to January 20, but is now reluctant to do so because she fears that she may again be subjected to police violence through no fault of her own. Although she has nevertheless attended demonstrations since January 20, she has sometimes been nervous while demonstrating, watching for police and worrying about their whereabouts, and she has sometimes avoided chanting or carrying a sign because she feared that if she called attention to herself she might be again become a target of police violence.
Plaintiff Ariel’s Injuries 188. As a result of Defendants’ unjustified use of pepper spray and other chemical irritants, Plaintiff Ariel coughed, choked, had difficulty breathing, and
33

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 34 of 51
experienced a burning sensation in his eyes and lungs. He feared he would pass out and suffer further injury.
189. As a result of Defendants’ unjustified and sudden pepper-spraying, Mr. Ariel suffered emotional distress and anxiety during and after his encounter with the police. He often continues to feel increased anxiety around police officers and whenever he passes by the intersection of 12th and L Streets NW. Mr. Ariel regularly participated in political demonstrations prior to January 20, but he has since been hesitant to attend potentially contentious protests, whether as a legal observer or a participant. Although Mr. Ariel fulfilled his prior commitment to serve as a legal observer at the Women’s March on January 21, he made sure to keep his distance from the police and has avoided attending other protests — such as the August 12, 2017 counter-demonstration against white supremacists in Charlottesville — due to fear of police violence.
Plaintiff Gonzalez’s Injuries 190. As a result of Defendants’ unjustified use of pepper spray and other chemical irritants, Plaintiff Gonzalez coughed, had difficulty breathing, and experienced a burning sensation in his eyes, on his face, and in his lungs and chest. He experienced extreme panic when he was being pepper-sprayed in the kettle and felt unable to breathe and unable to escape. When Mr. Gonzalez attended a Chinese New Year celebration shortly after his arrest, the fireworks caused Mr. Gonzalez to panic and feel as if concussion grenades were being detonated near him. 191. As a result of the denial of food, water, and access to a toilet, Mr. Gonzalez experienced hunger, thirst, discomfort, and anxiety. Specifically, Mr. Gonzalez experienced pain and discomfort in his midsection as a result of holding his bladder; the
34

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 35 of 51
pain persisted for two weeks after his arrest. Additionally, Mr. Gonzalez experienced difficulty urinating for two weeks after his arrest. He sought medical attention for both of these conditions.
192. As a result of Defendants’ manual rectal jabbing and the grabbing of his testicles, Mr. Gonzalez suffered humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress. He feels more withdrawn from people and has had difficulty relating to people since the search.
193. As a result of all the conduct described here, Mr. Gonzalez has had difficulty sleeping since January 20. He has regular nightmares about being chased, attacked, or locked up by the police. He frequently cannot sleep for hours and occasionally goes all night without sleeping. Mr. Gonzalez also feels nervous about attending protests. When he encounters police, he becomes extremely fearful, and begins to shake and sweat. After experiencing these symptoms at several demonstrations after January 20, he ceased attending demonstrations entirely because of his fear and anxiety.
Injuries to Plaintiffs Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. 194. As a result of Defendants’ conduct toward nonthreatening demonstrators outside the kettle at 12th and L Streets — including Defendants’ unjustified use of pepper spray and other chemical irritants and Defendants’ charge into a nonthreatening crowd on the south side of L Street NW — Plaintiffs Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. coughed and choked for several minutes, and A.S. scraped his ribs. They both continued to cough intermittently throughout the rest of the day. 195. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. suffered significant anxiety, fear, and other emotional distress as they became entangled beneath a crush of people, feared for their own and each other’s safety, and feared becoming
35

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 36 of 51
separated from each other. Ms. Frisbie-Fulton experienced particular anxiety and fear at the thought that she might be unable to protect her son. Although ten years old, A.S. found that he needed to sleep with his mother on the night of January 20 after what they had experienced. For approximately a month after January 20, A.S. had difficulty recalling their experience at 12th and L Streets NW without becoming emotional. A.S. continues to remember that experience when he sees police officers.
196. As a result of Defendants’ conduct on January 20, Ms. Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. have become wary at political demonstrations. As they had planned to do, Ms. FrisbieFulton and A.S. attended the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017, but they decided to leave early when A.S. became frightened at the sight of a police officer. Both of them have become more nervous at demonstrations, and Ms. Frisbie-Fulton no longer takes A.S. to certain types of demonstrations where she expects the police presence will be too concentrated to feel safe.
The District’s Responsibility for Plaintiffs’ Injuries 197. The actions of the Defendants described above were taken pursuant to a municipal policy, practice, and custom of responding to demonstrations at which some lawbreaking occurs by using excessive force against participants who have not broken the law. 198. Chief Newsham has acknowledged that the Defendant Officers’ kettling of detainees was not mere happenstance but a coordinated strategy. All the Defendant officers’ actions in pepper-spraying, assaulting with additional noise- and light-emitting weaponry, and detaining demonstrators were carried out in a coordinated manner. 199. Chief Newsham spent the day on January 20 in an MPD command center, where he was well aware of and (on information and belief) directed the massive and
36

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 37 of 51
coordinated MPD response to the march down 13th Street NW, pursuant to MPD Standard Operating Procedure 16-01 (“Handling First Amendment Assemblies And Mass Demonstrations”), which provides (at page 11) that “During periods in which the Department is fully mobilized for mass demonstration operations . . . [t]he Chief of Police, as the commanding official of the MPD, shall oversee all police activities ….”
200. Cmdr. Keith Deville, the officer in command on the scene of the demonstration and subsequent kettling, was in constant communication with the MPD command center, where he received orders from Asst. Chief Lamar Greene and other topranking members of MPD. On information and belief, Asst. Chief Greene and the other officials who instructed Cmdr. Deville acted on the orders or with the approval of Chief Newsham, who was with them in the command center.
201. To whatever extent Chief Newsham did not direct the coordinated MPD response himself, he nonetheless was aware of the large-scale MPD actions taken against the individuals who marched down 13th Street NW, and he deliberately failed to supervise and restrain Defendants Greene and Deville, and other officers under his command, from violating the rights of Plaintiffs and others repeatedly and continually throughout January 20.
202. The coordinated MPD response is part of a custom of the District of Columbia of responding with overwhelming and unlawful force to non-violent demonstrators at largely peaceful demonstrations where some law-breaking is occurring. For instance, MPD has:
a. Used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained demonstrators during the counter-inaugural demonstrations in Adams Morgan
37

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 38 of 51
in January 2005; the pepper-spraying and arrest of numerous peaceful demonstrators led to lawsuits resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence.
b. Used excessive force against demonstrators during the counterinaugural demonstrations near the White House in January 2005 after other demonstrators had removed a portion of security fencing; the pepper-spraying of law-abiding demonstrators led to a lawsuit resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence.
c. Used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained demonstrators during the World Bank protests in Pershing Park in September 2002; the mass arrests and hogtying of protestors led to lawsuits resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence.
d. Used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained antiglobalization demonstrators in April 2000; the kettling, use of pepper spray, and denial food and water to detainees led to lawsuits resolved by large settlement payments to victims of MPD violence. 203. The prior incidents in which MPD used excessive force against and unconstitutionally detained peaceful demonstrators where some law-breaking occurred made clear to the District that its officers required training regarding the constitutional limits of their authority to detain demonstrators and use force against them. The widespread use of chemical irritants on January 20 in violation of both D.C. law and the Fourth Amendment reflects a deliberately indifferent failure to train MPD officers on the appropriate circumstances in which to deploy chemical irritants. To whatever extent the
38

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 39 of 51
individual Defendants’ actions described here did not reflect municipal custom or carry out affirmative instructions from Chief Newsham, these actions were the result of the District’s failure to train MPD officers.
204. When asked to comment on MPD officers’ January 20 conduct, Chief Newsham responded by ratifying the officers’ conduct in a WTOP radio interview, in which he stated: “[A]ll the police officers were outstanding in the judgment that they used. They used the least amount of force necessary to bring those folks safely and respectfully into custody. I couldn’t be more proud of the way this department responded.” Chief Newsham further stated to WTOP that he was “very, very pleased” with the way police responded to the demonstration.
205. Following a report by the Office of Police Complaints raising concerns about MPD’s conduct on Inauguration Day, an official MPD spokesperson reaffirmed that its officers’ actions conformed to the District’s expectations: “The Metropolitan Police Department stands by its assertion that our officers acted responsibly and professionally during Inauguration Day,” MPD spokesperson Rachel Reid said in a statement emailed to the news media.
Notices of Claims 206. Plaintiffs have timely given notice in writing to the Mayor of the District of Columbia of the “approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances” of their injuries, pursuant to D.C. Code § 12-309. The Notice of Claim letter for Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, and Gonzalez was hand-delivered to the D.C. Office of Risk Management on June 12, 2017. The Notice of Claim letter for Plaintiffs Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. was mailed to
39

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 40 of 51
the D.C. Office of Risk Management on July 18, 2017, and Ms. Frisbie-Fulton subsequently received a letter from the District acknowledging receipt.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Claim 1: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – arrest without probable cause (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham,
Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza)
207. The actions of Defendants Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza, namely the warrantless arrests of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse without probable cause, and the actions of Defendants Newsham, Deville, and Greene in ordering or approving such arrests, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
208. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
209. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 2: First Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – arrest for protected speech (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham,
Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza)
210. The actions of Defendants Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza, namely the arrest of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse for exercising their First Amendment freedoms to report the news or to express their views, respectively, and the actions of Defendants Newsham, Deville, and Greene in ordering or approving
40

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 41 of 51
such arrests, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the freedoms of speech, assembly, and press.
211. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
212. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 3: False arrest / false imprisonment (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham,
Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza)
213. The actions of Defendants Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza, namely the warrantless arrest of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse without probable cause, and the actions of Defendants Newsham, Deville, and Greene in ordering or approving such arrests, constituted false arrest and false imprisonment under the law of the District of Columbia.
214. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Bogardus, and Hinostroza are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse for these tortious acts.
215. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
41

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 42 of 51
Claim 4: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – kettling (Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham,
Deville, and Greene) 216. The actions of Defendants Newsham, Deville, and Greene, namely ordering the kettling or encircling of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse and detaining them in the kettle for several hours, violated the rights of Plaintiffs under the First Amendment Assemblies Act because Defendants lacked “probable cause to believe that a significant number or percentage of the persons located in the area or zone have committed unlawful acts” and because the police did not “have the ability to identify those individuals.” D.C. Code § 5331.08. 217. Defendants Newsham, Deville, and Greene are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. 218. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 5: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – failure to give dispersal order
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington,
Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, Williams, Masci, and Angulo)
219. The actions of Defendants Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Murphy, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, Williams, Masci, and Angulo, namely the failure to give Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. “at least one clearly audible and understandable order to disperse
42

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 43 of 51
using an amplification system or device” and to “provide the participants a reasonable and adequate time to disperse and a clear and safe route for dispersal” violated the rights of Plaintiffs under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. D.C. Code § 5-331.07(e)(1).
220. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Whiteside, and Hill are liable for these actions because each of them ordered their officers to assault one or more of the plaintiffs without a dispersal order or because they knew about, condoned, and/or failed to correct this conduct.
221. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Howden, Rock, Thau, Alioto, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, Williams, Masci, and Angulo are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
222. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 6: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – excessive force (use of chemical irritants)
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. against Defendants District of Columbia, Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside,
Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams)
223. The actions of Defendants Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams, namely the use of pepper spray and stingballs against nonviolent and nonresisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse,
43

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 44 of 51
Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S., and the actions of Defendants Whiteside and Hill in ordering or approving such use of pepper spray and stingballs, violated the rights of Plaintiffs under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
224. Defendants Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
225. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 7: Assault and battery – use of chemical irritants (Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Deville, Greene, Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville,
Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams) 226. The actions of Defendants Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams, namely the use of pepper spray and stingballs against nonviolent and nonresisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S., constituted the torts of assault and battery. 227. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Whiteside, and Hill are liable for these actions because they ordered their officers to use pepper spray and stingballs against nonviolent and non-resisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders or knew about, condoned, and/or failed to correct this conduct.
44

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 45 of 51
228. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for these tortious acts.
229. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 8: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – unlawful use of chemical irritants
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S. against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Deville, Greene, Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville,
Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams) 230. The actions of Defendants Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams, namely the use of pepper spray and stingballs against nonviolent and nonresisting demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders, including Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, Ariel, Gonzalez, Frisbie-Fulton and A.S., violated the rights of Plaintiffs under the First Amendment Assemblies Act because Defendants used “[l]arge scale canisters of chemical irritant” when not “reasonable and necessary to protect officers or others from physical harm or to arrest actively resisting subjects” and because they used “[c]hemical irritant … to disperse a First Amendment assembly” other than at a time when “assembly participants or others are committing acts of public disobedience endangering public safety and security.” D.C. Code § 5-331.16(b). 231. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Whiteside, and Hill are liable for these actions because they ordered their officers to use pepper spray and stingballs against demonstrators, detainees, and bystanders in circumstances prohibited by the First
45

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 46 of 51
Amendment Assemblies Act or knew about, condoned, and/or failed to correct this conduct.
232. Defendants Newsham, Deville, Greene, Rock, Thau, Washington, Murphy, Whiteside, Hill, Baldwin, Flash, Steffes, Roccato, Baskerville, Brooks, Vongkeo, Dennis, Parker, and Williams are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
233. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 9: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – excessive force (knocking down ten-year-old)
(Plaintiff A.S. against Defendants Whiteside, Hill, Masci, and Angulo) 234. The actions of Defendants Masci and Angulo, namely charging into A.S. unprovoked and knocking him to the ground, and the actions of Defendants Whiteside and Hill in ordering Defendants Masci and Angulo to charge at nonviolent demonstrators including A.S., violated the right of Plaintiff A.S. under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. 235. Defendants Masci, Angulo, Whiteside, and Hill are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff A.S. pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation.
46

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 47 of 51
Claim 10: Assault and battery – knocking down ten-year-old (Plaintiff A.S. against Defendants District of Columbia, Whiteside, Hill, Masci, and
Angulo) 236. The actions of Defendants Masci and Angulo, namely charging into A.S. unprovoked and knocking him to the ground, constituted the torts of assault and battery against Plaintiff A.S. 237. Defendants Whiteside and Hill are liable for these actions because they ordered their officers to charge at nonviolent demonstrators including A.S. or knew about, condoned, and/or failed to correct this conduct. 238. Defendants Masci, Angulo, Whiteside, and Hill are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff A.S. for this tortious act. 239. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 11: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – excessive force (zipties)
(Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse against Defendants Hinostroza and Borgardus) 240. The actions of Defendants Hinostroza and Borgardus, namely the
excessively and painfully tight handcuffing of Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse and the refusal to remove the restraints despite knowing that they were too tight, violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
241. Defendants Hinostroza and Borgardus are liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Lagesse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for these violations of their rights.
47

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 48 of 51
Claim 12: Fourth and Fifth Amendments / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – unconstitutional conditions of pre-trial confinement
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling)
242. The actions of Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling in ordering or approving the detention of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez for a prolonged period without access to food, water or toilets violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to due process of law.
243. Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
244. Defendant District of Columbia is liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights, because the violation was caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the District of Columbia.
Claim 13: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – unreasonable delay in providing food to arrestees
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling)
245. The actions of Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling, namely the failure to provide food to detainees “not released within a reasonable time of arrest,” violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. D.C. Code § 5-331.12(b)(2).
246. Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez for this violation of their rights, because
48

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 49 of 51
Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
247. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
Claim 14: Negligence per se / First Amendment Assemblies Act – failing to process arrestees promptly
(Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling)
248. The actions of Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling, namely ordering or approving their officers’ failure to “promptly process any person arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly to determine whether the person is eligible for immediate release pursuant to a lawful release option,” and/or failing to take steps necessary to ensure such prompt processing, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez under the First Amendment Assemblies Act. D.C. Code § 5331.12(a)(1).
249. Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs Horse, Lagesse, and Gonzalez for this violation of their rights, because Defendants’ violation of the First Amendment Assemblies Act constitutes negligence per se and/or is redressable under the First Amendment Assemblies Act.
250. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer.
49

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 50 of 51
Claim 15: Intentional infliction of emotional distress – denial of access to toilets (Plaintiff Gonzalez against Defendants District of Columbia, Newsham, Alder,
Carroll, and Niepling) 251. The actions of Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling, namely ordering or approving the detention of Plaintiff Gonzalez for a prolonged period without access to a toilet, constituted extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly caused Plaintiff Gonzalez severe emotional distress. 252. Defendants Newsham, Alder, Carroll, and Niepling are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Gonzalez for this tortious act. 253. Defendant District of Columbia is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the damages inflicted by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment as MPD officers and on behalf of and in the interests of their employer. Claim 16: Fourth Amendment / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – unreasonable search
(Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez against Defendant John Doe) 254. The actions of Defendant John Doe, namely the manual rectal jabbing of Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez and the grabbing of Plaintiff Gonzalez’s testicles without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches. 255. Defendant John Doe is liable to Plaintiffs Horse and Gonzalez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for this violation of their rights.
50

Case 1:17-cv-01216-ABJ Document 29 Filed 01/03/18 Page 51 of 51

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

(a)

RULE that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the First,

Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment

Assemblies Act, and the law of the District of Columbia;

(b)

ENTER JUDGMENT awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages against

all Defendants in an amount appropriate to the evidence adduced at trial;

(c)

ENTER JUDGMENT awarding Plaintiffs punitive damages against all

individual Defendants in an amount appropriate to the evidence adduced at trial;

(d)

ENTER JUDGMENT awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable

attorneys’ fees in this action as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

(e)

GRANT Plaintiffs such further relief as this Court may deem just and

proper.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

January 2, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Shana Knizhnik (D.C. Bar No. 1020840) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 Fax 202-457-0805 smichelman@acludc.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

51