Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 26 PageID #: 1

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

Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello, )

Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffmann,

)

Nile McClain, and Kira Hudson Banks, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

Sam Dotson, Chief of Police,

)

City of St. Louis,

)

Jon Belmar, Chief of Police

)

County of St. Louis,

)

Capt. Ronald Johnson, Missouri

)

Highway Patrol, in their official

)

capacities and as directors of the Unified )

Command

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

No. 4:14­cv­2019

COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, and for their Complaint, state as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action for injunctive relief brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the protections of the First Amendment, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under Art. 1, Secs. 8, 9, and 10 of the Missouri Constitution.

1

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
2. Plaintiffs have engaged in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity in the wake of the shooting death of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson in August 2014 and plan to further engage in constitutionally protected activities. 3. Plaintiffs are residents of St. Louis City or St. Louis County in the State of Missouri and have engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment to raise awareness of racially discriminatory practices of law enforcement officers in multiple jurisdictions St. Louis City and St. Louis County. 4. Plaintiffs, in the course of the lawful exercise of First Amendment rights, have all been subjected to actions by police acting under authority of command now designated as the Unified Command, designed to frighten and intimidate plaintiffs and to deter their continued exercise of First Amendment rights. Officers acting under authority of Unified Command have intimidated demonstrators, impeded their entry or exit from demonstrations, assaulted them with chemical agents including tear gas and pepper spray, shot them with so­called “less­than­lethal” projectiles, rounded them up in mass arrests, engaged in physical and verbal abuse, failed to visibly identify themselves, and categorically labeled demonstrations as unlawful assemblies. 5. Tear gas is a chemical agent, precluded from use in warfare. Tear gas most frequently causes intense burning sensations and skin irritation, chest pain and difficulty breathing. These effects can be magnified for vulnerable persons, such as children and those with asthma. Other reports indicate that tear gas can cause miscarriages and
2

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 26 PageID #: 3

stillbirths, damage to major organs or even death, due to the chemical or physical impact of

the canister. The effects of being gassed may also cause psychological harm such as

flashbacks or hyper­vigilance, both symptoms of trauma.

6.

Specifically, as is alleged herein, police acting under authority of Unified

Command knowingly used tear gas and other chemical agents against demonstrators

including Plaintiffs in a manner designed to inflict pain and anguish rather than

accomplishing any legitimate law enforcement objective. Children and elderly people

were among the crowds when the police launched tear gas upon them without warning and

often with no clear means of egress. Further, as alleged herein, police acting under

authority of Unified Command categorically labeled gatherings as unlawful assemblies,

boxed in demonstrators without ample means of exit, failed to wear visible identification

and failed to provide ample notice or opportunity to exit before administering chemical

agents upon crowds, administered chemical agents at peaceful demonstrators, and

administered chemical agents in ways targeted and designed as punishment.

7. Plaintiffs bring this suit against Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, Jon

Belmar, Chief of Police, County of St. Louis, Capt. Ronald Johnson, Missouri Highway

Patrol, in their official capacities and as Co­Directors of the Unified Command created by

Governor Jay Nixon to oversee law enforcement response to demonstrations in the wake of

the shooting of Michael Brown.

3

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
8. The constitutional rights of plaintiffs, demonstrators, and those similarly situated, will be denied, and irreparable harm will result, if the Court does not provide immediate relief in the form of granting a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief,enjoining defendants from preventing, impeding or intimidating their exercise of free speech.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 10. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims under the Missouri Constitution pursuant to its pendent jurisdictional powers. 11. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in that the matter arises within the Eastern District of Missouri. 12. Divisional venue is in the Eastern Division because the events leading to the claim for relief arose in the County of Saint Louis and Defendants Sam Dotson, and Jon Belmar are located in the County of Saint Louis, Missouri. E.D. MO. L.R. 2.07(A)(1), (B)(2).
PARTIES 13. Plaintiff Alexis Templeton is a 20­year old African American woman, a resident of Ferguson, MO, in the County of St. Louis and a co­founder of Millennial Activists United.
4

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
14. Plaintiff Maureen Costello is a resident of the City of St. Louis and the owner of MoKaBe’s Coffeehouse, located in the City of St. Louis. 15. Plaintiff Brittany Ferrell is a 25­year­old African American female, a resident of the City of St. Louis and a co­founder of Millennial Activists United. 16. Plaintiff Steven Hoffman is a 31­year­old white male, a resident of the County of St. Louis and has served as a legal observer throughout the demonstrations over the past three months. 17. Plaintiff Kira Hudson Banks is a 35­year­old African American female, a resident of the City of St. Louis, a mother of two young boys, and a Professor of Psychology at Saint Louis University. 18. Plaintiff Nile McClain is a 20­year­old African American female, a permanent resident of the City of St. Louis, who is currently a student at Southeast Missouri State University. 19. Defendant Sam Dotson is Chief of Police for the City of St. Louis and in that capacity oversees the law enforcement operations in the City of St. Louis. He is co­director of a Unified Command created pursuant to Executive Order 14­14 dated November 17, 2014 and thus has, along with the other co­directors of the Unified Command, oversight and control of all of the law enforcement response to demonstrations following the killing of Michael Brown.
5

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
20. Defendant Jon Belmar is Chief of Police for the County of St. Louis and in that capacity oversees the law enforcement operations in the County of St. Louis. He is co­director of a Unified Command created pursuant to Executive Order 14­14 and thus has, along with the other co­directors of the Unified Command, oversight and control of all of the law enforcement response to the demonstrations following the killing of Michael Brown. 21. Defendant Ronald Johnson is a Captain in the Missouri Highway Patrol, and in that capacity oversees the law enforcement operations of the Missouri Highway Patrol. He is co­director of a Unified Command created pursuant to Executive Order 14­14 and thus has, along with the other co­directors of the Unified Command, oversight and control of all of the law enforcement response to the demonstrations resulting from the killing of Michael Brown. 22. Defendants Sam Dotson, Jon Belmar and Ronald Johnson are sued in their official capacities as co­directors of the Unified Command.
FACTS 23. On August 9, 2014, Darren Wilson, a police officer of the City of Ferguson’s police department, shot and killed 18­year old Michael Brown, who was unarmed. His body was left uncovered in the middle of the street that runs through the Canfield Green Apartments—a densely populated apartment complex—for over four hours.
6

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
24. This incident highlighted and reinforced a history of racial tensions in the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis region as well as the longstanding degrading treatment of African American residents by an overwhelmingly white police force. 25. Since Michael Brown’s death, police have shot and killed two additional African American men in the St. Louis region. 26. On August 19, 2014, just 10 days after Mike Brown was killed by police in St. Louis County, City of St. Louis police officers killed 25 year old Kajieme Powell when they fired twelve shots at him. 27. On October 8, 2014 an off­duty police officer in the City of St. Louis shot and killed Vonderritt Meyers. 28. Citizens outraged by the conduct of police and other government agencies have taken to public streets and sidewalks in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as other parts of St. Louis County and St. Louis City in a variety of spontaneous and planned demonstrations to express their concerns about police actions, including excessive use of force, in African American communities. 29. Those engaging in these actions have done so as part of a political protest, pursuant to their rights under the First Amendment. Their purpose is seek justice for the deaths of young black men and women at the hands of police, to bring attention to issues of police violence and racist policing in communities of color, and to advocate for policing reforms.
7

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
30. Early demonstrations were met with a heavily militarized response by police, including appearing at the outset of peaceful demonstrations in tanks and riot gear, shooting demonstrators with tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets; rounding them up in mass arrests; impeding entry or exit from demonstrations; engaging in physical and verbal abuse, and categorically labeling demonstrations as unlawful assemblies. 31. Community members and leaders, including leaders in the Don’t Shoot Coalition, met with Defendants over a period of weeks to raise concerns about these behaviors and advocate for Rules of Engagement for demonstrations following announcement of the Grand Jury’s decision. Defendants and elected leaders acknowledged assent to many rules of engagement, including protocols for use of chemical agents, in a press conference on November 20, 2014. 32. Four days later, sometime after 8 p.m., St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced that a St. Louis Grand Jury refused to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Michael Brown. 33. The demonstrations increased in frequency after the announcement of the Grand Jury’s decision. Demonstrations continue to this day and are anticipated to continue with frequency in the days ahead. 34. At these demonstrations, individuals are voicing their opinions about the failure of the legal system to secure justice for Michael Brown's family, as well as such broad issues of public concern as the relationship between police and the community; the frequency
8

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
with which police officers shoot unarmed black men; and the militarization of local police forces, and police accountability. All of the Plaintiffs have participated in or been present at some of these demonstrations and intend to continue to do so. 35. During the course of these demonstrations, Plaintiffs and others witnessed and experienced numerous incidents in which Defendants and their officers undertook actions which were purposefully designed to frighten and punish demonstrators by inflicting harm and to deter them from continuing demonstrative activities. Numerous examples of police abuse at demonstrations during the week following the announcement of the grand jury’s decision cause Plaintiffs to believe that unless enjoined, their first amendment rights will continue to be impeded in the future. November 24­25, 2014 ­ St. Louis 36. On the night of November 24, 2014 and the morning of November 25, 2014, Plaintiffs and others were in the City of St. Louis near the MoKaBe's Coffeehouse at 3606 Arsenal St, St Louis, MO and were engaged in expressive conduct. 37. Plaintiff Maureen (“Mo”) Costello, owner of MoKaBe's Coffeehouse, is known in the community to be supportive of young activists and organizers engaged in work around police repression and racial profiling. Plaintiff Costello kept the coffeehouse open as a place of safety and respite through the night of November 24th and morning of November 25th. Plaintiff Costello’s Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
9

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
38. Plaintiffs and others near MoKaBe's Coffeehouse had earlier in the evening been confronted with a significant police presence in riot gear. The exact number of police is unknown but exceeded one hundred. The officers had no visible name badges or other identifying information which would allow Plaintiffs or others to individually identify them.1 The demonstrators were ordered by the police to remove themselves from the roadway and they complied, standing in the area directly in front of MoKaBe's Coffeehouse. After a delay, many of the large presence of police officers withdrew from the area. 39. Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks and Brittany Ferrell were present at that time. They saw some individuals who were not participating in the demonstration raise a garbage can lid in an apparent attempt to break a window of the AT&T store located across the street and Plaintiff Banks dissuaded the individuals from proceeding and continued to protect the store from any damage. While standing there, Plaintiffs Banks and Ferrell witnessed the demonstrators' comply with the officers’ orders to get out of the streets and witnessed most of the large contingent of officers withdraw and leave. Plaintiff Banks’ and Ferrell’s Declarations are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3. 40. Plaintiff Steven Hoffmann was also at the intersection of Grand and Arsenal, serving as a legal observer in the area near MoKaBe’s where demonstrators had gathered. When he arrived at approximately 12:25a.m., following the dispersal order, he described
1 The U. S. Department of Justice admonished the Ferguson Police Department for their policy of permitting officers to remove or hide identifying information. See: “Department of Justice admonishes Ferguson police,” CNN, Sept. 26, 2014, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/us/ferguson­michael­brown­protests/
10

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
the scene as peaceful. The larger crowd that had gathered earlier had largely dispersed. Plaintiff Steven Hoffmann’s Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 41. Suddenly, Plaintiffs Ferrell, Banks and Hoffmann observed police officers controlled by the Defendants speed north on Grand towards Arsenal in a black armored personnel carrier vehicle which was fitted with a turret type attachment for the firing of tear gas. The vehicle rapidly approached without siren or other warning device. Without notice or warning, the vehicle began firing tear gas canisters at the unsuspecting Plaintiffs and others who were gathered in and around the area in front of MoKaBe's Coffeehouse and near the corner of Grand and Arsenal. Because there was no announcement or dispersal order prior to the administration of gas, Plaintiffs Ferrell and Banks were unable to put on adequate protective gear to escape the effects of the gas. 42. Plaintiff Hoffmann was at the intersection at that time, but was across the street, where only two or three others were gathered. He observed police point out his green Legal Observer hat, and upon identifying him as a legal observer, police lodged a canister of tear gas directly at him, causing him fear and distress. The vehicle, which had traveled north on Grand, made a left at the intersection at Arsenal, where MoKaBe’s is located. 43. The vehicle, now at the intersection of Arsenal at Grand, pulled up right in front of MoKaBe's Coffeehouse and began firing directly at the coffeehouse. The tear gas canisters were aimed at and landed on the private patio that is part of the property owned by Plaintiff Costello directly in front of her coffeehouse, causing Plaintiffs and others immediate
11

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
serious distress. Plaintiffs Hoffmann and Ferrell observed numerous canisters of tear gas dispensed on people who were cornered in on the fenced patio area at very close range, causing them fear and distress. 44. Plaintiffs and others present then ran, many running into the coffeehouse, which quickly became filled with tear gas. Declarant Kelly Costello witnessed patrons inside trapped in a tear gas­filled room due to the gas lodged directly at the front entrance. Declarant Kelly Costello’s statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Individuals inside the coffeehouse were in great distress, some lying on the floor, crying or vomiting. Several individuals attempted to open the back door of the coffeehouse to exit the coffeehouse and to allow the tear gas to escape. However, police officers also tear gassed the rear alley behind the back door, trapping all of those in the coffeehouse building. 45. Plaintiffs and others were subjected to severe pain, distress and suffering. These activities by Defendants were not preceded by any warning, accomplished no legitimate law enforcement objective, were not the least restrictive means to secure public safety, and were designed and intended to punish Plaintiffs and cause significant distress. November 24, 2014 ­ Ferguson 46. Earlier that evening of November 24 in Ferguson, officers acting under authority of the Unified Command also dispensed tear gas without warning or opportunity to disperse upon people demonstrating at the Ferguson Police Department with the family of Michael Brown following the announcement of the Grand Jury decision. Plaintiff Alexis
12

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
Templeton, a Ferguson resident who has been active in demonstrations as a co­founder of Millennial Activists United, was shot with tear gas without advance notice or opportunity to vacate, subjecting her to shock, pain, temporary vision loss and significant distress. This caused Plaintiff Templeton, who suffers from asthma, to experience difficulty breathing. She could not see and had to grab someone’s arm to walk. Plaintiff Templeton witnessed canisters of tear gas being shot into residential areas, including into backyards of nearby homes. She had been tear gassed during demonstrations following Michael Brown’s death, and the second experience caused her to re­experience that trauma. Police officers told Plaintiff Templeton, age 20, that the constitution did not provide any constitutional right to assemble. Plaintiff Alexis Templeton’s declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. November 25, 2014 ­ Downtown St. Louis 47. The next afternoon, on November 25, 2014, police again used chemical agents to frighten, punish and to cause pain, when a group of demonstrators blocked a highway in St. Louis. They were told to disperse and several refused as a matter of conscience to comply, lying down on the highway in an act of nonviolent non­resisting civil disobedience. Declarant Suzanne Brown’s affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Despite that the demonstrators were compliant and offered no resistance, officers refused to simply arrest them but rather used mace or pepper spray simply as punishment and to cause pain. In one example, Declarant Brown, a local attorney serving as a legal observer that day, witnessed an officer leave the police line to approach a peaceful demonstrator who had been verbally
13

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
complaining, solely to spray him with pepper spray, which then sprayed on others around him, including Declarant Brown, causing her and others pain and distress. 48. None of the police officers observed by declarant Brown wore visible name badges or other visible identifying information, despite requests from the Department of Justice that police comply with name badge policies. However, in an apparent mockery of the Justice Department’s requests, many officers had taped fake names such as "Mr. Green", "Mr. White", etc. on the back of their helmets. November 25, 2014 ­ Ferguson 49. Later that same day at a demonstration in Ferguson during the evening of November 25, 2014, Defendants and their officers undertook action designed to frighten demonstrators and had the effect of deterring them from continuing in their demonstrative activities in Ferguson. Declarant James McAnally’s statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. 50. McAnally is the Executive Director and co­Founder of the Temporary Art Review and the founder, Co­Director, and Curator of the Luminary, an incubator for new ideas in the arts based in the City of St. Louis. 51. McAnally arrived at approximately 10p.m. that night to demonstrate at the Ferguson police department with his wife and two friends. By 10:45, there were over 100 people outside the police station, forty to fifty of whom were amassed in the street.
14

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
52. Police simultaneously ordered demonstrators to move to the sidewalk and pushed them back with their shields. There was no time between the order to move to the sidewalk and police pushed the crowd with shields. 53. As police knocked demonstrators to the ground with their shields, the police arrested them. Once the remaining demonstrators had been pushed to the sidewalk, some police dove into the crowd and grabbed random people to arrest. Other officers indiscriminately maced the demonstrators at the front of the line. 54. There was no way to comply with the police or avoid mace. Although they were not at the front of the line and although they had fully complied with officers’ orders, McAnally and his wife were maced along with others. 55. After indiscriminately macing several demonstrators, the police announced that the assembly had become unlawful and ordered the crowd to disperse. McAnally and others attempted to comply with the orders of the police by retreating and moving to his right to leave the area. 56. As he retreated, there were more police to his right, blocking any exit. McAnally was surrounded. He could not comply with the orders of the police. 57. As he turned back to find his wife, he saw that she had stopped to help another demonstrator who could not see due to the chemical agents the police sprayed in his eyes.
15

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
58. As the police approached McAnally, he raised his hands in a gesture of surrender but two police officers picked him up and slammed him to the ground. Soon, four other officers were around him. 59. He turned his head to see the police attack his wife while she screamed out to them to stop hurting him. Police pushed her to the ground, placed their knees in her back and neck and pinned her to the ground. Although she screamed out that she was in pain, the officers would not stop. 60. While being held in Ferguson, police told McAnally and others that they had been ordered to arrest demonstrators and charge them indiscriminately, even though they were certain that the charges would not stand. Officers told McAnally and his wife that they should not have been out in Ferguson protesting. 61. McAnally and others were held for 6 hours before being transferred to Clayton, processed and released. November 28, 2014 ­ Ferguson 62. A few days later, on the evening of November 28, citizens were again subjected to chemical agents without adequate warning or means or opportunity to disperse while demonstrating in front of the Ferguson Police Department. Declarant Marques Banks, who was serving as a legal observer that evening, observed that officers again failed to have visible name badges or identification, despite two letters from the Department of Justice
16

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
demanding compliance with Ferguson’s name badge policies. Marques Banks’ declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 63. Police cars were parked in alignment in front of the demonstrators, blocking their access to the Ferguson Police Department. Police in front of the cars then began approaching demonstrators pushing them back towards a parking lot owned by local business owner Andy Wurm across the street. 64. Police had the street blocked off on both the right and left sides of the demonstrators as well, cornering them in. Then, without warning or opportunity to disperse, Police unleashed pepper spray upon the group, many of whom were backed into the private parking lot, and had no way of escape. November 30, 2014 ­ Downtown St. Louis 65. Two days later, on the afternoon of November 30, demonstrators participated in a peaceful march in downtown St. Louis, traveling towards the Trans World Dome, where the St. Louis Rams were playing. Declarant Marques Banks observed police surround demonstrators at both ends and inform them that if they were in the street, they would be subject to arrest and chemical munitions, though they did not so inform similarly situated football fans who were also in the street. Plaintiff McClain was among the demonstrators who participated in the march downtown that day. Plaintiff McClain’s Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
17

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
66. Demonstrators then marched to Keiner Plaza, where police proceeded to encircle demonstrators, boxing them into the park area. Plaintiff McClain and Declarant Marques Banks observed that the crowd was boxed in, and that people were compliantly standing on the sidewalk. Neither observed any demonstrators in the streets. 67. Nevertheless, Police aggressively arrested one demonstrator on the sidewalk and beat him with a baton. Plaintiff McClain, who was standing about 10 feet away and observing the incident, was then targeted for arrest. When she stated that she felt she had a right under the first amendment to observe as long as she as at a safe distance and not interfering, an officer pointed at her and yelled: “Get her!” Declarant Marques Banks observed as Plaintiff McClain was then thrust to the asphalt, beaten by several officers and tased, sustaining multiple injuries. She was later treated at a hospital. Police hurled racial slurs at McClain, calling her a “nappy­headed ho” and verbally demeaned her, telling her that she would never amount to anything in life. When she began crying due to the pain of the physical assault and the emotional trauma, police laughed at her and said, “that’s what you get.” She was taken to the Justice Center, booked and released about four hours later. See Declarations of Nile McClain and Marques Banks, Exhibits 9,10. 68. Defendants’ misuse of chemical munitions and unlawful assembly orders that was pervasive in the week following the announcement of the Grand Jury’s decision was not limited to the period following the establishment of the Unified Command, but are part of a policy and practice in which the Defendants consistently used chemical agents to punish
18

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 19 of 26 PageID #: 19
and cause pain to demonstrators dating back to August 2014, during demonstrations several months before the announcement of the Grand Jury verdict. 69. On August 11, 2014, many residents reported being trapped as law enforcement blocked off the entrances and exits to main roads where demonstrators had gathered and began shooting rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowds. Children and elderly people were among the crowds when the police launched tear gas upon them without warning. On Sunday, August 17, 2014, Defendants' law enforcement officers launched tear gas into crowds without warning even though a state­imposed curfew had not yet gone into effect. In that group, numerous children were tear gassed, including some young enough to be in strollers. The St. Louis Children’s hospital announced that it did indeed treat children who suffered from tear gas exposure, and photos of an eight year old victim were widely circulated. 70. In response to those incidents, community leaders, including representatives of the Don’t Shoot Coalition, met with law enforcement and elected officials to discuss police protocols in anticipation of demonstrations following the announcement of the grand jury’s decision, and to urge temperance in the use of force and chemical munitions. Despite acknowledgement of various rules of engagement for the post­announcement demonstrations announced at a press conference on Friday November 20, 2014, including those related to the use of chemical agents, the Unified Command, as a policy ignored those announcements and law enforcement acting under authority of the Unified Command
19

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 20 of 26 PageID #: 20
acted egregiously, as described herein, following the grand jury announcement just four days later and throughout that week, causing plaintiffs significant distress, fear and intimidation. 71. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have reason to believe and are fearful that they will be further harmed by the behavior of the Defendants’ officers. They wish to continue to exercise their First Amendment rights and are fearful that they will be forced to either forego exercising those rights or be threatened with future mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety. 72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of their constitutional and lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives, practices, acts and omissions of the Defendants CHIEFS DOTSON, BELMAR and CAPT. JOHNSON who encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of herein. 73. Said customs, policies and practices include, but are not limited to, the use of excessive and/or arbitrary force to disperse and control crowds and others involved in expressive activities; the failure to maintain adequate policies, and to adequately train, supervise and control officers under their supervision and control, concerning the policing of demonstrations and/or celebratory activities with respect to crowd control, crowd dispersal and the constitutional limitations on the use of force, and/or to adopt other
20

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 21 of 26 PageID #: 21
remedial measures and policies to insure that such violations of legal rights would not recur. 74. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein, the Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional, statutory and legal rights as described herein and since they wish to continue to exercise their First Amendment rights are fearful that they will be forced to either forego exercising those rights or be threatened with future mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety, medical and related expenses, and lost earnings in an amount according to proof. 75. Plaintiffs have been impeded from exercising their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under Article I, Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Missouri Constitution. 76. Unless Defendants and their agents are enjoined, Plaintiffs and other members of the public will be irreparably harmed by being prevented from peacefully gathering in public spaces to express their views on pressing issues of public concern, activity protected by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 77. Absent an Order from this Court, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I: FIRST AMENDMENT 78. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 ­ 77 as if fully set forth here.
21

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 22 of 26 PageID #: 22
79. Defendants, acting under color of law, have and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to violate rights to peacefully assemble and speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and by Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Missouri Constitution. 80. The actions complained of were pursuant to customs, policies, directives, practices, acts and omissions of the Defendants CHIEFS DOTSON, BELMAR and JOHNSON who encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of herein. 81. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm by Defendants’ infringement of their rights to free speech, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless relief is granted. 82. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT II: FOURTH AMENDMENT 83. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 ­ 77 as if fully set forth here. 84. As a result of the particular use of force by Defendants, Plaintiffs and other demonstrators were consistently trapped either in enclosed locations or in public by the use of chemical agents to block egress. Plaintiffs and other demonstrators were then subjected to severe physical and emotional pain as a result of being exposed to the chemical agents with no possibility of egress. 85. Defendants, acting under color of law, have and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to violate rights to be free from unreasonable and unnecessary force in the course
22

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 23 of 26 PageID #: 23
of a detention as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and by Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Missouri Constitution in the course of exercising First Amendment rights. 86. The actions complained of were pursuant to by customs, policies, directives, practices, acts and omissions of the Defendants CHIEFS DOTSON, BELMAR and JOHNSON who encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of herein. 87. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm by Defendants’ infringement of their rights to be free from unreasonable and unnecessary force in the course of a detention particularly while exercising their First Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless relief is granted. 88. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request A. That this Court schedule an emergency hearing and issue a temporary restraining order and thereafter Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief ordering that Defendants: (1) cannot deploy law enforcement officers to gatherings, organized protests or to individuals engaged in protected First Amendment activity unless each carries on their person clearly visible personal identification, including accurate name, law enforcement agency and, if applicable, badge number. (2) cannot declare a gathering an unlawful assembly unless there is evidence that six or more people are knowingly assembled and in agreement with each other to violate
23

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 24 of 26 PageID #: 24
any of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States with force or violence, as provided by RSMo 574.040(1).
(3) cannot utilize chemical agents except as a last resort to prevent significant threats to public safety;
(4) cannot utilize chemical agents on gatherings unless: (a) they are preceded by clear and unambiguous warnings, and an
opportunity for sufficient time for to pass for members of the gathering to heed the warning and exit the area;
(b) they are deployed in such a manner as to minimize impacts on the members of the gathering who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands;
(c) they are deployed in such a manner as to always allow for a continuing means of safe egress from an area.
(5) cannot utilize tear gas canisters or chemical agents on individuals or gatherings in a closed environment;
(6) cannot utilize tear gas canisters or chemical agents on individuals or gatherings to frighten members of a gathering or demonstration;
(7) cannot utilize chemical agents or physical violence on individuals being arrested when the individuals are not physically resisting arrest; and
B. That this Court award Plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988; and such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Dated:
24

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 25 of 26 PageID #: 25
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Thomas B. Harvey Thomas B. Harvey MBE#61734 Executive Director, ArchCity Defenders 812 N. Collins Alley St. Louis, MO 63102 (855)724­2489 phone (855)724­2489 facsimile tharvey@archcitydefenders.org
/s/ Brendan Roediger Brendan Roediger MBE #60585 Saint Louis University Legal Clinic 100 N. Tucker Blvd., Ste. 704 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 977­2778 Fax: (314) 977­1180 broedige@slu.edu
/s/ Denise D. Lieberman Denise D. Lieberman, MBE #47013 Senior Attorney, Advancement Project 1220 L. Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (314) 780­1833 Fax: (202) 728­9558 dlieberman@advancementproject.org
Justin D. Hansford* Professor of Law St. Louis University 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 977­3481 jhansford@slu.edu *licensed in Maryland
Nicole C. Lee, Esq.* 25

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 26 of 26 PageID #: 26
The Lee Bayard Group, LLC 6930 Piney Branch Road, NW Washington, DC 20012 (202)270­0774 nicole@leebayard.com *Licensed in the District of Columbia Bar #499275 L. KING DOWNING* 2035 Second Avenue 5 New York, New York 10029 office/fax (212) 534­1081 kingnetic@yahoo.com *licensed in New Jersey Lic. #034901992 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
26

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Alexis Templeton, et

al.

,

Plaintiff,

v.
Sam Dotson, et al.
,

Defendant,

) ) ) ) )
) Case No. 4:14-cv-2019
) ) ) ) )

ORIGINAL FILING FORM

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND VERIFIED BY THE FILING PARTY WHEN INITIATING A NEW CASE.

THIS SAME CAUSE, OR A SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT COMPLAINT, WAS

PREVIOUSLY FILED IN THIS COURT AS CASE NUMBER

AND ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE

.

THIS CAUSE IS RELATED, BUT IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO ANY

PREVIOUSLY FILED COMPLAINT. THE RELATED CASE NUMBER IS

AND

THAT CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE

. THIS CASE MAY,

THEREFORE, BE OPENED AS AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING.

NEITHER THIS SAME CAUSE, NOR A SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT COMPLAINT, HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FILED IN THIS COURT, AND THEREFORE MAY BE OPENED AS AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING.

The undersigned affirms that the information provided above is true and correct.

Date: 12/08/2014

/s/ Thomas Harvey Signature of Filing Party

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ CDoIVc.I#L: C1-O2 VFEilRedS: H12E/0E8T/14 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 28

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

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello,Aaron Banks, Kira Hudson Banks
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff St. Louis
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

DEFENDANTS Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, Jon Belmar, Chief of Police, County of St. Louis, Capt. Ron Johnson, Missouri Highway Patrol,
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant City of St. Louis
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Thomas Harvey
Arch City Defenders
812 N Collins St, St Louis, MO 63102

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

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

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

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place

’ 4 ’4

of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant

’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State

’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

’ 5 ’5

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

’ 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure

’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

’ 120 Marine

’ 310 Airplane

’ 365 Personal Injury -

of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal

’ 130 Miller Act

’ 315 Airplane Product

Product Liability

’ 690 Other

28 USC 157

’ 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

’ 367 Health Care/

’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel &

Pharmaceutical

PROPERTY RIGHTS

& Enforcement of Judgment

Slander

’ 151 Medicare Act

’ 330 Federal Employers’

Personal Injury Product Liability

’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent

’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability

’ 368 Asbestos Personal

’ 840 Trademark

Student Loans

’ 340 Marine

Injury Product

(Excludes Veterans)

’ 345 Marine Product

Liability

LABOR

SOCIAL SECURITY

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment

Liability

of Veteran’s Benefits

’ 350 Motor Vehicle

PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards

’ 370 Other Fraud

Act

’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 862 Black Lung (923)

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits

’ 355 Motor Vehicle

’ 371 Truth in Lending

’ 720 Labor/Management

’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

’ 190 Other Contract

Product Liability

’ 380 Other Personal

Relations

’ 864 SSID Title XVI

’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal

Property Damage

’ 740 Railway Labor Act

’ 865 RSI (405(g))

’ 196 Franchise

Injury

’ 385 Property Damage

’ 751 Family and Medical

’ 362 Personal Injury -

Product Liability

Leave Act

Medical Malpractice

’ 790 Other Labor Litigation

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

’ 210 Land Condemnation

’ 440 Other Civil Rights

Habeas Corpus:

Income Security Act

’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

’ 220 Foreclosure

’ 441 Voting

’ 463 Alien Detainee

or Defendant)

’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment

’ 510 Motions to Vacate

’ 871 IRS—Third Party

’ 240 Torts to Land

’ 443 Housing/

Sentence

26 USC 7609

’ 245 Tort Product Liability ’ 290 All Other Real Property

Accommodations

’ 530 General

’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty

IMMIGRATION

Employment

Other:

’ 462 Naturalization Application

’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

Other ’ 448 Education

’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition

Actions

’ 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of

Confinement

’ 6 ’6
OTHER STATUTES
’ 375 False Claims Act ’ 400 State Reapportionment ’ 410 Antitrust ’ 430 Banks and Banking ’ 450 Commerce ’ 460 Deportation ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations ’ 480 Consumer Credit ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions ’ 891 Agricultural Acts ’ 893 Environmental Matters ’ 895 Freedom of Information
Act ’ 896 Arbitration ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision ’ 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1 Original Proceeding

’ 2 Removed from State Court

’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict

Reopened

Another District

Litigation

(specify)

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violation of First and Fourth Amendment Rights

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

’ Yes ’ No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY

(See instructions):
JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
12/08/2014
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Thomas Harvey

RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 1C2/1a2)se: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-2 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 29
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 30

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 31

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 32

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 33

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #: 34

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #: 35

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 7 PageID #: 36

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 7 PageID #: 37

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 6 of 7 PageID #: 38

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-4 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 7 of 7 PageID #: 39

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-5 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 40

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-5 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 41

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-5 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 42

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-5 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 43

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-5 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 44

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-6 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 45

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-6 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 46

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-6 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 47

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-6 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 48

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-6 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 49

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-7 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 50

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-7 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 51

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-7 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 52

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-7 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 53

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 54

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #: 55

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #: 56

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 7 PageID #: 57

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 7 PageID #: 58

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 6 of 7 PageID #: 59

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-8 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 7 of 7 PageID #: 60

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-9 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 61

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-9 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 62

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-10 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 63

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-10 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 64

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-10 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 65

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-10 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 66

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-10 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 67

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-10 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 68

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 69

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 8 PageID #: 70

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 8 PageID #: 71

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 8 PageID #: 72

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 8 PageID #: 73

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 6 of 8 PageID #: 74

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 7 of 8 PageID #: 75

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-11 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 8 of 8 PageID #: 76

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-12 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 77

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-12 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 78

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-12 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 79

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-12 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 80

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-12 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 81

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-12 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 82

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-13 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 83
Reset
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____E_a_s_te_r_n_DDisistrtricicttooffM__is_s_o_u_ri____

Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello,Aaron Banks, Kira Hudson Banks

)

)

Plaintiff

)

v.

) Civil Action No.

Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, 1915 Olive Boulevard St. Louis, MO

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:
Thomas Harvey Arch City Defenders, Inc. 812 N Collins St, St Louis, MO 63102 (855) 724-2489
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: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-13 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 84
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

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)

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 $

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

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-14 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 85
Reset
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____E_a_s_te_r_n_DDisistrtricicttooffM__is_s_o_u_ri____

Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello,Aaron Banks, Kira Hudson Banks

)

)

Plaintiff

)

v.

) Civil Action No.

Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, 1915 Olive Boulevard St. Louis, MO

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:
Thomas Harvey Arch City Defenders, Inc. 812 N Collins St, St Louis, MO 63102 (855) 724-2489
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: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-14 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 86
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

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)

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 $

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

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-15 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 87
Reset
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____E_a_s_te_r_n_DDisistrtricicttooffM__is_s_o_u_ri____

Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello,Aaron Banks, Kira Hudson Banks

)

)

Plaintiff

)

v.

) Civil Action No.

Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Sam Dotson, Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, 1915 Olive Boulevard St. Louis, MO

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:
Thomas Harvey Arch City Defenders, Inc. 812 N Collins St, St Louis, MO 63102 (855) 724-2489
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: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-15 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 88
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

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)

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 $

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

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 1-16 Filed: 12/08/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 89

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

Alexis Templeton, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

Sam Dotson, Chief of Police,

)

City of St. Louis, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit 1 Declaration of Maureen Costello

Exhibit 2 Declaration of Kira Hudson Banks

Exhibit 3 Declaration of Brittany Ferrell

Exhibit 4 Declaration of Steven Hoffman

Exhibit 5 Declaration of Kelly Costello

Exhibit 6 Declaration of Alexis Templeton

Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Suzanne Brown

Exhibit 8 Declaration of James McAnally

Exhibit 9 Declaration of Marques Banks

Exhibit 10 Declaration of Nile McClain

Exhibit 11

Written Statement on the Police Shooting of Michael Brown and Ensuing Police Violence Against Protestors in Ferguson, Missouri submitted to the 53rd Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture

Dated: December 5, 2014

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 12 Filed: 12/11/14 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 123

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

SAM DOTSON, Chief of Police, City

)

of St. Louis, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-2019 (CEJ)

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER This matter is before the Court following a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, and Kira Hudson Banks seek a temporary restraining order directing law enforcement officials to protect the First Amendment rights of protesters. Since November 24, 2014, plaintiffs have participated in or observed protest activities that have occurred in various locations in St. Louis city and St. Louis County. The protests began in August 2014, initially in response to the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer, and have continued since that time. The protests were at first centered in the Ferguson area where the shooting occurred but later expanded into other areas, particularly after it was announced on November 24, 2014 that a state grand jury had declined to indict the officer. The defendants are the chief of police of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the chief of police of the St. Louis County Police Department, and a captain of the Missouri Highway Patrol. The defendants are sued in their official capacities as members of the Unified Command, an organization created by the executive order issued by the governor declaring a state of emergency in Missouri

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 12 Filed: 12/11/14 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 124
following the death of Michael Brown. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the plaintiffs assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Notice of the complaint and motion was given to the defendants, each of whom appeared by counsel at the hearing.
In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order, the Court must consider the factors set forth in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981): (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if the order is not issued, (2) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the restraining order will inflict on the defendants, (3) the probability of the plaintiffs’ success on the merits, and (4) the public interest. After considering these factors, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have established their entitlement to a temporary order.
The evidence establishes that the defendants created policies and procedures for the law enforcement response to the protests, including authorizing the use of tear gas and other chemical agents for the purpose of dispersing crowds of protesters. The evidence also establishes that law enforcement officials in St. Louis City and St. Louis County were authorized to use smoke canisters and tear gas to disperse crowds of protesters, including plaintiffs, who were not engaged in violent or criminal activity. The evidence also establishes that the law enforcement officials failed to give the plaintiffs and other protesters any warning that chemical agents would be deployed and, hence, no opportunity to avoid injury. As a result, the plaintiffs’ ability to engage in lawful speech and assembly is encumbered by a law enforcement response that would be used if a crime were being committed. Additionally, the public has a strong
-2-

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 12 Filed: 12/11/14 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 125
interest in protecting the right of individuals to peacefully protest. The defendants will not suffer any harm by the issuance of an order requiring them to make sure the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and others are protected.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order [Doc. #2] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Sam Dotson, Jon Belmar, and Ronald Johnson, and their agents, servants, employees, and representatives, are hereby enjoined from enforcing any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officials the authority or discretion to: (1) utilize tear gas, inert smoke, pepper gas, or other chemical agents (collectively, “chemical agents”) for the purpose of dispersing groups of individuals who are engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis
(a) without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that such chemical agents will be utilized; (b) without providing the individuals sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and exit the area; (c) without minimizing the impact of such chemical agents on individuals who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands; and (d) without ensuring that there is a means of safe egress from the area that is available to the individuals; and (2) utilize chemical agents on individuals engaged in peaceful, non-criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis for the purpose of frightening them or punishing them for exercising their constitutional rights. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs will not be required to post a bond or other security.
-3-

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 12 Filed: 12/11/14 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 126
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is set for a preliminary injunction hearing on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.
___________________________ CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 11th day of December, 2014.
-4-

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 34 Filed: 01/05/15 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 476

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. SAM DOTSON, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-2019 (CEJ)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant Sam Dotson to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and the motion of defendant Jon Belmar to vacate the temporary restraining order entered on December 11, 2014 and further proceedings in this case for mootness. Plaintiffs have responded in opposition. Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to dismiss an action at any time the court determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants Sam Dotson and Jon Belmar argue that they and defendant Ronald Johnson were sued in their capacities as directors of the Unified Command, an entity established by the governor on November 17, 2014 in an executive order declaring a state of emergency in Missouri in response to protests stemming from the death of Michael Brown. Exec. Order 14-14 [Doc. #19-1]. Because Executive Order 14-14 expired on December 17, 2014 and was not extended by the governor, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims are moot and should be dismissed.
1

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 34 Filed: 01/05/15 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 477
A federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case “when it no longer presents an actual, ongoing case or controversy.” Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 558 F.3d 763, 767 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1172 (8th Cir. 1994)). “In general, a pending claim for injunctive relief becomes moot when the challenged conduct ceases and there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Roubideaux v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 570 F.3d 966, 976 (8th Cir. 2009)). Subsequent events must make it “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). The party asserting mootness bears the burden of showing that the challenged conduct is unlikely to recur. Id.
Defendants have not met their burden to establish mootness. The allegations in the complaint are brought against Sam Dotson, Jon Belmar, and Ronald Johnson in their official capacities as chief of police for the City of St. Louis, chief of police of the County of St. Louis, and as an official of the Missouri Highway Patrol, respectively, in addition to their appointment as directors of the Unified Command. Compl. ¶ 7 [Doc. #1]. Each defendant continues to oversee law enforcement operations in the organizations they represent, including policing demonstrations and the use of chemical munitions. The dissolution of the Unified Command due to the expiration of Executive Order 14-14, thus, does not affect the justiciability of the case as an actual controversy. Furthermore, since August 2014 the governor has twice instituted the Unified Command in response to protests related to the death of Michael Brown. In
2

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 34 Filed: 01/05/15 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 478 the event a future state of emergency is again declared, the governor could reasonably be expected to reestablish the Unified Command.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Jon Belmar to vacate the temporary restraining order and further proceedings as moot [Doc. #18] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendant Sam Dotson to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on mootness [Doc. #20] is denied.
CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 5th day of January, 2015.
3

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 35 Filed: 01/05/15 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 479

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. SAM DOTSON, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-2019 (CEJ)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER For the reasons set forth in the order denying the motion of defendant Jon Belmar to vacate the temporary restraining order and further proceedings as moot, and the motion of defendant Sam Dotson to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on mootness [Doc. #34], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Ronald Johnson to dismiss for failure to state a claim, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on mootness, and to vacate the temporary restraining order [Doc. #32] is denied.

CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of January, 2015.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. SAM DOTSON, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-2019 (CEJ)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for expedited discovery. The defendant seeks to take the deposition of three of the plaintiffs and two non-parties in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing on January 6, 2015. Also before the court is the related motion of the plaintiffs to quash the deposition notices served by defendant Belmar. Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have met and conferred, unless “authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” In determining whether a party is entitled to expedited discovery, this district utilizes a “good cause” standard. See Meritain Health, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2012 WL 1320147 (E.D. Mo. 2012) [citing Cook v. Williams, 2009 WL 3246877 *1 (E.D. Mo. 2009) and Monsanto Company v. Woods, 250 F.R.D. 411 (E.D. Mo. 2008)]. Under that standard, the party seeking discovery is required to show that the need for expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. Id. (citations omitted).

In this case, defendant Belmar seeks expedited discovery to prepare for the preliminary injunction hearing. In this context, the court considers the reasonableness of the request, taking into account the breadth of the requested discovery, the purpose of the requested discovery, and the burden that would be imposed on the plaintiffs to comply with the discovery requests. Id. at *2.
Unlike the plaintiffs seeking expedited discovery in Meritain, defendant Belmar has not identified the information he seeks to obtain through the depositions nor does he explain how the information is necessary to preparing for the preliminary injunction hearing. Instead, the defendant merely states in conclusory fashion that there is “good cause” for expedited discovery. Because the defendant has failed to sufficiently support his request, the court cannot find that expedited discovery is appropriate in this case. Consequently, the notices of deposition will be quashed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for expedited discovery [Doc. # 23] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to quash deposition notices [Doc. # 22] is granted.
CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of January, 2015.

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 50 Filed: 03/26/15 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 547

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, vs.
SAM DOTSON, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-2019 (CEJ)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Because the parties have entered into a settlement agreement [Doc. #49-1],

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties’ joint motion to dismiss [Doc. #49] is

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall make an entry in the

docket record reflecting the dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court will retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of

determining whether the settlement should be enforced upon motion of any party.

CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of March, 2015.

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 537

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

ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SAM DOTSON, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Cause No. 4:14cv-2019 CEJ ) ) ) ) )

MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

COMES NOW Plaintiffs and Defendants and jointly request dismissal of all claims pursuant to the proposed Agreed Order of Dismissal. The parties agree that this matter is settled and that all issues and controversies have been resolved to their mutual satisfaction. Plaintiffs and Defendants request the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement agreement under the authority of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).

WHEREFORE, the parties request that all claims be dismissed pursuant to the proposed Agreed Order of Dismissal.
Dated this 25th Day of March, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Thomas B. Harvey Thomas B. Harvey MBE #61734

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 538
Executive Director, ArchCity Defenders 812 N. Collins Alley St. Louis, MO 63102 (855)724-2489 phone (855)724-2489 facsimile tharvey@archcitydefenders.org
/s/ Brendan Roediger Brendan Roediger MBE #60585 Saint Louis University Legal Clinic 100 N. Tucker Blvd., Ste. 704 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 977-2778 Fax: (314) 977-1180 broedige@slu.edu
/s/ Denise D. Lieberman Denise D. Lieberman, MBE #47013 Senior Attorney, Advancement Project 1220 L. Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (314) 780-1833 Fax: (202) 728-9558 dlieberman@advancementproject.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/ Mark Lawson Mark Lawson, #33337 Christine L. Hodzic, #58257 J. Brent Dulle, #59705 Associate City Counselors ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR 1200 Market St. 314 City Hall  St. Louis, MO 63103  Phone: 314-622-4644 Fax: 314-622-4956

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 539
lawsonm@stlouis-mo.gov Attorneys for Defendant Dotson
/s/ Michael E. Hughes Michael E. Hughes #23360 Michael A. Shuman #32418 ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR 41S. Central Ave.  Clayton, MO 63105  Phone: 314-615-7042 Fax 314-615-3732 Mshuman@stlouisco.com Attorneys for Defendant Belmar
/s/ Robert J. Isaacson Robert J. Isaacson, #38361 Colleen Joern Vetter #38353 Assistant Attorneys General MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 861 St. Louis, Missouri 63188 (314) 340-7861 (Telephone) (314) 340-7029 (Facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant Johnson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 25, 2015, the foregoing Motion to Dismiss was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon all counsel of record.
/s/ _Brendan Roediger______________

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 540

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #: 541

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #: 542

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 4 of 7 PageID #: 543

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 5 of 7 PageID #: 544

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 6 of 7 PageID #: 545

Case: 4:14-cv-02019-CEJ Doc. #: 49-1 Filed: 03/25/15 Page: 7 of 7 PageID #: 546

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 1 of 7
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:14−cv−02019−CEJ

CLOSED

Templeton et al v. Dotson et al Assigned to: District Judge Carol E. Jackson Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights Plaintiff Alexis Templeton
Plaintiff Maureen Costello
Plaintiff Brittany Ferrell

Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Date Terminated: 03/26/2015 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Thomas B. Harvey 812 North Collins St. Louis, MO 63102 314−482−3342 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: tbh1910@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan D. Roediger ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 314−977−2778 Fax: 314−977−1180 Email: broedige@slu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise D. Lieberman ADVANCEMENT PROJECT 1220 L. Street NW Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 314−780−1833 Fax: 202−728−9558 Email: dlieberman@advancementproject.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise D. Lieberman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan D. Roediger

Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 2 of 7

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise D. Lieberman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steven Hoffman

represented by Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise D. Lieberman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nile McClain

represented by Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise D. Lieberman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kira Hudson Banks

represented by Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise D. Lieberman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Sam Dotson Chief of Police, City of St. Louis, in his official capacities and as director of the Unified Command

represented by Christine L. Hodzic ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR 1200 Market S. 314 City Hall St. Louis, MO 63103 314−622−3361 Fax: 314−622−4956 Email: hodzicc@stlouis−mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 3 of 7

Defendant Jon Belmar Chief of Police, County of St. Louis, in his official capacity and as director of the Unified Command
Defendant Ronald Johnson Missouri Highway Patrol, in his official capacity and as director of the Unified Command

Mark Lawson ST. LOUIS CITY LAW DEPARTMENT − POLICE SECTION 1915 Olive St. Suite 773 St. Louis, MO 63103 314−444−5609 Fax: 314−444−5611 Email: mlawson@slmpd.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Brent Dulle ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 1200 Market Street Room 314 St. Louis, MO 63103 314−622−4644 Fax: 314−622−4956 Email: DulleB@stlouis−mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael E. Hughes ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 41 S. Central Avenue Clayton, MO 63105 314−615−7009 Fax: 314−615−3732 Email: mhughes2@stlouisco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Shuman ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 41 S. Central Avenue Clayton, MO 63105 314−615−7042 Fax: 314−615−3732 Email: michael_shuman@stlouisco.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert J. Isaacson ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI Old Post Office Building P.O. Box 861 St. Louis, MO 63188 314−340−7861 Fax: 314−340−7029 Email: robert.isaacson@ago.mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Joern Vetter ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI Old Post Office Building P.O. Box 861 St. Louis, MO 63188 314−340−7861

Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 4 of 7
Fax: 314−340−7029 Email: colleen.vetter@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/08/2014
12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014
12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/11/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt number 0865−4626322, in the amount of $400 Non−Jury Demand,, filed by Kira Banks, Alexis Templeton, Steven Hoffman, Brittany Ferrell, Maureen Costello, Nile McClain. (Attachments: # 1 Original Filing Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Maureen Costello, # 4 Exhibit 2: Declaration of Kira Hudson Banks, # 5 Exhibit 3: Declaration of Brittany Ferrell, # 6 Exhibit 4: Declaration of Steven Hoffman, # 7 Exhibit 5: Declaration of Kelly Costello, # 8 Exhibit 6: Declaration of Alexis Templeton, # 9 Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Suzanne Brown, # 10 Exhibit 8: Declaration of James McAnally, # 11 Exhibit 9: Declaration of Marques Banks, # 12 Exhibit 10: Declaration of Nile McClain, # 13 Summons Dotson, # 14 Summons Belmar, # 15 Summons johnson, # 16 Exhibit 12: Exhibit List)(Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Kira Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiffs Kira Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
Case Opening Notification: Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson. Attorney contacted re: Notice of Process Server and updating address in system. Summons will issue when Notice is filed. (BAK) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
4 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
5 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton Process Server: William Stage (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
Summons Issued as to defendant Jon Belmar, Sam Dotson, Ronald Johnson. The summons were emailed to attorney Thomas B. Harvey. (BAK) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
6 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for hearing on plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order on Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14 North. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for plaintiffs shall provide notice of the hearing to defendants. Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14N before District Judge Carol E. Jackson. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/10/2014. (KMS) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
7 ENTRY of Appearance by Brendan D. Roediger for Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Roediger, Brendan) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
Receipt 4644046927 in the amount of $100.00 for PRO HAC VICE on behalf of Denise Debra Lieberman (CCAM) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Denise D. Lieberman. The Certificate of Good Standing was not attached.(Filing fee $100) by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (KMS) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2014: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing) (KKS). Modified on 12/11/2014 (KKS). (Entered: 12/11/2014)
9 ENTRY of Appearance by Christine L. Hodzic for Defendant Sam Dotson. (Hodzic, Christine) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 5 of 7

12/11/2014
12/11/2014 12/11/2014
12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014
12/15/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/22/2014

10 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carol E. Jackson: Motion Hearing held on 12/11/2014 re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Nile McClain, Brittany Ferrell, Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello, Steven Hoffman, Kira Hudson Banks. Arguments heard; testimony heard; The Court rules from the bench; The TRO is Granted in Part; Order to issue; The Court believes a bond is not necessary. (Court Reporter:Susan Moran.) (FTR Gold: No.) (KMS) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
11 CLERKS WITNESS LIST as to the TRO. (KMS) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
12 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order [Doc. #2] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Sam Dotson, Jon Belmar, and Ronald Johnson, and their agents, servants, employees, and representatives, are hereby enjoined from enforcing any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officials the authority or discretion to: (1) utilize tear gas, inert smoke, pepper gas, or other chemical agents (collectively, chemical agents) for the purpose of dispersing groups of individuals who are engaged in peaceful, non−criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis (a) without first issuing clear and unambiguous warnings that such chemical agents will be utilized; (b) without providing the individuals sufficient opportunity to heed the warnings and exit the area; (c) without minimizing the impact of such chemical agents on individuals who are complying with lawful law enforcement commands; and (d) without ensuring that there is a means of safe egress from the area that is available to the individuals; and (2) utilize chemical agents on individuals engaged in peaceful, non−criminal activity in the City of St. Louis or in the County of St. Louis for the purpose of frightening them or punishing them for exercising their constitutional rights. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs will not be required to post a bond or other security. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is set for a preliminary injunction hearing on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/11/2014. (KMS) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
13 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael A. Shuman for Defendant Jon Belmar. (Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
14 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael E. Hughes for Defendant Jon Belmar. (Hughes, Michael) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
15 Docket Text ORDER Re: 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Denise D. Lieberman.(Filing fee $100) by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (KMS) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2014: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing) (KKS) ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/12/2014. (KMS) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
16 ENTRY of Appearance by J. Brent Dulle for Defendant Sam Dotson. (Dulle, J.) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
17 ENTRY of Appearance by Mark Lawson for Defendant Sam Dotson. (Lawson, Mark) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
18 MOTION to Vacate by Defendant Jon Belmar. (Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
19 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 18 MOTION to Vacate filed by Defendant Jon Belmar. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executive Order 14−14)(Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Defendant Sam Dotson. (Dulle, J.) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
21 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Sam Dotson. (Dulle, J.) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
22 MOTION to Quash Defendant Belmar's Notices of Deposition by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Notice of Deposition of

Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 6 of 7

12/22/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014
12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/29/2014 12/30/2014 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 01/05/2015
01/05/2015
01/05/2015

Alexis Templeton, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: Notice of Deposition of James McAnally, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C: Notice of Deposition of Marques Banks, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D: Notice of Deposition of Nile McClain, # 5 Exhibit Notice of Deposition of Steven Hoffman)(Roediger, Brendan) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
23 MOTION to Expedite Discovery by Defendant Jon Belmar. (Hughes, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
24 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs shall respond to the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for expedited discovery no later than December 29, 2014. Response to Court due by 12/29/2014. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/23/14. (JAB) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
25 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert J. Isaacson for Defendant Ronald Johnson. (Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
26 ENTRY of Appearance by Colleen Joern Vetter for Defendant Ronald Johnson. (Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
27 TRANSCRIPT of 10 (Temporary Restraining Order) held on 12/11/14 before Judge Jackson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Susan Moran, Susan_Moran@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7983. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/13/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/23/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/23/2015. (JAB) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
28 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Roediger, Brendan) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
29 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Vacate filed by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Roediger, Brendan) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
30 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Roediger, Brendan) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Belmar's Motion for Expedited Discovery filed by Defendant Jon Belmar. (Hughes, Michael) (Main Document 31 replaced on 12/31/2014 for attorney's signature) (JAB). (Entered: 12/30/2014)
32 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendant Ronald Johnson. (Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
33 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 32 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Ronald Johnson. (Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
34 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Jon Belmar to vacate the temporary restraining order and further proceedings as moot [Doc. #18] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendant Sam Dotson to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on mootness [Doc. #20] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/5/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
35 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Ronald Johnson to dismiss for failure to state a claim, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on mootness, and to vacate the temporary restraining order [Doc. #32] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/5/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
36 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for expedited discovery [Doc. # 23] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion to quash deposition notices [Doc. # 22] is granted. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/5/2015. (KMS)

Case: 4:14-cv-2019 As of: 10/12/2015 06:13 PM CDT 7 of 7

01/06/2015
01/06/2015
01/12/2015 01/20/2015 01/21/2015 01/27/2015 01/29/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 02/12/2015 02/20/2015 02/25/2015
03/25/2015 03/26/2015

(Entered: 01/05/2015)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carol E. Jackson held on 1/6/2015. Parties present for a preliminary injunction hearing; Parties request a continuance; The Court grants the request; The TRO is extended; The preliminary injunction hearing will be continued for 45 days. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Susan Moran.) (FTR Gold: No.) (KMS) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
38 ORDER: By consent of the parties and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is continued to Thursday, February 26, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary restraining order entered on December 11, 2014, is extended and remains in effect. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/6/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
39 ANSWER to Complaint by Jon Belmar.(Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
40 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,,, by Defendant Ronald Johnson. (Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
41 Docket Text ORDER: GRANTING 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,,, by Defendant Ronald Johnson. (Isaacson, Robert) filed by Ronald Johnson. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/21/15. (JAB) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
42 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Ronald Johnson.(Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
43 MOTION for Leave to File Answer to First Amended Complaint by Defendant Sam Dotson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Answer)(Lawson, Mark) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
44 Docket Text ORDER Re: 43 MOTION for Leave to File Answer to First Amended Complaint by Defendant Sam Dotson ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/30/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
45 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Sam Dotson.(KMS) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
46 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is rescheduled to 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2015. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/12/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
47 Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
48 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion to continue the preliminary injunction hearing [Doc. # 47] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction hearing is continued to Thursday, March 26, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary restraining order entered on December 11, 2014, is extended and remains in effect. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/25/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
49 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Settlement by Plaintiffs Kira Hudson Banks, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steven Hoffman, Nile McClain, Alexis Templeton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Judgment of Dismissal Pursuant to Settlement)(Roediger, Brendan) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
50 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties joint motion to dismiss [Doc. # 49 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall make an entry in the docket record reflecting the dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court will retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of determining whether the settlement should be enforced upon motion of any party. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/26/15. (JAB) (Entered: 03/26/2015)