1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (Key West)

BIANCA N. DIGENNARO, as the Civil Action No.:

legal guardian of HMM, a minor,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION – LAW

v. District Judge:

Magistrate Judge:

MICHAEL L. MALGRAT,

KENNETH JW WAITE,

FRED C. SIMS,

ASHLEY N. HENRIQUEZ,

KYLE SHEER,

FRAN HERIN,

CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, and

MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, BIANCA N. DIGENNARO, as the legal 

guardian of HMM, a minor, by and through her counsel, DEVON M. JACOB, 

ESQUIRE, of the law firm of JACOB LITIGATION, INC.; and BENJAMIN L. 

CRUMP, ESQUIRE, of BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC; to aver the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 1 of 22
2

2. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court, as all parties are located within the 

Southern District of Florida, and the cause of action arose in the Southern District of 

Florida.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, BIANCA N. DIGENNARO (“DIGENNARO”), is an adult 

individual, who lives in the Southern District of Florida. DIGENNARO is the 

biological mother and legal guardian of HMM, a minor. 

5. Defendant, MICHAEL L. MALGRAT (“MALGRAT”), is an adult 

individual, who during all relevant times, was employed by the Key West Police 

Department, as a police officer. All of Defendant MALGRAT’S actions or inactions 

were taken under color of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.

6. Defendant, KENNETH JW WAITE (“WAITE”), is an adult individual, 

who during all relevant times, was employed by the Key West Police Department, 

as a police officer. All of Defendant WAITE’S actions or inactions were taken under 

color of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.

7. Defendant, FRED C. SIMS (“SIMS”), is an adult individual, who 

during all relevant times, was employed by the Key West Police Department, as a 

police officer. All of Defendant SIMS’ actions or inactions were taken under color 

of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 2 of 22
3

8. Defendant, ASHLEY N. HENRIQUEZ (“HENRIQUEZ”), is an adult 

individual, who during all relevant times, was employed by the Monroe County 

School District and/or Gerald Adams Elementary, as a teacher. All of Defendant 

HENRIQUEZ’S actions or inactions were taken under color of state law. She is sued 

in her individual capacity.

9. Defendant, KYLE SHEER (“SHEER”), is an adult individual, who 

during all relevant times, was employed by the Monroe County School District 

and/or Gerald Adams Elementary, as an Assistant Principal. All of Defendant 

SHEER’S actions or inactions were taken under color of state law. He is sued in his 

individual capacity.

10. Defendant, FRAN HERIN (“HERIN”), is an adult individual, who 

during all relevant times, was employed by the Monroe County School District 

and/or Gerald Adams Elementary, as a Principal. All of Defendant HERIN’S actions 

or inactions were taken under color of state law. She is sued in her individual 

capacity.

11. Defendant, CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA (“CITY”), owns and 

operates the Key West Police Department.

12. Defendant, MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SCHOOL 

DISTRICT”), owns and operates Gerald Adams Elementary.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 3 of 22
4

MATERIAL FACTS

13. MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SCHOOL DISTRICT”) 

operates Gerald Adams Elementary, 5855 College Avenue, Key West, Florida 

33040.

14. During all relevant times, ASHLEY N. HENRIQUEZ 

(“HENRIQUEZ”) was employed by the SCHOOL DISTRICT and/or Gerald Adams 

Elementary, as a teacher.

15. During all relevant times, KYLE SHEER (“SHEER”) was employed 

by the SCHOOL DISTRICT and/or Gerald Adams Elementary, as an Assistant 

Principal.

16. During all relevant times, FRAN HERIN (“HERIN”) was employed by 

the SCHOOL DISTRICT and/or Gerald Adams Elementary, as a Principal.

17. During all relevant times, HMM was an elementary school student in 

the SCHOOL DISTRICT.

18. SCHOOL DISTRICT conducted a Functional Behavioral Assessment 

(“FBA”), which resulted in SCHOOL DISTRICT implementing a Positive 

Behavioral Intervention Plan (PBIP) for HMM.

19. SCHOOL DISTRICT knew that in February of 2018, HMM was Baker 

Acted and hospitalized (for less than 24 hours) after making statements of self-harm.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 4 of 22
5

20. SCHOOL DISTRICT knew that HMM was discharged with a diagnosis 

of Oppositional Defiance Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed 

Disturbance of Emotional Conduct.

21. In February of 2018, after observing inconsistent academic 

performances and behavioral difficulties from HMM despite instructional 

intervention and counseling, SCHOOL DISTRICT conducted a psychoeducational 

evaluation.

22. The purpose of the psychoeducational evaluation was to determine 

appropriate educational programming for HMM and to determine whether HMM 

met the eligibility definitions for a disability as defined by the Florida Department 

of Education and IDEA.

23. On April 30, 2018, SCHOOL DISTRICT initiated an Individual 

Educational Plan (“IEP”) for HMM, which was amended on October 11, 2018.

24. The IEP noted the primary exceptionality as emotional or behavioral 

disability.

25. The IEP noted the aforementioned diagnoses, in addition to a diagnosis 

of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”).

26. The IEP noted the FBA and resulting PBIP.

27. The SCHOOL DISTRICT and Gerald Adams Elementary classified 

HMM as having an “Emotional or Behavioral Disability.”

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 5 of 22
6

28. The CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA (“CITY”) owns and operates 

the Key West Police Department.

29. On December 14, 2018, KENNETH JW WAITE (“WAITE”), FRED 

C. SIMS (“SIMS”), and MICHAEL L. MALGRAT (“MALGRAT”), were 

employed by the Key West Police Department, as police officers.

30. Police officers employed by the Key West Police Department are 

assigned to certain schools in Monroe County, including Gerald Adams Elementary.

31. The police officers are responsible for the protection and safety of 

school personnel, property, and students within the school district. 

32. The police officers perform general law enforcement duties, present 

law-related education programs, identify students displaying early signs of 

delinquency, and serve as a referral resource for students, faculty, and parents.

33. On December 14, 2018, MALGRAT was working at Gerald Adams 

Elementary as a School Resource Officer (“SRO”).

34. On and before the same date, it was known to SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

HERIN, SHEER, MALGRAT, and HENRIQUEZ, that HMM was “disabled” as 

defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

35. While SCHOOL DISTRICT policy 5630B permits school employees 

to use “reasonable physical force” against students “to maintain a safe learning 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 6 of 22
7

environment,” neither the IEP nor the BIP provided for the use of any force against 

HMM.

36. Rather, to the exclusion of physical force, the BIP listed non-physical 

responses to be utilized with HMM to maintain a safe learning environment.

37. Furthermore, neither the IEP nor the BIP provided for the use of police 

officers, handcuffs, or verbal intimidation, i.e., scared straight tactics, for purposes 

of behavioral modification.

38. On or about December 14, 2018, SCHOOL DISTRICT, HERIN, 

SHEER, and/or HENRIQUEZ, placed HMM in a classroom and lunchroom setting 

that they knew was not appropriate for his disability.

39. HENRIQUEZ, who was not HMM’s regular teacher and who was not 

well known to HENRIQUEZ, was assigned to oversee the class.

40. On December 14, 2018, HMM was 8 years old, only approximately 3

feet 6 inches tall, and 64 pounds.

41. On the same date, HENRIQUEZ reported to HERIN, SHEER, and/or 

MALGRAT that HMM had refused to sit on a bench properly despite requests that 

he do so.

42. HENRIQUEZ further reported that when HMM refused to comply, she 

requested that HMM come sit next to her.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 7 of 22
8

43. HENRIQUEZ further reported that when HMM again refused to 

comply, she got up, and walked over to him.

44. HENRIQUEZ further reported that she went hands-on in an attempt to 

physically move HMM, and as she did so, HMM told her not to put her hands on 

him.

45. HENRIQUEZ further reported that when she did not let go of HMM, 

HMM “punched” her once in the chest with his right hand.

46. HENRIQUEZ did not report being injured and did not appear to be 

injured.

47. Pursuant to school policy, parents are informed that school officials 

have the right and duty to interview students when investigating crimes, or reports 

thereof, committed during school hours or on school property without prior 

notification or presence of parents.

48. Pursuant to school policy, parents are further informed:

Law enforcement and/or social service officials will be called to the school when 

laws have or may have been violated and in situations where the safety or welfare 

of students and/or employees is threatened. In these situations, students may be 

interviewed by law enforcement and/or social service officials in accordance with 

all applicable state and federal juvenile laws. When school officials have requested 

the assistance of law enforcement and/or social service officials in investigating a 

crime, unsafe or life threatening situation involving students, staff, or district 

property, the law enforcement and/or social service official has implied permission 

to interview/interrogate students in school during school hours.

49. Despite knowing that they were required by state and federal law to 

conduct a reasonable investigation, which includes interviewing the witnesses at the 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 8 of 22
9

scene, and despite knowing that they were permitted to interview him, HERIN, 

SHEER, and MALGRAT did not interview HMM.

50. Had HERIN and SHEER interviewed HMM and other available 

witnesses, and reviewed security video that is believed to have existed, they would 

have discovered that no crime had been committed, and that police intervention was 

neither necessary nor appropriate.

51. Had MALGRAT interviewed HMM and other available witnesses, and 

reviewed security video that is believed to have existed, he would have discovered 

that probable cause did not exist to criminally charge HMM with any crime; let alone 

with felony battery.

52. Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 11(b)(3), the following factual contentions 

will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation or discovery:

a. MALGRAT knew that the aforementioned conduct, i.e., a single no 

injury punch, would generally not result in a warrantless arrest; and

b. MALGRAT knew that the aforementioned conduct, i.e., a single no 

injury punch, would generally not result in the filing of felony criminal charges.

53. Regardless, HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ, and/or MALGRAT,

summoned WAITE and SIMS to the school and caused HMM to be taken into 

custody by WAITE and SIMS.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 9 of 22
10

54. SCHOOL DISTRICT, HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ, and 

MALGRAT, had a duty not to turn physical custody of HMM over to WAITE and 

SIMS, but they did so anyway.

55. MALGRAT had a duty not to cause WAITE and SIMS to believe that 

probable cause existed to arrest HMM for felony battery.

56. While WAITE and SIMS were permitted to rely in good faith on 

MALGRAT’S representation that probable cause existed to arrest HMM, they were 

not permitted to use unreasonable force to effect HMM’S arrest.

57. When WAITE and SIMS arrived, HMM was sitting on a bench, in the 

hallway just outside of the school office. in clear view of HERIN and SHEER.

58. The incident for which WAITE and SIMS had been summoned had 

ended.

59. HMM was sitting quietly and calmly, and was visibly upset and scared.

60. Regardless, in an attempt to teach HMM a lesson, despite knowing that 

HMM was not “going to jail” (in the common understanding of that statement), 

WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT, intentionally led HMM to believe that he was 

going to jail.

61. Specifically, WAITE, SIMS, and/or MALGRAT, stated to HMM, “So 

you know where you are going? You are going to jail. So you need to stand up and 

put your hands behind your back.”

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 10 of 22
11

62. In a further attempt to teach HMM a lesson, despite the fact that HMM 

was not a physical threat to himself or others, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT, 

handcuffed and/or permitted HMM to be handcuffed.

63. Referencing the handcuffs, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT, stated, 

“You can justify it,” and “You can try it.”

64. HMM was so young and physically small, however, that after the 

handcuffs were applied, it was determined that they were too big and could not be 

properly used on HMM.

65. As such, the handcuffs were removed and HMM was told to simply 

walk with his hands in front of him.

66. Visibly upset and scared, HMM asked for his dad.

67. Despite his dad still being in the building, WAITE, SIMS, and/or 

MALGRAT, told HMM that his dad had left the school.

68. Before exiting the building, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT stated, 

“You understand this is very serious, ok? And, I hate that you put me in this position 

that I have to do this. Ok? Alright? The thing about it is, you made a mistake now it 

is time to learn from it and grow from it. Right? Not repeat the same mistake again. 

Ok? Alright.”

69. HMM was then escorted out of the building and to a marked patrol 

vehicle.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 11 of 22
12

70. HMM was then permitted to enter the rear seat of the patrol vehicle, 

without handcuffs, without being searched, and was permitted to put on his own 

seatbelt.

71. WAITE, SIMS, and/or MALGRAT then locked HMM in the back of 

the patrol vehicle.

72. WAITE and/or SIMS then transported HMM to the adult jail for 

processing.

73. A true and correct copy of a video recording of the incident is attached 

at Exhibit 1.1

74. Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 11(b)(3), the following factual contentions 

will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation or discovery:

a. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT adopted and implemented policies and 

procedures that permitted the aforementioned conduct.

b. In the alternative, CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT failed to enforce 

their policies and procedures that would have prevented the aforementioned conduct.

c. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT did not adopt and implement, or did 

not enforce, policies, procedures and/or training that complied with industry 

standards regarding criminal investigation, use of force, arrest, policing within an 

 

1 The video is redacted to remove HMM’s name and to pixelate HMM’s face.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 12 of 22
13

elementary school, policing disabled persons, transportation of juveniles, and/or the 

processing of juveniles;

d. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT did not adopt and implement, or did 

not enforce, policies, procedures and/or training that complied with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), regarding the criminal investigation, use of force, 

arrest, policing within an elementary school, policing disabled persons, 

transportation of juveniles, and/or the processing of juveniles;

e. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT discovered the above conduct from 

school records, written reports, court documents, WAITE, SIMS, MALGRAT, 

and/or MALGRAT’S body camera video.

f. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT did not conduct an internal 

investigation of the incident.

g. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT did not discipline HERIN, SHEER, 

HENRIQUEZ, WAITE, SIMS, and/or MALGRAT.

h. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT did not retrain HERIN, SHEER, 

HENRIQUEZ, WAITE, SIMS, and/or MALGRAT.

i. SCHOOL DISTRICT promoted both HERIN and SHEER.

75. As a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, HMM suffered a 

psychological injury that manifested itself physically, i.e., loss of breath, hives, 

stomach aches, headaches, insomnia, nightmares, and refusal to sleep alone.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 13 of 22
14

COUNT I

Plaintiff v. HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ & MALGRAT

Fourteenth Amendment (State Created Danger)

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

76. Paragraphs 1-75 are incorporated herein by reference.

77. HERIN and SHEER were school officials who observed the 

aforementioned events and failed to intervene to stop them.

78. HERIN and SHEER, as school officials, HENRIQUEZ, as a teacher, 

and MALGRAT, as a school resource officer, had a special relationship with HMM 

who was a special needs student in the school.

79. Specifically, during the school day, they served in loco parentis to 

HMM.

80. As a result of this special relationship, HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ 

and MALGRAT had a duty to protect HMM from injury.

81. Despite this duty, HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ and MALGRAT 

increased the risk that HMM would suffer injury when they caused WAITE and 

SIMS to be summoned to the school and relinquished custody of HMM to them.

82. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, HMM 

suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological 

injury that manifested itself physically, some or all of which may be permanent.

83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct and the 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 14 of 22
15

prosecution of this civil litigation, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ 

fees and litigation costs.

COUNT II

Plaintiff v. WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT

Fourth Amendment (Excessive Force)

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

84. Paragraphs 1-75 are incorporated herein by reference.

85. The right to be free from excessive force during a seizure is clearly 

established. Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 2012).

86. Claims that a police officer used excessive force are analyzed under an 

“objective reasonableness” standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 

(1989).

87. To state a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force, a Plaintiff must 

establish that (1) he was seized, (2) he suffered an injury (3) the injury resulted 

directly from a use of force, and (4) the force used was objectively unreasonable. 

Flores, 381 F.3d at 396; Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir. 2005); 

Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2008).

88. An objectively reasonable police officer, i.e., a police officer acting in 

accordance with state and federal law, local and national training standards, and the 

Key West Police Department’s policies and procedures, would have known that (a) 

seizing HMM, (b) using force against HMM, (c) restricting HMM’S movement, and 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 15 of 22
16

(d) causing HMM’S continued detention, would violate clearly established law.

89. Specifically, an objectively reasonable police officer would know that 

handcuffing an 8 year old boy, who was only approximately 3 feet 6 inches tall, 64

pounds, who posed no threat to himself or others, and who did not present as a flight 

risk, for the purpose of teaching him a lesson, violated clearly established law and 

violated the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law. See Gray ex rel Alexander v. 

Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006).

90. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, HMM 

suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological 

injury that manifested itself physically, some or all of which may be permanent.

91. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct and the 

prosecution of this civil litigation, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ 

fees and litigation costs.

COUNT III

Plaintiff v. HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT

Fourth Amendment (Duty to Intervene)

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

92. Paragraphs 1-75 are incorporated herein by reference.

93. HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT each 

had a duty to intervene to prevent the other from engaging in unlawful conduct.

94. HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT each 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 16 of 22
17

had a duty to intervene to prevent the other from causing HMM to unlawfully suffer 

injury.

95. HERIN, SHEER, HENRIQUEZ, WAITE, SIMS, and MALGRAT each 

had a meaningful and appreciable opportunity to intervene to prevent the 

aforementioned conduct but failed or refused to do so.

96. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, HMM 

suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological 

injury that manifested itself physically, some or all of which may be permanent.

97. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct and the 

prosecution of this civil litigation, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ 

fees and litigation costs.

COUNT IV

Plaintiff v. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT

Americans with Disabilities Act

98. Paragraphs 1-75 are incorporated herein by reference.

99. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) applies to state 

and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with 

disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and 

activities provided by state and local government entities. 

100. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 17 of 22
18

of state and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal 

financial assistance.

101. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT knew through their employees and 

agents that HMM suffered from a qualifying disability.

102. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT assumed a duty of care over HMM.

103. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT failed to provide proper policy or 

training to their agents and employees who they assigned the duty of providing care, 

custody, and control, over minor disabled students like HMM.

104. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT assigned or otherwise permitted their 

agents and employees who were not properly trained or supervised regarding 

HMM’s disabilities to provide care, custody, and control, over HMM.

105. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT through their agents and employees 

failed to accommodate HMM’s disability.

106. Pursuant to the IDEA, HMM was entitled to a free and appropriate 

public education (“FAPE”).

107. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT through the actions of their agents and 

employees who violated the ADA, deprived HMM of his right to FAPE.

108. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, HMM 

suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological 

injury that manifested itself physically, some or all of which may be permanent.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 18 of 22
19

109. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct and the 

prosecution of this civil litigation, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ 

fees and litigation costs.

COUNT V

Plaintiff v. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments—Municipal Liability

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

110. Paragraphs 1-75 are incorporated herein by reference.

111. “Local governing bodies . . . can be sued directly under § 1983 for 

monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where . . . the action that is alleged to be 

unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, 

or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” Monell v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

112. In addition, a failure to train may give rise to municipal liability if the 

failure to train amounts to “deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with 

whom the [untrained employees] come into contact.” Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 

378, 388 (1989).

113. CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT knowingly failed to maintain policies,

practices, and training that met the minimum standards in the industry.

114. Merely sending a police officer to the academy does not satisfy training 

obligations.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 19 of 22
20

115. Rather, the CITY remained responsible for ensuring that its police 

officers were properly trained, remained properly trained, and acted in accordance 

with said training.

116. As discussed herein, CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT maintained 

policies, practices, and customs, which were the moving force that resulted in 

HMM’S constitutional rights being violated.

117. In the alternative, CITY and SCHOOL DISTRICT failed to implement 

proper policies and training, as discussed herein, which was the moving force that 

resulted in HMM’S constitutional rights being violated.

118. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, HMM 

suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological 

injury that manifested itself physically, some or all of which may be permanent.

119. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct and the 

prosecution of this civil litigation, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ 

fees and litigation costs.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 20 of 22
21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in 

her favor as follows: 

A. Declaratory Judgment: Providing that the Defendants’ individual and 

collective conduct violated HMM’S Federal Constitutional rights;

B. Compensatory Damages: Including, but not limited to, the monetary 

value associated with the following: violations of legal rights, emotional distress, 

emotional injury, loss of liberty, embarrassment, and loss of reputation;

C. Punitive damages as permitted by law;

D. Equitable Relief: A written admission of the allegations stated in the 

Complaint, an in-person oral apology, and a written admission and apology on the 

SCHOOL DISTRICT and CITY’S official letterhead;

E. Attorney’s Fees and Costs; and

F. Discretionary Damages and Relief: Such other financial or equitable 

relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 21 of 22
22

Jury Trial Demand

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all claims/issues in this matter 

that may be tried to a jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Devon M. Jacob

DEVON M. JACOB, ESQUIRE Date: August 10, 2020

PA Bar ID: 89182

Email: djacob@jacoblitigation.com

JACOB LITIGATION, INC.

P.O. Box 837, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055-0837

Telephone: (717) 796-7733

Counsel for Plaintiff (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)

s/ Benjamin L. Crump Date: August 10, 2020

BENJAMIN L. CRUMP, ESQUIRE

Bar ID: 0072583

Email: ben@bencrump.com

BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC

122 S. Calhoun, Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301

Telephone: (844) 638-1822

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 22 of 22