in the united states district of texas san antonio ... · plaintiff maritza amador was the wife of...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MARITZA AMADOR, INDIVIDUALLYAND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTHE ESTATE OF GILBERT FLORESAND AS NEXT FRIEND OF MINOR R.M.F.,VANESSA FLORES, MARISELA FLORES,CARMEN FLORES AND ROGELIOFLORES,

Plaintiffs

v.

BEXAR COUNTY, BEXAR COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE, GREG VASQUEZ,Individually and in his OfficialCapacity and ROBERT SANCHEZ,Individually and in his Official Capacity,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.5:15-cv-00810

JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

NOW COME Plaintiffs, Maritza Amador, Individually and as Representative of the

Estate of Gilbert Flores and as Next Friend of Minor R.M.F., Vanessa Flores, Marisela Flores,

Carmen Flores and Rogelio Flores, and present this their Plaintiffs' Original Complaint,

bringing this action against Bexar County, Texas, the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, Greg

Vasquez, Individually and in his Official Capacity, and Robert Sanchez, Individually and

in his Official Capacity, complaining that said Defendants, jointly and severally, have denied

Plaintiffs their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of

America and the State of Texas, and in support thereof would respectfully show the following:

1

Case 5:15-cv-00810 Document 1 Filed 09/14/15 of 15

San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and this court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (civil rights). Venue is

proper in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, as this is the district where the

claim arose in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiffs bring this action as the

surviving family and as the only persons entitled to recover damages arising from decedent's

wrongful death pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. &REM. CODE §§ 71.000 et seq. and as

applied through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

II.PARTIES

2. Before being shot and killed on August 28, 2015, Gilbert Flores was a citizen of the

United States and resided in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.

3. Plaintiff Maritza Amador was the wife of Gilbert Flores and the mother of Gilbert Flores'

minor child, R.M.F. Both are residents of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.

4. Plaintiff Vanessa Flores is the child of Gilbert Flores and a resident of San Antonio,

Bexar County, Texas.

5. Plaintiff Marisela Flores is the child of Gilbert Flores and a resident of San Antonio,


6. Plaintiff Carmen Flores is the mother of Gilbert Flores and a resident of San Antonio,


7. Plaintiff Rogelio Flores is the father of Gilbert Flores and a resident of San Antonio,


8. Defendant Bexar County, Texas, (hereinafter "Bexar County"), is a political

2


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

subdivision of the State of Texas and can be served with summons upon Bexar County Judge

Nelson Wolff, 101 W. Nueva, 10"' Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78204.

9. Defendant, the Bexar County Sheriffs Office, can be served with summons upon the

Bexar County Sheriff Susan L. Pamerleau, 200 N. Comal Street, San Antonio, Texas

78207.

10. Defendant Greg Vasquez, (hereinafter "Defendant Vasquez") was at all times material

to this suit, an officer employed by the Bexar County Sheriff's Office. Each of the acts

complained of herein arise from the conduct of Defendant while acting under color of state law and

was committed within the scope of his employment and authority with the Bexar County

Sheriff s Office. Defendant maybe served with summons at his place of employment, the BExax

couNTY sxExiFF°s OFFICE, 200 North Comal Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207.

11. Defendant Robert Sanchez, (hereinafter "Defendant Sanchez") was at all times material to

this suit, an officer employed by the Bexar County Sheriff s Office. Each of the acts

complained of herein arise from the conduct of Defendant while acting under color of state

law and was committed within the scope of his employment and authority with the Bexar

County Sheriff's Office. Defendant may be served with stunmons at his place of employment,

the BExa.x CouNTY SxExIFF's oFF~cE, 200 North Comal San Antonio, Texas 78207.

12. All of the Plaintiffs are statutory beneficiaries for the wrongful death of Gilbert Flores.

III.STATEMENT OF FACTS

13. On August 28, 2015, the decedent, Gilbert Flores, was at the residence located at 24414

Walnut Pass in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. There was a domestic disturbance at the

residence and a call to 911 for assistance was made.

3


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

14. Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez were dispatched to the residence located at 24414

Walnut Pass where they encountered the decedent.

15. Gilbert Flores engaged the deputies in the front yard of the residence. Thereafter, Mr.

Flores, still in the front yard, stopped all resistance and proceeded to place both of his hands

above his head, surrendering to the will of the deputies. Mr. Flores' actions in surrendering

with his hands raised, with or without a knife, reflected that there was no immediate danger of

bodily injury to the officers or others. This act of surrender and contrition showed that any

such threat had passed. Within a second of Mr. Flores raising his hands in surrender,

Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez fired shots at Mr. Flores, executing him on the front lawn of

his parents' home.

16. Mr. Flores immediately fell to the ground. The officers provided no immediate first aid

to Mr. Flores and instead allowed him to lay on the lawn, dying, without assistance. He was

ultimately taken to University Hospital where he was pronounced dead from gunshot wounds.

17. In committing said acts and/or omissions, each Defendant was in the course and scope

of their employment with the Bexar County Sheriffs Office and each Defendant was acting

under color of state law.

18. The Defendant officers' acts amount to an excessive and/or unnecessary use of force.

Said excessive/unnecessary use of force vv~ objectively unreasonable, as no reasonable police

officer and/or law enforcement officer given the same or similar circumstances would have

initiated such a vicious and unwarranted attack on Mr. Flores within a second of Mr. Flores

surrendering and raising his hands.

19. The actions of the Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez have been reviewed by a

competent law enforcement expert who opined that their actions were unnecessary,

4


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

unreasonable and there was no probable cause to use deadly force. Specifically, Dr. Philip

Hayden, a former supervisory Special Agent for the FBI for over fifteen years who trained

agents as a tactical instructor and who has written FBI instruction manuals for the FBI,

including the FBI deadly force policy, has determined after his review of the video showing

the shooting of Mr. Flores and other available information that:

When Mr. Flores raised his hands, he was not an immediate threat to the officers.Both officers were standing a safe distance from Mr. Flores and had limited cover.In reviewing this video Mr. Flores did not appear to make any threateningmovement towards the officers prior to them shooting. If Mr. Flores had a knife inhis left hand this would not change my opinion. It is my opinion, which I hold to areasonable degree of professional certainty, that in order for Mr. Flores to be animmediate threat he would have had to make some sort of an assertive movementthat would cause the officers to believe they were going to be attacked and theirlives were in danger. This did not appear to happen. Therefore the shooting wasunnecessary and unreasonable and there was no probable cause to use deadlyforce...

(Emphasis added). See Exhibits A and B to the Complaint.

20. The Bexar County Sheriff's Department policy and procedure manual gives vague and

conflicting instructions to officers on when and under what circumstances force can be used.

These conflicting policies ultimately allow officers to determine if deadly force is required

based upon their individual judgment without specific guidelines. For example, section 9.02B

states,

In each instance of the use of force, the officer should exhaust everyreasonable means of employing the minimum amount of force to effectthe objective before escalating to the next, more forceful method.However, an officer is not required to en~a~e in prolong combat orstruggle rather than resorting to that method which will most quicklyand safely brim the situation under control.(emphasis added)

This policy allow for an officer to skip the increasingly forceful methods to subdue a

suspect and determine in his own judgment the quickest method to bring a situation under

5


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

control, even if that method would be deadly force against a suspect.

In addition, the policy manual outlines a continuum of force up to and including deadly

force and then states that this continuum is not absolute and can be ignored at the officer's

discretion. Section 9.O1F states

Where possible, an officer will use verbal persuasion first, followedthereafter in ascending order, by:

1. Physical strength and skill, ranging from restraint and come alongholds to hand or foot strikes;

2. Approved ASP baton used in the prescribed manner, chemicalagents, Electronic Control Device (ECD)/ Electronic Control Weapon(ECW);and

3. Approved firearm. Deputies must bear in mind that the order ofthis continuum of force is not absolute, and the situation mayrequire immediate use of a higher level of force.

(Emphasis added).

These policies, among others, led to the shooting of Mr. Flores at a time when he had

surrendered and there was no immediate threat to the lives of the officers in violation of his

constitutional rights.

IV.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNTI42 U.S.C.S. § 1983

21. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 13 through 20 are herein incorporated by

reference, the same as if fully set forth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading.

22. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified as 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 as federal law,

provides: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage,

of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of

any laws, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." 42

U.S.C.S. § 1983.

23. The state action requirement for standing under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 has more commonly

been referred to as "color of state law," from the statute itself When committing said acts

and/or omissions, Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez were acting under color of state law within

their employment with the Bexar County Sheriff's Office.

24. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated decedent Gilbert Flores' Fourth

Amendment rights. The rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourth Amendment of

the Constitution, and incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment, include the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. These rights were

violated when Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez intentionally shot and killed Gilbert Flores.

25. The deadly force used by Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez against the decedent was

unjustified and objectively unreasonable under any circumstances. This force was clearly

excessive to the need, and this excessiveness was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts

and circumstances at the time of the shooting.

26. Defendants' actions constitute excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of

the United States Constitution as decedent, Gilbert Flores, posed no immediate threat of serious

danger to Defendant Sanchez, Defendant Vasquez or any other person at the time the

Defendants shot and killed the decedent.

27. The Defendants' use of excessive force in violation of Mr. Flores' Fourth Amendment

rights directly and proximately caused decedent Gilbert Flores' death and the Plaintiffs'

7


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

damages.

COUNT IIOfficial Policies and Customs of Bexar County

and the Bexar County Sheriff s Office



29. Defendants Bexar County and the Bexar County Sheriffs Office are liable under 42

U.S.C.S. § 1983 due to one or more official policies or customs of Defendant Bexar County

and Defendant Bexar County Sherriff's Office that deprived Gilbert Flores of his

constitutional rights.

30. It iswell-established that municipalities are liable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for

constitutional torts that are the result of compliance with the municipality's customs, practices,

policies or procedures. A municipality is liable for constitutional deprivations which arise

pursuant to governmental custom even though such custom has not received formal approval

through the body's official decision making channels.

31. Defendants Bexar County and the Bexar County Sheriff's Office are liable under 42

U.S.C.S. § 1983 due to the following:

1) the inadequacy of their policies, training and supervision relating to the use ofdeadly force;

2) the inadequacy of their policies, training and supervision relating to the use ofnon-lethal control devices and tactics;

3) the adoption of a completely subjective continuum of force policy that can beexpressly avoided and which leaves the use of deadly force exclusively to theunchecked discretion of officers on the scene;

4) the adoption of a policy that allows an officer to use the degree of force that hefeels brings the situation quickly under control even if that method is deadlyforce; and


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

5) the adoption of a policy that in the absence of a complaint being filed raisingspecific allegations against deputies, there is no further investigation conductedfollowing the use of force other than the filing of reports by the officers involvedand those that witnessed the event.

32. The official policies and/or customs of Bexar County and the Bexar County Sheriff's

Office complained of herein were a direct cause in fact and proximate cause of the decedent's

deprivation of constitutional rights, as well as his death and other injuries and damages which

were sustained.

33. All of these policies and procedures were made by those with final policy making

authority or were condoned as the custom and practices of the department by those in authority.

34. These policies and customs reflect a deliberate indifference to the risk that members of

the public will be subjected to constitutional violations, including the use of excessive force, in

violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. These policies and/or customs create a significant

risk that members of the public will suffer severe personal injuries and/or death, at the hands

of those that are employed to protect them.

V.iIAMAf_F.0



36. Plaintiffs are the only heirs at law to the Estate of Gilbert Flores and therefore bring this

suit for damages suffered and sustained by the decedent, Gilbert Flores, pursuant to Sections

71.002 et seq. and 71.021 et seq. of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

37. Plaintiffs seek damages for the following:

1) conscious pain, suffering and mental anguish that decedent suffered prior to hisdeath;

E


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

2) reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred as a result of Gilbert Flores'injuries leading to his wrongful death;

3) reasonable and necessary funeral and burial expenses incurred as a result ofGilbert Flores' wrongful death;

4) the past and future loss of support arising from the death of Gilbert Flores;

5) loss of consortium;

6) loss of inheritance;

7) severe mental anguish that each Plaintiff has suffered and will, in reasonableprobability, continue to suffer in the future; and

8) the past and future loss of companionship and society arising from the death ofGilbert Flores.

38. In addition, Plaintiffs pray for punitive damages against all individual Defendants.

Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter persons such as Defendants who have

engaged in egregious wrongdoing. Punitive damages may be assessed under § 1983 when a

Defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves

reckless or callous indifference to the federally-protected rights of others. While municipal

defendants are absolutely immune from § 1983 awards of punitive damages, such damages

may be awarded against a public employee or official in their individual capacity. Therefore,

Plaintiffs allege and pray for punitive damages against all individual Defendants, as such

Defendants actually knew that their conduct was unconstitutional, and/or was callously

indifferent to its legality.

39. Plaintiffs seek recovery for these damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

10


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

VI.ATTORNEYS FEES

40. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988, a prevailing

party in a § 1983 case is entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees. Hence, Plaintiffs further

pray for all costs and attorney fees associated with bringing the present case to trial.

VII.DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

41. Plaintiffs hereby make their demand for a jury trial and acknowledges herein the payment

on this date of the required jury fee.

VIII.APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND INJUNCTION

42. Pleading further, the Plaintiffs hereby present their application for temporary

restraining order and injunction.

43. Plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order is authorized by FEDE~L Ru~,E of

CIVIL PRocEDt~ 65. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order for the purpose of

preserving the subject matter of a potential lawsuit, including but not limited to, any audio and video

recordings depicting the tragic shooting of Gilbert Flores on August 28, 2015 and the events leading

up to said incident, until such time as the lawsuit is resolved by a judgment.

44. The preservation of said evidence in its original condition, specifically the audio and video

recordings of the shooting, requested herein is made for the purpose of determining the exact

events that led to the tragic shooting of Gilbert Flores. The video footage of one video of this

shooting has been aired by the media and shows Gilbert Flores with his hands in the air posing no

imminent threat to Defendants Vasquez and Sanchez. However, additional videos, known to exist,

have been gathered by the Bexar County Sheriff's Office and have not been released to the public.

11


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

Instead, representations have been made that this video has been forwarded to a crime lab for the

Texas Deparhnent of Public Safety for enhancement. There has been no indication that the video in

its raw form will be preserved. Therefore, it is imperative that this Court order that this evidence

remains in its original form without alteration so that this evidence is preserved.

45. Plaintiffs request that all Defendants be enjoined from altering, enhancing, modifying,

repairing, damaging, destroying, selling, abandoning, or otherwise disposing of:

i. any and all partial or full audio and video recordings depicting the shooting death ofGilbert Flores by Bexar County Sheriff Deputies Greg Vasquez and Robert Sanchezon August 28, 2015 and all events leading up to the incident, including but notlimited to, dash cam videos, microphone audio, recordings of stored and collectedaudio;

ii. any and all evidence gathered and collected during the investigation of the shootingdeath of Gilbert Flores by Bexar County Sheriff Deputies Greg Vasquez and RobertSanchez on August 28, 2015, including but not limited to: drafts of statements, finalstatements, notes pertaining to the investigation, partial statements, full statements,investigative notes, photographs;

iii. all other evidence related to the tragic shooting death of Gilbert Flores by BexarCounty Sheriff Deputies Greg Vasquez and Robert Sanchez on August 28, 2015,regardless of whether said evidence will be presented to a grand jury.

46. It is probable that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their lawsuit. Defendants Vasquez

and Sanchez tragically shot Gilbert Flores while Gilbert Flores had his hands in the air and posed no

imminent threat to Defendants Vasquez, Sanchez or others in the moments before he was shot and

killed. There are known additional videos of the shooting in the custody of Bexar County that likely

reveal additional evidence supporting Plaintiffs' potential claims and therefore, would result in the

resolution of said litigation in Plaintiffs' favor.

47. If Plaintiffs' application is not granted, they will suffer imminent harm in that the only

physical and documentary evidence of their potential claims currently in existence is subject to

alteration, modification, or destruction by Defendants. Thus, Defendant has the present ability to

eliminate material evidence of Plaintiffs' potential claims, thereby constituting a threat of imminent

12


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

harm for which injunctive relief is appropriate.

48. The harm suffered by Plaintiffs if a temporary restraining order is not issued will be

irreparable because the basis of Plaintiffs' potential claims depends in large part on the content of

the audio and video recordings of the tragic shooting of Gilbert Flores, and other evidence which

may have been acquired. These recordings are unique as they detail and depict the events leading up

to and the actual moment of the shooting of Gilbert Flores. These recordings cannot be obtained

elsewhere as they cannot be reproduced or copied from any other source. Therefore, without

intervention by this Court, Plaintiffs may forever lose the only evidence capable of substantiating

their potential claims, which in turn would prevent them from ever recovering for the wrongful

death of Gilbert Flores, which has caused them to suffer and continue to suffer as a result of this

incident.

49. A temporary restraining order is in the best interest of the public as the public has an

absolute right to know all of the events surrounding the shooting of Gilbert Flores and the actions

which were taken by Bexar County Sheriff Deputies Greg Vasquez and Robert Sanchez. The Bexar

County Sheriff's Office is here to protect and serve the community and citizens of Bexar County

and the public has a right to observe the actions which were taken by the Deputies through the video

footage taken of the shooting, in its raw form.

50. The balance of equities unequivocally weighs in the Plaintiffs favor when viewing the harm

that may befall upon both the Plaintiffs and Defendants if said temporary restraining order is

entered. There is no harm that would fall upon the Defendants in the matter if the video footage is

preserved in its raw, unadulterated form. The Defendants should keep and store all evidence

collected during any investigation in its original form so that all parties have the opportunity to view

and study said evidence. This should be the standard procedure and practice of any law enforcement

13


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

agency. In contrast, the Plaintiffs would be immensely harmed by the alteration, enhancing,

modifying, repairing, damaging, destroying, selling, abandoning, or otherwise disposing of the

video footage of the shooting of Gilbert Flores. The basis of Plaintiffs' potential claims depends in

large part on content of the audio and video recordings of the tragic shooting of Gilbert Flores.

These recordings are unique as they detail and depict the events leading up to and the actual

moment of the shooting of Gilbert Flores. These recordings cannot be obtained elsewhere as they

cannot be reproduced or copied from any other source. On balance, the harm to the Defendants of

complying with this injunction is clearly outweighed by the irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and

the general public if the injunction is not granted.

51. Under FEDE~,L Rt1~.E of C~v~L PxocEDt~ 65, Petitioner is not required to show the

absence of an adequate remedy at law because this application is seeking to prevent irreparable

injury to personal property.

52. A bond is not necessary in this instance as a district court issuing a preliminary injunction

or a restraining order has the discretion to dispense with the security requirement of Rule 65(c) if

a party lacks the financial resources to post a bond or when granting injunctive relief carries no

risk of monetary loss to the party enjoined or restrained. In the instant case, there is no risk of

monetary loss to the party enjoined or restrained. However, if the Court determines that a bond is

required in this case, Plaintiffs will post bond in an amount to be determined by the Court.

53. The Plaintiffs have given notice to the Defendants of this application and due to the urgent

and overwhelming need to preserve evidence of Plaintiffs' claims request that the Court hold an

expedited hearing for the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order. As explained above, this

need arises from the immediate and irreparable loss that will result if Defendants are not enjoined

prior to notice and hearing.

14


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

54. Plaintiffs request that upon hearing of the application for temporary restraining order,

the Court set a hearing for a temporary injunction. As grounds for Plaintiffs' application for a

temporary injunction, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if recited verbatim herein all of the

foregoing facts and arguments.

'::

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffs hereby request and pray that the

Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein and that upon final hearing the Plaintiffs have

and recover from the Defendants their actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees,

prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law, court costs and other and further

relief to which the Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled.

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY521 Starr StrCorpus C exas 784Phone: 85 600Fes: ( - S

SBN: 084210Robert P. WilsonSBN: 21718575

Tj h-svc @thomasj henrylaw. comRwil son- svc@thomasj henrylaw. com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

*service by email to these addresses only

15


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

~HILIP

~~AYDEN &

A SSOCIATES

September 11, 2015

Mr. Thomas J. HenryThomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys521 Starr StreetCorpus Christi, Texas 78401

Re: Police Shooting of Gilbert Flores, San Antonio, Texas, August 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Henry:

The law firm of Thomas J. Henry, San Antonio, Texas, requested that I review the CNN unedited versionof a video showing the fatal shooting of Gilbert Flores by two San Antonio-area sheriff deputies. Inaddition 1 read the article written by Danny Cevallos, a CNN legal analyst, and other written informationon the Internet. Based on the information I have reviewed, and based upon my education, training andexperience, I opine that when Mr. Flores raised his hands, he was not an immediate threat to theofficers. Both ofFcers were standing a safe distance from Mr. Flores and had limited cover. In reviewingthis video Mr. Flores did not appear to make any threatening movement toward the officers prior tothem shooting. If Mr. Flores had a knife in his left hand it would not change my opinion. It is myopinion, which I hold to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that in order for Mr. Flores to bean immediate threat he would have had to make some sort of an assertive movement that would causethe officers to believe they were going to be attacked and their lives were in danger. This did not appearto happen. Therefore, the shooting was unnecessary and unreasonable and there was no probablecause to use deadly forte.

expressly reserve the right to alter, amend, modify, or expand upon these opinions should moreinformation be made available to me.

Phili .Hayden, Ed.DLaw Enforcement Co sultant

11602 Stonewall JacksonDr.,Spotsylvania,VA 22551—USA P~-A►~NTIFF~S 72.7659 - [email protected]

a O~.

Case 5:15-cv-00810 Document 1-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 1

San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

CURRICULUM VITPhilip Hayden, ED. ]

ADDRESS

11602 Stonewall Jacksoiz DriveSpotsylvania, Virginia 22551E-Mail — phil~a haydenasc.com

TELEPHONE

(540) 972-7658

EDUCATION

1997, Ed.D., Nova Southeastern University, Adult Education1980, M.S., Adelphi University, Management/Accounting1972, B.S., Adelphi University, Business Administration

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Expert Witness, Court Certified —January 1999 —Present

* Consultant/Expert Witness in the areas of Use of Force, Tactics, and Mental Mindset during high-risk situations. Sincehis retirement, Dr. Hayden has testified as an expert witness and has been deposed in both criminal and civil cases. Hehas consulted on cases with the following:

United States Attorney's Offices in New York Ciry, New York; El Paso, Texas; Portland, Oregon; Alexandria, Virginia; andEastern District otl'ennsylvania;

State Attorney's Offices for the City of I.,afayette, I..ouisiana; Miaini —Dade and Sarasota, Florida; andWilmington, Delaware;

Defense Attorneys in Richmond, Virginia; Baltimore and Prince George's County, Maryland; and Las Vegas, Nevada;

Swedish Defense Ministry in Stockholm, Sweden.

Board Member and Consultant —January 1999 —Present:

* Seccredo Inc. International —Consultant & Security Specialist

Conduct security, leadership, and management seminars for large European corporations as well as tabletop exercises toenhance productivity during a critical incident.

National Advisory Board —May 2002 —Present:

* Force Science Research Center —Minnesota State University

Responsible for reviewing policy, procedures, and research regarding police use of force during arrest procedures, vehiclestops, etc.

Vice President Client Relations —January 2002 —December 2006:

* M. Morgan Cherry and Associates

PLAINTIFF'SThis is an international private investigation EXHIBIT Virginia; London, England; Cairo, Egypt; andBogota, Columbia.


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

Private Consultant —January 1999 -December 2005:

* Communication Resource Inc. (CRI) —Consultant &Security Specialist

Conducted security assessments and crisis management exercises and designed security analysis programs for the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture.

* Kroll and Associates —Consultant &Security Specialist

Conducted security assessments, designed security analysis programs for large corporations, and developed behaviormodification techniques designed to enhance performance for high-level executives.

* Safeboard Body Armor Company —Consultant &North American Representative

Developed and sold body armor products.

* Volvo Car Special vehicles Division —Senior Consultant &Product Design Specialist

Researched and designed ~/olvds North American prototype police vehicle.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Supervisory Special Agent -FBI Academy, August 1983 -January 1999:Program Manager for the Law Enforcement Training for Safety and Survival Sub-Unit, June 1992 —January 1999

* Created and instituted the Law Enforcement Training for Safety and Survival Program. This program taught lawenforcement officers how to conduct arrests of potentially violent subjects in a way that was conducive to their safety aswell as the safety of innocent persons and the subject involved.

* Conducted training for over 6,000 federal, state, city, and local police officers throughout the United States and 2,000foreign police officers throughout the world.

* Created and instituted the Tactical Instructor Program for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This program trained over350 FBI and police tactical instructors throughout the United States, Canada, and Sweden.

Program Manager for the Tactical Instructor Program for New Agent Training, June 1990-June 1992

* Developed the tactical curricula for New Agent Training. Taught over 1,500 new agents principles of arrest andinvestigative techniques, firearms and planning concepts.

Special Operations and Research Unit, August 1983 —June 1990

* Created and instituted the Tactical Air Operations (TAO) and Rappel Master Programs and developed the trainingcurricula for rappelling, helicopter tactical operations, sniper, and crisis management.

* Primary instructor for SWAT, TAO, and Sniper Programs.

Special Agent -New York and Chicago Offices, August 1973 —August 1983:

* Investigated and conducted arrests in criminal cases, organized crime, and foreign counterintelligence.

* Participated in several hundred arrests of violent and non-violent criminals.* Certified by the FBI as an instructor in the following areas: tactical concepts for law enforcement officers; defensive

tactics; special weapons and tactics (SWAT); crisis management; firearms; sniper; rappelling; helicopter tactical

operations; hostage negotiations; bomb investigations; and pilot-in-command for fixed-winged aircrafts


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

Lesson Plans Designed, Developed, and Implemented for the Federal Bureau of Investigation

* Making Arrests and Handling Subjects; Preparation for Arrest and Search Warrants; Site Survey; Law EnforcementOperation Order for Arrest and Search Plans; Approaching an Entry Point; Conventional Room Entry; Techniques forRoom Clearing; Procedures and Equipment for Room Clearing; Clearing Hallways; Interior Movement: Stairways,Attics, Roofs, and Crawl Spaces; ~/ehicle Stops; Quick Entries; Use of Ballistic Shields in Entries and ~/ehicle Clearing;Mechanical Breaching; Tactical Air Operations; and Rappel Master Instructor.

Articles Written for the Fedetal Bureau of Investigation

* Redesigning the Curriculum of a Survival Awareness Course for Law Enforcement Officers; An Evaluation of theAdequacy of Basic Training for the Safe Apprehension of Dangerous Criminals by Violent Crimes Task Forces;A Comparison of Personality Factors of I.,aw Enforcement Officers Related to Safely Executing Arrest Warrants;Development of a Curriculum for Teaching the FBI Deadly Force Policy to All Federal Violent Crimes Task Forces;Development of a Training Program for Teaching FBI Task Force Members How To Properly Prepare for ConductingHigh Risk Arrests; Comparison of the Performance of Three Types of Ammunition for Use by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation.

Videos Produced for the Federal Bureau of Investigatio

* Approaching an Entry Point; Clearing Stairways; Conventional Room Entry; Planning an Arrest or Search Warrant;Techniques Outside an Entry Point; Clearing a Hallway.

Featured in a Made for TV Documentary on the Survival Mindset for Police Officers

* Inside the FBI: SURVIVING THE STREET. Printz Production, Distributed by Chevron Publishing.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS &CERTIFICATIONS

* Private Investigator: Certified by the State of Virginia* Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association* Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation* New Jersey State Law Enforcements Officers Association* International Association of Chiefs of Police* International Society of Law Enforcement Trainers* Tactical Officers Association* International Society of the 173rd Airborne Brigade

MILITARY EXPERIENCE

Service

* Entered the U.S. Army as a Private in 1964 and retired on a disability as a Captain in 1968 due to wounds received while

serving with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam.

Training Received

* Advanced Infantry and Demolitions Training; Non-Commissioned and Officers Candidate; and Airborne, Ranger,

Pathfinder, Jungle, and Sniper Schools.

Awards Received

* Purple Heart, Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Conspicuous Service Cross, Army Commendation for Valor, Bronze Star

for Valor, and the Distinguished Service Cross.


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe 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 asprovided 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 thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (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) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 ’ 410 Antitrust’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 450 Commerce

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 460 Deportation’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 891 Agricultural Acts’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 893 Environmental Matters’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 895 Freedom of Information

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION

Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition

’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

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

’ 1 OriginalProceeding

’ 2 Removed fromState Court

’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated orReopened

’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER 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 NUMBERDATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

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 asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired 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 ofCourt 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, notingin 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 thissection 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.


San Anto

nio Expre

ss-N

ews

in the united states district of texas san antonio ... · plaintiff maritza amador was the wife of...

Documents