IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

FREDERICKA ROPER as mother of
KENDELL MARTIN and
DALILA ROBERTSON, minor children,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRYSTAL TEMPLETON,
CHRIS WILLIAMS, JEFF CARROLL,
ALBERT MILES,
CITY OF MURFREESBORO, TENNESSEE,
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
And JOHN DOE.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. _________________

JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT
Comes now Fredericka Roper on behalf of Kendell Martin (Plaintiff Martin) and Dalila
Robertson (Plaintiff Robertson), by and through the undersigned attorneys, and for this cause of
action against Defendants would respectfully show to the Court and Jury as follows:
I.
1.1

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Fredericka Roper is the mother and primary custodian of Kendell

Martin and Dalila Robertson, who are minor children. Ms. Roper lives with both children in
Rutherford County, Tennessee.
1.2

Plaintiff Kendall Martin is a fourteen-year-old minor child living in the care

and custody of Fredericka Roper, his mother, in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

1.3

Plaintiff Dalila Robertson is an eight-year-old minor child living in the care

and custody of Fredericka Roper, her mother, in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

1.4

Defendant Chrystal Templeton (Defendant Templeton) is, upon

information and belief, a resident of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Defendant Templeton was,

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

at all times relevant in this Complaint, acting under color of state law, and was employed as and
acting within her scope and capacity as an officer for the Murfreesboro Police Department.
1.5

Defendant Chris Williams (Defendant Williams) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Defendant Williams was, at all times relevant
in this Complaint, acting under color of state law, and was employed as and acting within her scope
and capacity as an officer for the Murfreesboro Police Department.
1.6

Defendant Jeff Carroll (Defendant Carroll) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Defendant Carroll was, at all times relevant
in this Complaint, acting under color of state law, and was employed as and acting within his scope
and capacity as an officer for the Murfreesboro Police Department.
1.7

Defendant Albert Miles (Defendant Miles) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Defendant Miles was, at all times relevant in
this Complaint, acting under color of state law, and was employed as and acting within his scope
and capacity as an officer for the Murfreesboro Police Department.
1.8

Defendant City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee (Murfreesboro) is a

governmental entity located in Rutherford County, Tennessee, and at all times relevant to the
Complaint was responsible for establishing the policies and procedures of the Murfreesboro Police
Department as well as training of employees, including Defendants Templeton, Williams, Carroll,
Miles, and the John Doe defendants.
1.9

Defendant Rutherford County, Tennessee (Rutherford County) is a

governmental entity located in the state of Tennessee, and at all times relevant to the Complaint
was responsible for establishing the policies and procedures for handling juvenile criminal cases.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2

1.10

Upon information and belief, at least one unidentified John Doe defendant

participated in the arrest of Dalila Robertson. This John Doe defendant is believed to be an
employee of the Murfreesboro Police Department and was acting within their scope and capacity
as an officer of the Murfreesboro Police Department at all times relevant to this Complaint.
II.
2.1

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over the Federal claims asserted in this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (Federal Question) and 1343 (Civil Rights) as well as 42 U.S.C.
1983.
III.
3.1

VENUE

Venue of this action is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) in that the

events giving rise to the action occurred in the Middle District of Tennessee.
IV.
4.1

NATURE OF THE CASE

This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and under federal law, specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as
amended), 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq. for violations of the Constitutional Rights of Plaintiffs.
V.
5.1

FACTS

Upon information and belief, on or about March 20, 2016 two minor

children, ages five and six, got into a fight with another juvenile. None of the children involved
sustained any serious injuries.
5.2

The fight allegedly occurred in the back yard of a private residence in

Rutherford County.
5.3

Neither Plaintiff Martin nor Plaintiff Robertson were aware that the fight

happened at the time it occurred and had no contemporaneous involvement in the incident.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3

5.4

Upon information and belief, the fight was filmed by one or more children

who witnessed the incident.

5.5

Shortly after the fight, another minor child approached Plaintiff Martin

while he was playing basketball and showed a video of the incident to Plaintiff Martin on his
phone.
5.6

This was the first time that Plaintiff Martin became aware that a fight had

occurred between the other minor children.

5.7

Plaintiff Robertson was inside the home of her grandmother at the time that

the fight occurred.

5.8

Plaintiff Robertson first became aware of the fight when a friend came

inside her grandmothers house and told her about it.

5.9

Plaintiff Robertson also saw a video recording of the fight a day or two after

it occurred.
5.10

On or about April 15, 2016, Defendants Carroll, Miles, and a John Doe

Defendant went to Hobgood Elementary School in Murfreesboro, Tennessee where Plaintiff

Robertson is enrolled.
5.11

Defendant Williams was already working that day as an officer at the school

and participated in the interrogation and arrests of the elementary school aged children.
5.12

Three of the four officers present at the school that day were uniformed and

wearing guns.
5.13

One of the officers wore plain clothes.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4

5.14

Plaintiff Robertson was removed from her classroom and taken to the

principals office where officers from the Murfreesboro Police Department (MPD), were waiting
to question her and other students at the school.
5.15

Upon information and belief, the school principal, Dr. Tammy Garrett, was

instructed by the MPD not to contact the childrens parents before they were questioned or arrested.
5.16

By the time Ms. Roper became aware that Defendants were questioning her

eight-year-old daughter, Plaintiff Robertson had already been arrested.

5.17

Plaintiff Robertson was arrested at Hobgood Elementary School near the

end of the school day on about April 15, 2016.

5.18

One or more of the officers questioned Plaintiff Robertson and the other

students for several minutes before arresting them.

5.19

Plaintiff Robertson became visibly upset and began to cry when one of the

officers took out handcuffs.

5.20

Plaintiff Robertson and at least one other child were handcuffed and

transported in police cars to the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center where they were
held until their parents could pick them up.
5.21

Despite being arrested, no warrant was issued for Plaintiff Robertsons

arrest, nor was she ever charged with a crime.

5.22

Plaintiff Robertson was distraught by the incident and afraid to return to

5.23

Dr. Garrett, the school principal, had to come to Plaintiff Robertsons home

school.

to reassure her that she would not be arrested again if she went back to school.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5

5.24

When Plaintiff Robertson was finally able to go back to school, she was

questioned and teased by other students about her arrest.

5.25

Also on or about April 15, 2016, Defendant Chrystal Templeton approached

Plaintiff Martin after school outside the home of his grandmother where he was playing with two
friends.
5.26

Defendant Chrystal Templeton questioned Plaintiff Martin and his friends

for several minutes about their involvement in the fight.

5.27

Plaintiff Martin informed the officer at the time of the fight he was playing

basketball and was not even aware that it happened until he saw it on video after the fact.
5.28

Plaintiff Martin informed Defendant Templeton that he was not involved in

filming the fight or posting the video online.

5.29

Upon information and belief, no one made any statement to Defendant

Templeton that would suggest that Plaintiff Martin encouraged or caused two juveniles to assault
another juvenile.
5.30

Upon information and belief, no one made any statement to Defendant

Templeton that would suggest that Plaintiff Martin was involved in filming the fight or posting the
video online.
5.31

Upon information and belief, Defendant Templeton had no evidence to

suggest that Plaintiff Martin encouraged or caused two juveniles to assault another juvenile.
5.32

Despite having no evidence to suggest that Plaintiff Martin had encouraged

or caused two juveniles to assault another juvenile, Defendant Templeton swore out an affidavit
against Plaintiff Martin, charging him with criminal responsibility for the conduct of another

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6

pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-402 for the crime of assault pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.
39-13-101.
5.33

Criminal responsibility for the conduct of another pursuant to Tenn. Code

Ann. 39-11-402 for the crime of assault pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-101 is a
misdemeanor offense.
5.34

Defendant Templetons Affidavit of Complaint alleges that two juveniles,

ages 5 and 6 were encouraged by Plaintiff Martin to assault another juvenile and that other
juveniles videotaped the conduct and posted it online.
5.35

Defendant Templetons Affidavit did not specify any actions Plaintiff

Martin allegedly took to encourage 5 and 6 year old children to assault someone.
5.36

Defendant Templeton was aware that Plaintiff Martin took no actions to

encourage 5 and 6 year old children to assault another child.

5.37

Defendant Templeton, with reckless disregard for the truth, made this false

statement to prosecute Plaintiff Martin for criminal responsibility for the conduct of another.
5.38

Defendant Templeton arrested Plaintiff Martin.

5.39

Defendant Templeton put Plaintiff Martin in handcuffs.

5.40

Defendant Templeton put Plaintiff martin in the back of a police car, and

took him to the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center where he was held until his mother,
Ms. Roper, came to get him.
5.41

As a result of the prosecution for criminal responsibility for the conduct of

another, Plaintiff Martin suffered public humiliation.

5.42

The circumstances leading to Plaintiffs Martin and Robertsons arrest were

widely publicized in newspapers and other media outlets across the state of Tennessee.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7

5.43

Plaintiff Martin was forced to defend the criminal charges against him.

5.44

Upon information and belief, at the time of and prior to this incident,

Defendant City of Murfreesboro had a custom, policy, practice, and/or training which allowed and
encouraged its police officers to arrest minor children for any criminal offense, even where the
offense did not meet the statutory criteria that allowed for an arrest of a minor.
5.45

This policy by Defendant City of Murfreesboro is in direct violation of

Tennessee law, which limits the circumstances under which a minor may be physically arrested
on misdemeanor delinquency petitions to situations where (a) the delinquent acts occurred in the
presence of the arresting officer, (b) the delinquent acts constitute one of a small set of specified
misdemeanors for which custodial arrest is authorized even if the offense occurred outside the
presence of the officer, or (c) the Juvenile Court issues an arrest order based on particularized
findings that an arrest is necessary for safety purposes or to prevent the child from absconding.
T.C.A. 37-1-113,: 40-7-103; Tenn. R. Juv. P., Rule II (repealed as of July 1, 2016); Tenn. R.
Juv. P., 109 (Effective as of July 1, 2016).
5.46

If none of these circumstances apply, children in Tennessee may not be

arrested for pending misdemeanor petitions and such petitions can only be served via summons to
appear in court. The summons must be served on either the child (if the child is 14 years or older)
or the childs parents (if the child is less than 14 years old). T.C.A. 37-1-121 (repealed as of July
1, 2016); T.C.A. 37-1-122 (in effect as of July 1, 2016); Tenn. R. Juv. P., Rule 11 (Repealed as
of July 1, 2016); Tennessee Rules of Juvenile Procedure 109 (effective as of July 1, 2016).
5.47

None of the Tennessee laws providing for the physical arrest of minors were

applicable to the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiffs arrests.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8

5.48

Defendant City of Murfreesboro implemented a policy on or around April

2013 that states, Misdemeanor citations may not be issued to juvenile offenders. All juveniles
referred to Juvenile Court must be transported to the RCJDC.
5.49

RCJDC is the acronym used to describe the Rutherford County Juvenile

Detention Center.
5.50

This policy effectively requires Rutherford County Law Enforcement

agencies to treat juvenile delinquency petitions as if they were warrants and arrest every minor
charged by a law enforcement officer under a juvenile delinquency petition.
5.51

The Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center participates in

implementing this policy by accepting children arrested on misdemeanor delinquency petitions

into its custody and temporarily detaining them while its staff determines whether the child
qualifies to be incarcerated pretrial under T.C.A. 37-1-114.
5.52

While RCJDC staff may ultimately release the arrested child to his or her

parents, until that decision is made they detain the child at the RCJDC.
5.53

Tennessee state law limits the pretrial incarceration of children charged with

delinquent or unruly offenses under T.C.A. 37-1-114 and 37-1-116.

5.54

In Tennessee, a minor child may not be incarcerated in a secure detention

facility except in compliance with these statutes.

5.55

Rutherford County Juvenile Detention center is a secure facility within

the meaning of T.C.A. 37-1-114.

5.56

While the substantive liberty rights conveyed by Tennessee state law are

clear, state law fails to dictate clear guidance as to the process that must be applied in executing
those laws.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9

5.57

Upon information and belief, the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention

Center Standard Operating Procedures also require that its employees detain children arrested on
charges filed by a law enforcement officer until a staff member determines that the child is not a
true threat to themselves or the community.
5.58

The standard operating procedures of the Rutherford County Juvenile

Detention Center unconstitutionally expand the circumstances under which a minor may be
detained beyond what is provided for by statute pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 37-1-114.
5.59

This custom, policy, practice and/or training is in direct violation of

Tennessee state law.

5.60

Defendant City of Murfreesboro and Defendant Rutherford County were

aware that their policies of arresting minors for misdemeanor offenses violated state law.
5.61

Defendants City of Murfreesboro and Defendant Rutherford County were

aware that their policies for detaining minors violated state law.
5.62

Despite being aware that the policy was in violation of the law, the

Defendants continued to follow the policy and provide training on the policy to the officers of the
MPD and Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center.
5.63

Upon information and belief, at the time of and prior to this incident,

Defendant City of Murfreesboro had a custom, policy, practice, and/or training which allowed and
encouraged its police officers to handcuff minor children even where there was no risk of flight or
threat of safety to the arresting officer.
5.64

Upon information and belief, at the time of and prior to this incident,

Defendant City of Murfreesboro had a custom, policy, practice, and/or training which allowed and

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10

encouraged its police officers to arrest minor children for criminal responsibility for the conduct
of another without probable cause.
5.65

Upon information and belief, at the time of and prior to this incident,

Defendant City of Murfreesboro had a training program which did not adequately train its officers
concerning when an arrest could be made and what facts were sufficient to form a basis for
probable cause related to criminal responsibility for the conduct of another.
5.66

Upon information and belief, at the time of and prior to this incident,

Defendant City of Murfreesboro had a training program which did not adequately train its officers
concerning when it was appropriate to handcuff a minor child.
5.67

Upon information and belief, at the time of and prior to this incident,

Defendant City of Murfreesboro had a training program which did not adequately train its officers
concerning the circumstances under which a minor may be detained and questioned or the manner
in which the questioning should occur.
5.68

Defendant City of Murfreesboro was responsible for properly training its

officers in making reasonable arrests, the use of handcuffs, the manner and method of detaining
and questioning minor children, and the verification of the identity of persons to be arrested.
5.69

Defendant City of Murfreesboro was responsible for providing appropriate

and ongoing in-service training to its officers in making reasonable arrests, the use of handcuffs,
the manner and method of detaining and questioning minor children.
5.70

Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Murfreesboro failed to

provide its officers with appropriate ongoing in-service training in making reasonable arrests, the
use of handcuffs, and the manner and method of detaining and questioning minor children.
5.71

The arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff Martin was not reasonable.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11

5.72

The arrest of Plaintiff Robertson was not reasonable.

5.73

The handcuffing of Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson was not reasonable.

5.74

The imprisonment of Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson was not reasonable.

5.75

Defendant City of Murfreesboro either knew or should have known that the

officers were either unaware of the lawful requirements for arrest, handcuffing, and imprisonment
or actively participated in violating those lawful requirements.
COUNT I
(Malicious Prosecution, Unlawful Arrest, and Illegal Detention of Plaintiff Martin)
6.1

Plaintiff Kendell Martin was arrested and prosecuted for encouraging and

causing two other juveniles, ages 5 and 6, to assault another juvenile. Plaintiff was charged with
criminal responsibility for the conduct of another pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-402 for the
crime of assault pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-101.
6.2

As set forth above, Defendant Templeton arrested Plaintiff Martin despite

there being no probable cause to make such arrest and despite being actually aware that Plaintiff
Martin had not committed a crime.
6.3

Defendant Templeton participated in and/or influenced the prosecution of

the Plaintiff Martin for criminal responsibility for the conduct of another despite there being no
probable cause for such prosecution and despite being actually aware that Plaintiff Martin had not
committed a crime.
6.4

The arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff Martin for criminal responsibility for

the conduct of another was without probable cause.

6.5

Plaintiff Martin did not encourage or cause two juveniles to assault another

juvenile, nor were there facts present to suggest Plaintiff Martin had done so.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12

6.6

Plaintiff Martin was charged with a misdemeanor that did not meet the

statutory criteria that would permit him to be arrested either with or without a citation or summons.
6.7

Despite the fact that there was no statutory or other authority that would

allow Plaintiff Martin to be arrested, Plaintiff Martin was illegally arrested, handcuffed, and
detained in the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Facility.
6.8

As a direct and proximate result of the arrest and criminal prosecution,

Plaintiff Kendell Martin was deprived of his liberty.

6.9

As a direct and proximate result of the criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff

for criminal responsibility of another, Plaintiff was deprived of his right to be free from prosecution
without probable cause.
6.10

The charge of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another was

dismissed on July 13, 2016, resulting in a disposition in Plaintiff Martins favor.

6.11

Pursuant to statute, Defendant Templeton is liable to Plaintiff for special

and general compensatory damages, including but not limited to, emotional, physical, economic,
and pecuniary damages; punitive damages; and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
COUNT II
(Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Detention of Plaintiff Robertson)
7.1

Plaintiff Dalila Robertson was arrested but never charged with a crime.

7.2

As set forth above, Defendant Williams, Defendant Carroll, Defendant

Miles, and the unidentified John Doe Defendant participated in the questioning and arrest of
Plaintiff Robertson.
7.3

Plaintiff Robertson did not commit assault and did not encourage or cause

two juveniles to assault another juvenile, nor were there facts present to suggest Plaintiff Robertson
had engaged in such conduct or committed any other crime.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13

7.4

No warrant, citation, summons, or delinquency petition was ever issued for

Plaintiff Robertsons arrest and Plaintiff Robertson was never charged with a crime.
7.5

Despite this fact, Plaintiff Robertson was illegally arrested, handcuffed, and

detained at the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center.

7.6

As a direct and proximate result of the arrest, Plaintiff Dalila Robertson was

deprived of her liberty without probable cause.

7.7

Pursuant to statute, Defendant Templeton, Defendant Williams, Defendant

Carroll, Defendant Miles, and the unidentified John Doe defendant are liable to Plaintiff for special
and general compensatory damages, including but not limited to, emotional, physical, economic,
and pecuniary damages; punitive damages; and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
COUNT III
(Municipal Liability City of Murfreesboro)
8.1

The conduct of Defendant City of Murfreesboro described above deprived

the Plaintiffs of their rights to be free from unreasonable seizures as guaranteed under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
8.2

Defendant City of Murfreesboro contemporaneously approved and ratified

the conduct and actions of the other Defendants resulting in the false arrest and illegal detention
of the Plaintiffs and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff Martin.
8.3

Defendant City of Murfreesboros policies, procedures, and training

regarding the arrest of minors on misdemeanor charges outside the presence of an officer were
also the motivating force behind the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff Martin and the arrest of
Plaintiff Robertson.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14

8.4

Pursuant to statute, Defendant City of Murfreesboro is liable to the Plaintiffs

for special and general compensatory damages, including but not limited to, emotional, physical,
economic, and pecuniary damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
8.5

Also pursuant to statute, Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson are entitled to

injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant City of Murfreesboro from engaging in future conduct which
violates state law and deprives individuals of their constitutional rights as well as reasonable
attorneys fees and costs for the necessity of requesting such relief.
8.6

Specifically, Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson request that this Honorable

Court enjoin the City of Murfreesboro from enforcing any custom, practice, policy and/or training
that requires juveniles charged with misdemeanors be arrested or illegally detained outside the
confines of Tennessee law and that they be awarded their attorney fees and other costs and
expenses associated with this litigation for the necessity of bringing this action.
COUNT IV
(Municipal Liability - Rutherford County)
9.1

Defendant Rutherford Countys custom, practice, policies and procedures

regarding the arrest of minors on misdemeanor citations were a motivating force behind the arrests
of Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson.
9.2

Pursuant to statute, Defendant Rutherford County is liable to the Plaintiffs for

special and general compensatory damages, including but not limited to, emotional, physical,
economic, and pecuniary damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
9.3

Also pursuant to statute, Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson are entitled to injunctive

relief to enjoin Defendant Rutherford County from engaging in future conduct which violates state
law and deprives individuals of their constitutional rights as well as reasonable attorneys fees and
costs for the necessity of requesting such relief.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15

9.4

Specifically, Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson request that this Honorable Court

enjoin the Defendant Rutherford County from enforcing any custom, practice, policy and/or
procedure that requires juveniles charged with misdemeanors be arrested or illegally detained
outside the confines of Tennessee law and that they be awarded their attorney fees and other costs
and expenses associated with this litigation for the necessity of bringing this action.
DAMAGES
10.1

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as

described above, Plaintiffs Robertson and Martin experienced significant emotional suffering,
damage to their reputation, and the embarrassment and humiliation of being arrested in front of
their friends.
10.2

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as

described above, Plaintiff Martin suffered the embarrassment and humiliation of publicly being
charged and prosecuted for criminal responsibility for conduct of another.
10.3

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of Defendants as described

above, the Plaintiffs have experienced significant mental anguish.

10.4

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as

described above, Plaintiff Robertson missed school.

10.5

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as

described above, Plaintiff Martin had to find a lawyer to successfully have the criminal charges
dismissed.
10.6

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as

described above, Plaintiffs Martin and Robertson were deprived of their liberty and freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure.

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully demand judgment

against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally as follows:
1. That proper process issue and be served upon the Defendants, requiring them to answer
this Complaint within the time required by law;
2. That the Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined by the trier of fact.
3. That Plaintffs be awarded a judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined
by the trier that is necessary to punish the Defendants and to deter others from committing similar
wrongs in the future.
4. That Defendants City of Murfreesboro and Rutherford County be enjoined from enforcing
any custom, practice, policy and/or training that requires juveniles charged with misdemeanors
from being arrested or illegally detained outside the confines of Tennessee statute.
5. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs, litigation costs, discretionary costs, pre- and post
judgment interest, and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988; and
6. That Plaintiffs be granted such other, further and general relief to which they are entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,
BULLOCH, FLY, HORNSBY & EVANS
_/s/Luke A. Evans_______________________________
LUKE A. EVANS, BPR #023620
Attorneys for Plaintiff
302 N. Spring Street
P.O. Box 398
Murfreesboro, TN 37133-0398
(615) 894-4154

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17

MOSELEY & MOSELEY

_/s/James Bryan Moseley_______________________

JAMES BRYAN MOSELEY, BPR #021236
Attorney for Plaintiffs
237 Castlewood Dr., Suite D
Murfreesboro, TN 37129
(615) 254-0140

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 07/16)

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

DEFENDANTS

Fredericka Roper, as mother of Kendell Martin and Dalila Robertson,

minor children.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Chrystal Templeton, Chris Williams, Jeff Carroll, Albert Miles, City of

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and John Doe.

Rutherford

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Rutherford

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

Luke A. Evans, P.O. Box 398, Murfreesboro, TN 37133, (615) 896-4154

James Bryan Moseley, 237 Castlewood Dr., Suite D, Murfreesboro, TN
37129 (615) 254-0140

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

1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

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

U.S. Government
Defendant

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

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

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1

DEF
1

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

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

CONTRACT

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
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

6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District

8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

42 U.S.C. 1983

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Civil rights action based on malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, and illegal detention.

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/Luke Evans

01/12/2017
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Case
3:17-cv-00045 Document
1-1 Filed 01/12/17
#: 19
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGEPage 1 of 2 PageID
MAG. JUDGE

RECEIPT #

Print

Save As...

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 07/16)

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)

(b)

(c)

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.
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.)
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 seven 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 Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

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 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 21

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 22

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 23

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 24

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 25

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 26

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 27

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 28

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 29

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 30

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 31

Case 3:17-cv-00045 Document 1-2 Filed 01/12/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 32