Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Filed Electronically) : Shannyn White
(Filed Electronically) : Shannyn White
(Filed Electronically)
SHANNYN WHITE )
)
PLAINTIFF )
)
V. )
)
LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY ) COMPLAINT
METRO GOVERNMENT )
Serve: Mayor, Greg Fischer )
527 W. Jefferson Street, 4th Floor )
Louisville, Kentucky 40202 )
)
C/c : Hon. Mike O’Connell )
Jefferson Hall of Justice )
600 West Jefferson Street )
Louisville, Kentucky 40202 ) CASE NO.: __________________
)
-and- )
)
UNNAMED OFFICER #1, Individually and )
in their Official Capacity )
Louisville Metro Police Department )
633 W. Jefferson Street )
Louisville, KY 40202 )
)
-and- )
)
UNNAMED OFFICER #2, Individually and )
in their Official Capacity )
Louisville Metro Police Department )
633 W. Jefferson Street )
Louisville, KY 40202 )
)
DEFENDANTS )
Comes the Plaintiff, SHANNYN WHITE (hereinafter “MS. WHITE”), by and through her
undersigned counsel, and hereby brings this Complaint before this Honorable Court, in which she
1
seeks damages for the violations of her federal rights by the named Defendants, as well as damages
for her state law causes of action. In support of her action thereof, the Plaintiff now hereby alleges
the following:
2. Plaintiff’s claims arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 over the § 1983 claims pursued herein.
3. That venue is proper in this Court, being the Western District of Kentucky, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
4. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed or
PARTIES
5. MS. WHITE is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a lawful and physical
6. At all times material hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant OFFICER
#1 was acting within the course and scope of his/her employment as an LMPD officer. Defendant
OFFICER #1 is, and has been, a natural person, sworn by the Commonwealth of Kentucky with
the ability to work as a police officer, and is, and has been, employed by LMPD as a sworn police
officer. Upon information and belief, Defendant OFFICER #1 engaged in and completed LMPD’s
police training academy and has been employed as a police officer with LMPD since that time.
2
Defendant OFFICER #1 is being sued in his/her individual capacity, as well as in his/her official
7. At all times material hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant OFFICER
#2 was acting within the course and scope of his/her employment as a supervisory LMPD officer.
Defendant OFFICER #2 is, and has been, a natural person, sworn by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky with the ability to work as a police officer, and is, and has been, employed by LMPD as
a sworn supervisory police officer. Upon information and belief, Defendant OFFICER #2 engaged
in and completed LMPD’s police training academy and has been employed as a police officer with
LMPD since that time. Defendant OFFICER #2 is being sued in his/her individual capacity, as
well as in his/her official capacity for his/her actions as an officer for LMPD.
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky with a principle place of business located at 527 W. Jefferson Street,
Statute (KRS) 67C.101 has and does operate and control the Louisville Metro Police Department
(hereinafter “LMPD”), its police officers, employees, agents, and representatives, including, but
not limited to, Defendants UNNAMED OFFICER #1 (hereinafter “Defendant OFFICER #1”) and
10. Pursuant to KRS 67C.101, Defendant METRO is ultimately responsible for the
OFFICER #2. Thus, Defendant METRO is, in their official capacity, vicariously liable for the
3
tortious acts and omissions of Defendants OFFICER #1 and OFFICER #2. Defendant METRO is
also responsible for the LMPD policies and procedures that are described in this Complaint,
training, retention.
GENERAL FACTS
(APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS)
11. MS. WHITE is a 24-year-old woman, who on May 29, 2020, was exercising her
12. She was protesting the killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other African
Americans at the hands of law enforcement, as well as calling for changes to practices of
13. Though protests nationwide have caused destruction to property, the protests in
Louisville had been mostly peaceful that evening, including the group MS. WHITE was protesting
14. LMPD had decided however, to take a heavy-handed approach against protesters –
peaceful or not – meeting them with a show of force that included flash bangs, tear gas, pepper
balls and 40 millimeter blunt-impact projectiles. These weapons were all used the night MS.
15. Leaders in Louisville have publicly questioned LMPD’s use of these weapons.
Sadiqa Reynolds, president and CEO of the Louisville Urban League tweeted, “[i]t is insane to
thank people for peaceful protest and then use tear gas because you call it an unlawful gathering.”
She followed that tweet with another stating, “[t]he mayor and LMPD are not on the same page
and it is embarrassing."
4
16. Louisville Metro Councilman Bill Hollander also said in an interview that police
have a “difficult job in the current situation,” but he had heard from constituents who attended the
protest and was “surprised by the use of tear gas before they were told to be home and when they
saw nothing but peaceful activity.” Hollander even called for an investigation of police tactics,
17. At a department news conference, Major Dave Allen said tear gas was deployed
because police observed numerous homemade weapons in the crowd and on the streets, including
Molotov cocktails, bricks, wooden blocks, leaf blowers and jars that had been filled with urine and
vomit.
18. However, during the night of the incident, MS. WHITE peacefully stood with
around twenty (20) other protesters near the 500 block of West Jefferson Street. She, like other
members of this small group, was armed with only her cellphone, videotaping and chanting “hands
up, don’t shoot”, as a line of LMPD officers formed to face them head on.
19. This interaction, and the events that followed, were captured on MS. WHITE’s
20. Despite being unarmed and outmatched by their LMPD counterparts, the group of
protesters remained in their position on the street chanting and without advancing on, or
21. Suddenly, with no warning and for no legitimate reason, LMPD officers, including
Defendant OFFICER #1, opened fire, and MS. WHITE was shot directly in the face with a rubber
22. Upon reason and belief, the order to shoot was made by Defendant OFFICER #2.
5
23. MS. WHITE dropped to her knees, screaming in excruciating pain, and was
immediately unable to see. Other protesters surrounded her in attempts to come to her aid and stop
24. Friends of MS. WHITE also proceeded to run out in front of her in attempts to
shield her from further injury by LMPD, but they were then struck by projectiles as well.
25. One of the projectiles was recovered by the Plaintiff’s friends from the street. It was
large and stained with the same green paint that covered MS. WHITE’s face. See Plaintiff’s
Exhibit A.
26. No LMPD officers approached to assist MS. WHITE with treating her injuries or
27. Instead, MS. WHITE was eventually helped into a car by a group of protesters that
stated they were “protest medics”. The medics and other Good Samaritans then assisted in
29. No warnings, directions or commands were given regarding the potential use of
30. MS. WHITE was not being charged with a crime. She was not attempting to flee
31. The group’s actions were not chaotic and neither MS. WHITE, nor those around
33. At the Hospital, MS. WHITE was hosed down to rid the wound of paint, pepper
spray and debris, but the wound was so significant that doctors could not stitch it up. MS. WHITE
6
recalls being unable to see out of her left eye for thirty (30) minutes and out of her right eye for an
hour and a half due to the swelling. Her face also sustained massive bruising and eventual scarring
from the assault. MS. WHITE’s injuries were documented by doctors and herself at the Hospital.
34. Two days later, as she was still experiencing dizziness, vomiting, and issues with
her vision, so MS. WHITE returned to the Hospital for follow up treatment.
35. To this day, MS. WHITE has a large permanent scar from the assault as well as
36. As MS. WHITE was experiencing unemployment due to COVID-19, she did not
have active health insurance, and thus has incurred large amounts of medical debts.
37. As her injuries received national attention, she has also had to endure the mental
anguish of seeing her social media be flooded with death wishes and other cruel remarks by social
media commenters.
38. As a result of the unconstitutional and tortuous actions by the Defendants and/or
their agents, Ms. WHITE sustained serious and significant violations of her Constitutional rights.
39. As a result of the unconstitutional and tortuous actions by the Defendants and/or
their agents, MS. WHITE sustained significant physical, mental and emotional damages.
40. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every
averment, allegation and statement contained in all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
7
of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress...”
42. On May 29, 2020, Defendant OFFICER #1, acting under color of the laws of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and in the course and scope of their duties with the LMPD,
unlawfully injured MS. WHITE by shooting her with a rubber bullet without just cause.
43. On that same day, Defendant OFFICER #2, acting under color of the laws of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and in the course and scope of their duties with the LMPD,
unlawfully issued the order to fire upon peaceful protesters, which ultimately caused the injuries
to MS. WHITE.
44. These orders and the subsequent assault amount to a constitutional deprivation of
MS. WHITE’s rights, privileges and immunities, as secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First
Amendments and the Due Process clauses of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
right to be free from unnecessary and excessive force during such a seizure of
one’s person;
c. The right to be free from the use of deadly force that is not being used to prevent
the escape of a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe poses a
significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others; and
d. The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including summary
8
45. Defendants OFFICER #1 and OFFICER #2, and all other reasonable police
officers, knew or should reasonably have known of MS. WHITE’s Constitutional rights at the time
of the conduct as they were and had been clearly established at that time.
46. In the course of their interactions, the named Defendants, acting under the color of
law, and in the course and scope of their duties with the LMPD, deprived MS. WHITE of her
Constitutional rights by shooting her under knowingly improper circumstances, even though they
knew, or should have known, that such circumstances were an unreasonable set of facts to permit
the use of that level of force in light of the facts and circumstances.
47. Defendant Officers also knew, or should have known, that such force was in
violation of MS. WHITE’s rights and that law enforcement officers are prohibited from engaging
48. The only “conduct” MS. WHITE was alleged to have engaged in was the conduct
of a peaceful, unarmed protester, who was not fleeing arrest or posing a threat to officers.
Therefore, she maintained her clearly established Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments, including her right to bodily integrity and to be free from unlawful
49. When using physical force, LMPD officers are also bound by their Standard
Operating Procedures (hereinafter “SOP”) Manual. Included in those Procedures are the following
a. An officer should, to the extent possible, utilize the lowest level of force
9
b. Should physical force be necessary in order to gain control of a situation, an
officer will only use that force which is reasonable to gain control of the subject.
(9.1.5)
trained and qualified in their use. These include the 40mm launcher and the
sock round, which is fired from designated shotguns. The potential exists for
SIMS projectiles to inflict injury or death when they strike the face, eyes, and
neck. Officers should avoid intentionally striking these body areas, unless
SIMS. Any time a SIMS is used, the subject should be transported to the
e. The use of SIMS by the SWAT Team and SRT will be in accordance with the
50. Defendant OFFICER #1’s actions in shooting MS. WHITE contravene LMPD’s
51. None of the reasonings for using force, including SIMS applied to MS. WHITE as
the Defendant Officers had no reason to believe MS. WHITE was engaging in any criminal
52. Said behavior is indicative that the Defendants acted in a manner that was
malicious, and was indicative of a total and reckless disregard of and indifference toward the
10
53. Defendant Officers were consciously aware that their actions resulted in an
unlawful and unreasonable seizure and punishment of MS. WHITE and were not only in violation
of MS. WHITE’S clearly established constitutional rights, but that they were likely to, and in fact
54. Further, the Defendants’ actions were carried out in such a manner and with such a
significant amount of unnecessary actions that they shock the conscience, and unreasonably
55. The Defendants’ actions were a deliberate deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well
as those afforded under all other applicable state and federal laws, including but not limited to
56. As the Defendants’ conduct was in part due to the following of the practices,
policies and customs of LMPD/Louisville Metro Government, the Officers have been properly
sued individually and in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the city itself is also
57. As a direct and proximate result of the constitutional violations described herein
and committed by Defendant OFFICER #1 and OFFICER #2, MS. WHITE suffered physical
injury, financial loss, embarrassment, and psychological harm which has created damages in
58. Defendants are therefore liable for their conduct which resulted in MS. WHITES’s
59. The Plaintiff, SHANNYN WHITE, accordingly seeks damages including, but not
limited to, compensatory and nominal damages, legal fees, destruction of earning capacity,
11
physical and mental pain and suffering, and punitive damages from Defendants OFFICER #1 and
OFFICER #2.
Defendants OFFICER #1 and OFFICER #2, for all her damages, including costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any and all other relief this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND THE FIRST FOURTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Against Defendant METRO)
60. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every
averment, allegation and statement contained in all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
61. In order to establish a municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Plaintiff must
show that the alleged constitutional violation occurred because of a municipal custom or policy.
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). That requisite showing can be made by
demonstrating one of the following: “(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative
enactment; (2) that an official with final decision-making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the
tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations.” Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th
Cir. 2013).
62. Defendant METRO should also be held liable for MS. WHITE’s Constitutional
violations under § 1983 based on the following theories of culpability: (1) that an official with
final decision-making authority ratified illegal actions, (2) the existence of a policy of inadequate
training or supervision and (3) the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal
rights violations.
12
(1) That an official with final decision-making authority ratified illegal actions
63. First, none of LMPD’s even minimalistic policies were followed by the Defendants
or other officers during the night of the shooting of MS. WHITE. Rather, Defendant OFFICER #2
and other commanding LMPD officer ratified the illegal actions of the unnecessary and improper
use of less-lethal weapons by ordering these types of less-lethal weapons to be utilized on peaceful
protesters.
64. Further, MS. WHITE’s shooting was not an isolated occurrence that evening or
during the duration of the protests. LMPD has ratified these actions, allowing its officers to
repeatedly violate their own policies as well as established constitutional law, resulting in injuries
to numerous protesters.
65. Additionally, LMPD’s barebones SOP policies regarding the use of less-lethal
comparing LMPD’s SOP policies to other departments across the country, it is clear that the level
of guidance given to LMPD officers regarding use of these weapons is less than adequate to ensure
66. For example, Minneapolis Police Department’s policy manual lists the following
armed and or otherwise violent subjects cause handling and control problems
that requires special training and equipment. The MPD has adopted the less-
violent confrontations.” See also, Policy 5-317(V)(C), noting the launcher “can
13
be used when the incapacitation of a violent or potentially violent subject is
desired.”
b. Policy 5-317(II) defines a 40mm less-lethal round as a “[d]irect fire round used
c. Under Policy 5-317(III)(D), MPD officers are forbidden from deploying the
d. Policy 5-317(III)(B)(1) notes that “[t]he use of the 40mm less-lethal round
should be considered a level slightly higher than the use of an impact weapon
and less than deadly force when deployed to areas of the subject’s body that are
• Alternative target areas (ribcage area to waist and larger muscle areas of
shoulder).
• Head;
• Neck;
• Spinal cord;
• Groin; and
• Kidneys.
g. Policy 5-317(IV)(B)(2) states that “[o]fficers shall be aware that delivery of the
40mm impact projectiles to certain parts of the human body can cause grievous
14
injury that can lead to permanent physical or mental incapacity or possible
severe injury are the head, neck, throat, and chest” and that these areas should
67. These policies are far more detailed in giving guidance to officers than LMPD’s
policies. Such policies are indicative of an improper level of training in place within LMPD as to
68. Lastly, the failure to report, or to accurately report, the use of deadly force by
LMPD officers has also occurred repeatedly in the days of protesting. This indicates the existence
of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations. LMPD has made it clear that
they do not intend to document or track these incidents, in efforts to review or document for
compliance with LMPD and constitutional standards. Rather LMPD will continue their custom of
Metro Council, have been made aware of the actions of officers, and have not sought to take any
steps to review these uses of force or the policies of LMPD. Multiple officers, including
commanding officers Major Aubrey Gregory and Assistant Chief Joshua Judah, have testified
about the actions of LMPD on these nights and yet Metro Council has taken no steps to review
15
their constitutionality or the constitutionality of LMPD’s SOP Manual regarding these procedures,
despite many council members making public comments about their concerns.
70. The decision of Defendant METRO to promote the conduct performed by the
LMPD Officers as alleged herein were outrageous, reckless and with blatant disregard for the
rights of the public, including the Plaintiff’s rights and were of a nature which shocks the
conscience.
71. Such a failure by Defendant METRO was the moving force behind the violation of
MS. WHITE’s Constitutional rights as the practices promoted by Defendant METRO left MS.
WHITE, who was doing no wrong, scarred for life and wondering what she could have done
differently.
72. As such, Defendant METRO is liable under § 1983. Leach v. Shelby Cty. Sheriff,
891 F.2d 1241 (6th Cir. 1989). Said conduct makes Defendant METRO liable for MS. WHITE’s
damages.
METRO, for all damages, including costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff now respectfully demands this Honorable Court grant them
fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for the damages she has sustained;
16
3. Pre-judgement and post-judgement interest;
4. Her costs and expenses herein expended, including reasonable attorney fees
6. Any and all other relief to which the Plaintiff may otherwise be properly
Respectfully submitted,
17
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was sent via certified mail to the following
parties, on this the 28th day of September 2020:
Officer #1
Serve: Louisville Metro Police Department
633 W. Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Officer #2
Serve: Louisville Metro Police Department
633 W. Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
18