Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LONDON DIVISION

GARY D. GRANT, )
As Administrator of the )
Estate of Bradley Grant )
Plaintiff )
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
TROOPER DREW WILSON, )
In his individual capacity )
as a Kentucky State Trooper )
)
SERVE: Drew Wilson )
3319 South US 421 )
Harlan, Kentucky 40831 )
)
DETECTIVE AARON FREDERICK, )
In his individual capacity )
as a Kentucky State Trooper )
)
SERVE: Aaron Frederick )
3319 South US 421 )
Harlan, Kentucky 40831

Defendants

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1. This is a claim for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law

against Defendants stemming from the fatal shooting of Plaintiff. At the time Defendant

Frederick used deadly force; Plaintiff posed no imminent threat of harm to Defendants.

Defendant Frederick's use of force violated Plaintiff's right to be free from unreasonable seizure,

in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendants warrantless entry and search of the home he resided in violated

his Fourth Amendment rights and was the cause in fact and proximate cause of his death.

Additionally, Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to intervene to stop the violation of his Fourth
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 2 of 11 - Page ID#: 2

Amendment rights. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted negligently, recklessly or

wantonly, and within the course and scope of their employment or, in the alternative, that, they

acted intentionally, thereby violating Plaintiff's rights under Kentucky tort law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over

claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the Eastern District of

Kentucky, the judicial district in which all of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

4. Venue is also proper in the Eastern District of Kentucky pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b)(l), as it is believed that Defendants reside in the Eastern District of Kentucky.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, Gary D. Grant, as the Administrator of the Estate of Bradley Grant

("Grant"), was at all relevant times hereto, a resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Gary

Grant was appointed as Administrator on July 13, 2018, case number 18-P-00142, in the Harlan

District Court.

6. Defendant, Drew Wilson, was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a resident of

the Commonwealth of Kentucky and employed as a law enforcement officer by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, d/b/a the Kentucky State Police, and acting under color of state

law.

7. Defendant, Aaron Frederick, was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a resident

of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and employed as a law enforcement officer by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, d/b/a the Kentucky State Police, and acting under color of state

law.

2
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 3 of 11 - Page ID#: 3

FACTS

8. At the time of his death, Grant was 37 years old and the father of a minor child.

9. At all times relevant herein, Grant resided at 328 Country Estates Road, Baxter,

Kentucky.

10. On May 20, 2018, Defendants Frederick and Wilson were called out to the Harlan

Area Regional Hospital to investigate allegations of sexual abuse/criminal abuse of a child.

11. At the hospital, Defendants were advised by the child's mother that she thought

the suspect might be at one of two locations.

12. Defendant Wilson and the child's mother rode together in one vehicle, and

Defendant Frederick drove another vehicle to the first location where the suspect might be

located.

13. Defendants arrived at 328 Country Estates Road sometime in the afternoon.

14. As Defendants pulled up the long dirt road to the house, Grant was power

washing the second story porch.

15. Upon observing the vehicles approaching the house, Grant stopped power

washing and went inside.

16. The mother saw Grant and told Defendant Wilson that he was not the suspect.

17. Defendant Wilson then got out of his vehicle and told Defendant Frederick that

the person who just went inside was not the suspect.

18. Despite knowing that Grant was not the correct suspect, Defendants proceeded

after him, even though Grant had not committed a crime or had done anything wrong.

19. All Grant had done was enter the home upon seeing Defendants pull into the

driveway.

3
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 4 of 11 - Page ID#: 4

20. Despite having no permission, warrant, or exigent circumstances, Defendants

pursued after Grant into the home.

21. Upon going inside, Grant went downstairs to the workshop and locked the door.

22. Grant was hiding because he had an outstanding bench warrant for failing to

appear in court on a traffic violation.

23. Defendants had no knowledge at the time that Grant had an outstanding bench

warrant for failing to appear.

24. Upon entering, Defendants began searching. They further claim to have heard

noises coming the basement, so they went downstairs.

25. Defendant Frederick kicked open the door into the workshop and found Grant.

26. Defendant Frederick claims Grant was holding a shotgun underneath his chin and

moving erratically.

27. Defendants claim that after giving warnings for Grant to drop the shotgun, and he

refused, Defendant Frederick shot Grant multiple times in the chest, which resulted in his death.

28. Grant neither pointed the unloaded shotgun at Defendants nor threatened to harm

them in any way.

29. Defendants had no probable cause or exigent circumstances to enter the home.

30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Grant

was deprived of his enjoyment of life, endured physical pain and suffering, and suffered the

destruction of his power to labor and earn money.

4
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 5 of 11 - Page ID#: 5

COUNT I
UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS ENTRY & SEARCH UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every

averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.

32. Defendants' entry into the home where Grant resided was illegal because

Defendants did not have a warrant authorizing entry.

33. Defendants further lacked probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying

entry into the home because they were told Grant was not the individual suspected of abusing the

child.

34. Despite knowing they had no probable cause or exigent circumstances,

Defendants proceeded after Grant merely because he decided to go inside the residence upon

seeing the vehicles pull into the driveway.

35. But for Defendants' unlawful entry into the residence, Grant would never have

been killed.

36. Defendants' unlawful entry was the cause in fact and the proximate cause of

Grant's injuries.

37. Defendants' actions were in violation of Grant's Fourth Amendment rights.

38. A reasonable officer in Defendants' position would have known, or would have

been reckless in not knowing, that they were not authorized to enter into the home without a

warrant or exigent circumstances, neither of which existed.

39. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants, Grant suffered the destruction of

his power to labor and earn money, endured pain and suffering, lost his life, and incurred funeral

expenses.

5
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 6 of 11 - Page ID#: 6

COUNT II
EXCESSIVE FORCE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every

averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.

41. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant Frederick amounts to the unreasonable

and excessive use of force within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

42. The actions of Defendant Frederick were without just and legal cause, thereby

violating Grant's rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as enumerated

above, as well as his rights under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

43. The above-described acts of Defendant Frederick were not objectively reasonable

under the circumstances.

44. Defendant Frederick had no knowledge at the time of the shooting that Grant

committed any crimes or had any outstanding warrants for his arrest.

45. At the time Defendant Frederick encountered Grant, he never posed a risk to the

safety of Defendants because he never pointed the shotgun at them. Instead, the shotgun

remained underneath Grant's chin the entire time.

46. Moreover, there was no possibility Grant could have fled. He was trapped inside

the workshop, which had only one entrance.

47. As the direct and proximate result of the aforementioned actions of Defendant

Frederick, Grant suffered the destruction of his power to labor and earn money, endured pain and

suffering, lost his life, and incurred funeral expenses.

6
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 7 of 11 - Page ID#: 7

COUNT III
ASSAULT AND BATTERY

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every

averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.

49. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant Frederick towards Grant constitutes

the torts of assault and battery.

50. As detailed in above paragraphs, Defendant Frederick, without privilege or

provocation, intentionally, maliciously, wantonly and/or recklessly made numerous offensive

and/or harmful contacts with Grant.

51. By shooting Grant, Defendant Frederick intentionally, maliciously, wantonly

and/or recklessly caused Grant to experience apprehension and fright of an immediate harmful

and/or offensive contact.

52. As a result of these harmful contacts, as well as the apprehension and fright, Grant

suffered the destruction of his power to labor and earn money, endured pain and suffering, lost

his life, and incurred funeral expenses.

COUNT IV
FAILURE TO INTERVENE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every

averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.

54. In the manner described above, during the constitutional violations described

herein, Defendant Wilson stood by without intervening to prevent Defendant Frederick's

7
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 8 of 11 - Page ID#: 8

violation of Grant's constitutional rights, even though he had the opportunity to stop Defendant

Frederick from entering the house and from shooting Grant.

55. Additionally, Defendant Frederick stood by without intervening to prevent

Defendant Wilson's violation of Grant's constitutional rights, even though he had the opportunity

to stop Defendant Wilson from entering the house.

56. Any reasonable law enforcement officer in Defendants' situation would or should

have known that a substantial deprivation of Grant's constitutional rights was likely to occur,

and indeed was ongoing throughout the entire time Defendants had entered and remained in the

home without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.

57. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Grant's constitutional rights.

58. As a direct result of Defendants' failure to intervene to prevent the violation of

Grant's constitutional rights, he suffered the destruction of his power to labor and earn money,

endured pain and suffering, lost his life, and incurred funeral expenses.

COUNT V
NEGLIGENCE

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every

averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.

60. Defendants' acts and omissions were negligent, reckless or wanton, and occurred

within the scope and course of their employment.

61. The acts and omissions described above were a substantial factor in bringing

about Grant's death.

62. Defendants thus deprived Grant of rights secured by Kentucky tort law.

8
 Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 9 of 11 - Page ID#: 9

63. As a result, Grant has suffered the destruction of his power to labor and earn

money, endured pain and suffering, lost his life, and incurred funeral expenses.

COUNT VI
PUNITIVE DAMAGES

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every

averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.

65. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants was negligent, grossly negligent,

malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent, and that Grant is entitled to punitive damages from

Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

A. That the Court award compensatory damages to Plaintiff and against the

Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. That the Court award punitive damages to Plaintiff in an amount, to be

determined at trial that will deter such conduct by Defendants in the

future;

C. For a trial by jury;

D. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and recovery of their costs,

including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for all

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1920; and

E. For any and all other relief to which they may be entitled.

9
Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 10 of 11 - Page ID#: 10

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David N. Ward___________________

DAVID N. WARD
ADAMS LANDENWICH & WALTON, PLLC
517 West Ormsby Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky 40203
(502) 561-0085
david@justiceky.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

10
Case: 6:19-cv-00165-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/15/19 Page: 11 of 11 - Page ID#: 11