Former Inmate Sues Corrections Officer

Case 1:23-cv-00622-KRS-KK Document 1 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
VICENTE SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRADY KEHRES,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE

DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Plaintiff Vicente Sanchez, through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for damages
caused by the violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Plaintiff brings these claims under
the Civil Rights Act, the United States Constitution, and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
In support, Plaintiff alleges the following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and 1367, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
2. Plaintiff notified Doña Ana County of his tort claims as required under the New
Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA, § 41-4-16.
3. Venue is proper as the acts complained of occurred exclusively within Doña Ana
County, New Mexico.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Vicente Sanchez is incarcerated in Clayton, New Mexico.

2. Defendant Brady Kehres was employed as a corrections officer at the Doña Ana
County Detention Center (“DACDC”) in Las Cruces, New Mexico during events material to this
complaint.
3. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant was acting under color of state
law and within the scope of his employment at DACDC.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4. Vicente Sanchez arrived at DACDC on July 8, 2020.
5. He remained incarcerated pending trial in two criminal matters for nearly two
years.
6. During this time, his criminal cases were repeatedly postponed due in large part to
COVID-19 related court closures and delays.
7. On May 5, 2022, Vicente pleaded guilty in his two pending matters.
8. On May 4, 2022, during the event central to this Complaint, Vicente was a pretrial
detainee at DACDC.
9. That evening, at 8:45 p.m., Vicente was in the shower in his housing unit.
10. Also on May 4, 2022, around 8:45 p.m., DACDC Sergeant Christian Ramirez
entered Vicente’s unit to pass shaving razors out to the inmates.
11. Sgt. Ramirez later wrote an incident report, providing his version of the events
that unfolded.
12. According to this report, he instructed all inmates in the unit to return to their
cells.
2
13. According to Sgt. Ramirez, several inmates continued to play card games and
watch television.
14. According to Sgt. Ramirez’s report, at his very last directive inmate Rafael
Rodriguez ignored him and entered the shower.
15. Vicente was not aware that Sgt. Ramirez had entered in the unit.
16. He was not aware Sgt. Ramirez had instructed inmates to return to their cells.
17. It was difficult for Vicente to hear what was going on in the unit while in the
shower with water running.
18. After a few short minutes, Sgt. Ramirez determined his directives had been
ignored and called for assistance.
19. Vicente and the other inmates presented no threat to Sgt. Ramirez, or to anyone
else.
20. Still, multiple corrections officers responded to the unit.
21. One of these officers was the Defendant, Brady Kehres.
22. Defendant was wearing a body-worn recording device.
23. Defendant was armed with a Kel-Tec shotgun.
24. This shotgun was loaded with “less-lethal” ammunition – meaning projectiles
loaded into the otherwise fully functional firearm.
25. These projectiles are expelled from the firearm by the firing of the trigger.
26. Medical research shows that these types of projectiles can cause serious injury,
disability, or death.
3
27. Upon information and belief, as a trained corrections officer at DACDC,
Defendant knew this.
28. When Defendant entered the unit, several corrections officers were standing near
or in front of the shower area.
29. A large group of inmates were already visibly secured behind a door.
30. Vicente and Mr. Rodriguez were in separate shower stalls, across from each other.
31. Both men had the curtains closed over the shower stall and the water running.
32. Both were naked.
33. Defendant knew neither Vicente nor Mr. Rodriguez were posing a threat to
anyone.
34. Defendant immediately raised his rifle upon entering the unit.
35. He shrieked at the other officers to move out of his way.
36. He moved quickly forward and screamed one time, “get out of the shower!”
37. He then immediately fired a round into the shower area.
38. Less than two seconds elapsed between Defendant’s verbal warning and the shot.
39. It would have been impossible for Vicente or Mr. Rodriguez to comply with this
instruction before the shot was fired.
40. But afterward, both Vicente and Mr. Rodriguez looked out from the shower stalls.
41. Vicente was unable to fully exit the shower without exposing himself.
42. He showed the officers his hands.
43. In one hand he held a plastic shampoo bottle and a washcloth.
44. Defendant could see that Vicente was naked, and not armed.
4
45. Vicente made no verbal threats to corrections staff.
46. He was not acting aggressively towards corrections staff.
47. Again, he posed no threat to anyone.
48. Meanwhile, Rafael Rodriguez walked out of the shower naked and attempted to
wrap a towel around his waist.
49. It was immediately clear to Defendant that Mr. Rodriguez also had no weapon
and presented no threat.
50. Defendant continued yelling at him to get down on the ground.
51. Mr. Rodriguez got down on his knees.
52. It was obvious to everyone nearby that if he were to get fully down on the ground,
he would lose his towel and be naked, lying face down on the shower floor.
53. Suddenly, Defendant changed position and pointed his Kel-Tech weapon directly
into Vicente’s shower stall.
54. Vicente continued to pose no threat to corrections officers or anyone else.
55. Defendant knew that Vicente presented no threat.
56. Defendant’s own video confirms that Vicente tried to comply with the confusing
command to expose himself to this group of officers.
57. The video shows Vicente pulled his towel from the outside hook into the shower
stall before Defendant fired at him.
58. But, before Vicente had a chance to exit the shower, Defendant maliciously fired
two shots directly at him.
5
59. These shots were designed to make contact, a wanton and reckless disregard of
Vicente’s health and safety.
60. At least one shot hit Vicente’s leg.
61. This resulted in a large, deep wound on his lower right leg.
62. Vicente began bleeding immediately.
63. Defendant had been in the unit for only thirty seconds, and already fired three
rounds directly at these two naked, unarmed men.
64. In his subsequent incident narrative, Defendant claims that Vicente and Mr.
Rodriguez acted “aggressive towards staff.”
65. Six other corrections officers witnessed and wrote narratives about the incident.
66. Not one of these officers mentioned that Vicente – or Mr. Rodriguez – acted
aggressively.
67. At no time during this entire incident did Vicente act aggressively to corrections
officers or anyone else.
68. Vicente was brought to the medical staff at DACDC.
69. He was in a great deal of pain and bleeding profusely.
70. He left behind a pool of blood in the shower area.
71. Photographs show his blood spatter throughout the hallway of the facility.
72. Defendant remained in the unit after Vicente’s departure, as officers escorted Mr.
Rodriguez to his cell past Defendant.
73. Mr. Rodriguez protested that he would have returned to his cell as soon as he
finished his shower.
6
74. Defendant responded that he and Vicente were given a chance to comply with
directives and refused.
75. This statement was captured on Defendant’s body-worn recording device.
76. This statement refutes Defendant’s subsequent written narrative, in which he
falsely contended that Vicente and Mr. Rodriguez were aggressive towards staff.
77. Defendant willfully and maliciously shot at Vicente even though Defendant knew
that neither Vicente nor Mr. Rodriguez presented a physical safety threat.
78. In fact, the video itself disproves Defendant’s fabricated claim of aggressive or
threatening behavior.
79. Because of Defendant’s malicious use of force, Vicente suffered a serious
physical injury.
80. That night, jail medical staff instructed he be transported to the Emergency
Department at the Memorial Medical Center in Las Cruces for further care.
81. Facility staff noted they removed a foreign body from the wound on Vicente’s
leg, and that the wound was deep with jagged edges.
82. Upon his return to DACDC, Vicente’s pain was a 7 out of 10.
83. He had already bled through the wrap applied at the hospital.
84. Medical staff ordered that he receive extra blankets to keep his leg elevated, an
extra towel for bleeding, and provided a high dose of over-the-counter pain medication.
85. Vicente’s mobility was severely limited for the next several months.
86. He was in a great deal of pain.
7
87. He received daily wound care through July 8, 2022, when he was released from
DACDC.
88. The wound remained open through August of 2022.
89. Vicente feels sharp pain in his leg to this day; it is hard to stand for long periods
of time and nearly impossible to kneel.
90. He has a large scar and feels a sharp pain in his leg if it is bumped.
CLAIM
COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:

EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
91. Plaintiff restates each of the preceding allegations as if fully stated herein.
92. As a pretrial detainee, Vicente had the right to be free from the objectively
unreasonable use of force.
93. Vicente presented no security threat to the officers.
94. He was completely naked and visibly unarmed.
95. He engaged in no aggressive physical conduct of any kind.
96. In fact, he engaged in no aggressive verbal conduct of any kind.
97. In other words, he did not threaten or even yell at the officers.
98. No reasonable officer would have believed that Vicente presented a physical
threat.
8
99. Knowing this, no reasonable officer would have fired multiple rounds into
Vicente’s shower stall.
100. By doing so, Defendant employed an objectively unreasonable use of force and
had no legitimate penological purpose for doing so.
101. When he shot at Vicente, Defendant knew that Vicente presented no physical
threat.
102. Still, Defendant used force willfully, with wanton and reckless disregard for
Vicente’s health and safety.
103. Defendant acted out of malice, knowing his actions were a violation of Vicente’s
constitutional rights.
104. Defendant’s conduct amounted to deliberate indifference to Vicente’s health and
safety.
105. For all these reasons, Defendant violated Vicente’s Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights.
COUNT 2: BATTERY
106. Plaintiff restates each of the preceding allegations as if fully stated herein.
107. Defendant intended to cause a harmful and offensive contact with Vicente.
108. Defendant did case a harmful and offensive contact with Vicente.
109. Vicente did not consent to this contact.
110. Defendant shot two less-lethal projective rounds from a Kel-Tech shotgun directly
at Vicente, at short range.
111. Defendant intended to hit Vicente with these rounds.
9
112. Defendant did hit Vicente with at least one of the rounds.
113. Defendant had no penological justification or purpose for this excessive use of
force.
114. Defendant acted maliciously and sadistically.
115. Because Defendant acted in a rude, insolent, and angry manner, his actions
constitute criminal battery in violation of NMSA § 30-3-4.
116. Thus, Defendant committed a battery on Vicente.
117. This battery resulted in a significant wound on Vicente’s leg, and significant,
lasting pain.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all counts so triable.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief:
1. Compensatory damages in a yet determined amount.
2. Punitive damages for Defendant’s willful and wanton conduct, in a yet
determined amount.
3. Reasonable costs and attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.
4. Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mallory Gagan

MALLORY GAGAN
Attorney for Plaintiff
NEW MEXICO PRISON & JAIL PROJECT
3800 Osuna Road NE, Ste 2
10
Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 515-0939
Mallory@nmpjp.org
11
Case 1:23-cv-00622-KRS-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
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

Vicente Sanchez Brady Kehres
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Union County of Residence of First Listed Defendant unknown
(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)
New Mexico Prison & Jail Project
! Osuna Road NE, Suite 2
3800
! Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 515-0939
Attorney of Record: Mallory Gagan
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 DEF
Plaintiff (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 ’ 5
Defendant (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) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
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 ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Protection Act
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration ’ 950 Constitutionality of
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C § 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Recovery of Damages Caused by the Deprivation of Civil Rights.
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ Undetermined CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF
RECORD /s/ Mallory Gagan
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/19) Case 1:23-cv-00622-KRS-KK Document 1-1 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 2
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) 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, 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 there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
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.
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.

Former Inmate Sues Corrections Officer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Former Inmate Sues Corrections Officer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00622-KRS-KK Document 1 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE

In support, Plaintiff alleges the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

and 1367, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA, § 41-4-16.

County, New Mexico.

1. Plaintiff Vicente Sanchez is incarcerated in Clayton, New Mexico.

law and within the scope of his employment at DACDC.

4. Vicente Sanchez arrived at DACDC on July 8, 2020.

COVID-19 related court closures and delays.

7. On May 5, 2022, Vicente pleaded guilty in his two pending matters.

entered Vicente’s unit to pass shaving razors out to the inmates.

Rodriguez ignored him and entered the shower.

shower with water running.

ignored and called for assistance.

20. Still, multiple corrections officers responded to the unit.

21. One of these officers was the Defendant, Brady Kehres.

22. Defendant was wearing a body-worn recording device.

23. Defendant was armed with a Kel-Tec shotgun.

loaded into the otherwise fully functional firearm.

27. Upon information and belief, as a trained corrections officer at DACDC,

Defendant knew this.

or in front of the shower area.

32. Both were naked.

35. He shrieked at the other officers to move out of his way.

37. He then immediately fired a round into the shower area.

instruction before the shot was fired.

42. He showed the officers his hands.

43. In one hand he held a plastic shampoo bottle and a washcloth.

45. Vicente made no verbal threats to corrections staff.

46. He was not acting aggressively towards corrections staff.

47. Again, he posed no threat to anyone.

wrap a towel around his waist.

and presented no threat.

50. Defendant continued yelling at him to get down on the ground.

51. Mr. Rodriguez got down on his knees.

into Vicente’s shower stall.

54. Vicente continued to pose no threat to corrections officers or anyone else.

55. Defendant knew that Vicente presented no threat.

command to expose himself to this group of officers.

stall before Defendant fired at him.

two shots directly at him.

Vicente’s health and safety.

60. At least one shot hit Vicente’s leg.

62. Vicente began bleeding immediately.

rounds directly at these two naked, unarmed men.

Rodriguez acted “aggressive towards staff.”

officers or anyone else.

68. Vicente was brought to the medical staff at DACDC.

69. He was in a great deal of pain and bleeding profusely.

70. He left behind a pool of blood in the shower area.

Rodriguez to his cell past Defendant.

finished his shower.

directives and refused.

75. This statement was captured on Defendant’s body-worn recording device.

76. This statement refutes Defendant’s subsequent written narrative, in which he

79. Because of Defendant’s malicious use of force, Vicente suffered a serious

86. He was in a great deal of pain.

88. The wound remained open through August of 2022.

of time and nearly impossible to kneel.

COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: