IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MERCER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

TRAVIS W. BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.

Honorable

THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE

POLICE, and TROOPER C.N.
WORKMAN, in his official
capacity, and MERCER COUNTY
COMMISSION,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Comes now Travis W. Barker, by and through counsel, John H. Bryan, and for his

Complaint states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. The Plaintiff, Travis W. Barker, is now, and was at all times relevant hereto,

a resident of Mercer County, West Virginia.

2. Defendant The West Virginia State Police (“WVSP”) is an agency of the

State of West Virginia tasked with the mission of statewide enforcement of criminal and

traffic laws, and at all times relevant hereto employed Trooper C.N. Workman.

3. Defendant C.N. Workman (“Trooper Workman”) was at all times relevant

hereto employed as a West Virginia State Police Trooper stationed in Mercer County,

West Virginia. Trooper Workman was at all times acting under color of authority

conferred upon him by such position and is named in this lawsuit in his official capacity

as an employee of the WVSP.

 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 2
4. Defendant Mercer County Commission (“MCC”) is a political subdivision of

the State of West Virginia, and as such, is liable for the negligent conduct of its agents

and employees, including the Sheriff, the Sheriffʼs Department, and the employees of

the Sheriffʼs Department, as well as the Prosecuting Attorney and the employees of the

Prosecuting Attorney, so long as that conduct was carried out within the scope of their

employment. See West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act,

W. Va. Code § 29-12A-1, et seq.

5. The conduct alleged herein to have been committed by employees and/or

agents of Defendant MCC are hereby alleged to have been committed by said agents

and/or employees acting in the scope of their employment and authority. The causes of

action asserted herein against Defendant MCC refer to acts performed by agents and

employees of said Defendant political subdivision, rather than the formulation and

implementation of policy related to how law enforcement and police protection are

provided.

6. All state agencies who are party defendants to this action, as well as the

Attorney General, were properly served with pre-suit notice of this action pursuant to W.

Va. Code § 55-17-3.

7. Any causes of action asserted herein against a governmental agency or

political subdivision are only seeking to recover to the extent that said entities are

covered by liability insurance and do not seek to recover State funds. It is furthermore

hereby alleged and pleaded that there exists insurance coverage for each such cause

of action alleged herein against a governmental agency or political subdivision,1 and

1 Applicable insurance coverage includes, but is not limited to, “Coverage E. Wrongful Act Liability
Insurance” under the West Virginia Comprehensive Liability Coverage Form.”

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 3
that any causes of action asserted herein against a State agency or its employees or

officials hereby asserts and alleges, that with respect to each such cause of action and

allegation herein, that said Defendants were acting within the scope of their authority

and knowingly violated clearly established law that a reasonable public agency,

employee, or official would have known, or otherwise acted maliciously, fraudulently,

oppressively, or in bad faith.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Plaintiff was at all times relevant hereto, and continues to be, actively

employed as a correctional officer employed by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“US BOP”)

and the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. D.O.J.), and also previously served in the

United States Marine Corps for numerous years.

9. Plaintiff is qualified under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

(“LEOSA”) to carry a concealed weapon in any state “notwithstanding any other

provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof.”2 As required

pursuant to LEOSA, he is (1) “an employee of a governmental agency”; (2) “authorized

by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution

of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law”; (3) who has “statutory

powers of arrest”;3 (4) is “authorized by the agency to carry a firearm”; (5) is and was

“not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency”; (6) “meets standards, if any,

established by the agency which require [Plaintiff] to regularly qualify in the use of a

firearm; and (7) is “not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm”. The U.S.

2LEOSA, H.R. 218, was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 22, 2004, and is codified
as 18 U.S. Code 926B.
3 See 18 U.S.C. § 3050 (authorizing US BOP employees to make arrests for various infractions of law).

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 4
Department of Justice has represented, and maintains, that Plaintiff is qualified under

LEOSA to carry a concealed weapon.

10. As further required for compliance with LEOSA, at no time has Plaintiff

carried a concealed weapon while under the influence of alcohol or any other

hallucinatory drug or substance, and has always carried “the photographic identification

issued by the governmental agency for which he is employed as a law enforcement

officer (US BOP / US DOJ).

11. Through his employment with the US BOP, the Plaintiff was stationed at a

federal prison in Beaver, West Virginia. There he met Michelle Workman, who is and

was at all times relevant hereto, also a federal law enforcement officer. Michelle

Workman is the husband of Defendant Trooper C.N. Workman.

12. In early 2008, the Plaintiff and Michelle Workman had a sexual encounter.

Plaintiff was not married at the time. However, Workman was married.

13. Workmanʼs husband, Trooper C.N. Workman was then stationed at the

McDowell County detachment of the WVSP.

14. Trooper Workman found out about, or otherwise suspected, that his wife

had an affair with the Plaintiff.

15. Sometime thereafter, while Plaintiff was in the sporting goods section of

the Princeton, West Virginia, Walmart, Trooper Workman called Plaintiffʼs cell phone

and threatened to kill him and demanded that they meet somewhere privately and settle

their differences using physical violence. Plaintiff, suspecting that Workman would

show up in his uniform and that he would ultimately be killed or arrested by him, replied

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 5
that if he wanted to confront him, he could do it in public at Walmart. Trooper Workman

hung up the phone.

16. Shortly thereafter, in June of 2008, while at work, Michelle Workman

warned the Plaintiff that her husband had been transferred to the Mercer County

detachment of the WVSP, and that he was going to pull him over and do something to

him. She stated to other federal officers who were with Barker that “since [my] husband

got transferred to the Mercer County detachment that he will be pulling [you] over if

[you] are seen with Travis Barker”.

17. On July 10, 2008, the Plaintiff was driving southbound on North McNutt

Avenue in Mercer County, West Virginia. Ashley D. Graham (now Barker) was a

passenger in his vehicle.

18. Defendant Trooper Workman was traveling northbound on North McNutt

Avenue.

19. Upon observing the Plaintiffʼs vehicle, Workman made a “U turn”, and

sped up behind the Plaintiff and initiated a traffic stop.

20. Workman requested the Plaintiffʼs driverʼs license, registration, and proof

of insurance, which were provided. Workman then asked if there were any weapons in

the vehicle. The Plaintiff responded in the affirmative, and replied that he had a

handgun in the center console and a hunting knife in the glovebox. Trooper Workman

then instructed Plaintiff to extract the handgun, which he immediately confiscated and

took back to his cruiser.

21. The Plaintiff then observed Workman talking on his cell phone. According

to prosecutors, Trooper Workman called the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 6
Mercer County, as well as the Sheriffʼs Department of Mercer County, to inquire whether

they agreed with his decision to confiscate the Plaintiffʼs handgun and to ultimately

arrest him for carrying a concealed weapon.

22. Trooper Workman then returned to the Plaintiffʼs vehicle and instructed the

Plaintiff to exit the vehicle, which he did.

23. Barker was then taken behind Workmanʼs cruiser and was searched and

handcuffed. Workman told Barker that he was under arrest for carrying a concealed

weapon

24. Workman then transported Barker to the Princeton detachment of the

WVSP, where he un-cuffed the Plaintiffʼs right hand, and then cuffed his left hand to a

steel anchor which was imbedded in concrete right next to a bench.

25. Workman then put two black leather gloves on both of his hands, and

began to walk towards the Plaintiff. Workman stated, “you thought I was going to let this

fucking shit go?”

26. At this time there were no other individuals present other than Workman

and Barker, and upon information and belief, the surveillance camera was inoperable,

as they often conveniently are in various WVSP detachments when situations such as

this occur.

27. Trooper Workman further stated, “your trying to tear my fucking family

apart?”

28. Trooper Workman then struck the Plaintiffʼs face and ribs with closed fists,

while screaming, “come on you fucking pussy ass marine, hit me mother fucker, Iʼll kill

you and get away with it.”

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 7
29. As this was happening, Plaintiff refused to defend himself, believing full

well that Workman would either kill him, or use his actions as justification for his use of

force. Plaintiff covered his face with his right arm.

30. Trooper Workman then beat the Plaintiff in the area of his ribs, and then

jumped on top of the bench, placing his fingers under the Plaintiffʼs neck, twisting and

pulling while stating, “whoʼs fucking my wife mother fucker?”

31. The Plaintiff then responded, “thereʼs no honor in this man, if this is what

you wanted, why didnʼt you meet me out with civilian clothes on?”

32. Trooper Workman then tried to knee Plaintiff in the face by putting his

hands on the back of his head and striking up with his knee. Plaintiff was able to

redirect the blow by covering his face.

33. Trooper Workman then began to beat the back of Plaintiffʼs head and

stomped on his groin area.

34. During this time, the Plaintiff remained handcuffed to the floor.

35. Lastly, Workman shouted, “Iʼll fucking kill you,” and he stopped beating the

Plaintiff and began to walk away. He then said, “Officer Taylor and Mercado will get

theirs.” Trooper Workman then left the room.

36. Plaintiff then evaluated his body and observed blood coming from his right

nostril. His ribs were sore, along with his left wrist, which was still cuffed to the floor.

37. Plaintiff then rubbed the blood from his nostril onto his shirt, as well as

onto the bench on which he was sitting, in order to preserve evidence that he was there,

and that he was bleeding.

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 8
38. Trooper Workman then returned, and stated, “well, what are we going to

do about this?” Suddenly, Trooper Workman looked around. Plaintiff heard another

vehicle pull into the detachment parking lot. Workman then left the room. A few

moments later Trooper A. Christian walked into the room.

39. Trooper Christian looked at the Plaintiff and asked him how he got blood

on his shirt. Plaintiff replied that Trooper Workman had hit him in the face with a closed

fist. Christian then left the room. Christian then returned and informed the Plaintiff that

“our Sergeant is coming in to speak with you.” Christian then fingerprinted the Plaintiff

and processed him.

40. Sergeant M. Crowder then walked in the room and began to take

photographs of the Plaintiff - of his head, his shirt, the blood, his wrist, and his rib area.

Plaintiff was having chest pains and difficulty breathing. EMS was called.

41. Upon arrival, EMS found the Plaintiff with heightened blood pressure and

in a condition consistent with his complaints. Plaintiff refused EMS transport to the

hospital since Sergeant Crowder offered to take Plaintiff to Princeton Hospital.

42. Trooper Christian transported the Plaintiff to Princeton Hospital. Upon

presentation to the emergency room, Plaintiff presented with injuries consistent with

having been beaten. Additionally, Dr. Afzal U. Ahmed noted that there was soft tissue

swelling to the the Plaintiffʼs wrist where he was handcuffed to the floor.

43. The Plaintiff later was forced to spend the night in Bluefield Jail before he

bonded out the next morning.

44. As soon as his family doctor opened the following Monday, the Plaintiff

presented in his office for evaluation and treatment. Plaintiffʼs family doctor found that

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 9
Plaintiff had injuries consistent with being beaten several days earlier. Specifically, he

had a golfball sized contusion on his thigh, mild swelling and bruising on his forearm, a

large fist-sized bruise on his ribs, tenderness along his cervical area, as well as cervical

strain.

45. Plaintiff was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, and assault on a

law enforcement officer (Workman claimed that Plaintiff “assumed a combative stance”

prior to using force against him). The Prosecuting Attorneyʼs office claims ignorance of

LEOSA and has yet to drop the charges against the Plaintiff.

COUNT ONE - BATTERY

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

47. Defendants intended to cause harmful and offensive contact to the

Plaintiff.

48. Defendants did cause harmful and offensive contact to the Plaintiff as

detailed above and incorporated herein.

49. Defendants conduct constitutes battery against the Plaintiff.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendantsʼ battery, the Plaintiff

suffered harm, including personal injuries, extreme emotional distress, damage to his

reputation, and economic damages for which he is entitled to recover.

COUNT TWO - AIDING AND ABETTING BATTERY

51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 10
52. Defendant MCC enabled and encouraged the WVSP and Trooper

Workman in his battery of the Plaintiff, as detailed above and incorporated herein.

53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MCCʼs conduct, the Plaintiff

suffered harm, including personal injuries, extreme emotional distress, damage to his

reputation, and economic damages for which he is entitled to recover.

COUNT THREE - NEGLIGENCE

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

55. Defendants specifically owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care. It was

reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that Plaintiff would be harmed as a result of

Defendantsʼ actions.

56. Defendants breached that duty as detailed above and incorporated herein,

and furthermore by:

a. negligently arresting the Plaintiff for carrying a concealed weapon

when he is authorized by federal law to do so;

b. negligently aiding and abetting the arrest of the Plaintiff for carrying

a concealed weapon when he is authorized by federal law to do so;

c. negligently detaining the Plaintiff against his will with no legal right

to do so;

d. negligently aiding and abetting the detaining of Plaintiff against his

will with no legal right to do so;

e. negligently committing battery against the Plaintiff with no legal right

to do so;

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 11
f. negligently aiding and abetting the commission of battery against

the Plaintiff with no legal right to do so;

g. negligently failing to comply with West Virginia and federal law and

the legal rights of the Plaintiff as described above in detail and incorporated herein.

57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendantsʼ negligence, Plaintiff

suffered harm, including personal injuries, extreme emotional distress, damage to his

reputation, and economic damages for which he is entitled to recover.

COUNT FOUR - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

59. The WVSP has the authority to formulate, implement, and administer the

policies, customs, and practices of their employees, subordinates, and agents, some of

whom are also Defendants named or described herein, which represents the official

policies, customs, and practices each Defendant named above, and subjects them to

vicarious liability based upon the employment relationship.

60. The MCC is statutorily vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its

employees pursuant to W. Va. Code § 29-12A-1, et seq.

61. The individual Defendants named and/or described herein were at all

relevant times acting within their scope of employment for the above named employer/

entity Defendants.

62. As a direct and proximate result of the above named and described

Defendantsʼ and partiesʼ actions, Plaintiff suffered harm, including personal injuries,

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 12
extreme emotional distress, damage to his reputation, and economic damages for which

he is entitled to recover.

COUNT FIVE - NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS / TORT OF OUTRAGE

63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

64. The conduct by all Defendants herein, as set forth above in detail, was so

outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to exceed all bounds of decency,

and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

65. In the alternative, Defendantsʼ negligence, as alleged above, directly and

proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional distress.

66. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff would suffer

extreme emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of their actions.

67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendantsʼ conduct, Plaintiff

suffered harm, including personal injuries, extreme emotional distress, property

damage, and economic damages, for which he is entitled to recover.

COUNT SIX - NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION

68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

69. Defendants WVSP and MCC had a duty to adequately supervise and train

the employees, agents, troopers and deputies of the Mercer County Sheriffʼs

Department and the WVSP, as well as employees of the Pocahontas County Sheriffʼs

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 13
Department to comply with LEOSA and to not commit battery, negligence, or other

crimes and/or torts against individuals in their jurisdiction.

70. The WVSP and the MCC breached this duty by failing to adequately train

and supervise their employees, agents, officers, and troopers, to not commit the said

acts, including, but not limited to the following:

a. failure to properly train and supervise troopers not to arrest or

detain federal law enforcement officers employed by the US BOP who exercise their

rights under LEOSA for carrying a concealed weapon;

b. failing to properly train WVSP troopers to call for a supervisor or

backup when dealing with individuals with whom a trooper has a personal issue or

animosity;

c. failing to properly train and supervise troopers not to engage in

personal vendettas or revenge using their employment as a WVSP trooper, by making

illegal traffic stops, arrests, or uses of force;

d. failing to properly train troopers to comply with proper use of force

policies and procedures, to wit: using physical force and excessive physical force on a

detainee who is handcuffed to the floor.

71. The WVSP was furthermore negligent in hiring Trooper Workman given

his mental health issues which were revealed during his pre-WVSP military service, and

was furthermore additionally negligent in allowing Trooper Workman to remain

employed as a trooper when they knew, or should have known, that he had mental

health issues and improper use of force issues during the course of his employment.

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 14
72. The inadequate hiring, training and supervision by the above named

Defendants directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer harm, including personal

injuries, extreme emotional distress, damage to reputation, and economic damages, for

which he is entitled to recover.

COUNT SEVEN - WRIT OF MANDAMUS

73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

74. The above named Defendants, individually and in their official capacities,

owed a legal duty to the Plaintiff, and the public in general, to properly follow all adopted

policies and procedures of their respective governmental entities.

75. Due to the Defendantsʼ failure to follow the adopted policies and

procedures of their respective governmental entities as detailed above, the Plaintiff, and

the public in general, have suffered and will continue to suffer.

76. The Defendants, individually and collectively, have deliberately and

knowingly refused to exercise their clear legal duties as prescribed by the adopted

policies and procedures of their respective governmental entities, as detailed above and

as follows:

a. arresting and authorizing the arrest of federal law enforcement

officers for carrying a concealed weapon when they are authorized pursuant to federal

law (LEOSA) to carry a concealed weapon without a state or local permit and for

otherwise failing to train officers and troopers not to arrest individuals who have not

committed an arrestable offense and for otherwise failing to train officers and troopers

not to commit violations of individuals constitutional rights;

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 15
b. failing to properly train WVSP troopers to call for a supervisor or

backup when dealing with individuals with whom a trooper has a personal issue or

animosity;

c. failing to properly train and supervise troopers not to engage in

personal vendettas or revenge using their employment as a WVSP trooper, by making

illegal traffic stops, arrests, or uses of force;

d. failing to properly train troopers to comply with proper use of force

policies and procedures, to wit: using physical force and excessive physical force on a

detainee who is handcuffed to the floor.

77. Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 53-1-1, et seq., Plaintiff requests the

Court to enter an Order compelling the Defendants, individually and collectively to

perform the following now and in the future:

e. comply with the adopted policies and procedures of their respective

governmental entities;

f. comply with LEOSA by not arresting federal correctional officers

who exercise their rights under LEOSA, and by properly training and supervising

troopers, officers, employees and deputies not to make arrests, or violate constitutional

or personal rights of federal correctional officers in violation of LEOSA;

g. comply with the proper police procedure and practice of calling for a

supervisor or backup when dealing with an individual with whom the officer has a

personal issue or animosity;

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 16
h. comply with the proper police procedure of not making illegal traffic

stops, arrests, or detainments for the purpose of furthering a personal vendatta or

animosity towards a private citizen;

i. comply with the proper police procedure and constitutional grounds

for legal “use of force” of not using physical force, or excessive physical force, against a

detainee handcuffed to the floor based merely on the statement that the individual

“assumed a combative stance” when no physical force, or less excessive physical force

was required.

COUNT EIGHT - ATTORNEY FEES

78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

79. Due to the above named Defendants, individually and in their official

capacities, deliberate and knowingly failing to comply with the adopted policies and

procedures of their respective governmental entities, Plaintiff, and the public in general,

suffer and continue to suffer.

80. Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 53-1-1, et seq., and the authority

granted the Court in State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. State Div. of

Envtl. Protection, 193 W. Va. 88, 458 S.E.2d 88 (1995), Plaintiff demands judgment of

and from the above named Defendants, individually and in their official capacities, in the

form of all attorney fees expended and accrued in prosecuting this civil action and writ

of mandamus.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the following from the Court:

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 17
1. Compensatory damages for medical expenses, personal injuries,

economic damages, damage to reputation, lost wages, loss of earning capacity and all

such other relief as this Court deems just in a fair and just amount to be determined by

a jury at trial;

2. General damages for past, present and future pain and suffering, mental

anguish, permanent injury, loss of earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life and

emotional distress, in a fair and just amount to be determined by a jury at trial;

3. Punitive damages, if it is determined that the Defendants or any one of the

Defendants were grossly negligent, reckless, and/or engaged in intentional misconduct;

4. Judgment against the WVSP and MCC in the form of an Order compelling

the Defendants to comply with the adopted policies and procedures of their respective

entities and agencies now and in the future;

5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

6. Costs and attorney fees expended in this civil action and the pending

criminal actions;

7. Any other further general or specific relief that this Court deems just and

proper.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES.

TRAVIS W. BARKER
By Counsel

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998
 Barker v. WVSP, et al.
Civil Action No. 10-C-
Page 18

John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
611 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4999
jhb@johnbryanlaw.com

JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

611 Main Street • P.O. Box 366 • Union, West Virginia 24983 • Telephone 304-772-4999 • Facsimile 304-772-4998