IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
DEMARIO N. HARRIS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT ARNOLD, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of
Rutherford County, Tennessee,
JAMES STEPHEN VANDERVEER,
in his individual and official capacity
as a Deputy Sheriff for
Rutherford County, Tennessee,
JESSICA LEIGH GREEN, in her
individual and official capacity
as a Deputy Sheriff for
Rutherford County, Tennessee,
Defendants.

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

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Civil Action No. _________

COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION.
This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 arising from an assault to Plaintiff Demario
N. Harris, Sr., (Plaintiff Harris) that occurred at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department as
a result of actions and/or inactions of the Defendants, all of whom where acting under color of state
law.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action for violation of a jail inmates rights based on
cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

2. Venue is proper in this Court since the allegations which give rise to the cause of action
occurred at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department, 940 New Salem Highway, Murfreesboro,
Tennessee 37129.

III. THE PARTIES.

3. Plaintiff Harris is an adult citizen and resident of Robertson County, Tennessee.
4. Defendant Robert Arnold (Defendant Arnold) was the Sheriff of Rutherford County,
Tennessee at the time of the events described in the Complaint. Defendant Arnold is sued in his
official capacity.
5. Defendant James Stephen Vanderveer (Defendant Vanderveer), Badge No. 301, was
employed by Rutherford County, Tennessee as a deputy and assigned to the Rutherford County
Sheriffs Department. Defendant Vanderveer is sued in his individual, and in his official capacity.
6. Defendant Jessica Leigh Green (Defendant Green), Badge No. 295, was employed by
Rutherford County, Tennessee as a deputy and assigned to the Rutherford County Sheriffs
Department. Defendant Green is sued in her individual, and in her official capacity.

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.

7. On or about December 9, 2013, Plaintiff Harris was arrested for disorderly conduct and
resisting arrest by officers of the Murfreesboro Police Department.
8. At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff Harris and taken to the Rutherford County Sheriffs
Department.
9. Plaintiff Harris was charged with the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct and a
2

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2

bond was set in the amount of $1,500.00.

10. Plaintiff Harris was also charged with resisting arrest and a bond was set in the amount
of $3,000.00.
11. After Plaintiff Harris was brought into the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department and
jail for booking, he was placed in a four-point restraint chair by correctional officers.
12. After Plaintiff Harris was placed in the four-point restraint chair, he complied with all
directives and instructions issued by correctional officers.
13. After Plaintiff Harris was placed in the four-point restraint chair, Defendant Vanderveer
sprayed a chemical agent (Freeze + P) into the eyes of Plaintiff Harris, which caused severe pain.
14. Plaintiff Harris was not resisting, aggressive, or combative at the time Defendant
Vanderveer sprayed the chemical agent into his eyes.
15. Defendant Green stood next to Plaintiff Harris while he was confined to the four-point
restraint chair, and assisted Defendant Vanderveer as he illegally administered the chemical agent
into the eyes of Plaintiff Harris.
16. After the chemical agent was sprayed in the eyes of Plaintiff Harris, Defendants
Vanderveer and Green left Plaintiff Harris confined in the four-point restraint chair for a prolonged
period of time without any opportunity to rinse the chemical agent, and causing further pain and
suffering.
17. On or about December 16, 2013, Plaintiff Harris was released from the Rutherford
County Adult Detention Center.
18. At the time of his release from the jail, Plaintiff Harris suffered from blurred vision, and
other damages and injuries to his eyes as a proximate result of the incident described herein
3

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3

involving Defendants Vanderveer and Green.

V. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES (42 U.S.C. 1983).
A. CLAIM FOR RELIEF AS TO DEFENDANTS VANDERVEER AND GREEN
19. Plaintiff Harris re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above-quoted paragraphs.
20. The actions or inactions of Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green which resulted in the
injuries to Plaintiff Harris were done under color of state law and in a manner which caused Plaintiff
Harris to suffer constitutional violations. Specifically, Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green
operated to violate Plaintiffs right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment as secured
under the Eighth Amendment, and Plaintiffs right to equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. A reasonable person would have known that these constitutional rights were clearly
established at the time of the assault by the Defendants.
21. Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green operated to violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights
as protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983.
22. The conduct of Defendant Vanderveer in administering the chemical agent into Plaintiff
Harriss eyes when he was not struggling or combative was intentional, reckless, deliberate, and/or
malicious, and was done in a total disregard and indifference for the safety of Plaintiff Harris, and
caused him to endure unnecessary pain and suffering as a proximate result of the constitutional
violations.
23. While Defendant Green may not have personally administered the chemical agent to
Plaintiff Harris, Defendant Green is individually and jointly responsible because she participated in
or assisted in the assault with Defendant Vanderveer, and any reasonable person should have known
that the conduct described herein constituted objectively unreasonable force which created an
4

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4

inevitability of serious injury, and that such was a violation of Plaintiff Harriss clearly established
constitutional rights as to the time of his injuries.
24. The amount of force used by the Defendants in this case was grossly disproportionate
to the need to apply force or maintain discipline at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department.
Plaintiff Harris was confined to a restraint chair and was of no danger to anyone such as guards,
other prisoners, or even himself. There was no emergency or compelling circumstance for the
Defendants to have assaulted Plaintiff Harris when they applied the chemical agent to his eyes.
25. The force used here was not in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
Rather, Defendants acted maliciously, sadistically, unnecessarily, unprofessionally, and wantonly
with intent or desire to cause harm and pain to Plaintiff Harris.
26. Because there was no emergency for Plaintiff Harris, the heightened standard of
excessive force against a prisoner, which requires subjective proof of malicious or sadistic intent,
does not apply. Rather, because this case involves the planned use of force, Plaintiff Harris need
establish only deliberate indifference and the Defendants were at least aware of the substantial risk
of serious harm and acted or failed to act despite that awareness.
27. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff
Harris was deprived of his civil and constitutional rights.
28. The actions of the Defendants violated Plaintiff Harriss civil rights as protected by the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.1983. Plaintiff Harris is entitled to damages for the suffering,
harm and damage caused as a proximate result of the actions of the Defendants.
B. CLAIM FOR RELIEF AS TO DEFENDANT ARNOLD.
29. Plaintiff Harris re-allege and incorporate by reference the above-quoted paragraphs.
5

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5

30. The actions and inactions of Defendant Arnold which resulted in the chemical spray
assault of Plaintiff Harris were done under color of state law, and in a manner which caused
Plaintiff Harris to suffer constitutional violations. Specifically, Defendant Arnold through his
failure to adequately train and supervise his staff operated to violate Plaintiff Harriss right to be
free from cruel or unusual punishment as secured to him under the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America, and Plaintiff Harriss right to be accorded equal
protection under the laws as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. A reasonable person would have known that these constitutional rights were
clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct, and that such conduct violated
these rights.
31. The actions and inactions of Defendant Arnold as alleged in this Complaint were
such that he was or should have been aware of the substantial risk of harm, but he acted or failed
to act despite that awareness and knowledge.
32. With respect to the failure to train, Defendant Arnold was aware that a lack of
training or inadequate training as to Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green created a substantial
risk that detainees would unnecessarily suffer serious harm, yet failed to provide adequate
training despite that awareness and knowledge.
33. Defendant Arnold was aware that the inadequate training or lack of training on the
use of force, and its progression, was likely to lead to constitutional violations.
34. Defendant Arnold was the ultimate supervisor at Rutherford County Sheriffs
Department, and had knowledge of and acquiesced in the constitutional violations committed by
his subordinates, including but not limited to Defendants Vanderveer and/or Green.
6

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6

35. There was a causal connection between Defendant Arnolds actions and inactions in
supervision and the constitutional violations afflicted on Plaintiff Harris.
36. Defendant Arnolds customs and/or policies of providing insufficient training and
oversight as to the correctional officers at the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department
constituted deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Harris.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of Defendant Arnold stated
herein, Plaintiff Harris was deprived of his civil rights.
38. The actions of Defendant Arnold violated Plaintiff Harriss civil rights as protected
by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff Harris is entitled to damages for the
suffering and harm occasioned by Defendant Arnolds wrongful conduct, as well as all losses and
damages to Plaintiff Harris.
VI. DAMAGES.
39. Plaintiff Harris re-allege and incorporate by reference the above-quoted paragraphs.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the
Defendants, Plaintiff Harris is entitled to recover damages, including reasonable attorneys fees.
The damages for which Plaintiff Harris seeks compensation from the Defendants, both jointly
and severally, include but are not limited to the following:
a.

Compensatory damages for the physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering
of Plaintiff Harris as a proximate result of the chemical spray assault.

b.

Punitive damages.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Demario N. Harris, Sr. respectfully prays that his Court enter
7

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7

judgment granting him the following:

A.

A declaration that the acts and omission described herein violated Plaintiffs rights
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

B.

Compensatory damages to Plaintiff Harris in the amount of $50,000.00 against each

of the Defendants, jointly and severally.

C.

Punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.00 against each of the Defendants as a

proximate result of their wrongs and constitutional violations against Plaintiff Harris.

D.

A jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

E.

Court costs in this action, including attorneys fees and discretionary costs.

F.

Any additional relief this court deems just, proper, and equitable.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. COOPER, P.C.
s/ David L. Cooper
DAVID L. COOPER, BPR # 11445
Third Avenue North Building
208 Third Avenue, North, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37201
(615) 256-1008
AUBREY GIVENS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
s/ Aubrey T. Givens
AUBREY T. GIVENS, BPR# 21491
501 Union Street
Suite 307
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 248-8600
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:14-cv-02304 Document 1 Filed 11/26/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8