Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JA Complaint Filed
JA Complaint Filed
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
injunctive relief arising from the January 22, 2019, wrongful killing of Jimmy
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants City of Atlanta,
Atlanta Police Officer Sung Kim (“Kim” or “Defendant Kim”), Atlanta Police
Agent Matthew Winn (“Winn” or “Defendant Winn”), and Officers John Doe
INTRODUCTION
Officer Sung Kim shot an unarmed Jimmy Atchison in the face at close range
to the FBI Atlanta Metro Major Offender Task Force (“AMMO Task Force”),
Atlanta apartment of his infant son and the child’s mother rather than
execute an existing state warrant at Mr. Atchison’s own home. To obtain the
the Atlanta native was likely to attempt to flee across state lines, an
3. The fact that the APD Defendants were even in a position to act in a
-2-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 3 of 54
federal capacity that day was the result of the City of Atlanta’s willingness to
loan officers to federal task forces even though APD knew the FBI did not
4. After first forcibly entering the apartment of Mr. Atchison’s infant son
and the child’s mother without a search warrant, Defendant Kim and other
pursuit also violated Defendants’ own policies, which required that they call
decisions by each Defendant to value federal money and free weapons over
“results” over the rights of Atlanta citizens, and to value lawlessness over
honoring the letter and spirit of the Constitution that they are sworn to
uphold.
-3-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 4 of 54
apartments in violation of the law and their own policies, and Defendant
Kim’s discharge of his weapon into Mr. Atchison’s face in violation of the
should have been taken in alive. Both the APD and FBI have avoided taking
responsibility for the killing and Plaintiffs have spent nearly two years
pursuing justice both for Mr. Atchison’s young family and for the people of
Atlanta.
7. Plaintiffs will demonstrate that but for Defendants’ actions, two small
children would still have their father, two parents would still have their son,
and an entire community would not have yet another deadly example of why
8. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the
applied to the State of Georgia and its entities, officials, and employees;
under federal common law; and under Georgia statutes and common law.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction,
-4-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 5 of 54
under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the state-law claims because they are part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
10. Plaintiffs timely submitted the required ante litem notice in compliance
provides that officers working for the AMMO Task Force may be certified as
PARTIES
behalf of his two minor children: S.M., his four-year-old daughter, and J.J.,
his now 31-month-old son. Plaintiff Bates is domiciled in this district, and her
-5-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 6 of 54
and customs were designed to exert control over the actions of its law
officials. The acts, edicts, and practices of those persons, including permitting
designed to ensure public safety, represent the official customs, policies, and
Trinity Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Service may be made upon its mayor
or her designee.
15. Defendant Sung Kim, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, was a
police officer employed by APD and acting under color of state law. By virtue
of his assignment with the AMMO Task Force, Defendant Kim was also
acting within the scope of his employment with the United States and
16. Defendant Kelly Lambert, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, was a
police officer employed by the APD and acting under color of state law. By
virtue of his assignment with the AMMO Task Force, Defendant Lambert
-6-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 7 of 54
was also acting within the scope of his employment with the United States
was a police officer employed by APD and acting under color of state law. By
virtue of his assignment with the AMMO Task Force, Defendant Malstrom
was also acting within the scope of his employment with the United States
18. Defendant Mark Gardner, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, was
a police officer employed by APD and under color of state law. By virtue of his
assignment with the AMMO Task Force, Defendant Gardner was also acting
within the scope of his employment with the United States and thereby
District of Georgia.
19. Defendant Scott Priestly, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, was a
police officer employed by APD and under color of state law. By virtue of his
assignment with the AMMO Task Force, Defendant Priestly was also acting
within the scope of his employment with the United States and thereby
-7-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 8 of 54
District of Georgia.
20. Defendant Matthew Winn, at all times relevant to this action, was a
special agent for the FBI and a member of the AMMO Task Force, acting
within the scope of his employment with the United States and thereby
District of Georgia.
21. Defendants John Doe #1–5 were members of the AMMO Task Force
Atchison’s death. John Does #1–5 include those yet-unknown officers who
FACTS
loaned several of its officers, including Defendant Kim, to the AMMO Task
Force.
23. The agreement in effect between APD and the FBI provided (a) that
the laws, regulations, policies (including use of force policies), and personnel
rules applicable to APD officers and (b) that APD officers would report to
-8-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 9 of 54
24. Once on the task force, Defendant Kim and other Defendant officers
who they suspected of stealing a cellphone at gunpoint and who was already
25. Despite the federal AMMO Task Force finding no evidence of any
intent to flee the jurisdiction, Defendant Kim and other Defendant officers
(“UFAP Warrant”) from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia; the UFAP Warrant alleged Mr. Atchison was an interstate flight
26. On January 22, 2019, heavily armed Defendant Kim and other
-9-
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 10 of 54
Kim and the other Defendant officers ultimately found Mr. Atchison in a
shot Mr. Atchison in the face with a hollow-point bullet that entered just
29. In the aftermath of Mr. Atchison’s death, both the FBI and APD
force, which ended this young father’s life, violated either agency’s internal
policies. Under public pressure, APD eventually withdrew from the FBI task
complete abdication of enforcing its own policies when its officers serve on
federal task forces and the FBI’s decades-long history of finding almost no
31. Through this game of legal “whack-a-mole,” both the FBI and APD
have avoided responsibility for their actions in Mr. Atchison’s death for
- 10 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 11 of 54
discover who will own the deadly mistakes. Meanwhile, the Atchison
children are left not only to grow up without a father but also with the
understanding that his life did not matter to those purported public servants
an FBI task force that prohibited body cameras, had Defendant Kim and
other officers not obtained an unjustified fugitive warrant, had they not
entered the first apartment without a search warrant, had they followed
their own policies and called SWAT rather than enter a second apartment, or
had Kim not discharged his firearm into the face of an unarmed man who
33. Federal money has been used to subsidize state and local law
agencies in various anti-crime task forces. The first beneficiary of this federal
aid was New York City’s police department, which teamed up with federal
- 11 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 12 of 54
34. The Nixon Administration continued to use these grants in the early
joint task forces. These task forces were staffed with a combination of state,
federal, and local law enforcement officers. President Nixon envisioned these
task forces as “strike forces” that could kick down doors and “terrify”
35. Use of federal joint task forces has proliferated rapidly since the 1980s.
Between 2003 and 2006, for example, the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”);
the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”); the FBI; and the
task forces in 256 cities. Of these 210 task forces, the FBI alone operated 160.
From 2003 to 2005, these violent-crime federal task forces made a combined
97,228 arrests.
36. Currently, in Atlanta, Georgia, at least six federal task forces are
operating: (1) the ATF Violent Crime Impact Team, (2) the DEA Mobile
Enforcement Team, (3) the FBI Safe Streets Task Force, (4) the USMS
Regional Fugitive Task Force, (5) the USMS Southeast Regional Fugitive
- 12 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 13 of 54
37. Federal joint task forces are partnerships between federal and state or
federal and local law enforcement agencies. The federal government largely
provides money and weaponry, and state and local law enforcement agencies
operating these task forces, the state and local officers who serve on them are
result, they are operating under color of both state and federal law.
39. Federal task forces are typically created and formalized by written
state or local agency. These agreements set forth, among other things, how
the task force will operate; how members will be supervised; how information
will be shared among the participating federal, state, and local agencies; and
words, state and local agencies abdicate their duty to enforce their own
policies against their own officers when those officers serve on federal task
- 13 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 14 of 54
forces.
41. However, in the case of the FBI, “for at least two decades no agent has
between 1993 and early 2011, FBI agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and
wounded about 80 others; all shootings were deemed justified by the FBI,
42. So, with the abdication of policy enforcement by state and local law
enforcement agencies, on the one hand and the FBI’s decades-long pattern of
no-man’s-land, neither the FBI nor APD enforces the local agency’s policies
against officers who are also deputized federal task-force members or the
FBI’s own use of deadly force policies. According to Fulton County District
Attorney Paul L. Howard, Jr., the result is that federal task forces have
“become virtual James Bonds in our society,” operating with little to no real
- 14 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 15 of 54
oversight.3
The APD requirement of body cameras and their nonuse by the AMMO
Task Force
43. APD has adopted a categorical policy that all sworn employees—the
rank of sergeant and lower—are required to wear and use a body camera
during the course of their job duties. Among the times officers’ body cameras
“shall” be in recording mode are during “[a]ll calls for service on or off duty”;
“[w]hile interacting with the public in a law enforcement capacity”; and “for
[a]ny use of force by an employee which does not result in a physical arrest,”
44. Defendant Atlanta’s adoption of body cameras was in part because the
City knew that requiring body cameras would reduce both excessive use of
example, when the Atlanta City Council voted to fund body cameras for all
APD officers, evidence available at the time indicated that when officers
3 ‘Virtual James Bonds’: What Happens When Local Cops Become Federal
Agents and Kill, Vice.com, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywa4kx/virtual-
james-bonds-what-happens-when-local-cops-become-federal-agents-and-kill
- 15 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 16 of 54
45. Despite this APD policy and the agreement between the FBI and APD
regulations, policies, and personnel rules, the AMMO Task Force forbade the
use of body cameras.5 Accordingly, while working for the AMMO Task
APD officers did not use their body cameras, which was in clear
46. Furthermore, the FBI/AMMO Task Force “no filming” policy was no
secret. Therefore, before Mr. Atchison’s death, APD supervisors knew that its
officers were not wearing mandatory body cameras while on duty with federal
task forces. At any point before Mr. Atchison’s death, APD could have
withdrawn Defendant officers from the AMMO Task Force rather than
compromise public safety, but it did not. Instead, APD continually ignored
4 Georgia Public Policy Foundation, Atlanta Police Force on Track to Get Body
Cameras, https://www.georgiapolicy.org/issue/atlanta-police-force-track-get-body-
cameras/ (last accessed June 27, 2020).
5 Federal Task Forces Ban Body Cameras, So Atlanta Police Pull Out. Others
May Follow, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-
law/2019/06/14/federal-task-forces-ban-body-cameras-so-atlanta-police-pull-out-
others-may-follow/
- 16 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 17 of 54
designed to discourage (or at least record) the very conduct that ended in
47. As a direct result, neither the FBI nor APD has a recording
corroborating witness statements (a) that Mr. Atchison was unarmed, (b)
that Mr. Atchison was trying to comply with conflicting officer orders to both
“not move” and “show your hands,” or (c) that Defendant Kim shot and killed
48. Before January 22, 2019, and at all times relevant, Defendant City of
Atlanta and its police department participated in a joint venture with the
50. Although APD had made no attempt to arrest Mr. Atchison on the state
6 Had Mr. Atchison been tried, eyewitness testimony would have been
introduced disputing the allegations by the original witness and challenging
whether Mr. Atchison had even committed the crime in question. While one witness
contended Mr. Atchison had brandished a firearm and stolen a purse, another
witness said Mr. Atchison did not have a weapon, that he never stole a purse, and
that the entire incident was the result of a miscommunication in which Mr.
- 17 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 18 of 54
determine whether the Atlanta native Mr. Atchison posed an interstate flight
risk.
Warrant was necessary for the FBI and AMMO Task Force to assume federal
52. There was no evidence that Mr. Atchison was a risk to flee the state.
misrepresented the flight risk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
Defendants, met to review the plan for serving the arrest warrants on Mr.
Atchison wandered off while holding someone else’s cell phone. (See Witness Comes
Forward Saying Jimmy Atchison Never Committed Armed Robbery,
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/witness-comes-forward-saying-jimmy-
atchison-never-committed-armed-robbery/85-d4d1a2e2-6a89-4469-b15f-
1aa18afd74f4)
- 18 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 19 of 54
not across state lines—that was the home not of Mr. Atchison but of his 11-
55. Upon information and belief, the following Atlanta police officers
assigned to the AMMO Task Force participated in the arrest of Mr. Atchison
at the Allen Hills Apartments, several of whom had disciplinary histories for
56. Upon information and belief, the following FBI agents assigned to the
AMMO Task Force participated in the arrest of Mr. Atchison at the Allen
Hills Apartments:
- 19 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 20 of 54
57. While attempting to execute the UFAP Warrant and without a search
warrant, one or more of the APD officers—along with other members of the
58. In fact, Mr. Atchison, who did not live with Plaintiff James, had arrived
that morning at Ms. James’s residence to provide childcare for her children,
59. However, Defendants knew before obtaining the UFAP Warrant (a)
belonged to Plaintiff James and not to Mr. Atchison; (b) that Mr. Atchison did
not live in the apartment and had no leasehold or other property or privacy
interest in it; and (c) that small children were likely in residence there,
60. Knowing all this, Defendants chose not to obtain a search warrant or
Plaintiff James’s consent before forcibly entering her apartment that day.
Mr. Atchison escaped through a window and fled on foot, running partially
clothed and clearly unarmed through the apartment complex with Defendant
officers in pursuit.
- 20 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 21 of 54
63. Defendants soon learned that Mr. Atchison was hiding in the
complex.
FBI policy and APD’s standard operating procedures, one or more of the
warrant.
65. Shortly after entering Ms. Pless’s apartment, Defendants learned Mr.
conflictinly, that Mr. Atchison “not move” but show his hands and surrender.
67. As Mr. Atchison did as he was told, raising his obviously empty hands
discharging his handgun shooting Mr. Atchison directly in his face and
killing him.
either premise.
- 21 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 22 of 54
In fact, at every point during his encounter with Defendants, Mr. Atchison
Defendants.
70. At the time of the shooting, Mr. Atchison was attempting to surrender
empty hands.
71. At the time of the shooting and at no time before Defendant Kim fatally
shot Mr. Atchison in the face did Defendant Kim or any other Defendant
72. No other officers present in the bedroom besides Defendant Kim fired
their weapon. The only weapon recovered from the apartment where Mr.
Both the FBI and APD avoid investigating Defendant Kim’s use of
deadly force
73. Upon information and belief, the FBI assumed jurisdiction over the
74. Upon information and belief, the FBI did not evaluate or address
Defendant Kim’s use of deadly force against Mr. Atchison, declaring instead
that Defendant Kim was operating under the Atlanta Police Department
- 22 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 23 of 54
APD policy, because, as he explained, the “FBI was handling all reports at
the time.”
76. Upon information and belief, for more than nine months, neither the
FBI nor APD further investigated the slaying of Mr. Atchison, and APD did
not label its tardy investigation complete until more than one year after Mr.
Atchison’s death.
77. Despite calling the investigation “complete” after one year, APD’s
from the force under threat of termination before APD concluded its untimely
78. APD did, however, cite the other Defendant officers for several
violations of policy during the raid leading to Mr. Atchison’s death, including
the failure to obtain a search warrant for Ms. Pless’s apartment, the failure
to file the required use of force report, the failure to engage SWAT, and their
- 23 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 24 of 54
Defendant Kim’s use of force, the FBI found that the task force had
80. Upon information and belief, the AMMO Task Force, including
Defendants, knew Mr. Atchison was no interstate flight risk even though
they had represented the opposite to the U.S. District Court to obtain the
81. Defendant Kim did not have any information Mr. Atchison planned to
flee the Atlanta area and believed he would be found at a local address,
82. Knowing they had misrepresented the flight risk to the court, the
83. Upon information and belief, the FBI also concluded that Defendants
7 Defendant Kelly Lambert, the APD Sergeant in charge of the fugitive officers,
was officially reprimanded by APD for threatening to jail residents who refused to
“consent” to the task force officers searching their apartments.
- 24 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 25 of 54
and the AMMO Task Force should never have entered the apartment where
Mr. Atchison was killed. Instead, Defendants should have stood down and
84. Before Mr. Atchison’s death, Defendant City of Atlanta was aware that,
despite its unequivocal body-camera policy, its officers were not wearing body
policies forbid any federal officers from filming any operation for any reason.
85. Citing the killing of Mr. Atchison and the federal prohibition against
body cameras, Atlanta withdrew its police officers from all federal task forces
86. The City of Atlanta was also aware that several officers who were
assigned to the AMMO Task Force and who participated in the raid that
ended in the killing of Mr. Atchison had a history of using excessive force
against citizens.
87. Sgt. Kelly Lambert. Upon information and belief, Sgt. Kelly Lambert
was the ranking APD officer on scene at the killing of Mr. Atchison. Lambert
- 25 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 26 of 54
Lambert and other officers alleging excessive force. Both a female and
male alleged that on October 3, 2009, Sgt. Kelly Lambert and the
stop. The male, who was a retired firefighter, also claimed that after
informing one of the officers about his firearm being loaded, the officer
replied, “I’m not a fucking firefighter, I’m a fucking cop and you’re
handcuffs were applied too tightly and that her finger was injured due
to how the officers twisted her wrist. She also said when officers told
her to get out of the vehicle and walk, “They didn’t give a damn how
she got home because they were about to get off work.” Furthermore,
she claims that when she told the officers her cuffs were too tight, they
told her “to shut the fuck up and that he didn’t give a damn.”
Lambert and other officers alleging excessive force. A male alleged that
on January 13, 2009, Sgt. Kelly Lambert and other officers used
and the others held him down while they pepper-sprayed him, pulled
- 26 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 27 of 54
his hair, beat him with batons, and repeatedly tased him with a stun
gun.
• On July 14, 2008, APD received a complaint against Sgt. Kelly Lambert
and others alleging excessive force. A male stated that on July 2, 2008,
Sgt. Kelly Lambert and another officer used unnecessary force during
his arrest by tightening his handcuffs, striking him in his left eye,
throwing him to the ground, and pulling his arm forcefully after being
eye, saying, “I don’t give a damn,” then threw the eyeglasses in the
woods.
traffic stop by slapping him on the head, pushing his head into his
truck box in the bed of his truck, and forcefully pulling his pants up
88. Officer Alan Abercrombie. Upon information and belief, Officer Alan
- 27 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 28 of 54
clothes. The officers pushed him out of his moving vehicle, causing
better get into the car before I beat you into the car,” and repeatedly
said, “I should kill you nigger.” He complained that the officers used
8 Gregg Junnier was one of the APD officers convicted of killing Kathryn
Johnston on November 21, 2006. Ms. Johnston, a 92-year-old woman, was killed by
Junnier and other undercover police officers in her home on Neal Street in
northwest Atlanta. Three officers had entered her home in what was later described
as a “botched” drug raid. Officers cut off burglar bars and broke down her door
using a no-knock warrant. Police said Johnston fired at them, and they fired in
response; she fired one shot out the door over the officers’ heads, and they fired 39
shots, five or six of which hit her. None of the officers were injured by her gunfire,
but the officers killed Johnston.
One of the officers planted marijuana in Johnston’s house after the shooting.
In circumstances not dissimilar to those under which the AMMO Task Force
obtained the UFAP Warrant, later investigations found the paperwork stating that
drugs were present at Johnston’s house, which had been the basis for the raid, had
been falsified. The officers later admitted to having lied when they submitted
cocaine as evidence, claiming they had bought it at Johnston’s house. Junnier was
one of three officers tried for manslaughter and other charges surrounding
falsification of evidence and was sentenced to six years in prison.
- 28 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 29 of 54
the face, tightening his flex cuffs after he told them the cuffs were
too tight, placing their foot on his head and “twisting it as if he was
him facedown.
89. Officer Mark Gardner. Upon information and belief, Officer Mark
• On May 30, 2020, Officer Mark Gardner and other Atlanta officers used
and Spelman. The students had recently picked up food when they
students’ car, broke the windows, yanked out the female student, and
repeatedly tased the male student. The next day, the mayor announced
well as the other officers involved, was later criminally charged by the
- 29 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 30 of 54
remains pending.
Marshals, APD officers, and other local agents shot Robinson 59 times
killed. Task force members knew Robinson had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia and had not been taking his medication. When the team
broke down the door and entered, firing submachine guns and pistols.
9 Six Atlanta Police Officers Are Being Charged After Allegedly Using Excessive
Force at Protest, CNN.com., https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/us/atlanta-police-
charged-protest/index.html
- 30 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 31 of 54
him multiple times in the head with a handgun during his arrest,
resulting in his scalp being split open in three places and his ear being
2003, Gardner used excessive force by striking him in the face with a
90. Officer Mark Cooper. Upon information and belief, Officer Mark Cooper
- 31 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 32 of 54
his back, and proceeding to drag him. After being restrained, the
citizen claims that Cooper punched him across his left jaw. He also
claims that right before this incident began Cooper told him, “Keep
that on June 8, 2003, Cooper grabbed her by the arm and dragged
91. Officer Sung Kim. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kim had the
• In 2013, Officer Sung Kim and Officer Darline Scott, both members
the viewing.
Defendant Kim kept firing despite pleas from his fellow officer, who
- 32 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 33 of 54
ricocheting bullets.
CLAIMS
Claim 1
FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANT KIM, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, FOR
EXCESSIVE FORCE
93. The force used by Defendant Kim against Mr. Atchison was
94. Plaintiff Atchison had a right under the Fourth and Fourteenth
95. Defendant Kim was acting under color of state law and under the
policies of APD when he employed deadly force upon Mr. Atchison. Among
those facts establishing that Defendant Kim was acting under color of state
(a) he was an employee of APD, which paid his salary, provided his
(b) he was bound by APD’s use of force policy when he shot and
- 33 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 34 of 54
use of force because his actions were governed under APD’s policy
(e) the agreement in effect between the FBI and APD provided that
96. Defendant Kim unreasonably used deadly force against Mr. Atchison
surrender and comply with the officers’ commands to “show his hands”
policy, fired his city-issued firearm, fatally striking Mr. Atchison in the face.
- 34 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 35 of 54
100. Mr. Atchison’s right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force
was clearly established by state and federal law at the time of the events
102. Defendant Kim acted under color of law and under official policy,
customs, and/or usage as an employee and agent of the City of Atlanta and
APD.
103. Defendant Kim deprived Mr. Atchison of rights and privileges secured
to not be deprived of his life and liberty without due process of law, and
freedom from the use of excessive and illegal force against his person under
104. Defendant Kim acted under color of law with malice, deliberate
105. Plaintiff claims damages for the injuries caused by Defendant Kim as
- 35 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 36 of 54
Mr. Atchison’s subsequent injuries, the Estate of Mr. Atchison and his heirs
are entitled to recover from Defendant Kim the full value of Mr. Atchison’s
life and all damages permissible under law. Defendant Kim is also liable for
attorney’s fees, costs, witness fees, and any additional legal or equitable relief
Claim 2
applies to the federal government and its actors, guarantees the right of all
- 36 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 37 of 54
The use of excessive force during an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.
112. The same facts set out in Claim 1, which establish a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 if Defendant Kim was acting under color of state law,
alternatively set forth a claim under Bivens if Defendant Kim was acting
Claim 3
114. Upon information and belief, the AMMO Task Force would routinely
obtain UFAP Warrants without probable cause to believe that suspects were
115. At the time Defendants obtained a UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison,
Defendant Kim and, upon information and belief, other members of the
AMMO Task Force knew Mr. Atchison was not an interstate flight risk.
10 Officers assigned to the AMMO Task Force obtained overtime, and the APD
received federal financial assistance for its participation on the task force. Task
force operations allowed federal agents and its law enforcement partners to “hunt”
so-called fugitives, mostly in urban neighborhoods and without crossing any state
lines.
- 37 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 38 of 54
116. At the time they obtained a UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison,
Defendant Kim and, upon information and belief, other members of the
AMMO Task Force did not have any other credible information within their
knowledge that would have led a reasonable officer to believe Mr. Atchison
117. At the time they obtained a UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison,
Defendant Kim and, upon information and belief, other members of the
118. Upon information and belief, one or more Defendants submitted to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia a UFAP Warrant
application for Mr. Atchison and an affidavit of probable cause, both of which
119. Upon information and belief, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia issued a UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison on the basis of
cause.
UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison, the FBI, through the AMMO Task Force,
assisted Defendant Kim and the other APD officers in executing Mr.
- 38 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 39 of 54
Warrant for Mr. Atchison, AMMO Task Force’s operation to arrest Mr.
Atchison on January 22, 2019, would not have occurred, and Defendant Kim
violations of Mr. Atchison’s rights and his subsequent injuries, the Estate of
Mr. Atchison and his heirs are entitled to recover from Defendants the full
value of Mr. Atchison’s life and all damages permissible under federal law.
Claim 4
125. If this Court were to conclude the individual Defendants did not act
under color of state law when they seized Mr. Atchison because they were
Defendants were necessarily acting under color of federal law. Under that
- 39 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 40 of 54
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
to the federal government and its actors, guarantees the right of all people to
be secure in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure. The use
Amendment.
127. The same facts set forth in Claim 3, which establish a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 if the individual Defendants were acting under color of state
law, alternatively set forth a claim under Bivens if this Court were to
conclude the individual Defendants were acting under color of federal law,
Claim 5
129. Defendant City of Atlanta exercised control over APD and was
- 40 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 41 of 54
130. Defendant City of Atlanta was responsible for implementing the rules,
officers.
131. The City of Atlanta was aware that its police officers, including its
AMMO Task Force officers, engaged in a custom, policy, pattern, and practice
of the following:
132. The City of Atlanta knew, or should have known through the diligent
exercise of its duties and use of reasonable care, that the policies and
- 41 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 42 of 54
133. The City of Atlanta had a custom, policy, pattern, procedure, and
police officers adhered to APD’s policies, including its body-camera and use of
deadly force policies while participating in federal task force operations. The
direct result is that Defendant Kim predictably and flagrantly violated both
APD’s body-camera and use of deadly force policies, fatally shooting Mr.
134. The City of Atlanta knew, or would have known had it diligently
exercised its official duties and used reasonable care, that the use of excessive
force was both a prevalent and pervasive problem within its police
employees while they were detailed to federal task forces—including, but not
- 42 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 43 of 54
duty.
136. The City of Atlanta was deliberately indifferent to the public’s rights in
well as other officers on the AMMO Task Force, posed a threat to the public
as a result of their propensity to use illegal and excessive force and their
137. The City of Atlanta, through its deliberate indifference, failed to ensure
its police officers did not violate citizens’ constitutional and statutory rights,
including those of Mr. Atchison, while the officers were acting under color of
state law.
138. The City of Atlanta acted with deliberate indifference and reckless,
139. Despite the notice and knowledge the City of Atlanta had concerning
- 43 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 44 of 54
the dangerous propensities of the AMMO Task Force officers, the City of
failed to protect the public, including Mr. Atchison and Plaintiff James.
140. The City of Atlanta either knew or should have known that its officers
routinely failed to wear body cameras while working for federal task forces.
The City of Atlanta’s routine acquiescence to its officers violating the City’s
own policy on body cameras while working for a federal task force constitutes
while they are working for a federal task force and evinces deliberate
141. Upon information and belief, the City of Atlanta, through APD, had a
policy and practice of allowing its officers to seek UFAP Warrants through
the AMMO Task Force when its officers did not have sufficient basis for
143. Upon information and belief, these warrants would be sought without
- 44 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 45 of 54
regard to whether there was a factual basis to believe the subject was a risk
of interstate flight.
144. These warrants were unlawfully obtained because they were obtained
without probable cause and without evidence that the subjects were a risk of
interstate flight.
145. The City of Atlanta permitted this policy and practice to improperly
avail itself of the benefits of task force membership with the FBI, including
such benefits as receiving federal money for officer overtime and access to
146. The City of Atlanta had a pattern and practice of allowing its AMMO
threat and coercion, under the guise of “looking for fugitives,” without proper
and his subsequent injuries, the Estate of Mr. Atchison and his heirs are
entitled to recover from the City of Atlanta the full value of Mr. Atchison’s
- 45 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 46 of 54
trial.
Claim 6
before fatally shooting him in the face, Defendant Kim placed Mr. Atchison in
153. As a result of Defendant Kim’s assault upon Mr. Atchison and Mr.
Atchison’s subsequent injuries, the Estate of Mr. Atchison and his heirs are
general, and other damages permissible under state law, including punitive
- 46 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 47 of 54
Claim 7
155. Defendant Kim’s act of shooting Mr. Atchison in the face was
with the knowledge that Mr. Atchison would be seriously injured or killed.
156. Defendant Kim’s act of shooting Mr. Atchison in the face was
committed with conscious disregard for the risk that Mr. Atchison would be
157. By shooting Mr. Atchison in the face, Defendant Kim caused Mr.
158. Defendant Kim’s killing of Mr. Atchison was willful, wanton, malicious,
159. As a result of Defendant Kim’s battery upon Mr. Atchison and Mr.
Atchison’s subsequent injuries, the Estate of Mr. Atchison and his heirs are
general, and other damages permissible under state law, including punitive
- 47 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 48 of 54
Claim 8
161. Defendant Kim’s act of shooting Mr. Atchison in the face was
with the knowledge that Mr. Atchison would be seriously injured or killed.
162. Defendant Kim’s act of shooting Mr. Atchison in the face was
committed with conscious disregard for the risk that Mr. Atchison would be
Atchison’s Estate and minor children have lost the full value of Mr.
and other intangible benefits Mr. Atchison would have provided had this
- 48 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 49 of 54
Atchison suffered severe physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish in the
167. Defendant Kim’s killing of Mr. Atchison was willful, wanton, malicious,
Mr. Atchison’s subsequent injuries, the Estate of Mr. Atchison and his heirs
are entitled to recover from Defendants the full value of Mr. Atchison’s life
Claim 9
to the state and its actors through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees
171. At all relevant times, each of the individual Defendants was acting
- 49 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 50 of 54
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment for the purpose of
apartment.
warrant.
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that they did
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment without her consent to do
so.
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that they did
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that Mr.
- 50 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 51 of 54
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that she had a
John Doe #1–5 kicked in the door of Plaintiff James’s apartment without a
warrant and while her two small children were present inside.
and Officers John Doe #1–5 into Plaintiff James’s apartment without a
search warrant and without Plaintiff James’s consent was willful, malicious,
Claim 10
184. If this Court were to conclude that the individual Defendants did not
act under color of state law when they entered Plaintiff James’s apartment
- 51 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 52 of 54
because they were participating in an AMMO Task Force operation, then the
that circumstance, Plaintiff James may bring her constitutional claims under
to the federal government and its actors, guarantees the right of all people to
186. The same facts set out in Claim 9, which establish a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 if the individual Defendants were acting under color of state
law, alternatively set out a claim under Bivens if this Court were to conclude
the individual Defendants were acting under color of federal law, are
- 52 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 53 of 54
(c) The Atchison Estate be awarded all medical, doctor, funeral, and
(d) The Atchison Estate be awarded from Defendants all damages for
(e) The Atchison Estate recover any and all damages allowed by law,
- 53 -
Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 54 of 54
(h) Plaintiffs have such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Tanya F. Miller
Tanya F. Miller (GA Bar No. 508434)
DuBose Miller LLC
75 14th NE, Suite 2110
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 720-8111
Fax: 404-921-9557
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
- 54 -