JA Complaint Filed

Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 1 of 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
BRENDA BATES, as Representative of

the Estate of JIMMY ATCHISON and
on behalf of his minor children; and CIVIL ACTION
LAKEISHA JAMES, FILE NO. _________
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF ATLANTA, COMPLAINT WITH JURY

SUNG KIM, KELLY LAMBERT, MARK DEMAND
GARDNER, CHRISTIAN MALSTROM,
SCOTT PRIESTLY, MATTHEW WINN,
and OFFICERS JOHN DOE #1–5,
Defendants.
This is a civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United
States Constitution, and Georgia law. It is an action for damages and
injunctive relief arising from the January 22, 2019, wrongful killing of Jimmy
Atchison—an unarmed, young African American man.
Plaintiffs Brenda Bates and Lakeisha James respectfully file this
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants City of Atlanta,
Atlanta Police Officer Sung Kim (“Kim” or “Defendant Kim”), Atlanta Police
Officer Kelly Lambert (“Lambert” or “Defendant Lambert”), Atlanta Police

Officer Mark Gardner (“Gardner” or “Defendant Gardner”), Atlanta Police
Officer Christian Malstrom (“Malstrom” or “Defendant Malstrom”), Atlanta
Police Officer Scott Priestly (“Priestly” or “Defendant Priestly”), FBI Special
Agent Matthew Winn (“Winn” or “Defendant Winn”), and Officers John Doe
#1–5. Plaintiffs allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. At 7:30 a.m. on a cold Tuesday morning in January 2019, as
neighborhood children headed for school, Atlanta Police Department (“APD”)
Officer Sung Kim shot an unarmed Jimmy Atchison in the face at close range
while attempting to execute an illegally obtained federal warrant. Kim’s shot
killed the 21-year-old father of two.
2. Defendant Kim and other Defendant APD officers, recently deputized
to the FBI Atlanta Metro Major Offender Task Force (“AMMO Task Force”),
had decided to execute a federal fugitive warrant on Mr. Atchison in the
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
fugitive warrant, Defendants misrepresented to the U.S. District Court that
the Atlanta native was likely to attempt to flee across state lines, an
allegation that was later found to be unsupported by evidence.
3. The fact that the APD Defendants were even in a position to act in a
-2-
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
allow officers’ use of body cameras, in direct contravention of APD’s own
body-camera requirements. In exchange for the loan of officers, including
Defendants, APD received federal funding and other things of value.
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
Defendant officers pursued Mr. Atchison as he fled on foot to a closet in a
neighboring apartment and threatened complex tenants with arrest if they
refused to permit Defendants’ immediate, warrantless entry. The entire
pursuit also violated Defendants’ own policies, which required that they call
SWAT instead of act alone.
5. None of these violations were unwitting, though. Instead, each
violation of laws, regulations, or rules represented a series of conscious
decisions by each Defendant to value federal money and free weapons over
police restraint, to value expediency over truthfulness to the court, to value
“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.
6. And so, on this particular cold morning in January, APD’s participation
-3-
in the federal task force, Defendants’ misrepresentation of evidence to obtain
the federal warrant, Defendants’ coerced or forcible entry into a series of
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
Fourth Amendment resulted in the summary execution of a young man who
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
APD cannot be trusted to protect and serve.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as
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-
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
with all local and state laws.
11. The Memorandum of Understanding between the FBI and APD
provides that officers working for the AMMO Task Force may be certified as
having acted within the scope of federal employment at the time of an
incident giving rise to suit. As a result, if no cause of action exists under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, then Plaintiffs would nonetheless be able to pursue their
constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff Brenda Bates (“Plaintiff Bates”) is the personal
representative of Mr. Atchison’s Estate and is authorized to bring claims on
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
law office is at 700 Churchill Court in Woodstock, Georgia.
13. Plaintiff Lakeisha James (“Plaintiff James”) is the mother of Mr.
Atchison’s son and is domiciled in this district in Atlanta, Georgia.
14. Defendant City of Atlanta is a municipal governmental entity legally
-5-
competent to sue and be sued. Defendant City of Atlanta’s policies, practices,
and customs were designed to exert control over the actions of its law
enforcement agency, the Atlanta Police Department.
Defendant City of Atlanta acted through various APD employees and
officials. The acts, edicts, and practices of those persons, including permitting
officers to participate in a federal task force that circumvented policies
designed to ensure public safety, represent the official customs, policies, and
practices of Defendant City of Atlanta. Defendant City of Atlanta is subject to
this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendant City of Atlanta maintains its office at 55
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
thereby under color of federal law. Defendant Kim is domiciled in the
Northern District of Georgia.
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-
was also acting within the scope of his employment with the United States
and thereby under color of federal law. Defendant Lambert is domiciled in
the Northern District of Georgia.
17. Defendant Christian Malstrom, 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 Malstrom
was also acting within the scope of his employment with the United States
and thereby under color of federal law. Defendant Malstrom is domiciled in
the Northern District of Georgia.
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
under color of federal law. Defendant Gardner is domiciled in the Northern
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
under color of federal law. Defendant Priestly is domiciled in the Northern
-7-
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
under color of federal law. Defendant Winn is domiciled in the Northern
21. Defendants John Doe #1–5 were members of the AMMO Task Force
involved in the arrest conducted on January 22, 2019, leading to Mr.
Atchison’s death. John Does #1–5 include those yet-unknown officers who
entered Plaintiff James’s apartment without a search warrant. They also
include any yet-unknown officers who participated in obtaining arrest
warrants for Mr. Atchison without probable cause.
FACTS
22. In or about January 2019, the City of Atlanta’s Police Department
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
APD officers participating on the AMMO Task Force would be governed by
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-
APD for all administrative matters. Nonetheless, participation in the task
force resulted in those officers’ violation of Atlanta’s unequivocal policy
requiring them to wear body cameras, which the FBI forbade.
24. Once on the task force, Defendant Kim and other Defendant officers
opened a preliminary inter-state flight risk investigation into Mr. Atchison,
who they suspected of stealing a cellphone at gunpoint and who was already
the subject of a state arrest warrant authorizing his apprehension at his
Atlanta home address.
25. Despite the federal AMMO Task Force finding no evidence of any
intent to flee the jurisdiction, Defendant Kim and other Defendant officers
obtained a new, federal Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution warrant
(“UFAP Warrant”) from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia; the UFAP Warrant alleged Mr. Atchison was an interstate flight
risk in order to manufacture federal jurisdiction over his arrest.
26. On January 22, 2019, heavily armed Defendant Kim and other
Defendant officers, while attempting to execute the federal UFAP Warrant,
forcibly entered, without a search warrant, the Atlanta apartment of Plaintiff
Lakeisha James, the mother of Mr. Atchison’s then 11-month-old son.
27. In a search carried out by Defendants, who threatened apartment
occupants with arrest to gain illegal entry to their apartments, Defendant
-9-
Kim and the other Defendant officers ultimately found Mr. Atchison in a
neighboring apartment, hiding in a closet.
28. As he obeyed officers’ commands to show his hands, Defendant Kim
shot Mr. Atchison in the face with a hollow-point bullet that entered just
below his eye and killed him.
29. In the aftermath of Mr. Atchison’s death, both the FBI and APD
avoided making a determination of whether Defendant Kim’s fatal shooting
of Mr. Atchison violated their respective use of force policies—each deferring
to the other’s “sole authority to investigate”—leaving the Atchison family and
the Atlanta community at a loss to understand whether Kim’s use of deadly
force, which ended this young father’s life, violated either agency’s internal
policies. Under public pressure, APD eventually withdrew from the FBI task
force, and Defendant Kim resigned from the APD.
30. In Atlanta, a persistent void of accountability exists between the APD’s
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
violations of its own use of force policies.
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
nearly two years, compelling his family to undertake this litigation to
- 10 -
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
responsible for his death.
32. Had anything happened differently—had APD refused to participate in
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
was surrendering—Jimmy Atchison would still be alive. But he is not. This
lawsuit is the result.
A brief history of federal task forces
33. Federal money has been used to subsidize state and local law
enforcement since the 1960s, when former President Lyndon B. Johnson
declared a national “war on crime.” As part of this “war on crime,” Congress
authorized grants to local police departments participating with federal
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
narcotics officers to track down and arrest suspected drug dealers.
- 11 -
34. The Nixon Administration continued to use these grants in the early
1970s in its “war on drugs,” including organizing the first multi-jurisdictional
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”
suspected drug dealers without having to overcome hurdles such as the
Fourth Amendment or the separation of powers.
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
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) operated 210 violent-crime
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
Task Force, and (6) the AMMO Task Force.
- 12 -
How federal task forces operate
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
provide most of the personnel.
38. When engaged with various federal agencies in organizing and
operating these task forces, the state and local officers who serve on them are
deputized as federal agents and sworn as federal task force officers. As a
result, they are operating under color of both state and federal law.
39. Federal task forces are typically created and formalized by written
agreements between the organizing federal agency and the participating
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
the applicable standards for investigation and prosecution.
40. Because the agreements require local agents to be deputized as federal
agents, state and local agencies routinely defer to federal agencies to
investigate any wrongdoing occurring during task-force operations. In other
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 -
forces.
41. However, in the case of the FBI, “for at least two decades no agent has
been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone.”1 Indeed,
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,
according to interviews and internal FBI records.2 In most of the shootings,
the FBI’s internal investigation was the only official inquiry.
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
weak or nonexistent disciplinary action against agents deliberately shooting
people on the other hand, an enforcement vacuum exists. In this regulatory
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
1 The F.B.I. Deemed Agents Faultless in 150 Shootings, N.Y. TIMES,

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-
faultless.html
2 See id.
- 14 -
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”;
for “Vehicle and Foot Pursuits”; during “[e]xecution of a search warrant”;
“[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,”
such as breaching a door.
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
force by police officers and citizen complaints against those officers.
Whenever there is a complaint or death, videos recorded by body cameras can
be reviewed to understand what actually occurred during the event. For
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 -
began using body cameras in California, use of force by police dropped 59
percent, and citizen complaints against officers fell by 87 percent.4
45. Despite this APD policy and the agreement between the FBI and APD
providing that APD officers would continue to be governed by APD
regulations, policies, and personnel rules, the AMMO Task Force forbade the
use of body cameras.5 Accordingly, while working for the AMMO Task
Force—which included executing the warrants on Mr. Atchison—Defendant
APD officers did not use their body cameras, which was in clear
contravention of APD’s categorical requirement that they do so: a
requirement intended to increase the prospects of constitutional policing.
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 -
officer violations of its body-camera requirements that were specifically
designed to discourage (or at least record) the very conduct that ended in
Defendant Kim shooting Mr. Atchison.
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
Mr. Atchison without provocation.
The shooting of Jimmy Atchison
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
FBI as part of the FBI’s AMMO Task Force.
49. On January 7, 2019, APD obtained an arrest warrant for Jimmy
Atchison for the alleged offense of armed robbery.
50. Although APD had made no attempt to arrest Mr. Atchison on the state
-law warrant,6 the FBI Atlanta field office opened an investigation to
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 -
determine whether the Atlanta native Mr. Atchison posed an interstate flight
risk.
51. Evidence supporting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 would have been
required to permit the FBI to obtain a federal UFAP Warrant. A UFAP
Warrant was necessary for the FBI and AMMO Task Force to assume federal
jurisdiction in the execution of a state-issued arrest warrant for an alleged
state-law violation, like Mr. Atchison’s.
52. There was no evidence that Mr. Atchison was a risk to flee the state.
Nevertheless, AMMO Task Force members—including Defendants Kim,
Lambert, Malstrom, Gardner, Priestly, John Does #1–5, and Winn
(“Defendants”) along with other APD officers and FBI agents—
misrepresented the flight risk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia and obtained a UFAP Warrant anyway.
53. On January 22, 2019, AMMO Task Force officers, including
Defendants, met to review the plan for serving the arrest warrants on Mr.
Atchison. The arrest warrants were to be served at the Allen Hills
Apartments located at 3086 Middleton Rd., NW, Atlanta, Georgia—a location
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 -
not across state lines—that was the home not of Mr. Atchison but of his 11-
month-old son and his son’s mother, Plaintiff James.
54. Defendant Kim was responsible for investigating Mr. Atchison,
obtaining his arrest warrant, and organizing the warrant’s execution.
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
using excessive force:
• Ofc. Sung Kim

• Ofc. Mark Gardner
• Ofc. Christian Malstrom
• Ofc. Scott Priestly
• Ofc. Alan Abercrombie
• Ofc. Mark Cooper
• Ofc. Aurelio Feliberty
• Sgt. Kelly Lambert
• Ofc. Mason Mercure
• Ofc. Darline Scott
• Ofc. Tim Turner
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:
• Special Agent Matt Winn

• Special Agent Paul Costa
- 19 -
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
AMMO Task Force—broke down the front door of Plaintiff James’s
apartment, where Mr. Atchison was present.
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,
including his 11-month-old son, while Ms. James worked.
59. However, Defendants knew before obtaining the UFAP Warrant (a)
that the apartment they intended to serve, without a search warrant,
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,
including Mr. Atchison’s own infant son.
60. Knowing all this, Defendants chose not to obtain a search warrant or
Plaintiff James’s consent before forcibly entering her apartment that day.
61. As Defendants broke through the door to Plaintiff James’s residence,
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.
62. Throughout their pursuit of Mr. Atchison, it was clear to Defendants
- 20 -
that he was unarmed.
63. Defendants soon learned that Mr. Atchison was hiding in the
apartment of Ms. Tameka Pless (“Ms. Pless”), another resident in the
complex.
64. Instead of seeking the intervention of the SWAT team as required by
FBI policy and APD’s standard operating procedures, one or more of the
Defendants entered Ms. Pless’s apartment, yet again, with no search
warrant.
65. Shortly after entering Ms. Pless’s apartment, Defendants learned Mr.
Atchison was hiding in a bedroom closet.
66. Defendant Kim and other Defendants demanded simultaneously and
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
in the air, Defendant Kim responded by unconstitutionally and unlawfully
discharging his handgun shooting Mr. Atchison directly in his face and
killing him.
68. No Defendant, including Defendant Kim, ever saw Mr. Atchison
possessing a firearm or a weapon of any kind, and no weapons were found at
either premise.
69. Mr. Atchison never engaged in any threatening or aggressive behavior.
- 21 -
In fact, at every point during his encounter with Defendants, Mr. Atchison
only demonstrated his desire to avoid engaging the heavily armed
Defendants.
70. At the time of the shooting, Mr. Atchison was attempting to surrender
to Defendants and to comply with their commands by raising his obviously
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
reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of others.
72. No other officers present in the bedroom besides Defendant Kim fired
their weapon. The only weapon recovered from the apartment where Mr.
Atchison was killed belonged to Defendant Kim.
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
shooting and conducted an investigation.
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
Deadly Force Policy.
- 22 -
75. Nevertheless, Sgt. Kelly Lambert—the APD Sergeant in charge of the
fugitive officers on scene, an active participant in the raid under
investigation, and an officer with a history of excessive force complaints
against him—declined to complete an APD use of force report, in violation of
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
investigation was never actually completed. Because Defendant Kim resigned
from the force under threat of termination before APD concluded its untimely
investigation, APD declined to make any finding regarding Defendant Kim’s
deadly use of force in killing Mr. Atchison.
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 -
intimidation of the apartment complex’s residents to obtain “consent” to
search their apartments.7
The FBI finds multiple flaws in the operation leading to Jimmy

Atchison’s death
79. Although neither agency made any determinations concerning
Defendant Kim’s use of force, the FBI found that the task force had
insufficient evidence to support the UFAP warrant.
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
unlawful UFAP Warrant.
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,
which, in fact, he was.
82. Knowing they had misrepresented the flight risk to the court, the
AMMO Task Force should never have assumed federal jurisdiction in
executing a state-issued arrest warrant.
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 -
and the AMMO Task Force should never have entered the apartment where
Mr. Atchison was killed. Instead, Defendants should have stood down and
sought the assistance of SWAT hostage negotiators.
APD withdraws from federal task forces
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
cameras while deputized by federal task forces because well-known FBI
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
in or around June 2019.
AMMO Task Force officers’ history of excessive force against

citizens
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
had the following citizen complaint history:
- 25 -
• On October 7, 2009, APD received a complaint against Sgt. Kelly
Lambert and other officers alleging excessive force. Both a female and
male alleged that on October 3, 2009, Sgt. Kelly Lambert and the
others were discourteous and used unnecessary force during a traffic
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
starting to piss me off.” In addition, the female claimed that her
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.”
• On January 21, 2009, APD received a complaint against Sgt. Kelly
Lambert and other officers alleging excessive force. A male alleged that
on January 13, 2009, Sgt. Kelly Lambert and other officers used
unnecessary force during his arrest. He claimed Sgt. Kelly Lambert
and the others held him down while they pepper-sprayed him, pulled
- 26 -
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
informed that he had a preexisting injury. He claims that while he was
attempting to put on his eyeglasses, Sgt. Lambert struck him in the
eye, saying, “I don’t give a damn,” then threw the eyeglasses in the
woods.
• On January 3, 2006, APD received a complaint against Sgt. Kelly
Lambert alleging use of force violations. A male citizen stated that on
January 3, 2006, Officer K. Lambert used unnecessary force during a
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
against his crotch.
88. Officer Alan Abercrombie. Upon information and belief, Officer Alan
Abercrombie had the following citizen complaint history:
• On April 22, 2002, APD received a complaint against Officers Alan
- 27 -
Abercrombie and Gregg Junnier8 alleging maltreatment and
unnecessary force. A male complained that during a traffic stop
based on suspected sale of marijuana, Abercrombie and Junnier
approached his car from an unmarked vehicle and while in plain
clothes. The officers pushed him out of his moving vehicle, causing
his arm to be caught in the door and him to be dragged by the
vehicle. During the encounter, the officers repeatedly called him
“nigger.” According to the citizen, the officers said, “Nigger, you
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
unnecessary, excessive force by spraying him with pepper spray in
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 -
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
putting out a cigarette,” kicking and punching him, and dragging
him facedown.
89. Officer Mark Gardner. Upon information and belief, Officer Mark
Gardner has the following citizen complaint history:
• On May 30, 2020, Officer Mark Gardner and other Atlanta officers used
excessive force on two Atlanta college students who attend Morehouse
and Spelman. The students had recently picked up food when they
were caught in traffic during the first weekend of Atlanta protests
against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in
Minneapolis. Before the incident, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms had
implemented a curfew beginning at 9 p.m. The cops rushed the
students’ car, broke the windows, yanked out the female student, and
repeatedly tased the male student. The next day, the mayor announced
that Officer Gardner and another officer would be fired. Gardner, as
well as the other officers involved, was later criminally charged by the
Fulton County District Attorney with aggravated assault, simple
- 29 -
battery, and criminal damage to property.9 Gardner’s criminal case
remains pending.
• On August 5, 2016, Officer Mark Gardner and other officers assigned to
the USMS Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force in Atlanta fatally
shot and killed 26-year-old college student Jamarion Robinson.
Gardner and other members of a federal task force comprising U.S.
Marshals, APD officers, and other local agents shot Robinson 59 times
in his girlfriend’s apartment. The task force was serving an arrest
warrant on Robinson, who was accused of shooting at local police
officers several weeks earlier. Robinson, who studied biology and
played football at Clark Atlanta University, had been in the process of
transferring to Tuskegee University in Alabama shortly before he was
killed. Task force members knew Robinson had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia and had not been taking his medication. When the team
knocked on his girlfriend’s door and Robinson failed to answer, they
broke down the door and entered, firing submachine guns and pistols.
Although the DOJ quickly cleared the officers of any wrongdoing,
Fulton County District Attorney Paul L. Howard, Jr., announced his
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 -
intention to prosecute the officers involved in the shooting.
• On May 20, 2015, APD received a complaint against Officer Mark
Gardner alleging violations of unnecessary force. A male citizen alleged
that on March 31, 2015, Gardner used unnecessary force by striking
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
lacerated. The citizen reported that after pistol-whipping him, Gardner
cleaned the blood off the revolver in front of him.
• On July 6, 2006, APD received a complaint against Officer Mark
Gardner alleging excessive force. A male alleged that on July 1, 2006,
Gardner used unnecessary force by kicking and striking him in the
head with a two-way radio.
• On May 7, 2003, APD received a complaint against Officer Mark A.
Gardner alleging unnecessary force. A male alleged that on May 7,
2003, Gardner used excessive force by striking him in the face with a
gun, causing injuries to his mouth.
90. Officer Mark Cooper. Upon information and belief, Officer Mark Cooper
had the following citizen complaint history:
• On April 14, 2006, APD received a complaint against Officer Mark
Cooper alleging excessive force. A male alleged that Cooper used
- 31 -
unnecessary force by pushing him to the ground, placing his knee on
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
walking or I will knock your fucking teeth out.”
• On June 12, 2003, APD received a complaint against Officer Mark
Cooper and another officer alleging excessive force. A female alleged
that on June 8, 2003, Cooper grabbed her by the arm and dragged
her down a flight of stairs while screaming and yelling at her.
91. Officer Sung Kim. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kim had the
following citizen complaint history:
• In 2013, Officer Sung Kim and Officer Darline Scott, both members
of the AMMO Task Force, entered a funeral home to apprehend a
suspect who was there to attend his mother’s viewing. Neither
Defendant Kim nor Scott announced themselves as law enforcement
officers, but they brandished their weapons at bystanders attending
the viewing.
• In 1999, while executing a search warrant for illegal narcotics,
Defendant Kim shot his firearm eight times at an approaching dog.
Defendant Kim kept firing despite pleas from his fellow officer, who
- 32 -
was being struck by bits of shrapnel from Defendant Kim’s
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
92. Plaintiffs reallege the previous allegations.
93. The force used by Defendant Kim against Mr. Atchison was
unreasonable and excessive.
94. Plaintiff Atchison had a right under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from the use of
excessive and unreasonable force in the course of an arrest.
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
law are the following:
(a) he was an employee of APD, which paid his salary, provided his
benefits, and contributed to his retirement;
(b) he was bound by APD’s use of force policy when he shot and
killed Mr. Atchison;
- 33 -
(c) the FBI disclaimed any obligation to investigate Defendant Kim’s
use of force because his actions were governed under APD’s policy
and not the FBI’s policy;
(d) APD, not the FBI, accepted responsibility for disciplining
Defendant Kim for his use of force; and
(e) the agreement in effect between the FBI and APD provided that
APD officers participating on the AMMO Task Force would be
governed by the laws, regulations, policies (including use of force
policies), and personnel rules applicable to APD officers, and that
APD officers would report to APD for all administrative matters.
96. Defendant Kim unreasonably used deadly force against Mr. Atchison
by killing him when he was unarmed and not an imminent threat to
Defendant Kim or anyone else.
97. Mr. Atchison, unarmed and presenting no threat, attempted to
surrender and comply with the officers’ commands to “show his hands”
during his arrest.
98. Defendant Kim, unconstitutionally, unlawfully, and in violation of APD
policy, fired his city-issued firearm, fatally striking Mr. Atchison in the face.
99. Under the circumstances established in the preceding allegations, it
was patently unreasonable and unconstitutional for Defendant Kim to seize
- 34 -
Mr. Atchison by fatally shooting him in the face.
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
giving rise to this Complaint.
101. A reasonable law enforcement officer would have known that
Defendant Kim’s conduct violated Mr. Atchison’s right to be free from
unreasonable and excessive force.
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 him by the United States Constitution, including the constitutional rights
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
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
104. Defendant Kim acted under color of law with malice, deliberate
indifference, wantonness, and recklessness, and Defendant Kim acted with
callous and gross disregard for Mr. Atchison’s rights.
105. Plaintiff claims damages for the injuries caused by Defendant Kim as
allowed under federal and state law.
- 35 -
106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Kim’s violations of Mr.
Atchison’s rights, Mr. Atchison suffered physical, emotional, and
psychological injury and died.
107. As a result of Defendant Kim’s violations of Mr. Atchison’s rights and
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
that this Court deems appropriate.
108. The above-described actions were deliberate and committed in reckless
disregard for Mr. Atchison’s constitutional rights, warranting an award of
punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Claim 2
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER BIVENS AGAINST

DEFENDANT KIM, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE
110. Defendant Kim was participating in an AMMO Task Force operation,
thus acting under color of state and federal law.
111. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which
applies to the federal government and its actors, guarantees the right of all
- 36 -
people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure.
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
under color of federal law, are therefore incorporated herein.
Claim 3

§ 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANT KIM AND JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, FOR FALSELY OBTAINING THE UFAP WARRANT
114. Upon information and belief, the AMMO Task Force would routinely
obtain UFAP Warrants without probable cause to believe that suspects were
interstate flight risks for the purpose of improperly invoking federal
jurisdiction in state-level cases.10
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 -
116. At the time they obtained a UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison,
AMMO Task Force did not have any other credible information within their
knowledge that would have led a reasonable officer to believe Mr. Atchison
was an interstate flight risk.
117. At the time they obtained a UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison,
AMMO Task Force lacked probable cause to support a UFAP Warrant
against Mr. Atchison.
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
contained false allegations of material fact in support of the application.
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
Defendants’ materially false warrant application and affidavit of probable
cause.
120. As a direct result of the unsupported, unjustified and illegally-obtained
UFAP Warrant for Mr. Atchison, the FBI, through the AMMO Task Force,
assisted Defendant Kim and the other APD officers in executing Mr.
- 38 -
Atchison’s state-level arrest warrant.
121. But for the unsupported, unjustified and illegally-obtained UFAP
Warrant for Mr. Atchison, AMMO Task Force’s operation to arrest Mr.
Atchison on January 22, 2019, would not have occurred, and Defendant Kim
would not have fatally shot Mr. Atchison in the face.
122. As a result of Defendant Kim and the other individual Defendants’
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.
123. The above-described actions were deliberate and in reckless disregard
of Mr. Atchison’s constitutional rights, warranting an award of punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Claim 4
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS UNDER BIVENS AGAINST DEFENDANT

KIM AND JOHN DOES OFFICERS, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, FOR
FALSELY OBTAINING THE UFAP WARRANT
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
participating in an AMMO Task Force operation, then the individual
Defendants were necessarily acting under color of federal law. Under that
- 39 -
circumstance, Plaintiffs may bring their constitutional claims under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
126. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable
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
of excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop violates the Fourth
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,
are therefore incorporated herein.
Claim 5

§ 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA
129. Defendant City of Atlanta exercised control over APD and was
responsible for setting APD’s policies, procedures, and customs, including
those officers participating in the AMMO Task Force through express
agreement with the FBI.
- 40 -
130. Defendant City of Atlanta was responsible for implementing the rules,
regulations, policies, and procedures regarding training, screening, hiring,
supervising, controlling, disciplining, assigning, and terminating police
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:
(a) using excessive force against Atlanta citizens;
(b) actively violating the City’s own unequivocal body-camera policy,
thus making citizen complaints about officer misconduct and use
of excessive force difficult to prove and allowing the police
department to routinely “unsubstantiate” citizen complaints
about excessive force; and
(c) encouraging its AMMO Task Force officers to routinely and
falsely invoke federal jurisdiction on purely state matters by
illegally obtaining UFAP Warrants so the City could avail itself
of the benefits, including financial benefits, of a partnership with
the FBI at the expense of the citizens of the City of Atlanta.
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 -
procedures of its police department—including its screening, hiring, training,
supervision, and disciplinary processes; processes for work assignments; and
termination processes—were severely deficient, as evident from citizen
complaints made about its police officers, including complaints about
excessive use of force by AMMO Task Force officers.
133. The City of Atlanta had a custom, policy, pattern, procedure, and
practice of not exercising sufficient supervision and oversight to ensure its
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.
Atchison in the face without record or accountability.
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
department and among its AMMO Task Force members.
135. The City of Atlanta was deliberately indifferent in that it either
explicitly or implicitly acknowledged and assented to the failure to train,
supervise, control, discipline, or otherwise screen its police department
employees while they were detailed to federal task forces—including, but not
- 42 -
limited to, Defendants Kim, Lambert, Gardner, Malstrom, and Priestly—for
dangerous propensities, insufficient training or skill, failure to abide by
established department protocols such as body-camera usage or use of
excessive force, or other characteristics making Defendant officers unfit for
duty.
136. The City of Atlanta was deliberately indifferent to the public’s rights in
that it failed to determine whether police officers, including Defendants as
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
failure to abide by established department protocols, such as the requirement
that they wear body cameras.
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,
wanton, and callous disregard for the rights of persons—including Mr.
Atchison—who might be assaulted, injured, battered, or killed by police who
have been inadequately trained, supervised, and disciplined.
139. Despite the notice and knowledge the City of Atlanta had concerning
- 43 -
the dangerous propensities of the AMMO Task Force officers, the City of
Atlanta failed to implement any policies, procedures, or programs to properly
train or discipline officers—including Defendants—or otherwise intentionally
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
a policy or practice of exempting officers from the City’s body-camera policy
while they are working for a federal task force and evinces deliberate
indifference to citizens’ safety and to the proper adjudication and vindication
of constitutional rights violations perpetrated by its officers.
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
concluding the subjects of those warrants were interstate flight risks.
142. Defendant Kim was interviewed by APD representatives and admitted
that he would routinely obtain UFAP Warrants on state-law cases to invoke
federal jurisdiction, as he did in Mr. Atchison’s case.
143. Upon information and belief, these warrants would be sought without
- 44 -
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
other things of value from the federal government.
146. The City of Atlanta had a pattern and practice of allowing its AMMO
Task Force officers to routinely enter the homes of citizens unlawfully by
threat and coercion, under the guise of “looking for fugitives,” without proper
search warrants and without justification for doing so.
147. As a direct and proximate result of the City of Atlanta’s violations of
Mr. Atchison’s rights, he suffered physical, emotional, and psychological
injury and died.
148. As a result of the City of Atlanta’s violations of Mr. Atchison’s rights
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
life and all damages permissible under law.
- 45 -
149. As a result of the City of Atlanta’s violations of Plaintiff James’s rights,
Plaintiff James suffered damage to her property, emotional distress, mental
anguish, stress, inconvenience, and other damages to be proven at the time of
trial.
Claim 6
COMMON-LAW ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT KIM
151. By intentionally pointing his city-issued firearm at Mr. Atchison just
before fatally shooting him in the face, Defendant Kim placed Mr. Atchison in
fear of imminent bodily harm.
152. Defendant Kim’s conduct of placing Mr. Atchison in fear of imminent
bodily harm was willful, wanton, malicious, outrageous, and in reckless
disregard of Mr. Atchison’s rights.
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
entitled to recover all compensatory, special, economic, consequential,
general, and other damages permissible under state law, including punitive
damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
- 46 -
Claim 7
COMMON-LAW BATTERY BY DEFENDANT KIM
155. Defendant Kim’s act of shooting Mr. Atchison in the face was
committed with the purpose of seriously injuring or killing Mr. Atchison or
with the knowledge that Mr. Atchison would be seriously injured or killed.
committed with conscious disregard for the risk that Mr. Atchison would be
seriously injured or killed.
157. By shooting Mr. Atchison in the face, Defendant Kim caused Mr.
Atchison to suffer offensive bodily contact and death.
158. Defendant Kim’s killing of Mr. Atchison was willful, wanton, malicious,
outrageous, and in reckless disregard for Mr. Atchison’s rights.
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
entitled to recover all compensatory, special, economic, consequential,
general, and other damages permissible under state law, including punitive
damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury.
- 47 -
Claim 8
WRONGFUL DEATH AGAINST DEFENDANT KIM, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL

CAPACITY, UNDER O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2
committed with the purpose of seriously injuring or killing Mr. Atchison or
with the knowledge that Mr. Atchison would be seriously injured or killed.
committed with conscious disregard for the risk that Mr. Atchison would be
seriously injured or killed.
163. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Kim’s conduct, Mr.
Atchison was killed.
Atchison’s Estate and minor children have lost the full value of Mr.
Atchison’s life, including loss of his financial support, companionship, care,
and other intangible benefits Mr. Atchison would have provided had this
incident not occurred.
Atchison’s Estate has incurred medical expenses related to Mr. Atchison’s
injuries, burial and funeral expenses, and other pecuniary losses.
- 48 -
Atchison suffered severe physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish in the
moments before his death.
167. Defendant Kim’s killing of Mr. Atchison was willful, wanton, malicious,
outrageous, and in reckless disregard for Mr. Atchison’s rights.
168. As a result of Defendant Kim’s violations of Mr. Atchison’s rights and
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
and all damages permissible under Georgia law.
Claim 9

§ 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, GARDNER, MALSTROM, PRIESTLY,
WINN, AND JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, BY
PLAINTIFF JAMES
to the state and its actors through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees
the right of all people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable
search and seizure.
171. At all relevant times, each of the individual Defendants was acting
under color of state law.
172. Defendants Lambert, Malstrom, Winn, Gardner, Priestly, and Officers
- 49 -
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment for the purpose of
searching for and seizing Mr. Atchison.
173. Plaintiff James had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her
apartment.
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment without a search
warrant.
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that they did
not have a search warrant.
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
not have her consent to do so.
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that Mr.
Atchison did not have a privacy interest therein.
- 50 -
John Doe #1–5 entered Plaintiff James’s apartment knowing that she had a
privacy interest therein.
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.
181. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ warrantless,
nonconsensual, and illegal entry into Plaintiff James’s apartment, Plaintiff
James suffered damage to her property, emotional distress, mental anguish,
stress, inconvenience, and other damages to be proven at the time of trial.
182. The entry of Defendants Lambert, Malstrom, Winn, Gardner, Priestly,
and Officers John Doe #1–5 into Plaintiff James’s apartment without a
search warrant and without Plaintiff James’s consent was willful, malicious,
outrageous, and committed in reckless disregard for her statutory and
constitutional rights, warranting an award of punitive damages.
Claim 10
BIVENS VIOLATION AGAINST DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, GARDNER,

MALSTROM, PRIESTLY, WINN, AND JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, BY PLAINTIFF JAMES
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 -
because they were participating in an AMMO Task Force operation, then the
individual Defendants were necessarily acting under color of federal law. In
that circumstance, Plaintiff James may bring her constitutional claims under
Bivens v. 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.
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
therefore incorporated herein.
- 52 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully pray the following:
(a) Process issue as provided by law;
(b) Plaintiffs be awarded actual damages from Defendants in
amounts to be shown at trial;
(c) The Atchison Estate be awarded all medical, doctor, funeral, and
other expenses in an amount to be proven through the evidence
at the time of trial;
(d) The Atchison Estate be awarded from Defendants all damages for
the wrongful death of Mr. Atchison and all general, special,
compensatory, economic, and other allowable damages in
accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury,
as permitted under federal and Georgia law;
(e) The Atchison Estate recover any and all damages allowed by law,
including for conscious pain and suffering as well as all general,
special, compensatory, and economic damages from Defendants
and punitive damages, in accordance with the enlightened
conscience of an impartial jury;
(f) Plaintiffs be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs;
(g) Plaintiffs have a trial by jury; and
- 53 -
(h) Plaintiffs have such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial.
Date: October 2, 2020
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 -

JA Complaint Filed

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

JA Complaint Filed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:20-cv-04074-AT Document 1 Filed 10/02/20 Page 1 of 54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BRENDA BATES, as Representative of

THE CITY OF ATLANTA, COMPLAINT WITH JURY

This is a civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United

States Constitution, and Georgia law. It is an action for damages and

Atchison—an unarmed, young African American man.

Plaintiffs Brenda Bates and Lakeisha James respectfully file this

Officer Kelly Lambert (“Lambert” or “Defendant Lambert”), Atlanta Police

Officer Mark Gardner (“Gardner” or “Defendant Gardner”), Atlanta Police

Officer Christian Malstrom (“Malstrom” or “Defendant Malstrom”), Atlanta

Police Officer Scott Priestly (“Priestly” or “Defendant Priestly”), FBI Special

#1–5. Plaintiffs allege as follows:

1. At 7:30 a.m. on a cold Tuesday morning in January 2019, as

neighborhood children headed for school, Atlanta Police Department (“APD”)

while attempting to execute an illegally obtained federal warrant. Kim’s shot

killed the 21-year-old father of two.

2. Defendant Kim and other Defendant APD officers, recently deputized

had decided to execute a federal fugitive warrant on Mr. Atchison in the

fugitive warrant, Defendants misrepresented to the U.S. District Court that

allegation that was later found to be unsupported by evidence.

allow officers’ use of body cameras, in direct contravention of APD’s own

body-camera requirements. In exchange for the loan of officers, including

Defendants, APD received federal funding and other things of value.

Defendant officers pursued Mr. Atchison as he fled on foot to a closet in a

neighboring apartment and threatened complex tenants with arrest if they

refused to permit Defendants’ immediate, warrantless entry. The entire

SWAT instead of act alone.

5. None of these violations were unwitting, though. Instead, each

violation of laws, regulations, or rules represented a series of conscious

police restraint, to value expediency over truthfulness to the court, to value

6. And so, on this particular cold morning in January, APD’s participation

in the federal task force, Defendants’ misrepresentation of evidence to obtain

the federal warrant, Defendants’ coerced or forcible entry into a series of

Fourth Amendment resulted in the summary execution of a young man who

APD cannot be trusted to protect and serve.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as

with all local and state laws.

11. The Memorandum of Understanding between the FBI and APD

having acted within the scope of federal employment at the time of an

incident giving rise to suit. As a result, if no cause of action exists under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, then Plaintiffs would nonetheless be able to pursue their

constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

12. Plaintiff Brenda Bates (“Plaintiff Bates”) is the personal

representative of Mr. Atchison’s Estate and is authorized to bring claims on

law office is at 700 Churchill Court in Woodstock, Georgia.

13. Plaintiff Lakeisha James (“Plaintiff James”) is the mother of Mr.

Atchison’s son and is domiciled in this district in Atlanta, Georgia.

14. Defendant City of Atlanta is a municipal governmental entity legally

competent to sue and be sued. Defendant City of Atlanta’s policies, practices,

enforcement agency, the Atlanta Police Department.

Defendant City of Atlanta acted through various APD employees and

officers to participate in a federal task force that circumvented policies

practices of Defendant City of Atlanta. Defendant City of Atlanta is subject to

this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendant City of Atlanta maintains its office at 55

thereby under color of federal law. Defendant Kim is domiciled in the

Northern District of Georgia.

and thereby under color of federal law. Defendant Lambert is domiciled in

the Northern District of Georgia.

17. Defendant Christian Malstrom, at all times relevant to this lawsuit,

and thereby under color of federal law. Defendant Malstrom is domiciled in