Sargent Filed Complaint
Sargent Filed Complaint
MELVIN SARGENT,
Plaintiff,
1:21-cv-00615
vs. Civil Action No.
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, arises out of the Defendants’ use of excessive force against the
Plaintiff on or about November 28, 2019 in Mercer County, West Virginia, within the Southern
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff, Melvin Sargent, was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Mercer
2. Defendant, Joshua Bish, was at all times relevant hereto a police officer with the
Mercer County Sheriff’s Office and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law.
1
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 2
3. Defendant, Amanda Moore, was at all times relevant hereto a police officer with
the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of
4. Defendant, Logan Addair, was at all times relevant hereto a police officer with the
Mercer County Sheriff’s Office and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law.
5. Defendant, Derrick Callaway, was at all times relevant hereto a police officer with
the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of
FACTS
Bish was dispatched to the Plaintiff’s home, having been advised that there was a domestic
7. Plaintiff lived at the subject residence, located in Princeton, Mercer County, West
Virginia, with his significant other, Jolena Chavez, as well as Jolena’s mother, Elizabeth Daniels.
8. It was Ms. Daniels who had called for police assistance on November 28, because
Plaintiff and her daughter were arguing, which was unusual. There was no physical contact
alleged, nor that had occurred, between Plaintiff and his significant other on November 28, 2019.
Rather, Plaintiff was upset due to discussion of his mother, who had been tragically killed several
years earlier.
9. On and about November 28, 2019, Plaintiff had no criminal record and was duly
employed in the construction industry. Police had never previously been called to the residence
2
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3
prior to the incident. The police report written by Defendant Bish confirmed that after talking
with Plaintiff’s significant other at the scene, that Plaintiff and Ms. Chavez had been discussing
Plaintiff’s deceased mother, at which point Ms. Chavez’s mother entered the room and rolled her
eyes at the conversation, which aggravated Plaintiff, causing them to argue. The report further
noted that “prior to law enforcement’s arrival, there was no violence, and nothing was wrong.”
10. Prior to the arrival of law enforcement, the argument between Plaintiff and Ms.
Chavez ended, and Plaintiff went outside. Ms. Chavez followed him outside to make sure that he
was okay. As this was happening, Defendant Deputy Bish arrived on the scene, along with
Defendant Moore. Bish immediately walked towards Plaintiff, while Moore immediately walked
11. Defendant Bish got out of his police cruiser and immediately walked up to
Plaintiff, who was then in his garage. At the time, Plaintiff was in possession of a Taurus 9mm
pistol, which was clipped to the back of his belt in a retention holster. Plaintiff carried the pistol
on his belt as a matter of daily routine. The pistol was lawfully possessed and carried by the
Plaintiff in accordance with West Virginia law. Plaintiff was not prohibited from possession of
firearms. Plaintiff had violated no law that day prior to being confronted by Deputy Bish.
12. Upon seeing Deputy Bish, Plaintiff immediately put his hands up, informed Bish
that he had a pistol in a holster on the back of his belt, and turned around, hands still raised, so
13. Plaintiff communicated to Deputy Bish by words and body language that he was
compliant and that he posed no threat to him, or anyone else. Plaintiff allowed Defendant Bish to
disarm him and remove the pistol. Plaintiff provided no verbal or physical resistance.
3
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 4
14. Defendant Bish then unclipped the pistol from the back of Plaintiff’s belt, still in
its holster, and threw it on the ground, out of reach. Plaintiff had never had his hand on the pistol,
nor reached for the pistol in the presence of Defendant Bish. At that point, Plaintiff was
thereafter unarmed. All subsequent force applied to Plaintiff by Defendant Bish occurred while
15. After throwing the holstered pistol out of reach, Defendant Bish turned Plaintiff
around so that he was facing him, and then immediately punched him in the face. Bish admits in
his police report to striking Plaintiff in the face with a closed fist (though he claims it occurred
prior to Plaintiff being disarmed). Bish continued punching Plaintiff another three or four times,
according to Plaintiff.
16. At the time Defendant Bish punched Plaintiff in the face, Plaintiff’s hands were
raised. Plaintiff had not threatened Bish, nor anyone else. Plaintiff had not resisted Bish in any
way. This seizure and use of force against the Plaintiff occurred inside and immediately in front
17. Defendant Bish violently forced Plaintiff onto the ground, with the assistance of
Defendant Moore, who was then present for Bish’s use of force against Plaintiff. While
Defendant Moore held down Plaintiff’s legs, Defendant Bish boot-stomped Plaintiff’s right hand,
fracturing it. Defendant Moore watched Bish’s use of force, and took no actions to stop him from
engaging in the excessive use of violent physical force against the Plaintiff.
18. After fracturing Plaintiff’s hand, Moore handed Deputy Bish her handcuffs, and
they were placed tightly on Plaintiff’s hands, behind his back, including on the wrist of the hand
4
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 5
that had been fractured by Bish’s stomp. At no point did Plaintiff provide any physical resistance
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bish purposefully overly-tightened the
fractured right hand began to increase, the pain began to increase accordingly, which led to yet
more violence from Bish once Plaintiff was inside the police cruiser.
20. After the handcuffs were applied, Defendants Bish and Moore turned Plaintiff
over, so that Plaintiff was laying on his back, hands still handcuffed behind him. With Plaintiff’s
face now fully exposed, Defendant Bish punched Plaintiff in the face several more times. Bish
was punching Plaintiff using gloves containing reinforced knuckles, so as to cause additional
pain and damage to Plaintiff, while protecting Bish’s knuckles from damage. Plaintiff’s head
21. Defendant Derrick Callaway, another deputy with the Mercer County Sheriff’s
Department, then arrived on the scene around the time that Plaintiff was handcuffed.
22. Defendants Bish and Moore then stood Plaintiff up onto his feet and brought him
near Bish’s police cruiser, shoving him in the rear passenger side seat of the cruiser, with
23. By the time Plaintiff was put inside the cruiser, Ms. Chavez, who had witnessed
Bish beating the Plaintiff, and who had begged Defendant Bish to stop, had obtained a cell phone
5
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6
24. The video footage taken by Plaintiff’s significant other then captures yet another
use of force directed at the handcuffed Plaintiff, while he was sitting in the rear seat of the police
cruiser.
25. Plaintiff’s fractured hand was swelling and the overly-tightened handcuffs were
causing severe pain. Plaintiff was attempting to communicate this fact to Bish and begging him
26. Rather than helping to relieve the pressure of the handcuffs on Plaintiff’s
fractured hand, Defendant Bish’s response, which is captured on video, was instead to push the
Plaintiff and to punch the Plaintiff several more times, while Ms. Chavez, who is recording video
footage, screams for Bish to stop, saying “Bish, stop hitting him….”
27. Defendant Bish then pepper sprayed Plaintiff in the face, for a period of what Bish
noted in his report was “3 to 5 seconds.” Then Deputy Bish shut the door, leaving Plaintiff
suffering with the pepper spray burning his eyes inside the closed space of the rear of the cruiser.
Plaintiff was still handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
28. Thereafter, Plaintiff can be heard on the video crying out in pain due to the
burning of his eyes, all of which was ignored by the multiple officers who are present. At one
point, while Plaintiff is heard crying in pain in the background, the officers are asked if EMS is
necessary at the scene, to which they respond that no medical attention is required.
29. Thus the officers deprived the Plaintiff of medical treatment, despite the fact that
Defendant Bish had used violent physical force against the Plaintiff, causing him to bleed from
his head, fractured his hand with a boot-stomp, and also pepper sprayed Plaintiff’s eyes, all of
6
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7
which was either witnessed by the other officers, or known by the other officers, as well as
30. The other present police officers present at the scene, including Defendants
Moore, Callaway and Addair, watched Bish beating and pepper spraying the Plaintiff. They took
no steps to stop Bish or to protect the Plaintiff from Bish’s violence. Nor did they allow Plaintiff
significant other, who is still recording and pleading with the deputies to stop Bish from hurting
her husband. Defendant Addair places his hands around her throat, and then says, “Do you see
this fucking badge on her chest (pointing to Defendant Moore)? Do you know what that means,
32. After he finishes punching and pepper spraying the Plaintiff and closes the rear
passenger door of the cruiser, Defendant Bish walks over to the Plaintiff’s significant other, who
is still filming, and claims that he was protecting himself and the other deputies. As Bish is
attempting to explain himself, the footage shows Bish’s right hand, which is wearing a black
glove with reinforced armored knuckles. The footage shows the right glove covered in Plaintiff’s
blood.
33. In his written police report, Defendant Bish claimed that Plaintiff had been
kicking the inside of the police cruiser and that he had attempted to kick Bish, which prompted
Bish to use force against the Plaintiff inside the rear of the police cruiser. However the video
7
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 8
34. Rather than allegedly kicking towards Deputy Bish, Plaintiff can clearly be seen
in the video footage attempting to show Bish his swollen hand behind his back, apparently
begging for his cuffs to be loosened. The footage shows that Plaintiff was not kicking Bish, nor
the police cruiser, but rather that Bish’s violence was sparked by Plaintiff’s request for Bish to
loosen the cuffs, which resulted in Bish instead violently pushing Plaintiff further inside the
police cruiser, and then punching Plaintiff several times. Bish then emerges from the car,
approaching Plaintiff’s significant other, where his bloody armored gloves are captured on video.
35. As this is going on, none of the other officers present at the scene, took any
36. Upon information and belief, the physical violence directed at Plaintiff was in
retaliation for Bish’s perception of what had occurred prior to his arrival, rather than because
Bish reasonably believed that Plaintiff posed a safety threat to himself, or any other individual.
37. Upon information and belief, Bish was angry at Plaintiff for the mere possession
of a firearm and sought to inflict violent retribution onto Plaintiff for what he perceived was
38. Plaintiff had no reason to resist or fight with Defendant Bish at the time of the
incident. He was not under arrest, nor charged with any crime. Though Plaintiff’s significan had
called police to the residence, Defendant’s significant other, who was the other party in the
original argument, was present from the beginning and had made no complaints to the officers,
which was confirmed in Bish’s police report. Thus Plaintiff had committed no crime, nor did
there exist probable cause to suspect that Plaintiff had committed any crime, prior to his
8
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 9
39. On the way to being transported for processing at the police station, while
Plaintiff was still handcuffed in the rear of the police cruiser, there was yet another use of force
40. During the transport, Plaintiff was in severe pain and distress. He was yelling and
shouting for Defendant Bish to open the rear window of the car so that Plaintiff could get some
fresh air. Plaintiff was mostly blind at the time due to the pepper spray in his eyes, which were
causing him severe pain. There was still pepper spray in the enclosed area of the cruiser’s rear
seat due to the fact that a large amount of pepper spray had been sprayed. Plaintiff was shouting,
41. About halfway to the police station, in response to Plaintiff’s shouting, Defendant
Bish slammed his brakes and stopped the cruiser. Defendant Calloway had been following in his
own police cruiser. Calloway exited his car and approached the cruiser which held Plaintiff.
42. Defendant Calloway opened the rear door where Plaintiff was located and hit
Plaintiff twice in the face. Calloway said, “you need to stop acting like a little bitch.” Then
Calloway closed the door again, and they proceeded to drive to the police station.
43. At the time Calloway hit Plaintiff in the face twice, Plaintiff was physically
compliant and posed no threat to any individual. He was just verbally expressing that he couldn’t
44. After arriving at the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department, Plaintiff’s face was
sprayed down with a hose, due to the pepper spray. This also washed all of the blood off of
Plaintiff’s face. The officers also attempted to wash some of the blood off of Plaintiff’s body and
9
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 10
45. Plaintiff was then placed in a holding cell. After a while, he was removed for
processing and transported to Southern Regional Jail. The officers waited until after they cleaned
the blood from Plaintiff prior to taking photographs or mugshots of the Plaintiff’s face. However,
after later being released from jail, photographs of the clothes Plaintiff was still wearing showed
46. While at the sheriff’s department, Plaintiff requested medical treatment. However,
Defendant Bish denied Plaintiff medical treatment, telling him that he could receive medical
47. Upon arrival at Southern Regional Jail, still was not provided with medical
treatment. Plaintiff spent around six hours in jail and was able to see the magistrate later that
48. During the arraignment process, the Plaintiff’s significant other was advised by
one of the magistrates to take him immediately to the hospital and to seek legal counsel.
49. Plaintiff’s significant other took Plaintiff straight from Southern Regional Jail to
the hospital. At the hospital, x-rays were taken which revealed a fractured hand. Plaintiff’s lip
was swollen with lacerations inside his mouth. There was a large hole inside Plaintiff’s lip.
50. Defendant Bish charged the Plaintiff via Criminal Complaint with two counts of
battery on a police officer (W. Va. Code 61-2-10(d)) and one count of obstructing an officer (W.
51. When the criminal charges went to court and negotiations began, the State agreed
to drop the two counts of battery on an officer in exchange for a guilty plea to the count of
10
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 11
obstruction of an officer and a $50.00 fine, which Plaintiff accepted, thus resolving the criminal
charges.
52. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
restated herein.
53. On November 28, 2019, as more explicitly descried in the “FACTS” section
above, Defendant Deputy Joshua Bish, under color of law, engaged in an excessive use of violent
physical force against the Plaintiff, when he confronted him and took him into custody at his
54. At the time Defendant Bish performed the act of inflicting violent physical force
against the Plaintiff, as set forth above, no objectively reasonable police officer could have
perceived the Plaintiff as posing an immediate threat to the safety of himself, or any other
holster, Plaintiff had been voluntarily disarmed by Defendant Bish prior to the inception of the
physical force against Plaintiff. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was thereafter unarmed, compliant,
11
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 12
55. At the time Plaintiff was first attacked by Defendant Bish, there was no
reasonable suspicion, nor probable cause, to believe that Plaintiff had committed any crime. Nor
was Plaintiff resisting in any way. Plaintiff was cooperative, raising his hands, turning around so
that officers could see his holstered pistol, as well as allowing officers to access the pistol and
56. At the time Plaintiff was first attacked by Defendant Bish, there was no
objectively reasonable basis for Bish to believe that Plaintiff was still armed, nor that he posed a
threat. He had voluntarily allowed himself to be disarmed and was in fact disarmed. His hands
were raised in the air in complete submission to Defendant Bish’s directions and detainment.
There was no other individual or third party who was in the immediate vicinity of the Plaintiff so
as to cause Defendant Bish to have reason for concern for the safety of a third party, such as
Plaintiff’s significant other. Plaintiff was not in a position to harm any individual, and he had
57. The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from "using excessive force to
seize a free citizen." Jones v. Buchanan , 325 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2003) ; Graham v. Connor ,
490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Rather, police officers are
constitutionally permitted to use only that force which is reasonable under the circumstances. In
determining issues of excessive force, the courts look to several factors, including "the severity
of the crime at issue," whether the "suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the
officers or others," and whether the suspect was "actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest by flight." Graham , 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 ; Jones , 325 F.3d at 527. The Fourth
12
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 13
Circuit has also held that the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries are to be considered as well.
58. Here, Plaintiff had committed no crime, and while the officers had been called to
the residence by Plaintiff’s significant other’s mother due to the existence of an alleged domestic
dispute, there was no indication that Plaintiff had committed any crime at all, much less a serious
crime. Moreoever, when the defendant officers arrived on scene, they immediately located
Plaintiff’s spouse, who did not allege a crime had been committed, nor request assistance from
the officers.
59. Furthermore, though Plaintiff was initially armed, he was immediately voluntarily
disarmed prior to the inception of the use of force against Plaintiff. Deputy Bish had no other
information indicating that Plaintiff was a threat to any individual. He had no criminal history,
had made no threats, and was compliant with all directions given by the officers.
60. Lastly, Plaintiff did not physically resist arrest, fight with the officers, nor attempt
to flee or evade the officers. He simply allowed the officers to inflict violent physical damage on
him. Though he eventually pled guilty to obstructing an officer, the criminal complaint filed by
Defendant Bish did not specify the exact nature of the obstruction Plaintiff was alleged to have
committed. Nor was the obstruction admission ever clarified or specified at the plea hearing.
61. Plaintiff suffered physical injuries as a result of the use of physical force against
him as alleged herein, including a fractured hand and multiple lacerations, which resulted in a
significant amount of blood staining Plaintiff’s clothes, which indicates the unreasonableness of
13
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 14
Defendant Bish’s use of force under the circumstances. Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167, 174 (4th
Cir. 1994).
62. The defendant police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. There are
numerous examples in the case law of the Fourth Circuit establishing that the use of violent
physical force under similar circumstances as occurred here was unreasonable. In Yates v. Terry,
817 F.3d 877 (4th Cir. 2016), the Court described many different similar examples of
unreasonably physical force, establishing that as of 2008 that it was clearly established that a
police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, or disproportionate force by
repeatedly tasing a nonviolent misdemeanant who presented no threat to the safety of the officer
or the public and who was compliant and not actively resisting arrest or fleeing. See Meyers v.
Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723, 734–35 ; Jones 325 F.3d at 532–34 ; Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.
3d 731, 745 (4th Cir. 2003) ; Rowland, 41 F.3d at 174 ; see also Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 9–
63. The Court further noted that, “though our decisions in Meyers, Bailey, and Jones
dealt with individuals who were secured when they were subjected to excessive force, our
precedent nonetheless provided Terry with fair notice that the force he used against Yates under
the facts of this case was unconstitutionally excessive.” Yates v. Terry, 817 F.3d 877 (4th Cir.
2016).
64. The Court explained that, “In Bailey and Jones, we denied qualified immunity to
officers who used excessive force against individuals who had not committed any crimes, were
secured in handcuffs, and posed no threat to the officers or others.” Yates, 817 F.3d at 887-88;
citing Bailey, 349 F.3d at 745 ; Jones, 325 F.3d at 534. The Court also pointed to a 1994 opinion,
14
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 15
“where an individual committed a minor crime, and there was some evidence of resistance, we
denied qualified immunity to an officer who ‘used a wrestling maneuver, throwing his weight
against [the suspect's] right leg and wrenching the knee until it cracked.’” Yates, 817 F.3d at 888;
65. In Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2015), the Court held that officers are not
justified in using violent physical force against a suspect, even where a suspect may recoil from
being suddenly grabbed or taken into custody without warning - even where the officer
66. In addition to the wealth of Fourth Circuit case law establishing the
unreasonableness of unnecessary violent physical force, the Court has also held that “tasing
suspects after they have been secured, see Meyers, 713 F.3d at 734 ;12 Bailey, 349 F.3d at 744–
45, and that punching or pepper spraying suspects in response to minimal, non-violent resistance,
see Park, 250 F.3d at 849–53 ; Rowland, 41 F.3d at 172–74, constitute excessive force.” Estate of
Armstrong v. Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892, 904 (4th Cir. 2016).
67. Deputy Bish was aware that the Plaintiff possessed a holstered gun clipped onto
his belt in the small of his back at the beginning of their encounter because Plaintiff turned
around and made the holstered gun visible, raised his hands, and allowed himself to be disarmed.
After Plaintiff was disarmed, there was no probable cause to believe that there was a second gun
present, especially given the fact that Plaintiff was clearly compliant and non-threatening. There
was no mention in Deputy Bish’s report of any suspicion that there may have been a second gun,
15
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 16
68. If Plaintiff’s being armed at the inception of the encounter with Deputy Bish
justified a reasonable fear for officer safety, that threat ceased when Plaintiff was disarmed. In
Waterman v. Batton, the Fourth Circuit found that officers were justified in firing at a driver who
had attempted to run an officer off the road, and was accelerating toward the officers— but not
justified in continuing to fire after the car had passed them. 393 F.3d 471, 482 (4th Cir. 2005)
(“once Waterman's vehicle passed the officers, the threat to their safety was eliminated and thus
could not justify the subsequent shots.”); see also Bumgarner v. Clendenen, et al., Memorandum
Op. and Order, Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-05963 at p. 11-12 (“A reasonable officer would not
have had probable cause to feel threatened by Mr. Bumgarner, who alleges that he explained
each of his actions, made no sudden moves, and did not verbally or physically threaten any of the
69. Plaintiff suffered harm, including personal injury, extreme emotional distress,
severe pain, attorney fees and expenses, and is entitled to recover for the same.
70. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
restated herein.
71. On November 28, 2019, as more explicitly descried in the “FACTS” section
above, Defendant Deputy Joshua Bish, under color of law, engaged in an excessive use of violent
physical force against the Plaintiff, when he attacked the Plaintiff while Plaintiff was sitting in
16
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 17
the back of a parked police cruiser in front of Plaintiff’s home, located in Princeton, Mercer
72. Defendant Bish was captured on video footage violently pushing the Plaintiff and
then repeatedly punching the Plaintiff, and also pepper sprayed the Plaintiff for a period of at
73. At the time of the said use of force, Plaintiff’s hands were handcuffed behind his
back, and due to the fracture of Plaintiff’s hand, also caused by Defendant Bish, Plaintiff’s hand
74. At the time Defendant Bish performed the act of inflicting violent physical force
against the Plaintiff, as set forth above, no objectively reasonable police officer could have
perceived the Plaintiff as posing an immediate threat to the safety of himself, or any other
individual. Plaintiff was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and was not resisting.
Though Deputy Bish claimed in his report that his use of force resulted from Plaintiff allegedly
attempting to kick him, the video footage shows that not to be the case. Plaintiff did not verbally
or physically threaten Defendant Bish. Plaintiff was handcuffed, made no sudden moves, and
was asking for help at the time he was attacked by Defendant Bish.
75. The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from "using excessive force to
seize a free citizen." Jones v. Buchanan , 325 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2003) ; Graham v. Connor ,
490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Rather, police officers are
constitutionally permitted to use only that force which is reasonable under the circumstances. In
determining issues of excessive force, the courts look to several factors, including "the severity
of the crime at issue," whether the "suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the
17
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 18
officers or others," and whether the suspect was "actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest by flight." Graham , 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 ; Jones , 325 F.3d at 527. The Fourth
Circuit has also held that the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries are to be considered as well.
76. Here, Plaintiff had committed no crime, and while the officers had been called to
the residence by Plaintiff’s significant other’s mother due to the existence of an alleged domestic
dispute, there was no indication that Plaintiff had committed any crime at all, much less a serious
crime. Moreoever, when the defendant officers arrived on scene, they immediately located
Plaintiff’s spouse, who did not allege a crime had been committed, nor request assistance from
the officers.
77. Furthermore, though Plaintiff was initially armed, he was immediately voluntarily
disarmed prior to the inception of the use of force against Plaintiff. Deputy Bish had no other
information indicating that Plaintiff was a threat to any individual. He had no criminal history,
had made no threats, and was compliant with all directions given by the officers.
78. Lastly, Plaintiff did not physically resist arrest, fight with the officers, nor attempt
to flee or evade the officers. He simply allowed the officers to inflict violent physical damage on
him. Though he eventually pled guilty to obstructing an officer, the criminal complaint filed by
Defendant Bish did not specify the exact nature of the obstruction Plaintiff was alleged to have
committed. Nor was the obstruction admission ever clarified or specified at the plea hearing.
79. Plaintiff suffered physical injuries as a result of the use of physical force against
him as alleged herein, including a fractured hand and multiple lacerations, which resulted in a
18
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 19
significant amount of blood staining Plaintiff’s clothes, which indicates the unreasonableness of
Defendant Bish’s use of force under the circumstances. Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167, 174 (4th
Cir. 1994).
80. Defendant Bish is not entitled to qualified immunity. In addition to the wealth of
Fourth Circuit case law establishing the unreasonableness of unnecessary violent physical force,1
the Court has also held that “tasing suspects after they have been secured, see Meyers, 713 F.3d
at 734 ;12 Bailey, 349 F.3d at 744–45, and that punching or pepper spraying suspects in response
to minimal, non-violent resistance, see Park, 250 F.3d at 849–53 ; Rowland, 41 F.3d at 172–74,
constitute excessive force.” Estate of Armstrong v. Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892, 904 (4th Cir.
2016).
81. Plaintiff suffered harm, including personal injury, extreme emotional distress,
severe pain, attorney fees and expenses, and is entitled to recover for the same.
(Defendant Bish and Callaway - Use of Force in the Cruiser During Transport)
82. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
restated herein.
83. On November 28, 2019, as more explicitly descried in the “FACTS” section
above, Defendant Deputy Joshua Bish and Defendant Deputy Callaway, under color of law,
engaged in an excessive use of violent physical force against the Plaintiff, when they stopped the
vehicle and physically attacked the Plaintiff while Plaintiff was sitting in the back of a parked
19
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 20
police cruiser, handcuffed with his hands behind his back, on the side of the roadway during
transport to the sheriff’s department, located in Princeton, Mercer County, West Virginia.
84. Defendant Bish slammed on the brakes in response to Plaintiff complaining about
his painful wrists and painful eyes, still soaked with pepper spray. Defendant Callaway opened
the rear door of the cruiser, hit Plaintiff twice in the face, and instructed Plaintiff, “You need to
stop acting like a little bitch…” and then closing the cruiser door afterwards.
85. At the time Defendant Bish slammed the brakes of the car, stopping on the side of
the road, and at the time Defendant Callaway hit Plaintiff twice in the face, thus inflicting violent
physical force against the Plaintiff, as set forth above, no objectively reasonable police officer
could have perceived the Plaintiff as posing an immediate threat to the safety to any individual.
Plaintiff was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and was not resisting.
86. At the time the defendant officers attacked the Plaintiff, there was no need for the
use of physical force. Plaintiff posed no threat to any individual. Plaintiff was handcuffed and not
resisting.
87. At the time the defendant officers attacked the Plaintiff, they inflicted unnecessary
and wanton pain and suffering on the Plaintiff, at a time when he was already in pain from his
injuries and from the pepper spray still in his eyes. There was no justifiable reason to inflict
88. The defendant police officers’ actions were objectively unreasonable, willful,
wanton, intentional, malicious and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s
20
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: 21
89. Plaintiff suffered harm, including personal injury, extreme emotional distress,
severe pain, attorney fees and expenses, and is entitled to recover for the same.
90. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
restated herein.
91. In regards to Count One herein, Defendant Deputy Amanda Moore was present
during the violent use of force perpetrated against the Plaintiff by Defendant Deputy Bish. She
observed the use of force, even assisting in it. She observed that such force was not performed
for any lawful reason, but rather to punish the Plaintiff for possessing a gun. She observed such
force being inflicted on the Plaintiff at a time when Plaintiff was completely helpless and
compliant. She was furthermore aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not under arrest, nor did
probable cause exist to arrest the Plaintiff for any crime at the time the use of force began.
92. In regards to Count Two herein, Defendants Moore, Callaway and Addair were all
present during the violent use of force perpetrated against the Plaintiff by Defendant Deputy
Bish. They observed the use of force. They observed that such force was not performed for any
lawful reason, but rather to punish the Plaintiff for asking for his handcuffs to be loosened. They
observed such force being inflicted on the Plaintiff at a time when Plaintiff was completely
helpless and compliant, handcuffed with his hands behind his back in the rear of a police cruiser.
93. In regards to Count Three herein, Defendant Bish enabled and observed the
violent infliction of physical force perpetrated against the Plaintiff by Defendant Callaway. He
observed the use of force, even assisting in it and enabling it by slamming the brakes of the car
21
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: 22
and allowing Callaway to access the Plaintiff. He observed that such force was not performed for
any lawful reason, but rather to punish the Plaintiff for complaining about his pain and severe
discomfort. He observed such force being inflicted on the Plaintiff at a time when Plaintiff was
94. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
restated herein.
95. Plaintiff had a serious medical need following the violence use of force
perpetrated against him by Defendant Deputy Bish, including a fractured hand which was
swelling inside the tight handcuffs applied to him by Defendant Bish, as well as eyes which were
burning due to being pepper sprayed by Defendant Bish and then closed inside the rear of the
police cruiser.
96. Plaintiff communicated numerous times to the defendant police officers that he
had a serious medical need which required treatment. He was begging for his handcuffs to be
loosened. Instead of loosening them, Defendant Bish attacked the Plaintiff. None of the other
officers present at the time took any action to loosen the cuffs on Plaintiff’s fractured hand. Nor
did they take any action to get Plaintiff medical treatment for his fracture.
97. The defendant officers were all aware that Plaintiff had a serious medical need;
that Plaintiff had been pepper sprayed and then enclosed in the rear seat of the police cruiser,
with his hands behind his back, unable to even wipe his face or touch his eyes. Plaintiff can be
22
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 23
heard on the video crying out in pain due to the burning of his eyes, all of which was ignored by
98. At one point, as documented by the video footage of the incident, while Plaintiff
is heard crying in pain in the background, the officers are asked if EMS is necessary at the scene,
99. In fact, immediate medical attention was required. Plaintiff had a fractured hand,
which was swelling inside the tight handcuffs. Plaintiff had also been beaten, causing multiple
serious lacerations, which were causing Plaintiff to bleed. Plaintiff had also been pepper sprayed
for a period of at least three to five seconds, for which he was suffering serious pain.
100. The defendant officers, with deliberate indifference, refused and failed to provide
Plaintiff medical treatment, even after Plaintiff requested it. They also failed to direct that
101. Plaintiff was only able to obtain medical treatment after he bonded out of jail and
102. As a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff was injured, including prolonged
and unnecessary suffering without treatment and medication for his physical injuries.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, based on the above stated facts, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that
23
Case 1:21-cv-00615 Document 1 Filed 11/23/21 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 24
fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all compensatory damages to be proven at
trial;
at trial; and
MELVIN SARGENT,
By Counsel
/s John H. Bryan
John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4998
[email protected]
24