Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

PATRICIA A. ROBINSON CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

CITY OF PINEVILLE, LOUISIANA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH

ELIZABETH CAMERON, and PEREZ-MONTES
CODIAK THOMPSON
JURY DEMANDED
______________________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

______________________________________________________________________________

COME NOW the Plaintiff, Patricia A. Robinson, by and through the undersigned

attorney, and alleges and avers as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action seeks to vindicate the Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution of the United

States and the laws of the State of Louisiana. The Plaintiff was deprived of those rights by the

Defendants, who, acting jointly and in concert, executed a seizure of the Plaintiff using

unreasonable and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, causing personal injury and damage to the Plaintiff. Additionally, the Defendants’

actions constituted Assault, Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent

Infliction of Emotional Distress, resulting in personal injury and damage to the Plaintiff. For

these deprivations and the resulting injuries and damages, the Plaintiff seeks relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 and under the laws of the State of Louisiana.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as it

is an action seeking redress under the laws and statutes of the United States for the deprivation of

rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims arising under the law of the

State of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as these claims are so related to the claims over

which the court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

4. Venue properly lies in the Western District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as

the events giving rise to this action occurred within this District. This action is properly filed in

the Alexandria Division of said District as the events at issue occurred within Pineville,

Louisiana.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, Patricia Robinson is a person of the full age of majority and a resident of

Rapides Parish, Louisiana.

6. Made defendants herein are the following:

(1) CITY OF PINEVILLE, LOUISIANA, a political subdivision of the State of

Louisiana within Rapides Parish and is the entity having ultimate authority, responsibility and

control of the proper hiring, training and supervision of all sworn Police Officers acting under

their authority and the color of law. The City of Pineville is ultimately responsible for all local

policies, procedures, practices, decisions and customs employed by its law enforcement officers

and for the oversight and funding of the Pineville Police Department. In all respects set forth in

this Complaint, the City of Pineville acted under color of the law of the State of Louisiana.

(2) ELIZABETH CAMERON, in her individual and official capacities, for actions

as a sworn law enforcement officer with the Pineville Police Department. In all respects set forth

2
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3

in this Complaint, Defendant Cameron acted within the course and scope of his employment by

the Defendant City of Pineville and under color of the laws of the State of Louisiana, statutes,

ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and uses of the City of Pineville, and its police

department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cameron is a person of the full age of

majority and a resident of the Parish of Rapides, a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, who

can be served at his place of employment, the Pineville Police Department, 910 Main Street,

Pineville, LA 71360.

(3) CODIAK THOMPSON, in his individual and official capacities, for actions as a

sworn law enforcement officer with the Pineville Police Department. In all respects set forth in

this Complaint, Defendant Thompson acted within the course and scope of his employment by

the Defendant City of Pineville and under color of the laws of the State of Louisiana, statutes,

ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and uses of the City of Pineville, and its police

department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Thompson is a person of the full age of

majority and a resident of the Parish of Rapides, a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, who

can be served at his place of employment, the Pineville Police Department, 910 Main Street,

Pineville, LA 71360.

7. The right of jury trial is herein requested under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

FACTS

8. On or about December 9, 2021, Defendant Cameron with the Pineville Police Department

was dispatched to 1301 Melrose Street in Pineville, Louisiana in reference to an automobile

accident.

9. Upon speaking with Ashlyn Young and Plaintiff Robinson, Defendant Cameron advised

Plaintiff Robinson that she was being cited for improper lane usage. Plaintiff Robinson, who was

3
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4

sixty-eight years old at the time, agreed to accept the citation but refused to sign it because

Plaintiff Robinson did not believe that she was at fault in the car accident.

10. Plaintiff Robinson, who made the initial 911 call, then called the Pineville Police

Department to request another officer be sent to the scene because she disagreed with Defendant

Cameron’s decision to cite her for the accident.

11. However, shortly after Plaintiff Robinson called the Pineville Police Department,

Defendant Thompson arrived on the scene and began yelling at Plaintiff Robinson to put her

hands behind her back. Defendant Cameron also began yelling at Plaintiff Robinson to put her

hands behind her back and that Plaintiff Robinson was under arrest.

12. Plaintiff Robinson put her hands up and Defendant Thompson put a handcuff on her left

wrist. Defendant Cameron then began to forcefully twist Plaintiff Robinson’s right arm in an

attempt to place Plaintiff Robinson’s arm behind her back. Plaintiff Robinson screamed and told

the officers that she could not put her arms behind her back due to joint pain from arthritis.

13. Defendant Thompson then read Plaintiff Robinson her rights, told her that she was

resisting arrest, and told her to put her hands behind her back, Plaintiff Robinson told the officers

again that she was unable to put her hands behind her back because of her physical condition.

14. Defendants Cameron and Thompson then slammed Plaintiff Robinson on the ground.

Defendant Thompson put his knees on Plaintiff Robinson’s back applying pressure while

Defendant Cameron pressed Plaintiff Robinson’s head on the ground trying to force Plaintiff

Robinson’s arms behind her back.

15. Plaintiff Robinson told the officers that they were hurting her and to please stop. Plaintiff

Robinson screamed for her disabled son who was the front seat passenger in her vehicle to help

her. Defendant Thompson instructed Plaintiff Robinson’s son to get back in the vehicle.

4
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5

16. Plaintiff Robinson suffers from atrial fibrillation, end stage arthritis in both knees, and

obesity. Plaintiff Robinson also suffers from other various physical ailments. In addition,

Plaintiff Robinson uses a cane and a walker to move around.

17. While on the ground, Plaintiff Robinson began to have severe shortness of breath.

Plaintiff Robinson told Defendants Cameron and Thompson that she could not breathe and to

please let her get up. However, Defendant Thompson continued to yell at Plaintiff Robinson with

his knees in her back. Defendant Thompson told Plaintiff Robinson that if she did not stop

resisting then he would strike her with a taser and then Defendant Thompson immediately tased

Plaintiff Robinson.

18. Plaintiff Robinson screamed and asked Defendant Thompson to stop but Defendant

Thompson continued to press his knees into her back with Defendant Cameron still forcing

Plaintiff Robinson’s arms behind her back. While Plaintiff Robinson was struggling to breathe,

Defendant Thompson told her that if she did not stop then he would tase her again. Defendant

Thompson then tased Plaintiff Robinson again. Plaintiff Robinson told the officers to please let

her get up, she can not breathe, and they are hurting her. Plaintiff Robinson also begged the

officers not to shoot her. Plaintiff Robinson, who was extremely terrified, began screaming at

passing cars for help. Plaintiff told the officers that she would sign the citation but just please let

her get up.

19. After forcefully twisting and pulling Plaintiff Robinson’s arms causing her significant

pain, Defendants Cameron and Thompson put her in handcuffs and picked her up from the

ground. Plaintiff Robinson asked Defendants Cameron and Thompson how they would feel if

their mother or grandmother was treated this way and prayed for them.

20. A third Pineville Police officer arrived on the scene who recognized Plaintiff Robinson as

5
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6

a schoolteacher. The third officer removed the handcuffs and allowed Plaintiff Robinson to be

handcuffed with her arms in front of her instead of behind. Plaintiff Robinson told the officer that

her knees and hands were in pain. Plaintiff Robinson told the officer that it was a struggle for her

to walk with her joint pain.

21. Despite the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Robinson, instead of taking her to the hospital,

Defendant Cameron transported her to the Pineville Police Department for booking. Once the

paperwork was complete, Plaintiff Robinson was released from custody.

22. Once Plaintiff Robinson was released by the Pineville Police Department, her husband

transported her to Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital for treatment. Plaintiff Robinson

sustained bilateral knee pain, left wrist pain, and back pain due to the actions of the Defendants

in the course of seizure described above. Plaintiff Robinson also sustained pain to the posterior

neck, left shoulder, and midline back. Puncture marks from the taser were also located on

Plaintiff Robinson’s right lower back.

23. As a result of the force and violence employed by the Defendants in the course of seizure

described above, Plaintiff Robinson now suffers from severe emotional distress, anxiety, and

post-traumatic stress disorder. Plaintiff Robinson also now suffers from nightmares, as well as

feelings of anger, guilt, and paranoia. Plaintiff Robinson is now fearful whenever she sees police

officers or police cars.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

(Against Defendants Cameron and Thompson)

24. The Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-23

25. In the course of executing the seizure of Plaintiff Robinson, Defendants used excessive

6
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7

and unreasonable force which resulted in physical and emotional injuries to Plaintiff Patricia

Robinson, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

26. Defendants Cameron and Thompson unlawfully seized Plaintiff Robinson by means of

objectively unreasonable, excessive and shocking physical force, thereby unreasonably

restraining Plaintiff Robinson of her freedom.

27. In conducting the seizure of the Plaintiff, Defendants Cameron and Thompson acted

under color of the law of the State of Louisiana.

28. In addition, at all times relevant to this claim, Defendants Cameron and Thompson acted

pursuant to municipal custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage,

or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff Robinson.

29. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff Robinson had a clearly established

constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in her person from unreasonable

seizure through excessive force.

30. Plaintiff Robinson also had the clearly established Constitutional right under the

Fourteenth Amendment to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law

enforcement.

31. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time of

the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.

32. Defendants Cameron and Thompson’s actions and use of force, as described herein, were

objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and violated

the Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiff Robinson.

33. In employing excessive and unreasonable force, Defendants Cameron and Thompson

7
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8

acted with malicious and/or reckless, callous, and deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff

Robinson under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.The force used by

Defendants Cameron and Thompson shocks the conscience and violated the Fourteenth

Amendment rights of Plaintiff Robinson.

34. Defendants Cameron and Thompson acted with shocking and willful indifference to

Plaintiff’s rights and their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff Robinson severe

physical and emotional injuries.

35. Defendants Cameron and Thompson are not entitled to qualified immunity for the

complained of conduct.

36. As the proximate result of the aforesaid actions, policies, customs and practices of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Robinson sustained significant physical and emotional harm.

37. The Defendants acted with reckless and callous indifference in depriving the Plaintiff of

her Fourth Amendment rights.

38. As a result of the deprivations of the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by Defendants

Cameron and Thompson, Plaintiff Robinson has suffered physical and emotional damages for

which she is entitled to relief against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices, Customs,

Training, and Supervision in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

(Against Defendant City of Pineville)

39. Plaintiff Robinson hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

set forth herein.

40. Defendant City of Pineville knew or should have known that at the time of the

8
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9

complained conduct, Plaintiff Robinson had clearly established constitutional rights under the

Fourth Amendment to be secure in her person from unreasonable seizure through excessive force

and under the Fourteenth Amendment to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by

law enforcement as these rights at the time of the complained of conduct were clearly established

at that time.

41. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein deprived and intentionally

deprived Plaintiff Robinson of her constitutional and statutory rights and caused her damages.

42. The deprivation of Plaintiff Robinson’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments resulted from and were caused by a policy, custom and/or practice of Defendant

City of Pineville, in that the decision to employ unreasonable and excessive force by Defendants

Cameron and Thompson resulted from (a) the Defendant City of Pineville and its Police

Department’s inadequacy of police training with respect to the manner in which police conduct

arrests, and/or (b) a custom and practice of the Defendant City of Pineville and its Police

Department to condone and fail to discipline police officers for using excessive and unreasonable

force in the course of arresting and seizing persons. The Defendant City of Pineville’s policy,

practice and custom of failing to train and/or condoning the use of excessive force by officers of

the City of Pineville Police Department amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of

persons who police come in contact with.

43. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct.

44. Defendant City of Pineville was, at all times relevant, the policymaker for the Pineville

Police Department, and established policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices for the same.

45. Defendant City of Pineville developed, promoted and maintained policies, procedures,

customs, and/or practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

9
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10

citizens, which were moving forces behind and proximately caused the violations of Plaintiff

Robinson’s constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other claims, resulted

from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various available

alternatives.

46. The policy of condoning, ratifying, and/or failing to prevent the excessive and/or

unnecessary use of force by Pineville Police Officers is a constitutionally deficient custom,

policy, practice, and/or usage that repudiates the constitutional rights of persons such as Plaintiff

and there is a direct causal connection between the custom, policy, practice, and/or usage and

these constitutional deprivations.

47. As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff Robinson has suffered actual

physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling her to

compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of

the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically related

expenses and may continue to incur further medically or other special damages related expenses,

in amounts to be established at trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law.

LOUISIANA CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Against all Defendants)

48. Plaintiff Robinson hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

set forth herein.

49. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff Robinson for:

a. Assault

b. Battery

10
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11

c. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

d. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

50. Defendants Cameron and Thompson assaulted and battered Plaintiff Robinson, in

violation of Louisiana state law, specifically, La. C.C. art. 2315, et seq. Defendants Cameron and

Thompson intentionally made a harmful and offensive contact with the person of Plaintiff

Robinson and the Defendants also placed Plaintiff Robinson in reasonable apprehension of

receiving such contact.

51. Defendants Cameron and Thompson also intentionally and negligently inflicted

emotional distress upon Plaintiff Robinson.

52. At all times material and present, Defendants Cameron and Thompson were acting within

the course and scope of their employment with the Pineville Police Department, and therefore,

the Defendant City of Pineville is vicariously liable pursuant to Louisiana state law for the

assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional

distress that was committed by its employees, Defendants Cameron and Thompson.

53. As a result of the assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

negligent infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff Robinson suffered damages for which she is

entitled to relief under the laws of the State of Louisiana against the Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

54. Plaintiff Robinson prays that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiff and against each

of the Defendants and grant:

a. Compensatory and consequential damages,including damages for emotional distress,

humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law

in an amount to be determined at trial;

11
 Case 1:22-cv-06136 Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12

b. Economic losses on all claims allowed by law;

c. Special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law against individual Defendants and in an

amount to be determined at trial;

e. Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;

f. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and,

g. Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other appropriate relief

at law and equity.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY

Dated: December 6, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Jermaine L. Harris
___________________________
Jermaine L. Harris
La. Bar #34299
Jermaine Harris Law Firm LLC
618A Murray Street
Pineville, LA 71301
Phone: (318) 290-3345
Fax: (318) 445-7047
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Patricia Robinson

12