Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 12

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS

MAR 02 2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION DEPCLERK

STEVEN PARKER SCRUGGS, §

PLAINTIFF, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO.
§ 4:23-cv-166-JM
MATTHEW DILLON FITZHUGH §
in his individual and official capacity; §
SCOTT STEELY in his official capacity; §
and the CITY OF CABOT, § This case assigned to District Judge Moody
ARKANSAS, a municipality § and to Magistrate Judge _R_a_J_ _ _ _ __
DEFENDANTS, §

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Steven Parker Scruggs, by and through his

attorneys, Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan, and for his cause of action, states as

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly under

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and under law, particularly the

Civil Rights Act of 1871 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

Complaint Page 1 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 12

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the acts of which Plaintiff

complains arose in this District.

PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Steven Parker Scruggs ("Scruggs"), is a citizen of the United States

and the State of Arkansas.

5. On April 11, 2022, Scruggs was working as a ballot signature gatherer. He

was finishing up his work that day in the parking lot of a Walmart Store

located at 304 S. Rockwood Dr., Cabot, Arkansas 72023.

6. Defendant, Matthew Dillon Fitzhugh ("Fitzhugh"), was a police officer with

the Cabot Police Department. He was employed by the City of Cabot,

Arkansas when the events underlying this case happened.

7. Fitzhugh is sued in his individual and official capacity.

8. Chief Scott Steely ("Chief Steely"), has been the Chief of Police for the

Cabot Police Department at all relevant times. As Chief, he is responsible

for the training, policies, and actions of the Department and its officers.

9. At all relevant times, the City of Cabot, Arkansas ("City") was a

municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arkansas,

located in Lonoke County, Arkansas.

Complaint Page 2 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 12

IO.The City was the employer of the individual Defendants herein, was

empowered, funded and directed to pay any § 1983 civil rights judgment for

compensatory damages, actual damages, nominal damages, and attorney fees

for which any City employee acting within the scope of his or her

employment is found liable. Accordingly, the City is an indemnification

party regarding the acts and/or omissions of which Plaintiff complains.

11.At all relevant times, the City participated in the Municipal Legal Defense

Program which is offered by the Arkansas Municipal League to Arkansas

towns and cities. The acts and/or omissions of which Plaintiff complains

constitute a civil rights lawsuit against the City and the individually-named

Defendants. The Arkansas Municipal League is a primary or secondary

indemnification party regarding the acts and/or omissions of City and the

individually-named Defendants to which Plaintiff herein complains.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12.On or about April 11, 2022, Cabot Police Department Officer, Matthew

Dillon Fitzhugh, used force to detain and arrest Plaintiff, Steven Parker

Scruggs, without legal justification. Mr. Parker was not suspected of a crime

and was not demonstrating suspicious behavior.

Complaint Page 3 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 12

13.Officer Fitzhugh took down Mr. Parker with physical force without reason

to believe that Mr. Parker had committed a crime, was committing a crime,

or was about to commit a crime.

14.At approximately 12:18 p.m. on April 11, 2022, an employee ofWalmart

called the Cabot Police Department asking the department for assistance in

asking Plaintiff to leave the property. The Walmart employee specifically

informed the City employee that Walmart had NOT asked Plaintiff to leave

that day.

15.The Walmart employee mistakenly believed that Plaintiff had been asked to

leave the property on previous days. While it is likely that the employee

mistook Plaintiff for other ballot signature gatherers, whether or not

Walmart had asked Plaintiff to leave on previous days is immaterial to this

litigation.

16.Officer Fitzhugh arrived at Walmart and made contact with Plaintiff in the

parking lot. He found Plaintiff to be "very cooperative" at the time of initial

contact.

17.At no time during this encounter had there even been an allegation that

Plaintiff had conducted any unlawful activity, was conducting unlawful

activity, or was about to conduct unlawful activity.

Complaint Page 4 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 12

18.Despite not having any reasonable suspicion of a crime, Officer Fitzhugh

demanded that Plaintiff provide identification.

19 .Plaintiff informed the officer that he would voluntarily leave the property,

but denied the demand for identification, as the Plaintiff correctly

understood that Fitzhugh had no reason to identify him. This demand and

denial repeated itself numerous times as Plaintiff attempted to walk off of

the property peacefully while Fitzhugh continued to follow Plaintiff.

20.As soon as a second police officer arrived on the scene, Fitzhugh went

"hands-on" with Plaintiff by grabbing him and saying "come here." Fitzhugh

never informed the Plaintiff that he was detained, arrested, or otherwise not

free to leave.

21.During Fitzhugh' s unlawful physical use of force to take down Plaintiff, he

utilized an electronic control device (taser) to subdue Plaintiff.

22.Plaintiffwas arrested, placed in the back of a Police Department vehicle,

brought to the Cabot Police Department, and eventually released.

23. While still on scene, Fitzhugh explained to other officers that arrived to

assist Fitzhugh that the reason for the use of force and arrest was that

Plaintiff simply refused to identify. At that point in time, the Defendants,

collectively through their officers, had a duty to stop Fitzhugh from

Complaint Page 5 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 12

continuing his unlawful activity and to remedy the situation by releasing

Plaintiff from custody.

24.No officer had the courage to do the right thing and correct another officer.

Instead, each officer actively chose the cowardly act of backing his/her

fellow officer despite that Fitzhugh was violating well established rights and

laws.

25.Plaintiffwas charged with resisting arrest, but the charges were ultimately

dropped.

26.Upon information and belief, Fitzhugh, invoked various Arkansas statutes

related to obstructing governmental operations and resisting arrest to justify

his actions when no reasonable police officer could believe he had probable

cause to arrest a law-abiding citizen, even if that citizen is stubborn or

irritating.

RELEVANT LAW

27.The Fourth Amendment prohibits law-enforcement officers from stopping

individuals when officers lack reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is

afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968).

Complaint Page 6 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 7 of 12

28.The Fourth Amendment similarly prohibits law-enforcement officers from

prolonging a detention - even if the detention was lawfully initiated - to

investigate crimes for which the officers lack reasonable suspicion.

29.No Arkansas law-enforcement officer shall indicate that a person is legally

obligated to furnish information to the officer if no such legal obligation

exists. Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.2; Stujjlebeam v. Harris, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

82075 (W.D. Ark., Nov. 7, 2006).

30.An officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the

request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances

justifying the stop. Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 177, 188, 124 S.

Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004 ).

31.A law-enforcement officer may only use non-deadly force when detaining a

citizen that he/she reasonably suspects has committed, is committing, or is

about to commit a felony or misdemeanor involving danger. Ark. R. Crim. P.

3.1 & 3.3.

COUNT I - EXCESSIVE FORCE AND VIOLATION OF 4™

AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST
FITZHUGH IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
32 .Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

31, above.

Complaint Page 7 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 8 of 12

33.Fitzhugh, used excessive force against Scruggs person, causing injury, pain,

and other damages.

34.Fitzhugh unreasonably and unlawfully seized Plaintiff by detaining him

without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

35.Fitzhugh utilized excessive force by becoming physical and deploying a

taser on Plaintiff against Arkansas law and without reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity.

36. The force used by Fitzhugh was unnecessary and unreasonable, and caused

Plaintiff direct injury, direct pain, loss of liberty, reputational damage, and

other damages.

3 7 .Plaintiff was deprived rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

and laws enacted thereunder.

38.Fitzhugh is liable to Plaintiff for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, il).cluding

loss of liberty, conscious pain and suffering, punitive damages, and attorney

fees.

39.For these reasons and others set forth herein, Plaintiff brings this action

seeking the following remedies for the violation of his constitutional rights:

Complaint Page 8 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 9 of 12

a. A declaration that Officer Fitzhugh violated Plaintiffs constitutional

rights; and

b. Compensatory damages, nominal damages, punitive damages, and

attorney fees.

COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, FOR

UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST
OFFICER FITZHUGH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SCOTT STEELY
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE CITY OF CABOT, ARKANSAS.
40.Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

39, above.

41.A local government is liable under 42 U .S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of a

right when conduct attributable to the government was undertaken with

deliberate indifference to the relevant right and caused the alleged injury.

Bd. OfCnty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397,400 (1997).

42.Conduct is attributable to the government if the rights deprivation resulted

from a decision by a policymaker or a custom so widespread as to have the

force oflaw. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 691 (1978).

43.Evidence that a police investigative review process is structured to curtail

disciplinary action and stifle investigations is evidence that can sustain

Monell claims and get those claims rightfully before a jury. Beck v. City of

Pittsburg, 89 F .3d 966, 974 (3 rd Cir. 1996).

Complaint Page 9 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 10 of 12

44.Similarly, inaction can constitute government custom. Tilson v. Forrest City

Police Dept., 28 F.3d 802,806 (8 th Cir. 1994).

45.lt was the tradition and/or policy of the Cabot Police Department to identify

any citizen they make contact with through a call to their department,

regardless of whether that person was a suspect of criminal activity.

46.The City of Cabot and the Cabot Police Department failed to even

investigate the unlawful actions of Fitzhugh, much less take any corrective

or disciplinary measures against him.

47.The actions of the Cabot Police Department and the City of Cabot ratified

the unlawful actions of Fitzhugh and make them liable for his actions as

their employee.

48.Defendants violated clearly established constitutional protections by

detaining and using force on Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity.

49.The City of Cabot likewise violated Plaintiff's clearly established Forth

Amendment rights because its officers who used force and detained Plaintiff

carried out unconstitutional policies or customs that:

a. Officers are trained or encouraged to obtain identification from each

person they come into contact with;

Complaint Page 10 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 11 of 12

b. Detain individuals prior to determining whether there is reasonable

suspicion of a crime; and

c. Using force to make a detention without reasonable suspicion of a

crime or a warrant for an arrest.

5C .For these reasons and others set forth herein, Plaintiff brings this action

seeking the following remedies for the violation of his constitutional rights:

a. A declaration that the City of Cabot, Arkansas, the Cabot Police

Department through its Chief Scott Steely, and Officer Fitzhugh

violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights; and

b. Compensatory damages, nominal damages, punitive damages, and

attorney fees.

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven Parker Scruggs

By and through counsel,

Isl Lucas Rowan ,h- ~

Lucas Rowan
AR Bar 2008191
Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan
313 W. 2 nd St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-375-9901
[email protected]

Complaint Page 11 of 12
 Case 4:23-cv-00166-JM Document 1 Filed 03/02/23 Page 12 of 12

VERIFICATION

,,.,____
I, Steven Parker Scruggs, do hereby state under oath, that the facts as set forth
in the discovery responses provided are true and co/4ecto~he est of my knowledge
~~~ ~
__
Signature

State of Arkansas

County of Lonoke

Subscribed and sworn to before me this __2_1___ day of

Feb , 2023.

My commission expires:

[SEAL]

Beffnda L MIiier
Notary Public
Fauflcner County, Arkafl8al
Commission ExpirU Aprll 14, 2025
Commission Number 12404088

Complaint Page 12 of 12