STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF MARION ) FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

)
) Case No.: 2022-CP-__-_________
David Wiggins, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) SUMMONS
v. ) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
)
CITY OF MARION. )
)
)
Defendant. )
)

TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT,

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action,

a copy of which is served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to this Complaint upon

counsel for the Plaintiff, Marvin R. Pendarvis, at 8420 Dorchester Rd. Suite 202, North Charleston,

SC 29420, within thirty (30) days after service hereof, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail

to answer this Complaint within the aforesaid time, judgment by default shall be rendered against

you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

PENDARVIS LAW, LLC

s/ Marvin R. Pendarvis
Marvin R. Pendarvis, Esq. #101832
8420 Dorchester Rd. Ste. 202
North Charleston, SC 29420
Phone: (843) 990-9847
Facsimile: (843) 310-6384
[email protected]
This 10th day of July, 2023
North Charleston, South Carolina
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MARION ) FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
) Case No.: 2022-CP-__-_________
David Wiggins, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT
v. ) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
)
CITY OF MARION. )
)
)
Defendant. )
)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff David Wiggins, by and through his undersigned counsel of
record, and files this Complaint against the above-named Defendant, and allege as follows:
PREFACE
The Plaintiff brings claims of gross negligence, negligence, negligent training,
negligent supervision, civil assault and battery, and false imprisonment pursuant to the South
Carolina Tort Claims Act against the City of Goose Creek based on the acts and omissions of
their employees and officers in the detainment of Plaintiff on November 20, 2022.

1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Marion County, State of South Carolina.

2. Defendant City of Marion is political subdivision, department, or agency of the state of

South Carolina within the meaning of S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-30(a). At all times

herein, Defendant acted through its employees. Defendant maintains a police

department whose officers are employees and/or agents of the Defendant and for whose

conduct the Defendant is responsible.

3. Upon information and belief, the incident that is the subject matter of this Complaint

took place in Marion County, South Carolina, therefore jurisdiction and venue are

proper before this Court.

 FACTS

4. On or about November 20, 2022 Plaintiff was leaving Burger King and headed home

when he was stopped by Officer Madison Smith of the Marion Police Department.

5. Plaintiff was compliant and pulled his vehicle over.

6. Immediately upon stopping Plaintiff, Officer Smith drew her gun and started pointing

it at Plaintiff’s vehicle.

7. Officer Smith then ordered Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle and lay face down on

the street, all while still pointing the gun in his direction.

8. Officer Smith approached Plaintiff, with her gun still drawn on him, and placed him

in handcuffs as he was still laying face down on the street.

9. After a several minutes had gone by, other offices with the Marion Police Department

responded to the scene and checked the plates of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

10. It was determined that Officer Smith had stopped the wrong vehicle and Plaintiff was

finally released from handcuffs.

11. Upon having the handcuffs removed, Plaintiff was able to leave the scene after an

apology from Officer Smith that was a mockery at best and insincere at worst.

12. Plaintiff was in handcuffs for nearly two minutes and had a gun pointing at him for

three minutes.

13. In other words, Plaintiff had to endure 180 seconds handcuffed with his face to the

ground and a gun to his head not knowing if the next second would be his last.

14. Plaintiff ultimately filed a formal complaint against the Marion Police Department

and met with the Police Chief Flowers who informed him that he would not be

referring the matter to SLED and that Officer Smith would be disciplined.
15. The force utilized by Officer Smith was well beyond what was necessary to bring the

situation safely under control.

16. Officer Smith did not intend to conduct a lawful traffic stop, or one that was in

bounds of state and local law as she never attempted to verify that the plates on

Plaintiff’s vehicle matched the vehicle she was looking for.

17. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent, reckless, and unlawful

conduct, described above, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to

pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, medical expenses, mileage incurred in traveling to

medical appointments, and such additional damages as may be revealed during the trial

of this matter.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence/Gross Negligence/Negligent Training/Negligent Supervision)

18. Plaintiff realleges the preceding paragraphs as though set forth verbatim herein.

19. The actions of the Defendant, as described above, were taken pursuant to their policies

and practices.

20. As a matter of both policy and practice, the Defendant encourages, and is the moving

force behind, its officers’ objectively unreasonable use of force against Plaintiff by

hiring and retaining unqualified officers, and by failing to adequately train, supervise,

and control its officers.

21. By failing to adequately investigate and discipline officers who have engaged in

instances of excessive force against citizens, the Defendant manifests a complete, total,

and reckless disregard for the rights of its citizens.

22. Defendant’s actions show that use of excessive force is encouraged because its officers

believe that their actions will never be scrutinized, and that they will never be

investigated or punished for doing do.

23. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent, reckless, and unlawful

conduct, described above, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to

pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, medical expenses, mileage incurred in traveling to

medical appointments, and such additional damages as may be revealed during the trial

of this matter.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Civil Assault and Battery)

24. Plaintiff realleges the preceding paragraphs as though set forth verbatim herein.

25. The actions the Defendant created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm and

constituted harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff.

26. The actions of the Defendant were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances

and were undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference

to the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

27. The Defendant’s actions were undertaken within the scope of their employment.

28. The Defendant is liable as principal for all torts committed by its agents.

29. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent, reckless, and unlawful

conduct, described above, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to

pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, medical expenses, mileage incurred in traveling to

medical appointments, and such additional damages as may be revealed during the trial

of this matter.
 FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Arrest/False Imprisonment)

30. Plaintiff realleges the preceding paragraphs as though set forth verbatim herein.

31. The Defendant did not have probable cause to believe that Plaintiff was committing or

had committed any crime.

32. The Defendant caused Plaintiff to be detained and imprisoned him without probable

cause or legal justification.

33. The Defendant caused Plaintiff to be detained and imprisoned for an unreasonable

amount of time and in an unreasonable manner.

34. The actions of the Defendant were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances

and were undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference

to the rights of Plaintiff.

35. The actions of the Defendant were undertaken within their scope of employment.

36. The Defendant is liable as principal for all torts committed by its agents.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent, reckless, and unlawful

conduct, described above, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to

pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, medical expenses, mileage incurred in traveling to

medical appointments, and such additional damages as may be revealed during the trial

of this matter.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court issue an order in favor of Plaintiff and
against the Defendant, awarding to Plaintiff actual, special, and/or consequential damages, and for
such other relief in law or equity as this court deems just and proper, including but not limited to
any costs resulting from this action.
 PENDARVIS LAW, LLC

s/ Marvin R. Pendarvis
Marvin R. Pendarvis, Esq. #101832
8420 Dorchester Rd. Ste. 202
North Charleston, SC 29420
Phone: (843) 990-9847
Facsimile: (843) 310-6384
[email protected]
This 10th day of July, 2023
North Charleston, South Carolina