Baton Bob - Federal Lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION ___________________________________________________________________

BOB JAMERSON a/k/a BATON BOB, Plaintiff v. CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA; H.J. DAVIS, City of Atlanta Police Officer; LT. JEFFREY CANTIN, City of Atlanta Police Lieutenant; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, City of Atlanta Police Officials; and MIDTOWN ALLIANCE, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT __________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Bob Jamerson a/k/a Baton Bob (Plaintiff

or Jamerson) and files this Complaint, as follows:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This is an action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and

damages, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, arising from the

wrongful arrest of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested on June 26th, 2013 while

engaging in an act of celebratory performance after the U.S. Supreme Court

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 26

2

struck down the federal ban on gay marriage in the case of United States v.

Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). Defendants not only arrested Plaintiff, but they

later compelled him to make public statements, while in custody, to the effect

that defendants were not culpable for their wrongful acts, in an attempt to

control the public outrage over his arrest. Defendants violated Plaintiffs

constitutional and legal rights, including his right to free speech, his right to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in

custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his

right to privacy, among others, as set forth herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as this action arises under the laws and

Constitution of the United States; pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983; and pursuant to

its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. This Court is authorized to

grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because at least one

Defendant resides in this district and division and because a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in this Complaint

occurred within this district and division.

4. Plaintiff provided the City of Atlanta with notice of his allegations

by letter sent to Atlanta Department of Law via certified mail on November 22,


3

2013, in accordance with Georgias ante litem notice statute, O.C.G.A. 36-33-5.

Thirty days have passed from the presentation of such claim to the City of

Atlanta and the City of Atlanta has not acted upon it, see O.C.G.A. 36-33-5(b),

(c).

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. He is an actor,

performance artist, and activist. Plaintiff is the creator of the alternate persona

Baton Bob, who is well known throughout Atlanta and the United States.

6. Defendant City of Atlanta (the City) is a municipal government

entity that maintains an office at 55 Trinity Avenue SW, Atlanta, Georgia. Its

official policies, customs, and practices were the driving force behind many of

the constitutional and statutory violations described herein.

7. Defendant H.J. Davis (Officer Davis) was an Officer with the City

of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.

8. Defendant Lt. Jeffrey Cantin (Lt. Cantin) was a supervising officer

with the City of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.

9. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes there is at least one

additional City of Atlanta police officer or agent that bears responsibility in

some way for Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff is unable to specifically identify said

police officer at this time. Plaintiff believes he will be able to identify said

defendant(s) though the discovery process.


4

10. Midtown Alliance is an entity created and funded by a coalition of

private businesses for various purposes, including providing security to

businesses in the Midtown neighborhood of Atlanta. Midtown Alliance

maintains a security force known as Midtown Blue, which is comprised largely

of off-duty City of Atlanta police officers. Midtown Alliances Office is located

at 999 Peachtree Street Suite 730 Atlanta, GA 30309.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

The Baton Bob Persona

11. In 2001, Plaintiff created a business around a street-performance

character of his own design, one Baton Bob.

12. For many years, Baton Bob has performed in public areas

throughout metro Atlanta, wearing creative outfits often including a tutu and

tiara, blowing a whistle, and twirling his signature baton, much in the style of a

majorette.

13. In addition to his frequent appearances at public events, Bob is

often privately hired to perform at weddings, parties and other events.

14. Bob has become so well known in Atlanta that his page on the

Facebook web site had at one point amassed the maximum number of five

thousand (5,000) friends.


5

15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff used Facebook as

his primary method of communication to his fans, friends, and prospective

clients.

16. Plaintiff uses a private username and password to access the

Facebook account in order to provide updates on appearances and social issues.

Bobs Arrest

17. On June 26th, 2013, the United States Supreme Court released its

five to four decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). The High

Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (codified at 1

U.S.C. 7) was unconstitutional, essentially ending the federal ban on same-sex

marriage.

18. The decision was celebrated by the LGBT

(Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) community because it acknowledged

their equal rights under federal law.

19. On the day of the Windsor decision, Plaintiff posted a message on

his Facebook page indicating that he planned to celebrate the ruling with a

performance on the corner of Peachtree and 14th Streets, in Midtown, next to

the Colony Square Mall.

20. To dress for the occasion, Plaintiff wore a wedding dress.


6

21. At approximately 12:00 p.m. on June 26th, 2013, Plaintiff arrived at

the Colony Square Mall parking deck and paid to park.

22. Plaintiff exited the parking deck and began walking through

Colony Square Mall en route to the corner of Peachtree and 14th Streets.

23. As Plaintiff passed through the mall, he was approached by a

number of Colony Square security guards. The security guards accosted

Plaintiff and began to harass him.

24. Plaintiff protested the security guards harassment of him and may

have used an expletive.

25. Plaintiff left the Colony Square property and moved onto the public

street corner to begin his performance.

26. Defendant Officer Davis arrived at the scene approximately ten (10)

minutes after Plaintiff exited the building.

27. At the time, Officer Davis was working both in his capacity as a

City of Atlanta police officer and a security guard for Midtown Alliance, as part

of its Midtown Blue security force.

28. Officer Davis was wearing his City of Atlanta police uniform.

29. When Officer Davis arrived, Plaintiff was in the midst of his

performance, dancing, twirling his baton, blowing his whistle, and waving at

people in the area.


7

30. A few pedestrians had stopped to watch the performance, but

neither Plaintiff nor the onlookers were blocking the sidewalk or otherwise

impeding pedestrian traffic.

31. Vehicle traffic next to the street was light. At least one motorist that

had stopped at the traffic light honked his horn in support of Plaintiff.

32. Plaintiffs dance was not obscene or otherwise unlawful.

33. To the contrary, Plaintiff was peacefully exercising his First

Amendment right to create political performance art in celebration of that days

landmark Supreme Court decision affirming the rights of LGBT Americans.

34. Officer Davis approached Plaintiff and ordered him to come with

him.

35. Plaintiff protested.

36. Officer Davis grabbed Plaintiff and placed his hands behind his

back.

37. Officer Davis shoved Plaintiff onto the ground, face first.

38. Officer Davis placed handcuffs on Plaintiff.

39. Officer Davis placed Plaintiff under arrest.

40. Neither Officer Davis, nor any City of Atlanta officer, ever read

Plaintiff his Miranda rights, explaining his right to remain silent, his right to

counsel, etc.


8

41. Officer Davis claimed in his police report that Plaintiff resisted

arrest and tried to kick me in my private area. However, this was not true, as

revealed by Colony Square video footage.

42. Once it became clear to Plaintiff that Officer Davis was attempting to

arrest him, Plaintiff did not resist arrest.

43. Officer Davis charged Plaintiff with assault and obstruction of

justice.

44. Once Officer Davis had Plaintiff in custody, he transported Plaintiff

to the Zone 5 Precinct of the Atlanta Police Department.

45. Atlanta Police authorities quickly realized that the media was

beginning to cover the arrest.

46. According to the City of Atlantas internal affairs report regarding

this arrest, numerous witnesses stated Bob continued to ask why he was being

arrested and that he didnt do anything.

The events following the arrest

47. In the wake of the notorious raid on the Atlanta Eagle nightclub,

numerous officials within the City of Atlanta and its police department had

become fearful of another public outrage from the LGBT community.

48. According to Atlantas internal affairs report regarding this arrest,

Atlanta officials saw news coverage regarding Plaintiffs arrest on Facebook


9

and the Atlanta Journal Constitution website while Plaintiff was being

processed for custody.

49. While looking at news reports, Officer Davis saw a picture of him

arresting Plaintiff.

50. Defendant Lt. Cantin was on duty at the precinct at the time.

51. According to Atlantas internal affairs report, Lt. Cantin received a

call from Public Affairs . . . asking about the arrest and charges.

52. The Citys Public Affairs official stated they were getting a lot of

phone calls from different media outlets on the incident.

53. Lt. Cantin then notified others in his chain of command about the

situation.

54. At 3:14 pm, Lt. Cantin wrote an email to Public Affairs, imploring

them to work your media magic with this case.

55. According to Lt. Cantins statement to internal affairs investigators,

Lt. Cantin suggested to Plaintiff, who was in custody in the Zone 5 Precinct,

to post something positive on his Facebook page, and say that it wasnt the

police department directing him to make the post, but that it was totally up

to him.

56. However, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin did not merely suggest

that Plaintiff post a positive message; instead, they told Plaintiff that they


10

would allow Plaintiff to be released from custody on a signature bond only in

exchange for a positive statement.

57. Plaintiff complied with Lt. Cantins instructions. Plaintiff gave

Officer Davis (who was sitting next to the computer) his private password

information.

58. Officer Davis logged in to Bobs Facebook account and typed out a

message to be broadcast to Bobs followers.

59. Plaintiff was in handcuffs while the Facebook post was being typed.

60. Officer Davis typed out the following message:

First of all, the atl police officer that responded to the incident thru security has been very respectful and gracious to me even in handcuffs. So, the situation escalated from a complaint from a security officer in the area and for some reason she rolled up on me like she didn't know who I was and like I had not been there before. For them to call police to come to intervene was not necessary. So, out of it, because of my fury, the Atlanta police officer did not understand the elements of the situation, so he was trying to do his job, respectfully and arrested my ass!!!!!!!!! I'll be out tomorrow so look out for my show at 14th and Peachtree. So now I'm waiting to be transported so I can sign my own bond and get the hell out of here. I want to verify, that the Atlanta police was respectful to me considering the circumstances. See you when I see you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

61. As promised, Plaintiff was given a signature bond the next day and

released from jail.


11

62. The City of Atlanta conducted an internal affairs investigation

regarding these events.

63. Following the conclusion of that investigation in December 2013, Lt.

Cantin received a 5-day suspension for violating Responsibilities of a

Supervisor.

64. Lt. Cantin accepted responsibility and stated, he was just trying to

do what was best for the department.

65. Officer Davis was suspended for one (1) day for not following arrest

procedures.

66. According to POST records, Officer Davis resigned from the police

department on the same month that Internal Affairs concluded its

investigation.

67. Authorities within the City of Atlanta and Atlanta Police

Department are aware that Plaintiffs arrest and coerced statement were

illegal. They have taken no public action to clear Plaintiff of the illegal

confession or unlawful charges.

68. On December 18th, 2014, all criminal charges against Plaintiff were

dismissed after the prosecutor entered an order of nolle prosequi.


12

Facts relating to Citys liability under Section 1983

69. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint,

Lt. Cantin was acting as an official policymaker on behalf of the City.

70. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint,

both Lt. Cantin and Officer Davis were acting on instructions from an official

policymaker of the City.

71. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs unlawful arrest, and the

events that followed, were driven by an unlawful policy or custom of the City;

namely, the City has been acutely aware of irrational anti-LGBT bias and

discrimination within its police department, in violation of the Equal Protection

Clause of the United States Constitution, for many years, yet has acted with

deliberate indifference to same. Events including, but not limited to, the raid on

the Atlanta Eagle bar have given the Citys policymakers actual notice of this

trend within the police department; yet, the Citys policymakers had not, at the

time of the events giving rise to this Complaint, taken appropriate corrective

action. This deliberate indifference was the driving force behind Plaintiffs

wrongful arrest and the events that followed.


13

LEGAL CLAIMS

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

72. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the Facts section of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

73. Officer Davis, acting under color of state law, arrested Plaintiff

without probable cause to believe he had committed a crime, thereby depriving

him of his liberty in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

74. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful

arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual

knowledge that there was no probable cause for same.

75. Officer Davis used excessive force in his arrest of Plaintiff, in that he

had no probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed a crime, and the

amount of force usednamely, slamming Plaintiffs face into the concrete

was grossly disproportionate to the amount necessary under the circumstances.

76. At all times relevant to this action, the law was established with

obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the Fourth

Amendment of the United States Constitution.


14

77. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an

amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the

violation of his rights as stated herein.

78. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious,

thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be

determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.

79. Davis, Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable under 42 U.S.C.

1983.

80. The City is liable for these actions to the extent they were driven by

an unlawful policy or ordered by a final policymaker for the City, as described

in paragraphs 69-71, supra.

COUNT II

ARTICLE 1 1 PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE



82. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause to believe he

had committed a crime, thereby depriving him of his liberty in violation of the

Article 1 1 13 of the Georgia Constitution.


15




84. Officer Davis used excessive force, as described supra, in violation of

the Article 1 1 13 of the Georgia Constitution.




86. The actions of Davis were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby

entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be


87. Officers Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others are liable pursuant to O.C.G.A.

36-33-4 and other provisions of state law.

88. The City is liable for these offenses to the extent permitted by state

law.

COUNT III

FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY




16

90. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff in order to silence and punish his

political speech and artistic expression, in violation of the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution.




92. After interrogating Plaintiff at the police station, Officer Davis and

Lt. Cantin coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the username and password

to his Facebook account and then published a statement on Plaintiffs behalf.

This compelled speech violated Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.

93. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers

within the City of Atlanta became aware of the coercion of the Plaintiffs

incriminating statements and the publishing of those statements on Plaintiffs

Facebook account and knowingly used the unlawful public statements to shield

them from public controversy, further violating Plaintiffs rights under the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution.


obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the constitution.


17







97. Davis, Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable under 42 U.S.C.

1983




COUNT IV (ARTICLE 1 1 PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH)



100. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff in order to silence and punish his

political speech and artistic expression, in violation of Article 1 1 5 of the

Georgia Constitution.


18




102. After interrogating Plaintiff at the police station, Officer Davis and

Lt. Cantin coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the username and password

to his Facebook account and then published a statement on Plaintiffs behalf.

This compelled speech violated Article 1 1 5 of the Georgia Constitution.

103. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers

within the City of Atlanta became aware of the coercion of the Plaintiffs

incriminating statements and the publishing of those statements on Plaintiffs

Facebook account and knowingly used the unlawful public statements to shield

them from public controversy, further violating Plaintiffs rights under Article 1

1 5 of the Georgia Constitution.




105. The actions of Davis, Cantin, and others, were willful, deliberate,

and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an

amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.


19

106. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others are liable pursuant to O.C.G.A.

36-33-4 and other provisions of state law.

107. The City is liable for these offenses to the extent permitted by state

law.

COUNT V

FIFTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: EQUAL PROTECTION



109. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs unlawful arrest was

motivated in whole or in part by his sexual orientation.

110. Evidence for same shall include, but not be limited to, the fact that

demonstrators and performers for numerous causes, including anti-war

demonstrators, frequently hold large rallies on the street corner where Plaintiff

was arrested, without the threat of arrest. However, Plaintiffs one-man

performance in support of LGBT rights led to his arrest.

111. There is no rational basis to treat Plaintiff, as a gay American,

differently from non-LGBT citizens.

112. There is no rational basis to discriminate against pro-LGBT speech in

favor of other forms of protected speech.


20


obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the constitution.










COUNT VI BATTERY



118. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause by way of

unlawful and unwanted touching of his person.



knowledge that there was no probable cause for same by way of unlawful and

unwanted physical contact.


21

120. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable

pursuant to state tort law, including O.C.G.A. 33-36-4.

COUNT VII O.C.G.A. 51-7-1: FALSE ARREST



122. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause, in violation

of O.C.G.A. 51-7-1.



knowledge that there was no probable cause for same, in violation of O.C.G.A.

51-7-1.







126. The officers involved are liable under state law, including O.C.G.A.

36-33-4.

127. The City is liable to the extent permitted by state law.


22

128. Midtown Alliance is liable pursuant to respondeat superior.

COUNT VIII

(COMPUTER IDENTITY THEFT, THEFT, TRESPASS, AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, O.C.G.A. 16-9-93)



130. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others coerced Plaintiff to provide

them with the confidential username and password to Plaintiffs Facebook

account, and then published false statements on Plaintiffs behalf to his

Facebook page.

131. The statements mischaracterized Plaintiffs arrest. Major Whitmire

and the City of Atlanta were aware of the violations around the time they

occurred. Defendants Davis, Lt. Cantin, Major Whitmire, and City of Atlanta

violated Plaintiffs rights under O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.

132. O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.1 which states in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization, or any representative of any organization knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network or over the transmission facilities or through the network facilities of a local telephone network for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol to falsely identify the person, organization, or representative transmitting such data or which would falsely state or imply that such person, organization, or representative has permission or is


23

legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol for such purpose when such permission or authorization has not been obtained O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.1 (emphasis added).

133. By logging on to Plaintiffs Facebook account and writing and

publishing a statement as if they were Plaintiff, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin,

used a computer network with knowledge that they were without authority to

do so and appropriated and converted the property of the character, name, and

persona Baton Bob and applied the same to publish a statement of criminal

liability. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, Major Whitmire, and City of Atlanta are

guilty of Computer Theft, a tort for which damages lie in accordance with

O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.

134. By logging on to Plaintiffs Facebook account and writing and

publishing a statement as if they were Plaintiff, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin

used a computer network with the intention of examining personal data

relating to another person with the knowledge that such examination was

without authority. Supervisors of Lt. Cantin and Officer Davis were aware of

this violation and are guilty of Computer Invasion of Privacy, at tort for which

damages lie in accordance with O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.

135. Defendants violation of Plaintiffs constitutional and statutory

rights has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages the amount of which is to be

determined at trial.


24




PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On the basis of the forgoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

a. Hold a trial by jury;

b. Award Plaintiff all actual damages, including damage to property, physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;

c. Award Plaintiff nominal damages;

d. Award Plaintiff punitive damages to the extent permitted by law;

e. declare that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs legal and

constitutional rights by

i. arresting him without probable cause; ii. arresting him in order to restrain, punish and deter his right to

free speech iii. conducting a warrantless search and seizure of the Plaintiff

and his Plaintiffs property by coercing him to turn over his username and password to authorities

iv. interrogating Plaintiff absent legal counsel and coercing Plaintiff into making public incriminating statements without access to legal counsel;

v. violating Plaintiffs right to remain silent by compelling and coercing Plaintiff to make public statements of an incriminating nature;

vi. violating Plaintiffs right to have bond set by a neutral magistrate free from coercion;

vii. violating Plaintiffs right to free speech without governmental interference;


25

viii. violating Palintiffs due process and equal protection rights in unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiff due to his sex, sexual orientation, or gender orientation;

f. Enjoin Defendants

i. from further unlawful access to Plaintiffs Facebook account, ii. from prohibiting Plaintiff to attend public events and to

perform as Baton Bob therein; iii. from continued discrimination against LGBT individuals;

g. That prejudgment and postjudgment interest be awarded;

h. Award attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other

applicable provision of law; and

i. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this February 25, 2015.

/s/ Joshua Landon Brownlee Joshua Landon Brownlee Georgia Bar No. 611140 Travis D. Andres Georga Bar No. 302040 114 New Street, Suite G2 Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 844-6139 [email protected]

/s/ James Radford James Radford Georgia Bar No. 108007 Regan Keebaugh Georgia Bar No. 535500 Caleb Gross Georgia Bar No. 960323 RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 545 N. McDonough St. Suite 212


26

Decatur, Georgia 30030 (678) 369-3609 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


JS44 (Rev. 1/08 NDGA) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket record. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED)

I. (a) PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF

LAND INVOLVED

(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) E-MAIL ADDRESS)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY) (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)

(FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

PLF DEF PLF DEF 1 U.S. GOVERNMENT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION 1 1 CITIZEN OF THIS STATE 4 4 INCORPORATED OR PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFF (U.S. GOVERNMENT NOT A PARTY) PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE

2 U.S. GOVERNMENT 4 DIVERSITY 2 2 CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE 5 5 INCORPORATED AND PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT (INDICATE CITIZENSHIP OF PARTIES PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER IN ITEM III) STATE

3 3 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY 6 6 FOREIGN NATION

IV. ORIGIN (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY) TRANSFERRED FROM APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE

1 ORIGINAL 2 REMOVED FROM 3 REMANDED FROM 4 REINSTATED OR 5 ANOTHER DISTRICT 6 MULTIDISTRICT 7 FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROCEEDING STATE COURT APPELLATE COURT REOPENED (Specify District) LITIGATION JUDGMENT

V. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE - DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)

(IF COMPLEX, CHECK REASON BELOW)

1. Unusually large number of parties. 6. Problems locating or preserving evidence

2. Unusually large number of claims or defenses. 7. Pending parallel investigations or actions by government.

3. Factual issues are exceptionally complex 8. Multiple use of experts.

4. Greater than normal volume of evidence. 9. Need for discovery outside United States boundaries.

5. Extended discovery period is needed. 10. Existence of highly technical issues and proof.

CONTINUED ON REVERSEFOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT $ APPLYING IFP MAG. JUDGE (IFP)

JUDGE MAG. JUDGE NATURE OF SUIT CAUSE OF ACTION (Referral)

BOB JAMERSON a/k/a BATON BOB,

Fulton

CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA; H.J. DAVIS, City of Atlanta Police Officer; LT. JEFFREY CANTIN, City of Atlanta Police Lieutenant; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, City of Atlanta Police Officials; and MIDTOWN ALLIANCE

Fulton

James Radford, Regan Keebaugh, Caleb Gross, Radford & Keebaugh, LLC, 545 N. McDonough St. Suite 212, Decatur, Georgia 30030, (678) 369-3609, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected];

Joshua Brownlee, Andres & Brownlee, LLC, 114 New Street, Suite G2 Decatur GA 30030, (404) 844-6139, [email protected]

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claims based on violations of First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause in retaliation for exercising his right to free speech by engaging in performance art to celebrate a Supreme Court decision benefitting gay Americans.

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 2

VI. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)CONTRACT - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK

150 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT & ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

152 RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED STUDENT LOANS (Excl. Veterans)

153 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF VETERAN'S BENEFITS

CONTRACT - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK 110 INSURANCE 120 MARINE 130 MILLER ACT 140 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT 151 MEDICARE ACT 160 STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS 190 OTHER CONTRACT 195 CONTRACT PRODUCT LIABILITY 196 FRANCHISE

REAL PROPERTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK 210 LAND CONDEMNATION 220 FORECLOSURE 230 RENT LEASE & EJECTMENT 240 TORTS TO LAND 245 TORT PRODUCT LIABILITY 290 ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY

TORTS - PERSONAL INJURY - "4" MONTHSDISCOVERY TRACK 310 AIRPLANE 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT LIABILITY 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL & SLANDER 330 FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 340 MARINE 345 MARINE PRODUCT LIABILITY 350 MOTOR VEHICLE 355 MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCT LIABILITY 360 OTHER PERSONAL INJURY

362 PERSONAL INJURY - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

365 PERSONAL INJURY - PRODUCT LIABILITY 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT LIABILITY

TORTS - PERSONAL PROPERTY - "4" MONTHSDISCOVERY TRACK

370 OTHER FRAUD371 TRUTH IN LENDING380 OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE PRODUCT LIABILITY

BANKRUPTCY - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK 422 APPEAL 28 USC 158 423 WITHDRAWAL 28 USC 157

CIVIL RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK 441 VOTING 442 EMPLOYMENT 443 HOUSING/ ACCOMMODATIONS 444 WELFARE 440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS 445 AMERICANS with DISABILITIES - Employment 446 AMERICANS with DISABILITIES - Other

IMMIGRATION - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK462 NATURALIZATION APPLICATION463 HABEAS CORPUS- Alien Detainee465 OTHER IMMIGRATION ACTIONS

PRISONER PETITIONS - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

510 MOTIONS TO VACATE SENTENCE530 HABEAS CORPUS535 HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY540 MANDAMUS & OTHER550 CIVIL RIGHTS - Filed Pro se555 PRISON CONDITION(S) - Filed Pro se

PRISONER PETITIONS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

550 CIVIL RIGHTS - Filed by Counsel555 PRISON CONDITION(S) - Filed by Counsel

FORFEITURE/PENALTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

610 AGRICULTURE620 FOOD & DRUG625 DRUG RELATED SEIZURE OF PROPERTY 21 USC 881630 LIQUOR LAWS640 R.R. & TRUCK650 AIRLINE REGS.660 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY / HEALTH690 OTHER

LABOR - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK710 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT720 LABOR/MGMT. RELATIONS730 LABOR/MGMT. REPORTING & DISCLOSURE ACT740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT790 OTHER LABOR LITIGATION791 EMPL. RET. INC. SECURITY ACT

PROPERTY RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

820 COPYRIGHTS840 TRADEMARK

PROPERTY RIGHTS - "8" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

830 PATENT

SOCIAL SECURITY - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

861 HIA (1395ff)862 BLACK LUNG (923)863 DIWC (405(g))863 DIWW (405(g))864 SSID TITLE XVI865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)871 IRS - THIRD PARTY 26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

400 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT430 BANKS AND BANKING450 COMMERCE/ICC RATES/ETC.460 DEPORTATION470 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT

ORGANIZATIONS480 CONSUMER CREDIT490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV810 SELECTIVE SERVICE875 CUSTOMER CHALLENGE 12 USC 3410891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS892 ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT893 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS894 ENERGY ALLOCATION ACT895 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT900 APPEAL OF FEE DETERMINATION UNDER

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES890 OTHER STATUTORY ACTIONS

OTHER STATUTES - "8" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK

410 ANTITRUST850 SECURITIES / COMMODITIES / EXCHANGE

OTHER STATUTES - 0" MONTHS DISCOVERYTRACK ARBITRATION (Confirm / Vacate / Order / Modify)

(Note: Mark underlying Nature of Suit as well)

* PLEASE NOTE DISCOVERY TRACK FOR EACH CASE TYPE. SEE LOCAL RULE 26.3

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: CHECK IF CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.Civ.P. 23 DEMAND $_____________________________ JURY DEMAND YES NO (CHECK YES ONLY IF DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT) VIII. RELATED/REFILED CASE(S) IF ANY JUDGE_______________________________ DOCKET NO._______________________ CIVIL CASES ARE DEEMED RELATED IF THE PENDING CASE INVOLVES: (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX)

1. PROPERTY INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.2. SAME ISSUE OF FACT OR ARISES OUT OF THE SAME EVENT OR TRANSACTION INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.3. VALIDITY OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAME PATENT, COPYRIGHT OR TRADEMARK INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.4. APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME BANKRUPTCY CASE AND ANY CASE RELATED THERETO WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE SAME

BANKRUPTCY JUDGE.5. REPETITIVE CASES FILED BY PRO SE LITIGANTS.6. COMPANION OR RELATED CASE TO CASE(S) BEING SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED (INCLUDE ABBREVIATED STYLE OF OTHER CASE(S)):

7. EITHER SAME OR ALL OF THE PARTIES AND ISSUES IN THIS CASE WERE PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN CASE NO. , WHICH WASDISMISSED. This case IS IS NOT (check one box) SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CASE.

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD DATE

February 25, 2015s/ James Radford

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 2

Baton Bob - Federal Lawsuit

Documents

defendant city of atlanta

resident of atlanta

city of atlanta police

action pursuant

arrested plaintiff

atlanta department of

united states pursuant

united states district