-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GERARDO PINEDO, SR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF
GERARDO PINEDO, JR
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, JAMAL ROBINSON, AND MARK
MELTABARGER
Civil Action No. _____ _
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, GERARDO PINEDO, SR., individually and on
behalf of the
ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR., complaining of Defendants, THE
CITY OF DALLAS,
TEXAS, more particularly the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, by and
through its agents and servants acting jointly and severally in
their official capacities and
Officers JAMAL ROBINSON, and MARK MELTABARGER, individually and
in their official
capacities as Dallas Police Officers, and for cause would show
the Honorable Court as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
I. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the City
of Dallas, Texas, and Officers
JAMAL ROBINSON and MARK MELTABARGER for their individual use of
deadly force and
assault resulting in the wrongful death of GERARDO PINEDO, JR
under the color of law in
violation of his individual rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution and in violation of his civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C.
1985(3). Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
individually and as representative for the
ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to the full extent applicable by
law under the Texas
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 18 PLED Pitf Ong
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 18
PageID 1
-
Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
71.001, et seq., the Texas Survival
Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.021, and all
other applicable laws complaining
of the various acts listed below and for their wrongful death
and survival cause of action.
2. Plaintiff alleges that the CITY OF DALLAS had a duty, but
failed to implement policies,
practices and procedures that respected GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s
constitutional rights to
assistance, protection, and equal treatment under the law.
Defendant's failure to implement the
necessary policies and the implementation of unconstitutional
policies deprived GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. of equal protection and due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment and caused
his unwarranted and excruciating physical and mental anguish and
death. For these civil rights
violations, and other causes of action discussed herein,
Plaintiff seeks answers and compensation
for his damages and the death of GERARDO PINEDO, JR ..
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, GERARDO PINEDO, SR. is the father of GERARDO
PINEDO, JR., decedent,
and brings this wrongful death action pursuant to the Texas
Survival Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code 71.021, and as the parent of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. who,
at the time of his
death, was a resident of Dallas County, Texas.
4. Defendant, the CITY OF DALLAS, is a municipality located in
Dallas County, Texas.
The CITY OF DALLAS operates the Dallas Police Department
("DPD"). The CITY OF
DALLAS may be served with citation herein by and through its
agent for service of process,
Warren Ernst, City Attorney, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla
Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
Additional service is being made on Mayor Mike Rawlings, 1500
Marilla Street, Room SEN,
Dallas, Texas 75201.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 2 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 2 of 18
PageID 2
-
5. Defendant JAMAL ROBINSON, upon information and belief, is a
resident of Dallas
County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police
officer acting in the course and
scope of his employment for the CITY OF DALLAS and DPD.
Defendant JAMAL ROBINSON
may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department,
1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas
75215 or wherever he may be found.
6. Defendant MARK. MELTABARGER, upon information and belief, is
a resident of
Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a
police officer acting in the course
and scope of his employment for the CITY OF DALLAS and DPD.
Defendant MARK.
MELTABARGER may be served with citation at the Dallas Police
Department, 1400 S. Lamar,
Dallas, Texas 75215 or wherever he may be found.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
and 1343 as this action is
brought under, inter alia, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), to
redress the deprivation of rights,
privileges and immunities guaranteed to decedent, GERARDO
PINEDO, JR., by constitutional
and statutory provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the
supplemental jurisdiction of this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims arising
under the laws of the State of
Texas.
8. Venue is proper in this Court because events made the basis
of Plaintiffs' causes of action
occurred within the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 3 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 3 of 18
PageID 3
-
STATE ACTION
9. To the extent applicable, Defendants were acting under color
of state law when they
subjected GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to the wrongs and injuries
hereinafter set forth.
FACTS
10. On or about July 17, 2013, GERARDO PINEDO, JR., a 19 year
old unarmed Hispanic
male, upon information and belief, was confronted by Dallas
Police Officers identified as
JAMAL ROBINSON and MARK MELTABARGER for no lawful reason while
GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. was lawfully within a home located at 1639 Conner
Dr., Dallas, Texas 75217 (the
"Home"). GERARDO PINEDO, JR. had been with friends in the area
close to the Home earlier
that evening. After leaving his friends, GERARDO PINEDO, JR.
returned to the Home.
11. At or around 10:00 pm, somebody called 911, and upon the
arrival of Defendants
ROBINSON and MELTABARGER, a neighbor informed Defendants that
the neighbor had
heard noises coming from the Home and believed an intruder was
inside.
12. Upon information and belief, a gunshot was heard at or
around 10:00 pm. Shortly
thereafter, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was seen lying on the ground in
the backyard of the Home,
writhing and moaning in pain, with one of the Defendants
standing over GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. shining a flashlight on him. Further, while GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. was writhing and
moaning in pain on the ground, one of the Defendants proceeded
to prod GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. with a black object. In addition to prodding GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. while he was on the
ground, one of the Defendants was also seen grabbing and
dragging GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s
body.
13. There was no indication that GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was armed
with a weapon at the
time of the occurrence of the events made the basis ofthis
lawsuit.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 4 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 4 of 18
PageID 4
-
14. Upon infonnation and belief, it was not until approximately
20 to 30 minutes after the
gunshot that emergency medical personnel arrived and took
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. away.
15. The Dallas Medical Examiner determined that GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. had one
gunshot wound to his hand, another gunshot wound to his chest,
and two punctate abrasions on
his back consistent with Taser injuries.
16. As indicated above, Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABARGER
attacked
GERARDO PINEDO, JR., using excessive and deadly force for no
lawful reasons. During this
time, either Defendant ROBINSON or Defendant MELTABARGER tased
GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. in the back, and the other continued the assault
upon 19 year old GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. by delivering at least one fatal gunshot wound to
the chest.
17. There is no evidence that Defendants were in imminent
danger. Upon infonnation and
belief, there were no signs of any visible injuries or bruising
to either Defendant ROBINSON or
Defendant MELTABARGER'S bodies that would indicate that the use
of deadly force was
justified.
18. Drawing or displaying firearms requires that a threat or
reasonable belief that there is a
threat to life or they have reasonable fear for their own safety
and/or the safety of others, exist in
order to authorize an officer to draw or display herlhis
firearm.
19. A taser is an intennediate weapon, and is only justified for
situations when the officer
believes empty hand control will be ineffective. Empty hand
control techniques include joint
locks, pressure points, Oleoresin Capsicum Spray, hand held
aerosols, and pepper ball saturation,
none of which occurred before the drawing of Defendants'
weapons.
20. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's unlawful and
unwarranted acts caused
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s wrongful death.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 5 of 18 PLED PltfOrig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 5 of 18
PageID 5
-
21. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto,
Defendants ROBINSON and
METLABERGER were acting within the scope of their employment as
agents, servants, and
employees of Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS within its
executive branch and were
performing a governmental function.
22. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and
l\1ELTABERGER's
actions were the result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and
reckless customs, policies,
practices and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
knew or should have
known but never provided the requisite and proper training.
23. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was nineteen (19) years old when he was
killed by
Defendants.
24. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have
concluded that the actions of the
Defendants described herein would not violate GERARDO PINEDO,
JR.'s rights. In other
words, no reasonably prudent police officer under similar
circumstances, could have believed
that their conduct was justified.
25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct,
Plaintiff has sustained
substantial damages and pecuniary loss.
EXCESSIVE FORCE COUNT A: 42 U.S.C. 1983
26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 25
as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff would further show that Defendants' actions on the
occasion in question were wrongful
and constituted gross negligence in depriving GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. of his constitutional
rights, as alleged more fully below.
27. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto,
Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER had a duty to avoid infliction of unjustified bodily
injury to GERARDO
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 6 of 18 PLED Pltf Qrig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 6 of 18
PageID 6
-
PINEDO, JR., to protect GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s bodily integrity
and to not trample on
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights.
28. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER failed
to act as reasonable police officers would have acted in the
same or similar circumstances. That
is, DefendantsROBINSON and MELTABERGER, without justification
and the need to do so,
tased, disabled, shot and used excessive and deadly force as
described above, and killed
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. without probable cause.
29. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER tased
and shot GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in his own backyard causing
punctate abrasions to
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s body. Defendants utilized deadly force in
attacking GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. for no lawful reason. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. died as a
result of the gunshot
wound to his chest fired by either Defendant ROBINSON or
MELTABERGER. The excessive
and deadly force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was
not reasonable nor
was it necessary under the circumstances.
30. Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER's actions were not
objectively reasonable
because they failed to follow reasonable procedures and used
excessive force and deadly force in
restraining GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in a non-life threatening
situation. GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. was tased and suffered two gunshot wounds while he was
subdued.
31. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER denied
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. his right to be free from cruel, unusual and
excessive punishment, and
to be free from deprivation of his rights without due process of
law, in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to
the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER were
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 7 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 7 of 18
PageID 7
-
acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at
the time of the incident. Plaintiff would further show that as a
result of these violations of
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights, Plaintiff have suffered damages
within the jurisdictional
limits of this Court.
32. The force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was
unnecessary and
unreasonable under the circumstances, as GERARDO PINEDO, JR. did
not require the use of
such excessive and deadly force. Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER had no
probable cause to suspect that a crime was being committed or
that their conduct was reasonable
so as to justify Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER tasing
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.
in the back, shooting him in the hand and chest, prodding him
while he was on the ground
writhing in pain, and dragging his body while he was on the
ground.
RACIAL PROFILING COUNT B: CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION
33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 as
iffully set forth herein.
34. Racial Profiling: Plaintiff would show that Defendants
ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER clearly and wrongfully used race as a factor, a
proxy, for reasonable suspicion
and using excessive force on GERARDO PINEDO, JR .. Additionally,
Plaintiff would show that
it is the policy of the Dallas Police Department to treat
Hispanics in a cruel manner regardless of
the circumstances or the need to. The facts show that there was
no probable cause for
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s arrest and that no citations were ever
issued. In fact, Plaintiff would
show that the excessive force used by Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER was not
reasonable nor was it necessary as GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was
lawfully in the Home.
Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER treated GERARDO PINEDO, JR.
in the manner
they did because he was Hispanic. Plaintiff would show that
Defendants ROBINSON and
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 8 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 8 of 18
PageID 8
-
MELTABERGER's actions were in violation of TEX. CODE CRIM PROC.
ANN. Art. 2.131-
137 (Vernon Supp. 2004) and are therefore strictly liable to
Plaintiff.
35. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER denied
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. his rights to be free from cruel, unusual
and excessive punishment,
right 01 equal protection, and deprived him of due process of
law, in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to
the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER, under the color
of law, deprived
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his civil rights, privileges or
immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C.
1985 (3).
36. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER were acting
within established wrongful and reckless customs, policies,
practices and/or procedures of the
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the time of the incident, and further
that the Defendant the CITY
OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have known of said malicious
customs, policies, practices
and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or
should have known but
never provided the requisite and proper training.
37. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these
violations of GERARDO PINEDO,
JR.' s rights, Plaintiff has suffered damages within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
FAILURE TO TRAIN COUNT C: 42 U.S.C. 1983
38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-37 as if
fully set forth herein.
39. Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS developed and maintained
a policy of
deficient training of its police force in the use of force,
including the use of deadly force in the
apprehension of individuals. The CITY OF DALLAS' failure to
provide adequate training to its
police officers regarding the use of deadly force reflects
deliberate indifference and reckless and
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 9 of 18 PLED PltfOrig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 9 of 18
PageID 9
-
conscious disregard for the obvious risk that officers would use
excessive or deadly force on
citizens and made the violations of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s
constitutional rights, including
his death, a reasonable probability.
40. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER's actions were
the result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless
customs, policies, practices and/or
procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS knew or should have
known but never provided
the requisite and proper training.
FALSE ARREST COUNT D: 42 U.S.C. 1983
41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-40 as if
fully set forth herein.
42. Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show
that Defendants ROBINSON
and MELTABERGER's actions were objectively uureasonable and done
in bad faith in that
Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER attempted to arrest GERARDO
PINEDO, JR.
without probable cause. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. did not commit a
crime by being in the
Home.
43. Plaintiff would further show that they have suffered damages
within the jurisdictional
limits of this Court as a result of the wrongful arrest and that
such arrest was done under color of
law.
44. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER were acting
within the custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY
OF DALLAS at the time of the
incident.
45. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful arrest
was done in violation of
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the
United States
Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment, and that Plaintiff has
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 10 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 10 of 18
PageID 10
-
suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court
as a result of the violations of
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights.
46. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting under the
color oflaw when
they deprived GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his constitutional right to
be free from false arrest.
47. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show
that Defendants ROBINSON
and MELTABERGER's actions were objectively unreasonable and done
in bad faith because
Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were without probable cause
to think that
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was unlawfully in the Home.
48. Plaintiff would further show that they have suffered damages
within the jurisdictional
limits of this Court from the wrongful shooting of GERARDO
PINEDO, JR., and said shooting
was under the color of law.
49. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER were acting
within the custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY
OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the
time of the incident.
50. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful
shooting was done in violation of
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the
United States
Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment, and that Plaintiffs have
suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court
as a result of these violations.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY COUNTE
51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-50 as
iffully set forth herein.
52. Defendants ROBINSON and MELT ABERGER intentionally and
without consent placed
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in apprehension of imminent harmful contact
and caused harful bodily
contact to GERARDO PINEDO, JR..
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Poge 11 of 18 PLED Pltf Drig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 11 of 18
PageID 11
-
53. As a proximate result of the foregoing, GERARDO PINEDO, JR.
suffered grievous
bodily harm, substantial physical and emotional pain, and loss
of his life.
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN AND DISCIPLINE COUNTF
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-53 as if
fully set forth herein.
55. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show
that at all times material hereto,
Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS's Police Department lacked
guidelines both to restrict the use
of force, including the use of tasers, and to monitor the use of
tasers, or, if such guidelines
existed, they were grossly inadequate to ensure the proper and
restrained use of force including
tasers by police personnel.
56. Plaintiff would show that Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS
endorsed the unfettered use
of deadly force, including a taser, even in situations where no
crime was committed. Plaintiff
would show that Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS' failure to
properly train, supervise, test,
regulate, discipline or otherwise control its employees and the
failure to promulgate proper
guidelines for the use of force including fire arms and tasers
constitutes a custom, policy,
practice andlor procedure of condoning unjustified use of deadly
force in violation of the
constitutional rights of GERARDO PINEDO, JR..
57. As a result of this failure to train and discipline,
Plaintiff has suffered damages within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court. As described above,
Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER shot GERARDO PINEDO, JR. with a taser in the back
and used deadly force
when it was unnecessary.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 12 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 12 of 18
PageID 12
-
INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
COUNTG
58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-57 as if
fully set forth herein.
59. Plaintiff would further show that if Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER were
acting in their individual capacity, the they committed the
following intentional torts against
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.:
a. Assault and Battery; and
b. False Imprisonment.
60. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of
Defendants ROBINSON and
MELT ABERGER, Plaintiff suffered pain and suffering, mental
anguish, and severe emotional
distress, loss of support and companionship damages within the
jurisdictional limits of this
Court.
61. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's conduct was of a
willful, malicious,
reckless and outrageous nature, and was intended to cause, and
did in fact cause GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. to suffer extreme and severe mental and emotional
distress, agony and anxiety.
Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's conduct offends the
generally accepted
standards of decency and morality.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE COUNTH
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-61 as if
fully set forth herein.
63. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER had a duty to employ
only reasonable
measures in the treatment of the decedent.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 13 of 18 PLED PUf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 13 of 18
PageID 13
-
64. Notwithstanding said duties, Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER acted in a
wanton and willful manner, exhibiting such carelessness and
recklessness as to evidence a
conscious disregard for the life and safety of GERARDO PINEDO,
JR..
65. Defendants ROBINSON and MELT ABERGER were aware that they
were not facing any
imminent or serious threat of bodily harm, and they knew or
should have known that they had no
right to use any force whatsoever with respect to GERARDO
PINEDO, JR., who was merely
lawfully present inside the Home owned by his father. Defendants
ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER nonetheless illegally apprehended GERARDO PINEDO,
JR. through the use
of deadly force by shooting him in the chest and tasing him in
the back.
66. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER knew or should have
known that their
course of action of drawing a lethal weapon and firing it at
GERARDO PINEDO, JR. would
place GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in grave danger of serious injury.
67. As a direct and proximate cause of the gross negligence of
Defendants ROBINSON and
MELTABERGER, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION COUNT I
68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-67 as if
fully set forth herein.
69. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.021, the
decedent's right of action
for wrongful and negligent conduct against Defendants survives
in favor of his heirs, legal
representatives, and the estate of the deceased.
70. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the loss of GERARDO
PINEDO, JR. 's life, pain and
suffering, and the violation of his civil rights.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 14 of 18 PLED PUf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 14 of 18
PageID 14
-
TEXAS WRONGFUL DEATH ACT COUNTJ
71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-70 as if
fully set forth herein.
72. Plaintiff GERARDO PINEDO, SR. is the legal administrator for
the estate of GERARDO
PINEDO, JR.
73. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. died as a result of Defendants' wrongful
conduct.
74. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. would have been entitle to bring this
action against Defendants
if he had lived.
75. By reason of Defendants' wrongful conduct of shooting to
death an unarmed individual
without the imminent threat of serious bodily harm, Defendants
are liable for damages.
76. Defendants' conduct that caused GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s death
was a producing
cause of injury to GERARDO PINEDO, JR., which resulted in
damages including loss of a
family relationship, love, support, services, emotional pain and
suffering, and for Defendants'
intentional and reckless acts and infliction of emotional
distress caused by the wrongful killing of
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.
77. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
78. GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s death resulted from Defendants'
willful act or omission, or
from Defendants' gross negligence, which entitles GERARDO
PINEDO, JR.'s heirs to
exemplary damages under the Texas Constitution article 16,
section 26.
DAMAGES ALL DEFENDANTS
79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-78 as if
fully set forth herein.
80. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants' acts and/or
omissions were a proximate
cause of the following injuries suffered by Plaintiff and
decedent:
a. Actual damages;
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 15 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 15 of 18
PageID 15
-
b. Loss of affection, consortium, comfort, financial assistance,
protection, affection
and care;
c. Pain and suffering and mental anguish suffered by GERARDO
PINEDO, JR., JR.
prior to his death;
d. Mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by
Plaintiff;
e. Loss of quality oflife;
f. Funeral and burial expenses;
g. Loss of service;
h. Loss of earnings and contributions to Plaintiff;
i. Exemplary and punitive damages; J. Reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs of court;
k. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable laws,
Plaintiff should be awarded reasonable attorney's fees for the
preparation and trial of this cause of
action, and for its appeal, if required;
1. Pre-judgment interest; and m. Post-judgment interest.
81. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages in an amount that is
within the jurisdictional limits
of this Court.
PUNITIVEIEXEMPLARY DAMAGES
82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-81 as
iffully set forth herein.
83. Additionally and in the alternative, the conduct of
Defendants ROBINSON and
MELT ABERGER was done with malice. As such, Plaintiff requests
punitive and exemplary
damages to deter this type of conduct in the future.
84. In the alternative, such heedless and reckless disregard of
GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s
rights, safety, and welfare is more than momentary
thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or
misjudgment. Such unconscionable conduct goes beyond ordinary
negligence, and as such,
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 16 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 16 of 18
PageID 16
-
Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages be awarded
against Defendants ROBINSON
and MELTABERGER in a sum which is within the jurisdictional
limits of this Court.
COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
85. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-84 as if
fully set forth herein.
86. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs
under 42 U.S.C. 1 988(b).
87. As such, Plaintiff requests that the Court award Plaintiff
his costs and attorney fees
incurred in Plaintiff's prosecution ofthis matter.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-87 as if
fully set forth herein.
89. Plaintiff would show that Defendants were jointly and
severally liable for the negligence
and gross negligence, which was the proximate cause of Plaintiff
s injuries.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
90. Plaintiff reserves his right to plead and prove the damages
to which they are entitled to at
the time of trial. All conditions to Plaintiff s recovery have
been performed or have occurred.
JURY DEMAND
91. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants
be cited to
appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial hereof
Plaintiff have and recover judgment
from Defendants for:
a. Actual damages;
b. Exemplary and punitive damages;
c. Pre-judgment interest; d. Post-judgment interest;
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 17 of 18 PLED PHf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 17 of 18
PageID 17
-
e. Interest on said Judgment; and
f. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court.
Additionally, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant Plaintiff any
other and further relief to which he
may be entitled, both at law and in equity.
Respectfully submitted, c:-;>
EVAN LANE (VAN) SHAW Bar Card No. 18140500 COLLEN R. MEYER Bar
Card No. 24074709 LAW OFFICES OF V AN SHAW 2723 Fairmount Dallas,
Texas 75201 (214) 754-7110 FAX NO. (214) 754-7115 [email protected]
[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 18 of 18 PLED Pitf Orig
Complaint
Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 18 of 18
PageID 18