Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 46

__________________________________________
SHARNENE JOHNSON, :
Individually and as Personal Representative :
of the Estate of Mr. DeAndre Johnson :
704 57 Pl. SE
th
:
Washington, DC, 20019 :
:
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. :
:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AND :
CHIEF ROBERT CONTEE :
OFFICER JUWAN JEFFERSON :
AND UNKNOWN OFFICERS A and B :
In their individual and official capacities :
:
Serve: Mayor Muriel Bowser :
1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW :
Washington, DC 20004 :
:
Serve: Attorney Karl Racine :
441 4th Street NW :
Suite 1100 South :
Washington, D.C. 20001 :
:
Defendants. :
_________________________________________:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

On October 18, 2021, without probable cause or legal justification, three

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers, while in the residence of DeAndre

Johnson, physically detained and arrested Mr. Johnson by initially placing one
1
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 46

handcuff on him and then forcing him onto the floor, at which point MPD Officer

Juwan Jefferson fired two shots into the body of Mr. Johnson, killing him. At the

time of his death, Mr. Johnson was unarmed and despite officer’s claims 1 did not

pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or anyone

else present.

As the mother and personal representative of Mr. Johnson’s estate, Plaintiff

Sharnene Johnson brings this action in her individual capacity and on behalf of her

son’s estate, pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, for damages and relief against

the District of Columbia, Chief of Police Robert Contee III, MPD Officers Juwan

Jefferson, and Unknown MPD Officers A and B in their individual and official

capacity.

Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants for violation of Deandre Johnson’s

Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Plaintiff

also seeks damages under the District’s Wrongful Death Act and Survivor Act. In

addition to federal claims, this lawsuit also alleges claims against Defendant District

of Columbia for negligent supervision, retention, hiring, training and discipline; and

against Defendant MPD officers for false arrest, false imprisonment; and assault and

1
See, Exhibit 1, attached hereto, pg. 37, 2021 Report on Use of Force by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department states, “On October 18, 2021, at the 1300 block of Congress Street SE officers responded to a scene where
the complainant was attempting to retrieve their belongings. Once on the scene a struggle ensued between the
complainant and the subject. Once officers intervened, a struggle then started between officers and the subject. The
subject was fatally shot, and no weapon was recovered from the scene. This case was still under investigation as of
May 2022.”

2
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 46

battery.

JURISDICTION

1.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case under 28 USC § 1331

federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings this action under 42 USC §

1983 to vindicate Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments rights guaranteed by the

Constitution of the United States. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction to

adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims arising under the laws of the District of Columbia

pursuant to 28 USC § 1367 because those claims form part of the same case or

controversy.

VENUE

2.

Venue is proper under 28 USC § 1391(b)(1)-(2) because Defendants reside in

this judicial district and because the events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims took

place in this district. Jurisdiction and Venue are proper.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff SHARNENE JOHNSON (hereinafter “Ms. Johnson”) is the mother of

DeAndre Johnson and the Personal Representative of his estate. Ms. Johnson is, and

at all times relevant was, a U.S. citizen and resident of Washington, D.C. Ms.

3
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 4 of 46

Johnson brings this action under D.C. and federal law for all general, special,

compensatory, punitive, and permissible damages.

DEFENDANTS

4.

Defendant, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (“the DISTRICT”), as a

municipality, operates, manages, directs, controls MPD and District of Columbia

Fire and Emergency Medical Service Department (“FEMS”), and is responsible for

the policies, practices, customs, and regulations of the MPD and FEMS; and for the

hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of agents, employees and MPD officers.

On March 11, 2022, Ms. Johnson issued a formal notice to Mayor Muriel Bowser

that she would be pursuing claims on behalf of her son’s death against the District

of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Code, Section 12-309. The DISTRICT may be served

through Mayor Muriel Bowser at 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C.

20003.

5.

Defendant ROBERT CONTEE III (“Defendant CONTEE”) was sworn in as

acting Chief of Police for the MPD on January 2, 2021. On May 4, 2021, he was

officially confirmed as Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. Defendant

CONTEE remains in this position and has supervisory and managerial authority

over MPD officers. In his role as Chief of Police, Defendant CONTEE is ultimately

4
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 5 of 46

responsible for the management and operation of MPD, and specifically responsible

for ensuring that MPD officers comply with the color and pretense of federal and

state laws, as well as the ordinances, regulations, customs, and practices of the

DISTRICT and the policies of the Metropolitan Police Department.

6.

The actions of Defendant CONTEE that are the subject of this Complaint were

undertaken under color of law in the regular course of his employment as a police

officer of the District/and or the MPD. Defendant Contee is ultimately responsible

for the policies, practices, customs, and regulations of MPD; for the hiring, training,

supervision, and discipline of MPD officers; and for promulgating all orders, rules,

instructions, and standard operating procedures for citizen encounters with police

officers acting in their official capacity. Defendant CONTEE is sued in his

individual capacity as a resident of DC.

7.

Defendants JUWAN JEFFERSON (hereinafter referred to as Defendant

(“JEFFERSON”) and UNKNOWN Officers A and B 2 are, and at all relevant times

were, sworn MPD officers of the DISTRICT. In their capacity as police officers,

2
In using “Officers A and B” as a placeholder, Plaintiff refers to the two unknown officers in the BWC.
Plaintiff does not know the names of the other officers on the scene, and does not allege that only two
officers are relevant to her claims. She uses the placeholder only to suggest the possibility that multiple
unknown officers are relevant to this Complaint.

5
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 6 of 46

Defendant Jefferson and Officers A and B were responsible for policing the District

under the color and pretense of the federal and state laws as well as the ordinances,

regulations, and customs of MPD and the District.

8.

The actions of Defendant JEFFERSON and UNKNOWN Officers A and B

that are the subject of this Complaint, were undertaken in the regular course of their

employment as police officers of the MPDas employed by the DISTRICT.

Defendant Jefferson and the Unknown officers are sued in their individual capacity.

9.

Defendant DISTRICT and their agents and employees, including but not

limited to the MPD, Defendant CONTEE, Defendant JEFFERSON, and Unknown

MPD Officers, have acted willfully, wantonly, and recklessly towards Mr. Johnson,

proximately causing his injuries. Therefore, no immunity applies in this matter.

10.

Defendant District and their agents and employees, including the MPD and

Defendant CONTEE, have exhibited a pattern and practice of ignoring and

violating the rights of citizens through deliberate indifference related to hiring,

training, supervising, and disciplining their employees, which proximately caused

the injuries to Plaintiff.

11.

6
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 7 of 46

Defendant CONTEE individually and Defendant DISTRICT can be held

liable for the violation of Mr. JOHNSON’S federal constitutional rights, pursuant

to 42 USC §§ 1983 and Montell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 US 658 (1978).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

October 18, 2021, Shooting

12.

At all relevant times, Defendant JEFFERSON and Uknown Officers A and B

were sworn members of the MPD and were acting under the color and pretense of

the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the DISTRICT and

MPD and under the authority of their office and within the scope of their

employment as police officers.

13.

On October 18, 2021, DEANDRE JOHNSON was a citizen and resident of

the District of Columbia and the United States of America. At all times relevant

herein, DEANDRE JOHNSON had legal rights established by the Constitution of

the United States and laws set forth by state and federal statutes.

14.

On October 18, 2021, Defendant JEFFERSON and Unknown Officers A and

B were on duty and were present for the service of a Civil Protection Order (CPO)

at 1310 Congress Pl. S.E.

7
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 8 of 46

15.

Defendant JEFFERSON and UNKNOWN Officers A and B were required to

follow MPD General Order 304.20, which provides: MPD “members shall serve

the [Civil Protection] order, but an arrest shall not be made as the order is not

violated unless served. The respondent should be allowed to leave unless an offense

other than a CPO violation was committed. Members shall inform the respondent

of the requirements of the order or allow the respondent to read the order.” See,

MPD General Order, MPD. G.O., 304. 20, Civil Protection Orders, II Section 10,

attached as Exhibit 2.

16.

On October 18, 2021, Officers Juwan JEFFERSON and other unknown

officers entered DEANDRE JOHNSON’S residence along with his girlfriend, Ms.

Jaquia Taylor, mother of his one-year-old son. 3

17.

When the officers entered with Ms. Taylor to serve the CPO, she began to ask

aloud why the residence was in disarray. After a brief verbal exchange, MPD officers

began to surround Mr. Johnson. There was no physical contact between Ms. Taylor

and Mr. Johnson.

18.

3
Mr. Johnson was killed with his one year old son inside of the residence.

8
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 9 of 46

When Mr. Johnson asked why the police were present in the home, MPD

officer Juwan JEFFERSON crossed both of his wrists in front of him as a hand signal

to the other MPD officers to place Mr. Johnson under arrest.

19.

When Officer JEFFERSON gave that hand signal, DEANDRE JOHNSON had

committed no crime. With no probable cause or any legal basis, Unknown MPD

officers A and B placed DEANDRE JOHNSON’s right hand into one handcuff and

forcibly tackled him onto the living room floor of his apartment.

20.

While Mr. Jonson was lying on the floor with two MPD officers on top of him,

Officer Juwon Jefferson fired two gunshots into DEANDRE JOHNSON’S body,

killing him. When Defendant JEFFERSON fired his weapon inside of the apartment,

both MPD officers were in his line of fire.

21.

After the shooting, MPD officers did not render any life-saving aid, did not call

emergency FEMS, and DEANDRE JOHNSON was not taken to the hospital.

22.

Prior to and at the time Defendant JEFFERSON discharged his firearm,

DEANDRE JOHNSON was unarmed and posed no significant threat of death or

serious injury to Defendant JEFFERSON, any other persons or officers on the scene.

9
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 10 of 46

23.

Prior to and at the time Defendant JEFFERSON discharged his firearm,

DEANDRE JOHNSON had not engaged in any illegal or criminal activity that

justified Defendant Jefferson’s use of his firearm.

24.

DEANDRE JOHNSON had a clearly established constitutional right to be free

from unlawful search and seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

25.

In Graham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court determined that all

claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force during an arrest,

investigatory stop or other “seizure” of a person should be analyzed under the

“objective reasonableness, standard of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees

citizens the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures. Graham, 490 U.S. 386, 392-399 (1989).

26.

MPD has a Use of Force (“UOF”) policy that quotes the Graham Standard as

follows: “The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees people “the

right to be secure in their persons” and provides a framework in which the courts

can evaluate the use of force by law enforcement officers, including the “objective

reasonableness” standard established in Graham v. Connor 490 US 386 (1989). The

10
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 11 of 46

objective reasonableness acknowledges the difficult decisions that members are

forced to make under rapidly evolving and unpredictable circumstances.” Use of

Force, Section II. Use of Force B. Specific Precautions. 901.07(B)(1)(d), attached as

Exhibit 3.

27.

MPD’s UOF policy applies to all sworn officers of the Police Department and

states the following: “Members of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) shall

value and preserve the sanctity of human life at all times, especially when lawfully

exercising the use of force. In situations where the use of force is justified, the utmost

restraint should be exercised. Members shall minimize the force that is used while

protecting the lives of members and other persons and continuously reassess the

perceived threat in order to select the reasonable use of force response that is

proportional to the threat faced by him, her, or others.” Metropolitan Police

Department General Orders, MPD G.O. 2022, Use of Force, Section I. Purpose.

901.07, attached as Exhibit 4.

28.

The MPD’s UOF policy also states that “Members shall not use force against

a subject in handcuffs 4 unless the subject is actively assaulting, attempting to escape

police custody, resisting members’ efforts to maintain custody or control over the

4
At the time of his death Mr. Johnson’s right hand had been placed in one handcuff.

11
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 12 of 46

subject, or actively spitting on a member as authorized in Part II.B.4 of this order. In

these cases, members shall limit their force response to the minimum amount of

force, consistent with the use of force framework, that the objectively reasonable

officer would use in light of the circumstances to effectively bring an incident or

person under control.” Metropolitan Police Department General Orders, MPD G.O.

2022, Use of Force, Section II. Use of Force B. Specific Precautions.

901.07(B)(1)(d), attached as Exhibit 5.

29.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Johnson was never informed that a CPO was

being served or that he was being arrested when his right hand was placed into

handcuffs. According to an eyewitness on October 18, 2021, DEANDRE

JOHNSON never made physical contact with Ms. Jaquia Taylor and never reached

for, grabbed, or touched any officer’s service weapon or holster. Therefore,

JEFFERSON’S claim that he was in fear for his safety and that of others as a reason

for firing his weapon is unreasonable in that neither of the closer two MPD officers

asserted any such fear.

30.

The actions of Defendant JEFFERSON by shooting Mr. Johnson twice in the

body while being restrained by one handcuff and two officers on top of him violated

MPD’s Use Of Force General Orders 901.07. MPD General Order, Standard

12
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 13 of 46

Operating Procedure, MPD GO 901.01 Use of Force, Exhibit 6.

31.

MPD’s UOF policy states that “Members shall not use deadly force against a

person unless the member reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately

necessary to protect the member or another person (other than the subject of the use

of deadly force) from the threat of serious bodily injury or death, the member’s

actions are reasonable given the totality of the circumstances, and all other options

have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.”

Metropolitan Police Department General Orders, MPD G.O. 2022, Use of Force,

Section II. Use of Force Principles. 901.07(B)(8), attached as Exhibit 7.

32.

The UOF policy also states: “All members who encounter a situation where the

possibility of violence or resistance to lawful arrest is present shall, if possible, first

attempt to defuse the situation through advice, warning, verbal persuasion, tactical

communication, or other de-escalation techniques. Members shall attempt to defuse

use of force situations with de-escalation techniques whenever feasible.” Id.

33.

The UOF policy further states: “the [MPD] member may use an increasing

level of force to overcome the level of resistance, as long as the force response

remains proportionate to the perceived threat. Here Defendant JEFFERSON’s

13
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 14 of 46

actions by shooting Mr. Johnson while he was unarmed and physically restrained on

the floor by two MPD officers were unreasonable ad disproportionate to any alleged

perceived threat.

34.

Defendant CONTEE, as Chief of Police of the District’s MPD, is the “final

authority for all policies, procedures, and activities of the department and its

members.” The Executive Office of the Chief of Police (“EOCOP”) oversees all

bureaus within the police department. Metropolitan Police Department General

Order, MPD GO 101.10, Organization of the Metropolitan Police Department

(MPD) attached as Exhibit 8.

35.

MPD has a disciplinary process for its officers, administered through the Office

of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR’s purpose is to provide investigative and

disciplinary review services to ensure that the MPD is adhering to laws, regulations,

and policies and to follow up on misconduct complaints.

36.

OPR is responsible for the discipline of officers, and the policy states: “MPD

members shall be subject to disciplinary action for cause. OPR shall be notified of

any MPD officer’s conduct that includes excessive use of force.”

37.

14
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 15 of 46

OPR reports directly to Defendant CONTEE as Chief of Police. The decision

of the Chief of Police or his/her designee shall be the final administrative review of

these actions.

38.

In 1999, MPD Chief Charles Ramsey created the Force Investigations Team

(FIT) to investigate officer-involved fatal shootings. In 2012, MPD merged its FIT

into MPD’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD). In June of 2021, under the leadership

of DEFENDANT CONTEE, MPD reinstated the FIT to investigate serious uses of

force.

39.

IAD investigates members of the MPD for misconduct as well as fatal uses of

police force. IAD also serves as the Department’s liaison to the Office of Police

Complaints (OPC).

40.

The Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) reviews all use of force investigations

completed by IAD that result in a fatality. UFRB provides the most senior-level

review of the most serious uses of force by MPD officers.

41.

In 2001, Defendant DISTRICT established the Office of Police Complaints

(“OPC”). The primary function of OPC is to receive, investigate, and resolve police

15
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 16 of 46

misconduct complaints filed by the public against sworn officers of the Metropolitan

Police Department (MPD). OPC is an independent D.C. government oversight

agency whose goal is to enhance transparency regarding MPD’s use of force and to

increase community trust in the MPD.

42.

The Board is the governing authority of OPC and has the power to promulgate

rules and implement the provisions of D.C. Official Code § 5-1107.

43.

OPC also investigates complaints alleging that a member of the MPD has

engaged in harassment, discrimination, inappropriate language/conduct, retaliation,

and or excessive force. When a complaint examiner sustains at least one allegation

of misconduct, OPC refers the case to the Chief of Police to impose an “appropriate

penalty from the Table of Penalties Guide in General Order 17-01”. See, MPD [G.O.

PER 120.21; Disciplinary Procedures and Processes. Exhibit 9

44.

OPC reviews police policies, procedures, and practices to ensure the District

police forces are using the best practices available, with a special emphasis on

constitutional policing methods. These policy reviews often result in formal and

informal recommendations for improvement to the Chief of Police.

45.

16
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 17 of 46

Although OPC’s role is to recommend improvements, CONTEE, as Chief of

Police, remains the designated “final authority for all policies, procedures, activities,

and discipline of the Department and its members; such authority may be delegated.

Metropolitan Police Department General Order, MPD GO 101.10 Organization of

the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) attached as Exhibit 10.

46.

The sanctions imposed by MPD in response to sustained community

complaints suggest that the Department is reluctant to impose serious sanctions

based on community complaints and often goes outside of the Table of Penalties

Guide. As visualized in the graphic, the majority of sustained complaints for the past

two years have resulted in reprimands or education-based development. These minor

disciplinary sanctions allow officers to believe that complaints from community

members are unimportant and that MPD. See, Exhibit 11.

47.

Police misconduct damages the relationship between police departments and

the communities they serve. It is important that community members trust that police

officers are held accountable for their wrongdoing. Community members who think

that a department allows misconduct are less likely to believe that police officers

wield legitimate authority making them less likely to trust officers, assist with

investigations and cooperate with officers’ requests.

17
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 18 of 46

48.

MPD’s education-based development is not discipline at all, and is merely

additional training. For this reason, it is not listed in the Table of Penalties Guide set

forth in the General Orders. Since 2016, when the NEAR Act’s was passed OPC has

had the authority to refer cases to MPD for policy training. A referral for training is

done prior to sustaining the complaint and is solely based on the investigation. If the

allegations were deemed appropriate for training, then the case would not have been

referred to the adjudication process to make a sustained merits determination.

Recently MPD’s actions have further raised concerns as to the seriousness with

which MPD takes OPC’s sustained cases.

49.

In 2019, Defendant JEFFERSON was investigated by IAD and sanctioned by

the UFRB related to his use of force in the killing of Mr. Eric Carter. On September

16, 2019, Defendant JEFFERSON fired eighteen shots at Mr. Eric Carter striking

Officer Sfoglia, in her police issued tactical vest. See, Office of the Auditor Report

of MOD Use of Force. Exhibit 12.

50.

Although IAD and the UFRB found that Mr. Carter was armed at the time of

his death and that Officer Jefferson’s shooting was “justified,” it also concluded

that Officer JEFFERSON’S actions, specifically the reckless shooting of Officer

18
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 19 of 46

Sfoglia in her tactical vest, warranted discipline. Specifically, The UFRB found that

Defendant JEFFERSON fired his weapon ‘while other officers were in the line of

sight’ and recommended a “tactical improvement opportunity.”

51.

A 2022 report by the Office of the Auditor reviewed IAD and UFRB’s

findings in four fatal shootings by MPD officers. Of the four cases, UFRB

recommended additional training for one officer, DEFENDANT JEFFERSON.

See, Id. The UFRB report stated that JEFFERSON was “responsible for ensuring

no other persons were within his line of fire for each shot.” However, both UFRB

and IAD reports failed to document whether JEFFERSON ever completed the

tactical opportunity. Id.

52.

The Auditor’s report documented many investigative shortcomings in the

UFRB/IAD investigation. The Report concluded that “These shortcomings were

not adequately investigated by IAD and not adequately identified and analyzed in

the IAD report or by the UFRB.” See, Exhibit 13 pg xiii.

53.

For example, During the investigation, the UFRB investigator asked Officer

Jefferson highly suggestive questions on issues that bore directly on whether Officer

Jefferson complied with MPD policy, including: “Did you not have the chance to

19
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 20 of 46

give verbal commands because of the exigency of the circumstances?”

54.

Under the leadership of Defendant CONTEE, as Chief of Police, MPD has

engaged in a widespread and persistent pattern and practice of routinely ignoring

recommendations of the OPC that action be taken against officers when the UFRB

has found them to have acted in a manner inconsistent with MPD policy related to

improper and excessive force. In ignoring the IAD/UFRB recommendations,

Defendant CONTEE provided insufficient oversight relating to enforcing the

UFRB’S recommendations, thereby allowing officers to avoid accountability.

55.

Between 2014 and 2018, MPD officer-involved firearm discharges resulted in

two to four reported fatalities each year. In 2021, when Deandre JOHNSON was

killed by MPD, the number of officer-involved fatalities increased to five, the

highest in seven years. See, Exhibit 14.

56.

The twenty incidents in which officers discharged their firearms at people in

2021 involved 22 officers in total discharging their firearms. Five of the subjects at

whom officers discharged their firearms in 2021 were fatally injured. Three of these

subjects reportedly pointed their weapons at officers, one subject was armed with a

20
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 21 of 46

handgun, and one subject was resisting officers. 5

57.

In 2021, UFRB issued nine determinations regarding five neck restraint

incidents that took place in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. In these five

incidents, there were eight neck restraints used. Of these neck restraints, all eight

were Not Justified, Not Within Department Policy. One of the nine determinations

was for a policy violation. The IAD’s recommendation was to Sustain the policy

violation, but the UFRB disagreed and found the violation to be Exonerated.

58.

The 2021 OPC report, stated: “There was an incident where an officer used

force on a subject who was handcuffed. The UFRB recommended the Policy and

Standards Branch conduct a policy review of General Order 901.07 to address the

following: 1) Provide additional clarity that not only should the minimum amount

of force be used on handcuffed prisoners, but the all over provisions of General

Order 901.07, also apply to Part IV, N. (e.g. defensive tactics may not be used on

an active resisting suspect; the suspect must at least demonstrative assaultive

behavior); and 2) Specifically, indicate which tactics fall under each level of the

Member’s Force Response in the Use of Force Framework (e.g. Strikes, ASP,

5
See, Exhibit 15, pg. 31; OPC 2021 MPD’s Use of Force Report, This is apparently MPD’s reporting
DeAndre Johnson killing.

21
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 22 of 46

40mm. and ECD fall under the Defensive Tactics category). Id. Pg. 41.

59.

The 2021 OPC report also stated: “There was an incident where an officer

discharged their firearm at a subject.” The UFRB recommended the MPD

incorporate into future bi-annual firearms re-qualifications the items listed below.

1) The use of a flashlight while discharging a firearm in low-light situations into

the course of fire; 2) The use of cover and concealment into live firearms training

during each requalification; 3) The use of effective communication and directives

under high-stress situations with multiple officers on the scene. Id.

60.

The 2021 OPC report further stated: “On May 16, 2020, officers were called

to the scene of an individual sleeping in a vehicle. Once officers approached the

vehicle, the subject woke up and exited the vehicle. Upon exiting the vehicle, an

officer attempted to grab the subject, who was attempting to flee. The subject

became agitated, and a struggle ensued until the subject was placed in handcuffs.

While handcuffed the subject was still agitated and was acting aggressively toward

the officer, which led to the officer using O.C. spray on the subject. During another

takedown it appeared as if the officer’s right forearm was against the right side of

the subject’s neck.” The OPC found the use of the neck restraint to be Not Justified,

Not Within Department Policy. Id. Pg. 38

22
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 23 of 46

61.

Currently, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is solely responsible for

deciding the discipline for MPD officers for sustained allegations of misconduct

based on community member complaints to the Office of Police Complaints (OPC).

But this has led to an opaque system that can appear to the community as being too

lenient.

63.

MPD failed to follow recommendations from the UFRB, IAD, and the OPC.

Defendant CONTEE was aware of Defendant JEFFERSON’s previous use of force,

and he failed to impose proper discipline which led to JEFFERSON’S use of

excessive force against DEANDRE JOHNSON.

64.

Here, the Monell claim establishes an unconstitutional custom and practice of

MPD of allowing officers who are disciplined through the proper channels to escape

being held accountable. Defendant CONTEE was aware that Defendant

JEFFERSON used excessive force because he was: 1) notified through the IAD of

the UFRB reports related to JEFFERSON’s recommended discipline; and 2)

received the public 2022 Bromwich report, which identified investigative problems

within IAD and UFRB.

65.

23
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 24 of 46

Defendant CONTEE has been aware of MPD’s excessive use of force since

2016 when he served as the Assistant Chief of MPD’s Professional Development

Bureau, which oversaw the Disciplinary Review Division. Every year an annual

report on MPD’s UOF has been made publically available since 2010. The

supervisory officers of MPD and Chief CONTEE are aware of Officers’ use of

excessive force and are deliberately indifferent to the use of excessive force.

COUNT ONE

(42 USC § 1983 Claims and State Law Claims)

(Defendant Juwan JEFFERSON, in his Individual Capacity)

66.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-65 above, as if

fully set forth herein.

67.

At the time of her son’s death, SHARNENE JOHNSON had legal rights

established by the Constitution of the United States, the DISTRICT, and laws set

forth by state and federal statutes.

68.

At the time of his death, DEANDRE JOHNSON had legal rights established

by the Constitution of the United States, the DISTRICT, and laws set forth by state

24
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 25 of 46

and federal statutes.

69.

Defendant JEFFERSON’S shooting of DEANDRE JOHNSON was a

violation of DEANDRE JOHNSON’s civil rights under both the United States

Constitution and the United States Code, including the use of excessive and deadly

force in violation of due process.

70.

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, DEANDRE

JOHNSON was seized when he was shot by Defendant JEFFERSON, which

through the application of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution, is also a violation District laws and regulations.

71.

Officers A and B, acting under color of law at all relevant times, acted in

reckless and conscious disregard for Mr. JOHNSON’s Fourth Amendment right to

be free from unreasonable seizures, giving rise to Fourth Amendment claims under

42 USC § 1983.

72.

Under federal law, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the intentional shooting by

Defendant JEFFERSON of DEANDRE JOHNSON, striking and killing him, was

unreasonable and without legal justification since DEANDRE JOHNSON did not

25
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 26 of 46

pose a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Defendant JEFFERSON, or any

others.

73.

Defendant JEFFERSON had no lawful authority to use deadly force; this

shooting violated the civil rights of DEANDRE JOHNSON as guaranteed by the

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, for

which Defendant JEFFERSON is individually liable.

74.

Based on Defendant JEFFERSON’S intentional unjustified shooting, which

resulted in DEANDRE JOHNSON being killed, Defendant JEFFERSON’S

conduct towards DEANDRE JOHNSON gives rise to state law claims and liability

against him for assault, battery, and wrongful death.

75.

Based on MPD’s forcibly tackling DEANDRE JOHNSON onto the floor of

his residence without probable cause, reasonable articulable suspicion, or any other

lawful basis, UNKNOWN officers A and B’s conduct towards DEANDRE

JOHNSON gives rise to state law claims and liability against them assault, battery,

false imprisonment, and false arrest.

76.

In addition, because the actions of Defendant JEFFERSON were intentional,

26
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 27 of 46

extreme, outrageous, and reckless, causing DEANDRE JOHNSON to experience

severe emotional distress, Defendant JEFFERSON’S conduct gives rise to liability

to SHARNENE JOHNSON for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

77.

Due to the wrongful death suffered by DEANDRE JOHNSON, from being

shot by Defendant JEFFERSON, his mother, SHARNENE JOHNSON, has lost the

society and companionship of her son, which is the direct and proximate cause of

the personal injury suffered in this case.

78.

The actions of Defendant JEFFERSON in shooting DEANDRE JOHNSON

were not only without legal justification but done with actual malice toward

DEANDRE JOHNSON and with willful and wanton indifference, and deliberate

disregard for his constitutional rights, entitling his Estate to exemplary damages.

79.

Defendant JEFFERSON is not entitled to qualified immunity, because his

actions were malicious, reckless, and callously indifferent to clearly established

and well-settled federal and state constitutional and statutory law, which a

reasonable person in his position would have known.

80.

As a direct and proximate result of the illegal search and seizure, Decedent

27
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 28 of 46

and his Estate suffered damages as described in the paragraphs above herein. The

instant claim survives Decedent, and damages are recoverable under the District of

Columbia Survivorship Act. Damages sought under this count are also proper

pursuant to the District of Columbia Wrongful Death Act.

81.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant JEFFERSON, he

is liable to the Estate of DEANDRE JOHNSON for all damages allowed under

DISTRICT and federal law, including damages for physical and emotional pain and

suffering, medical and funeral expenses, and punitive damages.

COUNT TWO

42 USC § 1983 Supervisor Liability Claims)

(Defendant Robert CONTEE III, in his Individual Capacity)

82.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1–81 above as if

fully set forth herein.

83.

The claims against Defendant CONTEE in his individual capacity, are based

on his actions and omissions in his role as Chief of Police of MPD, including his

role in the enactment and promulgation of MPD policies and procedures relating to

training, discipline, supervision and use of force by MPD officers.

28
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 29 of 46

84.

Defendant CONTEE has served as Chief of Police since January 2021 and

was Chief of Police at the time of this incident. Defendant CONTEE’S actions were

a contributing cause and driving force behind the actions of Defendant

JEFFERSON, who remains under the supervision of Defendant CONTEE.

85.

Defendant CONTEE is liable in his individual capacity for the violation of

DEANDRE JOHNSON’S constitutional rights as described herein due to his

deliberate indifference, knowledge, and participation in his role as Chief of Police

of a history of widespread abuses by MPD officers involving the use of force and

violation of MPD policies, specifically including Defendant JEFFERSON.

86.

Defendant CONTEE is liable in his individual capacity for the violation of

DEANDRE JOHNSON’S constitutional rights as described herein due to his

deliberate indifference as Chief of Police to take the necessary corrective action to

resolve issues relating to obvious, flagrant, and rampant violations of use of

excessive force within the Metropolitan Police Department while he remains Chief

of Police.

87.

Defendant CONTEE is liable in his individual capacity for the violation of

29
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 30 of 46

DEANDRE JOHNSON’S constitutional rights as described herein by creating and

allowing, through his actions and omissions as Chief of Police, a policy or custom

of widespread and persistent abuses by MPD officers involving the use of force and

violation of MPD policies, to include a failure to investigate and discipline MPD

officers, including Defendant JEFFERSON adequately.

88.

Defendant CONTEE is liable in his individual capacity for the violation of

DEANDRE JOHNSON’s constitutional rights as described herein due to his

deliberate indifference to MPD officers violating the constitutional rights of

citizens through the improper use of force, including deadly force.

89.

Prior to this shooting, Defendant CONTEE, in his role as Chief of Police, was

aware that Defendant JEFFERSON had a history of violating the constitutional

right of citizens, including at least one prior UFRB finding that Defendant Jefferson

should be sanctioned for the reckless use of his firearm that resulted in the shooting

of another MPD officer.

90.

Prior to this shooting, Defendant CONTEE in his role as Chief of Police was

aware that Defendant JEFFERSON had a history of violating the work rules of the

DISTRICT Police Department. In 2021, following an investigation by IAD, a

30
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 31 of 46

determination was made by the UFRB that Defendant JEFFERSON should be

sanctioned when he failed to ensure his line of sight was clear at the time he

discharged his weapon. According to reports, JEFFERSON was only educationally

counseled, even though she should have been subjected to discipline by Defendant

CONTEE through MPD’s Table of Offenses Guide.

91.

The UFRB’s review of Defendant JEFFERSON found that he had violated

MPD’s policy requiring “an officer to take note when another officer is in the line

of sight” before firing his weapon. However, it is unclear whether Defendant

CONTEE rejected the finding of OPC BECAUSE the IAD report never included

whether or not JEFFERSON completed the sanction, tactical opportunity. 6

92.

Defendant CONTEE, in his role as Chief of Police, permitted, maintained,

condoned, and ratified a system and review of investigations of police misconduct

allegations involving the use of force that is so cursory and lacking in thoroughness

that it is ineffective and biased in favor of officers over citizen complainants, and

which has led to the foreseeable result of tolerating and contributing to the improper

use of force by MPD officers.

93.

6
See, Exhibit 13.

31
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 32 of 46

The custom, policies, and practices described herein, and attributed to the

actions and omissions a Defendant CONTEE in his role as Chief of Police, were a

direct contributing cause and driving force leading to the violation of DEANDRE

JOHNSON’S civil and constitutional rights.

94.

Defendant CONTEE in his individual capacity, is not entitled to qualified

immunity, because his actions as shown herein, were deliberately indifferent, with

knowledge and acquiescence, regarding clearly established and well-settled

federal and state constitutional and statutory law, which a reasonable person in his

position would have known.

95.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant CONTEE, he is

liable to SHARNENE JOHNSON for all damages allowed under DISCTRCT and

federal law, including damages for physical and emotional pain and suffering,

medical expenses, and punitive damages.

COUNT THREE

(42 USC § 1983 Municipal Liability Claims)

(Defendant DISTRICT)

96.

32
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 33 of 46

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations and paragraphs 1 – above as if

fully set forth herein.

MPD’s Duties Under 6A DCMR 207

Defendants owed DEANDRE JOHNSON a duty of reasonable care to use

only the minimal amount of force necessary to apprehend him. Under this duty of

care, Defendants were to resort to using firearms to effect apprehension only if the

officers: exhausted all other reasonable alternative means of doing so; were seeking

to arrest DEANDRE JOHNSON for a felony they reasonably believed could result

in death or serious bodily injury; and would not endanger the lives of others in using

their firearms.

Defendants owed Mr. JOHNSON a duty to refrain from using their firearms

except for the purposes of defending against an attack they had reasonable cause

to believe could result in their death or serious bodily injury.

97.

As shown herein, the actions, omissions, systemic flaws, policies, and

customs of Defendant DISTRICT, through the MPD, have caused police officers

to believe that the use of excessive, deadly, or unreasonable force would not be

properly, aggressively and thoroughly investigated, which has led to the foreseeable

result that officers were likely to use excessive and unreasonable force against

citizens in the future.

33
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 34 of 46

98.

Defendant DISTRICT failed to adequately train, supervise, and oversee its

officers. This, combined with its further failure to enforce its own policy guidelines,

led to a custom and practice of widespread and illegal use of deadly force by MPD

officers. Moreover, the DISTRICT knew or should have known that MPD officers

commonly use excessive deadly force but failed to address these widespread

violations of individuals’ constitutional rights.

99.

At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the policy, practice, and

custom of D.C.’s MPD to encourage and permit officers to use excessive deadly

force to seize citizens when patrolling majority-Black areas of D.C. See, OPC

report MPD’s Use of Force 2020; Exhibit 17.

100.

At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, it was the policy, practice, and

custom of D.C.’s MPD to employ a police code of silence, where officers and

supervisors cover up instances of unjustified deadly force by fabricating accounts

in police reports and internal affairs investigations presented to the public with the

intention of falsely exonerating officers from potential civil liability.

101.

Years before this shooting, Defendant DISTRICT, through the MPD and

34
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 35 of 46

District Lawmakers, allowed a persistent and widespread practice of condoning,

ratifying and authorizing certain officers, including Defendant JEFFERSON, to

cover up and justify the use of excessive force despite the lawful authority to use

such force.

102.

Years before this shooting, Defendant CITY OF DISTRICT, through the

DISTRICT Police Department and District Lawmakers, were aware of, and

deliberately indifferent to widespread and systemic corruption and work rule

violations within the DISTRICT Police Department, including violations relating

to the use of force and other violations of the constitutional rights of citizens.

103.

Years before this shooting, Defendant CITY OF DISTRICT, through the

DISTRICT Police Department and District Lawmakers, were deliberately

indifferent to this practice and custom within the DISTRICT Police Department, by

failing to enforce policies; failing to properly train; failing to properly discipline,

and thus, creating a culture within the City DISTRICT Police Department wherein

violating citizen’s civil rights is not only tolerated, and encouraged; thereby

allowing the deprivation of DEANDRE JOHNSONS civil and constitutional rights,

as described herein.

104.

35
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 36 of 46

Years before this shooting, Defendant DISTRICT, through the MPD and City

Lawmakers, were engaged in a persistent and widespread practice of ratifying and

condoning the unlawful and illegal activity of the DISTRICT Police officers,

including Defendant JEFFERSON, thereby allowing the deprivation of DEANDRE

JOHNSON’S civil and constitutional rights, as described herein.

105.

The custom, policies, and practices described herein, and attributed to

Defendant DISTRICT, were a contributing cause and driving force leading to the

violation of DEANDRE JOHNSON’S civil and constitutional rights.

COMMON LAW CLAIMS: WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVORSHIP

Count FOUR: Wrongful Death - Battery; Count FIVE: Survivorship –

Battery;

Count SIX: Wrongful Death – Assault; Count SEVEN: Survivorship –

Assault

(Against Defendant Officers and D.C.)

106.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs through1-105 above as if fully

set forth herein.

107.

Officers A and B, in deliberately and forcibly tackling Mr. Johnson onto the

36
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 37 of 46

floor while handcuffed, intentionally and unlawfully attempted and threatened

physical harm to DEANDRE JOHNSON.

108.

Defendant JEFFERSON deliberately killed Mr. Johnson by shooting him

twice while on the floor, intentionally causing harmful bodily contact to DEANDRE

JOHNSON.

109.

No reasonably prudent police officer would have believed that DEANDRE

JOHNSON’S actions placed Officers JEFFERSON, A and B or any other persons

in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm. As a direct and proximate cause

of Defendants’ actions, Decedent and his Estate suffered damages described herein.

110.

All damages were proximately caused by the intentional actions of Defendant

JEFFERSON and Other Unknown Officers with no identifiable provocation from

Mr. Johnson.

111.

At all times during this tortious act, Defendant Officers were employed as

police officers by Defendant District of Columbia, were on duty, and used firearms

owned by the DISTRICT.

112.

37
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 38 of 46

At all times during this tortious act, Officers JEFFERSON, A and B were

acting within the scope of their employment as police officers for D.C. and acting as

agents of, with the assent of, for the benefit of, and under the control of D.C., with

the intent to further the District’s policy, practice, and custom of deliberate

indifference to excessive force.

113.

Therefore, D.C. is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the

aforementioned assault and battery by Defendant Officers.

114.

The instant claim survives Decedent, and damages are recoverable under the

District of Columbia Survivorship Act. Damages sought under this count are also

proper pursuant to the District of Columbia Wrongful Death Act.

Count EIGHT: Wrongful Death and

Count NINE: Survivorship Common Law Negligence in Supervising and

Retaining Officers JEFFERSON and UNKNOWN OFFICERS A and B

(Against Defendant Officers and D.C.)

115.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1- 114 as if fully set forth herein.

116.

At all times relevant to this case, Officers JEFFERSON, A and B acted within

38
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 39 of 46

the scope of their duties as employees of MPD and the District.

117.

The DISTRICT had a duty to properly hire, train, supervise, discipline, and—

where necessary— terminate its personnel in order to protect the public against

dangers reasonably likely to result from the absence of proper hiring, supervision,

and firing.

118.

Upon information and belief, Officers JEFFERSON A and B were under the

command of Defendant CONTEE when they forcibly tackled and killed

DEANDRE JOHNSON.

119.

Defendant CONTEE had a duty to properly supervise and control Officers

JEFFERSON, A and B to protect the public against dangers reasonably likely to

result from the absence of proper supervision and control.

120.

The District and Defendant CONTEE knew or should have known of prior

instances of dangerous or incompetent behavior by Officers JEFFERSON A and B.

121.

The District and Defendant CONTEE, armed with the above information,

breached their duties to the public—including DEANDRE JOHNSON—by failing

39
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 40 of 46

to adequately hire, supervise, control, discipline, or terminate JEFFERSON and

Officers A and B. Defendants’ breach of these duties directly and proximately

caused DEANDRE JOHNSON’S injuries and death.

122.

The instant claim survives Decedent, and damages are recoverable under the

District of Columbia Survivorship Act and are also proper pursuant to the District

of Columbia Wrongful Death Act.

Count TEN: Wrongful Death; Count ELEVEN: Survivorship Common Law

Negligence in Training Officers JEFFERSON, A and B

(Against Defendant Officers and D.C.)

123.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-122 as if fully set forth herein.

124.

At all times relevant to this case, Officers JEFFERSON, A and B acted within

the scope of their duties as employees of MPD and the District.

125.

The DISTRICT and Defendant CONTEE had a duty to use reasonable care in

training MPD personnel, including but not limited to training, education,

evaluation, and corrective action against officers in line with governing federal and

local laws and regulations.

40
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 41 of 46

126.

Defendants the DISTRICT and Defendant CONTEE knew or should have

known that subordinate officers commonly used excessive force when interacting

with the public but failed to adequately train, educate, evaluate, and take corrective

action against those officers, thereby breaching their duty.

127.

The DISTRICT further breached its duty of care to DEANDRE JOHNSON

by failing to use reasonable care in providing training consistent with local and

national standards.

128.

Defendants’ breach of these duties directly and proximately caused

DEANDRE JOHNSON’S injuries and ultimate death.

129.

The instant claim survives Decedent and damages are recoverable under the District

of Columbia Survivorship Act and are also proper pursuant to the District of

Columbia Wrongful Death Act.

Count TWELVE: Wrongful Death; Count THIRTEEN: Survivorship

Common Law Negligence Leading to the Death of DEANDRE JOHNSON

(Against Officers)

41
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 42 of 46

130.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-129 as if fully set forth herein.

131.

At all times relevant to this case, Officers JEFFERSON A and B acted within

the scope of their duties as employees of MPD and the District.

132.

After shooting DEANDRE JOHNSON, the officers failed to provide first-aid

services and failed to promptly relay the urgent need for medical support to FEMS.

133.

Defendants JEFFERSON, A and B owed DEANDRE JOHNSON a duty to

exercise reasonable care, including using only the minimum amount of force

necessary against him, exhausting every other reasonable means of apprehension or

defense before resorting to the use of firearms, and calling emergency services

immediately after a shooting occurs, as per MPD policy.

134.

Defendants JEFFERSON A and B forcibly tackled DEANDRE JOHNSON

without cause and, upon information and belief, failed to inform him that he was

being arrested. Officers JEFFERSON, A and B did not attempt to use de-escalation

or other reasonable means of apprehension or defense prior to shooting DEANDRE

JOHNSON multiple times.

42
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 43 of 46

135.

MPD has claimed that DEANDRE JOHNSON got into a physical struggle with

[Jaquia Taylor] and that the struggle continued with the officers.

136.

The BWC footage does not support this claim, and a witness on the scene

denies that DEANDRE JOHNSON made any physical contact with Jaquia Taylor

or attempted to touch any officer’s weapon or holster. MPD has provided inaccurate

accounts pertaining to DEANDRE JOHNSON’S death that are refuted by the

redacted BWC released to the public.7

137.

Upon information and belief, Officers JEFFERSON A and B failed to

provide first-aid services to DEANDRE JOHNSON after forcibly tackling and

shooting him.

138.

Upon information and belief, DEANDRE JOHNSON’S body remained on the

scene, FEMS did not respond, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

pronounced him dead.

139.

Defendant JEFFERSON failed to exercise reasonable care and violated the

7
See, https://app.box.com/s/3rwhvqs0g4kjx7bp71j773mta151acl8

43
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 44 of 46

acceptable standard of care in serving a CPO, and forcibly tackling DEANDRE

JOHNSON without good cause; unreasonably perceiving him as a threat; and failing

to provide aid to DEANDRE JOHNSON after shooting him twice.

140.

As a proximate cause of these acts and omissions, DEANDRE JOHNSON

sustained serious bodily injury and endured great pain, suffering, and mental

anguish from the time he was forcibly restrained until his death.

141.

The instant claim survives Decedent, and damages are recoverable under the

District of Columbia Survivorship Act and are also proper pursuant to the District

of Columbia Wrongful Death Act.

Count FOURTEEN: False Arrest; Count FIFTEEN: False Imprisonment

(Against All Officers)

142.

District of Columbia law proscribes false arrest or false imprisonment,

defined as unlawful detention or restraint of an individual against the individual’s

will.

143.

Unknown Officers A and B committed false arrest or false imprisonment

when they restrained and detained DEANDRE JOHNSON without a warrant or

44
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 45 of 46

probable cause on October 18, 2021. DEANDRE JOHNSON was not engaged in

illegal activity, took no actions that a reasonable officer could have believed were

unlawful.

144.

Defendant Unknown Officers A and B, acted with intent to injure, or in

willful disregard for the rights of DEANDRE JOHNSON and their conduct was

outrageous or reckless toward the safety of DEANDRE JOHNSON

145.

Defendant DISTRICT is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for

the damages inflicted by its agent Unknown Officers A and B who were acting

within the scope of their employment as MPD officer sand on behalf of and in the

interests of their employer.

COUNT SIXTEEN

(Claim for Attorney’s Fees Against all Defendants)

142.

Pursuant to 42 USC § 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and other costs of litigation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SHARNENE JOHNSON prays for a judgment

against Defendants as follows:

a) That process issue and that Defendants be served according to the

45
 Case 1:22-cv-03167 Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 46 of 46

law;

b) That Plaintiff has a trial by jury;

c) That Plaintiff has and recover a verdict and judgment against

Defendant for all compensatory general and punitive damages, in

the amount of one hundred million dollars, and reasonable attorney

fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988, and for all such amounts as may be

proven before the trier of fact; and

d) That Plaintiff has such other, and further relief as this Court deems

just and proper under the circumstances.

s/ Brandi Harden

________________________
Brandi Harden
Harden | Law, PLLC
Bar No. 470706
400 7th Street Suite 604
Washington, DC 20004
[email protected]
(202) 621-8268
Attorney for Plaintiff

46