A lawsuit has been filed in federal court on behalf of the 11-year-old child who was shot by an Indianola police officer in the early morning hours of May 20.
Attorney Carlos Moore, with The Cochran Firm, announced the $5 million lawsuit this afternoon against the City of Indianola, Police Chief Ronald Sampson and Officer Greg Capers, who was identified last week as the officer who shot Aderrien Murry.
Moore plans to hold a press conference in Grenada at 1:30 p.m. The entire lawsuit is attached to this article in PDF form.
Click on Title To Read Document
Aderrien Murry was apparently shot between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. that Saturday morning after calling the police at the instruction of his mother, Nakala Murry. When the police arrived, Nakala Murry said everyone was ordered out of the home, which is located on B.B. King Road.
When she left the home, her son apparently tried to follow her out and was shot by the officer.
The lawsuit also names “John Does 1-5 in their individual and official capacities.”
The Murry family is seeking actual and punitive damages, according to the suit.
The lawsuit claims, among other things, that “Defendant Officer Capers arrived to Plaintiff’s residence with his firearm drawn at the front door and asked everyone inside of the residence to come outside. As Plaintiff A.M. was coming around the corner of the hallway that lead into the living room area, he was instantly shot by Defendant Officer Capers. Defendant Officer Capers failed to assess the situation before displaying and/or discharging his firearm.”
Aderrien Murry was shot in the chest and sustained injuries to a lung, ribs and liver, according to reports. He was taken to the emergency room in Indianola before being flown to a Jackson hospital. He was released last week.
Moore was on hand for a press conference last Monday night, demanding the body camera footage from the incident be released, as well as the immediate termination of Capers and Sampson.
None of those requests have been met, and Moore helped to lead a Thursday peaceful protest at Indianola City Hall, where about two dozen friends, family and supporters of the victim came to show support.
The lawsuit cites training as a key part of the incident.
“The injuries endured by all Plaintiffs could have been avoided if Defendants would have acquired the adequate training on how to provide proper assistance and care. However, the result of the Defendants’ deliberate indifference, reckless disregard and gross negligence, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages,” the suit said.
There are 10 total counts listed in the lawsuit as follows:
COUNT ONE
(Violation of 4th and 14th Amendment Rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §1343 et al)
21. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
22. Plaintiffs would show unto the Court that the Defendants, with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' rights, took actions to deprive Plaintiffs of their 4th and 14th Amendment rights.
23. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of the aforementioned conduct as set heretofore and/or hereinafter that resulted in Plaintiffs' injuries.
COUNT TWO
(Excessive Force)
24. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
25. Plaintiffs would show unto the Court that the Defendants took actions to deprive Plaintiffs of their 4th Amendment protection against excessive force.
COUNT THREE
(Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/ Bystander's Claim)
26. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
27. Plaintiff Murry claims that she suffered serious emotional distress as a result of witnessing her 11-year old son being shot by Officer Capers; Plaintiff AM., endured a collapsed lung, fractured rib, and grade 1 lacerated liver from the gunshot wound by Officer Capers.
28. The conduct of Defendant Officer Capers was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to: anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, shock, humiliation, and shame that an ordinary, reasonable person would be unable with which to cope.
COUNT FOUR
(Reckless Endangerment)
29. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
30. Plaintiffs would show unto the Court the Defendants took actions that recklessly endangered the safety and well-being of all Plaintiffs.
COUNT FIVE
(Civil Assault and Battery)
31. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
32. Defendants are liable for civil assault and battery. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Officer Capers intentionally, with reckless disregard and/or negligently inflicted extreme emotional distress upon their minds, spirits, and bodies by shooting Plaintiff AM. a minor in the chest. Defendants have caused the Plaintiffs to suffer from emotional problems and mental anxiety as well as bodily pain and suffering.
33. The reprehensible acts of the Defendants demonstrate grossly negligent, oppressive, and reckless conduct.
34. As a direct and proximate result of aforementioned Defendants' negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, and/or intentional acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs sustained the damages set forth herein and all damages that will be proved at trial hereon.
COUNT SIX
(Abuse of Process)
35. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
36. Defendants intentionally misused the legal process by brutally shooting Plaintiff AM., in response to a 9-1-1 call for assistance.
37. The element of malice or ulterior motive should be inferred from the Defendant Officer Capers' willful abuse of process.
38. If such inference fails, malice specifically exits in that Defendant Officer Capers acted with malice and conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs in that their ulterior purpose in misusing the legal process was to severely harm Plaintiffs while not executing their lawful duties to actually serve and protect Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals.
39. As a proximate result of Defendants' abuse of process, Plaintiffs suffered damages.
COUNT SEVEN
(Negligent, Grossly Negligent, and Wanton Failure in Hiring and to Monitor, Train, Supervise, and Discipline or take necessary Corrective Action on the Officer Involved)
40. Plaintiffs incorporates and adopts all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
41. Defendants, City and Chief Sampson, were grossly negligent and/or wanton in failing to monitor the actions of the Defendant Officer Capers. They further negligently and/or wantonly failed to train the aforementioned Defendants to properly protect, investigate, and/or interrogate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals. Defendants negligently and/or wantonly failed to properly follow and/or apply their own city and law enforcement rules, ordinances regulations, policies and procedures, as well as state law generally. The City of Indianola, Mississippi and Chief Sampson failed to properly supervise the actions of Defendant Officer Capers. Defendant City failed to properly supervise the actions of Defendant Officer Capers.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent, grossly negligent, reckless and/or intentional acts/or omissions, the Plaintiffs sustained the damages set forth herein and all damages that will be proved at trial hereon.
43. The Defendants, the City of Indianola, Mississippi and Chief Sampson were vested with the authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees of the Indianola Police Department.
44. Furthermore, on information and belief, the Plaintiffs will show that over the course of the past several years, there have been numerous complaints made about incidents of abuse, excessive use of force, etc. caused by Officer Greg Capers of the Indianola Police Department.
45. The decision by the Defendants City and Chief Sampson to hire, train, and retain and not discipline this Officer resulted in the creation of an environment of excessive force and violence.
46. As a direct and proximate consequence of the negligent hiring, retention and failure to discipline or to take the necessary corrective action in the past, regarding officers on the force, the aforementioned Defendants are liable for the unlawful shooting of an 11-year old unarmed little boy and corresponding deprivation of rights sustained by the Plaintiffs.
COUNT EIGHT
(Reckless Disregard for the Rights and Safety of the Plaintiffs)
47. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
48. The act(s) and/or omission(s) of the City of Indianola, Mississippi, Chief Sampson, and Officer Capers, constitute a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs herein. Further, these act(s) and/or omission(s) were perpetrated with such callousness that a reasonable person can certainly conclude that these act(s) and/or omission(s) were carried out without any regard as to their effects. Therefore, the act(s) and/or omission(s) constitutes a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs as defined under Mississippi law.
49. The act(s) and/or omission(s) of the City of Indianola, Mississippi, Chief Sampson, and Officer Capers were a proximate cause as to the Plaintiffs' injuries as well as the damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs.
COUNT NINE
(Respondeat Superior)
50. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
51. Defendant Officer Capers was in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant City, at all relevant times immediately subsequent and preceding the incident in question, and therefore, Defendant City is liable for the negligence of its employee Officer Capers.
COUNT TEN
(The Common Law Tort of Outrage)
52. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt all prior paragraphs, averments, and statements.
53. The Defendants' overall conduct on the date in question was so outrageous that it shocks the moral and legal conscience of the community. This outrageous conduct resulted in Plaintiff AM., suffering serious physical injuries. The manner, method and design of the Defendants conduct amounted to a cold, callous, premeditated abuse of legal authority.
54. As a direct and proximate consequence of the outrageous conduct of the aforementioned Defendants, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the
Plaintiffs for such outrageous conduct. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to a money judgment against the Defendants who engaged in or contributed to or otherwise facilitated through their acts of omission or commission such outrageous conduct toward him.
