Show Multidocs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
)
SHARIF KELLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No: _____________
)
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF )
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, )
METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE POLICE ) JURY DEMANDED
DEPARTMENT; )
)
BRYAN NOVAK, individually and )
in his official capacity; )
)
CHRISTOPHER DANCKWERTH, individually and)
in his individual capacity; )
)
DEREK BUTLER, individually and )
in his individual capacity. )
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Comes now Plaintiff, Sharif Keller, and files this complaint for damages against
Defendants, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Metropolitan Nashville
Police Department, Bryan Novak, Christopher Danckwerth and Derek Butler and for his cause of
action against these Defendants states as follows:
NATURE OF CASE
Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

1. This lawsuit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the United States Constitution and
other claims which arise under the color of state law, for the unwarranted and malicious
beating of Sharif Keller, who was being released from the Correctional Development
Center – Male (“CDM”) located at 5113 Harding Place, Nashville, Davidson County,
Tennessee 37211 by Metro Corrections officers.
2. On information and belief, such beatings are common within Metro Corrections and both
staff and supervisory officers are aware that they occur with sufficient regularity to be
considered ‘business as usual’ by the Officers charged with the care, custody and control
of inmates. Plaintiff’s beating was part of this pattern and practice and was inflicted as a
consequence of an institutional culture that willfully tolerates excessive violence against
detainees and inmates by staff.
3. This cause of action is for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress
the deprivation under color of state law of Sharif Keller’s clearly established rights as
secured by the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution against (1) Bryan Novak and (2) Christopher Danckwerth
(referred to collectively as “Defendant officers”) in their respective personal and
professional capacities as law enforcement officers employed by the Metropolitan
Nashville Police Department, for their respective violations of Mr. Keller’s right to be free
from the use of excessive force and the like; (3) Derek Butler for supervisory liability and
(4) Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Metropolitan
Nashville Police Department, for its unconstitutional policies, customs and/or practices
under Monell and its progeny.

4. Plaintiff brings this action to recover all damages allowable under the law.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff, Sharif Keller, is a 38-year-old African American male and resident of Davidson
County, Tennessee.
6. Defendant, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metropolitan
Government”) is a governmental entity, duly created and existing pursuant to the
Constitution and laws of the State of Tennessee.
7. Among its other functions, Metropolitan Government operates and maintains a department
of law enforcement known as Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (“MNPD”).
8. At all times herein, Metropolitan Government employed Defendants Bryan Novak and
Christopher Danckwerth as officers.
9. At all times herein, Metropolitan Government employed Defendant Derek Butler as a
lieutenant.
10. At all times herein, the Defendants were acting under the color of state law.
11. Defendant Bryan Novak is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. At all times material
hereto, Defendant Novak was an officer with the MNPD and was acting by virtue of his
position as an officer with the MNPD and under the color of state law. He is sued in his
individual capacity as well as his official capacity as an officer of the MNPD.
12. Defendant Christopher Danckwerth is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. At all
times material hereto, Defendant Danckwerth was an officer with the MNPD and was
acting by virtue of his position as an officer with the MNPD and under the color of state
law. He is sued in his individual capacity as well as his official capacity as an officer of
the MNPD.

13. Defendant Derek Butler is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. At all times material
hereto, Defendant Butler was a lieutenant with the MNPD and was acting by virtue of his
position as a supervisor of the other Defendant officers with the MNPD and under the color
of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity as well as his official capacity as an
officer of the MNPD.
JURISIDICTION AND VENUE
14. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988, Tennessee Constitution
Article 1 §§7, 8, 13, 16 and 32, Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-39-102, Tennessee Code
Annotated 29-39-104, and all other applicable governing authority and common laws.
15. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1367.
16. This Court is vested with the authority to adjudicate the claims herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983, as they are for unconscionable and gross violations of the rights and privileges
which are guaranteed to all citizens, including Plaintiff, by the Fourth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as well as for associated
state laws and tortious conduct as set forth herein.
17. This Court also has jurisdiction over this case and these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1343, 1441.
18. Venue is proper as the Defendants are located in this District and the events and omissions
giving rise to the claims which are the subject of this action occurred within this District.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19. On or about April 24, 2020, Plaintiff was arrested by Defendant MNPD.

20. The case against the Plaintiff was completely dismissed through the Nashville Davidson
County Court system.
21. On or about May 8, 2020, Plaintiff was awaiting release from a Nashville corrections
facility following dismissal of his case within the court system.
22. While Plaintiff was in line to be released from CDM, Defendant Danckwerth began to
instruct Plaintiff to exit the facility door and stand against a wall that contained a glass
window.
23. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant Danckwerth instructed Plaintiff to take such actions
in order to act out on Plaintiff, in the presence of other detainees, a “lesson” following
another inmate’s perceived insubordination.
24. Defendant Danckwerth was primed for a physical confrontation.
25. Plaintiff immediately complied, but in the process of his compliance, Defendant
Danckwerth shoved Plaintiff against the wall.
26. Plaintiff, despite being in fear for his life, was still compliant and remained against the
wall.
27. Although Plaintiff was immobilized, restrained, and in a defenseless position, Defendant
Novak pepper sprayed Plaintiff directly in his eyes in a cruel and unnecessary manner.
28. Defendant Danckwerth, then, intentionally wrapped his left leg around the Plaintiff’s leg
in order to cause Plaintiff to fall to the ground.
29. Defendant Danckwerth threw Plaintiff, face first, to the hard, tiled floor causing Plaintiff
to sustain numerous injuries including lacerations to the right eye, back pain, neck pain,
contusions to the scalp and pain to the left hand.

30. Several of Plaintiff’s injuries were immediately apparent as his bled, heavily, on the floor
while the Defendant officers continued to disregard his injuries.
31. With his eyes burning from pepper spray and his bleeding face and head, Plaintiff was
placed in a holding cell and forced to wait a significant amount of time for proper medical
treatment.
32. At no time during the attack did the Plaintiff refuse to obey instructions by the Defendant
officers.
33. At no time did the Plaintiff strike the Defendant officers.
34. At no time did the Plaintiff threaten to harm the Defendant officers.
35. Prior to being pepper sprayed, the Plaintiff did not attempt to strike or attack the officers.
36. Even after being pepper sprayed, the Plaintiff did not attempt to strike or attack the officers.
37. After Defendant officers savagely attacked Plaintiff, with the knowledge and approval of
Defendant Derek Butler, Defendant officers filed false charges against Plaintiff to cover
up their intentional, malicious, illegal, and tortious behavior.
38. On information and belief, a hearing was held on the false charges filed by the Defendants
against the Plaintiff and no penalty was warranted.
39. The use of force on Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable and excessive and violated
clearly established law.
40. The Officers acted intentionally, knowingly, unreasonably, maliciously, negligently,
recklessly, in bad faith, and with deliberate indifference to the safety and rights of Plaintiff
when they used excessive force against him.

41. MNPD supervisors and policymakers, including Defendant Butler, knew or should have
known that excessive force was routinely used on inmates in violation of their
constitutional rights and failed to act.
42. Plaintiff insisted on receiving proper medical treatment and filing a complaint for the
Defendant officers’ misconduct.
43. Plaintiff lodged a complaint related to the Defendant officers’ misconduct, but no such
complaint was provided in response to Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act Request.
44. On information and belief, physical violence and the excessive use of force as a method of
dealing with perceived inmate and/or detainee insubordination is a common practice within
MNPD, regardless of the level of threat posed by the subject, to the degree that it rises to
the level of a custom tantamount to an official policy.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered physical
injury and psychological trauma when he was brutally attacked by the very people who
were supposed to protect him.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violations of Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Excessive Use of Force by the Officers in Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments
46. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
47. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional
right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in his person from excessive force.

48. Plaintiff also had the clearly established Constitutional right under the Fourteenth
Amendment to be free from the cruel and unusual punishment of excessive force by
corrections officers; moreover, the actions of the Defendants were of a nature which shocks
the conscience and violated the fundamental due process rights of Plaintiff.
49. The use of force by the Defendants against Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable and
excessive.
50. None of the Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Plaintiff
presented a risk of injury at the time that they threw him to the hard floor while he was
restrained and immobilized by pepper spray. By and through the actions described above,
the Defendants, acting under state law, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and
are thus subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
51. The conduct of the Defendants was malicious, intentional, in gross violation of known
lawful standards for using force, and their unlawful actions were taken in reckless disregard
of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and with deliberate indifference to those rights.
52. Further, as a supervisor, Defendant Derek Butler had active or constructive knowledge that
his subordinates were engaged in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his
response, active participation, active cover-up, and/or acquiescence in such misconduct
showed a deliberate indifference to or authorization of the unconstitutional conduct which
was a direct causal link to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, and which give rise to additional
liability on the part of Defendant Butler under 42 U.S.C.§1983.
53. The Defendants at all times relevant hereto were acting pursuant to municipal/county/city
custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or practice in
their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.

54. The Defendants’ conduct as fully described above has caused Plaintiff to suffer physical
injuries and emotional distress.
55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct which resulted in the
violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered general and specific damages
and is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
56. Defendants' actions and/or omissions are the proximate cause and the cause in fact of
Plaintiff's damages, injuries and losses.
57. Defendants' conduct was knowing, willful, wanton, unreasonable, unconscionable,
malicious, oppressive, reckless, grossly reckless and in flagrant disregard of Plaintiff's
rights, privileges, welfare and well-being and Defendants are guilty of egregious and gross
misconduct towards the Plaintiff that was of such a nature that punitive damages should be
imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
COUT II
Violations of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Officers’ Malicious Prosecution under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
59. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established constitutional
right to be free from malicious prosecution without probable cause under the Fourth
Amendment and in violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
60. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from
malicious prosecution without probable cause and without due process when they worked
to secure false charges against him.

61. The individual Defendants conspired and/or acted in concert to institute, procure and
continue a disciplinary proceeding against Plaintiff for violations including disrespect,
disruptive behavior, threatening behavior and refusal of direct order, solely for the purpose
of covering up their own misconduct.
62. The procurement of prosecution against Plaintiff for false allegations was malicious,
shocking, and objectively unreasonable in the light of the circumstances.
63. The disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Officers terminated in Plaintiff’s favor.
64. The acts or omissions of Defendants was a moving force behind Plaintiff’s injuries.
65. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived the Plaintiff
of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.
66. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling
him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial.
67. As a proximate result of Defendants Danckwerth and Novak’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described
herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at
trial.
68. All of the foregoing occurred without any fault or provocation on the part of Plaintiff.
10

COUNT III
Violations of Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
71. Defendants made false claims and created false reports to aid in the creation of probable
cause and/or to detain and/or arrest Plaintiff.
72. Defendants acted in concert with each other to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an
unlawful means.
73. Each of the Defendants committed overt acts and was otherwise a willful participant in
joint activity.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff was deprived of
his constitutional rights and suffered damages.
75. Plaintiff is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT IV
False Arrest - T.G.L.A. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 et seq) and Common Law
11

79. Defendants, directly and/or indirectly causing the arrest of Plaintiff, imposed an unlawful
restraint upon Plaintiff's freedom of movement and liberty.
80. Plaintiff suffered harm, losses and damages as a direct and proximate result of this false
arrest including, but not limited to, physical injury, severe emotional distress, and financial
damages.
COUNT V
False Imprisonment - T.G.L.A. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 et seq) and Common Law
84. Defendants' actions directly and/or indirectly resulted in the intentional and prolonged
detention, restraint and/or confinement of Plaintiff within fixed boundaries and against
Plaintiff's will.
85. The detention, restraint and prolonged nature confinement of Plaintiff were unlawful and
without just cause.
86. Plaintiff suffered harm, losses and damages as a direct and proximate result of this false
arrest including, but not limited to, physical injury, severe emotional distress, and financial
damages.
12

87. Defendants' actions and/or omissions and the proximate cause and the cause in fact of
COUNT VI
Violation of Constitution of State of Tennessee Article 1, §§7, 8, 13, 16, 32
90. Defendants' actions constitute a violation of Plaintiff's rights secured under Article 1, §§7,
8, 13, 16 and 32.
COUNT VII
Civil Conspiracy
92. Each of the Defendants in concert with one another have engaged in a common scheme
and took overt action in furtherance of that plan for unlawful purpose by unlawful means
thereby engaging in civil conspiracy.
93. The concerted actions of each of the Defendants have caused Plaintiff to suffer damages
including emotional distress.
COUNT VIII
Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-302 et. seq.
13

95. Plaintiff avers that Metro Government is directly liable for all wrongs, injuries, damages
and expenses incurred and sustained by Plaintiff pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-302 et
seq. as at all material times hereto Defendants were acting by virtue of and under color of
their office as police officers employed Metro Government and the MNPD.
COUNT IX
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
97. The acts and conduct of Defendants as described herein above were intentional, reckless
and outrageous.
98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' intentional, reckless and outrageous
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress causing Plaintiff to suffer
damages.
COUNT X
Assault and Battery by Officers
100. The actions of the Defendant officers constituted an offensive physical contact for
the purpose of causing corporal injury without the consent of Plaintiff.
101. The actions of the Defendant officers caused physical harm to Plaintiff.
102. The actions of the Defendant officers were undertaken intentionally, willfully, and
wantonly.
103. That the aforementioned conduct of the Defendant officers constituted an assault
and battery upon Plaintiff for which he is entitled to an award of damages.
14

DAMAGES
104. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
105. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions of
the Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.
106. The injuries and damages for which the Plaintiff seeks compensation from
Defendants, both jointly and severally, under both state and federal law include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(a) Physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering;
(b) General and special damages;
(c) Lost wages;
(d) Punitive damages against the applicable Defendants as followed by the law in
an amount to be determined by a jury;
(e) Pre and post-judgment interest;
(f) All costs including statutory and discretionary costs; and
(g) Attorney fees and expenses as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and state law.
107. Plaintiff reserves the right to prove the amount of damages at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sharif Keller, prays as follows:
1. That proper process issue to Defendants and that they be required to answer under oath in
the time required by law;
2. That a jury be impaneled to try and resolve any and all issues in this case.
15

3. That judgement be rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, both jointly and
severally, under both state and federal law, on all causes of action asserted herein;
4. An award of compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional
distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering, on all claims
allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial in an amount no less than
$250,000;
5. That punitive damages be awarded against the applicable Defendants as followed by the
law in an amount to be determined by a jury as reasonable no less than $500,000.
6. An award of his attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1988; and state law; and
7. That Plaintiff receive any such other, further and general relief as this Honorable Court
deems just and proper and/or permitted by law.
/s/ Ashley L. Upkins, Esq.___

Ashley L. Upkins, Esq., #033598
Lauren R. McAlpin, Esq., #038071
1720 West End Avenue, Suite 320
Nashville, TN 37203
Office (615) 678-6278
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 17

Show Multidocs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Show Multidocs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Show Multidocs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Defendants, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Metropolitan Nashville

action against these Defendants states as follows:

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

Tennessee 37211 by Metro Corrections officers.

consequence of an institutional culture that willfully tolerates excessive violence against

detainees and inmates by staff.

(referred to collectively as “Defendant officers”) in their respective personal and

professional capacities as law enforcement officers employed by the Metropolitan

(4) Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Metropolitan

under Monell and its progeny.

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2

6. Defendant, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metropolitan

Government”) is a governmental entity, duly created and existing pursuant to the

Constitution and laws of the State of Tennessee.

of law enforcement known as Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (“MNPD”).

Christopher Danckwerth as officers.

9. At all times herein, Metropolitan Government employed Defendant Derek Butler as a

individual capacity as well as his official capacity as an officer of the MNPD.

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3

officer of the MNPD.

JURISIDICTION AND VENUE

state laws and tortious conduct as set forth herein.

1331, 1343, 1441.

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4

County Court system.

facility following dismissal of his case within the court system.

another inmate’s perceived insubordination.

24. Defendant Danckwerth was primed for a physical confrontation.

Danckwerth shoved Plaintiff against the wall.

in order to cause Plaintiff to fall to the ground.

contusions to the scalp and pain to the left hand.

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5

while the Defendant officers continued to disregard his injuries.

33. At no time did the Plaintiff strike the Defendant officers.

up their intentional, malicious, illegal, and tortious behavior.

against the Plaintiff and no penalty was warranted.

clearly established law.

40. The Officers acted intentionally, knowingly, unreasonably, maliciously, negligently,

when they used excessive force against him.

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6

constitutional rights and failed to act.

Defendant officers’ misconduct.

complaint was provided in response to Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act Request.

the level of a custom tantamount to an official policy.

were supposed to protect him.

Violations of Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7

are thus subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and with deliberate indifference to those rights.

response, active participation, active cover-up, and/or acquiescence in such misconduct

showed a deliberate indifference to or authorization of the unconstitutional conduct which

liability on the part of Defendant Butler under 42 U.S.C.§1983.

custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or practice in

their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.

Case 3:21-cv-00377 Document 1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8