Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
)
) Judge _____________
) Civil Action No. ____________
)
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
PLAINTIFFS
)
CLASS ACTION
vs.
)
)
JOHN DOE MPD OFFICERS,
)
)
in their individual capacities,
)
)
JOHN DOE PARK POLICE OFFICERS,
)
in their individual capacities,
)
)
and
)
)
PETER NEWSHAM, Interim Chief of Police, )
in his individual capacity,
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS
)
)
BENJAMIN CHRISTOPHER
CARRAWAY, ESQ.
c/o Law Office of Jeffrey L. Light
1712 Eye St., NW, Suite 915
Washington, DC 20006,
and those similarly situated,

COMPLAINT

THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Benjamin Christopher Carraway, Esq. is a criminal defense

attorney in Colorado.
2.

Plaintiff Mr. Carraway files this suit on behalf of himself and those

similarly situated.
3.

Defendant John Doe MPD Officers are Metropolitan Police Department

Officers who are being sued in their individual capacities. At all times relevant to this
1

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 8

Complaint, John Doe MPD Officers were acting under color of District law within the
scope of their employment with the District of Columbia.
4.

In the alternative, John Doe MPD Officers were acting under color of

federal law.
5.

Defendant John Doe Park Police Officers are U.S. Park Police Officers

who are being sued in their individual capacities. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
John Doe Park Police Officers were acting under color of federal law within the scope of
their employment with the federal government.
6.

In the alternative, John Doe Park Police Officers were acting under color

of District law.
7.

Defendant Peter Newsham is being sued in his individual capacity. Peter

Newsham is and was at all times relevant to the Complaint the Interim Chief of the
Metropolitan Police Department.
8.

Chief Newsham was previously a defendant in the mass arrest of

protesters at Pershing Park in 2002 and claimed that he ordered the roundup.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.

This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens.

10.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367(a).
11.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because

the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
12.

On January 20, 2017, Donald John Trump was sworn in as the forty-fifth

president of the United States.
2

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 8

13.

The circumstances of President Trump’s election, his policy positions, and

his outrageous comments during the election have provoked widespread criticism.
14.

On January 20, 2017, Americans from all walks of life came to

Washington, D.C. to voice their opposition to the extremist agenda of the incoming
president.
15.

Around the time of Trump’s swearing in, John Doe MPD Officers and

John Doe Park Police officers surrounded individuals who were at or near 12th & L St.,
NW.
16.

Without warning and without any dispersal order, the police officers

kettled all of the plaintiffs.
17.

Defendants included in the kettle not only protesters who had engaged in

no criminal conduct, but also members of the media, attorneys, legal observers, and
medics.
18.

Defendants proceeded to indiscriminately and repeatedly deploy chemical

irritants, attack the individuals with batons, and throw flash-bang grenades at the kettled
individuals.
19.

Mr. Carraway and the members of the class are individuals who were

subjected to this outrageous conduct by the defendants for no legitimate law enforcement
reason.
20.

None of the plaintiffs who are members of this class destroyed or

attempted to destroy property, assaulted or attempted to assault any individuals, rioted, or
in any way would have appeared to the police to have been breaking the law. Further,
many of the members of the class were peacefully protesting.

3

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 8

21.

Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police Officers

kettled Mr. Carraway and the members of the class without individualized probable cause
to believe that Mr. Carraway or any other member of the class had engaged in any
criminal conduct, and without any reason to believe that the kettled individuals were
acting as a unit.
22.

With full knowledge that they lacked probable cause to arrest the kettled

individuals, Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police Officers
nevertheless announced to the plaintiffs that they were under arrest.
23.

In truth and in fact, the plaintiffs were under arrest at the time of the

announcement.
24.

Although some plaintiffs were released without being handcuffed and

taken to a police station, they were nevertheless under arrest because they were not free
to leave and the defendants’ actions, which occurred over hours, exceeded anything that
could be considered a Terry stop or mere detention.
25.

At the time the plaintiffs were placed under arrest, Defendants John Doe

MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police Officers lacked probable cause to effect the
arrests.
26.

Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and/or John Doe Park Police Officers

deployed a large amount of chemical irritants against the plaintiffs, as well as struck
multiple plaintiffs with their batons, and deployed flash-bang grenades.
27.

The use of chemical irritants against Plaintiffs, the use of the batons

against Plaintiffs, and the deployment of flash-bang grenades under the circumstances
constituted unreasonable and excessive force.

4

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 5 of 8

28.

On information and belief, Chief Newsham ordered, caused to be ordered,

and/or condoned the illegal mass arrest and use of excessive force.
29.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Carraway and the other members

of the class suffered physical and emotional injury, as well as loss of liberty.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

30.

Mr. Carraway on behalf of himself and the Class brings this action under

Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a
class consisting of each person who: (i) was arrested on January 20, 2017 in the group of
individuals described in this Complaint; and/or (ii) had chemical irritants deployed
against them and/or were struck with a baton and/or were subjected to flash-bang
grenades.
31.

Certification of this Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)

is appropriate, because prosecuting the actions separately would create a risk of
inconsistent verdicts establishing incompatible standards of conduct for police officers
with respect to a single incident.
32.

Certification of a Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is

also appropriate, in that common questions of law and fact predominate over any
individual questions, and class action treatment is superior for the fair and efficient
adjudication of these class claims as detailed below.
33.

The Class is entitled to monetary relief.

34.

Regarding Mr. Carraway and the other members of the Class, there are no

individual questions on the issue of liability.
5

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 6 of 8

35.

Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are:

whether law enforcement officers may constitutionally arrest an undifferentiated
group of protesters without either individualized probable cause or probable cause to
believe that the group as a whole acted as a unit;
whether law enforcement officers may constitutionally deploy chemical irritants
and/or strike with batons and/or throw flash-bang grenades at protesters who were nonviolent, were not fleeing, and posed no danger to officers or others.
36.

The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. The exact number of class members is unknown at this time but is
estimated to be at least 30 people.
37.

Mr. Carraway’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of

the Class, because Mr. Carraway and all other members of the Class were injured by
exactly the same means, that is, by the same unconstitutional arrest and use of excessive
force.
38.

Mr. Carraway on behalf of himself and the Class will fairly and

adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and has retained counsel who
is competent and experienced in complex federal civil rights class action litigation.

COUNT I:
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (FALSE ARREST)
39.

This Count realleges and incorporates by reference each of the previous

paragraphs.

6

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 7 of 8

40.

Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police Officers

did intentionally and unlawfully arrest the plaintiffs without probable cause.
41.

Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police Officers

did intentionally and unlawfully arrest the plaintiffs without probable cause.
42.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, the plaintiffs suffered damages,

including mental anguish, pain, and physical injuries.

COUNT II:
FOURTH AMENDMENT (EXCESSIVE FORCE)
43.

This Count realleges and incorporates by reference each of the previous

paragraphs.
44.

Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police Officers

did intentionally and unlawfully use excessive force against the plaintiffs by deploying a
large amount of chemical irritants and/or striking the plaintiffs with their batons and/or
using flash-bang grenades.
45.

The force used by John Doe MPD Officers and John Doe Park Police

Officers was unreasonable and excessive under the circumstances.
46.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, the plaintiffs suffered damages,

including mental anguish, pain, and physical injuries
47.

No reasonable officer under the circumstances would have used the

amount of force that was used by the defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs demand a jury on all issues which may be properly tried by jury.

7

 Case 1:17-cv-00137 Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 8 of 8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

(1) Declare Defendants’ conduct to be unlawful;
(2) Order the expungement of any and all records of Plaintiffs’ arrests;
(3) Award Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial;
(4) Grant Plaintiff an award of attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably
incurred in this action;
(5) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief which the Court deems proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

_/s/ Jeffrey Light____________
Jeffrey L. Light
D.C. Bar #485360
1712 Eye St., NW
Suite 915
Washington, DC 20006
(202)277-6213
Jeffrey@LawOfficeOfJeffreyLight.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

8