IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

JORDAN NORRIS, )
PLAINTIFF )
)
vs. )
) CASE NUMBER _________
MARK BRYANT, )
JOSH MARRIOTT, and )
JEFF KEY, )
DEFENDANTS. )

COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiff Jordan Norris, by and through his attorneys, and for cause of action

against the Defendants would respectfully state as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for

deprivation of civil rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

2. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3)(4), and 1367(a).

This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims of violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C.

1983. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 in that the factual acts and

omissions which give rise to this cause of action occurred within this district and within one year

of the filing of this complaint and this Court otherwise has jurisdiction.

II. PARTIES

3. The Plaintiff, Jordan Norris, is a citizen and resident of the United States,

domiciled in Cheatham County, Tennessee.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

 4. Defendant Mark Bryant is employed in Cheatham County, Tennessee and was at

all times material to the allegations in this Complaint acting in his capacity as a Cheatham

County deputy sheriff and was acting under color of state law by virtue of his authority as a law

enforcement officer. He is sued in his individual capacity.

5. Defendant Josh Marriott is employed in Cheatham County, Tennessee and was at

all times material to the allegations in this Complaint acting in his capacity as a Cheatham

County deputy sheriff and was acting under color of state law by virtue of his authority as a law

enforcement officer. He is sued in his individual capacity.

6. Defendant Jeff Key is employed in Cheatham County, Tennessee and was at all

times material to the allegations in this Complaint acting in his capacity as a Cheatham County

deputy sheriff and was acting under color of state law by virtue of his authority as a law

enforcement officer. He is sued in his individual capacity.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On November 3, 2016, Jordan Norris was arrested for non-violent misdemeanor

offenses by members of the Cheatham County Sheriffs Office and detained in the Cheatham

County Jail. The charges were later resolved in a deferred adjudication pursuant to Tenn. Code

Ann. 40-35-313.

8. On November 5, 2016 at approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff Norris was in the

custody of the Cheatham County Sherriffs Office in the Cheatham County Jail. He began

suffering a mental health episode and was banging his own head against the door. For his own

safety, Officers decided to extract him from the cell and placed him in a restraint chair. Officers

of the Cheatham County Sheriffs Office attempted to stabilize Plaintiff Norris but were

unsuccessful.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2

 9. Due to his mental health episode, Defendant Bryant ordered that Plaintiff Norris

be placed on suicide watch and then contacted a nurse and Mobile Crisis Services for

treatment.

10. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff Norris was on suicide watch in the jail.

His arms, chest, waist, and legs were restrained by a restraint chair.

11. While Plaintiff Norris was restrained in the restraint chair, Defendant Marriott

repeatedly held and squeezed Plaintiff Norris by the face, neck, and shoulders and applied

pressure point techniques intended to cause pain.

12. While Plaintiff Norris was restrained in the restraint chair, Defendant Key and

Defendant Bryant held down Plaintiff Norriss right arm against the chair. Another Officer,

Caitlin Johnson, was in the immediate vicinity and able to provide assistance if required.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3

 13. While Plaintiff Norris was in the restraint chair and physically restrained by the

chair and multiple Officers, Defendant Bryant shocked Plaintiff Norris with a Taser device four

times totaling approximately fifty seconds on his stomach and legs.

14. The taser shocks by Defendant Bryant were recorded by an overhead surveillance

video camera and by a camera on the Taser itself.

15. While tasing Plaintiff Norris, Defendant Bryant stated: Ill keep on doing that

until I run out of batteries.

16. Defendant Bryants statement evidence that he was acting in a sadistic and

malicious nature in repeatedly tasing Plaintiff Norris, such that the force was unreasonable.

17. Defendant Bryant instructed Plaintiff Norris to stop resisting while Defendant

Bryant was actually still tasing Plaintiff Norris and while Plaintiff Norris was restrained in the

restraint chair.

18. Audio on the Taser camera includes an unidentified person laughing while

Defendant Bryant repeatedly tased Plaintiff Norris. Another identified person can be heard

remarking, Goddamn that kid is being lit up!

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4

 19. Defendant Bryants repeated and prolonged use of the Taser against Plaintiff

Norris while Plaintiff Norris was restrained and suffering a mental health episode was

objectively unreasonable, unnecessary, excessive, and without a legitimate law enforcement

purpose.

20. While Defendant Bryant repeatedly tased Plaintiff Norris, Defendants Key and

Marriott held down Plaintiff Norris, giving them full opportunity to observe Defendant Bryants

use of force and the ability to prevent it.

21. Defendants Key and Marriott knew or should have known that Defendant Bryant

was using excessive force in repeatedly tasing Plaintiff Norris without proper justification.

22. By holding down Plaintiff Norris while he was being tased by Defendant Bryant,

Defendants Key and Marriott acted in conspiracy among themselves and with Defendant Bryant

to inflict excessive force upon Plaintiff Norris in a manner that was unnecessary, excessive, and

without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

23. At approximately 10:20 p.m. on November 5, 2017, Plaintiff Norris remained

fully restrained in the restraint chair, was surrounded by several Officers, and was still on suicide

watch.

24. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff Norris was fully restrained in the restraint

chair, Defendant Bryant again repeatedly stunned Plaintiff Norris with a Taser device

purportedly to gain compliance approximately five times for a total of approximately fifty

seconds despite the fact that Plaintiff Norris was not actively resisting any lawful command.

25. Two minutes later, Defendant Bryant tased Plaintiff Norris again for

approximately ten seconds despite the fact that Plaintiff Norris remained fully restrained any was

not actively resisting any lawful command.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5

 26. Defendant Bryants use of the Taser against Plaintiff Norris was objectively

unreasonable, unnecessary, excessive, and without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

27. After being repeatedly Tased by Defendant Bryant, Plaintiff Norris was

transported to Centennial Medical Center in Ashland City, TN for medical treatment.

28. Plaintiff was later taken to the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute

(MTMHI) for several days for mental health treatment, where he was stabilized and discharged

back to the jail.

29. When Plaintiff Norris bonded out of jail on November 16, 2017, he had

approximately forty pairs of Taser burns throughout his body, many of which are shown below:

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6

 30. Upon leaving jail, Plaintiff Norris showed his Taser burns to his uncle, who was

horrified by nature and extent of the injuries, and encouraged Plaintiff Norris to seek legal

representation and request records and videos from the Cheatham County Sheriffs Office.

31. Plaintiff Norris and his family were distraught to see the video clips of Plaintiff

Norris being repeatedly tased while fully restrained, without any apparent justification.

32. Most of the Taser burns sustained by Plaintiff Norris are not accounted for by the

Use of Force Reports and video clips received from the Cheatham County Sheriffs Office,

raising further questions and creating a reasonable belief that Plaintiff Norris was also repeatedly

tased on other occasions without proper justification.

33. All Taser shocks described above caused extreme pain and suffering to Plaintiff

Norris.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7

 34. Plaintiff continues to suffer injury from the Taser uses and uses of physical

restraint described above, including but not limited to scarring on his skin, seizures, nerve

problems in his hands, mental anguish, panic attacks, memory problems, and back pain.

35. The allegations stated above are not mere conclusory statements but are based

upon reports and videos Plaintiff has obtained from the Cheatham County Sheriffs Office.

Plaintiff is filing a Motion along with this Complaint seeking to file a CD containing these

videos to be considered as Exhibits to this Complaint.

COUNT 1: EXCESSIVE FORCE

36. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs in this Complaint as if

expressly stated herein.

37. Defendant Bryants multiple and prolonged uses of the Taser against Plaintiff

Norris while he was restrained and not actively resisting constitutes an objectively unreasonable,

unnecessary, and excessive use of force that lacked a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

38. Defendant Marriotts use of pressure point techniques and other force on Plaintiff

Norriss head, face, and neck with Plaintiff Norris was restrained, not actively resisting, and

suffering from mental health issues known to Defendant Marriott constitutes an objectively

unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive use of force that lacked a legitimate law enforcement

purpose.

39. Defendants Marriott and Key conspired with and acted jointly with Defendant

Bryant in tasing Plaintiff Norris by holding him down and failing to intervene in a manner that

constitutes an objectively unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive use of force that lacked a

legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8

 40. Defendants acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiff Norris of his right to be

free of excessive force that amounts to punishment pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States and by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.

41. Plaintiff Norriss right to be free from excessive force in the manner described in

this Complaint was clearly established at the time the force was used.

42. At all times at which Defendant Bryant tased Plaintiff Norris, Plaintiff Norris did

not pose a safety threat, was not a flight risk, was not resisting, and did not use or threaten to use

force against officers.

43. At all times at which Defendant Bryant tased Plaintiff Norris, Plaintiff Norris was

restrained by other officers and physical restraints, and on many occasions had been

incapacitated by prior tasings and was thus unable to resist.

44. There was no legitimate penological justification for Defendant Bryant to tase

Plaintiff while he was fully restraint and complaint.

45. Defendant Bryants repeated and prolonged use of the Taser against Plaintiff

Norris while Plaintiff Norris was fully restrained amounts to torture.

46. The Defendants acts and omissions described above lacked a legitimate law

enforcement purpose and were done primarily to impose punishment.

47. Defendants failed to provide sufficient warning to Plaintiff that a Taser would be

used against him before employing said Taser.

48. To the extent Plaintiff may have been noncompliant or combative to any degree

whatsoever, such behavior was involuntarily caused by significant mental health issues of which

Defendants knew or should have known, such that tasing Plaintiff constituted unnecessary and

excessive force.

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9

 49. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, willful and/or recklessly

indifferent acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and sustained severe mental and physical

pain and suffering and injury.

50. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the constitutional harms that the

Defendants inflicted upon him including personal injury, loss of liberty, and violation of his

constitutional rights.

51. The above-described deprivations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights are a direct

and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the Defendants.

52. All Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the tasings by Defendant Bryant

because they acted jointly and in conspiracy with one another to effect the tasings which

constituted excessive force

53. Defendants purposefully and/or knowingly used objectively unreasonable force

against Plaintiff.

54. Defendants knew or should have known that the use of force applied against

Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable

55. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his constitutional rights by the

Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages as alleged in this Complaint and is

entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

56. The actions and omissions of the Defendants complained of herein were unlawful,

conscious shocking and unconstitutional and performed maliciously, recklessly, fraudulently,

sadistically, retaliatory, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and in such a manner as to entitle the

Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.

10

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10

 COUNT 2: FAILURE TO PROTECT

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs in this Complaint as if

expressly stated herein.

58. Defendants Key and Marriott observed or had reason to know

that excessive force would be or was being used, and had both the opportunity and the means to

prevent the harm from occurring because they held down Plaintiff Norris while he was being

tased by Defendant Bryant.

59. There was sufficient time during and between tasings by Defendant Bryant for

Defendants Key and Marriott to stop Defendant Bryant from continuing to tase Plaintiff Norris,

yet Defendants Key and Marriott failed to take any action to stop Defendant Bryant and in fact

assisted Defendant Bryant by holding down Plaintiff Norris during that time.

60. Defendants Key and Marriott are liable for failing to protect Plaintiff Norris from

Defendant Bryants excessive and unnecessary tasings because they actively participated in the

tasings by holding down Plaintiff Norris.

61. Defendants Key and Marriott are liable for failing to protect Plaintiff Norris from

Defendant Bryants excessive and unnecessary tasings because they owed Plaintiff Norris a duty

of protection against such use of excessive force.

62. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, willful and/or recklessly

indifferent acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and sustained severe mental and physical

pain and suffering and injury.

63. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the constitutional harms that the

Defendants inflicted upon him including personal injury, loss of liberty, and violation of his

constitutional rights.

11

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11

 64. The above-described deprivations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights are a direct

and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the Defendants.

65. All Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the tasings by Defendant Bryant

because they acted jointly and in conspiracy with one another to effect the tasings which

constituted excessive force

66. Defendants Key and Marriott knew or should have known that their failure to

protect Defendant Norris from such uses of force was objectively unreasonable.

67. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his constitutional rights by the

Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages as alleged in this Complaint and is

entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

68. The actions and omissions of the Defendants complained of herein were unlawful,

conscious shocking and unconstitutional and performed maliciously, recklessly, fraudulently,

sadistically, retaliatory, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and in such a manner as to entitle the

Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

1. That process issued to the Defendants and that they be required to answer in the

time required by law.

2. That judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants on

all causes of action asserted herein.

3. That this Court allow Plaintiff to file a CD containing videos of the incidents

described herein to be considered as an Exhibit to this Complaint.

4. That Plaintiff be awarded those damages to which he may appear that he is

entitled by proof submitted in this case for his physical and mental pain and suffering both past

12

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12

and future, loss of enjoyment of life, and the violation of his rights guaranteed to him by the

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

5. That punitive damages be assessed against the Defendants.

6. That the Plaintiff be awarded reasonable expenses including reasonable attorneys

fees and expert fees and discretionary costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c).

7. That Defendants be held jointly and severally liable for all damages.

8. That the Plaintiff receive any other further and general relief to which it may

appear that he is entitled.

9. That a jury of twelve (12) is demanded.

Respectfully submitted,

/s Benjamin K. Raybin
David J. Weissman (BPR #25188)
Benjamin K. Raybin (BPR #29350)
RAYBIN & WEISSMAN, P.C.
424 Church Street, Suite 2120
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 256-6666
(615) 254-4254- fax
DWeissman@NashvilleTNLaw.com
BRaybin@NashvilleTNLaw.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

13

Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document 1 Filed 07/21/17 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13

JS 44 (Rev 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Jordan Norris Mark Bryant, Josh Marriott, and Jeff Key

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cheatham County, TN County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Cheatham County, TN
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

Benjamin Raybin & David Weissman, Raybin & Weissman, PC

424 Church Street, #2120, Nashville, TN 32719
615-256-6666
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U S Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U S Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U S Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Civil Rights - Excessive Force
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
07/20/2017 /s Benjamin K. Raybin
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # Case 3:17-cv-01067 Document

AMOUNT 1-1 Filed 07/21/17
APPLYING IFP JUDGEPage 1 of 1 PageID #: 14
MAG JUDGE