Rutherford County OG LAWSUIT
Rutherford County OG LAWSUIT
Rutherford County OG LAWSUIT
D YLAN J. G EERTS
V. CASE N O. ____________
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff Dylan Geerts brings this civil rights action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
PARTIES
4. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal claims in this matter pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
since she was elected as the County’s sole Juvenile Court judge in the year 2000.
Page 1 of 9
her judicial duties, as well as ultimate administrative authority over the operation of
7. Direct administrative control over the operations of the JDC is exercised by Ms. Lynn
9. In February 2003, Judge Davenport ordered the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office, as
well as all municipal police departments within the county, that any time a juvenile was to
be charged with a delinquent offense the child must be taken into custody and transported
10. On April 11, 2017, Judge Davenport referred to this policy as “The Process” in federal
court testimony in U.S. Middle District Case No. 3:16-cv-1975, E.J. v. Templeton.
11. Judge Davenport’s purpose in requiring that children be taken to the JDC for “processing”
was to give JDC staff the opportunity to incarcerate them pending a juvenile court detention
hearing, which would generally be held two to three days after they were booked.
12. In March 2003, Judge Davenport issued a detention protocol to Ms. Lynn Duke,
whenever (a) there was probable cause that the child had committed any delinquent
offense, and (b) staff deemed incarceration to be in the child’s “best interests.”
13. In 2008, Administrator Duke formally implemented a “Filter System” in the JDC Standard
Operating Procedures (“SOP”) that established specific guidelines for these “best interests”
incarceration determinations.
Page 2 of 9
15. Tennessee law strictly prohibits the pretrial incarceration of children in a secure detention
facility absent certain strictly circumscribed prerequisites, such as the child being charged
16. The Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center is a “Secure Facility” within the
17. Pursuant to the Rutherford JDC’s “Filter System,” JDC staff have routinely incarcerated
children in a wide array of circumstances that obviously did not meet the legal prerequisites
18. The JDC’s illegal pretrial detention policies continued unabated until the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction on May 15,
2017 in the case of E.J. v. Templeton, 3:16-cv-1975, commanding the JDC to stop illegally
incarcerating children.
19. Arrest and detention of children cannot be taken lightly, as study after study document its
20. Incarceration of juveniles increases recidivism. Children placed in secure detention are as
much as 13.5 times more likely to return to the system. Benda, B.B. and Tollet, C.L.
Page 3 of 9
of re-offending. Researchers call this process “peer deviancy training,” and report
violence, and long-term adjustment difficulties for those youth held in settings like juvenile
children at-risk for externalizing disorders may include negative changes in attitudes
toward antisocial behavior, affiliation with antisocial peers, and identification with
deviancy.” Dishion, T. J., McCord, J, and Poulin, F. (1999), “When Interventions Harm:
Peer Groups and Problem Behavior.” American Psychologist Vol. 54, No. 9 755-764.
22. Arrest and detention “systemizes” youth. Children who have been arrested and detained
“go deeper” into the system, and are more likely to face adjudication and disposition from
the system, disrupting families and visiting upon these children all of the negative effects
23. Arrest and detention interfere with normal developmental processes by which children
typically “age out” of delinquent behavior through the normal process of maturation. Most
children who engage in delinquent behavior naturally desist such behavior by adulthood,
but arrest and detention interferes with this normal maturing process, such that children
who are arrested and detained are more likely to persist in such behaviors.
24. Detention makes mentally ill youth worse. Research published in Psychiatry Resources
showed that for one-third of incarcerated youth diagnosed with depression, the onset of the
depression occurred after they began their incarceration. 4 Kashani, J.H., Manning, G.W.,
McKnew D.H., Cytryn, L., Simonds, J.F. and Wooderson, P.C. (1980), “Depression
Page 4 of 9
some of the observed [increased mental illness in detention] effect.” Forrest, C.B., Tambor,
E., Riley, A.W., Ensminger, M.E. and Starfield, B. (2000), “The Health Profile of
26. Detention puts youth at greater risk of self-harm. Researchers have found that incarcerated
youth experience from two to four times the suicide rate of youth in the community at large.
Parent, D.G., Leiter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D. and Wilcox, S. (1994),
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
27. Juvenile correctional facilities often incorporate responses to suicidal threats and behavior
in ways that endanger the youth further, such as placing the youth in isolation, a practice
28. Detained youth with special needs fail to return to school. Juvenile detention interrupts
young people’s education, and once incarcerated, some youth have a hard time returning
receiving remedial education services in detention did not return to school after release,
and another 16 percent enrolled in school but dropped out after only five months. LeBlanc
Department of Education.
29. Another researcher found that most incarcerated 9th graders return to school after
out of school: After four years, less than 15 percent of these incarcerated 9th graders had
completed their secondary education. Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K., Neild, R. and Legters, N.
Page 5 of 9
Other and How that Could Change.” Presented at the School to Jail Pipeline Conference,
Harvard University.
30. Young people who leave detention and who do not reattach to schools face collateral risks:
High school dropouts face higher unemployment, poorer health (and a shorter life), and
earn substantially less than youth who do successfully return and complete school.
31. The failure of detained youth to return to school also affects public safety. The U.S.
Department of Education reports that dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than high school
32. Placing youth in detention reduces their usefulness to themselves and society in the labor
market. Looking at youth age 14 to 24, Princeton University researchers found that youth
who spent some time incarcerated in a youth facility experienced three weeks’ less work a
year (for African-American youth, this figure increases five weeks less work a year) as
compared to youth who had no history of incarceration. Western, Bruce and Beckett,
Katherine (1999), “How Unregulated Is the U.S. Labor Market?: The Penal System as a
C. P L A I N T I F F ’ S U N L A W F U L D E T E N T I O N
33. Plaintiff Dylan Geerts was arrested and charged with non-violent, non-weapons delinquent
offenses on or about September 14, 2014, by officers of the La Vergne Police Department.
35. The arresting officers transported Mr. Geerts from the scene of the arrest to the Rutherford
Page 6 of 9
37. Regardless, the JDC booking staff incarcerated Mr. Geerts pursuant to the Filter System.
38. Mr. Geerts remained incarcerated at the JDC for the next four days.
39. The illegal incarceration infringed Mr. Geerts’s liberty and imposed mental anguish,
41. Tennessee law uses explicitly mandatory language and substantive predicates to protect
children from pretrial incarceration in a secure facility unless the child’s circumstances
42. At the time that Mr. Geerts was arrested, Rutherford County’s pretrial juvenile
that went far beyond the scope of T.C.A. § 37-1-114(c)’s strict criteria.
44. Because of the County’s Filter System policy, JDC staff failed to apply the § 37-1-114(c)
45. Mr. Geerts would not have been incarcerated at the JDC if the booking staff had given
46. JDC staff acted under color of law in imposing the illegal incarceration.
47. The illegal incarceration infringed Plaintiff’s liberty and inflicted emotional harm on him.
Page 7 of 9
49. Children have a federal substantive due process right to not be incarcerated pretrial in a
50. Tennessee law strictly defines the circumstances that it considers to constitute a sufficiently
51. Rutherford County’s pretrial juvenile incarceration policies prior to May 15, 2017,
instructed JDC staff to incarcerate children in a wide array of circumstances which violated
52. Mr. Geerts was incarcerated in violation of his substantive due process liberty right.
53. JDC staff acted under color of law in illegally incarcerating Plaintiff.
54. The illegal incarceration infringed Plaintiff’s liberty and inflicted emotional harm on him.
1. That Defendant Answer this Complaint within the time provided by law.
3. That judgment for Plaintiff enter against the Defendant on each count.
Page 8 of 9
expert witness fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and F.R. Civ. Pro. 54(d).
9. That Plaintiff be awarded all other relief to which it may appear he is entitled in the
interests of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Kyle Mothershead_________
Kyle Mothershead, BPR 22953
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
T: (615) 982-8002 / F: (615) 229-6387
E: [email protected]
s/ Mark J. Downton_______
Mark J. Downton, #20053
2706 Larmon Avenue
Nashville, TN 37204
615-984-4681
615-514-9674 (fax)
[email protected]
Page 9 of 9