0% found this document useful (0 votes)

3K views80 pages

Gray Notice of Removal

CIty of Evergreen moved for case to be removed to Federal Court

Uploaded by

Rickey Stokes

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

3K views80 pages

Gray Notice of Removal

CIty of Evergreen moved for case to be removed to Federal Court

Uploaded by

Rickey Stokes

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

DOCUMENT 15

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
5/3/2024 10:29 AM
21-CV-2024-900019.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA
DAVID JACKSON, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA

IVAN KEITH GRAY, )

)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. )
) CV-2024-900019
CITY OF EVERGREEN, ALABAMA; )
KENNY EDWARDS; JERRY CAYLOR; )
and STANLEY B. STALLWORTH, )
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendants City of Evergreen (“Evergreen”), Kenny Edwards (“Edwards”), Jerry Caylor

(“Caylor”), and Stanley B. Stallworth (“Stallworth”) hereby give notice they have filed in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, a Notice of

Removal of this action to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Pursuant to the

Notice of Removal, this action has been removed to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division. A true and correct copy of the Notice of

Removal is attached as Exhibit “A.” This Notice is given to this Court in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 1446(d).

DATED: May 3, 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s Taffi S. Stewart

Taffi S. Stewart, Esq. (SMI171)
Sarah G. Redmond, Esq. (RED
Attorneys for City of Evergreen, Alabama;
Kenny Edwards; Jerry Caylor; and Stanley B.
Stallworth
DOCUMENT 15

OF COUNSEL:
LLOYD, GRAY, WHITEHEAD & MONROE, P.C.
880 Montclair Road, Suite 100
Birmingham, Alabama 35213
Phone: (205) 967-8822
Fax: (205) 967-2380
tstewart@[Link]
sredmond@[Link]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of May, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
has been furnished either through the Court’s electronic filing or by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
upon the following parties and other relevant individuals:

Amardo Wesley Pitters

Law Offices of A. Wesley Pitters, P.C.
1145 South Perry Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 265-3333
Facsimile: (334) 265-3411
awpitters@[Link]
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s Taffi S. Stewart
OF COUNSEL

4688146_1 2
DOCUMENT 15

EXHIBIT
“A”
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IVAN KEITH GRAY, )

)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. )
)
CITY OF EVERGREEN, ALABAMA; )
KENNY EDWARDS; JERRY )
CAYLOR; and STANLEY B. ) (Removed from the Circuit
STALLWORTH, ) Court of Conecuh County,
) Alabama, Case No. CV-2024-
Defendants. ) 900019)

NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANTS CITY OF EVERGREEN,

ALABAMA, KENNY EDWARDS, JERRY CAYLOR, AND STANLEY B.
STALLWORTH

Defendants City of Evergreen (“Evergreen”), Kenny Edwards (“Edwards”),

Jerry Caylor (“Caylor”), and Stanley B. Stallworth (“Stallworth”) (collectively,

“Defendants”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 1446, give notice they have

removed this action from the Circuit Court of Conecuh County, Alabama to the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern

Division. In compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Defendants show the Court as

follows:

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2

I. DEFENDANTS’ REMOVAL IS TIMELY AND PROCEDUALLY

PROPER.

1. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his

Complaint in the Circuit Court of Conecuh County, Alabama. (See Complaint,

filed as Exhibit 1).

2. On the same day, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (See

Amended Complaint filed as Exhibit 2).

3. On April 3, 2024, Defendants were served with the Summons and

Complaint. (See Defendants’ Summons, filed as Exhibit 3).

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), Defendants have 30 days after the

receipt of the Complaint to provide notice of removal.

5. Because Defendants are filing this Notice within 30 days of April 3,

2024, the date Defendants were served, Notice has been timely filed.

6. The consent requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) does not

apply to this case since Defendants are the only named defendants in the

Complaint. (See Complaint).

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a complete copy of the process,

pleadings and orders filed in the Circuit Court of Conecuh County, Alabama are

being filed as Exhibit 4.

8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is

being filed today with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Conecuh County, Alabama

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3

and will be served upon Plaintiff Ivan Gray (“Gray”).

II. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS.

9. This removal is based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331.

10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant can remove a case to

the “district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

place where such action is pending” if the federal district court has original

jurisdiction over the claims.

11. This case presents questions arising under federal law, 28 U.S.C. §

1331, and, therefore, is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

12. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants

discriminated against him based on his race in violation of (1) Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”); (2)

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (See Amended Complaint,

¶¶ 14-24).

13. Because Plaintiff’s claims concern the application of federal statutes

and the determination of federal questions, this Court has original subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Farley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.

Co., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (Defendants removed a case where the

complaint alleged violations of federal statutes to federal court); Howard v.

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4

Jackson Cnty Health Care Authority, 5:15-cv-00393-CLS, 2016 WL 2766782, *1

(N.D. Ala. May 13, 2016) (Defendants properly removed the case on the basis of

federal question jurisdiction where the Plaintiff made Title VII and ADEA claims);

Moore v. Agee, cv-07-0319, 2007 WL 2156415, *1 (S.D. Ala. July 25,

2007)(“There is no question that this Court would have original jurisdiction over

an action that arises from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”).

14. It is well-established that federal courts may exercise subject matter

jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1331; see also Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,

128 F. 3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997) (“In a given case, a federal district court

must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction…[including]

federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331…”).

15. Since Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants violated multiple federal

statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

16. Plaintiff has also asserted state law claims against Defendants for

due process under Alabama Code § 11-3-160. (See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 23-24).

17. “[I]n any civil action of which district courts have original

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other

claims that are so related to claims in the actions within such original jurisdiction

that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5

States Constitution”. 28 U.S.C. § 1367

18. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as

Plaintiff alleges the state law claims arise from the same case or controversy as the

federal claims.

19. Specifically, Plaintiff’s state and federal claims are based on

Defendants’ alleged actions in removing Gray as Chief of Police for the City of

Evergreen.

20. As such, Defendants have met their burden in establishing this Court

has subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, and this case

has been properly removed.

WHEREFORE, Defendants City of Evergreen, Kenny Edwards, Jerry

Caylor, and Stanley B. Stallworth remove this action from the Circuit Court of

Conecuh County, Alabama to this Court and request this Court assume subject

matter jurisdiction over this civil action to the exclusion of any further proceedings

in state court.

DATED: May 3, 2024.

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s Taffi S. Stewart

Taffi S. Stewart, Esq. (ASB-0450-M72T)
Sarah G. Redmond, Esq. (ASB-4416-
N10P)
Attorneys for City of Evergreen,
Alabama; Kenny Edwards; Jerry Caylor;
and Stanley B. Stallworth

OF COUNSEL:
LLOYD, GRAY, WHITEHEAD & MONROE, P.C.
880 Montclair Road, Suite 100
Birmingham, Alabama 35213
Phone: (205) 967-8822
Fax: (205) 967-2380
tstewart@[Link]
sredmond@[Link]

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of May, 2024, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing has been furnished either through the Court’s electronic filing or by
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following parties and other relevant
individuals:

Amardo Wesley Pitters

Law Offices of A. Wesley Pitters, P.C.
1145 South Perry Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 265-3333
Facsimile: (334) 265-3411
awpitters@[Link]
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s Taffi S. Stewart
OF COUNSEL

4683437_1
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) 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

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(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.

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 Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 485 Telephone Consumer
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 850 Securities/Commodities/
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 895 Freedom of Information
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 896 Arbitration
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 950 Constitutionality of
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
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):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, [Link].P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-1 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 2
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18) PageID #: 9

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading 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. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), [Link].P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, [Link].P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 1 of 68 PageID #: 10

EXHIBIT
“1”
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 68 ELECTRONICALLY
PageID #: 11 FILED
3/8/2024 1:32 AM
21-CV-2024-900019.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA
DAVID JACKSON, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CONECUH COUNTY ALABAMA

IVAN KEITH GRAY )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 21:2024-cv-_____________
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CITY OF EVERGREEN, ALABAMA; )
KENNY EDWARDS; JERRY CAYLOR; )
STANLEY B. STALLWORTH )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Ivan Keith Gray by and through undersigned counsel, and for want

of prosecution, files this complaint in the above-styled cause against defendants, the City of

Evergreen, Alabama, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and certain officials of

the City of Evergreen, namely City Council members Kenny Edwards and Jerry Caylor, and Mayor

for the City of Evergreen, Stanley B. Stallworth, whereas said city officials were acting under color

of state law in violating the civil rights guaranteed and secured unto the plaintiff by the laws and

Constitution of the United States of America as enforced under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1981.

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This is an action seeking redress from unlawful employment practices by the

defendants that have resulted in deprivation of rights, secured and guaranteed unto the plaintiff by

the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment

and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, (economic and non-economic damages), back pay and

any further relief or employment benefits, including, but not limited to reinstatement, to which he is

justly entitled, from the defendants, arising from the defendants’ violation of his rights guaranteed to

him pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. as amended. The

plaintiff seeks to enforce rights guaranteed to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 3 of 68 PageID #: 12

of America as enforced by Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1981. The plaintiff seeks equitable and

injunctive relief declaring the rights and relations of the parties as follows:

(a) That the actions of the defendants against the plaintiff regarding the terms and

conditions of his employment and the employment practices of the City of Evergreen,

Alabama contravenes rights secured him by the laws and Constitution of the United States of

America. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that while he was employed with the City of

Evergreen and/or while he was the duly qualified candidate having applied for employment

seeking the vacancy of the position of Chief of Police with the City of Evergreen for the City

of Evergreen Police Department, he was the victim of unlawful employment discrimination

in termination of his employment and his replacement as Chief of Police for the City of

Evergreen Police Department having been hired with a vote of the City Council for the City

of Evergreen, he was subsequently discharged and subjected to unlawful employment

discrimination with hiring of a white male, Tristin Robinson, outside of his protected class

and whom the plaintiff submits was less qualified. The actions of the defendants in

terminating the plaintiff’s employment failed to comport with his right to due process, notice

and an opportunity to be heard over the objection of other City Council members not named

as party defendants to this action. The plaintiff seeks equitable and injunctive relief for the

unlawful employment practices, violation and deprivation of rights guaranteed and secured

unto him, committed by the defendants against him, plus a reasonable award of attorney fee

and litigation costs and expenses, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1988, including, but not

limited to, an award of damages compensatory, economic and non-economic, and punitive

damages.
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 4 of 68 PageID #: 13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to, and in accordance

with, the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 (3), this being an action to redress

deprivation of rights secured unto the plaintiffs pursuant to the laws and Constitution of the United

States of America, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) and

the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Section 1981 prohibiting race-based

employment discrimination. The Court has Personal Jurisdiction of the parties to this action whereas

the City of Evergreen, Alabama, lies within this judicial circuit and is the place where the events

giving rise to the claim occurred. Defendant City of Evergreen officials, its Mayor and City Council

Members also reside and perform their official duties in this judicial circuit. Accordingly, the

plaintiff avers that jurisdiction and venue is appropriate in the Circuit Court of Conecuh County,

Alabama this being a court of competent jurisdiction to grant him redress.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

3. The plaintiff avers that within 180 days of learning of the acts of discrimination of which he

complains of herein, he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Mobile District Office of

the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ("EEOC"), alleging violation

by the Defendant City of Evergreen of his rights secured and guaranteed to him by Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. as amended. The plaintiff has been issued

notice of right to sue entitling him to institute a civil action in a court of competent

jurisdiction, pursuant to which he has brought this action.

THE PARTIES

4. The plaintiff avers that he is over the age of nineteen (19) years. All actions
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 5 of 68 PageID #: 14

complained of herein by the plaintiff against the defendants occurred in Evergreen, Conecuh

County, Alabama. At all times material hereto, there existed an employer-employee relationship

between the plaintiff and the City of Evergreen.

5. Defendant City of Evergreen, Alabama is a duly organized body politic and exists

pursuant to the laws of the State of Alabama.

6. Plaintiff avers that at all times material hereto, Defendant Stanley B. Stallworth serves as

the duly elected Mayor of the City of Evergreen and in that capacity serves as the head of the

Executive Branch of city government. Mayor Stallworth is charged with the responsibility of

legislating and enforcing compliance with city ordinances, state and federal law, including, but not

limited to, Title VII and federal statutory laws and the Constitution of the United States relative to

employment practices by the City of Evergreen as its Chief Executive Officer.

7. Plaintiff avers that Defendants Kenny Edwards and Defendant Jerry Caylor, along

with Chesson McDaniels, Jimmy Taylor and Kasey Bradley-Vaughn collectively comprise the

members of the City Council of the City of Evergreen. The Plaintiff further avers that as members

of the City Council for the City of Evergreen the aforementioned individuals are charged with the

duty and responsibility of legislating ordinances pertaining to employment practices, hiring and

termination of city personnel, including, but not limited to, the filling of the vacancy of Chief of

Police for the City of Evergreen and discharging personnel from their employment. The underlying

basis of the plaintiff bringing this civil action for violation of rights falls within said duty and

responsibility of members of the City Council whereas the named individuals defendants abridged

and breached the duty owed the plaintiff and engaged in employment discrimination against the

plaintiff. Plaintiff avers that the Mayor Stallworth and council members agreed on procedures for

hiring and filling the vacancy of Chief of Police in the hiring of the plaintiff and the Defendants
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 6 of 68 PageID #: 15

Mayor, Edward and Caylor subsequently voted and/or acted in concert unlawfully and discriminately

to appoint a white police chief over the objection of other council members and without the actions

of other council members.

8. Plaintiff avers that Mayor Stanley Stallworth, Kenny Edwards and Jerry Caylor

are named as defendants in their individual and official capacity as state actors, having acted

under color of law to deprive the plaintiff of rights secured and guaranteed to the plaintiff by the

laws and Constitution of the United States of America.

PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff incorporates all the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through eight (8)

of this complaint, and further shows this Honorable Court as follows, to-wit:

9. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class as an African-American, that is to say

that he is, black, an American who descended of African heritage/ancestry.

10. Plaintiff avers that at all times material hereto, he was duly qualified and as such he

submitted an application with the defendants, more specifically Defendant City of Evergreen, for

hire to the vacant position of Chief of Police, for which the City of Evergreen, by and through its

duly elected officials, the Mayor and City Council sought prospective applicants and candidates for

hire. The Plaintiff avers that upon information and belief, he was the top qualified applicant for the

job. Upon information and belief, the plaintiff avers that he possessed the qualifications, KSA

(Knowledge, Skill and Ability) for the vacant position of Chief of Police, having experience from

previously served as Chief of Police and indeed, other Black candidates and applicants with Chief of

Police experience and educational background, specifically college degrees, were passed over by the

defendants in their quest to promote the white Interim Police Chief who was a Lieutenant with the

Evergreen Police Department. Plaintiff avers that he was hired by vote of the Council for the City of
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 7 of 68 PageID #: 16

Evergreen on or about August 1, 2023. Plaintiff avers that upon information and belief from meeting

of the City Council for the City of Evergreen the plaintiff was hired and the Mayor was issued the

directive of the City Council majority vote and/or the Mayor represented that he would be meeting

with the plaintiff as the duly hired Chief of Police to negotiate the plaintiff’s salary and start date.

11. The plaintiff avers that subsequently, the Mayor unlawfully removed the plaintiff

from his being hired as City of Evergreen Chief of Police and instead at the City Council Meeting of

August 15, 2023, the Mayor, acting in concert with Defendant Edwards and Caylor, declared his

appointment of Tristan Robinson to replace the plaintiff as Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen,

effectively subjecting the plaintiff to unlawful discharge and failure to hire, pursuant to which

plaintiff has been aggrieved and from which he asserts herein claims and causes of action for

unlawful employment discrimination arising, if not from wrongful termination, a failure to hire.

12. The plaintiff avers that having been the selected applicant for filling the vacancy of

Chief of Police at the immediately preceding City Council meeting, with the same having voted on

by the City Council for the City of Evergreen, the Mayor, Defendant Stanley B. Stallworth, may not

unilaterally remove the plaintiff without the vote of the City Council and subsequently arbitrarily

and capriciously unlawfully engaged in race discrimination in appointing another applicant of his

choice and the choice of council members Defendants Edward and Caylor. Plaintiff avers that

Defendant Mayor Stallworth unlawfully removed the plaintiff as Chief of Police for the City of

Evergreen and essentially purported to take a second vote of the next City Council meeting, acting in

concert with Defendants Caylor and Edwards, so as to replace the plaintiff and override the previous

City Council vote to hire the plaintiff choosing instead to effectively hire a less qualified white

applicant, effectively promoting said applicant (Tristan Robinson) from Lieutenant and Acting Chief

to the position of Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen .

DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 8 of 68 PageID #: 17

13. The plaintiff avers that the actions of Defendants City of Evergreen, Mayor

Stallworth, City Council members Caylor and Edwards violated the rights of the plaintiff so as to

unlawfully terminate his employment, his having been duly hired by the City of Evergreen, and

subsequently replaced the plaintiff with Tristan Robinson as Chief of Police for the City of

Evergreen. Plaintiff avers that if he were not hired he certainly was the victim of unlawfully

discriminated against in a failure to hire by the City of Evergreen. Plaintiff further avers that the

applicant that the City of Evergreen ultimately declared to be its Chief of Police and whom at the

filing of this lawsuit occupies the position as Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen, Tristan

Robinson, was less qualified than the plaintiff. Robinson is white. Plaintiff avers that he was

deprived of due process, notice and opportunity to be heard relative to his termination, discharge and

removal as Chief of Police on or about August 15, 2023, having been selected and hired by the City

of Evergreen on or about August 1, 2023. He was deprived of due process whereas the actions of the

Mayor and City Council are fraught with unlawful irregularities relative to, among other things, the

Mayor voting twice, initially to hire the plaintiff and subsequently on August 15, 2023.

FIRST FCAUSE OF ACTION

Employment Discrimination: Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq..

Plaintiff incorporates all the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen

(13) of this complaint, and further shows this Honorable Court as follows, to-wit:

14. Plaintiff avers that he has been discriminated against by his employer, the City of

Evergreen relative to the actions of its officials Defendant Mayor Stallworth and members of the

City Council for the City of Evergreen, specifically Defendants Jerry Caylor and Kenny Edwards

and their discriminatory motive in discharging the plaintiff and/or the hiring and promotion of a
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 9 of 68 PageID #: 18

white less qualified applicant, Tristan Robinson, for Chief of Police, specifically at the City Council

meeting of August 15, 2023. Plaintiff avers that the Defendant City of Evergreen, by and through its

officials, specifically the named individual defendants, engaged in actions tantamount to

employment discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Specifically, as averred above, the plaintiff’s

employment was terminated and he was removed from the office of Chief of Police for the City of

Evergreen with the Mayor voting twice in contravention of Alabama, Code of Alabama, 1975

Section 11-43-2. Defendant Mayor Stallworth voted twice with the objective of subverting the

plaintiff having been duly hired to the office of Chief of Police. The Defendant further avers that if

he was not hired as he alternatively claims a failure to hire by the defendants for unlawful

discriminatory racial animus relative to the firing of Tristan Robinson by the Defendant City of

Evergreen to fill the vacancy of Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen Police Department. The

plaintiff alleges this treatment by the Defendant City of Evergreen has adversely affected the terms

and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment, resulting in his unlawful termination and/or failure to

hire tantamount to guaranteed to the plaintiff by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as

amended.

15. The plaintiff avers that he has been caused to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, mental

distress, emotional anguish, economic and non-economic damages as a direct and proximate cause of

the defendant’s discriminatory and unlawful conduct, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands compensatory damages,

back pay, other back employment benefits, attorney fees, litigations costs and expenses and any

other relief to which plaintiff may show that he is justly entitled as determined by this court,
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 10 of 68 PageID #: 19

including but not limited to, his reinstatement or his hire as the Chief of Police for the City of

Evergreen, that Tristan Robinson be placed back to his Lieutenant position that he occupied prior to

serving as Interim Police Chief, pursuant to applicable law, including, but not limited to Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and Title 42 U.S.C. §

1988.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Employment Discrimination, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Claim

Equal Protection

Plaintiff incorporates all the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15)

of this complaint, and further shows this Honorable Court as follows, to-wit:

16. Plaintiff avers that he has been discriminated against by defendants City of Evergreen

and the members of the City Council, Defendants Stallworth, Caylor and Edwards, by their having

subjected the plaintiff to unlawful employment practices, namely wrongful termination and/or failure to

hire the plaintiff as Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen. At all times material hereto, said

defendants acted under color of state law in violation of the laws and Constitution of United States that

secured and guaranteed to him rights and privileges, including the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal

Protection of Law, as enforced by Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that protects against race-based employment

discrimination. The defendants violated the rights of the plaintiff and subjected him to race

discrimination in their removal of his hiring/employment and/or refusal to hire him as Chief of Police

for the City of Evergreen and their purporting to hire Tristan Robinson, a less qualified white person.

17. Plaintiff avers that he has been caused to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, mental

distress, emotional anguish, economic and non-economic damages as a direct and proximate cause

of the defendants’ discriminatory, retaliatory and unlawful conduct.

18. Plaintiff avers that he has incurred attorney fees and litigation costs and expenses,
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 11 of 68 PageID #: 20

damages, including but not limited to, loss wages, retirement and other employment benefits as a

consequence of the defendants’ discriminatory and unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands damages, compensatory,

back pay, other employment benefits, reinstatement, attorney fees, costs and any other relief to

which plaintiff may show himself to be justly entitled as determined by this court pursuant to

applicable law, including, but not limited to, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1988.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Employment Discrimination, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 Claim

Plaintiff incorporates all the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through eighteen

(18) of this complaint, and further shows this Honorable Court as follows, to-wit:

19. Plaintiff avers that he has been discriminated against by Defendant City of

Evergreen, by and through its defendants Mayor Stanley B. Stallworth and City Council members

Kenny Edwards and Jerry Caylor, with their having subject to first to a hire as Chief of Police for

the City of Evergreen on vote of the City Council only to subsequently unlawfully vote for his

removal, discharge without a hearing and at a subsequent meeting of the City Council for the City

of Evergreen unlawfully vote for the hiring and the Mayor’s unilateral appointment of Tristan

Robinson as Chief of Police, effectively promoting Robinson from his position as Lieutenant and

Interim Police Chief to that of Chief of Police.

20. The plaintiff avers that the City of Evergreen, by and through Defendants Stallworth,

Caylor and Edwards took adverse action against him so as to terminate her employment with the

City of Evergreen when they effectively unlawfully voted and the Mayor announced his

appointment of Tristan Robinson as the Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen.

21. Plaintiff avers that he has been caused to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, mental

distress, emotional anguish, economic and non-economic damages as a direct and proximate cause
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 12 of 68 PageID #: 21

of the defendants’ retaliatory and unlawful conduct.

22. Plaintiff avers that he has incurred attorney fees and litigation costs and expenses,

damages, including but not limited to, loss wages, retirement and other employment benefits as a

consequence of the defendants’ discriminatory and unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands damages, compensatory

and back pay, other employment benefits, reinstatement, attorney fees, costs and any other relief to

which plaintiff may show himself to be justly entitled as determined by this court pursuant to

applicable law.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Due Process Violation

Plaintiff incorporates all the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through twenty-two

(22) of this complaint, and further shows this Honorable Court as follows, to-wit:

23. Plaintiff avers that he has been discriminated against by his employer, City of Evergreen,

by and through its Defendants Stallworth, Edwards and Caylor relative to the factual allegations as set

forth above.

24. The plaintiff avers that at all times material hereto, having been duly hired by a vote of

the City Council for the City of Evergreen he was employed with Defendant City of Evergreen and

subsequently removed unlawfully removed, pursuant to which the plaintiff avers that he was denied due

process of law having not been afforded a hearing before being removed and replaced by Tristan

Robinson, a white applicant for the Office of Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen, at the August

15, 2023 meet of the City Council meeting for the City of Evergreen. Plaintiff avers that the defendants

subjected him to being the victim of unlawful employment discharge and/or failure to hire in violation

of the actions of the Mayor casting illegal votes as a council member at the two meetings of the

Council, and above all the Mayor declaring that he was appointing Tristan Robinson to the position as
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT15
2
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 13 of 68 PageID #: 22

Chief of Police for the City of Evergreen. Plaintiff avers that the Mayor’s actions, within the line and

scope of his employment and purportedly acting within his official capacity as Mayor and Chief

Executive Officer for the City of Evergreen, was a violation of law. Alabama Code, 1975 11-43-2 and

Jones v. Coosada, 356 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1978); Stallworth v. City of Evergreen, 680 So.2d 229 (Ala.

1996).

. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff invokes his right to due process and

demands damages, compensatory and back pay, other employment benefits, reinstatement, attorney

fees, costs and any other relief to which plaintiff may show herself to be justly entitled as determined by

this court pursuant to applicable law.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amardo Wesley Pitters_________

Amardo Wesley Pitters, Esquire
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Attorney Bar Code: PIT025

OF COUNSEL:

LAW OFFICES OF A. WESLEY PITTERS, P.C.

1145 South Perry Street (36104)
Post Office Box 1973
Montgomery, Alabama 36102
Telephone: (334) 265-3333
Telecopier: (334) 265-3411
Email: awpitters@[Link]

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY

DOCUMENT 15
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 14 of 68 PageID #: 23

EXHIBIT
“2”
DOCUMENT15
DOCUMENT 5
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 15 of 68 ELECTRONICALLY
PageID #: 24 FILED
3/8/2024 9:34 AM
21-CV-2024-900019.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONECUH COUNTY, ALABAMA
DAVID JACKSON, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CONECUH COUNTY ALABAMA

IVAN KEITH GRAY )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 21:2024-cv-900019.00
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CITY OF EVERGREEN, ALABAMA; )
KENNY EDWARDS; JERRY CAYLOR; )
STANLEY B. STALLWORTH )
)
Defendants. )

AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Ivan Keith Gray by and through undersigned counsel, and for want

of prosecution, files this AMENDED complaint in the above-styled cause against defendants, the

City of Evergreen, Alabama, pursuant to Rule 57 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and in

accordance with the provisions of Code of Alabama, 1975, Section 6-6-220, et seq., pursuant to Title

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and certain officials of the City of Evergreen, namely City

Council members Kenny Edwards and Jerry Caylor, and Mayor for the City of Evergreen, Stanley B.

Stallworth, whereas the said city officials were acting under color of state law in violating the civil

rights guaranteed and secured unto the plaintiff by the laws and Constitution of the United States of

America as enforced under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1981.

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This is an action seeking redress from unlawful employment practices by the

defendants that have resulted in deprivation of rights, secured and guaranteed unto the plaintiff by

the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment

and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, (economic and non-economic damages), back pay and

any further relief or employment benefits, including, but not limited to reinstatement, to which he is

justly entitled, from the defendants, arising from the defendants’ violation of his rights guaranteed to
DOCUMENT15
DOCUMENT 5
Case 1:24-cv-00141 Document 1-2 Filed 05/03/24 Page 16 of 68 PageID #: 25

him pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. as amended. The

plaintiff seeks to enforce rights guaranteed to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States