A lawsuit brought by a former Warren County Regional Jail inmate claiming that he was blinded in one eye after being kicked by a deputy jailer during a struggle should be dismissed, an attorney for the jail argues in a recent court filing.

Attorney Matthew Cook filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Bradley Easley against Warren County Jailer Stephen Harmon, Deputy Jailer Kevin Weatherby, Warren County, Warren County Fiscal Court and unknown deputy jailers.

The motion, filed March 28, asserts that Easley has failed to state a claim that could entitle him to relief from the courts.

Easley claims in his lawsuit, filed last month in U.S. District Court, that excessive force was used against him after he was booked March 6, 2024, into the jail on suspicion of public intoxication and endangering the welfare of a minor.

Easley, represented by attorney Alan Simpson, has sued Deputy Jailer Kevin Weatherby for assault and battery.

Weatherby and the other defendants are accused of excessive use of force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and failure to acquire/provide necessary medical care, while Harmon, the county and the fiscal court are accused of negligent hiring, training and retention of its employees.

Simpson, who has requested $5 million in damages, claims that jail deputies attempted to get Easley under control after he attempted to step around them when a deputy opened the door to a holding cell where he was being kept.

Easley placed his hands on the wall as instructed and was in the process of being handcuffed when, according to Simpson’s lawsuit, a deputy inadvertently stepped on Easley’s sandal, causing movement that led to Weatherby deploying a stun gun on Easley twice, which led Easley and the handcuffing deputy to fall to the ground.

Weatherby is alleged to have used his stun gun again after the other deputy gained control of Easley, struck Easley’s rib cage with his knee, drove the stun gun into his body and then kicked Easley in the left side of his head.

Easley was released from jail four days later, sought treatment for an injury to his left eye and learned that he had no vision in his left eye as well as an infection, leading to surgery.

Simpson claims that Weatherby intentionally kicked Easley, while Cook asserts that Easley was kicked inadvertently during a struggle with jail staff.

“While trying to restrain Mr. Easley, he fought jail staffers and attempted to bite one of the deputy jailers,” Cook stated in a memorandum supporting his motion to dismiss. “During the struggle, Mr. Easley was inadvertently kicked in the face and his left eye was injured.”

Cook argues that Weatherby cannot be held liable for assault and battery due to prior court rulings that have granted qualified immunity to law enforcement officials for actions taken in their official capacity as officers.

“The complaint asserts that the jail officials were acting in their official capacities and (Easley) cannot show the officials acted in bad faith,” Cook’s memorandum said. “There is no showing that Deputy Weatherby or anyone else acted with malicious intent to harm (Easley).”

Cook also argues that Easley has not established that the use of force against him was unreasonable.

“The use of force is not objectively unreasonable if it is applied, as here, in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” Cook said in his filing. “(Easley) admits he was uncooperative with the jail officials. The officers were entitled to use force to restrain and handcuff him. A self-defense kick in these circumstances is not a constitutional violation.”

Additionally, Easley’s negligence claims against the county and the fiscal court should be dismissed because the original lawsuit does not specify what training policies were inadequately followed by the county and no specific instances of past wrongdoing by Weatherby have been identified to support the assertion that he was negligently retained on staff.

The original lawsuit references a prior incident involving Weatherby, but Cook argues that one instance of potential misconduct is not enough to establish a pattern of violations supporting a negligence claim.

“Plaintiffs allege no facts concerning how the jail hires its officers, how it evaluates its officers and decides they will be retained, how it supervises its officers or how it trains its officers,” Cook’s memorandum stated. “Once again, plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient factual content allowing this court to reasonably infer that the county could be held liable for negligent hiring, retention, supervision or training.”

Cook argues that Easley’s allegation that the defendants failed to provide medical care should be dismissed because Easley has not established that he asked for any additional care while incarcerated other than what he received.

Regarding the allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Cook argues that the defendants are immune from liability thanks to prior court decisions.