`1
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`RONALD COLTON MCABEE, §
` § No. 24-cv-01686 (JMC)
` Plaintiff, §
` §
`v s . §
` §
`CRYSTAL LANCASTER §
` § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
` a n d §
` §
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, §
` §
` Defendants. §
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
` Comes now Plaintiff, Ronald Colton McAbee (“Mr. McAbee”), by a nd through his
`undersigned counsel, and—with opposing counsel’s consent and in compliance with the deadline
`in this Court’s Scheduling Orde r (ECF No. 22)—files this Second Amended Complaint, and in
`support thereof states as follows:
`I. Preliminary Statement
`1. Mr. McAbee seeks to hold Defend ant Crystal Lancaster accountabl e for abusing
`her position as jailer when she (1) deployed chemical agents in to Mr. McAbee’s face twice, at
`point-blank range, without warning and without justification; (2) caused Mr. McAbee to languish
`in burning pain for three days b efore he could decontaminate hi mself; and, (3) in an attempt to
`cover up her misdeeds, wrote a report falsely accusing Mr. McAb ee of having first assaulted her.
`Defendant Lancaster willfully violated Mr. McAbee’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the
`use of excessive force, and she willfully violated his Fifth Amendment right as a pretrial detainee
`to be free from violent punishment. What is more, Defendant Lan caster had been banned from
`even entering the unit where she attacked Mr. McAbee on account of her history of mistreating
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`detainees in that unit. She also had a history of defying basic s e c u r i t y p r o t o c o l s i n o r d e r t o
`fraternize with detainees in other units. On September 5, 2022, Defendant Lancaster’s superiors—
`knowing her ban and her history—staffed her in Mr. McAbee’s uni t anyway. Accordingly, Mr.
`McAbee seeks to hold the District of Columbia accountable for Defendant Lancaster’s misdeeds.
`II. Parties
`2. Mr. McAbee is an adult American citizen and is a resident of the State of Tennessee.
`3. Defendant Lancaster is an adult American citizen and was at all relevant times
`employed by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”) as a Lieutenant at the
`District of Columbia Central Detention Facility (“DC Jail”), which the DOC operates.
`4. Defendant District of Columbia is the municipal government enti ty under which
`the DOC operates.
`III. Jurisdiction and Venue
`5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1331 and
`1343(3) and (4), which grant juri sdiction over cases, like this one, that are brought under 42
`U.S.C. § 1983.
`6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Lancaster because this lawsuit
`arises from her contacts with the District of Columbia—namely from her personal decision to use
`excessive force against Mr. McAbee at the DC Jail. This Court h as general personal jurisdiction
`over the District of Columbia.
`7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all the events
`giving rise to this suit occurred within this District.
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`IV. Statement of Facts
`8. On September 5, 2022, Mr. McAbee was minding his own business in Unit C2B at
`the DC Jail, where he was confined as federal pretrial detainee.
`9. At 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022, Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B, with
`her body-worn camera activated, to conduct a security check.
`10. When Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B at 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022,
`she had been banned from entering the unit.
`11. When Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B at 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022,
`she knew that she had been banned from entering the unit.
`12. Defendant Lancaster had been banned from entering Unit C2B beca use of
`Defendant Lancaster’s prior difficulties with the detainees in that unit, including her deprivation
`of detainees’ liberties by unreasonably and unconstitutionally searching them, taunting them,
`treating them discriminatorily, escalating confrontations with them, and arbitrarily locking them
`down (with such lockdowns depriving the detainees of their telephone and other privileges).
`13. Detainees in Unit C2B had previously filed grievances making th e DOC aware of
`Defendant Lancaster’s actions against them.
`14. Defendant Lancaster’s established history of an inability peaceably to supervise the
`inmates in Unit C2B, together with Defendant Lancaster’s establ ished history of violating DOC
`security protocols in order to provide preferential treatment to other inmates, created a risk that, if
`she reentered Unit C2B when she was banned from doing so, she w ould violate a detainee’s
`constitutional rights.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`15. Defendant Lancaster’s historical failure to comply with basic s ecurity protocols
`created a risk that, if she reentered Unit C2B when she was ban ned from doing so, she would
`violate security protocols regarding the use of force against detainees.
`16. When Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B at 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022,
`at least one of Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors or superiors within the Department of
`Corrections knew that Defendant Lancaster had been banned from entering the unit because of
`Defendant Lancaster’s prior difficulties with the detainees in that unit and, despite that knowledge,
`knowingly permitted her to enter the unit.
`17. Major Marr was one of Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors or supe riors within the
`Department of Corrections who knew that Defendant Lancaster had been banned from entering
`the unit because of Defendant Lancaster’s prior difficulties with the detainees in that unit and who,
`despite that knowledge, knowingly permitted her to enter the unit.
`18. Major Marr was a DOC policymaker for reasons that include, but are not limited
`to, her role in making staffing decisions that place officers l ike Defendant Lancaster in units like
`Unit C2B.
`19. When Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B at 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022,
`at least one of Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors or superiors within the Department of
`Corrections knowingly failed to prevent Defendant Lancaster from entering Unit C2B.
`20. When Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B at 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022,
`at least one of Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors or superiors within the Department of
`Corrections knowingly failed to p revent Defendant Lancaster fro m perpetuating her established
`customs of harassing the detainees in Unit C2B, escalating confrontations with them, and violating
`their rights.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`21. When Defendant Lancaster entered Unit C2B at 11:29 a.m. on September 5, 2022,
`at least one of Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors or superiors within the Department of
`Corrections had personal knowledge of the risk that Defendant L ancaster would violate the
`constitutional rights of detainees in Unit C2B and deliberately failed to mitigate that risk.
`22. Defendant Lancaster’s supervisor s or superiors within the Depar tment of
`Corrections knew of the need to keep Defendant Lancaster out of Unit C2B and they willfully
`chose not to subject her to addi tional training or to enforce t he ban on her presence in Unit C2B,
`knowing that failing to take such measures would increase the r isk of Defendant Lancaster’s
`violating the constitutional rights of detainees in Unit C2B.
`23. Major Marr was one of Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors or supe riors within the
`Department of Corrections who willfully chose not to subject De fendant Lancaster to additional
`training or to enforce the ban on her presence in Unit C2B, kno wing that failing to take such
`measures would increase the risk of Defendant Lancaster’s viola ting the constitutional rights of
`detainees in Unit C2B.
`Defendant Lancaster Attacks Mr. McAbee
`24. At or just before 11:37 a.m. on September 5, 2022, a nurse ente red Unit C2B for
`the routine purpose of dispensing medication to inmates.
`25. At 11:37 a.m., an inmate (who was not Mr. McAbee) walked across Unit C2B from
`a location near the nurse cart, across Defendant Lancaster’s fi eld of view, to the other side of the
`unit, without wearing a COVID-19 face mask, and, despite Defendant Lancaster’s having seen the
`inmate do so, Defendant Lancaster said nothing to that inmate.
`26. At 11:38 a.m., Mr. McAbee began to approach the nurse to obtain h i s o r a l l y
`administered medication. Because M r. McAbee was in his living a rea and was obtaining orally
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`administered medication, he was not wearing a COVID-19 face mas k. DC Jail policy required
`inmates like Mr. McAbee to remove any face mask while consuming such medication anyhow, so
`as to demonstrate to the nurse that the inmate had in fact consumed the medication.
`27. Defendant Lancaster saw Mr. McAbee approach and yelled at him t o put a mask
`on.
`28. Mr. McAbee replied that he would get his mask after getting his medication. Mr.
`McAbee continued to approach the nurse.
`29. As Mr. McAbee continued towards the nurse, Defendant Lancaster approached
`him, walked forward and extended her arm into his trajectory, and told Mr. McAbee not to hit her.
`30. Mr. McAbee then moved past Defe ndant Lancaster towards the nurs e. Because
`Defendant Lancaster had extended her arm in front of Mr. McAbee , Defendant Lancaster’s hand
`brushed Mr. McAbee’s upper arm.
`31. Defendant Lancaster then falsely accused Mr. McAbee of having a ssaulted her.
`Defendant Lancaster and Mr. McAbee then exchanged words several times, with Defendant
`Lancaster commanding Mr. McAbee to get his face mask and Mr. Mc Abee telling Defendant
`Lancaster, while standing at the nurse cart, that he was trying to get his medication.
`32. While Mr. McAbee was standing at the nurse cart, several paces away from
`Defendant Lancaster, Defendant Lancaster then placed her hand on her canister of chemical spray,
`repeated her false accusation that Mr. McAbee had assaulted her, and then—entirely unprovoked,
`with no warning to anyone, and without calling for backup—lunge d forward and administered at
`least a one-second burst of chemical agent directly to Mr. McAbee’s face, at point-blank range.
`33. At no point did Mr. McAbee thre aten, assault, or physically res ist Defendant
`Lancaster.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`34. At no point was Mr. McAbee engaged in riotous behavior.
`35. Defendant Lancaster faced no use or threat of force from Mr. Mc Abee when she
`deployed the chemical agent to his face.
`36. Defendant Lancaster knowingly, maliciously, and sadistically ad ministered the
`chemical agent directly to Mr. McAbee’s face from less than four feet away.
`37. Any reasonable officer would have known that it was objectively unreasonable and
`unconstitutional to administer a chemical agent directly to Mr. McAbee’s face under these
`circumstances.
`38. Mr. McAbee responded to this attack with impolite language, but he continued not
`to threaten or assault anyone.
`39. Defendant Lancaster called for backup.
`40. Defendant Lancaster asked Corporal Agbornkie and Corporal Winst on to restrain
`Mr. McAbee.
`41. Mr. McAbee attempted to ask the officers why Defendant Lancaste r had sprayed
`him. Mr. McAbee also attempted to ask the officers to use a double handcuff restraint, rather than
`a single set of handcuffs, due to Mr. McAbee’s preexisting shoulder injuries.
`42. At 11:41 a.m., Corporal Winston had Mr. McAbee stand up, and Corporal Winston
`began to restrain Mr. McAbee. By this time, Defendant Lancaster had backed away from Mr.
`McAbee and no longer had any reason to be involved, as Mr. McAb ee was being restrained by
`Corporal Winston, and Corporal Winston had not asked for any as sistance in restraining Mr.
`McAbee. Nevertheless, Defendant Lancaster then came from behind , entirely unprovoked, while
`Mr. McAbee was restrained, and knowingly, maliciously, and sadistically administered a second
`burst of chemical agent directly into Mr. McAbee’s face from mere inches away.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`43. Mr. McAbee did not threaten, assault, or physically resist Corp oral Agbornkie,
`Corporal Winston, Defendant Lancaster, or any other individual.
`44. Mr. McAbee did not engage in riotous behavior.
`45. Any reasonable officer would have known that it was objectively unreasonable and
`unconstitutional to administer a second burst of the chemical agent directly to Mr. McAbee’s face
`under these circumstances.
`46. Following the two chemical sprays, Defendant Lancaster and another officer yelled
`at Mr. McAbee for not wearing a COVID-19 mask and placed him in a shower with only scalding
`hot water, which amplified the burning sensation of the chemical spray, and no soap. Mr. McAbee
`received a change of clothes, which he was then required to wear for three days. Mr. McAbee was
`not provided an opportunity to decontaminate thoroughly. Instea d, Mr. McAbee was taken to a
`medical facility, en route to which—as Mr. McAbee was handcuffed behind his back—an officer
`placed a COVID-19 mask on Mr. McAbee’s face.
`47. Mr. McAbee was then placed in solitary confinement for three da ys with only a
`mattress and writing material, still with no opportunity to decontaminate himself despite multiple
`requests. During that time, the chemical agent reactivated and caused Mr. McAbee intense burning
`pain. Finally, on the third day, an officer on duty took pity o n Mr. McAbee and permitted Mr.
`McAbee to take a thorough shower and receive a new change of clothes.
`48. Defendant Lancaster wrote a di sciplinary report alleging that Mr. McAbee had
`incited a riot, had physically thr eatened Defendant Lancaster, and had assaulted Defendant
`Lancaster.
`49. These allegations in the disciplinary report were false.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`50. No hearing was ever held on the violations alleged in the disci plinary report, and
`the prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges against Mr. McAbee after reviewing video
`evidence of the above-d escribed events, discussed below. On inf ormation and belief, no finding
`was ever made that Mr. McAbee had in fact committed the violati ons alleged in the disciplinary
`report.
`51. Defendant Lancaster’s false allegation that Mr. McAbee had assa ulted her caused
`Mr. McAbee to receive an institutional-violence designation.
`52. This institutional-violence designation followed Mr. McAbee for over two years to
`various places of confinement until Mr. McAbee was released from confinement in January 2025.
`53. From September 2022 to January 2025, Mr. McAbee’s life was in g reater danger
`than it otherwise would have been because of Defendant Lancaster’s false report. For instance, the
`institutional-violence designation led to Mr. McAbee’s placemen t in a maximum-security unit at
`one of the facilities that subsequently housed him. Upon Mr. McAbee’s arrival at that unit, another
`inmate handed McAbee a shank (a sharp weapon) and commanded Mr. McAbee to fight or else be
`assaulted, whereas that high-risk encounter would not have occu rred in a lower-security unit in
`which Mr. McAbee would otherwise have been confined. But for La ncaster’s actions and her
`subsequent false report against Mr. McAbee, Mr. McAbee would no t have been subjected to the
`maximum-security detention at tha t facility or to the concomita nt risk to his life and increased
`emotional distress.
`54. As a result of Defendant Lancaster’s actions administering the chemical agent to
`Mr. McAbee’s face, Mr. McAbee suffers continued physical and emotional trauma over three years
`later. Whenever Mr. McAbee hears anything about COVID-19 masks, his heart races, his hands
`sweat, and he fears that he will be violently assaulted by an o fficer just like Defendant Lancaster
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`violently assaulted him. Mr. McAbee continues to suffer anxiety from approaching officers without
`wearing a COVID-19 mask. And Mr. McAbee frequently recalls the temporary blindness, the days
`of languishing in chemical spray a fter the incident occurred, and the intense burning pain that he
`experienced throughout his eyes, nose, and throat.
`55. Perversely, the United States later used Defendant Lancaster’s attack against Mr.
`McAbee to argue for an increased sentence for Mr. McAbee on the grounds that “Mr. McAbee had
`an altercation with jail pers onnel” while awaiting trial. See Government’s Sentencing
`Memorandum at 39, ECF No. 429, in United States v. Ronald Colton McAbee, D.D.C. No. 21-Cr-
`35 (RC) (Feb. 21, 2024).
`56. Defendant Lancaster knowingly used excessive force against Mr. McAbee without
`any legitimate non-punitive purpose. In doing so, Defendant Lan caster knowingly deviated from
`established protocols governing the use of chemical agents on inmates.
`57. The District of Columbia had actual knowledge of Defendant Lancaster’s extensive
`violations of security protocols and of her sustained difficulties with inmates in Unit C2B.
`58. The District of Columbia had a policy of permitting Defendant Lancaster to violate
`security protocols both by mistreating detainees in Unit C2B and by treating inmates in other units
`preferentially.
`59. The District of Columbia continued to permit Defendant Lancaste r to work at the
`DC Jail without further traini ng, without any correction, and w ithout any oversight as she made
`rounds in Unit C2B where she had been banned.
`60. The District also knowingly igno red the fact that officers rout inely failed to wear
`body-worn cameras despite ample signs through the facility stating that body-worn cameras were
`required to be turned on within Unit C2B. These officers’ super iors and supervisors knowingly
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`failed to take any corrective action. For instance, several of the officers who were in Unit C2B on
`September 5, 2022, did not have body-worn cameras (or if they d id, did not activate them),
`including Corporal Winston (the o fficer who restrained McAbee). This practice constituted a
`custom and increased the likelihood of Defendant Lancaster’s vi olating Mr. McAbee’s
`constitutional rights on Septe mber 5, 2022, particularly in lig ht of the fact that Defendant
`Lancaster’s second spray of Mr. McAbee was in close view only of officers like Corporal Winston
`who were not wearing a body-worn camera.
`61. The District also knowingly ignored the fact that officers had previously used
`excessive force against inmates and, as a matter of policy, took steps either to cover up or otherwise
`diminish such use. For instance, Major Marr (the same person re sponsible for Defendant
`Lancaster’s placement in Unit C2B) had, in the weeks or months leading up to September 5, 2022,
`personally used excessive force against another inmate in Unit C2B (which, on information and
`belief, was a response to the inmate’s failure to wear a COVID- 19 face mask) and then
`subsequently required a corporal to write up a report claiming falsely that the corporal, rather than
`Major Marr, had been the one to use excessive force. Major Marr personally, knowingly, and
`deliberately turned a blind eye to the use of excessive force against inmates in Unit C2B, and that
`policy decision was at least in part responsible for Defendant Lancaster’s use of force against Mr.
`McAbee on September 5, 2022.
`62. Other facts show Major Marr’s role in facilitating Defendant La ncaster’s abuse of
`McAbee. For instance, Major Marr was a close friend, if not fam ily member or family friend, of
`Defendant Lancaster, and she knowingly ignored Defendant Lancas ter's practice of violating
`security protocols, providing pr eferential treatment to certain inmates, and using excessive force
`against inmates.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`Defendants Withhold Key Video Evidence
`63. Defendant Lancaster’s body-worn camera captured most if not all of the above-
`described events.
`64. On January 9, 2023, approximately four months after these event s, U.S.
`Congressman Troy E. Nehls (R-TX), acting as Mr. McAbee’s agent, requested that DOC release
`Defendant Lancaster’s body-worn camera footage for the time per iod of 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
`on September 5, 2022.
`65. On January 30, 2023, Congressman Nehls, still acting as Mr. McA bee’s agent,
`notified District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser of the Septem ber 5, 2022, incident and
`requested that Mayor Bowser preserve the camera footage.
`66. On February 21, 2023, Oluwasegun Obebe (Records, Information & Privacy
`Officer for DOC’s Office of General Counsel) sent an email to T aylor Reaves (employee of
`Congressman Nehls) acknowledging the request for “body-worn cam era footage of Lt. Crystal
`Lancaster regarding a September 5, 2022 incident that involved Ronald McAbee” and advising
`that “DOC has decided to release the footage to you before the end of the week in consideration
`of public interest.”
`67. On February 23, 2023, Oluwasegun Ob ebe sent another email to Ms . Reaves
`stating: “There was a miscomm unication, and I apologize. The de cision remains not to disclose
`the video footage.”
`68. Following Plaintiff’s initial filing of this lawsuit and servic e of a subpoena upon
`the DOC, the DOC initially failed to produce Defendant Lancaste r’s body-worn camera footage,
`claiming that no footage had ever existed.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`69. Only after Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the DOC’s response and hold the DOC
`in contempt did the DOC turn over the footage, in response to which Plaintiff withdrew his motion
`to compel and hold in contempt.
`70. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, the DOC has maintained a policy of covering
`up abuses of inmates including the use of excessive force again st inmates in Unit C2B (but not
`other inmates) who did not properly wear COVID-19 face masks.
`V. Causes of Action
`COUNT I
`DEPRIV ATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
`(FOURTH AMENDMENT / EXCESSIVE FORCE)
`
`71. Mr. McAbee incorporates by refere nce all of the preceding parag raphs of this
`Complaint.
`72. Defendant Lancaster, acting under color of District of Columbia law, knowingly
`deprived Mr. McAbee of his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use
`of excessive force.
`73. Defendant Lancaster used force against Mr. McAbee under circumstances in which
`any reasonable officer would have known the use of force was unconstitutionally excessive.
`74. Defendant Lancaster did so twice.
`75. Defendant Lancaster had no justification, such as self-defense or defense of others,
`that might have permitted the use of force.
`76. Defendant Lancaster’s excessive use of force was the actual and proximate cause
`of Mr. McAbee’s bodily injury, p ain, suffering, emotional distr ess, and other harms, causing
`damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`Wherefore, based on the foregoing facts, Mr. McAbee respectfully requests that this Court
`enter a judgment consisting of an award of all damages available by law, in favor of Mr. McAbee
`and against Defendant Lancaster, plus interest and costs.
`COUNT II
`DEPRIV ATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
`(FIFTH AMENDMENT / DUE PROCESS)
`
`77. Mr. McAbee incorporates by refere nce all of the preceding parag raphs of this
`Complaint.
`78. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. McAbee was a pretr ial detainee who
`had not been convicted of a crime.
`79. Mr. McAbee thus enjoyed a Fifth Amendment Due Process right to be free from
`punitive restrictions or conditions while confined at the DC Jail.
`80. Mr. McAbee’s Fifth Amendment claim is lodged in addition and in the alternative
`to his Fourth Amendment claim. Even if the ultimate factfinder determines that Mr. McAbee was
`not subjected to excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, Mr. McAbee alleges
`that Defendant Lancaster’s use of the chemical-agent spray was a punitive measure (i.e., a measure
`that served no legitimate non-punitive purpose) in violation of Mr. McAbee’s right to be free from
`punitive conditions as a pretrial detainee.
`81. Defendant Lancaster, acting under color of District of Columbia law, knowingly
`deprived Mr. McAbee of his clearly established Fifth Amendment right to be free from the use of
`chemical-agent spray administered to his face without any legitimate non-punitive purpose.
`82. Defendant Lancaster’s use of chemical agents against Mr. McAbee was punitive.
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`83. Defendant Lancaster’s use of chemical agents against Mr. McAbee was the actual
`and proximate cause of Mr. McAbee’s bodily injury, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and other
`harms, causing damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`Wherefore, based on the foregoing facts, Mr. McAbee respectfully requests that this Court
`enter a judgment consisting of an award of all damages available by law, in favor of Mr. McAbee
`and against Defendant Lancaster, plus interest and costs.
`COUNT III
`DEPRIV ATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
`(FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS / MUNICIPAL LIABILITY)
`84. Mr. McAbee incorporates by refere nce all of the preceding parag raphs of this
`Complaint.
`85. Mr. McAbee’s municipal liability claim is a Monell c l a i m , n o t a c l a i m f o r
`respondeat superior liability.
`86. The moving force behind Defendant Lancaster’s use of the chemic al agents in
`violation of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments was a policy or custom of the District of
`Columbia or the DOC. Such policy or custom exists either expressly, or as the result of District of
`Columbia policymakers’ (1) knowingly ignoring Defendant Lancast er’s custom of violating the
`rights of detainees in Unit C2B; (2) knowingly ignoring Defendant Lancaster’s custom of violating
`DOC security protocols by treating other inmates abusively; (3) knowingly ignoring the risk that
`an officer like Defendant Lancaster would use excessive force against an inmate and then seek to
`cover up the misuse of force as Major Marr had previously done; (4) acting with deliberate
`indifference to the risk that staffing Defendant Lancaster in Unit C2B when she had been banned
`there would result in her viola ting the constitutional rights of detainees in that unit; or (5) failing
`to train Defendant Lancaster or otherwise respond to Defendant Lancaster’s need for immediate
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`correction when Defendant Lancaster’s supervisors had actual no tice of her repeated and
`customary violations of security protocols.
`87. But for such policies or customs of the District of Columbia or t h e D O C t h a t
`contributed to Defendant Lancaster’s use of excessive force, Mr. McAbee would not have suffered
`the injuries alleged herein.
`88. One or more such policy or custom of the District of Columbia w as an actual and
`proximate cause of Mr. McAbee’s bodily injury, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and other
`harms, causing damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`Wherefore, based on the foregoing facts, Mr. McAbee respectfully requests that this Court
`enter a judgment consisting of an award of all damages available by law, in favor of Mr. McAbee
`and against the District of Columbia, plus interest and costs.
`VI. Jury Trial Demanded
`Mr. McAbee hereby requests that a jury be empaneled to hear this matter.
`VII. Prayer for Relief
`Wherefore, based on the forego ing, Mr. McAbee demands the follo wing relief:
`(a) compensatory damages in a full and fair sum to be determined by a jury, (b) punitive damages
`to be determined by a jury; (c) reasonable attorney’s fees; and (d) all damages authorized at law or
`equity.
`Date: March 27, 2026 R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
`/s/ Kyle Singhal
`Kyle Singhal (D.C. Bar No. 1601108)
`Hopwood & Singhal PLLC
`1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. #200
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 769-4080
`kyle@hopwoodsinghal.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Case 1:24-cv-01686-JMC Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`