Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DELVON L. KING *
2021 Brooks Drive
District Heights, MD 20747 *

*
Plaintiff,
* CASE NO.: _________________

v. *

HON. ROBERT C. NALLEY * Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Delvon L. King, through his attorneys, Steven D. Silverman, Anna S. Kelly and

Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC, hereby sues The Honorable Robert C. Nalley,

(Defendant Nalley), a retired judge on the Circuit Court of Charles County, Maryland, for

ordering a deputy sheriff to apply deadly force by electrocuting and incapacitating Mr. King

because Defendant Nalley felt Mr. King was talking over him. Defendant Nalleys actions were

so far beyond the realm of the actions of a reasonable jurist to constitute, among other grave

consequences, an unlawful infringement of Mr. Kings Constitutional rights. Mr. King suffered

grave personal injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Nalleys actions, for which he

is entitled to the remedies he demands here under the causes of action asserted below.

1
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 2 of 8

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action arises out of the direct order from Defendant Nalley to torture and

electrocute pro se Defendant, Mr. King, while he was conducting his defense.

2. Defendant Nalley has been a member of the Maryland and District of Columbia

bars for the past forty-eight (48) years and before being appointed to the bench was the Assistant,

Deputy and the elected States Attorney for Charles County. Following his tenure as the elected

States Attorney for Charles County, he was appointed by Governor Hughes to the District Court

of Charles County, where he served for seven (7) years. And following that, he was appointed to

the Circuit Court where he served for twenty-five (25) years and an initial year in recalled status.

3. On July 23, 2014, Defendant Nalley presided over the jury selection of State v.

King, 08K13001347 (Circuit Court for Charles County). During this proceeding, Defendant

Nalley ordered a deputy sheriff to torture and electrocute Mr. King by activating the stun-cuff

Mr. King was wearing. Defendant Nalley was aware that Mr. King was wearing the stun-cuff and

that the activation of same would cause complete incapacitation and extreme pain.

4. In response to Defendant Nalleys question regarding Mr. Kings voir dire

questions, Mr. King began reciting a prepared argument regarding the Courts lack of jurisdiction

over him. In the midst of Mr. Kings presentation, Defendant Nalley ordered the sheriffs deputy

to activate the stun-cuff, telling him to [D]o it. Use it.

5. Defendant Nalley had the duty to protect each and every persons constitutional

rights who came into his courtroom but despite this duty, Defendant Nalley intentionally and with

malice violated Mr. Kings constitutional rights, including but not limited to Mr. Kings

constitutional right to due process, when he ordered the deputy to electrocute Mr. King. Defendant

Nalleys actions clearly exceed the scope of judicial conduct.

2
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 3 of 8

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Plaintiff, Delvon L. King, is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was,

a resident of Prince Georges County, Maryland.

7. Defendant, The Honorable Robert C. Nalley, at all times mentioned in this

Complaint was, a duly appointed and acting judge in the Circuit Court for Charles County,

Maryland acting under the color of law as a judge and acting outside the course and scope of his

duties. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

8. This court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1331 and 1343,

as Plaintiff seeks to recover damages or secure other appropriate relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A.

1983, a civil action providing for the deprivation of rights.

9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1391(b). All parties reside in this judicial

district, and the events giving rise to the claims asserted here occurred within this judicial district.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10. On July 23, 2014, in the Circuit Court for Charles County, in the midst of

proceeding with jury selection, Mr. King began reciting a prepared argument regarding his belief

concerning the lack of jurisdiction of the Court over his person.

11. Mr. King was standing calmly behind a table throughout the proceeding and never

approached Defendant Nalley or any other person in the courtroom.

12. Mr. King was outfitted with a stun-cuff on his ankle, a system intended to reduce

the risk of prisoner violence and the degree of physical force required by officers to control violent

prisoners (Administrative and Operational Manual 3-832).

3
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 4 of 8

13. Mr. King presented no danger to Defendant Nalley or others present in the

courtroom, made no aggressive movements or threatening statements and posed no threat to

himself, Defendant Nalley, or anyone in the courtroom.

14. In the midst of Mr. Kings presentation, Defendant Nalley instructed Mr. King to

stop talking and to be quiet, which did not stop Mr. Kings presentation.

15. It was at that point, in the midst of Mr. Kings presentation, that Defendant Nalley

ordered the deputy sheriff to activate the stun-cuff and electrocute Mr. King.

16. At that time, Mr. King was not violent, was not resisting arrest or making any

threatening remarks to the Court. In fact, he did not raise his voice at any point during the

proceedings, and based upon information and belief, there were no private citizens in the

courtroom at the time.

17. The electrocution, the sending of thousands of volts of electricity through Mr.

Kings body, caused Mr. King to writhe on the ground in uncontrollable spasms and painful

screams for several minutes in excruciating pain.

18. Mr. King was forced to continue his representation of himself for his trial, despite

his inability to walk properly or think clearly as a result of the electrocution.

19. Defendant Nalley intentionally deprived Mr. King of his constitutional right to due

process, including but not limited to, the right to be free from any unreasonable use of force or

excessive force.

20. Defendant Nalley pled guilty before Magistrate Judge William Connelly in the

United States District Court for the District of Maryland Southern Division to violating the civil

rights of Mr. King as a result of the incident on July 23, 2014 to the offense of Deprivation of

Rights Under Color of Law under 18 U.S.C.A. 242, case number 8:16-cr-00023-WGC.

4
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 5 of 8

21. Defendant Nalleys guilty plea acknowledged that his order for the electrocution

was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

22. The video depicting Defendant Nalleys order and the administration of the electric

shock in the courtroom is on the Internet, has been viewed or seen hundreds of thousands of times

by millions of people, was national news and coverage of same took up multiple pages on internet

searches for the world to see him screaming in a fetal position, and is so obviously humiliating to

Mr. King (https://www.youtube.com/watch v=WdU8KLO3sbI).

23. Mr. King still suffers from panic attacks and severe anxiety as a result of the electric

shock.

CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I
(Excessive Force and Due Process)

24. Mr. King realleges and incorporates herein all of the paragraphs set forth above.

5
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 6 of 8

25. Mr. King asserts Count I of this action against Defendant Nalley in his individual

capacity. Count I arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of

Mr. Kings rights as secured by the United States Constitution.

26. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. King had rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution not to have his person or property

unlawfully searched, seized, detained in an unreasonable manner, not be deprived of his liberty

without due process of law, and not to be summarily punished.

27. Defendant Nalleys unreasonable and illegal physical punishment of electric shock

deprived Mr. King of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be secure in his person and

effects against summary punishment.

28. Defendant Nalleys actions and omissions were committed under color of law, and

were intentional, malicious, and exhibited a conscious disregard and/or reckless indifference to

Mr. Kings rights.

29. The aforementioned actions and omissions by Defendant Nalley were the cause in

fact and the proximate cause of the violation of Mr. Kings constitutional rights, physical and

emotional injuries, and loss of personal freedom as set forth more fully above.

30. As a result of the above-referenced misconduct by Defendant Nalley, Mr. King has

suffered and will continue to suffer: severe physical and mental pain; suffering and emotional

distress; permanent injury and disability; loss of enjoyment of life; loss of personal property;

and/or medical and psychological expenses.

31. The award of punitive damages against Defendant Nalley is proper and incorporates

all of the paragraphs mentioned above because the acts and omissions of Defendant Nalley were

committed with evil motive or intent and/or reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional

6
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 7 of 8

rights of Mr. King and, furthermore are necessary to punish him for his misconduct, and to deter

similar misconduct. The use of electrocution merely to stop Mr. King from speaking was shocking

and cruel and a total misuse of judicial power.

WHEREFORE, Mr. King requests:

a. that judgment be entered in his favor against Defendant Nalley;

b. that he be awarded compensatory damages against Defendant Nalley for an

amount in excess of $100,000.00 in compensatory damages to be

established at trial;

c. that he be awarded punitive damages against Defendant Nalley for an

amount in excess of $5,000,000.00 and enhanced punitive damages to be

established at trial;

d. that he be awarded reasonable expenses incurred in this litigation, including

reasonable attorneys and expert fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and

(c), against Defendant Nalley; and

e. that he be awarded any other further and general relief to which it may

appear he is entitled.

7
 Case 8:17-cv-00628-TDC Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 8 of 8

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case.

/s/ Steven D. Silverman

Counsel for the Plaintiff