Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
NAKOLE CURRY,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
V.
§
Civil Action No.
§
CITY OF AUSTIN,
§
Jury Requested
AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
§
THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC AND
§
JOHN DOE OFFICERS
§
1-10
§
§
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits
this Original Complaint and Jury Demand for damages against Defendants and states as follows:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages
for violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
2. Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained when Defendants, acting under color of state law,
used excessive and unreasonable force in a crowded public area, endangering innocent
bystanders including Plaintiff, in violation of clearly established constitutional rights.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 2 of 14
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(3) as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise
to this action occurred in Austin, Travis County, Texas, within this judicial district.
III. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY is a 24 year-old female who, at all times relevant hereto, was a
resident of Fort Hood, Texas
6. Defendant CITY OF AUSTIN is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas. At all times relevant hereto, the City of Austin was responsible for
the policies, practices, customs, and training of the Austin Police Department ("APD").
7. Defendant AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT is a law enforcement agency of the City of
Austin, Texas, responsible for police services within the city limits.
8. Defendant THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC is a business entity operating a nightclub located on
6th Street in Austin, Texas. Upon information and belief, THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC is
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and conducts business in Travis
County, Texas.
9. Defendants JOHN DOE OFFICERS 1-10 are Austin Police Department officers whose true
names are currently unknown to Plaintiff but will be determined through discovery. At all
times relevant hereto, these officers were acting under color of state law and within the scope
of their employment with the City of Austin.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Incident
2 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 3 of 14
10. On or about December 16, 2023, at approximately 12:00AM. Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY was
lawfully present as an innocent bystander on the sidewalk outside THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC,
located on 6th Street in Austin, Texas, waiting to gain entry to the establishment.
11. At said time and place, an employee of THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC encountered a customer
and refused entry to the establishment because the employee assumed the would-be customer
possessed a weapon.
12. The SOHO LOUNGE LLC employee called the Austin Police Department to report the
incident involving the would-be customer.
13. APD officers responded to the scene and confronted the customer who was standing outside
the establishment on the public sidewalk.
14. The area was crowded with members of the public, including Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY,
who posed no threat to the officers or anyone else and were lawfully present on the public
sidewalk.
15. Despite the presence of innocent bystanders in the immediate vicinity, including Plaintiff, the
Defendant Officers failed to secure the area or take reasonable steps to protect bystanders
before confronting the individual.
16. The situation escalated to a point where the Defendant Officers discharged their weapons by
firing at the would-be customer.
17. Without regard for the safety of innocent bystanders, including Plaintiff, the Defendant
Officers opened fire in the crowded area.
18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, PlaintiffNAKOLE CURRY was struck
in the right eye by a bullet, causing permanent blindness in her right eye.
3 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 4 of 14
19. The Defendant Officers' decision to use deadly force in a crowded area with numerous innocent
bystanders present was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
20. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's actions in calling police based on an unfounded assumption
about a customer possessing a weapon, without reasonable basis, contributed to the escalation
that resulted in Plaintiff's injuries.
B. Constitutional Violations
21. The Defendant Officers' conduct violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment to be
free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force.
22. The Defendant Officers' conduct violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
to substantive due process and equal protection under the law.
23. At the time of the incident, it was clearly established that law enforcement officers cannot use
excessive force or act with deliberate indifference to the safety of innocent bystanders.
C. Municipal Liability - Policies, Practices, and Customs
24. Defendant City of Austin, through the Austin Police Department, maintained policies,
practices, and customs that caused or contributed to the constitutional violations alleged herein.
25. Upon information and belief, the City of Austin failed to adequately train APD officers
regarding: a. The proper use of force in crowded public areas; b. De-escalation techniques; c.
Crowd control and bystander safety protocols; d. Constitutional limitations on the use of deadly
force.
26. Upon information and belief, the City of Austin has a custom or practice of tolerating excessive
force by its officers and failing to discipline officers who endanger innocent bystanders.
D. Pattern of Constitutional Violations
4 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 5 of 14
27. The incident involving Plaintiff was not an isolated occurrence, but rather part of a pattern of
excessive force and constitutional violations by APD officers that demonstrates the City's
deliberate indifference to citizens' constitutional rights.
28. Upon information and belief, APD officers have been involved in numerous incidents of
excessive force and endangerment of innocent bystanders, including but not limited to:
a. Jason Roque (May 2, 2017): On May 2, 2017, Jason Roque, a Hispanic twenty-year-old man,
was shot and killed by APD officer James Harvel. The APD officer was responding to a 911 call
regarding Mr. Roque's mental health and observed Mr. Roque standing in the street with a BB gun.
Like Ms. Curry, the APD officer opened fire against Mr. Roque less than a second after he ordered
Mr. Roque to "put the gun down," and while Mr. Roque had not aimed the BB gun at any other
person. Again, like Ms. Curry, Mr. Roque dropped the BB gun, complying with the police
command, but was shot by the APD officer an additional two times. Mr. Roque subsequently died
from the APD officer's gunshots in front of his mother. Mr. Roque's family subsequently sued the
City Defendant and the APD officer who fatally shot Mr. Roque. The City Defendant settled the
lawsuit with Mr. Roque's family for $2.25 million.
b. Landon Nobles (May 7, 2017): On May 7, 2017, Landon Nobles, a twenty-four-year-old Black
man, was shot in the back and killed by APD officers Richard Egal and Maxwell Johnson outside
a bar on East Sixth Street. Like Ms. Curry, the APD officers approached Mr. Nobles after a gunshot
was fired. However, Mr. Nobles was unarmed. Mr. Nobles then ran down the street before another
APD officer tripped him with a bicycle. Mr. Nobles fell to the ground on his stomach. The APD
officers proceeded to open fire against Mr. Nobles as he was on the ground and posed no immediate
5 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 6 of 14
threat of serious or significant harm. The City Defendant ultimately settled a lawsuit with Mr.
Noble's family for $3.3 million.
c. Mauris Nishanga DeSilva (July 26, 2019): On July 26, 2019, APD officers Karl Krycia and
Christopher Taylor shot and killed Mauris Nishanga DeSilva, a forty-six-year-old Sri Lankan
neuroscientist, as he was experiencing a mental health crisis. The APD officers were called to
respond to the mental health crisis and approached Dr. DeSilva as he stood over ten feet away
from them in a hallway. At that time, Dr. DeSilva turned towards the officers, holding a knife to
his own throat. The APD officers then ordered Dr. DeSilva to drop the knife. Dr. DeSilva
proceeded to bring the knife down to his side. Like Ms. Curry, Dr. DeSilva was not given an
opportunity to drop the knife as the APD officers immediately opened fire despite Dr. DeSilva
posing no immediate threat of serious and significant harm to the officers who stood ten feet away.
The APD officers involved were later indicted for first-degree murder. Krycia is awaiting trial.
Taylor was convicted for deadly conduct on October 5, 2024.
d. Michael Ramos (April 24, 2020): On April 24, 2020, Michael Ramos, a forty-two-year-old
Black man, was fatally shot by APD Officer Christopher Taylor in the parking lot of an apartment
building. Officer Taylor is the same APD officer who killed Dr. DeSilva. Before the fatal shooting,
Mr. Ramos exited his vehicle with his hands up in the air and was visibly unarmed. Despite the
absence of any immediate threat of serious or significant harm, APD officers aimed their firearms
at Mr. Ramos.
29. These incidents demonstrate a pattern of: a. Using deadly force without sufficient justification
or immediate threat; b. Failing to allow subjects reasonable time to comply with commands; c.
Shooting individuals who are complying with police commands or pose no threat; d.
6 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 7 of 14
Inadequate de-escalation training and implementation; e. Disproportionate use of force against
minorities and individuals in mental health crisis; f. Repeated involvement of the same officers
(such as Officer Christopher Taylor) in multiple fatal shootings.
30. The City of Austin's payment of substantial settlements totaling at least $5.55 million in the
Roque and Nobles cases alone demonstrates the City's knowledge of constitutional violations
by its officers.
31. Despite knowledge of these fatal incidents, criminal indictments of officers, and multi-million
dollar settlements, the City of Austin failed to implement adequate policies, training, or
disciplinary measures to prevent future violations.
32. The fact that Officer Christopher Taylor was involved in multiple fatal shootings (DeSilva and
Ramos) and was allowed to remain on duty demonstrates the City's deliberate indifference to
constitutional violations and public safety.
33. The City of Austin's deliberate indifference to this pattern of constitutional violations
demonstrates that its policies, practices, customs, and/or failures were the moving force behind
the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
34. The City of Austin's failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers, despite
notice of repeated constitutional violations, demonstrated deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of citizens.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment Excessive Force (Against Individual
Officers)
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
7 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 8 of 14
36. The Defendant Officers, acting under color of state law, used excessive force against Plaintiff
in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
37. The Defendant Officers' use of deadly force in a crowded area with innocent bystanders present
was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered significant physical,
emotional, and economic damages.
COUNT II - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process (Against
Individual Officers)
39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
40. The Defendant Officers' conduct shocked the conscience and violated Plaintiff's substantive
due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
41. The Defendant Officers acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety and
constitutional rights.
COUNT III- - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Municipal Liability (Against City of Austin)
42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
43. The City of Austin, through its policies, practices, customs, and/or deliberate indifference,
violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
44. The City of Austin's failure to adequately train, supervise, and discipline APD officers was the
moving force behind the constitutional violations.
45. The City of Austin maintained customs and practices that encouraged or condoned
constitutional violations by its officers.
COUNT IV - Negligence Under Texas Tort Claims Act (Against City of Austin)
8 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 9 of 14
46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
47. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
48. The City of Austin waived governmental immunity for this claim under Chapter 101 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Texas Tort Claims Act).
49. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Officers were employees of the City of Austin
acting within the scope of their employment.
50. The City of Austin, through its employees, owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care in
the use of force and to refrain from conduct that would foreseeably endanger innocent
bystanders.
51. The City of Austin, through its officers, breached this duty by: a. Failing to secure the area
before confronting an armed individual; b. Using deadly force in a crowded area with
numerous innocent bystanders present; c. Failing to consider the safety of innocent bystanders
before taking action; d. Acting in a manner that created an unreasonable risk of harm to
members of the public.
52. The City of Austin's breach of duty was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
53. The City of Austin's liability is limited to monetary damages as provided by the Texas Tort
Claims Act, and Plaintiff seeks damages within such statutory limits.
COUNT V - Assault Under Texas Law (Against Individual Officers)
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
55. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
9 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 10 of 14
56. The Defendant Officers intentionally caused Plaintiff to be placed in imminent apprehension
of harmful or offensive contact by discharging firearms in Plaintiff's immediate vicinity.
57. Alternatively, the Defendant Officers intentionally caused harmful or offensive contact with
Plaintiff through their use of deadly force in a crowded area.
58. The Defendant Officers' conduct constituted assault under Texas law.
59. The Defendant Officers acted with malice and/or gross negligence, justifying an award of
exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41.
60. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered the damages alleged herein.
COUNT VI - Alternative Negligence Claim (Against Individual Officers)
61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
62. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
63. In the alternative, if the Defendant Officers' conduct does not constitute intentional conduct,
they were negligent in their actions.
64. The Defendant Officers owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance
of their law enforcement duties.
65. The Defendant Officers breached this duty by using deadly force in a manner and location that
created an unreasonable risk of harm to innocent bystanders, including Plaintiff.
66. The Defendant Officers' negligence was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
68. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
10 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 11 of 14
69. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC owed Plaintiff and other members of the public a duty to exercise
reasonable care in its operations and to refrain from conduct that would foreseeably endanger
innocent bystanders.
70. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC breached this duty by: a. Making unfounded assumptions about a
customer possessing a weapon without reasonable basis; b. Calling police based on speculation
rather than actual observation of criminal activity; c. Failing to attempt reasonable de-
escalation or alternative measures before involving law enforcement; d. Creating or
contributing to a dangerous situation that foreseeably could result in harm to innocent
bystanders.
71. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the police response and
subsequent shooting that injured Plaintiff.
72. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC knew or should have known that calling police based on
unfounded suspicions could lead to an escalated confrontation that would endanger innocent
bystanders in the crowded area.
COUNT VIII - Premises Liability (Against THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC)
73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
74. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
75. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC, as the operator of a business establishment, owed Plaintiff and
other prospective customers a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises and approaches to its
establishment.
76. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC breached this duty by creating or contributing to a dangerous
condition on or near its premises that resulted in harm to Plaintiff.
11 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 12 of 14
77. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's actions in calling police based on unfounded suspicions created
an unreasonably dangerous condition for innocent bystanders on the public sidewalk adjacent
to its establishment.
78. As a direct and proximate result of THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's breach of its duty, Plaintiff
suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein.
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT
79. Plaintiff provided proper notice to the City of Austin as required by Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code § 101.101 by United States Postal Mail via Certified Letter, Tracking No. 9589
0710 5270 0500 5576 36 and by email correspondence to lawclaims@austintexas.gov.
80. At least six months have elapsed since Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY provided the required
notice to the City of Austin.
81. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Austin are brought within the two-year statute of
limitations provided by the Texas Tort Claims Act.
VIII. DAMAGES
82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues
to suffer: a. Permanent blindness in her right eye; b. Physical pain and suffering; c. Mental
anguish and emotional distress; d. Medical expenses, both past and future; e. Lost wages and
diminished earning capacity; f. Permanent disability and disfigurement; g. Loss of enjoyment
of life; h. Loss of depth perception and visual field; i. Need for ongoing medical care and
adaptive equipment.
83. Defendants' conduct was willful, wanton, and malicious, justifying an award of punitive
damages against the individual Defendants under federal law.
12 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 13 of 14
84. The individual Defendants' conduct constituted malice and/or gross negligence under Texas
law, justifying an award of exemplary damages pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code Chapter 41.
85. Plaintiff's damages against the City of Austin are limited to the monetary damages cap
provided by the Texas Tort Claims Act, currently $250,000 per person and $500,000 per
occurrence for bodily injury.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
B. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, subject to the
statutory caps under the Texas Tort Claims Act as to claims against the City of Austin;
C. Award Plaintiff punitive damages against the individual Defendants under federal law;
D. Award Plaintiff exemplary damages against the individual Defendants under Texas law;
E. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
F. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
X. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
THE COX PRADIA LAW FIRM
13 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 09/03/25 Page 14 of 14
/s/:Jonathan H. Cox
Jonathan H. Cox
State Bar No. 24007047
Federal Bar No. 28983
Jhc@coxpradialaw.com
eservejhc@coxpradialaw.com
Troy J. Pradia
State Bar No. 24011945
2402 Rosedale St.
Houston, TX 77004
Telephone: (713) 739.0402
Facsimile: (713) 752.2812
tjp@coxpradialaw.com
eservetjp@coxpradialaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
14 I Page
Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 2 Filed 09/03/25 Page 1 of 2
FILED
February 27, 2025
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BY:
Alicia Davis
AUSTIN DIVISION
DEPUTY
§
IN RE: COURT DOCKET
§
MANAGEMENT
§
§
§
FOR AUSTIN DIVISION
§
§
MAGISTRATE REFERRAL ORDER
Under Rule 1 of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate
Judges, Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer all civil
matters assigned to the Honorable Alan D Albright to a United States Magistrate Judge for the
Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court's standard procedure, except the
following:
Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, and 2255;
Cases brought by detainees and prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 430 U.S. 388 (1971);
Cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (patent cases);
Cases designated as "830 Patent" and "835 Patent (ANDA)"; and
Cases that include ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer all criminal matters
for the Austin Division assigned to the Honorable Alan D Albright to a United States Magistrate
Judge for the Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court's standard procedure.
The matters are referred for disposition of all non-dispositive pretrial matters as provided in 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and for findings and recommendations on all case-dispositive motions as
provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 2 Filed 09/03/25 Page 2 of 2
SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2025.
UNITED ALAND Olan STATES ALBRIGHT DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML
Document
3
Filed 09/05/25
Page 1 of 1
UNITED
COURT
MESTERNING DISTRICT TOFTX OF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PHILIP J. DEVLIN
ANNETTE FRENCH
CLERK OF COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHIEF DEPUTY
501 West 5th Street, Suite 1100
Austin, Texas 78701
September 5, 2025
Jonathan H. Cox
The Cox Pradia Law Firm
2402 Rosedale Street
Houston, TX 77004
Re:
Curry v. City of Austin et al
Case Number: 1:25-cv-01414-ADA
The records of this office indicate that you are not admitted to practice in this court.
Local District Court Rule AT-1(f)(1) states: "An attorney who is licensed by the
highest court of a state or another federal district court, but who is not admitted to practice before
this court, may represent a party in this court pro hac vice only by permission of the judge
presiding...."
If you intend to represent a party in this case, you must submit to this court a
Motion to Appear pro hac vice within 14 days of the date of this letter. You can locate a
copy of the motion on our website at http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/?mdocs-file=2823
The motion must contain an original signature by the attorney seeking to be admitted pro hac
vice. Pro hac vice motions signed by one attorney for another attorney will not be granted. If
you are an attorney who maintains your office outside of this district, the Judge may require you
to designate local counsel as co-counsel (Local Rule AT-2).
Please be sure to review the Local Rules for the Western District of Texas before you
submit your motion, especially Local Rules CV-5 (Pleadings & Filing Papers), CV-7 (Motions),
CV-10 (Form of Pleadings), and AT-1(f)(1) and AT-(f)(2) (Pro hac vice requirements), and
standing orders for the Austin Division. For your convenience, a complete copy of the Local
Rules for the Western District of Texas and various forms can be downloaded from our website.
Please be advised that the Clerk no longer automatically adds non-admitted
attorneys to a case. Thus, non-admitted attorneys will not receive orders or notices (which
may include deadlines, hearing dates, etc.) filed in their case. The Clerk will only add said
attorneys to the case upon the granting of a Motion to Appear pro hac vice.
If you have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ty Pargmann
Deputy Clerk
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML
Document 4
Filed 09/05/25
Page 1 of 1
United States District Court
Western District of Texas
Austin
Deficiency Notice
To:
Cox, Jonathan H.
From:
Court Operations Department, Western District of Texas
Date:
Friday, September 05, 2025
Re:
01:25-CV-01414-ADA / Doc # 1 / Filed On: 09/03/2025
Pursuant to the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in
Civil and Criminal Cases, the following pleading has been filed. However, it is
deficient in the area(s) checked below. Please correct the deficiency(ies), as
noted below, and re-file document IMMEDIATELY. When re-filing document,
other than a motion, please ensure you add 'corrected' to the docket text. If
the document you are re-filing is a motion, select 'corrected' from the drop-
down list.
If an erroneous filing results in failure to meet a deadline, you will need
to seek relief, for any default, from the presiding judge.
The Complaint you filed is deficient because you failed to attach a JS44. This form can be located on our website.
Please prepare and electronically submit the JS44 using the event located at Civil Events - Other Filings - Other
Documents - JS44. This form is required for civil cases filed in the Western District of Texas.
Case
1:25-cv-01414-ADA-MI
Document 5
Filed 09/05/25
Page 1 of 1
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
City DEFENDANTS of Austin,
Nakole Curry
Austin Police Department, The Shoho Lounge LLC and John Doe
Officers 1-10
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Bell County
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Travis County
(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.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)
Jonathan H. Cox and Troy J. Pradia
The Cox Pradia Law Firm
2402 Rosedale St., Houston TX 77004. P:713.752.2300
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):
42 U.S.C. § 198
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief description of cause:
APD used excessive and unreasonable force in a crowded public area, endangering Plaintiff
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT:
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
5,000,000.00
JURY DEMAND:
Yes
No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF REC
09/05/2025
He
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Print
Save As...
Reset
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
NAKOLE CURRY,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
V.
§
Civil Action No.1:25-CV-01414-ADA-ML
§
CITY OF AUSTIN,
§
Jury Requested
AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
§
THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC AND
§
JOHN DOE OFFICERS
§
1-10
§
§
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits
this Original Complaint and Jury Demand for damages against Defendants and states as follows:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages
for violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
2. Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained when Defendants, acting under color of state law,
used excessive and unreasonable force in a crowded public area, endangering innocent
bystanders including Plaintiff, in violation of clearly established constitutional rights.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 2 of 16
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(3) as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise
to this action occurred in Austin, Travis County, Texas, within this judicial district.
III. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY is a 24-year-old female who, at all times relevant hereto, was a
resident of Fort Hood, Texas.
6. ZANIA STEWART is the minor daughter of Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY, who at all times
relevant hereto was dependent upon her mother for care, guidance, companionship, and
support.
7. Defendant CITY OF AUSTIN is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas. At all times relevant hereto, the City of Austin was responsible for
the policies, practices, customs, and training of the Austin Police Department ("APD").
8. Defendant AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT is a law enforcement agency of the City of
Austin, Texas, responsible for police services within the city limits.
9. Defendant THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC is a business entity operating a nightclub located on
6th Street in Austin, Texas. Upon information and belief, THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC is
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and conducts business in Travis
County, Texas.
10. Defendants JOHN DOE OFFICERS 1-10 are Austin Police Department officers whose true
names are currently unknown to Plaintiff but will be determined through discovery. At all
2 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 3 of 16
times relevant hereto, these officers were acting under color of state law and within the scope
of their employment with the City of Austin.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Incident
11. On or about December 16, 2023, at approximately 12:00AM. Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY was
lawfully present as an innocent bystander on the sidewalk outside THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC,
located on 6th Street in Austin, Texas, waiting to gain entry to the establishment.
12. At said time and place, an employee of THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC encountered a customer
and refused entry to the establishment because the employee assumed the would-be customer
possessed a weapon.
13. The SOHO LOUNGE LLC employee called the Austin Police Department to report the
incident involving the would-be customer.
14. APD officers responded to the scene and confronted the customer who was standing outside
the establishment on the public sidewalk.
15. The area was crowded with members of the public, including Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY,
who posed no threat to the officers or anyone else and were lawfully present on the public
sidewalk.
16. Despite the presence of innocent bystanders in the immediate vicinity, including Plaintiff, the
Defendant Officers failed to secure the area or take reasonable steps to protect bystanders
before confronting the individual.
17. The situation escalated to a point where the Defendant Officers discharged their weapons by
firing at the would-be customer.
3 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 4 of 16
18. Without regard for the safety of innocent bystanders, including Plaintiff, the Defendant
Officers opened fire in the crowded area.
19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY was struck
in the right eye by a bullet, causing permanent blindness in her right eye.
20. The Defendant Officers' decision to use deadly force in a crowded area with numerous innocent
bystanders present was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
21. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's actions in calling police based on an unfounded assumption
about a customer possessing a weapon, without reasonable basis, contributed to the escalation
that resulted in Plaintiff's injuries.
22. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC, despite believing a dangerous condition existed that warranted
police intervention, failed to warn or protect the numerous innocent bystanders, including
Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY, who were waiting in line outside the establishment.
23. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC had actual knowledge of the crowded conditions on the sidewalk
adjacent to its establishment and the presence of prospective customers, including Plaintiff, yet
failed to take any reasonable steps to ensure their safety before or after calling police.
24. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC employees were in a position to observe the escalating situation
and the arrival of armed police officers, yet failed to warn customers or direct them to safety.
B. Constitutional Violations
25. The Defendant Officers' conduct violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment to be
free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force.
26. The Defendant Officers' conduct violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
to substantive due process and equal protection under the law.
4 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 5 of 16
27. At the time of the incident, it was clearly established that law enforcement officers cannot use
excessive force or act with deliberate indifference to the safety of innocent bystanders.
C. Municipal Liability - Policies, Practices, and Customs
28. Defendant City of Austin, through the Austin Police Department, maintained policies,
practices, and customs that caused or contributed to the constitutional violations alleged herein.
29. Upon information and belief, the City of Austin failed to adequately train APD officers
regarding:
a. The proper use of force in crowded public areas;
b. De-escalation techniques;
c. Crowd control and bystander safety protocols;
d. Constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force.
30. Upon information and belief, the City of Austin has a custom or practice of tolerating excessive
force by its officers and failing to discipline officers who endanger innocent bystanders.
D. Pattern of Constitutional Violations
31. The incident involving Plaintiff was not an isolated occurrence, but rather part of a pattern of
excessive force and constitutional violations by APD officers that demonstrates the City's
deliberate indifference to citizens' constitutional rights.
32. Upon information and belief, APD officers have been involved in numerous incidents of
excessive force and endangerment of innocent bystanders, including but not limited to:
a. Jason Roque (May 2, 2017): On May 2, 2017, Jason Roque, a Hispanic twenty-year-old man,
was shot and killed by APD officer James Harvel. The APD officer was responding to a 911 call
5 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 6 of 16
regarding Mr. Roque's mental health and observed Mr. Roque standing in the street with a BB gun.
Like Ms. Curry, the APD officer opened fire against Mr. Roque less than a second after he ordered
Mr. Roque to "put the gun down," and while Mr. Roque had not aimed the BB gun at any other
person. Again, like Ms. Curry, Mr. Roque dropped the BB gun, complying with the police
command, but was shot by the APD officer an additional two times. Mr. Roque subsequently died
from the APD officer's gunshots in front of his mother. Mr. Roque's family subsequently sued the
City Defendant and the APD officer who fatally shot Mr. Roque. The City Defendant settled the
lawsuit with Mr. Roque's family for $2.25 million.
b. Landon Nobles (May 7, 2017): On May 7, 2017, Landon Nobles, a twenty-four-year-old Black
man, was shot in the back and killed by APD officers Richard Egal and Maxwell Johnson outside
a bar on East Sixth Street. Like Ms. Curry, the APD officers approached Mr. Nobles after a gunshot
was fired. However, Mr. Nobles was unarmed. Mr. Nobles then ran down the street before another
APD officer tripped him with a bicycle. Mr. Nobles fell to the ground on his stomach. The APD
officers proceeded to open fire against Mr. Nobles as he was on the ground and posed no immediate
threat of serious or significant harm. The City Defendant ultimately settled a lawsuit with Mr.
Noble's family for $3.3 million.
C. Mauris Nishanga DeSilva (July 26, 2019): On July 26, 2019, APD officers Karl Krycia and
Christopher Taylor shot and killed Mauris Nishanga DeSilva, a forty-six-year-old Sri Lankan
neuroscientist, as he was experiencing a mental health crisis. The APD officers were called to
respond to the mental health crisis and approached Dr. DeSilva as he stood over ten feet away
from them in a hallway. At that time, Dr. DeSilva turned towards the officers, holding a knife to
his own throat. The APD officers then ordered Dr. DeSilva to drop the knife. Dr. DeSilva
6 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 7 of 16
proceeded to bring the knife down to his side. Like Ms. Curry, Dr. DeSilva was not given an
opportunity to drop the knife as the APD officers immediately opened fire despite Dr. DeSilva
posing no immediate threat of serious and significant harm to the officers who stood ten feet away.
The APD officers involved were later indicted for first-degree murder. Krycia is awaiting trial.
Taylor was convicted for deadly conduct on October 5, 2024.
d. Michael Ramos (April 24, 2020): On April 24, 2020, Michael Ramos, a forty-two-year-old
Black man, was fatally shot by APD Officer Christopher Taylor in the parking lot of an apartment
building. Officer Taylor is the same APD officer who killed Dr. DeSilva. Before the fatal shooting,
Mr. Ramos exited his vehicle with his hands up in the air and was visibly unarmed. Despite the
absence of any immediate threat of serious or significant harm, APD officers aimed their firearms
at Mr. Ramos.
33. These incidents demonstrate a pattern of: a. Using deadly force without sufficient justification
or immediate threat; b. Failing to allow subjects reasonable time to comply with commands; c.
Shooting individuals who are complying with police commands or pose no threat; d.
Inadequate de-escalation training and implementation; e. Disproportionate use of force against
minorities and individuals in mental health crisis; f. Repeated involvement of the same officers
(such as Officer Christopher Taylor) in multiple fatal shootings.
34. The City of Austin's payment of substantial settlements totaling at least $5.55 million in the
Roque and Nobles cases alone demonstrates the City's knowledge of constitutional violations
by its officers.
7 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 8 of 16
35. Despite knowledge of these fatal incidents, criminal indictments of officers, and multi-million
dollar settlements, the City of Austin failed to implement adequate policies, training, or
disciplinary measures to prevent future violations.
36. The fact that Officer Christopher Taylor was involved in multiple fatal shootings (DeSilva and
Ramos) and was allowed to remain on duty demonstrates the City's deliberate indifference to
constitutional violations and public safety.
37. The City of Austin's deliberate indifference to this pattern of constitutional violations
demonstrates that its policies, practices, customs, and/or failures were the moving force behind
the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
38. The City of Austin's failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers, despite
notice of repeated constitutional violations, demonstrated deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of citizens.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I- - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Fourth Amendment Excessive Force (Against Individual
Officers)
39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
40. The Defendant Officers, acting under color of state law, used excessive force against Plaintiff
in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
41. The Defendant Officers' use of deadly force in a crowded area with innocent bystanders present
was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered significant physical,
emotional, and economic damages.
8 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 9 of 16
COUNT II - - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process (Against
Individual Officers)
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
44. The Defendant Officers' conduct shocked the conscience and violated Plaintiff's substantive
due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
45. The Defendant Officers acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety and
constitutional rights.
COUNT III - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Municipal Liability (Against City of Austin)
46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
47. The City of Austin, through its policies, practices, customs, and/or deliberate indifference,
violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
48. The City of Austin's failure to adequately train, supervise, and discipline APD officers was the
moving force behind the constitutional violations.
49. The City of Austin maintained customs and practices that encouraged or condoned
constitutional violations by its officers.
COUNT IV - Negligence Under Texas Tort Claims Act (Against City of Austin)
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
51. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
52. The City of Austin waived governmental immunity for this claim under Chapter 101 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Texas Tort Claims Act).
53. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Officers were employees of the City of Austin
acting within the scope of their employment.
9 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 10 of 16
54. The City of Austin, through its employees, owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care in
the use of force and to refrain from conduct that would foreseeably endanger innocent
bystanders.
55. The City of Austin, through its officers, breached this duty by:
e. Failing to secure the area before confronting an armed individual;
f. Using deadly force in a crowded area with numerous innocent bystanders present;
g. Failing to consider the safety of innocent bystanders before taking action;
d. Acting in a manner that created an unreasonable risk of harm to members of the public.
56. The City of Austin's breach of duty was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
57. The City of Austin's liability is limited to monetary damages as provided by the Texas Tort
Claims Act, and Plaintiff seeks damages within such statutory limits.
COUNT V - Assault Under Texas Law (Against Individual Officers)
58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
59. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $
1367.
60. The Defendant Officers intentionally caused Plaintiff to be placed in imminent apprehension
of harmful or offensive contact by discharging firearms in Plaintiff's immediate vicinity.
61. Alternatively, the Defendant Officers intentionally caused harmful or offensive contact with
Plaintiff through their use of deadly force in a crowded area.
62. The Defendant Officers' conduct constituted assault under Texas law.
10 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 11 of 16
63. The Defendant Officers acted with malice and/or gross negligence, justifying an award of
exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41.
64. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered the damages alleged herein.
COUNT VI- Alternative Negligence Claim
65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
66. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
67. In the alternative, if the Defendant Officers' conduct does not constitute intentional conduct,
they were negligent in their actions.
68. The Defendant Officers owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance
of their law enforcement duties.
69. The Defendant Officers breached this duty by using deadly force in a manner and location that
created an unreasonable risk of harm to innocent bystanders, including Plaintiff.
70. The Defendant Officers' negligence was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
72. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
73. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC owed Plaintiff and other members of the public a duty to exercise
reasonable care in its operations and to refrain from conduct that would foreseeably endanger
innocent bystanders.
74. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC breached this duty by: a. Making unfounded assumptions about a
customer possessing a weapon without reasonable basis; b. Calling police based on speculation
rather than actual observation of criminal activity; C. Failing to attempt reasonable de-
11 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 12 of 16
escalation or alternative measures before involving law enforcement; d. Creating or
contributing to a dangerous situation that foreseeably could result in harm to innocent
bystanders.
75. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the police response and
subsequent shooting that injured Plaintiff.
76. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC knew or should have known that calling police based on
unfounded suspicions could lead to an escalated confrontation that would endanger innocent
bystanders in the crowded area.
COUNT VII - Premises Liability (Against THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC)
77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
78. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $
1367.
79. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC, as the operator of a business establishment, owed Plaintiff and
other prospective customers a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises and approaches to its
establishment, and to warn of or protect against known dangerous conditions.
80. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC breached this duty by:
h. Creating or contributing to a dangerous condition on or near its premises;
i. Failing to warn prospective customers, including Plaintiff, of the dangerous condition
they believed warranted police intervention;
j. Failing to take reasonable steps to protect customers waiting in line outside the
establishment;
k. Allowing customers to remain in harm's way despite knowing of the potential danger;
12 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 13 of 16
1. Failing to direct customers to safety or clear the area before or during the police
response.
81. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition,
as evidenced by their decision to call police, yet failed to warn or protect the innocent
bystanders who were lawfully present on the public sidewalk adjacent to its establishment.
82. THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's actions and omissions created an unreasonably dangerous
condition for prospective customers and other members of the public, including Plaintiff.
83. As a direct and proximate result of THE SOHO LOUNGE LLC's breach of its duty, Plaintiff
suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein.
VI. COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT
84. Plaintiff provided proper notice to the City of Austin as required by Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code § 101.101 by United States Postal Mail via Certified Letter, Tracking No. 9589
0710 5270 0500 5576 36 and by email correspondence to lawclaims@austintexas.gov.
85. At least six months have elapsed since Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY provided the required
notice to the City of Austin.
86. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Austin are brought within the two-year statute of
limitations provided by the Texas Tort Claims Act.
87. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, ZANIA STEWART has suffered and
continues to suffer:
a. Loss of her mother's care, guidance, companionship, and society;
b. Emotional distress from witnessing her mother's permanent disability;
C. Loss of her mother's ability to fully participate in activities and provide the same level of
care;
13 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 14 of 16
d. Impairment of the mother-daughter relationship and bond;
e. Loss of consortium, companionship, and society.
VII. DAMAGES
88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues
to suffer:
a. Permanent blindness in her right eye;
b. Physical pain and suffering;
c. Mental anguish and emotional distress;
d. Medical expenses, both past and future;
e. Lost wages and diminished earning capacity;
f. Permanent disability and disfigurement;
g. Loss of enjoyment of life;
h. Loss of depth perception and visual field; and
i. Need for ongoing medical care and adaptive equipment.
89. Defendants' conduct was willful, wanton, and malicious, justifying an award of punitive
damages against the individual Defendants under federal law.
90. The individual Defendants' conduct constituted malice and/or gross negligence under Texas
law, justifying an award of exemplary damages pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code Chapter 41.
91. Plaintiff's damages against the City of Austin exceed $1,000,000.00.
IX. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (On behalf of ZANIA STEWART)
92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
14 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 15 of 16
93. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
94. ZANIA STEWART, as the minor daughter of NAKOLE CURRY, is entitled to recover for
loss of consortium resulting from the permanent injuries inflicted upon her mother.
95. Prior to the incident, ZANIA STEWART enjoyed a normal, loving mother-daughter
relationship with NAKOLE CURRY, including her mother's care, guidance, companionship,
and society.
96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, ZANIA STEWART has been
deprived of her mother's full care, companionship, and society due to NAKOLE CURRY's
permanent disability and the ongoing physical and emotional effects of her injuries.
97. The permanent nature of NAKOLE CURRY's injuries, including permanent blindness in her
right eye and associated physical and emotional trauma, has substantially impaired her ability
to provide the same level of care, guidance, and companionship to her daughter.
98. ZANIA STEWART has suffered and will continue to suffer damages as a result of this loss of
consortium, including but not limited to the loss of her mother's full care, guidance,
companionship, and society.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
B. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, subject to the
statutory caps under the Texas Tort Claims Act as to claims against the City of Austin;
C. Award Plaintiff punitive damages against the individual Defendants under federal law;
D. Award Plaintiff exemplary damages against the individual Defendants under Texas law;
15 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML Document 6 Filed 09/09/25 Page 16 of 16
E. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;
F. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
G. Award ZANIA STEWART compensatory damages for loss of consortium;
IX. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff NAKOLE CURRY hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
X. ADDITIONAL JURY DEMAND
ZANIA STEWART, by and through her mother and next friend NAKOLE CURRY, hereby
demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable regarding her loss of consortium claim.
Respectfully submitted,
THE COX PRADIA LAW FIRM
/s/:Jonathan H. Cox
Jonathan H. Cox
State Bar No. 24007047
Federal Bar No. 28983
Jhc@coxpradialaw.com
eservejhc@coxpradialaw.com
Troy J. Pradia
State Bar No. 24011945
2402 Rosedale St.
Houston, TX 77004
Telephone: (713) 739.0402
Facsimile: (713) 752.2812
tjp@coxpradialaw.com
eservetjp@coxpradialaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
16 I Page
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML
Document 7
Filed 09/09/25
Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Western District of Texas
NAKOLE CURRY
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s)
)
)
V.
Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-01414-ADA-ML
)
CITY OF AUSTIN, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
)
THE SHOHO LOUNGE LLC AND JOHN DOE
)
OFFICERS 1-10
)
)
Defendant(s)
)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) City of Austin, Austin Police Department And John Doe Officers 1-10
The Office of the City Clerk, Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second St., Austin, TX 78701
The Shoho Lounge LLC
Brandon RK Burleson
1211 Mountain View Drive
San Marco, TX 78666
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are:
Jonathan H. Cox and Troy J. Pradia
The Cox Pradia Law Firm
2402 Rosedale St.
Houston, TX 77004
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT, PHILIP J. DEVLIN
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
DISTRICT COURT
MESTERNI DISTRICT TOFTAS OF
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML
Document 7
Filed 09/09/25
Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-01414-ADA-ML
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
.
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)
; or
I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
,
a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)
; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because
; or
Other (specify):
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
0.00
.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML
Document 8
Filed 09/10/25
Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Western District of Texas
NAKOLE CURRY
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s)
)
)
V.
Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-01414-ADA-ML
)
CITY OF AUSTIN, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
)
THE SHOHO LOUNGE LLC AND JOHN DOE
)
OFFICERS 1-10
)
)
Defendant(s)
)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) City of Austin, Austin Police Department And John Doe Officers 1-10
The Office of the City Clerk, Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second St., Austin, TX 78701
The Shoho Lounge LLC
Brandon RK Burleson
1211 Mountain View Drive
San Marco, TX 78666
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: Jonathan H. Cox and Troy J. Pradia
The Cox Pradia Law Firm
2402 Rosedale St.
Houston, TX 77004
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT, PHILIP J. DEVLIN
Date:
09/10/2025
INTERNATES DISTRICT COURT
Christina Cordero
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
MESTERNI DISTRICT TOFTENS OF
Case 1:25-cv-01414-ADA-ML
Document 8
Filed 09/10/25
Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-01414-ADA-ML
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
.
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)
; or
I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
,
a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)
; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because
; or
Other (specify):
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
0.00
.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: