IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

KENNETH JOHNSON, et al,

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO:

1:23-cv-04218-LMM
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
GEORGIA BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, et al, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
AND SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FIRST CAUSE OF

ACTION AND SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Plaintiffs

Kenneth and Jacquelyn Johnson (hereinafter “Plaintiffs” or “the Johnsons”)

respectfully move the Court for Summary Judgment for the First Cause of Action

and Second Cause of Action.

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the granting of

summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The

standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as for

1
granting a directed verdict. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250,

106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986). Judgment must be entered “if, under the governing

law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Id.

The Defendants have failed to identify specific facts, drawn from materials

in the file, that demonstrate that there is a dispute as to material facts on the

elements that the moving party has contested. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106

S.Ct. at 2553. A factual dispute is material only if it affects the outcome of the

litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth.

SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982).

For all these reasons, and those stated in the attached memorandum in

support, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Summary Judgment for the First and Second Causes of Action.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 1, 2024 /s/ Kenneth Johnson__________

Kenneth Johnson

/s/ Jacquelyn Johnson_________

Jacquelyn Johnson

2800 Tydnall Drive,

Valdosta, Georgia 31602
229.560.5555
mikekjjohnson48@yahoo.com

2
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

KENNETH JOHNSON, et al,

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO:

1:23-cv-04218-LMM
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
GEORGIA BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, et al, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
AND SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND SECOND CAUSE

OF ACTION with the Clerk of the Court via United States Postal Service mail. I

also certify that I mailed by United States Postal Service the foregoing document to

the following participants:

1
 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 1, 2024 /s/ Kenneth Johnson__________

Kenneth Johnson

/s/ Jacquelyn Johnson_________

Jacquelyn Johnson

2800 Tydnall Drive,

Valdosta, Georgia 31602
229.560.5555
mikekjjohnson48@yahoo.com

Roger Chalmers
State of Georgia Department of Law
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300

James L. Elliott
Elliott Blackburn Law
3016 North Patterson Street
Valdosta, GA 31603-0579

Timothy Tanner
PO Box 5437
Valdosta, Georgia 31603

Arash Sabzevari
100 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30319

2
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

KENNETH JOHNSON, et al,

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO:

1:23-cv-04218-LMM
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
GEORGIA BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, et al, MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendants. SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION

Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Plaintiffs

Kenneth and Jacquelyn Johnson (hereinafter “Plaintiffs” or “the Johnsons”)

respectfully move the Court for Summary Judgment for the first and second causes

of action.

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the granting of

summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The

standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as for

1
granting a directed verdict. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250,

106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986). Judgment must be entered “if, under the governing

law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Id.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint (Doc. 1) on September 19, 2023

alleging Defendants Georgia Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter “GBI”) and

Lowndes County Sheriff Office (hereinafter “LCSO) violated their rights pursuant

to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C §1985, conspiracy to interfere with

rights. To execute this scheme the Defendants engaged in an elaborate scheme

declaring the Plaintiffs' minor son died by an accidental scientifically impossible

invented narrative that was inconsistent with the material facts and physical

evidence.

On January 8, 2024 after securing additional information from the Defense

Health Agency concerning the agency’s consultation with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation concerning the cause of death for their son Kendrick, the Plaintiffs

filed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 43) that added Defendants Valdosta-

Lowndes Regional Crime Laboratory (hereinafter “RCL”), Lowndes County Board

of Education (hereinafter “BOE”), the unknown current or former FBI employee

John Doe (hereinafter, “JDFBI”) and six new causes of action.

2
 For each cause of action in the Complaint (Doc. 43), specifically the first

and second causes of action, the Plaintiffs have provided material evidence

supporting their claims Defendant-GBI falsified its May 2, 2013 autopsy report

and cause of death on Kendrick Johnson’s death certificate, Defendant-RCL

falsified a its’ death investigation laboratory report for Kendrick, Defendant-BOE

destroyed hours of gymnasium video surveillance consistent with last sightings of

Kendrick in the gymnasium, the medical examiner for Defendant-GBI engaged in

perjury during a 2019 deposition regarding the agencies blatantly false claim that

“no significant injuries” were observed during the autopsy on Kendrick, and

Defendant-LCSO falsified its’ investigation synopsis of January 25, 2022

concerning Kendrick’s death.

In contrast, the Defendants have not presented any evidence to this Court at

all during the proceedings nor have the Defendants made a showing sufficient to

establish the existence of differing versions of the truth1 as it pertains to the first

and second causes of action, both supported by evidence presented to this Court by

the Plaintiffs.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ARUMENT

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the granting of

1
See SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982).

3
summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The

standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as for

granting a directed verdict. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250,

106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986). Judgment must be entered “if, under the governing

law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Id.

The Plaintiffs have shown there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

regarding the first cause of action in the Complaint (Doc. 43). Defendant-GBI,

Defendant-LCSO, and Defendant-RCL have not offered any evidence negating the

evidence the Plaintiffs have presented to this Court nor have these Defendants

made good faith efforts to defend against the facts presented in the first cause of

action. They have not denied conspiring against the Plaintiffs constitutionally

protected rights nor have they shown a genuine dispute of material facts.

Additionally, Defendant-LCSO went to great lengths to avoid service of process

being effected. These Defendants in each of their respective court filings have

pretended that the physical evidence and material facts do not exist unequivocally

demonstrating having “unclean hands” in the matter before this Court.

Rise of the first cause of action is a result of the materially false death

investigation synopsis of January 2022 by Defendant-LCSO, the 2019 deposition

4
perjuries by the medical examiner for Defendant-GBI, the falsified autopsy report

and certificate of death from 2013 by Defendant-GBI, and the 2013 falsified death

investigation laboratory report by Defendant-RCL.

For the Courts convenience a copy of the January 2022 synopsis authored by

Lowndes County Sheriff Ashley Paulk (Exhibit 1) and the official position of the

September 28, 2023 correspondence from the United States Defense Health

Agency (Exhibit 2) which directly contradicts the official reporting by Defendant-

LCSO in it‘s synopsis.

Also for the Courts convenience the Plaintiffs are providing photographs of

Kendrick Johnson’s injuries (Exhibit 3) taken by Defendant-GBI, Defendant-

LCSO, and Defendant-RCL. This evidence is undisputed by the Defendants and

includes injuries caused by a stun gun. Also included is the report and photographs

(Exhibit 4) from independent autopsies performed by Forensic Pathologist Dr.

William Anderson and include the collapsed artery from Kendrick’s neck, a result

of non-accidental blunt force trauma.

The only genuine dispute of material fact is that between Defendant-GBI

and Defendant-LCSO regarding Kendrick’s internal organs. According to the

medical examiner for Defendant-GBI at her 2019 deposition, Kendrick’s internal

organs were sent to the funeral home with his body. However documented

5
evidence from both the Lowndes County Coroner (Exhibit 5) and Defendant-

LCSO’s 2022 death investigation synopsis (Exhibit 1-6) declare Kendrick’s

internal organs were disposed of due to advanced decomposition, another scientific

impossibility under natural circumstances. Neither Defendant-GBI nor Defendant-

LCSO have attempted to resolve this dispute in any of its filings during these

proceedings.

The Plaintiffs have shown there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

regarding the second cause of action in the Complaint (Doc. 43). Defendant-BOE

has not offered any evidence negating the evidence the Plaintiffs have presented to

this Court nor has Defendant-BOE made good faith efforts to defend against the

facts presented in the second cause of action.

Defendant-BOE has not disputed the evidence before this Court regarding

the agency having sole control of the gym surveillance video and the findings of

independent investigations that hours of video surveillance was missing from

several cameras. Defendant-BOE does not dispute being a participant in the

conspiracy against the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights. Instead,

Defendant-BOE has wasted this Court’s time claiming a district board of education

can not be sued. This feeble defense is particularly disingenuous in light of well-

settled case law to the contrary including the 2023 unanimous decision by the

6
United States Supreme Court in Perez vs. Sturgis Public Schools, et al, 598 U.S.

142 (2023) finding that school districts can be sued for damages without going

through cumbersome convoluted procedural hurdles.

CONCLUSION

This case is not complicated in terms of the legal standard. It is

egregious, shocking, disturbing, a mockery of justice and liberty indeed, but not

legally complicated. The Defendants have demonstrated during these proceedings

they have no defenses for the first and second causes of action and “under the

governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict2.”

The Plaintiffs have shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material

fact for the first and second causes of action and have provided “evidence on

which the [fact finder] could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S.

at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512, therefore the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully asks that this Court grant summary

judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs for the first and second causes of action in the

Complaint (Doc. 43).

2
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986).

7
 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 1, 2024 /s/ Kenneth Johnson__________

Kenneth Johnson

/s/ Jacquelyn Johnson_________

Jacquelyn Johnson

2800 Tydnall Drive,

Valdosta, Georgia 31602
229.560.5555
mikekjjohnson48@yahoo.com

8
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

KENNETH JOHNSON, et al,

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO:

1:23-cv-04218-LMM
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
GEORGIA BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, et al, MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendants. SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I filed the foregoing MEMORANDUM OF LAW

SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT with the Clerk of the Court via United States Postal Service mail. I

also certify that I mailed by United States Postal Service the foregoing document to

the following participants:

1
 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 1, 2024 /s/ Kenneth Johnson__________

Kenneth Johnson

/s/ Jacquelyn Johnson_________

Jacquelyn Johnson

2800 Tydnall Drive,

Valdosta, Georgia 31602
229.560.5555
mikekjjohnson48@yahoo.com

Roger Chalmers
State of Georgia Department of Law
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300

James L. Elliott
Elliott Blackburn Law
3016 North Patterson Street
Valdosta, GA 31603-0579

Timothy Tanner
PO Box 5437
Valdosta, Georgia 31603

Arash Sabzevari
100 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30319

2
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
DHA NCR PCL Mailbox FOIA Requests
From:dha.ncr.pcl.mbx.foia-requests@health.mil
To:jburrs1715@aol.com,DHA NCR PCL Mailbox FOIA Requests
Cc:billmorgan_esq@yahoo.com,Kenneth Johnson,Kendrick
Johnson,DHA NCR J-1/8 Mailbox FOIAPublicLiaison
Thu, Sep 28 at 1:59 PM
Good Afternoon Mr. Burrs,

I hope this email finds you well and you are safe. We researched your
question(s) and were informed the Armed Forces Medical Examiner
System (AFMES) is the only Federal medical examiner system and they
regularly receive consults to review Civilian autopsy reports and
investigations. In this case, the consult was requested by the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI). As such, AFMES did not complete an
autopsy and or exhume the remains. However, AFMES did review the
first and second autopsy reports and photos, scene photos, and
investigative reports which produced a consultation report dated 25
August 2014.

If there is additional information you are seeking, you will need to have a
signed and completed AFMES Form 3, Request for Autopsy Report and
Supplemental Information (see attached) signed on the family’s behalf.
Please note, the attached form (with instructions) was sent to the Johnson
family via USPS on 18 September 2023. The family (or you on the
family’s behalf) may return the completed form to AFMES via any of the
following methods:

Email: dha.dover.afmes.mbx.operations@health.mil

Mail: Armed Forces Medical Examiner System

Attn: Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner
115 Purple Heart Drive
Dover Air Force Base, DE 19902

Fax: (302) 346-8819

Once AFMES receives the completed form, an unredacted copy of the

requested record will be provided. If you should have any additional
questions and or concerns, please let me know. Have a great rest of your
day!

V/r
Joe Davidge
Defense Health Agency
Freedom of Information Act Public Liaison
J1 A&M Enterprise Administration and Systems Integration Division
Defense Health Agency
DHA FOIA Requester Service Center
7700 Arlington Blvd, Suite 5101
Falls Church, VA 22041
Mobile: 571-225-5553
Email: joseph.e.davidge.civ@health.mil

“If there is no peace in situations in your life, then it is not from God.”
Corinthians 14:33

ATTENTION!!!
***************************************************
This email is privileged and/or confidential information that is
Intended solely for the person or person (s) to whom it is
addressed. If you are receiving this email in error, please
delete it and contact the sender immediately at 703-275-6048.
****************************************************
This document may contain information covered under the Privacy Act, 5
USC
552(a), and/or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(PL
104-191) and its various implementing regulations and must be protected
in
accordance with those provisions. Health care information is personal and
sensitive and must be treated accordingly. If this correspondence contains
health care information it is being provided to you after appropriate
authorization from the patient or under circumstances that don't require
patient authorization. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a
safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without additional
patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited. Unauthorized
re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality subjects you to
application of appropriate sanction. If you have received this
correspondence in error, please notify the sender at once and destroy
any copies you have made.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO )- Privacy Sensitive

Exhibit 3
1
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5