Martinsville City Council member Aaron Rawls filed a civil rights lawsuit June 2 in federal court alleging his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated at a March 25 Martinsville City Council meeting.
The five count suit names City Manager Aretha Ferrell Benavides and Martinsville Sheriff’s deputy Reva Keen in their personal capacity. It was filed in Danville by William H. Hurd, of the Richmond-based law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott.
The 15 page filing requests judgment against Keen and Ferrell-Benavides, “jointly and severally, for compensatory” and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and/or alternative damages. The filing also asks for attorney fees and costs incurred by Rawls, and demands a jury trial.
The filing states that Rawls used the time allotted to him during a recent council meeting to criticize the leadership of the city, and to declare his opposition to a pay raise for the City Manager.
In response, an armed deputy sheriff, allegedly acting at the direction of the City Manager, immediately seized Rawls and forced him to leave his chair, leave the meeting, and leave the building where the meeting was being held.
The suit states that on March 25, the city council held a regular public meeting for the transaction of public business. As a council member, Rawls attended the meeting and took his seat on the dais along with other council members.
Ferrell-Benavides was also present at the meeting, and, while she has no vote, she also sat on the dais along with council members.
Keen was also present at the meeting “for the ostensible purpose of providing security. Keen was dressed in her uniform as a Deputy Sheriff and was displaying her badge of authority and was visibly carrying a firearm along with other paraphernalia typically used by law enforcement officers for the purpose of subduing subjects of arrest as needed,” the suit states.
One issue that came to the council’s attention was whether the city manager should be given a pay raise, which Rawls opposed.
The meeting included “Comments by City Council Members” on its agenda, and according to the Rules of City Council, the presiding officer – in this case, Mayor LC Jones, is charged with preserving order and decorum.
Neither the city manager nor any deputy sheriff has any authority to initiate any action with respect to the preservation of order and decorum, the filing states. … Consistent with custom and practice, during the meeting, the Mayor granted Rawls the floor for comments of his choosing during the segment listed on the agenda as “Comments by City Council Members.”
While the rules provide that a speaker may not “go beyond reasonable standards of courtesy in his or her remarks…,” they impose no other limitation on what a council member may say while speaking.
Rawls used a portion of his time to complain about the quality of leadership in the City of Martinsville and to express his view that a pay raise for such leadership was unwarranted, according to the lawsuit.
Unknown to Rawls at the time – and not publicly disclosed before or during the March 25 meeting – the Mayor had already executed a letter contract dated March 18, 2025, purporting to grant Ferrell-Benavides a 15 percent pay raise. Rawls did not learn about the letter until the news media reported it publicly on or about April 30, nearly a month after the April 1 date that the pay raise took effect.
During his comments at the meeting, the suit states that Rawls “made it clear that he was not in favor of a pay raise for the City Manager; however, he did not go beyond reasonable standards of courtesy” in his remarks nor did he even mention the city manager by name or title.
Upon hearing these remarks from Rawls, the Mayor directed him to “fall in order.”
Unsure what the Mayor meant by that odd phrase, Rawls asked for clarification, and the lawsuit states that the Mayor improperly accused Rawls of “making personal attacks,” and took the floor from Rawls, saying simply, “Your time’s up. We’re going to move on….”
The filing states that Rawls’ remarks are protected speech under the First Amendment.
During the ensuing discussion between Rawls and Jones, Keen moved from her position on the opposite side of the room from Rawls and walked to where Rawls was sitting on the dais, the suit alleges.
When Keen arrived at Rawls’ chair on the dais, Council Member Julian Mei was beginning to speak. Rawls was not attempting to continue his own remarks, or to interrupt the other member, the filing states.
“By her show of authority as a Deputy Sheriff, by her physically seizing Rawls with her hands, and by her words,” made it clear to Rawls “that his freedom of movement was being restrained by Keen, that Rawls was not free to remain in his seat on the dais, that Rawls was being required by Keen to accompany her through the exit door of the City Council chambers and then to the exit door of the building, where Keen required him to leave the building, ordering him ‘Outside. Go on outside,’ and that compliance with her demands would be compelled if he refused.”
The filing maintains that Rawls had the authority and right to remain in his seat on the dais throughout the meeting, and did not leave his seat or the building voluntarily. He only left because, when confronted by Keen and her show of authority, he felt he had no choice but to comply with her demands.
In view of all the surrounding circumstances, Rawls believed that his freedom of movement was restrained by Keen, that he was not free to remain in his seat on the dais or in the City Council Chambers, that he was not free to disobey any of the demands by Keen, and that any disobedience would risk further physical compulsion by Keen, according to the lawsuit.
The filing states, “at no point during the March 25 Meeting did the Mayor, who was presiding over the meeting, call upon Keen to take such action against Rawls. Nor did the Mayor … do anything audibly or visibly calling for Rawls to be removed, nor did the Mayor threaten Rawls with removal or warn him that he could be removed.”
The filing alleges that Keen had no legitimate authority and no right to force Rawls to leave his seat on the dais or to take any of the alleged actions. … “All of Keen’s actions with respect to Rawls during the March 25 Meeting were under color of state law.”
The lawsuit alleges that Keen did not act alone, but “pursuant to instructions from Ferrell-Benavides, who can be seen in a video of the March 25 Meeting giving Keen non-verbal signals for her to accost Rawls. … Keen and Ferrell-Benavides acted in concert as part of a pre-conceived plan for Keen to seize and remove Rawls if Ferrell-Benavides signaled for her to do so.”
Ferrell-Benavides had no legitimate role with respect to the conduct, order or decorum of meeting and no legitimate authority or right to order or cause Rawls’ removal, the filing states. A few minutes after Keen removed Rawls, Ferrell-Benavides spoke to the other council members and the public, praising herself as a city manager and telling her audience that she was underpaid compared to other city managers and compared to what she was paid in her previous position, the filing states.
Because Keen and Ferrell-Benavides had removed Rawls from the meeting, Rawls was not able to hear or respond to Ferrell-Benavides’ speech. The lawsuit alleges that Ferrell-Benavides’ actions “were under color of state law.”
“By their actions, Keen and Ferrell-Benavides acting in concert (or, in the alternative, Keen) caused Rawls to suffer personal humiliation and embarrassment in front of” those attending the meeting, … “including but not limited to family, friends, and constituents, and before other members of the public who have seen videos” of the meeting posted on the internet.
The filing also asks the court to issue “preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Keen and Ferrell-Benavides from taking any future action to cause Rawls to be removed from any future meeting of the City Council.”
Mayor LC Jones should also be added to the lawsuit, because it was his actions; his anger, yelling, loss of self control which exacerbated to whole situation. Mr Jone is way over his head & totally lacking in ability to execute the office of City Councilor much less the office of City Mayor.