MINNEAPOLIS - The attorney for Justine Damond's family filed a civil lawsuit against the Minneapolis Police Department and the specific officers involved in her death on Monday.

The family's attorney, Bob Bennett, filed a Section 1983 civil rights complaint in federal court regarding the fatal shooting of Damond, asking for $50 million in damages for the numerous claims in the suit. The lawsuit names both officers involved, the department as a whole, former Police Chief Janee Harteau and current Police Chief Medaria Arradondo.

RELATED: How'd we get here? A timeline of the Justine Damond shooting

Justine Damond was shot and killed by Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor on July 15, 2017. Noor is charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

In the lawsuit, the family claims Noor and his partner Matthew Harrity made the conscious decision not to turn on their body cameras, therefore depriving "investigators, the charging authority and the state criminal and federal case jurors of the digital audio-video evidence the officers were mandated to obtain."

They also address what they call a lack of training by the Minneapolis Police Department regarding the necessity and use of body cameras and in addition, a failure to train Noor and Harrity on "policies to avoid the improper use of deadly force."

They claim that lack of training is not an issue specifically with these officers but others who have engaged in similar conduct.

Noor intends to use self defense and an argument for reasonable force in the July shooting, according to the "Rule 9 disclosure" signed by his lawyer, Thomas Plunkett.

RELATED: Fmr. officer who killed Justine Damond appears in court

Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal provided the following statement to KARE 11:

“The loss of a life, the loss of Justine Ruszczyk, is a tragedy. We are reviewing the civil lawsuit and will be responding to it. Meanwhile, serious criminal charges are currently pending against Mohamed Noor, and it's critically important that the criminal case be allowed to proceed through trial without interference.”