Mitchell et al v. City of Henderson, Nevada et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0978-2872249), filed by Anthony Mitchell, Linda Mitchell, Michael Mitchell. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 7/11/2013. Proof of service due by 10/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Durham, Benjamin)

01
02
03
04
05
06

B ENJAMIN C. D URHAM , E SQ .
Nevada Bar No. 7684
C OFER , G ELLER & D URHAM , LLC
601 South Tenth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone]
[phone] fax
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
D ISTRICT OF N EVADA

07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Plaintiffs,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
vs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
C ITY OF H ENDERSON , N EVADA; J UTTA
>
>
>
C HAMBERS, individually and in her capacity >
>
>
>
>
as Chief of the Henderson Police
>
>
>
Department; G ARRETT P OINER, RONALD >
>
>
>
>
F EOLA, R AMONA WALLS, A NGELA
>
=
WALKER, and C HRISTOPHER W ORLEY,
individually and in their official capacities as >
>
>
>
Henderson police officers; C ITY OF N ORTH >
>
>
>
>
L AS V EGAS , N EVADA; J OSEPH
>
>
>
>
C HRONISTER, individually and in his
>
>
>
>
official capacity as Chief of the North Las
>
>
>
Vegas Police Department; D OE individuals >
>
>
>
>
I–X, individually and in their official
>
>
>
>
capacities as police officers; and ROE
>
>
>
>
individuals I–X, individually and in their
>
>
>
>
official capacities, jointly and severally,
>
>
>
>
>
;
Defendants.
A NTHONY M ITCHELL, L INDA M ITCHELL,
and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL,

C OME

NOW

Case No:
C OMPLAINT
J URY D EMANDED

the Plaintiffs, A NTHONY M ITCHELL, L INDA M ITCHELL, and M ICHAEL

26

M ITCHELL, by and through their counsel, B ENJAMIN C. D URHAM , E SQ ., of C OFER , G ELLER

27

& D URHAM , LLC, and for their claims for relief against Defendants, and each of them, jointly
1

01

and severally, based upon knowledge, information, and reasonable belief derived therefrom, allege,

02

complain, and state as follows:

03

J URISDICTION AND V ENUE

04
05

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343 over

06

Plaintiffs’ causes of action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and due to the deprivation of rights,

07

privileges, and immunities secured to Plaintiffs under the Third, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amend-

08

ments to the United States Constitution.

09
10

2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action arising under
Nevada state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

11

3. Venue lies in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the District of

12

Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because one or more

13

Defendants is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, and because the underlying acts,

14

omissions, events, injuries and related facts upon which the present action is based occurred in

15

Clark County, Nevada.

16

PARTIES

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4. Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a United States
citizen and a resident of the District of Nevada, and is the son of Plaintiffs L INDA M ITCHELL and
M ICHAEL M ITCHELL.
5. Plaintiffs L INDA M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL are, and at all times herein mentioned were, United States citizens and residents of the District of Nevada. They are a married
couple.
6. Defendant C ITY OF H ENDERSON is a governmental entity organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Nevada, and is a political entity of the State of Nevada.
7. Defendant C ITY

OF

N ORTH L AS V EGAS is a governmental entity organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Nevada, and is a political entity of the State of Nevada.

2

8. At all times, Defendant C ITY

01

OF

H ENDERSON possessed the power and authority to adopt

02

policies and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices affecting all facets of the training, super-

03

vision, control, employment, assignment and removal of individual members of the Henderson

04

Police Department (hereinafter, “HPD”). In this case, Defendant C ITY

05

through agents, employees, and servants, including its policymakers, and through Defendant

06

J UTTA C HAMBERS.
9. At all times, Defendant C ITY

07

OF

OF

H ENDERSON acted

N ORTH L AS V EGAS possessed the power and authority

08

to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices affecting all facets of the training,

09

supervision, control, employment, assignment and removal of individual members of the North

10

Las Vegas Police Department (hereinafter, “NLVPD”).
10. Defendant J UTTA C HAMBERS was at all times relevant to this action the Chief of HPD.

11
12

She is sued in this action as an individual.

13

11. Defendants S ERGEANT G ARRETT P OINIER, O FFICER RONALD F EOLA, O FFICER

14

R AMONA WALLS, O FFICER A NGELA WALTER, and O FFICER C HRISTOPHER W ORLEY are and

15

were at all times relevant to this action police officers employed by C ITY

16

are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

OF

H ENDERSON. They

17

12. Defendants S ERGEANT M ICHAEL WALLER, O FFICER A LBERS, O FFICER DAVID

18

C AWTHORN, O FFICER ROCKWELL, and O FFICER S NYDER are and were at all times relevant

19

to this action police officers employed by C ITY

20

their individual and official capacities.

OF

N ORTH L AS V EGAS. They are sued in both

13. Does 1–10 are fictitious names for employees, agents and/or servants of C ITY

21

OF

H EN -

22

DERSON ,

and D OES 11–20 are fictitious names for employees, agents, and/or servants of C ITY

23

OF

24

sued herein as D OES, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are

25

informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is legally re-

26

sponsible, either intentionally, negligently, or in some other actionable manner, for the events and

27

happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby legally caused the injuries, damages, and violations

N ORTH L AS V EGAS. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants

3

01

and/or deprivation of rights hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs request leave of the Court to amend this

02

Complaint and insert the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when the

03

same have been ascertained.

04

14. The reason why Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

05

herein sued as D OES is that the same have been unascertainable as of the date of filing of this

06

Complaint, due to the fact that these D OES may be state police officers, sergeants, lieutenants,

07

captains, commanders, deputy chiefs and/or civilian employee agents, policy makers and represen-

08

tatives of HPD or NLVPD, or employees, agents, and/or representatives of Defendants C ITY

09

H ENDERSON or C ITY OF N ORTH L AS V EGAS and/or other state political entities. As such, many

10

records of these individuals are protected by state statutes and can only be ascertained through the

11

discovery process.

OF

12

15. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that all Defendants were the agents,

13

employees, and/or co-conspirators of the other Defendants, and each of them were acting within

14

the course and scope of their agency, employment, and/or concert of action, and are vicariously

15

liable, jointly and severally, for the actions, inactions, and/or omissions of themselves and of the

16

other Defendants, which proximately resulted in the physical, emotional, and future damages to

17

the Plaintiffs as herein alleged.

18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

19
20

16. This is an action for money damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief brought pursuant to

21

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Third, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

22

Constitution, and under the law of the State of Nevada, against the named Defendants, police

23

officers of the Henderson Police Department and the North Las Vegas Police Department, in their

24

individual and official capacities, and against the City of Henderson and the City of North Las

25

Vegas.

26
27

4

C OMMON A LLEGATIONS

01
02
03
04
05

17. On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence.
18. At 10:45 a.m., Defendant O FFICER C HRISTOPHER W ORLEY (HPD) contacted Plaintiff
A NTHONY M ITCHELL via his telephone. W ORLEY told Plaintiff that police needed to occupy

06

his home in order to gain a “tactical advantage” against the occupant of the neighboring house.

07

A NTHONY M ITCHELL told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did

08

not want police to enter his residence. Although W ORLEY continued to insist that Plaintiff should

09

leave his residence, Plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow

10

police to occupy his home. W ORLEY then ended the phone call.

11

19. After Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL refused to allow the police to enter his home, the De-

12

fendant police officers, including Defendants S ERGEANT M ICHAEL WALLER, O FFICER DAVID

13

C AWTHORN and O FFICER C HRISTOPHER W ORLEY, conspired among themselves to force A N -

14
15

THONY

M ITCHELL out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use. Defendant

O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN outlined the Defendants’ plan in his official report:

16
17
18

It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If
Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would
be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force
entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

20. At approximately 11:52 a.m., police officers, including Defendants S ERGEANT M ICHAEL
WALLER, O FFICER A LBERS, O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN, O FFICER ROCKWELL, and O FFICER
S NYDER arrayed themselves in front of Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s house and prepared to
execute their plan. The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded A NTHONY
M ITCHELL to open the door to his residence.
21. Surprised and perturbed, Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL immediately called his mother
(Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his
front door.
5

01
02
03
04
05
06

22. Seconds later, officers, including O FFICER ROCKWELL, smashed open Plaintiff A N THONY

M ITCHELL’s front door with a metal ram as Plaintiff stood in his living room.

23. As Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at
A NTHONY M ITCHELL and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
24. Fearing for his life, Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL dropped his phone and prostrated
himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face with his hands.

07

25. Addressing Plaintiff as “asshole,” officers, including O FFICER S NYDER, shouted conflict-

08

ing orders at A NTHONY M ITCHELL, commanding him both to shut off his phone, which was on

09

the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to “crawl” toward the officers.

10

26. Confused and terrified, Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL remained curled on the floor of his

11

living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

12

27. Although Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL was lying motionless on the ground and posed

13

no threat, officers, including O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN, then fired multiple “pepperball”

14

rounds at Plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. A NTHONY M ITCHELL

15

was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe

16

pain.

17

28. As a result of being shot by officers, Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL experienced psycho-

18

logical horror and extreme emotional distress due to his fear and belief that he had been mortally

19

wounded by gunfire. Further, in addition to the shock and bruising caused by the impact of the

20

“pepperball” rounds on his body at close range, the caustic and irritating chemicals released caused

21

A NTHONY M ITCHELL to suffer extreme and prolonged pain in his eyes, nose, throat, lungs, and

22

skin, as well as causing him to experience uncontrollable coughing and difficulty breathing.

23

29. Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s pet, a female dog named “Sam”, was cowering in the

24

corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat

25

to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal

26

howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in

27

a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while
6

01

temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

02

30. Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL was talking to her son A NTHONY M ITCHELL via telephone

03

at the time that officers smashed through A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s front door. Over the telephone,

04

she was able to hear officers shouting obscenities and weapons being fired. As a result of the

05

officers’ actions, she experienced extreme emotional distress due to her fear and belief that her son

06

had been severely wounded or killed. While she was screaming her son’s name over and over into

07

the phone, one of the officers inside A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s home callously hung up the phone.

08

31. As Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL lay incapacitated and in agony on his living room floor,

09

several officers, including O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN, forcefully pressed their knees atop the

10

back of A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s neck and body, and roughly wrenched his arms behind his back

11

and handcuffed him, all of which caused A NTHONY M ITCHELL to suffer further pain and distress.

12

32. Officers, including O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN, then roughly dragged Plaintiff A N -

13

THONY

M ITCHELL out of his residence by his arms, causing him pain and humiliation.

14

33. Once outside the residence, O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN slammed A NTHONY

15

M ITCHELL against the exterior of Plaintiff’s home, and forcefully pressed Plaintiff’s face into

16

the stucco wall, holding him in this painful and humiliating configuration for several minutes.

17

When A NTHONY M ITCHELL begged to be released and pleaded that he was not a threat, officers,

18

including O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN, did not relent, but commented that Plaintiff should have

19

come out of his home when commanded to do so by the police, and continued to press his face

20

against the wall for an additional thirty seconds.

21
22

34. Defendant O FFICER DAVID C AWTHORN then told Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL that he
was under arrest for “Obstructing a Police Officer.”

23

35. Officers, including Defendants S ERGEANT M ICHAEL WALLER, O FFICER A LBERS,

24

O FFICER ROCKWELL, and O FFICER S NYDER, then swarmed through Plaintiff A NTHONY

25

M ITCHELL’s home, searching through his rooms and possessions and moving his furniture, with-

26

out permission or a warrant.

27

36. Officers subsequently occupied Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s home at 367 Evening7

01

side Avenue and used it as an observation post to surveil the neighboring house at 363 Eveningside

02

Avenue.

03

37. Meanwhile, starting at approximately 10:45 a.m., police officers entered the back yard of

04

Plaintiffs M ICHAEL M ITCHELL and L INDA M ITCHELL’s residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue.

05

The officers asked Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL if he would be willing to vacate his residence

06

and accompany them to their “command center” under the guise that the officers wanted M ICHAEL

07

M ITCHELL’s assistance in negotiating the surrender of the neighboring suspect at 363 Eveningside

08

Avenue. Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL reluctantly agreed to follow the officers from his back

09

yard to the HPD command center, which was approximately one quarter mile away.

10

38. When Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL arrived at the HPD command center, he was in-

11

formed that the suspect was “not taking any calls” and that Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL would

12

not be permitted to call the suspect neighbor from his own phone. At that time, Mr. Mitchell re-

13

alized that the request to accompany officers to the HPD command center was a tactic to remove

14

him from his house. He waited approximately 10 minutes at the HPD command center and was

15

told he could not return to his home.

16

39. Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL then left the HPD command center and walked down

17

Mauve Street toward the exit of the neighborhood. After walking for less than 5 minutes, an HPD

18

car pulled up next to him. He was told that his wife, L INDA M ITCHELL, had “left the house,” and

19

would meet him at the HPD command center. Michael Mitchell then walked back up Mauve street

20

to the HPD command center.He then called his son, James Mitchell, to pick him up at the HPD

21

command center. When Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL attempted to leave the HPD command

22

center to meet James, he was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a marked police car.

23
24

40. Officers had no reasonable grounds to detain Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL, nor probable
cause to suspect him of committing any crime.

25

41. At approximately 1:45 p.m., a group of officers entered the back yard of Plaintiffs

26

M ICHAEL M ITCHELL and L INDA M ITCHELL’s residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. They

27

banged on the back door of the house and demanded that Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL open the
8

01

door.

02

42. Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL complied and opened the door to her home. When she told

03

officers that they could not enter her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her. One officer,

04

Defendant D OE 1, seized her by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.

05

43. Defendant D OE 1 then forcibly pulled Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL out of her house.

06

44. Another unidentified officer, Defendant D OE 2, then seized Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL’s

07

purse and began rummaging through it, without permission, consent, or a warrant.

08

45. Defendant D OE 1 then escorted L INDA M ITCHELL at a brisk pace through her yard and

09

up the hill toward the “Command Post” while maintaing a firm grip on her upper arm. Plaintiff

10

L INDA M ITCHELL is physically frail and had difficulty breathing due to the heat and the swift

11

pace. However, D OE 1 ignored her pleas to be released or to at least slow down, and refused to

12

provide any explanation for why she was being treated in such a manner.

13

46. In the meantime, the officers searched and occupied Plaintiffs M ICHAEL M ITCHELL and

14

L INDA M ITCHELL’s house. When Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL returned to their home, the cabinets

15

and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water

16

had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar, and

17

mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.

18

47. Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL were subsequently trans-

19

ported to Henderson Detention Center and were booked on charges of Obstructing an Officer.

20

Both Anthony and Michael Mitchell were detained for at least nine hours and were required to pay

21

a bond to secure their release from custody.

22

48. A criminal complaint was subsequently filed by the Henderson City Attorney’s office

23

against Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL, charging them with counts

24

of Obstructing an Officer. All criminal charges against Plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed with

25

prejudice.

26

49. Officers and D OE Defendants jailed Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL

27

M ITCHELL, and caused criminal complaints to issue against Plaintiffs, in order to provide cover
9

01

for Defendants’ wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede Plaintiffs’ ability to seek relief for those

02

actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against Plaintiffs.

03
04

50. On information and belief, none of the officers involved in the above-alleged incidents
were ever subjected to official discipline or inquiry regarding their actions.

05

F IRST C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

06
07
08

51. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–50 as though
fully restated herein.

09

52. Prior to the events of June 10th, 2011, the Henderson Police Department and the North Las

10

Vegas Police Department developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate

11

indifference to the Constitutional rights of United States citizens, which caused the violations of

12

Plaintiff’s rights.

13

53. It was the policy and/or custom of the Henderson Police Department and the North Las

14

Vegas Police Department to inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including the De-

15

fendant police officers, thereby failing to properly discourage Constitutional violations on the part

16

of their police officers.

17

54. As a result of the above-described policies and customs, police officers of the Henderson

18

Police Department and the North Las Vegas Police Department, including the Defendant police

19

officers, believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and

20

that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.

21

55. The above-described polices and/or customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the

22

part of Defendants C ITY OF H ENDERSON and C ITY OF N ORTH L AS V EGAS to the Constitutional

23

rights of United States citizens, and were the cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights alleged

24

herein.

25

56. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

26

57. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

27

trial.
10

S ECOND C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Assault)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14

58. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–57 as though
fully restated herein.
59. As described hereinabove, by pointing rifles at Plaintiffs, and making threatening moves
and advancing upon Plaintiffs, Defendants caused Plaintiffs to feel fear of harmful or offensive
physical contact on multiple occasions.
60. The actions of Defendants in causing Plaintiffs to fear such harmful or offensive physical
contact were intentional, and undertaken with malice and oppression.
61. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ fear of harmful or offensive physical contact,
Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress.
62. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
63. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.
T HIRD C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Battery)

15
16
17
18

64. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–63 as though
fully restated herein.

19

65. As a result of being seized, shot, thrown to the ground, slammed into walls, handcuffed,

20

beaten, and otherwise touched without consent, Plaintiffs suffered harmful or offensive physical

21

contact at the hands of Defendants.

22
23
24

66. The actions of Defendants in inflicting such harmful or offensive physical contact were
intentional, and undertaken with malice and oppression.
67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infliction of such harmful or offensive

25

contact to their persons, Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, physical discomfort, and injury.

26

68. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

27

69. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
11

01

trial.

02

F OURTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(False Arrest and Imprisonment)

03
04
05
06
07

70. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–69 as though
fully restated herein.
71. Defendants detained Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL by dragging him from his home,
handcuffing him, placing him in a police vehicle, and jailing him.

08

72. Defendants detained Plaintiff M ICHAEL M ITCHELL by physically preventing him from

09

leaving the “Command Center,” handcuffing him, placing him in a police vehicle, and jailing him.

10

73. Defendants detained Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL by seizing her by the arm, forcefully

11

dragging her away against her will, and preventing her from remaining in her home.

12

74. Defendants’ detention of Plaintiffs was without legal authority, and unsupported by reason-

13

able suspicion of wrongdoing, probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, exigent

14

circumstances, or a judicial warrant.

15

75. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice in detaining Plaintiffs.

16

76. As a direct and proximate result of being so detained, Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress,

17

humiliation, physical discomfort, and injury.

18

77. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

19

78. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

20

trial.

21

F IFTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

22
23
24
25
26
27

79. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–78 as though
fully restated herein.
80. As set forth hereinabove, Defendants’ conduct was intentional, malicious, and oppressive,
and calculated to cause Plaintiffs fear and emotional distress.
81. As the actual and proximate result of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, including the inva12

01

sion of Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL’s home, the shooting of Plaintiff A NTHONY M ITCHELL

02

and his dog while he was on the phone with his mother, and the unjustified handcuffing and deten-

03

tion of Plaintiffs A NTHONY and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL in each other’s presence and in the presence

04

of L INDA M ITCHELL, Plaintiffs suffered humiliation, mental anguish, physical discomfort, injury,

05

and severe emotional distress.

06

82. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

07

83. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

08

trial.

09

S IXTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

84. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–83 as though
fully restated herein.
85. Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL, via her telephone, was subjected to the sounds of her son
being shot and brutalized by Defendant officers after they broke into his home.
86. As a direct and proximate result of observing these acts, Plaintiff L INDA M ITCHELL suffered emotional injury.
87. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

18

S EVENTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Civil Conspiracy)

19
20
21

88. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–87 as though
fully restated herein.

22

89. Defendants, acting in concert, agreed among themselves to detain, arrest, and employ

23

physical violence against Plaintiffs, in the manners and ways previously alleged, all the while

24

knowing that they had no legal right to do so.

25

90. Defendants further agreed among themselves to provide a false accounting of the incident

26

for the purpose of concealing their own wrongdoing and causing Plaintiffs to be arrested and jailed.

27

91. The actions of Defendants were undertaken with fraud, oppression, and malice.
13

01
02

92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, humiliation, physical discomfort, and injury.

03

93. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

04

94. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

05

trial.

06

E IGHTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Defamation)

07
08
09

95. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–94 as though
fully restated herein.

10

96. By seizing, handcuffing, and detaining Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL

11

M ITCHELL, in full view of the neighborhood, Defendant Officers communicated to all observers

12

that Plaintiffs were criminals.

13
14

97. Plaintiffs were not criminals, and Defendants knew and/or acted in reckless disregard of
the fact that Plaintiffs were not criminals.

15

98. Defendants published this communication to the individuals present in the neighborhood

16

where Defendants seized Plaintiffs, and to any and all other persons encountered after Defendants

17

first began detaining Plaintiffs.

18
19

99. On information and belief, such individuals were not persons to whom Defendants enjoyed
a privilege to publish such defamatory communications.

20

100. The actions of Defendants constitute defamation per se.

21

101. As a direct and proximate result of these action of Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured in

22

their reputation and suffered severe embarrassment and humiliation.

23

102. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

24

103. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

25
26
27

trial.
N INTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Abuse of Process)
14

01
02

104. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–103 as
though fully restated herein.

03

105. Defendants filed criminal complaints against Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and

04

M ICHAEL M ITCHELL not for the purpose of resolving a legitimate dispute, but for the ulterior

05

purpose of legitimizing and/or concealing their wrongful detention and arrest of Plaintiffs.

06

106. The actions of Defendants constitute an abuse of process.

07

107. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice in initiating the criminal process

08

against Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL.

09

108. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

10

109. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

11

trial.

12

T ENTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Malicious Prosecution)

13
14
15

110. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–109 as
though fully restated herein.

16

111. Defendants initiated criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and

17

M ICHAEL M ITCHELL by filing a complaint in the Municipal Court of the City of Henderson

18

charging Plaintiffs each with obstruction.

19
20
21
22

112. Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and
M ICHAEL M ITCHELL had committed said crimes.
113. The charges against Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL were
dismissed with prejudice, thereby terminating the proceedings against Plaintiffs.

23

114. The dismissal of said charges was not based on any agreement, request or acceptance of

24

mercy, or compromise, and such termination was in the favor of Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL

25

and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL.

26
27

115. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice in initiating criminal proceedings
against Plaintiffs A NTHONY M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL.
15

01

116. As a result of the criminal proceedings initiated by Defendants, Plaintiffs A NTHONY

02

M ITCHELL and M ICHAEL M ITCHELL were wrongfully imprisoned, forced to post bond, and

03

suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and outrage.

04

117. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

05

118. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

06

trial.

07

E LEVENTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Respondeat Superior)

08
09
10
11

119. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–118 as
though fully restated herein.
120. Defendants C ITY

OF

H ENDERSON and C ITY

OF

N ORTH L AS V EGAS are liable for the

12

tortious acts of their agents and employees, as hereinabove alleged, under the theory of Respondeat

13

Superior.

14
15

121. As a direct and proximate cause of those tortious acts, Plaintiffs suffered injuries in the
manners and ways previously alleged.

16

122. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

17

123. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

18

trial.

19

T WELFTH C LAIM FOR R ELIEF
(Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision, and Training)

20
21
22
23

124. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–123 as
though fully restated herein.
125. Defendants C ITY

OF

H ENDERSON and C ITY

OF

N ORTH L AS V EGAS owed a duty to

24

citizens, such as Plaintiffs, to exercise care in the hiring, training, and supervision of its police

25

force, so as to protect citizens from false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and the like,

26

at the hands of poorly trained, poorly supervised, unwisely hired, or unwisely retained police

27

officers.
16

126. Defendants C ITY OF H ENDERSON and C ITY OF N ORTH L AS V EGAS breached this duty

01
02

by

03

a) negligently tolerating and/or ratifying the practice or policy of their police officers in de-

04

taining, seizing, and arresting citizens without probable cause or reasonable grounds, and

05

violating citizens’ Constitutional rights to due process and to freedom from unreasonable

06

seizure, as manifested by Defendants’ failure to discipline the officers who committed such

07

acts as alleged above; and

08

b) failing to properly screen individuals who apply to become police officers, and failing to

09

remove dangerous police, as manifested by Defendants’ failure to conduct an internal inves-

10

tigation and inquiry under the circumstances described herein.

11
12
13

127. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered injuries at
the hands of Defendants’ employees in the manners and ways previously alleged.
128. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

14

P RAYER FOR R ELIEF

15
16
17

W HEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter a judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, and award:

18

1. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial as to each and every claim herein;

19

2. Exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial as to each and every

20

claim herein, save for the sixth and twelfth claims for relief;

21

3. Prejudgment interest pursuant to law;

22

4. Declaratory relief declaring Defendant Officers’ conduct to be unconstitutional;

23

5. Following a proper motion, a permanent injunction requiring Defendants C ITY
and C ITY

H EN -

N ORTH L AS V EGAS to adopt appropriate policies regarding the hiring,

24

DERSON

25

training, and supervision of their police officers;

26
27

OF

OF

6. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statutes, codes, and rules,
including 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
17

01

7. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

02

D EMAND FOR J URY T RIAL

03
04
05
06

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues in this action to the extent authorized by
law.
DATED this 30th day of June, 2013.

07
08

B ENJAMIN C. D URHAM , E SQ .
Nevada Bar No. 7684
C OFER , G ELLER & D URHAM , LLC
601 South Tenth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone]
[phone] fax
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs

09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

18