Deans v. Las Vegas Clark County et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against College of Southern Nevada, Jane Doe, Ronald R. Heezen, Las Vegas Clark County Library District, Randall Perkins, Jane Poe, John Roe, Antonia Marie Summerlin (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0978-4325095), filed by William Deans. Proof of service due by 1/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Randazza, Marc) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Marc J. Randazza, NV Bar # 12265
Alex J. Shepard, NV Bar # 13582
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
4035 S. El Capitan Way
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 305-437-7662
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
William Deans

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
WILLIAM DEANS, an individual,

Case No.

Plaintiff,
vs.
LAS VEGAS CLARK COUNTY LIBRARY
DISTRICT; RONALD R. HEEZEN, (in his
official
capacity);
COLLEGE
OF
SOUTHERN NEVADA; ANTONIA MARIE
SUMMERLIN (Badge No. 228) (in her
personal
and
official
capacity);
RANDALL PERKINS (Badge No. 104) (in his
professional capacity); JANE DOE; JOHN
ROE; and JANE POE,

VERIFIED 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
DAMAGES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

19

Plaintiff William Deans brings this Complaint for injunctive relief,

20

declaratory relief, and damages. This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

21

address the unconstitutional prior restraint issued by Defendants against Plaintiff

22

as well as the violations of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to petition and

23

freedom of expression.

24

Defendants’ willful and deliberate violations of the law, Plaintiff seeks a

25

permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and should be awarded damages,

26

costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief to which he is entitled as a victim of

27

civil rights violations.

Based on the clear constitutional violations and

-1Complaint

1
2

1.0
1.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Deans was exercising his First Amendment Right to

3

engage in political speech by obtaining signatures for a petition to place

4

The Automatic Voter Registration Initiative on the ballot in Nevada and by

5

instructing his fellow citizens as to how to register to vote prior to the October 18,

6

2016 deadline.

7

2.

He did this at the West Charleston Public Library, a public library

8

located at the College of Southern Nevada, where many civically-minded

9

citizens come to educate themselves.

10

3.

Rather than Defendants encouraging this activity, they told Plaintiff

11

that he had to “register” with them before he could engage in this protected

12

activity of gathering signatures and advocating to other citizens that they should

13

register to vote, and instructing them as to how to do so.

14

4.

When Plaintiff rightfully pointed out that he had a First Amendment

15

Right to engage in this activity, Defendant Summerlin, personally, and acting in

16

her official capacity, threatened Mr. Deans with arrest if he did not leave the

17

premises immediately.

18

5.

Plaintiff did ultimately leave the premises in response to this threat of

19

arrest, but that was not enough for Defendants. They also issued Plaintiff a

20

“Notice of Trespass” requiring him to leave the West Charleston Library and

21

forbidding him from visiting any branch of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library

22

District (hereinafter, “LVCCLD”) for a period of at least one year. Mr. Deans is

23

therefore, at this time, subject to arrest if he visits any branch of the LVCCLD,

24

whether to check out books, whether to simply observe the activities there, or

25

whether he wishes to advocate for voter registration outside the library.

26
27

6.

There is nothing remotely lawful about what Defendants have done

to Plaintiff. They have chilled speech at the core of the First Amendment and
-2Complaint

1

imposed a blatantly unconstitutional prior restraint on Plaintiff from attempting to

2

educate the voting public. They should be permanently enjoined from further

3

infringing Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, made to pay damages for the violations

4

that have already occurred, and made to pay attorneys’ fees to compensate

5

Plaintiff for the expense of vindicating his constitutional rights.

6
7

2.0
7.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal

8

Constitutional violations alleged in this Complaint pursuant to the provisions of

9

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 & 1343. This Court has jurisdiction to issue

10

injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

11

8.

Venue is proper in the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

12

All Defendants reside in Nevada, and all actions pertinent to this complaint

13

occurred in Clark County, Nevada.

14
15

3.0
9.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff William Deans is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. He

16

is a civically concerned individual who, periodically over the past 10 years, has

17

spent significant time circulating petitions. At the time of Defendants’ unlawful

18

activities, he was circulating a petition, filed with the State of Nevada, for placing

19

a measure on ballots in Nevada providing for the automatic registration of

20

eligble voters, and instructing citizens on their right to register to vote and

21

instructing them as to how he they could do so.

22

10.

Defendant Las Vegas Clark County Library District (“LVCCLD”) is a

23

public entity that provides library facilities and library services to the Las Vegas

24

metropolitan area.

25
26

11.

Defendant Ronald R. Heezen is the director of LVCCLD. He is sued

here in his official capacity.

27
-3Complaint

1

12.

Defendant Antonia Marie Summerlin is a University Police Officer with

2

Defendant College of Southern Nevada. She is sued here in her personal and

3

professional capacity.

4

13.

Defendant College of Southern Nevada (“CSN”) is a public entity

5

and provides educational facilities and educational services in Clark County,

6

Nevada.

7

14.

8
9

Defendant Randall Perkins is a University Police Lieutenant with CSN.

He is sued here in his official capacity.
15.

Defendants Jane Doe, John Roe, and Jane Poe are employees of

10

LVCCLD who at all relevant times worked as staff at the West Charleston Public

11

Library. Mr. Deans will uncover their identities through the course of discovery

12

and amend this Complaint to provide their true names. They are sued in their

13

personal and professional capacities.

14
15

4.0
16.

STANDING

Plaintiff is directly affected by Defendants’ unlawful activities

16

because he is the direct target of Defendants’ unlawful prior restraint against his

17

petitioning activities.

18

17.

Defendants’ activities have caused a violation of Plaintiff’s rights

19

under the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions. Thus, the requirements for Article III

20

standing have been met.

21
22

4.0
18.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

On October 13, 2016, outside the West Charleston Public Library

23

(the “Library”) in Las Vegas, Nevada, Mr. Deans circulated a petition for the

24

automatic registration of eligible voters on the ballot in Nevada.

25
26

19.

Plaintiff circulated this petition to several individuals at this location,

and additionally both encouraged people to register to vote in Nevada and

27
-4Complaint

1

provided instructions on how they could register to vote prior to the October 18,

2

2016 deadline.

3

20.

While engaging in this activity, Mr. Deans positioned himself in a way

4

that allowed him to interact with individuals coming into and out of the Library,

5

but without blocking anyone’s ingress or egress from the Library.

6

21.

Mr. Deans has experience with collecting signatures for petitions in

7

front of libraries. He would generally collect around 150 signatures per day in

8

places with comparable pedestrian traffic to the Library, and instruct around 25

9

people who were not registered to vote on how to register to vote.

10

22.

Not long after he began this protected political activity, Jane Doe,

11

an employee of the Library, informed Mr. Deans that he could neither collect

12

signatures nor instruct citizens about how to register to vote, unless he

13

“registered” himself.

14

23.

When Mr. Deans refused to submit to this unconstitutional prior

15

restraint licensing scheme, Defendants John Roe and Jane Poe, also employees

16

of the Library, spoke with him.

17

24.

Defendant Roe instructed Mr. Deans that he had to relocate to a

18

specific spot within the circular entry plaza of the Library that had little to no foot

19

traffic.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

25.

Defendant Poe then told Mr. Deans that he had to register with

LVCCLD and relocate to the spot designated by Defendant Roe.
26.

After Mr. Deans told Defendants Doe, Roe, and Poe that his activity

was protected under the First Amendment, they called the police.
27.

Within 30 minutes, Officer Summerlin, as well as other officers, arrived

– more swiftly than the Police respond to reports of violent crime in this County.
28.

Defendant Summerlin approached Mr. Deans and stated that she

was acting in her official capacity as a representative of Defendant LVCCLD.
-5Complaint

1
2

29.

Defendant Summerlin falsely claimed that Mr. Deans was

obstructing the entrance to the Library and that he had to leave the premises.

3

30.

Defendant Summerlin informed Mr. Deans that he could engage in

4

his political activism only if he did so in the designated spot, which would be so

5

far away from any passersby, that he would be unable to communicate with

6

them.

7

31.

Plaintiff informed Defendant Summerlin that he had a First

8

Amendment right to be there and to engage in peaceful advocacy, and that

9

he did not need to register to circulate political petitions.

10

32.

Defendant Summerlin then issued Plaintiff a “Notice of Trespass”

11

which forbids him from visiting any branch of the LVCCLD for at least one year.

12

She additionally told Plaintiff that he would be arrested if he at any point entered

13

the premises of any branch of the LVCCLD while the Notice of Trespass was still

14

in effect.

15

33.

Plaintiff at no point obstructed the entrance to the library or

16

otherwise obstructed anyone’s use of the library’s facilities nor was he ever in any

17

way disruptive or threatening to anyone – thus there was no justification for

18

removing him, issuing him a trespass notice, or putting an end to his First

19

Amendment protected activity.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

34.

The CSN officers informed Plaintiff that he would be arrested if he did

not leave the West Charleston Library premises.
35.

In response to this threat, Plaintiff left the Library and lodged a

complaint of officer misconduct with the CSN Police Department.
36.

After lodging this complaint, Plaintiff received a phone call from

Defendant Randall Perkins.
37.

During this phone call, Perkins told Plaintiff that he was conducting

an investigation of his officers’ conduct.
-6Complaint

1

38.

During this call, after being questioned by counsel, Perkins

2

acknowledged that after his investigation was over, if he determined that there

3

was no justification for the trespass notice, it would be lifted and Mr. Deans would

4

be able to return to the Library.

5
6
7

39.

During this call, Mr. Deans (through counsel) requested that

Defendant Perkins lift the Trespass order until the investigation was complete.
40.

Defendant Perkins refused to do so, but promised that he would

8

complete his investigation by no sooner than 25 October 2016 and no later than

9

11 November 2016.

10

41.

While this may seem like a reasonable amount of time, the deadline

11

for voter registration is 18 October 2016 and the election is on 8 November 2016.

12

Accordingly, this appeal of the trespass notice, at best, will not be complete until

13

after the deadline to register to vote – and possibly not even until 3 days after

14

the election is over.

15

Mr. Deans’ First Amendment rights after they are no longer relevant is no

16

restoration at all.

17

42.

Accordingly, the process is the penalty, and restoring

Defendant Perkins additionally stated during his phone call that if

18

the investigation was inconclusive, or if there were conflicting stories, that he

19

would support his officers’ decision to issue the Notice of Trespass.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5.0.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

5.1
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Free Speech)
34.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
35.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of issuing a Notice of

Trespass forbidding him from visiting any public library in Clark County for at least
-7Complaint

1

one

2

unconstitutional and violates his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech

3

and expression, and freedom of petition.

4

year

36.

due

to

his

constitutionally

protected

petitioning

activity

is

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of enforcing the

5

unconstitutional Notice of Trespass is unconstitutional and violates his First

6

Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of

7

petition.

8
9

37.

administrative appeal meaningless.

10
11

Further, the administrative appeal process, by design, renders any

38.

Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

12

5.2
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 1, § 9.
(Free Speech)

13
14
15

39.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

16

40.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of issuing a Notice of

17

Trespass forbidding him from visiting any public library in Clark County for at least

18

one

19

unconstitutional and violates his rights under Article 1, Section 9 of the Nevada

20

Constitution.

21

year

41.

due

to

his

constitutionally

protected

petitioning

activity

is

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of enforcing the

22

unconstitutional Notice of Trespass is unconstitutional and violates his rights under

23

Article 1, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution.

24
25

42.

Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

26
27
-8Complaint

1

5.3
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Substantive Due Process)

2
3

43.

4
5

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
44.

6

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of issuing a Notice of

7

Trespass forbidding him from visiting any public library in Clark County for at least

8

one

9

unconstitutional and violates his rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth

10

year

due

to

his

constitutionally

protected

petitioning

activity

is

Amendment.
45.

11

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of enforcing the

12

unconstitutional Notice of Trespass is unconstitutional and violates his due

13

process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
46.

14
15

Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
5.4
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 1, § 8
(Substantive Due Process)

16
17
18
19

47.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

20

48.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of issuing a Notice of

21

Trespass forbidding him from visiting any public library in Clark County for at least

22

one

23

unconstitutional and violates his rights to due process of law under article 1,

24

section 8 of the Nevada Constitution.

year

due

to

his

constitutionally

protected

25
26
27
-9Complaint

petitioning

activity

is

1

49.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of enforcing the

2

unconstitutional Notice of Trespass is unconstitutional and violates his due

3

process rights under Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution.

4
5

50.

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

6

5.5
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Procedural Due Process)

7
8

51.

9
10

Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
52.

11

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of issuing a Notice of

12

Trespass forbidding him from visiting any public library in Clark County for at least

13

one

14

unconstitutional and violates his rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth

15

Amendment.

16

year

53.

due

to

his

constitutionally

protected

petitioning

activity

is

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of enforcing the

17

unconstitutional Notice of Trespass is unconstitutional and violates his due

18

process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

19
20
21
22

54.

Perkins, in his official capacity, cannot possibly provide any meaningful relief.
55.

5.6
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 1, § 8
(Procedural Due Process)

24

26

Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

23

25

Further, the administrative review process promised by Defendant

56.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

27
- 10 Complaint

1

57.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of issuing a Notice of

2

Trespass forbidding him from visiting any public library in Clark County for at least

3

one

4

unconstitutional and violates his rights to due process of law under article 1,

5

section 8 of the Nevada Constitution.

6

year

58.

due

to

his

constitutionally

protected

petitioning

activity

is

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct of enforcing the

7

unconstitutional Notice of Trespass is unconstitutional and violates his due

8

process rights under article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution.

9
10

59.

Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

11

6.0

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully seeks judgment as follows:

13

A.

A declaration that the Notice of Trespass issued by Defendants is

14

unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the

15

United States Constitution, and article 1, sections 8 & 9 of the

16

Nevada Constitution;

17

B.

A declaration that Defendants’ actions in enforcing the Notice of

18

Trespass

19

Amendments of the United States Constitution, and article 1,

20

sections 8 & 9 of the Nevada Constitution;

21

C.

22
23

is

unconstitutional

under

the

First

and

Fourteenth

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant
from enforcing the Notice of Trespass against Plaintiff;

D.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant

24

from interfering with Plaintiff’s right lawfully engage in constitutionally

25

protected expression and activity within Clark County, Nevada.

26

E.

Damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

27
- 11 Complaint

1

F.

2
3

An award of attorneys’ fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
and

G.

Any further relief the Court deems appropriate.

4
5
6

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands
a trial by jury on all causes of action.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Dated: 14 October 2016

Respectfully Submitted,
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
Marc J. Randazza, NV Bar # 12265
Alex J. Shepard, NV Bar # 13582
Randazza Legal Group, PLLC
4035 S. El Capitan Way
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
William Deans

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 12 Complaint

VERIFICATION

2

1,WILLIAM DEANS,being first duly sworn, depose and say:

3

1.

1am over the age of 18 years;

4

2.

1am the Plaintiff in this action;

5

3.

1hove read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the content

6
7
CL

::)

o

O:::::

(9
_J

<(

(9
w
_J

<C
N
N

8
9

thereof; and
4.

The foregoing Verified Complaint is true and corred to the best o
my knowledge, information, and belief.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, 1 declare under penalty of perjury that th

10 foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 14th day of October, 2016 a

11 Las Vegas, Nevada.
12
13
William Deans

14
15

<C 16

e

z

<C

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 13 Complaint