Green v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 38

ORDER Granting 37 Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint and to Amend the Caption to Include Defendants Menenlyn Elizan, Ray Montenegro and Gwendolyn Myers and Denying as moot 34 Motion for Leave to File second amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 1/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Peter Goldstein [SBN 6992]
PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP
[e-mail]
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Malcolm P. LaVergne [SBN 10121]
[e-mail]
400 South 4th Street, Suite 500
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
KEYHERRA GREEN

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14

KEYHERRA GREEN,

Case No. 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
vs.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State
of Nevada and the County of Clark and operating
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
(CCDC); NAPHCARE, INC., a foreign corporation
doing business in the State of Nevada and is the
Medical Care Provider for Clark County Detention
Center; FRED MERRICK; LORA CODY; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
1

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
AMEND THE CAPTION TO INCLUDE
DEFENDANTS MENENLYN ELIZAN;
RAY MONTENEGRO; GWENDOLYN
MYERS

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 3

1

Plaintiff, KEYHERRA GREEN and Defendants LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE

2

DEPARTMENT, FRED MERRICK, LORA CODY and NAPHCARE, INC. (collectively

3

hereinafter the “PARTIES”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree to

4

the following:

5

1.

6

23, 2020.

7

2.

Plaintiff KEYHERRA GREEN may file a Second Amended Complaint by December

To amend the caption to include Defendants MENENLYN ELIZAN, RAY

8

MONTENEGRO and GWENDOLYN MYERS.

9

DATED: December 22, 2020

PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP

10
By: /s/ Peter Goldstein
PETER GOLDSTEIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KEYHERRA GREEN

11
12
13

DATED: December 22, 2020

KAEMPFER CROWELL

14
By: /s/ Lyssa S. Anderson
LYSSA S. ANDERSON
RYAN W. DANIELS
Attorneys for Defendants
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, FRED MERRICK; AND LORA CODY

15
16
17
18

DATED: December 22, 2020

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By: /s/ Katherine J. Gordon
S. BRENT VOGEL
KATHERINE J. GORDON
Attorneys for Defendant
NAPHCARE, INC.
ORDER
IT IT SOSO ORDERED. Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint in
IS IS ORDERED
accordance with LR 15-1.
IT IS this ____ day of __________, 2020.
DATED FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File
Second Amended Complaint (ECF NO. 34) is hereby denied as moot.
DATED this 8th day of January, 2021.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37 Filed 12/22/20 Page 3 of 3

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I am employed in the County of Clark, State of Nevada. I am over the age of eighteen years

3

and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150, Las

4

Vegas, Nevada 89145.

5

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of December, 2020, a true and correct copy of the

6

following document STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND

7

AMENDED

8

DEFENDANTS MENENLYN ELIZAN; RAY MONTENEGRO; GWENDOLYN MYERS was

9

served by electronically filing with the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system to the following

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

COMPLAINT

AND

TO

AMEND

THE

CAPTION

TO

INCLUDE

parties:
Lyssa S. Anderson, Esq.
Ryan W. Daniels, Esq.
KAEMPFER CROWELL
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
Fred Merrick and Lora Cody
Katherine Gordon, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS
6385 South Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Naphcare, Inc.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose
direction the service was made.

26
27

By:

An Employee of Peter Goldstein Law Corp

28
3

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 41of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page of 33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Peter Goldstein [SBN 6992]
PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP
[e-mail]
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Malcolm P. LaVergne [SBN 10121]
[e-mail]
400 South 4th Street, Suite 500
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KEYHERRA GREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KEYHERRA GREEN,

Case No. 2:20-cv-00769-GMN-DJA
Plaintiff,
vs.

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State
of Nevada and the County of Clark and operating
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
(CCDC); NAPHCARE, INC., a foreign corporation,
doing business in State of Nevada and is the Medical
Care Provider for the Clark County Detention
Center; FRED MERRICK; LORA CODY;
MENENLYN ELIZAN; RAY MONTENEGRO;
GWENDOLYN MYERS; and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

PROPOSED SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
1. Violation of Fourth Amendment
Unlawful Arrest and Warrant/Defective
Particularity (42 U.S.C §1983)
2. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment
Wrongful Incarceration (42 U.S.C. §
1983)
3. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—
Seizure, Detention and Search (42
U.S.C. § 1983)
4. Substantive Due Process—Fourteenth
Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
5. Denial of Medical Care- Fourteenth
Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
6. Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional
Custom, Practice, or Policy (42 U.S.C.
§ 1983)
7. Disability Discrimination – Americans
with Disability Act and Rehabilitation
Act.
8. False Arrest/False Imprisonment
(Nevada state law)
9. Negligence (Nevada state law)
10. Malicious Prosecution
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 52of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page of 33

1
2

INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff KEYHERRA GREEN, an African-American female with disabilities, was

3

wrongfully arrested, extradited and jailed for seventy-two (72) days – a period of over two (2)

4

months - without justification or probable cause.

5

punitive damages from Defendants for violating various rights of Plaintiff under the United States

6

Constitution and state law in connection with the investigation, affidavit in support of arrest,

7

Plaintiff’s subsequent wrongful arrest, extradition and incarceration by officers of the Las Vegas

8

Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) for the crime of felony murder of an elderly person due

9

to the actions of MERRICK, CODY and Does 4-5. Her arrest and incarceration could have easily

10

been prevented. At the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, LVMPD had the identity of the true suspect

11

captured on body camera recordings together with the true suspect’s name, date of birth,

12

identification information and photograph. Notwithstanding that knowledge, LVMPD, MERRICK,

13

CODY and DOES 4-5 caused to be issued an arrest warrant based on a deficient and false affidavit

14

of probable cause. Plaintiff repeatedly told the arresting officers they arrested the wrong person.

15

Plaintiff told arresting officers, LVMPD and NAPHCARE health care providers at Clark County

16

Detention Center (CCDC) that she had certain disabilities requiring medication. At CCDC, Plaintiff

17

did not receive any medical assistance, despite her repeated requests through the grievance process.

18

Plaintiff adds the following individual defendants employed by NAPHCARE: MENENLYN

19

ELIZAN R.N., RAY MONTENEGRO N.P, and GWENDOLYN MYERS EMT in the place of

20

DOES 1-3.

21

2.

This civil rights action seeks compensatory and

Other than shared race and gender with the true suspect, Plaintiff had a different first

22

and middle name, birth date and physical appearance than the true suspect, who later confessed to

23

the crime. Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and instead did so with a

24

defective warrant of arrest. During her incarceration, Plaintiff did not have all her medications she

25

required making her ordeal all the more harrowing and causing her extreme emotional distress.

26

Defendants MERRICK and CODY failed, refused, neglected, and acted with deliberate indifference

27

to the rights of Plaintiff, in the following respects: (a) they failed to do an even do a basic review

28

and cross-check of information obtained from patrol officer Daniel Stopka, and (b) they ignored
2
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 63of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page of 33

1

critical information that would have prevented Plaintiff’s arrest and 72-day ordeal in jail. This

2

conduct shows reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and Plaintiff

3

would not have suffered arrest and incarceration as long as she did, but for the conduct of

4

Defendants.

5
6

PARTIES
3.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff KEYHERRA GREEN, an African-American female,

7

was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, California and the County of Clark,

8

Nevada.

9

4.

Plaintiff suffers from mental impairments making her a protected individual under the

10

Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She requires medications for

11

maintenance of these disabilities.

12
13
14

5.

Plaintiff’s Medical history includes diagnosis for bipolar disorder, depression and

anxiety.
6.

At all times relevant herein, Defendant LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE

15

DEPARTMENT (hereinafter “LVMPD”) was, at all times mentioned, is a political entity and

16

political subdivision of Clark County and the State of Nevada, formed and operated pursuant to the

17

Nevada Revised Statutes and, at all times relevant hereto, is the Police Department with jurisdiction

18

throughout Clark County and also operates the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC). LVMPD is

19

a law enforcement agency entrusted to provide thorough and accurate investigation, reporting, and

20

police protection throughout the City of Las Vegas, Nevada and unincorporated Clark County,

21

Nevada. LVMPD, as operator of CCDC, has constitutional obligations to provide medical care for

22

pretrial detainee’s safety, serious medical needs and not to falsely arrest, prosecute, and imprison

23

individuals, each of which duties LVMPD breached with regard to Plaintiff. LVMPD practices

24

constitute de facto policies of falsely arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning individuals; and,

25

displaying deliberate indifference to the safety and serious medical needs of pretrial detainees’

26

serious medical conditions.

27

Defendant POLICE OFFICER DOES 4-5, and DOES 6-10, inclusive.

At all times relevant herein, LVMPD employed some or all co-

28
3
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 74of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page of 33

1

7.

Defendant NAPHCARE, INC. (“NAPHCARE”), was and is a foreign corporation

2

qualified and registered to do business and doing business in the State of Nevada and at all times

3

operated as medical health care provider at CCDC. NAPHCARE employed individuals who were

4

named as DOES herein, all of whom were all deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical

5

needs, their names are: MENENLYN ELIZAN R.N., RAY MONTENEGRO N.P, GWENDOLYN

6

MYERS EMT.

7

8.

Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies by filing multiple grievances (“kites”)

8

requesting her medication but were ignored by both LVMPD officers and ELIZAN, MONTENGRO,

9

MYERS and DOE NAPHCARE Defendants.

10
11
12
13
14

9.

Defendant FRED MERRICK (“MERRICK), at all relevant times, was a Caucasian

male police officer employed by the LVMPD.
10.

Defendant LORA CODY (“CODY”), at all relevant times, was a Caucasian female

police officer employed by the LVMPD, sued in her individual capacity.
11.

Defendant MENENLYN ELIZAN (“ELIZAN”), at all relevant times, was an

15

individual employed by Naphcare to work as a Registered Nurse with the Inmates at the Clark

16

County Detention Center.

17

12.

Defendant RAY MONTENEGRO (“MONTENEGRO”), at all relevant times, was an

18

individual employed by Naphcare to work as a Nurse Practitioner with the inmates at the Clark

19

County Detention Center sued in his individual capacity.

20

13.

Defendant GWENDOLYN MYERS (“MYERS”), at all relevant times, was an

21

individual employed by Naphcare to work as an Emergency Medical Technician with the inmates at

22

the Clark County Detention Center sued in her individual capacity.

23

14.

At all relevant times, LVMPD was the employer of Defendants MERRICK, CODY

24

and DOES 4 through 5 who were LVMPD Police Detectives and/or NALPHCARE workers at

25

CCDC (DOES 4 through 5) and DOES 6 through 10 (“DOE SUPERVISORS”) who were

26

managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employees of the LVMPD.

27
28

15.

MERRICK, CODY and DOE OFFICERS are sued in their individual capacities for

damages only.
4
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 85of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page of 33

1

16.

At all relevant times, Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 1-10 were duly

2

authorized employees and agents of LVMPD, who were acting under color of law within the course

3

and scope of their respective duties as police officers and with the complete authority and ratification

4

of their principal, Defendant LVMPD.

5

17.

At all relevant times, Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 1-10 were duly

6

appointed officers and/or employees or agents of LVMPD, subject to oversight and supervision by

7

LVMPD’s elected and non-elected officials.

8
9
10
11

18.

In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter described, Defendants

MERRICK, CODY, ELIZAN, MYERS, MONTENEGRO and DOES 4-10 were acting on the
implied and actual permission and/or direction of LVMPD.
19.

At all times mentioned herein, each and every LVMPD Defendant(s) was/were the

12

agents of each and every other LVMPD defendant(s) and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise

13

the hiring, conduct and employment of each and every LVMPD Defendant(s).

14

20.

The true names of defendants DOES 4 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to

15

Plaintiff, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to

16

amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these defendants when they have

17

been ascertained. Each of the fictitious named defendants is responsible in some manner for the

18

conduct and liabilities alleged herein.

19
20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21.

This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of Plaintiff’s

21

constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, § 504 of the

22

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

23

U.S.C. § 12131, et. seq. and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

24

Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and §1367. Plaintiff further

25

invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 to hear and decide

26

claims arising under state law.

27
28
5
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 96of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page of 33

1

22.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Defendants reside

2

in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in, the County of

3

Clark, Nevada.

4
5

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
23.

On August 21, 2018, LVMPD homicide Lt. Ray Spencer confirmed to the public in

6

the Las Vegas Review Journal that Plaintiff was arrested for murder, “a crime she didn’t commit.”

7

(Las Vegas Review Journal article dated August 22, 2018). On September 27, 2018, Defendants

8

CODY and MERRICK testified to the grand jury that the true murderer was Keara Jean Green and

9

testified, under oath, that Plaintiff had been arrested for a crime she did not commit.

10
11

24.

By the time of her release, Plaintiff had been wrongfully incarcerated on charges of

felony murder for two (2) months and eleven (11) days.

12

FACTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S ARREST AND INCARCERATION

13

25.

On January 22, 2018, the daughter of Ghasem Aliaskari filed a missing person report

14

for him and requested that the LVMPD conduct a welfare check on her father at 3001 Cabana Drive

15

#47, Las Vegas, Nevada 89122 (his former residence).

16
17
18

26.

On January 23, 2018, the LVPMD patrol officer, Daniel D. Stopka, conducted a

welfare check at 3001 Cabana Drive #47, Las Vegas, Nevada 89122, Mr. Aliaskar’s home.
27.

During the welfare check, the responding LVMPD officer Stopka, employed by

19

Defendant LVMPD, but not a Defendant in this case, had a body camera. In addition, Officer

20

Stopka made notes memorialized in a communication log, in which he recorded interactions with a

21

“renter” at his home, the actual murderer, an individual named, Keara Jean Green, an African-

22

American woman with a Texas driver’s license bearing a first name and middle name (different from

23

that of Plaintiff), a physical address on her license located at 156 W. Ash St., Nolanville, Texas,

24

765559 (different from Plaintiff’s address), with a date of birth of 8/22/1988 (different from

25

Plaintiff’s date of birth of 8/17/1988), and having short hair (different from Plaintiff who had long

26

hair). In addition, Keara Jean Green had a different physical build than Plaintiff, whose body type is

27

smaller and petite.

28
6
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 10 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38
Filed 12/22/20 Page 7 of 33

1

28.

During said welfare check, Keara Jean Green showed LVMPD Officer Stopka her

2

room in Mr. Aliaskari’s home and the kitchen.

3

communications log, together with the proper spelling of Keara’s name as “Keara Jean Green,” and

4

her Texas identification information. When Officer Stopka met with Keara, he was actually meeting

5

with the person who would ultimately confess to murder of Mr. Aliaskari – who at that time was

6

considered a missing person.

7

29.

Officer Stopka noted the same in LVMPD

On or about March 8, 2018, Defendants MERRICK and CODY went to Mr.

8

Aliaskari’s home at 3001 Cabana Drive #47, Las Vegas, Nevada 89122, where Officer Stopka had

9

been for the welfare check, and found the decomposing body of Mr. Aliaskari (hereinafter

10

“Decedent”). MERRICK and CODY were assigned to investigate Decedent’s murder and they

11

immediately attempted to develop a case to solve the murder of Mr. Aliaskari.

12

30.

At the time they discovered Decedent’s body, Defendant MERRICK also found

13

paperwork in the name of both Decedent and a female named, Keara Jean Green. Defendant

14

MERRICK provided this information to Defendant CODY, who performed a records check of Keara

15

Jean Green. Defendant CODY ran a “scope” on the name Keara Green and located a “black adult

16

female.” Detective CODY found a booking picture identified with Keara Jean Green.

17

31.

In furtherance of the murder investigation, on March 10, 2018, Defendant CODY

18

interviewed a witness, Donald Earley, who told CODY that he purchased Decedent’s vehicle from

19

“Mathew Sweeney,” explaining “when he purchased the (Decedent’s) vehicle a black female was

20

with Sweeney.” Exhibit “1,” Declaration of Warrant/Summons N.R.S. 171.106, a true and correct

21

copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

22

(a)

Defendant “CODY showed Earley a picture” Ex. 1, p. 4. “Earley affirmed
Green was the black female with Sweeney at time of the sale” of Decedent’s
Vehicle. Ex. 1, p. 4.

(b)

Defendants MERRICK and CODY “located Mathew Sweeney” and
interviewed him. Ex. 1, at. p. 4. Sweeney told Defendants that he met “Green
at the Malasky park around the second week of January. Green was in
possession of (Decedent’s vehicle). Green asked Sweeney for assistance in
fixing the vehicle. Once the vehicle was fixed, Green presented a vehicle title
and signed the vehicle over to Sweeney. Sweeney then sold the vehicle to his
friend Donald Earley. Ex. 1, at p. 4 (emphasis added).

23
24
25
26
27
28

7
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 11 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38
Filed 12/22/20 Page 8 of 33

1

32.

Plaintiff never met Earley or Sweeney as set forth above. Plaintiff never had title to

2

Decedent’s vehicle nor did Plaintiff drive or sell Decedent’s vehicle to Earley. The true killer, Keara

3

Jean Green, is the “black female” referenced in paragraph (a) above.

4

33.

Thereafter, “Detective CODY provided Detective GRIMMETT with a LVMPD

5

booking photograph.” Upon review, Detective Cannon explained his source had previously

6

identified the female as being black female, but provided no other information.” Ex. 1, at p. 3.

7

34.

Supposedly, in order to confirm the information in the affidavit for the warrant,

8

Detective Cannon agreed to attempt to contact his source of information and attempt to use the

9

photograph to confirm the identity of the black female involved. Detective Cannon also explained

10

the source had reached out to others close to the counselor in an effort to gather more details about

11

the black female who claimed to be responsible for the male's death.

12

35.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that, at that time, neither Defendants

13

CODY or MERRICK nor any other officer with LVMPD checked the identity of the “black female”

14

in the body camera footage of Officer Stopka or any information that Officer Stopka obtained from

15

his welfare check of Decedent’s home on January 23, 2018. LVMPD did not use the photograph

16

and video compare the same with information obtained by Officer Stopka on January 23, 2018 to

17

confirm and “gather more details” about the “black female” responsible for Decedent’s murder.

18

36.

On March 14, 2018, Defendants MERRICK and CODY caused to be issued a

19

document entitled a “Declaration of Warrant/Summons N.R.S. 171.106” (hereinafter “Arrest

20

Affidavit”), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this

21

reference as Exhibit “1.” (“Arrest Affidavit”).

22
23
24

37.

The March 14, 2018, Arrest Affidavit prayed for the arrest of one “Keyherra Greene.”

Ex. 1. The Arrest Affidavit did not contain the name Keara Jean Green. Ex. 1.
38.

Without naming Keara Jean Green, the Arrest Affidavit contained information

25

concerning the Keara Jean Green, the true killer’s identity, to wit: The Arrest Affidavit referenced

26

Officer Stopka’s welfare check at Decedent’s home, declared that Defendants CODY and

27

MERRICK talked to Decedent’s next door neighbor, a “white female” who had personal interaction

28

with the actual killer, Keara Jean Green, as follows:
8
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 12 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38
Filed 12/22/20 Page 9 of 33

1

(a)

During the initial investigation, a white female identified as Diana Sorrells
arrived and informed patrol she was a resident of 3001 Cabana #47. Homicide
Detective Cody conducted an interview with Sorrells. Sorrells advised she met
Ghasem who she refers to as "Sam" thru an ad on Craig's list. Sorrells
explained she rents one of the rooms in the residence and a black female that
she knows as Keyharra (sic) was staying in a room with Ghasem. Sorrells
believed Keyharra (sic) was in an intimate relationship with Ghasem. Sorrells
stated she has not seen Ghasem since on or about January 22, 2018. Sorrells
was aware of a "sour" odor emanating from Ghasem's room, however
Keyharra (sic) told her it was from bad food. Sorrells explained Keyharra (sic)
has been staying in the room since Ghasem's disappearance and often has
numerous men that visit her at all hours of the day and night.

(b)

The affidavit of probable cause in support of the arrest warrant of plaintiff
declares Decedent’s vehicle was missing and that “Solis (sic) last saw Green
driving (decedent’s car)”. Ex. 1, at p. 2.

(c)

The affidavit of probable cause in support of the arrest warrant for plaintiff
declares Defendant CODY “showed Sorrells the text message picture of the
black female. Sorrells identified the picture as Keyharra (sic). Detective Cody
conducted a records check of “Keyharra Green” (sic) and simply ignored all
other information.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

39.

At time of her arrest, Plaintiff was at the home of her grandmother in San Bernardino

County.
40.

At the time of her arrest, officers entered Plaintiff’s grandmother’s home, searched

16

the home for Plaintiff, drew their guns on Plaintiff and told her she was under arrest. Plaintiff

17

repeatedly asked why she was under arrest to which the arresting officers responded they would tell

18

her at the police station.

19

41.

At the time of her arrest, Plaintiff repeatedly protested and told the arresting LAPD

20

officers that she did not know why she was being arrested, that she did not do anything wrong and

21

that they had the wrong person. Plaintiff also informed arresting officers that she had disabilities

22

that required medication.

23
24
25

42.

The arresting officers took Plaintiff’s identification information, including, her credit

cards bearing her name.
43.

Following her arrest, Plaintiff was brought to the Los Angeles Police Department 77th

26

Street, where she was told she was arrested for murder. Plaintiff continued to protest her innocence.

27

Plaintiff was told that they knew “it was her,” and that Plaintiff was “lying.” Plaintiff was booked

28

and processed. Plaintiff continued to tell officers she did not murder anyone.
9
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 13 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 10 of 33

1

44.

Defendant CODY falsely claimed Plaintiff made and a statement during her arrest, “is

2

this about murder.”

3

45.

Plaintiff was subsequently extradited to Nevada based on the arrest warrant.

4

46.

On May 27, 2018, Plaintiff was brought before a Nevada Justice Court Judge.

5

Plaintiff alleges this is the date that the statute of limitations begins to run on all Plaintiff’s claims,

6

including, false arrest and false imprisonment, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

7

Amendments of the United States Constitution.

8
9
10
11
12
13

47.

On May 27, 2018, Plaintiff was booked into CCDC and upon information and belief

NAPHCARE staff received records from the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department that
indicated that Plaintiff suffered from bipolar disorder and anxiety.
48.

On May 27, 2018, at approximately 4:15 Defendant MEYERS posted Plaintiff’s

history of bipolar disorder and anxiety to Plaintiff’s progress notes.
49.

On May 27, 2018, at approximately 4:16 P.M. Defendant MEYERS conducted a

14

“Receiving Screening” of Plaintiff upon information and belief did not inquire about Plaintiff’s

15

history of mental illness, current mental health symptoms, or current medications, despite having

16

been made aware of Plaintiff’s history of bipolar disorder and anxiety by the Los Angeles County

17

Sherriff.

18

50.

On May 27, 2018, at approximately 7:37 PM Defendant ELIZAN completed a

19

“Mental Health Screening” but, upon information and belief, never inquired into Plaintiff’s mental

20

health history or provided Plaintiff any treatment for her bipolar disorder or anxiety.

21

51.

On May 27, 2018, Defendant MONTENGRO posted “I have reviewed the Chief

22

Complaint, History of Present Illness, Past Medical/Psychiatric History, Surgical History, Social

23

History, Medications and Drug/Food allergies. Treatment plan for this patient is standard booking

24

and housing procedures. Patient educated regarding disease process, kite process, sick call, and

25

emergency care. Additional orders are as follows: UHCG test” to Plaintiff’s progress notes, but

26

failed to order any treatment or follow up for her bipolar disorder or anxiety.

27
28
10
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 14 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 11 of 33

1

52.

Upon information and belief Defendants MEYERS, MONTENEGRO and ELIZAN

2

were all aware of Plaintiff’s history of bipolar disorder and anxiety but never provided Plaintiff with

3

any medical care, psychiatric care or counseling related to her bipolar disorder or anxiety

4

53.

On May 31, 2018, the Special Public Defender was assigned to represent Plaintiff.

5

Plaintiff informed the public defender she did not commit murder and they arrested the wrong

6

person. The public defender thereafter subpoenaed additional information from LVMPD to prove

7

Plaintiff was wrongfully accused, arrested and incarcerated. The subpoenaed documents revealed

8

Keara Jean Green’s employment records, Keara Jean Green’s daughter’s birth certificate and other

9

identifying information that would immediately show Plaintiff had been wrongfully arrested, since

10
11

Plaintiff had no children and was not from Texas.
54.

The subpoenaed information and photograph of the true killer, Keara Jean Green, did

12

not look anything like her. The true killer had short hair and a noticeable gap between her teeth that

13

Plaintiff did not have. The documents revealed that, at the time of the initial homicide investigation,

14

Plaintiff was not the individual whose information was obtained by the LVMPD police officer

15

Stopka at Decedent’s home from the welfare check dating back to January 23, 2018.

16
17
18

55.

Plaintiff’s public defender provided the Clark County District Attorney information

that they had arrested and incarcerated the wrong individual.
56.

On June 6, 2018, Defendants were notified again that Plaintiff was the wrong suspect

19

and had a completely different appearance, first name, middle name and date of birth as the true

20

suspect. Plaintiff was still incarcerated as of that date.

21

57.

On June 7, 2018, seventy-two days after she had been arrested, Plaintiff was released

22

from CCDC after the Clark County District attorney facilitated an accelerated release. Plaintiff had

23

been incarcerated and in custody since her arrest on May 27, 2018 and remained incarcerated until

24

dismissal of her case.

25

58.

On August 7, 2018, LVMPD arrested Keara Jean Green, the correct suspect and

26

confessed killer. The actual killer Keara Jean Green confessed to LVMPD that she used a shirt to

27

strangle 73-year-old Ghasem Aliaskari until he fell and hit his head on the bathtub.

28

59.

On August 8, 2018, the District Attorney dismissed the case against Plaintiff.
11
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 15 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 12 of 33

1

60.

On September 27, 2018, a grand jury indicted Keara Jean Green for murder of

2

Ghasem Aliaskari. During these proceedings, Defendant CODY testified she worked with Defendant

3

MERRICK in the homicide investigation regarding the death of Ghasem Aliaskari, including the

4

Arrest Affidavit. Defendant CODY belatedly pulled body camera footage from the January 23, 2018

5

welfare check and determined that the true killer, Keara Jean Green, had a distinct gap in her teeth,

6

that Plaintiff, whom they arrested for the murder, did not have, admitting that they arrested the

7

wrong individual.

8
9

DEFECTS IN ARREST AFFIDAVIT
61.

Plaintiff KEYHERRA GREEN’s name was misspelled in the Arrest Affidavit as

10

Keyharra Green D.O.B. 8/17/1988. The Arrest Affidavit does not contain the name Keara Jean

11

Green, the true murder, even though her name (and spelling of her name) was available to LVMPD

12

Defendants MERRICK and CODY from the start of their murder investigation.

13

62.

The Arrest Affidavit specifically references LVMPD patrol officer’s welfare check on

14

January 23, 2018, but fails to contain any information obtained from said welfare check, indicating

15

that MERRICK or CODY made any effort to contact, interview the LVMPD patrol officer who

16

conducted the welfare check, review the body camera or review communication log notes of that

17

patrol officer’s initial interaction with the actual killer, so as to specify with particularity the identity

18

of the subject of the arrest, Arrest Affidavit and arrest warrant.

19

63.

Upon information and belief, when Defendants MERRICK and/or CODY did not

20

review the body camera footage from January 23, 2018, until after they completed the Arrest

21

Affidavit. If they had reviewed the video prior to completing the Arrest Affidavit they would have

22

observed that, Keara Jean Green (the actual killer), had short hair, a gap in her teeth which while

23

Plaintiff had long hair and no gap in her teeth. Similarly, Plaintiff had a different physical build than

24

Keara Green, and unlike Keara Green, Plaintiff did not have children and did not have identification

25

from Texas. Plaintiff also had a different date of birth than Keara Green, a different middle name,

26

and they both spelled their first names differently. CODY and MERRICK’s failure to review officer

27

Stopka’s body worn camera footage of his January 23, 2020 welfare check of Ghasem Aliaskari’s

28
12
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 16 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 13 of 33

1

home was deliberately indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff in their homicide investigation and

2

issuance of Arrest Affidavit for Plaintiff’s arrest.

3

64.

Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff based on the Arrest

4

Affidavit. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff in execution of the same

5

and in arresting Plaintiff based on the defective arrest warrant.

6
7
8
9
10
11

65.

Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be free from continued detention after it was or

should have been known that she was entitled to release.
66.

Plaintiff suffered a violation of her procedural due process rights because the

Defendants possessed information indicating Plaintiff should not be arrested but arrested, extradited
and detained her anyway.
67.

As early as January 23, 2018, when the welfare check at Decedent’s home was first

12

conducted by an LVMPD patrol officer, Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 were in

13

Plaintiff was entitled to be free from arrest, extradition and continued detention.

14

68.

Defendants false and misleading affidavit of probable cause was submitted six (6)

15

days after they were assigned the homicide investigation. In the Arrest Affidavit, Defendants spoke

16

with a witness who, upon information and belief, identified a photograph of Keara Jean Green, the

17

actual killer. The photograph and all information shown from a scope check indicates Plaintiff’s date

18

of birth is 8/17/1988 whereas the actual killer has a date of birth of 8/22/1988, has two children and

19

was born in Iowa.

20

69.

There is nothing in the Arrest Affidavit that connected Plaintiff with the crime other

21

than the detectives coercive and selective identifications of a black female that did not follow

22

protocols for LVMPD in identifying suspects related to a serious criminal case investigation prior to

23

the filing of the Arrest Affidavit.

24

70.

Based on a deliberately indifferent and reckless investigation with no effort to

25

identify the correct suspect, Defendants, and each of them, arbitrarily selected Plaintiff as the suspect

26

based on a cursory scope record check. Plaintiff was arrested at a Los Angeles home where she was

27

living with her grandparents. The family awoke to officers ordering them to exit the home in the

28

early morning.
13
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 17 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 14 of 33

1

71.

Defendants CODY and MERRICK deliberately failed to review the body camera

2

footage from January 23, 2018, which would show clearly that Plaintiff was not the person who was

3

seen and photographed on January 23, 2018, that is, the actual suspected killer.

4

72.

The Arrest Affidavit was entirely based on unsupported coercive and selective

5

photographs that were misleading to the individuals who saw the photos in order to advance their

6

investigation without any regard to Plaintiff’s rights.

7
8
9

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5)

10

73.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

11

74.

Plaintiff has constitutional right to be free from wrongful arrest, detention and

12
13

imprisonment as secured by the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
75.

The arrest warrant on which Plaintiff was taken into custody did not tie in Plaintiff

14

with the murder of Decedent and was defective for lack of particularity because it contained

15

information exculpatory to Plaintiff.

16

76.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 arrested, extradited and incarcerated

17

Plaintiff based on an Arrest Affidavit and arrest warrant which was constitutionally infirm for lack

18

of particularity.

19
20
21

77.

The arrest warrant incorrectly identifies Plaintiff when the facts available to

Defendants clearly indicated that Keara Jean Green was the murder to wit:
(a)

Failed to include the identification details of the true suspect, Keara Jean
Green, as encountered by LVMPD during a January 23, 2018 welfare check
which would have been exculpatory to Plaintiff;

(b)

Failed to include some other descriptive characteristics of true suspect, Keara
Jean Green, sufficient to identify her as encountered by LVMPD during its
welfare check at Decedent’s home and as was apparent in photographs in
possession of Defendants which would have proven exculpatory to Plaintiff as
the true suspect has a gap in her teeth, short hair, that Plaintiff does not have
and Plaintiff had different identification information and physical build;

(c)

Failed to include descriptive characteristics and/or photograph of the true
killer, including a description by which the proper subject of the arrest can be
described with reasonable certainty, inclusion of which would have been
exculpatory to Plaintiff, the arrest warrant only generally and deficiently
14

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 18 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 15 of 33

identifies the suspect or subject of the arrest warrant as a “black woman”
thereby prejudicing Plaintiff; said arrest warrant is based on prejudicial,
racially-based stereotypical notions that deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional
rights;

1
2
3

(d)

Failed to state date of birth the true murder, which LVMPD encountered
during initial welfare check at Decedent-murder-victim’s home, to wit; true
suspect’s Texas driver’s license with identifying information (date of birth,
photograph, address) therein which would have been exculpatory to Plaintiff;

(e)

Improperly identifies “Keyherra Greene” with an “e” as subject of arrest
warrant; Plaintiff’s last name does not have an “e” at the end, while
identifying the true killer’s by the first name “Keyharra” with an “a” six times
in the arrest warrant (which is different from Plaintiff’s name which contains
only one “a”);

(f)

Failed to include the full name including middle initial and birth date of the
true killer, Keara Jean Green, which LVMPD had actual knowledge of and/or
were already in possession of before and at time of issuance of arrest warrant
which would have been exculpatory to Plaintiff;

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

78.

As a direct and proximate result of the lack of requisite particularity of said arrest

12

warrant and racially prejudicial and stereotypical description of the suspect as a “black woman,”

13

without further particularity, Plaintiff was arrested, seized, detained and deprived of her

14

constitutional rights by virtue of the actions and/or inactions of Defendants LVMPD, MERRICK

15

and/or CODY, and DOES 4-5.

16

79.

Defendants MERRICK and/or CODY, DOES 4-5, possessed specific, particular

17

identifying information of the true suspect, Keara Jean Green, before and/or at the time of drafting,

18

utterance and/or declaration of the arrest warrant such that inclusion of the same would have

19

prevented and/or otherwise proven exculpatory to Plaintiff.

20

80.

The conduct of MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 were willful, wanton, malicious,

21

and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore warrants the

22

imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5.

23

81.

24

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
WRONGFUL INCARCERATION- 42 U.S.C §1983
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS MERRICK, CODY, AND DOES 4-5)

25
26
27

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under this claim.

82.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

28
15
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 19 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 16 of 33

1
2
3

83.

Plaintiff has the right to be free from deprivation of liberty as secured by the

Fourteenth Amendment.
84.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 ignored body camera footage and

4

other information obtained early in the homicide investigation that revealed the identity of the true

5

subject of the Arrest Affidavit of arrest for felony murder.

6

85.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 violated and were deliberately

7

indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by its decision to incarcerate Plaintiff on the arrest

8

warrant based on the Arrest Affidavit, even though Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5,

9

knew or should have known that Plaintiff did not match the Arrest Affidavit’s descriptors, to wit:

10

86.

The Arrest Affidavit had the wrong spelling of both the actual killer and the Plaintiff,

11

identifying “Keyharra Green,” the Arrest Affidavit contains multiple witness statements who could

12

personal identify the actual suspect/killer; the Arrest Affidavit states that the true suspect provided

13

her identification information to a LVMPD patrol officer, including, information which exonerated

14

Plaintiff; the Arrest Affidavit references a photograph of the actual suspect which could have

15

prevented the arrest, extradition and incarceration of Plaintiff; the Arrest Affidavit contains

16

information indicating that the true subject of the Arrest Affidavit could have been easily ascertained

17

by viewing the body camera footage of the patrol officer who performed a welfare check at the

18

decedent-victim’s home; and the Arrest Affidavit generally describes the suspect as a “black

19

woman” without further descriptive information, despite admittedly having possession of a

20

photograph, resulting in deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

21

87.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 decision to issue an Arrest Affidavit

22

leading to the arrest, extradition and incarceration of Plaintiff for 72 days lacked procedural

23

safeguards to prevent her continued mistaken detention.

24
25
26
27

88.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 failed to investigate Plaintiff’s claim

of mistaken identity after her repeated protests.
89.

Based on defects in the Arrest Affidavit, Defendants MERRICK and CODY did not

have probable cause to believe that Plaintiff was the person in the arrest warrant.

28
16
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 20 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 17 of 33

1

90.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 possessed information indicating

2

Plaintiff should be released from incarceration but did not release her until 72 days after her arrest

3

and extradition.

4

91.

The conduct of Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, were willful, wanton,

5

malicious, and done with reckless disregard, deliberate indifference for the rights and safety of

6

Plaintiff and therefore justifies the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants

7

MERRICK, CODY, and DOES 4-5.

8
9
10
11

92.

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys fees and costs under this claim.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE – SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT
REASONABLE SUSPICION – PROBABLE CAUSE (42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Against Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5)

12

93.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

13

94.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 caused Plaintiff to be seized and

14

searched in violation of her right to be secure in her person against unreasonable searches and

15

seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

16

and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.

17
18
19
20

95.

In seizing Plaintiff’s person Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 acted

intentionally and the seizure was unreasonable;
96.

Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 did not have a reasonable suspicion

that Plaintiff upon her seizure was engaged in a crime or other conduct justifying arrest;

21

97.

The length and scope of Plaintiff’s seizure was unreasonable.

22

98.

As a result of the conduct of MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, they are liable for

23

Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the wrongful seizure and search,

24

or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.

25
26

99.

The PLAINTIFF was seized, detained and searched without reasonable suspicion or

probable cause.

27
28
17
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 21 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 18 of 33

1

100.

The conduct of MERRICK and CODY was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with

2

reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore justifies the imposition of

3

exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants MERRICK and CODY.

4

101.

5

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys fees and costs under this claim.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(AGAINST LVMPD, MERRICK, CODY, AND DOES 4-10)

6
7
8

102.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

9

103.

Plaintiff had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

10

Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state actions that deprive her of life,

11

liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to, the

12

conduct of the defendants as described herein.

13

104.

As a result of the grossly inadequate investigation and Arrest Affidavit force by

14

MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, and failure of said defendants to intervene, Plaintiff was

15

unlawfully seized, detained and searched and accused of homicide.

16

105.

MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, acting under color of state law, thus violated

17

Plaintiff’s substantive Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and

18

seizures, the loss of property and invasion of privacy.

19

106.

The aforementioned actions of MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, along with other

20

undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate indifference to the

21

rights of Plaintiff and with the purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement

22

objective.

23

107.

As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5,

24

Plaintiff experienced extreme fear, pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of physical wholeness, loss of

25

quality and enjoyment of life, deprivation of rights and other injuries and damages.

26

108.

As a result of the conduct of MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, they are liable for

27

Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the denial of due process, or

28

because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
18
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 22 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 19 of 33

1

109.

The conduct of MERRICK and CODY was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with

2

reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore justifies the imposition of

3

exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants MERRICK and CODY.

4

110.

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under this claim.

5
6
7

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Against Defendants ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, MYERS and NAPHCARE)

8

111.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegation as if fully set forth herein.

9

112.

When Plaintiff was booked into the CCDC on May 27, 2018, she was suffering from

10
11
12
13

bipolar disorder and anxiety.
113.

bipolar disorder and anxiety are serious medical conditions that when left untreated

create a substantial risk of serious harm.
114.

As an Emergency Medical Technician Defendant MYERS was aware of the

14

substantial risk of serious harm posed to Plaintiff if her bipolar disorder and anxiety were left

15

untreated.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

115.

As a Registered Nurse Defendant ELIZAN was aware of the substantial risk of

serious harm posed to Plaintiff if her bipolar disorder and anxiety were left untreated.
116.

As a Nurse Practitioner Defendant MONTENENGRO was aware of the substantial

risk of serious harm posed to Plaintiff if her bipolar disorder and anxiety were left untreated.
117.

Upon information and belief, on May 27 2018, Defendant’s MYERS, ELIZAN, and

MONTENENGRO all became aware of Plaintiff’s history of bipolar disorder and anxiety.
118.

On May 27, 2018, Defendant’s MYERS and ELIZAN conducted examinations of

Plaintiff where they should have inquired about Plaintiff’s mental health history.
119.

Upon information and belief, Defendants MYERS and ELIZAN failed to inquire

25

about Plaintiff’s mental health history during those exams, or provide Plaintiff with any treatment

26

for her bipolar disorder or anxiety

27
28
19
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 23 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 20 of 33

1

120.

On May 27, 2018, Defendant MONTENEGRO reviewed the exams performed by

2

MYERS and ELIZAN and failed to provide Plaintiff with any medical care or treatment for her

3

bipolar disorder or anxiety.

4

121.

Plaintiff had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

5

Amendment of the United States Constitution to be provided with adequate medical care while a

6

pretrial detainee at CCDC

7
8
9

122.

As a result of the grossly inadequate medical care provided by Defendants ELIZAN,

MONTENEGRO, MYERS, Plaintiff suffered needlessly.
123.

As NAPHCARE employees at CCDC ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, MYERS were

10

acting under color of state law, thus violated Plaintiff’s substantive Fourteenth Amendment right to

11

adequate medical care.

12

124.

The aforementioned actions of ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO and MYERS along with

13

other undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate indifference to

14

the rights of Plaintiff.

15

125.

As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO and

16

MYERS, Plaintiff experienced extreme emotional pain, suffering, loss of physical wholeness, loss of

17

quality and enjoyment of life, deprivation of rights and other injuries and damages.

18

126.

As a result of the conduct of ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO and MYERS, they are liable

19

for Plaintiff’s injuries, because they were integral participants in the denial of adequate medical care

20

to Plaintiff.

21

127.

The conduct of ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, and MYERS was willful, wanton,

22

malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore

23

justifies the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants ELIZAN,

24

MONTENEGRO, and MYERS.

25
26
27
28

128.

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under this claim.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against Defendants DOES 6-10, NAPHCARE, LVMPD)
129.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
20
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 24 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 21 of 33

1

130.

Plaintiff was deprived of her constitutional rights by Defendants and their employees

2

acting under color of state law; Defendants and their employees were acting under color of state law;

3

Defendants have customs or policies which amount to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights;

4

that these policies are the moving force behind the constitutional violations.

5

131.

On and for some time prior to May 7, 2018 and continuing, Defendants DOES 6-10,

6

deprived Plaintiff of the rights and liberties secured to her by the Fourth and Fourteenth

7

Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that said defendants and their supervising and

8

managerial employees, agents, and representatives, acting with gross negligence and with reckless

9

and deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, and of Plaintiff, and of

10

persons in their class, situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained,

11

enforced and applied an official recognized custom, policy, and practice of:

12

(a)

Employing and retaining as police officers and other personnel, including
MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, who Defendants LVMPD and DOES 610, at all times material herein knew or reasonably should have known had
dangerous propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating citizens
by failing to follow written LVMPD’s policies, including reviewing all
available evidence, including exculpatory evidence, in order to make certain
that person that they are seeking an Arrest Affidavit for is the actual suspect in
the crime and reviewing all evidence including photographs and body cam
footage;

(b)

Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and disciplining
LVMPD Police Officers, and other personnel, including MERRICK, CODY
and DOES 4-5, who Defendants LVMPD and DOES 6-10 knew or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known had the aforementioned
propensities and character traits, including the propensity for coercive and
reckless investigations including suggestive identification and inadequate
investigation of evidence;

(c)

By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional
misconduct by Defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, who are Police
Officers of LVMPD;

(d)

By failing to discipline LVMPD Police Officers’ conduct, including but not
limited to, unlawful detention and deficient investigations and false Arrest
Affidavit that are deficient in requisite particularity so as to increase
likelihood of false arrests and incarcerations, such as that which happened to
Plaintiff;

(e)

By ratifying the intentional misconduct of Defendants MERRICK, CODY and
DOES 4-5, who are Police Officers of LVMPD;

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

21
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 25 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 22 of 33

1

(f)

By having and maintaining an unconstitutional policy, custom, and practice of
seizing, detaining and searching individuals without probable cause or
reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion, and issuing declarations or
affidavits of arrest, submitting these for judicial determination, without the
requisite particularity and or safeguards to ensure that the proper subject of the
warrant is arrested, and not an innocent person, such as Plaintiff; By having
inadequate training regarding these subjects including making of declarations
of arrest warrants without verifying spelling of names and identities of
individuals beyond general racial descriptors, the policies, customs, and
practices of LVMPD and DOES 6-10, were done with a deliberate
indifference to individuals’ safety and rights, particularly that there was no
reason to believe that Plaintiff was the person identified in the warrant
resulting in an innocent persons incarceration for felony murder for two
months and eleven days (72 days total);

(g)

By failing to properly investigate claims of unlawful arrest, detention,
searches, and seizures by LVMPD Police Officers;

(h)

By failing to institute appropriate policies regarding constitutional procedures
and practices for use filing reports and submitting affidavits;

(i)

By maintaining totally inadequate training of its officers and other LVMPD
employees, including defendants MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, on the
aforementioned issues, including the minimally required constitutional
particularity required of an arrest warrant, so as to avoid arrest of innocent
persons, use of searches and seizures, despite clear need for such training.

(j)

Having and maintaining an unconstitutional policy, custom, and practice of
failing to provide adequate mental health screenings to pretrial detainees
booked into the Clark County Detention Center, failing to order mental health
care for pretrial detainees with known histories of serious mental health
problems incarcerated at the CCDC, and failing to maintain adequate records
related to a pretrial detainees mental health.

(k)

By employing and retaining as health care providers and other personnel,
including Defendants ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, MYERS, and DOES 6-10,
at all times material herein knew or reasonably should have known had
dangerous propensities for providing constitutionally adequate health care, for
failing to properly screen their patients, for reviewing healthcare records, and
treating mental illness;

(l)

Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and disciplining
NAPHCARE healthcare providers, and other personnel, including Defendants
ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, MYERS, who Defendants LVMPD,
NAPHCARE and DOES 6-10 knew or in the exercise of reasonable care
should have known had the aforementioned propensities and character traits,
including the propensity to provide deliberately indifferent and
constitutionally deficient healthcare;

(m)

By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional
misconduct by Defendants ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, MYERS, who are
Police Officers of LVMPD;

(n)

By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the deliberate
22

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 26 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 23 of 33

indifference by Defendants ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO, MYERS, who are
healthcare providers employed by NAPHCARE;

1
2

(o)

By failing to discipline NAPHCARE employee conduct, including but not
limited to, unlawful detention and deficient investigations and false Affidavit
of Probable Cause in support of the Arrest Warrant for Plaintiff that are
deficient in requisite particularity so as to increase likelihood of false arrests
and incarcerations, such as that which happened to Plaintiff;

(p)

By ratifying the intentional misconduct of Defendants ELIZAN,
MONTENEGRO, MYERS, who are healthcare providers employed by
NAPHCARE;

(q)

By maintaining totally inadequate training of its officers and ELIZAN,
MONTENEGRO, MYERS, who are healthcare providers employed by
NAPHCARE, on the aforementioned issues, including the minimally required
constitutional level of health care, despite clear need for such training;

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

132.

By reason of the aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants LVMPD

11

NAPHCCARE, and DOES 6-10, Plaintiff was severely injured and subjected to fear, pain, suffering,

12

humiliation, and the deprivation of her rights as alleged above.

13

133.

Defendants LVMPD, NAPHCARE, and DOES 6-10, together with various other

14

officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient

15

policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated

16

above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such

17

policies. Said defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and

18

consequences of these policies with respect to the rights of Plaintiff and other individuals similarly

19

situated.

20

134.

By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous conduct and

21

other wrongful acts, Defendants LVMPD, NAPHCARE and DOES 6-10, acted with an intentional,

22

reckless, and callous disregard for the life, safety, and rights of Plaintiff. Defendants LVMPD and

23

DOES 6-10, each of their actions were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and

24

extremely offensive and unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.

25

135.

Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented and maintained and

26

still tolerated by Defendants LVMPD, NAPHCARE and DOES 6-10, were affirmatively linked to

27

and were a significantly influential force behind the injuries of Plaintiff.

28
23
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 27 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 24 of 33

1

136.

By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants LVMPD and

2

DOES 6-10, PLAINTIFF experienced extreme fear, pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of physical

3

wholeness, loss of quality and enjoyment of life, deprivation of rights and other injuries and

4

damages.

5
6
7
8
9
10

137.

Accordingly, Defendants LVMPD and DOES 6-10, each are liable to Plaintiff for

compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
138.

Plaintiff also seek attorneys fees and costs under this claim.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et. seq.
(AGAINST DEFENDANT LVPMD and NAPHCARE)

11

139.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

12

140.

Plaintiff suffers from and was diagnosed with a mental or psychological disabilty.

13

141.

Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the ADA and

14

Rehabilitation Act.

15

142.

16

Rehabilitation Act.

17

143.

18
19
20
21

Defendant LVMPD is an entity covered by the requirements of the ADA and

Defendant NAPHCARE is an entity covered by the requirements of the ADA and

Rehabilition Act.
144.

Plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public

entity’s services, programs or actitivites.
145.

At all times relevant hereton, Defendants MERRICK, CODY, ELIZAN,

22

MONTENEGRO, MYERS, and DOES 4-10, were employees of NAPHCARE and LVMPD and

23

were aware or should have been aware that Plaintiff suffered from a mental or psychological

24

disability and that she required medication for the same.

25

146.

Defendants LVMPD, and NAPHCARE had a duty to accommodate Plaintiff’s mental

26

disabilities and need for medication when she was arrested and during the time of her detention and

27

incarceration.

28
24
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 28 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 25 of 33

1

147.

Defendants LVMPD and NAPHCARE had a duty to take Plaintiff’s mental disability

2

into account when they arrested and housed her, including, but not limited to, engaging in non-

3

threatening communication, respecting her comfort zone, considering her need for medication to

4

manage her disability, and using means to defuse the situation.

5

148.

ELIZAN, MONTENEGRO and MYERS, while employed by NAPHCARE and

6

LVMPD discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of and/or by reason of her disabilty by failing,

7

refusing and/or neglecting to accommodate her disability during her arrest and incarceratinon by

8

denying and excluding Plaintiff access to all her required medications as required by her disabilities

9

despite her being aware of her psychiatric history.

10

149.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions herein, Plaintiff suffered great

11

pain of body and mind, severe mental emotional anguish and distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and

12

other damages to Plaintiff’s detriment in an amount to be determined according to proof at time of

13

trial.

14
15
16
17
18

150.

Defendants actions herein were intentional, deliberate, willful, reckless, and

conducted in callous disregard for the harm caused to Plaintiff.
151.

Plaintiff is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available to her under the

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act as result of Defendants conduct.
152.

Defendants LVMPD and NAPHCARE are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for

19

damages related to her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, inasmuch as NAPHCARE is an agent of

20

LVMPD in the administration of LVMPD’s duties to operate CCDC.

21

153.

22

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Arrest/False Imprisonment
(Nevada State Law Claim)
(Against Defendants LVMPD, MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5)

23
24
25

154.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

26

155.

MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5, while working as police officers for the LVMPD,

27

and acting within the course and scope of their duties, intentionally deprived Plaintiff of her freedom

28

of movement by failing to conduct a thoroughly and proper identification and failing to arrest the
25
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 29 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 26 of 33

1

correct suspect whose information was known or should have been known to defendants.

2

MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 also detained Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion or probable

3

cause.

4
5
6
7
8
9

156.

Plaintiff did not knowingly or voluntarily consent. Any purported consent was the

result of duress and threats from Defendants.
157.

The conduct of MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-5 was a substantial factor in causing

the harm of Plaintiff.
158.

LVMPD is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants MERRICK, CODY

and DOES 4-5 because their acts were done under color of law with LVMPD’s full authority and

10

ratification.

11

159.

The conduct of MERRICK and CODY was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and

12

accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, entitling PLAINTIFF to an award

13

of exemplary and punitive damages.

14

160.

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

15

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Negligence (Nevada State Law Claim)
(Against LVMPD, MERRICK, CODY, and DOES 6-10)

16
17

161.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

18

162.

As state actors, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care to carry out their law

19

enforcement operations in such a manner as not to cause violations of her rights, including rights

20

under Nevada state law and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

21

Constitution.

22

163.

23

but not limited to:

24

(a)

the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to seize, detain and
search against Plaintiff;

(b)

the negligent tactics and handling of the investigation of Plaintiff, including
investigations and review of evidence including suggestive photo
identifications, and continuing to incarcerate Plaintiff despite substantial
evidence that Plaintiff was not the suspect CODY, MERRICK, and DOES 4-5
were looking for.

The actions and inactions of the Defendants were negligent and reckless, including

25
26
27
28

26
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 30 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 27 of 33

(c)

the failure to properly train and supervise employees, both professional and
non-professional, including MERRICK, CODY and DOES 4-10;

(e)

the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with appropriate
education and training were available to meet the needs of and protect the
rights of Plaintiff; and

(f)

2

the negligent seizure, detention and search against Plaintiff;

(d)

1

the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses.

3
4
5
6
7

164.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged above, and other

8

undiscovered negligent conduct, Plaintiff was caused to experience extreme fear, pain, suffering,

9

humiliation, loss of physical wholeness, loss of quality and enjoyment of life, deprivation of rights

10
11
12
13

and other injuries and damages.
165.

LVMPD is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of MERRICK, CODY, and DOES

4-10 because their acts affirmatively caused the harm to Plaintiff.
166.

The negligent acts of MERRICK, CODY, and DOES 4-10 resulted in extreme fear,

14

pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of physical wholeness, loss of quality and enjoyment of life,

15

deprivation of rights and other injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

16
17
18
19

167.

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Malicious Prosecution
Fourth Amendment Without Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(against MERICK, CODY, LVMPD and DOES 4-10)

20

168.

Plaintiff incorporates all foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

21

169.

Defendants, and each of them, instituted a criminal action against the Plaintiff.

22

170.

The prosecution of Plaintiff was resolved in Plaintiff’s favor; she was released as

23

described above.

24

171.

There was no probable cause to initiate criminal action against Plaintiff.

25

172.

Defendants acted maliciously and with reckless disregard in instituting and

26
27
28

maintaining a criminal action against Plaintiff.
173.

Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 31 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 28 of 33

1
2
3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in his favor and against Defendants as
follows:
A.

4
5

proven at trial;
B.

6
7

For compensatory damages under federal and state law, in the amount to be

For general damages under federal and state law, in the amount to be proven
at trial;

C.

8

For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be
proven at trial;

9

D.

For interest;

10

E.

For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees; and\

11

F.

For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and

12
13

appropriate.
DATED: December 22, 2020.

PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP

14
15

By: /s/ Peter Goldstein
PETER GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KEYHERRA GREEN

16
17
18
19
20
21

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFF hereby demands a trial by jury.
DATED: December 22, 2020.

PETER GOLDSTEIN LAW CORP

22
23
24

By: /s/ Peter Goldstein
PETER GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KEYHERRA GREEN

25
26
27
28
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 32 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 29 of 33

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 33 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 30 of 33

Disc.00002

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 34 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 31 of 33

Disc.00003

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 35 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 32 of 33

Disc.00004

Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 37-1 Filed 01/08/21 Page 36 of 36
Case 2:20-cv-00769-KJD-DJA Document 38 Filed 12/22/20 Page 33 of 33

Disc.00005