UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 ROBERT B. SYKES (#3180 ALYSON E. CARTER (#9886 ROBERT B. SYKES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 311 South State Street, Suite 240 Salt Lake City, Utah Telephone ( Facsimile ( Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION GREG DAVIS and CLACIE LAWRENCE, vs. Plaintiffs, ROBIN L. KOROGI, Acting Directer for VA Salt Lake City, CHRIS HILL, a Veterans Adminstration Police Officer, JOHN DOE I, a VA Police Officer, and JOHN and JANE DOES 2-10, Defendants. COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Civil No. Judge Plaintiffs Greg Davis and Clacie Lawrence complain and allege for causes of action against Defendants as follows:

2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a civil rights action in which the Plaintiffs seek relief for the Defendants violations of their rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, which right is further secured by 28 U.S.C. 1331, and by the laws and the Constitution of the State of Utah. Plaintiffs seek damages, both compensatory and punitive damages; affirmative and equitable relief; an award of attorney s fees, costs, and interest; and other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. This is further an action at law to redress a deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Plaintiffs by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and arises under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and federal law, particularly under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and 28 U.S.C This action seeks redress for violations of the civil rights laws of the United States by a federal employee and entity, and jurisdiction is therefore invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C

3 3. The claims made in this Complaint occurred and arose in the State of Utah, in this District, and in the Central Division. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs are seeking damages pursuant to the claims for relief specified below in amounts to be proved at trial. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Greg Davis ( Greg is a citizen of the United States of America and is a resident of Davis County, State of Utah. 6. Plaintiff Clacie Lawrence ( Clacie is a citizen of the United States of America and is a resident of Davis County, State of Utah. 7. At all times relevant herein, Robin L. Korogi ( Korogi was acting director for the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salt Lake City, State of Utah. She was and is a policymaker and administrator at VAMC. 8. This action is brought against Korogi in her individual and official capacities. Her authority to act was derived from federal law and/or the commands and directives of her superiors. 9. At all times relevant herein, Chris Hill ( Hill was a law enforcement officer employed by the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salt Lake City, State of Utah. -3-

4 10. This action is brought against Hill in his individual and official capacities. His authority to act was derived from Utah State law, federal law, and/or the commands and directives of his superiors. All of the acts of the individuals and entities listed in the following paragraphs were performed under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State of Utah and/or the United States government. 11. This action is brought against John Doe I in his individual and official capacity. His authority to act was derived from Utah State law, federal law, and/or the commands and directives of his superiors. 12. At all times relevant herein, John Doe I ( Doe was a law enforcement officer employed by the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, who is referenced (although his name is redacted in the incident report as assisting Officer Hill with the questioning and arrest of Greg and Clacie. 13. This action is brought against John Doe I in his individual and official capacity. His authority to act was derived from Utah State law, federal law, and/or the commands and directives of his superiors. All of the acts of the individuals and entities listed in the following paragraphs were performed under -4-

5 color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State of Utah and/or the United States government. 14. At all times relevant herein, John Does 2-10 were law enforcement officers employed by the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, including a female officer (whose first name may be Rhonda and a plain clothes officer who arrived on the scene the night of this incident as backup. 15. This action is brought against Doe officers in their individual and official capacities. Their authority to act was derived from Utah State law, federal law, and/or the commands and directives of his superiors. All of the acts of the individuals and entities listed in the following paragraphs were performed under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State of Utah and/or the United States government. 16. Defendant Veterans Affairs( VA administration directors are responsible for issuing policies and operating procedures governing the proper way to make an arrest and to perform other law enforcement actions, and for prescribing training for VA police officers. 17. Plaintiffs will serve notice of any tort claims against the Veterans Administration pursuant to federal law. Such claims may be amended -5-

6 into this Complaint at a later time. Plaintiffs deny that notice is required of any claims listed below in this Complaint since notice of such claims is not required. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 18. On or about November 22, 3008, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Greg and Clacie were walking to their car after watching the Utah-BYU football game at Rice-Eccles Stadium. 19. Greg and Clacie had consumed some alcohol earlier in the day, but at this time they had not consumed any alcoholic beverages for many hours, and were not intoxicated. 20. As Greg and Clacie cut through the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC parking lot en route to their car, they were confronted by VA Police Officers Hill and John Doe I. 21. According to the officers Uniform Offense Report # , Greg and Clacie were stopped in order to determine her [Clacie s] status so as to be able to render assistance and or take enforcement action as required Clacie did not require any assistance, and no enforcement action was warranted since Greg and Clacie were law-abiding citizens simply walking through the parking lot en route to their car. -6-

7 23. By confronting Greg and Clacie, the officers provoked an argument, challenging Greg s assertion that neither he nor Clacie was intoxicated. 24. Greg continued to argue against the officers unnecessary and unwarranted provocation, and one of the officers began to use physical force against Greg, placing him up against a fence. 25. An innocent bystander had been watching all these events unfold, and at this point he began to record the events on video using his cell phone. According to the Follow up of VA Officer Report , the bystander later said that he felt an obligation to make the recording because he thought the VA Police used excessive force against Greg. 26. While standing at the fence, Greg turned his head to make sure Clacie was all right. 27. At this point Greg was slammed into the fence several times by one of the officers. 28. With no warning, the officer then elbowed Greg in the head and attempted to drag or throw him down on the ground. 29. Greg and the witness, Paul Loya, both state that at no time did Greg resist or make any attempt to use force against the officers. -7-

8 30. The officers got Greg onto the ground, where one officer sprayed OC spray or pepper spray into Greg s face. 31. Two other officers, one female officer in uniform, and one male officer in plain clothes, arrived on the scene as backup. 32. Greg was dragged across the road by the handcuffs to the police car, which Mr. Loya, Clacie, and at least one of the backup officers witnessed. 33. After Greg was handcuffed, one of the officers approached Mr. Loya, who had video-recorded the incident on his cell phone. When Mr. Loya refused to surrender the phone to the officer, the officer grabbed the phone, wrested it from the his hand, and confiscated the phone. 34. When the phone was returned to Mr. Loya, the video of these events had been deleted. 35. Greg was arrested and taken into the medical center for medical treatment. He was kept in jail overnight, and released the next day. 36. On November 24, 2008, Greg went to the Intermountain Medical Center emergency department, where it was determined that, as a result of his altercation with the VA officers, he had a broken or badly sprained wrist, a closed head injury, and various abrasions and contusions. -8-

9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Excessive Force - Against Defendants Hill and Doe I In Violation Of The Fourth Amendment Cognizable Under 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations. 38. The proper focus in determining the reasonableness of force used is on the events immediately confronting officers when they decide to use force. Force is not reasonable when a suspect is non-violent and poses no threat. Furthermore, force is not permitted at all when there is no need to use force. 39. Greg and Clacie had committed no crime or infraction, and the entire incident would not have occurred if the officers did not provoke it. 40. Greg and Clacie gave the VA officers no reason to stop and detain them. The Plaintiffs were returning to their vehicle after a football game, like tens of thousands of other football fans. The officers had no reason to believe there was any exigent circumstance, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to justify the detention, arrest, and subsequent use of physical force on Greg Davis. 41. The violation of Greg s and Clacie s rights is actionable under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Defendants in an -9-

10 amount to be proved at trial, plus costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C Greg and Clacie are entitled to punitive damages against the individual Defendants, as allowed by law, since Defendants actions were intentional, wanton, malicious, and oppressive. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Intervene Against John and Jane Does 3-10 Cognizable Under 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations. 44. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Doe Officers, as police officers of the VAMC, were acting under the direction and control of VAMC, which acted through its agents and employees who were responsible for its officers, its operations, and for making the policies of the VAMC Police Department. 45. Officers have a duty to intervene when they witness another officer committing an illegal act or a constitutional violation. 46. Doe officers, including the two officers who arrived at the scene as backup, witnessed Hill and Doe I using excessive force on Plaintiffs. -10-

11 47. Despite witnessing these constitutional violations, Doe Officers did nothing to intervene. 48. The violation of Plaintiffs rights is actionable under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Doe Officers in an amount to be proved at trial, plus costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Train or Supervise Against Korogi, John and Jane Doe Supervisors Cognizable Under 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations. 50. The Defendant Veterans Affairs Medical Center is a person for purposes of a 1331 action. VAMC may therefore be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief for its practices that violate Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights. 51. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Korogi was acting director for VAMC. As the director, she is responsible for policymaking and administration. -11-

12 52. Officer Hill and other Doe Officers, as police officers of the VAMC, were acting under the direction and control of Korogi and the VAMC, who were responsible for its officers and its operations. 53. A 28 U.S.C claim may be asserted against a federal entity and/or its supervisors based on allegations of negligence in hiring, training, and supervising employees. 54. Korogi and VAMC Supervisors knew or should have known that officers at times will encounter football fans leaving the nearby stadium. 55. Korogi and VAMC Supervisors could have and should have instructed its officers not to stop, detain, or otherwise provoke individuals who have not committed any crime or infraction, and who have provided no reasonable suspicion that a crime or infraction has been or will be committed. 56. By not instructing its officers Korogi and the VAMC Supervisors showed deliberate indifference toward any citizen who might step onto VAMC property. 57. The violation of Plaintiffs rights is actionable under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Korogi and VAMC in an amount to be proved at trial, plus costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C

13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful Custom or Policy Against Korogi, John and Jane Doe Supervisors Cognizable Under 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations. 59. The Defendant Veterans Affairs Medical Center is a person for purposes of a 1331 action. VAMC may therefore be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief for its policies, customs, or practices that violate Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights. 60. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Korogi was acting director for VAMC. As the director, she is responsible for policymaking and administration. 61. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Officers Hill and other Doe Officers, as police officers of the VAMC, were acting under the direction and control of VAMC, which acted through its agents and employees who were responsible for its officers, its operations, and for making the policies of the VAMC Police Department. 62. A 28 U.S.C claim may be asserted against a federal entity and/or its supervisors based on failure to have a written policy, or a policy -13-

14 that is in place but is customarily not followed, may make the federal entity or supervisor liable for the deprivation of a person s civil rights. 63. Korogi and VAMC Supervisors knew or should have known that officers at times will encounter football fans leaving the nearby stadium. 64. Korogi and VAMC Supervisors failed to have a written policy regarding procedures for dealing with large crowds of people leaving the nearby Rice-Eccles Stadium. 65. By not having a written policy, and/or failing to enforce the policy, the Korogi and VAMC Supervisors showed deliberate indifference toward any citizen who might step onto VAMC property. 66. The violation of Plaintiffs rights is actionable under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Korogi and VAMC Supervisors in an amount to be proved at trial, plus costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all issues in this case. -14-

15 REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For general compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. For special damages as are shown at trial; 3. For punitive damages against named individuals as may be allowed by law; 4. For pre-judgment interest on the damages assessed by the verdict of the jury, as allowed by law; 5. For Plaintiff s costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred herein, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and 6. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. th DATED this 17 day of December, ROBERT B. SYKES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Alyson E. Carter ROBERT B. SYKES ALYSON E. CARTER Attorneys for Plaintiff Q:\CLIEN T\2015 Davis\2. P\2.1 CASE\Complaint wpd -15-