Courthouse News Service

Transcription

1 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN, PC th South Street Las Vegas, NV 0 Tel. (0) - Fax. (0) -0 LISA@LRASMUSSENLAW.COM JULIA YOO, ESQ. Pro Hac Vice Pending LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE G. IREDALE 0 West F Street, Fourth Floor San Diego, CA 0 Tel. () - Fax. () - Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID LANTRY; JACOB R. QUINTERO; and ANNA JOHNSON LANTRY, vs. Plaintiffs, JOSEPH McMINN, an individual; WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE; WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE TRIBAL COUNCIL; WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBAL POLICE; BIA SPECIAL AGENT DAMON EDMINSON, an individual; BIA SPECIAL AGENT MOLLY HERNANDEZ, an individual; GENIA WILLIAMS, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE AGENCIES and/or ENTITIES I through X, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No. 0-cv-0 COMPLAINT FOR: () VIOLATION OF U.S.C. UNLAWFUL ENTRY & SEARCH () UNREASONABLE EXECUTION OF ALLEGED WARRANT- and Biven () EXCESSIVE FORCE- () UNLAWFUL SEIZURE- () RETALIATION- () ASSAULT AND BATTERY () INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS th () AM/DUE PROCESS- () CONVERSION (0)NEGLIGENCE ()NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ()FAILURE TO PROPERLY SCREEN AND HIRE & Bivens ()FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN & Bivens ()FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE & Bivens Courthouse News Service PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of The Plaintiffs, DAVID LANTRY, JACOB R. QUINTERO, and ANNA JOHNSON LANTRY, by and through their counsel, hereby complain, allege and aver as follows: I. PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to U.S.C. in that claims herein arise under the federal civil rights statutes, pursuant to U.S.C., in that federal questions exist, and to the extent that the incidents alleged herein occurred on the Walker River Paiute Tribe s Reservation.. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over state law claims pursuant to U.S.C... Venue is proper in this District, because the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction here, and the claims arose here.. Plaintiffs claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, U.S.C. was timely filed on December, 00. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend to add the claims falling under the Federal Tort Claims Act after the processing of the administrative claims, assuming the claims are not resolved at the administrative level.. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($0,000.00) DOLLARS.. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs DAVID LANTRY, JACOB R. QUINTERO and ANNA JOHNSON LANTRY, were individuals residing in Mineral County, Nevada and residing on the Walker River Pauite Reservation.. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant JOSEPH MCMINN was an individual residing in Mineral County, Nevada and the chief of the Walker River Paiute Tribal Police.. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant WALKER RIVER PAIUTE

3 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of TRIBE was a tribe of Native Americans, organized under federal statute and existing in Mineral County, Nevada pursuant to federal law and/or treaty, and governed by its Tribal Council.. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBAL COUNCIL was organized and existed in Mineral County, Nevada. 0. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBAL POLICE was an organization exercising jurisdiction over the Walker River Paiute Reservation, located in Mineral County, Nevada and employing Defendant MCMINN and Does I through X who were acting within the scope of their employment.. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GENIA WILLIAMS was the Tribal Chairman of the Walker River Paiute Tribal Council, is and was a resident of the State of Nevada residing in Mineral County, Nevada, and was a policymaker for the Walker River Pauite Tribe.. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant MOLLY HERNANDEZ was a resident of Mineral County, Nevada, and employed as a Special Agent to the Bureau of Indians Affairs.. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant DAMIN EDMINSON was a resident of Mineral County, Nevada, and employed as a Special Agent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.. At all times relevant hereto, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was a federal agency of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and was operating in Mineral County, Nevada through, in part, its agents, Defendants Edminson and Hernandez.. Plaintiffs are truly ignorant of the true names and capacities of DOES I through X inclusive, and/or are truly ignorant of the facts giving rise to their liability and will amend this complaint once their identities have been ascertained as well as the facts giving rise to their liability.

4 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. Plaintiffs are truly ignorant of the true names and capacities of the ROES I through X inclusive, and/or are truly ignorant of the facts giving rise to their liability and will amend this complaint once their identities have been ascertained as well as the facts giving rise to their liability. II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. JACOB QUINTERO, hereinafter Jacob is the son of ANNA JOHNSON LANTRY, hereinafter Ms. Johnson and the step-son of DAVID LANTRY, hereinafter Mr. Lantry.. Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson are husband and wife. 0. On or about November, 00, Mr. Lantry filed a in the United States District Court, case number :0-cv-000 BES (VPC), naming Defendant WALKER RIVER PAUITE TRIBE TRIBAL POLICE, hereinafter Tribal Police, as a Defendant.. The November 00 alleges violations of federal constitutional law, common law torts under state law and violations of U.S.C... On December, 00 Mr. Lantry, Ms. Johnson and Jacob were residing on an allotment provided to Ms. Johnson, a member of the Walker River Paiute Tribe, located on the Walker River Paiute Reservation situated in Mineral County, Nevada.. Upon information and belief, on December, 00, Mineral County District Attorney Cheri Emm-Smith contacted agents for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and she was referred to Special Agent Keating of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

5 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. At the suggestion of Special Agent Keating, a Mineral County employee named Bret Charlie, acting in concert with the District Attorney of Mineral County, and Special Agent Keating of the FBI, Ms. Emm-Smith contacted Defendant McMinn, then the Chief of the Walker River Paiute Tribal Police (hereinafter Tribal Police ) because FBI Agent Keating suggested that McMinn could get a warrant more easily than the District Attorney in Mineral County.. Mineral County employee Bret Charlie contacted Defendant McMinn on December, 00 and Defendant McMinn stated that he would obtain a tribal warrant for Anna Johnson by :00 a.m. the following day and that this has been years in the making. Defendant McMinn then discussed how to execute the warrant, by flood technique or by dynamic technique of entry.. On December, 00, Defendant McMinn, Tribal Police Officer Howe, Tribal Police Officer Sanchez, Tribal Police Officer Sanchez, BIA Special Agent Edminson and BIA Special Agent Hernandez drove to the Lantry Residence to execute an alleged tribal warrant directed to Ms. Johnson and/or the Lantry-Johnson residence.. Defendants Edminson and Hernandez were present for the purpose of supervising the execution of the warrant, and undertook to ensure that the warrant was executed in a Constitutionally reasonable manner.. When Ms. Johnson opened the door to Defendant McMinn, Defendant McMinn was aiming a gun at her and he was not wearing clothing that identified him as a police officer.. Ms. Johnson screamed as she was forcibly removed from the residence to an area near the front door where she was then handled by Tribal Police Officers Howe and Sanchez. 0. Mr. Lantry was in his bedroom sleeping when he heard his wife scream.. Upon removing Ms. Johnson from the residence, McMinn entered the

6 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of Lantry-Johnson residence and fired multiple gun-shots at the family dog, Girl.. McMinn shot Girl dead.. McMinn never properly announced his purpose and authority before charging into the home.. Girl did not threaten McMinn, or any other law enforcement officer in any way and her presence was not an unforeseen circumstance.. When Mr. Lantry heard the shots fired, he was in his bedroom with one leg in his pants. Upon hearing the shots, he dropped his pants and ran, naked, down the hallway of the house toward the living area and toward the sound of gunfire.. Immediately after killing Girl, McMinn proceeded further into the residence and fired several shots towards and/or in the direction of Mr. Lantry.. Jacob saw McMinn shoot Girl, saw McMinn fire additional shots and then tried to wrestle the gun from McMinn.. McMinn and Jacob ended up on the ground in the family room/living room area.. McMinn then placed his firearm against Jacob s right hip and fired one shot, shattering Jacob s hip. The bullet projectile exited Jacob s body and entered another the shin of Tribal Officer Holbrook. 0. Mr. Lantry saw McMinn shoot Jacob.. Defendant McMinn, then on the floor with Jacob, pivoted toward Mr. Lantry, who was standing behind a split-wall at the entry to the hallway, and McMinn fired additional gunshots at Mr. Lantry, two of which struck Mr. Lantry.. The two bullets remain in Mr. Lantry s body.. Jacob s injuries were severe. Jacob required hospitalization and surgery.. Mr. Lantry s injuries were severe. He required hospitalization and multiple surgeries and he faces the possibility of additional, future surgeries.

7 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. Anna Johnson observed the shooting of the family dog, Girl. She was outside the front door of the Lantry-Johnson residence when she heard the additional shots that were directed at her son and her husband.. Anna Johnson was then handcuffed and placed in a police car, where she remained crying and screaming for help for her husband and son for several hours.. McMinn, Holbrook, Sanchez, Howe, Hernandez and Edminson and others unknown, then denied medical care to Mr. Lantry and to Jacob for hours as the two of them lay bleeding and in excruciating pain.. The Walker River Pauite Tribal Council, led by Tribal Chairman GENIA WILLIAMS, hereinafter Ms. Williams, convened shortly thereafter, in December 00, and issued an order banishing Mr. Lantry from his residence located on the Walker River Pauite Reservation.. The banishment order has not been revoked. 0. As a result of the banishment order, Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson have not been able to live in their family home and they have had to locate alternative housing.. The Lantry-Johnson residence was under construction at the time of the incident and there were some exterior surfaces that had not been completed.. As a result of the banishment order, Mr. Lantry s inability to return to their family home, and Mr. Lantry s severe injuries, the exterior construction could not be completed and the home has suffered extensive damage that will require substantial work in order to render it habitable for future tenants.. As a result of the banishment order, Mr. Lantry s inability to return to their family home, and Mr. Lantry s severe injuries, Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson have lost approximately buffalo that they raised in captivity and one horse.

8 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson have not been able to live together in their family home, as husband and wife, due to the banishment order.. Defendant McMinn has a known history of reckless behavior as a Tribal Police Officer and he has a known history of shooting dogs without provocation. III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action ( U.S.C. ) Unlawful Entry and Search under an Invalid Warrant (against Defendant McMinn and Does I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. U.S.C. provides in part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit at equity or other proper proceeding for redress.. Plaintiffs had a firmly established right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.. On December, 00, Defendant McMinn entered and searched the Lantry home with an invalid warrant, violating the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. 0. The warrant was invalid because it was not issued in conformity with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, nor in compliance with relevant statutes and rules, including, but not limited to proper Tribal authority.. Defendant McMinn was acting under color of law in violating

9 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of Plaintiffs rights by entering the family home without a valid search warrant. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial.. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial.. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action ( U.S.C. ) Unreasonable Execution of the alleged warrant (against McMinn, Hernandez, Edminson and Does I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. Plaintiffs had a firmly established right to be free from unreasonable entry and search of the police into the family home and unnecessarily destructive behavior, beyond that necessary to execute a warrant effectively.. An officer s conduct in executing a search is subject to the Fourth

10 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page 0 of Amendment s mandate of reasonableness from the moment of the officer s entry until the moment of departure.. On December, 00, McMinn rushed into the home with their guns drawn, immediately shooting the family dog without provocation.. Defendant McMinn started shooting Mr. Lantry and Jacob and killing the family dog, Girl, without properly identifying themselves, giving proper commands, or giving the residents an opportunity to comply.. Special Agents Hernandez and Edminson were there to supervise the execution of the warrant on December, 00. Under Bivens, they had an obligation to supervise in a manner to prevent unreasonable violations of the th Amendment. This they did not do. 0. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial.. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action ( U.S.C. ) Excessive Force (against McMinn, Hernandez, Edminson and Does I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and

11 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. Plaintiffs had a firmly established right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from official infliction of physical abuse, assault, battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.. Plaintiffs had a firmly established right to be free from excessive force being used against them; and to be free from the imposition of summary punishment without due process of law.. On December, 00, Plaintiffs posed no threat to Defendant McMinn when McMinn used excessive force in shooting Mr. Lantry, shooting Jacob, and killing the family dog, Girl.. Defendants also used excessive force in denying Mr. Lantry and Jacob medical care for hours after they had been shot.. Defendant McMinn was the Chief of the Tribal Police at the time of the incident. McMinn acted under color of law in violating Plaintiffs rights by shooting Mr. Lantry and Jabob and killing their family dog.. Special Agents Hernandez and Edminson were agents of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and were acted under the color of law in violating Plaintiffs rights by shooting Mr. Lantry, shooting Jacob, killing their family dog and in denying Mr. Lantry and Jacob medical care for a period of several hours.. During the relevant period, McMinn was acting in purported compliance with policy promulgated by the Tribal Police and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and was acting under the pretense of law, to wit: under the color of the statutes, customs and usages of the Tribal Police and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. 0. Defendant McMinn, acting under the color of statute, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the Tribal Police, and the BIA and Hernandez and Edminson, acting under the color of authority as special agents of the BIA, knew that killing a family pet and shooting occupants of a home while executing

12 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of a warrant was not justified except under the most extreme circumstances.. Defendant McMinn, Hernandez and Edminson deprived Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States.. Plaintiffs were subjected to humiliation, fear, physical injury, and pain and suffering by the illegal acts of defendant McMinn, Hernandez and Edminson.. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial.. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action ( U.S.C. ) Unconstitutional Seizure of Dog Named Girl (against Defendant McMinn and Does I through X) Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and incorporate the same herein by this reference as if those paragraphs were set forth in full herein.. Girl was a one-year old family dog with no prior behavior of aggression or violence.. On December, 00, Defendant McMinn entered the Lantry home

13 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of and shot Girl multiple times, killing her.. Girl made no attempt to attack Defendant McMinn or anyone else inside the family home.. Defendant McMinn had made no attempt to ask Jacob, who was with Girl, to take her inside another bedroom or another part of the house.. Defendant McMinn had made no attempt to isolate Girl or consider any other means of getting Girl away from him and the other police officers before shooting her. 0. Plaintiffs had a firmly established right to be free from the killing of their family dog, as the Defendants knew or should have known that the Fourth Amendment forbids the killing of a person s dog when it is unreasonable.. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial.. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action ( U.S.C. ) Unconstitutional Retaliation (against Defendants McMinn, Walker River Pauite Tribal Council, Genia Williams and Does I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and

14 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. Mr. Lantry filed a lawsuit in November 00 against the River Pauite Tribal Police, alleging violations of federal constitutional law, common law torts under state law and violations of the United States Code under Title.. All of the acts complained herein, including the unlawful entry into the home with an invalid warrant, the unreasonable entry into the home, the use of excessive force, killing of Girl, banishment from their home, and taking of their property were all motivated by the defendants desire to retaliate for the November, 00.. Killing the family dog, Girl, served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, and it was done to punish the plaintiffs for the previous lawsuit.. Use of excessive force in shooting the Plaintiffs, Mr. Lantry and Jacob, and refusing to provide medical care to severely injured Plaintiffs was done to punish the plaintiffs for suing the police department.. The Walker River Pauite Tribal Council, led by Defendant Williams, convened in December 00 and issued an order banishing Mr. Lantry from his residence located on the Walker River Pauite Reservation.. The banishment order has not been revoked. 00. Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson have not been able to live as husband and wife at their family home due to the banishment order. 0. On December, 00, Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson possessed approximately buffalo and one horse, hereinafter referred to as their chattel. 0. The chattel have since died and/or disappeared due to Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson s inability to return to and/or live at their family home located on the Walker River Paiute Reservation. 0. These acts were done as a retaliation for Mr. Lantry s prior lawsuit for a civil rights violation.

15 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of 0. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial. 0. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Assault and Battery (against Defendant McMinn and Does I through X) 0. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and 0. Defendant McMinn acted with an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with the persons of Mr. Lantry and Jacob and the intended harmful or offensive contact did in fact occur. 0. The harmful or offensive contact was not privileged nor consented to and was excessive, unreasonable and done with deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of Plaintiffs and was done with the intent to inflict punishment, above and beyond the reason for using the force in the first place. 0. As a result of the Defendant McMinn s intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with the person of Mr. Lantry and Jacob and the fact that the intended harmful or offensive contact did in fact occur, Mr. Lantry and Jacob

16 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of have suffered damages according to proof at the time of trial. Said damages are currently in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court and include general and special damages according to proof at the time of trial. As a proximate result of the injuries and damages suffered by Mr. Lantry, he is unable to participate in household activities and to engage in other aspects of his marital relationship with Ms. Johnson. 0. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud, or malice under state law, justifying an award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney s fees and costs of suit herein. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against McMinn, Williams, Tribal Council, Does I through X and Roes I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, the defendants engaged in outrageous conduct with an intent to or a reckless disregard of the probability of causing plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress.. Shooting Plaintiffs then denying them any medical care and shooting the docile family dog amount to outrageous conduct.. Banishing Plaintiffs from their residence as a retaliation amount to outrageous conduct.. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result, plaintiffs suffered

17 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of severe emotional distress and the outrageous conduct was the cause of the emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs. As a proximate result of the injuries and damages suffered by Mr. Lantry, he is unable to participate in household activities and to engage in other aspects of his marital relationship with Ms. Johnson.. The conduct of defendants also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law and punitive damages should be assessed against each defendant for the purpose of punishment and for the sake of example. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action ( U.S.C. ) Violation of Due Process, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (against Defendants Williams and Walker River Tribal Council and Does I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. Plaintiff Lantry was removed from his family home in a determination made with no notice to him or his wife, Ms. Johnson.. The banishment caused the loss of chattel and the loss of use and enjoyment of their property and family home and damage and destruction to the structure that was their family home. It also causes damage to the structure of their family residence. 0. Plaintiffs Lantry and Johnson have a firmly established right to due process under the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from the deprivation of their property without notice and an opportunity to be heard.. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Fifth Amendment forbids depriving persons of their property without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

18 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. The conduct alleged herein caused Plaintiffs Lantry and Johnson to be deprived of their civil rights that are protected under the United States Constitution which has also legally, proximately, foreseeably and actually caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering, damage to reputation and further damages according to proof at the time of trial.. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under federal law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conversion (against Defendants Williams, Walker River Tribe, Walker River Tribal Council, Doex I through X and Roes I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. The Defendants banished Mr. Lantry from his residence, thereby causing Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson to lose personal items within their home, their chattel previously identified herein, and loss of the integrity of their home and its structure.. The conversion occurred by virtue of the Tribe, its council and Ms. Williams wrongful dominion over Plaintiffs personal property and/or the defendants wrongful interference with the owner s dominion over their personal property.. The acts alleged herein were intentional by virtue of the intentional

19 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of banishment order.. The acts alleged herein caused actual interference with Mr. Lantry and Ms. Johnson s rights to their personal property and caused damages in an amount to be specified at trial.. The conduct alleged herein also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice under state law; justifying the award of exemplary damages against defendants in an amount according to proof at the time of trial in order to deter the defendants from engaging in similar conduct and to make an example by way of monetary punishment. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney fees and costs of suit herein. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (against Defendants McMinn, Walker River Paiute Tribal Council; Walker River Paiute Tribal Police, Williams, Does I through X and Roes I through X) 0. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs to act with ordinary care and prudence so as not to cause harm or injury to another.. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, the Defendants failed to act with ordinary care and breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiffs.. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendants breach of their duty of care, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Defendants McMinn, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Walker River Paiute Tribal Council; Walker River Paiute Tribal Police, Williams, Does I

20 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page 0 of through X and Roes I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, the Defendants engaged in negligent conduct causing plaintiffs to suffer serious emotional distress.. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional distress and the outrageous conduct was the cause of the emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs.. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be set forth at trial. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action (Pursuant to U.S.C. and Bivens) For Failure to Properly Screen and Hire (Against Defendants Williams, Hernandez, Edminson, Tribal Police, Tribal Council, the Tribe and Does I through X and Roes I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. This cause of action is based upon Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narotic Agents 0 U.S. () and U.S.C.. 0. The defendants, Tribal Police, Tribal Council, The Walker River Paiute Tribe, Genia Williams, S/A Hernandez, S/A Edminson, their agents, servants and employees failed to adequately and properly screen and hire the defendant employees.. The failure of these defendants to properly screen and hire the defendant police officers as a matter of policy, custom and practice, in the exercise of their functions, was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional

21 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of rights of plaintiffs and done with conscious disregard for the dangers of harm and injury to the plaintiffs and others similarly situated.. Due to the acts of the defendants, the failure to properly screen and hire police officers and the continued employment of the defendant police officers present a clear and present danger to the members of the Walker River Paiute Tribe and to the residents of the Walker River Paiute Reservation.. The lack of adequate screening and hiring practices by the defendants evince deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs and others in their position.. These hiring practices led to the employment of defendant McMinn, and caused the harms suffered by the plaintiffs in this case.. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs suffered physical and psychological injuries and are entitled to damages in an amount to be set forth at trial.. As a result of the actions of the Defendants herein, Plaintiffs have been forced to retain counsel and are entitled to an award of attorney s fees and costs of suit herein. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action (Pursuant to U.S.C. and Bivens) For Failure to Property Train (against Defendants Williams, Hernandez, Edminson, Tribe, Tribal Council, Tribal Police, Does I through X and Roes I through X). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and. This cause of action is based upon Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narotic Agents 0 U.S. () and U.S.C... The Tribal Police, BIA Defendants, the Tribe, the Tribal Council and

22 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of Ms. Williams, as a matter of custom, practice and policy, failed to maintain adequate and proper training for police officers employed by the Walker River Paiute Tribe necessary to educate the officers as to the constitutional rights of citizens and arrestees; to prevent the consistent and systematic use of excessive force by off duty officers; and to prevent extra judicial punishment by officers. 0. Defendants failed to provide adequate training and supervision to police officers that hold the power, authority, insignia, equipment and arms entrusted to them. Defendants failed to promulgate and enforce adequate policies and procedures related to police misconduct, the violation of citizens civil rights, and harassment and assault.. Therefore, these defendants, with deliberate indifference, disregarded a duty to protect the public from official misconduct.. The failure to promulgate or maintain constitutionally adequate training was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs and others in their position.. The constitutionally infirm lack of adequate training as to the officers in this case caused plaintiffs damages.. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs suffered physical and psychological injuries in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.. As a result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney s fees and costs of suit herein. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Action (Pursuant to U.S.C. and Bivens) for Failure to Properly Supervise (against Defendants Edminson, Hernandez, Williams, Tribe, Tribal Police, Tribal Council, Does I through X and Roes I through ). Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and

23 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of. This cause of action is based upon Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narotic Agents 0 U.S. () and U.S.C... The Tribe, Tribal Police, Tribal Police, BIA Defendants, Williams, and Doe defendants as a matter of custom, practice and policy, failed to adequately supervise police officers employed by the Walker River Paiute Tribe to ensure that the officers uphold the constitutional rights of citizens and arrestees; to prevent the consistent and systematic use of excessive force.. Defendants Edminson and Hernandez failed to take any action to supervise Defendant McMinn during the events of December, 00. These defendants took no action while McMinn was violating the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs by shooting Mr. Lantry, Jacob and Girl. 0. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendants breach of their duty of care, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.. As a result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney s fees and costs of suit herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:. For general and special damages according to proof at the time of trial;. For attorney s fees as provided by statute and/or applicable law;. For costs of suit and interest incurred herein,. For loss of consortium and service,. For punitive damages, and. Any further injunctive or declaratory relief this court deems just and proper, including an injunction requiring the institution of appropriate screening

24 Case :0-cv-00-BES-VPC Document Filed /0/00 Page of and hiring procedures, proper training procedures, appropriate supervision and discipline procedures and prohibition of the unjustified use of force because of their expression of complaints. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL YOU, AND EACH OF YOU, WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs DAVID LANTRY, ANNA JOHNSON LANTRY AND JACOB QUINTERO hereby demand a trial by jury of all of the issues raised in the above-entitled matter. Furthermore, there are additional claims that may be added once the administrative requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act have been satisfied. Plaintiffs make jury demand for all such future claims that may be added pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act Demand made on December, 00. Dated: December, 00. LAW OFFICE OF LISA RASMUSSEN, /s/ Lisa A. Rasmussen LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. th South Street Las Vegas, NV 0 Tel. (0) - Fax. (0) -0 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE G. IREDALE JULIA YOO, ESQ. Pro Hac Vice Pending (CO/CA lic) 0 West F Street, Fourth Floor San Diego, CA 0 Tel. () -