IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 1 of 1 14 of 14 MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES MARK B. FROST, ESQUIRE RYAN M. LOCKMAN, ESQUIRE 1515 MARKET STREET, STE. 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-351-3333 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : PHILLIP MYERS, : DANIEL DUFFY, : : Plaintiffs, : v. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, PA, : MAYOR TONY GEORGE : Individual and official capacity, : POLICE CHIEF MARCELLA LENDACKY, : Individual and official capacity, and : COMMANDER RONALD FOY, : Individual and official capacity, : : Defendants. : COMPLAINT : INTRODUCTION 1. This action for declaratory, injunctive, monetary and other appropriate relief is brought by Plaintiffs Phillip Myers and Daniel Duffy against Defendants City of Wilkes-Barre, Mayor Tony George, Police Chief Marcella Lendacky, and Commander Ronald Foy, to redress the intentional violations by the Defendants of the rights secured to Plaintiff by the laws of the United States of America and the statutory and common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, by and through the individual defendants, retaliated against Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs engaged in certain speech, 1

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 2 of 2 14 of 14 association and union activities, all of which were protected under the First Amendment, as will be set forth in this Complaint. JURISDICTION 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(3) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. 3. The amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs exceeds the sum of one hundred thousand Dollars ($100,000) per Plaintiff. VENUE 4. All the claims herein arose within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and involve Defendants who reside within the jurisdictional limits. Venue is accordingly invoked pursuant to the dictates of 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Phillip Myers has, at all times material since April 19, 2002 been a police officer for the Wilkes-Barre Police Department, which is the police force for the City of Wilkes- Barre. Plaintiff has at all times material resided in the jurisdictional limits of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 6. Plaintiff Daniel Duffy has, at all times material since February 6, 2014 been a police officer for the Wilkes-Barre Police Department, which is the police force for the City of Wilkes- Barre. Plaintiff has at all times material resided in the jurisdictional limits of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 2

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 3 of 3 14 of 14 7. Defendant City of Wilkes-Barre is a municipality in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, with municipal offices located at 40 East Market Street, Wilkes-Barre PA 18711. 8. Defendant Tony George has at all times material since approximately January 4, 2016 served as Mayor for the City of Wilkes-Barre. Mayor George is the former police chief of the Wilkes-Barre Police Department (W-BPD), the police department controlled and operated by the City of Wilkes-Barre. 9. Defendant Marcella Lendacky held the position of Acting Police Chief of the Wilkes-Barre Police Department, from approximately January of 2016 to March of 2016. On or about March 21, 2016, Lendacky was appointed as permanent Chief of Police by Mayor George, and she has served in such a capacity since that time. Prior to being made Chief, Lendacky s permanent rank was that of Lieutenant. 10. Defendant Commander Ronald Foy has at all times material since July 2016 served as Patrol Commander for the W-BPD. FACTS 11. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs by reference. 12. The Wilkes-Barre PD is comprised of approximately fifty-five (55) patrol officers, eight (8) detectives, seven (7) sergeants, three (3) Lieutenants, two (2) commanders and one (1) police chief. 13. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Myers has served as President of the W-BPD chapter of the Police Benevolent Association, a police union and bargaining unit for officers in the W-BPD. 14. At all times material herein since January of 2017, Plaintiff Duffy has served as Vice President of the W-BPD chapter of the PBA. 3

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 4 of 4 14 of 14 15. Said chapter of the PBA serves as the union for patrol officers, detectives, sergeants and lieutenants in the W-BPD. 16. The PBA does not represent the commanders or chief. 17. On or about March 17, 2015, Plaintiff Duffy filed a complaint against Defendant Lendacky, when Lendacky was serving as a Lieutenant. This complaint alleged that Lendacky _was engaging in a course of conduct that repeatedly violated agency codes of conduct and was targeting Plaintiff Duffy. 18. As a result of Plaintiff Duffy s complaint, Lendacky was disciplined by being sent to POLEX (Police Law Enforcement Executive Training). Other Lieutenants attended the same training with Lendacky. 19. As a result of Plaintiff Duffy s complaint, Duffy was removed from Lendacky s shift. 20. In approximately September or October 2015, then-mayoral candidate Tony George asked the PBA and local FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) to endorse him for Mayor of Wilkes- Barre. Plaintiff Myers, as PBA President, was asked by George to have the union endorse him for mayor. 21. Plaintiff Myers PBA president at the time advised George that the PBA would not endorse him because the PBA did not endorse candidates. 22. On or about October 9, 2015, the PBA formally voted not to endorse George for Mayor. 23. In November of 2015, Tony George won election for Mayor of Wilkes-Barre. 24. In approximately the end of 2015, Lieutenant Chris Roberts - the Records Commander at W-BPD - reported to the Police Chief at the time, Chief Hughes, that then-lt. Lendacky was altering police reports and/or reclassifying reports in order to reflect lesser crimes than 4

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 5 of 5 14 of 14 had actually been committed. Chief Hughes indicated that he planned to investigate the matter. 25. In or around January 4, 2016, Tony George took office as mayor. 26. Within days, on or about January 7, 2016, George removed Plaintiff Myers from his position as Community Policing Sergeant, in retaliation for Myers refusal to have the PBA endorse him for mayor. 27. Additionally, later in January of 2016, Mayor George coerced Chief Hughes to immediately go on leave and then retire at the end of March of 2016; George then appointed Defendant Marcella Lendacky as interim chief of police. 28. As a result of Hughes ouster and Lendacky s selection as interim Chief, no investigation was performed regarding Lendacky changing reports as set forth above. 29. Later in January of 2016, Lt. Roberts left his position as records commander, due to concerns regarding having Lendacky in command as chief. Roberts also submitted his concerns to the City of Wilkes-Barre s human resources department. 30. Subsequently, in March 2016, Plaintiff Myers drafted a letter with the input of the PBA board - with the intention of having it approved by the PBA and sent to Mayor George and Council regarding Lendacky, in an effort to prevent Lendacky s permanent appointment to Chief. 31. However, on March 21, 2016, the day in which the PBA was to close voting on whether the letter should be submitted to the mayor, Mayor George promoted Lendacky at an impromptu swearing-in ceremony. 32. This was done even though the prior chief, Chief Hughes, was still on leave and was not set to formally retire for another week. 5

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 6 of 6 14 of 14 33. Thus, for a one week period, based on the conduct of Defendants George and Lendacky, two individuals served as permanent W-BPD Police Chief simultaneously, in violation of the law and the W-BPD table of organization. 34. That same day, at Plaintiff Myers recommendation, the PBA nonetheless voted to submit the letter and did in fact send said letter to Mayor George regarding Lendacky. 35. Plaintiff Myers was responsible for the drafting of said letter and the effort to have it submitted on behalf of the PBA. 36. In approximately July of 2016 Ronald Foy was appointed to Patrol Commander by Lendacky, despite having no prior training or experience in a leadership role. 37. Thereafter, in September of 2016, Plaintiff Myers with other union members present - held meetings with the Mayor and City Administrator Ted Wampole, in his union capacity, regarding the state of the department and the department s relations with outside agencies, and the relationship between the administration and PBA, and leadership issues with Lendacky and her Command. 38. In approximately October 2016 and November 2016, the PBA ran a confidence survey - organized by Plaintiff Myers - among its members regarding the Chief and Command Staff in the department. This was done due to numerous complaints by PBA members made to Plaintiff Myers. 39. In November of 2016, the completed survey was released to the City Administration by Plaintiff Myers. This survey was then presented to City Council in December of 2016 by Plaintiff Myers. 40. Plaintiff Myers also indicated in this presentation that the PBA believed that the police department was mismanaged, that morale was unacceptably low, and that public safety had 6

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 7 of 7 14 of 14 suffered and would continue to suffer if the problems identified were not remedied. Plaintiff Myers also requested an investigation into the conduct of Defendant Lendacky as Chief. 41. At or around this time, in December of 2016, in his union capacity, Plaintiff Myers also gave City Administrator Ted Wampole copies of police reports which had been changed or altered by Lendacky while she was Lieutenant and Police Chief. In these reports, crimes were reclassified as lesser offenses, in order to fraudulently affect the crime statistics for the City of Wilkes-Barre and in order to falsely portray a message that crime was decreasing in the City. 42. No action was taken by the City or Mayor George in response to Plaintiff s request for an investigation into Lendacky s management, nor was any action taken in response to Myers complaints to Wompole regarding Lendacky falsifying crime records as set forth above. 43. In December of 2016, Plaintiff Daniel Duffy was elected Vice President of the PBA. 44. In December of 2016 and January of 2017, in his capacity as Vice President of the PBA, Plaintiff Duffy complained that training certifications for First Aid, CPR, and Taser expired for the majority of W-BPD officers, thus causing a safety concern for both officers and the public. 45. Thereafter, in December 2016 and January 2017, Commander Foy engaged in a hastilyorganized CPR and First Aid training session, which he was not qualified to conduct, and which did not meet minimum safety standards of the American Red Cross., thus jeopardizing the safety of the officers trained and the safety of the public. 7

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 8 of 8 14 of 14 46. In response, Plaintiffs Duffy and Myers in their union capacity - complained to Lendacky and Administrator Wompole regarding Foy s substandard form of training, noting that it violated instructor codes of conduct of the American Red Cross. 47. In retaliation for Plaintiffs complaints, Defendant Foy threatened to baselessly investigate Plaintiffs and withhold annual training pay from all PBA Members. 48. Plaintiff Duffy and Myers again complained to City Administration, regarding Foy s aforementioned threats. 49. In further retaliation, Foy unjustifiably ordered that Plaintiffs were prohibited even in their union capacity from making complaints to the City administrator, mayor or council, and that Plaintiffs were instead required to take all union complaints up the chain of command, even for PBA business with City management. 50. This order was unlawful and unjustifiably restricted Plaintiffs right to speech and association. 51. Thereafter, after Plaintiff Duffy again complained to Wompole on behalf of the union - regarding an issue involving the service of summary warrants for magisterial district court by PBA members, Plaintiff Duffy was told by a Magistrate Judge, Judge Malloy, that City management had put a target on your (Duffy s) back. Malloy also told Plaintiff that Wompole had recently inquired about a false claim of Duffy creating a disturbance in Malloy s courtroom, which Malloy informed Wompole was false. This was done in an effort to pretextually find a reason to discipline Plaintiff, in retaliation for his above complaints and actions as union officer. 8

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 9 of 9 14 of 14 52. In April of 2017, Defendant Foy ordered that officers would be prohibited from reviewing any police reports other than their own reports. This was done in an effort to hide Lendacky s changing of reports in order to downgrade crimes, as set forth above. 53. This order also prevented officers from staying informed regarding crimes in the City of Wilkes-Barre, and thus Plaintiffs reasonably believed that this order was illegal and posed a threat to public safety and to the safety of W-BPD and PBA police officers. 54. The PBA and Plaintiffs subsequently concluded that this order created a matter of public concern. 55. Accordingly, in April of 2017, Plaintiffs Myers and/or Duffy posted on the PBA Facebook page, in their capacity as PBA officers and on behalf of the PBA, regarding Foy s aforementioned Order. Plaintiff Duffy wrote said Facebook post, in collaboration with Plaintiff Myers. 56. Plaintiff Duffy also emailed Chief Lendacky, requesting that the order be rescinded. Plaintiff Myers similarly emailed Lendacky to have said order rescinded. 57. Later in April of 2017, Plaintiff Myers was called into a meeting with Defendant Foy and Commander Joseph Coffay. Myers was told that his presence was in his union capacity. Duffy also attended said meeting, in his union capacity. 58. Defendant Foy informed Plaintiffs that Mayor George had ordered him to investigate the PBA Facebook posting. 59. Foy also ordered Myers to reveal information regarding who authored the post and who administered the union Facebook page. Plaintiff Myers refused, as this order sought confidential and privileged union information. 9

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 10 10 of 14 of 14 60. Myers subsequently emailed Lendacky about this encounter, requesting her to instruct Foy to rescind his order for Myers to reveal the author of the post. 61. In May of 2017, in retaliation for Plaintiffs protected complaints, their refusal of an unlawful order, and the fact that they were perceived by the Defendants as having authored and/or been responsible for the posting of the aforementioned PBA Facebook post, the City issued disciplinary charges against Plaintiffs. 62. Plaintiffs subsequently sought to have Chief Lendacky rescind the order referenced in paragraph 54 above, with no success. 63. Having no success, on September 6, 2017, in his union capacity, Plaintiff Duffy then emailed Mayor George and Administrator Wompole in an effort to have the aforementioned order rescinded. 64. That same night, hours after Duffy emailed the mayor and administrator, the City issued suspension notices for their postings on the PBA Facebook page. 65. On September 7, 2017, referencing the order set forth in paragraph 54 above, Commander Coffay ordered that officers were again permitted to read other police reports. 66. On October 5, 2017, having learned that Plaintiffs had been suspended, City Council recommended that an outside entity be retained to conduct an inquiry into the W-BPD s management practices. 67. Plaintiffs Duffy and Myers met with Councilmembers, in their capacity as PBA President and Vice President, and again complained regarding W-BPD management. 68. On or about September 16 th 2017, Plaintiff Duffy in his capacity as Vice President of the PBA emailed Mayor George and City Administrator Wampole about an ongoing course of unbecoming conduct by Defendant Foy. 10

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 11 11 of 14 of 14 69. In response, Mayor George falsely claimed that Duffy had threatened him (George) and Wampole in the email. In reality no language in Plaintiff s email could be construed as threatening to Mayor George. 70. In response, Plaintiff Duffy was served with a disciplinary notice for charges based on his email to Mayor George and Administrator Wompole. 71. Further, at this time, Plaintiffs learned that Lendacky emailed George information about Plaintiffs, involving a lawsuit filed against Duffy while at his previous employer, and a civil suit filed by Myers twenty years earlier at his previous agency for wrongful termination. This was sent ostensibly in an effort to defame Plaintiffs and/or find pretextual reasons to retaliate against Plaintiffs. 72. Indeed, Mayor George subsequently forward said information to reporters, suggesting that said reporters write a negative news story about Duffy and Myers. This was done to retaliate against Plaintiffs for their protected complaints and association, as well as their failure to endorse George for mayor. 73. On or about October 18, 2017, Plaintiff Duffy was terminated, for his email to Mayor George and for the aforementioned PBA Facebook post, which Defendants perceived Duffy as having written. 74. Plaintiff Myers was also suspended without pay, related to his refusal to name the author of the aforementioned PBA Facebook post. 75. On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff Myers received a Loudermill notice, indicating that he would again be disciplined; Plaintiff has not yet actually received discipline regarding said notice. 11

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 12 12 of 14 of 14 76. On January 4, 2018, Plaintiff Myers received notice that he was going to be suspended without pay from January 10, 2018 to February 1, 2018, regarding a separate matter unrelated to the December 14, 2017 notice, and instead was related to a November 6, 2017 Loudermill notice that Defendant issued Plaintiff. This suspension was in further retaliation for his protected speech and conduct and for no legitimate reason. 77. The above adverse action and conduct by Defendants was undertaken to retaliate against Plaintiffs for their protected complaints, their protected union activities, and their refusal to endorse George for mayor. 78. As a result of the aforementioned retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered lost pay, lost pension benefits, lost stipends, other economic damages, loss of life s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress, physical manifestation of emotional distress, and other damages. COUNT I PLAINTIFFS V. ALL INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 42 U.S.C. 1983 FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS 79. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 80. Defendants violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983 in that Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of the privileges and immunities secured to him by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, in particular, their right to hold employment without infringement of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association. 12

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 13 13 of 14 of 14 81. Defendants willfully and recklessly took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs, in order to deny Plaintiffs their First Amendment right to free speech and association. 82. Defendants actions were to penalize and retaliate against Plaintiffs for their exercise of fundamental First Amendment rights of speech and association. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the United States Constitution; ii. iii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices; Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney s fees; v. Award punitive damages; vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT II PLAINTIFF V. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 83. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 84. Defendant City of Wilkes-Barre developed and maintained a number of deficient policies and/or customs which caused the deprivation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights. 13

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23 1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 14 14 of 14 of 14 85. Defendant City of Wilkes-Barre s policies and customs encouraged the individual defendants and other employees and officials of the City of Wilkes-Barre to believe that they could violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs with impunity and with the explicit or tacit approval of the Defendant City of Wilkes-Barre. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the United States Constitution; ii. iii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices; Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney s fees; v. Award punitive damages; vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: January 5, 2018 MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES /s/ Mark B. Frost Mark B. Frost, Esq. /s/ Ryan Lockman Ryan Lockman, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs 14

Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23-11-1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 1 of 1 2of 2 JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS City of Wilkes-Barre, Mayor Tony George, Police Chief Marcella Phillip Myers, Lendacky, Commander Ronald Foy Daniel Duffy (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Luzerne County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Luzerne County (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Ryan Lockman, Esq., Mark B. Frost, Esq. Mark B. Frost & Associates 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19102, 215-351-3333 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration Other 550 Civil Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court VI. CAUSE OF ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY DATE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 42 U.S.C 1983 Brief description of cause: First Amendment CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. (See instructions): DEMAND $ JUDGE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 01/05/2018 /s/ryan Lockman Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: Yes No DOCKET NUMBER RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17) Case Case 3:18-cv-00042-RDM 3:02-at-06000 Document 23-11-1 Filed Filed 01/05/18 Page Page 2 of 2 2of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) II. III. IV. Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue. VI. VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.