Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 12

BOND LAW OFFICES, CHTD

Virginia Bond
P.O. Box 308
250 S. Main St
Payette, ID 83661
Phone: (208) 642-4748
Facsimile: (208) 642-0166
Idaho State Bar No: 3842
Email: [email protected]
KENNETH F. STRINGFIELD
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 777
Caldwell, ID 83606
Phone: (208) 459-6879
Fax: (208) 442-7915
Idaho State Bar No: 3907
Email: [email protected]
BAZZOLI LAW, PLLC
Aaron Bazzoli
815 Fillmore St
Caldwell, Idaho 83605
Phone: (208) 402-5827
Fax: (208) 874-4307
Idaho State Bar No. 5512
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kinkade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CARRIE ANN KINKADE,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. 16-CV-194

vs.

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT

CITY OF WEISER, WEISER POLICE

DEPARTMENT, BRANDON HATHORN,
individually, JASON MAXFIELD, individually,
and CHIEF GREG MOON
Defendants.

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 1

(42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985)

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 12

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, VIRGINIA

BOND, Bond Law Chtd, AARON BAZZOLI, Bazzoli Law, PLLC, and Ken Stringfield,
Attorney at Law, and hereby complains and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
I.

This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 and Bivens
v. Six Unnamed Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), filed by Plaintiff for
violations of her protected rights to be free from the use of excessive force, illegal
seizure, and unlawful arrest pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the Untied States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

II.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim of violations of federal

constitutional rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 1343. This action is
authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, and Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

III.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs State claims set forth in this complaint
pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction to hear related state law claims under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(a). Both the federal and the state claims alleged herein arose
from a common nucleus of operative facts, the state claim is so related to the
federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy, and the actions
would ordinarily be expected to be tried in one judicial proceeding.

IV.

Actions complained of herein took place within the jurisdiction of the United
States District Court, District of Idaho in that one or more of the defendants reside
in Idaho and Plaintiffs claims for relief arose in this District. Accordingly, venue
in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 2

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 12

PARTIES
V.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff Carrie Ann Kinkade has resided in the city of
Fruitland and/or Payette County, Idaho.

VI.

At all relevant times, Defendant Brandon Hathorn, was a law enforcement officer
employed by the City of Weiser Police Department and working under color of
law. Defendant Hathorn is sued in his individual capacity.

VII.

At all relevant times, Defendant Jason Maxfield, was a law enforcement officer
employed by the City of Weiser Police Department and working under color of
law. Defendant Maxfield is sued in his individual capacity.

VIII.

At all relevant times, Defendant Gregg Moon, was a law enforcement officer
employed by the City of Weiser Police Department and working under color of
law. Defendant Moon is sued in his individual capacity.

IX.

At all relevant times, Defendant City of Weiser, is a political subdivision of the

State of Idaho. As a local government entity, Defendant City of Weiser, is a
suable person under 42 U.SC. Section 1983. At all relevant times to this
Complaint, Defendant City of Weiser, employed Defendants Hathorn and
Maxfield. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendants Hathorn and
Maxfield were acting pursuant to Defendant City of Weisers laws, customs,
and/or policies. As the employer of Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield, City of
Weiser is vicariously liable for all of the tortious and unconstitutional acts and
omissions of the defendants committed within the scope and course of their
employment.

X.

At all relevant times, Defendant City of Weiser Police Department, is a local

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 3

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 12

government entity. As a local government entity, Defendant City of Weiser

Police, is a suable person under 42 U.SC. Section 1983. At all relevant times to
this Complaint, Defendant City of Weiser Police Department and the then chief of
Police, Greg Moon, employed Defendants Hathorn and Maxfield. At all relevant
times to this Complaint, Defendants Hathorn and Maxfield were acting pursuant
to Defendant City of Weiser Police Departments laws, customs, training and/or
policies. As the employer of Defendant Maxfield and Defendant Hathorn, City of
Weiser Police Department is vicariously liable for all of the tortious and
unconstitutional acts and omissions of the defendants committed within the scope
and course of their employment.
XI.

At all relevant times, Defendant City of Weiser Police Department, is a local

government entity. As a local government entity, Defendant City of Weiser
employed Chief of Police, Greg Moon, who is a person suable under 42 USC.
Section 1983. That Greg Moon failed to adequately train and supervise
defendants Maxfield and Hathorn. That Greg Moon was warned prior to the
incident with Ms. Kinkade about Defendant Hathorns excessive use of force on
prior occasions, and failed to protect the public or adequately train and supervise
Defendant Hathorn. As the chief in charge of the listed officers and training
relevant to excessive use of force, illegal seizure, unlawful arrest, Greg Moon
failed to adequately train officers, and thereby protect citizens of the public.

XII.

All Defendants have acted under color of state and/or federal law at all times
relevant to this Complaint.

XIII.

Plaintiff served a timely tort claim notice in compliance with the Idaho Tort

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 4

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 5 of 12

Claims Act.
XIV. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1988.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
XV.

On or about the 21st day of May, 2014, Defendants Hathorn and Maxfield
responded to a police dispatch call at Legends in Weiser, Idaho. Defendants found
Ms. Kinkade outside of the business, and, after an initial investigation, Ms.
Kinkade was asked by Defendant Hathorn to leave the location. Ms. Kinkade
made statements that she would be leaving and asked Defendant Hathorn that
since she was leaving, she could say fuck you to him and there was nothing he
could do. After making another statement of fuck you to the officer and a
gesture, Defendant Hathorn grabbed Ms. Kinkade by the throat and choked her.

XVI. While choking, Ms. Kinkade struggled to break the grasp on her throat.
Defendant Hathorn released Ms. Kinkade who again stated fuck you and tried
to push him away from her, Defendant Hathorn then rushed Ms. Kinkade, threw
his right arm around her neck, and then slammed her to the concrete sidewalk
landing with his full weight on top of her.
XVII. Without cause, Defendant Hathorn then arrested Ms. Kinkade and placed her in
handcuffs, and walked and dragged her to a patrol car. Ms. Kinkade did not have
shoes on. Defendants directed her to the patrol car about one-half block away by
pulling up on her panties and half carrying her to the vehicle.
XVIII. Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield attempted to put Ms. Kinkade in the patrol
vehicle and pat her down, when Ms. Kinkade stated that she was not going to

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 5

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 6 of 12

comply, Defendant Hathorn threw her face down into the concrete and frisked
her. Defendant Hathorn, spread her legs apart and frisked her while she was face
down on the ground, during this assault placed his knee in her back, rolled her
around. She sustained cuts, scrapes and bruises.
XIX. Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield then forced Ms. Kinkade into the patrol vehicle
and Defendant Maxfield drove her to the Weiser Police Department and parked in
the Sally Port.
XX.

Ms. Kinkade requested a different officers take her out of the patrol vehicle. Ms.
Kinkade made multiple requests while inside the vehicle to have a different
officer assist her.

XXI. After Ms. Kinkades repeated requests for a different officer, Defendant Hathorn
grabbed Ms. Kinkade by her hair to pull her out of the vehicle while Defendant
Maxfield began pushing her out of the vehicle. Defendant Hathorn pulled Ms.
Kinkade out of the back seat of the patrol car, handcuffed, by the hair and head,
and dropped her face first onto the concrete floor. Ms. Kinkade was knocked
unconscious.
XXII. Ms. Kinkade was violently picked up and drug to the jail, placed in a chair with
restraints, then strapped down, and booked into the jail before any of her wounds
were reviewed or treated.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Excessive Force
42 U.S.C. 1983 and/or Bivens cause of action:
Violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments against Defendants
XXIII. Ms. Kinkade incorporates by reference paragraphs I-XX as though fully set forth
herein.
XXIV. Ms. Kinkade is entitled to be free from unlawful search and seizure of her person
AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 6

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 7 of 12

pursuant to the parameters of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Ms. Kinkade is entitled to be safe and secure from under and
unreasonable force when being seized by law enforcement.
XXV. The acts and omissions of Defendants in using extreme and unwarranted force on
Ms. Kinkade when conducting an unlawful arrest, including, but are not limited
to, choking her, throwing her to the ground on multiple occasions, and dropping
her face first onto a concrete floor without any way of cushioning her fall. These
actions, individually and collectively violated Ms. Kinkades protected rights,
were an excessive seizure of her person, were objectively unreasonable based
upon the totality of the circumstances and amounted to deliberate indifference to
Ms. Kinakdes protected rights. Defendants violated the requirements of the 4th
and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution held by Ms. Kinkade to
the integrity of her person to be free from excessive and unconstitutional use of
force.
XXVI. The specific actions of Defendants, individually and in concert with each other
alleged to be a violation of Ms. Kinkades protected rights are more specifically
set forth below:
a.

Defendant Hathorn used excessive force when reaching out and choking
Ms. Kinkade with his hand.

b.

Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield used excessive force when Defendant

Hathorn grabbed Ms. Kinakde around the throat and neck and threw her
onto the concrete road.

c.

Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield used extreme and excessive force when

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 7

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 8 of 12

Defendant Hathorn threw Ms. Kinkade to the ground handcuffed to

conduct a pat down search.
d.

Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield used extreme and excessive force when
they pulled and pushed Ms. Kinkade out of the back seat of the patrol car
and dropped her face down onto the concrete floor without any means of
breaking her fall.

e.

Defendant Hathorn and Maxfields use of excessive and extreme force

was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances presented to the
police officers, including, without limitation, that at the time of the seizure
Ms. Kinkade had not exhibited any force or aggression against
Defendants, Ms. Kinkade was under control of Defendants when she was
repeatedly thrown and dropped on the ground, Ms. Kinkade was
handcuffed, and the Defendants knew or had reason to know that Ms.
Kinkade presented no clear and imminent danger to themselves or others;

f.

Defendants knew or should have known that actions utilizing significantly

less force could have been used effectively to detain Ms. Kinkade;

g.

Defendants failed to act upon prior warning of previous incidents of

excessive force. Defendant Moon failed to properly train and supervise
officers as to proper use of force in an arrest and probable cause for arrest,
or develop a policy of use of least force necessary to accomplish the same
result.

h.

Defendants failed to utilize an objectively reasonable assessment of the

facts and level of threat of Ms. Kinkade when they decided to use

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 8

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 9 of 12

excessive and extreme force against Ms. Kinkade;

i.

None of the officers attempted to use a degree of reasonable force less

then excessive force and the choice to use such lesser degree of force was
objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
All Defendants conduct was well defined by law and each defendant

XXVII.

knew or reasonably should have known that their conduct was not only well
below the standard prescribed by law, but was illegal per se.
XXVIII.

As a result of the violations of the Constitutional standards set forth

herein, Plaintiff suffered significant physical injuries, as well as emotional and

mental trauma. The extent of Plaintiffs injuries and damages will be more fully
proven at trial.
XXIX. Each of the actions described above were performed by Defendants Hathorn and
Maxfield, while they were on duty, working and employed by the City of Weiser
and the Weiser Police Department, in uniform, and carrying a badge and a
weapon operating under color of authority and law.
XXX. Plaintiff was required to hire attorneys to represent her in this matter and are thus
entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Arrest without Probable Cause
42 U.S.C. 1983 and/or Bivens cause of action:
Violation of the 4th and 14th Amendment against Defendants
XXXI. Plaintiff incorporated herein by reference paragraphs I-XXVIII as is more fully
set forth herein.
XXXII.

Plaintiff is entitled to be free from unlawful and unreasonable search and

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 9

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 10 of 12

seizure and confinement of her person pursuant to the parameters of the 4th and
14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
XXXIII.

The acts and omission of Defendants in arresting Plaintiff violated

Plaintiffs protected rights against seizure of her person without probable cause,
was objectively unreasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, and
amounted to deliberate indifferent to Plaintiffs protected rights. Defendants
violated the requirements of the 4th and 14th Amendment rights held by Plaintiff to
the integrity of their person and their right to be free from unlawful arrest.
XXXIV.

The specific acts of defendants, individually and in concert with each

other, alleged to be deliberately indifferent, failure to train, are more particularly

set forth below:
a.

Defendant Hathorn and Maxfield arrested and seized Ms. Kinkade in the
public street because she made a statement to the officers after being told
that she was free to go, she stated, Then I can tell you to fuck off and you
cannot do anything about it.

b.

Ms. Kinkade then stated the same again at which time and without reason,
Defendant Hathorn grabbed Ms. Kinkade by the throat with one hand and
choked her.

c.

During and after Defendant Hathorn was choking her, Ms. Kinkade
attempted to get him away from her, using reasonable force to protect
herself from Defendant Hathorn unreasonable aggression.

d.

Defendant Hathorn again then attacked Ms. Kinkade and with one arm
around her neck, threw her forcibly onto the concrete and landed with his

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 10

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 11 of 12

full weight upon her.

e.

At the time of Defendants actions, there was no probable cause to believe

that Ms. Kinkade had violated any laws or misdemeanors in the officers
presence. Ms. Kinkade was subject to arrest and detention, and the
circumstances then present did not warrant the detention of Ms. Kinkade
as there was no criminal activity occurring or probable cause of criminal
activity.

f.

Defendant Chief Moon failed to adequately train or supervise officers

Hathorn and Maxfield in proper use of force in an arrest or detaining.
Chief Moon failed to take appropriate measures to protect the
public/citizens after Chief Moon was previously warned regarding
Hathorns excessive use of force on previous occasions.

XXXV.

All Defendants conduct was well defined by law and each defendant

knew or should have known that their conduct was not only well below the
standard of law described herein, but was illegal per se.
XXXVI.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions described herein, Ms.

Kinkade sustained physical, emotional, and mental injury. The extent of Ms.
Kinkades damages will be more fully proven at trial.
XXXVII.

All of the actions described herein were performed by Defendants while

they were on duty, working for and employed by City of Weiser and the City of
Weiser Police Department, in uniform, and carrying a badge and weapon and
therefore acting under color of state law and authority.

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 11

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4 Filed 05/16/16 Page 12 of 12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE: Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
1.

On all claims for relief Plaintiff prays for judgment finding that her protected
rights were violated:

2.

Findings that the Defendants used excessive force on Plaintiff;

3.

Findings that Defendants arrested Plaintiff without probable cause for a

warrant;

4.

Award Plaintiff compensatory damages of $1,000,000 or in an amount to be

ascertained according to proof against all Defendants;

5.

Award Plaintiff Punitive damages against Defendants in their individual and

government capacities, in an amount sufficient to punish them and deter
others for like conduct;

6.

Award Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys fees and costs against all
Defendants;

7.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all questions of fact or combined questions of

law and fact raised by this complaint.

DATED: Monday, May 16, 2016

/S/ Virginia Bond ________________
Virginia Bond
Attorney for the Plaintiff Kinkade

AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, Page | 12

Case 1:16-cv-00194-CWD Document 4-1 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. II/IS)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadin&s or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requtrcd for the usc of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF TillS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

CARRIE ANN KINCADE

City of Weiser, Weiser Police Department Chief of Police Greg Moon,

Officer Brandon Hathorn, Officer Jason Maxfield
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant __Washingtor1, Idaho

Payett~._l_daho

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(F.XCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE:

(C) Attorneys (firm Name, Adtfre.r.~. and Telephcme N11mher)

Virg1nia Bond- PO Box 308, Payette, Idaho 83661, 208-642-4748
Ken Stringfield, Po Box 777, Caldwell, Idaho 83606, 208-459-6879
Aaron Bazzoli, 815 Filmore Street, Caldwell, Idaho 83606, 208-402-5827

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Piacean "X"inOneBn.tOn(vJ

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in one Bn.tfor Plaintiff

(For Diver.dty Ca.re.f On(v)

:II

::J2

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

lf3

U.S. Govmuncnt
Defendant

LJ4

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Purty)

Diversity

__ iCONTRACT ..c--

0
LJ
CJ
LJ
LJ

n
LJ

LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ

REAL PROP.ERt:Y

n 2 I0 Land Condemnation
LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ

- :- -.:::-.-

c .. :~

110 Insurance
120Marine
I 30 Mitter Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
I SO Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
IS I Medicare Act
I 52 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
I 53 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' SuiL~
I 90 Other Contract
I95 Contract Product Liability
I96 Franchise

Citizen ofThis State

DEF
0 I

Citizen of Another State

LJ 2

Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State

Citi1.cn or Subject of a
ForeiRn Country

Foreign Nation

Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business In This State

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Piate an "X" in One Bo:c OnM

I

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
LJ I

220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Ton Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

:
I

TORTS

-.

PERSONAL INJURY
LJ 310 Airplane
LJ 31 S Airplane Product
Liability
LJ 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
n 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
LJ 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
LJ 350 Motor Vehicle
Ll 3SS Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
LJ 360 Other Personal
Injury
LJ 362 Personal Injury
Medical Malpractice
CMLRIGHTS
~440 Other Civil Rights
LJ 441 Voting
LJ 442 Employment
0 443 Housing/
Accommodations
LJ 445 Amer. w/Oisabilities Employment
LJ 446 Amcr. w/Oisabilitic:s Other
LJ 448 Education

FORFEITURFJPENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
LJ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
LJ 367 H~:alth Carel
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
LJ 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
LJ 370 Other Fraud
LJ 371 Truth in Lending
LJ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
LJ 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETmONS
Habeas Corpus:
LJ 463 Alien Detainee
LJ SIO Motions to Vacate:
Sentence
LJ 530 General
LJ S3S Death Penalty
Other:
0 540 Mandamus & Other
LJ 550 Civil Rights
LJ SSS Prison Condition
n 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

LJ 625 Drug Related Seizure

ofPropcny 21 USC 881
LJ 6900ther

LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ
LJ

.LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
75 I Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

LJ 423 Withdrawal
28 usc 157

:J

0 820 Copyrights

::J
0
::J

n 830 Patent

:"1

CJ 840 Trademark

::J

-snru

RITY
86t IliA (t39sm
LJ 862 Black Lung (923)
n 863 DIWCIDIWW (40S(g))
LJ 864 SSID Title XVI
0 865 RSI (40S(g))

Dfo:t:
C"J 4

n (,

OTHER STATUTES

BANKRUPTCY.

0 422 Appeal 28 USC I 58

Kl~IITS

PTF
LJ 4

Qlli'rt

0
0
LJ

a
a
:::J
:J

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

n 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

:"1

or Defendant)
LJ 87 I IRS-Third Party
26USC7609

::J

.. _, . JMMIGRATION.
LJ 462 Naturalization Application
LJ 465 Other Immigration
Actions

375 False Claims Act

376Qui Tam(31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organi1.ations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom oflnformation
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Piacean "X"in0ne8tl.t0nly)

0 I Original

0 2 Removed from

Proceeding

State Court

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Remanded from
Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

0 S Transferred from
Another District

0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation

(.fpec(M

Cite th.. U.S. Cjvil S!ll!utc und.cr wbicJu.ou arc filing[Do IJ!'Lclte)urisdlctiol}ql.,!fl.tutr;,'.PJlltzu)divJ!!l!Y):
42 u~c 19H3,19Ho, 28 usc 1~~1,1343, 42 U~t; 1988, 28 uSt; 1"t>' \a,,~~,
Bri~fdesctiJ:!tion of cause:
Weiser t;ity violated Plaintiffs civil rights to be free from use of excessive force, Illegal search and unlawful arrest

VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
DATE

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
(See instn1ctions):

DEMANDS

1,000,000.00

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

}(Yes
Ll No

JURY DEMAND:

DOCKET NUMBER

JUDGE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

05/16/2016

/s/ Virginia Bond /s/ Ken Stringfield

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT#

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE