Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Nevada

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BENJAMIN C. DURHAM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7684
FRANK H. COFER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11362
COFER, GELLER & DURHAM, LLC
601 South Tenth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 631-6111
(702) 946-0826 fax
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ANTHONY MITCHELL, LINDA MITCHELL,
AND MICHAEL MITCHELL,

PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

CITY OF HENDERSON, NEVADA; JUTTA
CHAMBERS, individually and in her official
capacity as Chief of the Henderson Police
Department; GARRETT POINIER, RONALD
FEOLA, RAMONA WALLS, ANGELA WALKER,
and CHRISTOPHER WORLEY, individually
and in their official capacities as
Henderson police officers; CITY OF NORTH
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; JOSEPH CHRONISTER,
individually and in his official capacity as
Chief of the North Las Vegas Police
Department; MICHAEL WALLER, DREW
ALBERS, DAVID CAWTHORN, ERIC
ROCKWELL, AND F/N/U SNYDER,
individually and in their official capacities
as North Las Vegas police officers;
JANETTE R. REYES-SPEER; DOE individuals
1-40, jointly and severally; and ROE
CORPORATIONS 1-40 jointly and
severally,

DEFENDANTS.
Case No.: 2:13-cv-01154-APG-CWH

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

JURY DEMANDED

Case 2:13-cv-01154-APG-CWH Document 3 Filed 10/14/13 Page 1 of 48

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, ANTHONY MITCHELL, LINDA MITCHELL, and
MICHAEL MITCHELL, by and through their counsel, BENJAMIN C. DURHAM,
ESQ., and FRANK H. COFER, ESQ., of COFER, GELLER & DURHAM, LLC, and for
their claims for relief against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally,
based upon knowledge, information, and reasonable belief derived therefrom,
allege, complain, and state as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
and 1343 over Plaintiffs causes of action arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and due to
the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Plaintiffs under the
First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs causes of
action arising under Nevada state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3. Venue lies in the Southern Division of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C.
1391(b)(2) because one or more Defendants is a political subdivision of the State of
Nevada, and because the underlying acts, omissions, events, injuries and related
facts upon which the present action is based occurred in Clark County, Nevada.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL is, and at all times herein mentioned
was, a United States citizen and a resident of the District of Nevada, and is the son of
Plaintiffs LINDA MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL.
5. Plaintiffs LINDA MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL are, and at all
times herein mentioned were, United States citizens and residents of the District of
Nevada. They are a married couple.
6. Defendant CITY OF HENDERSON is a governmental entity organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and is a political entity of the

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

State of Nevada.
7. Defendant CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS is a governmental entity
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and is a political entity
of the State of Nevada.
8. At all times, Defendant CITY OF HENDERSON possessed the power
and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices
affecting all facets of the training, supervision, control, employment, assignment and
removal of individual members of the Henderson Police Department (hereinafter,
HPD) and of its employees, agents, contractors and/or servants. In this case,
Defendant CITY OF HENDERSON acted through agents, employees, servants, and
contractors, including its policymakers, and through Defendant JUTTA
CHAMBERS.
9. At all times, Defendant CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS possessed the
power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices
affecting all facets of the training, supervision, control, employment, assignment and
removal of individual members of the North Las Vegas Police Department
(hereinafter, NLVPD), and of its employees, agents, contractors and/or servants.
In this case, Defendant CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS acted through agents,
employees, servants, and contractors, including its policymakers, and through
Defendant JOSEPH CHRONISTER.
10. Defendant JUTTA CHAMBERS was at all times relevant to this action
the Chief of HPD and was acting under color of state law. She is sued in this action
in her individual capacity as to Plaintiffs claims arising under 28 U.S.C. 1983, and
is sued in her individual and official capacities as to Plaintiffs state law claims.
11. Defendant JOSEPH CHRONISTER was at all times relevant to this
action the Chief of NLVPD and was acting under color of state law. He is sued in
this action in his individual capacity as to Plaintiffs claims arising under 28 U.S.C.
1983, and is sued in his individual and official capacities as to Plaintiffs state law

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

claims.
12. Defendants SERGEANT GARRETT POINIER, OFFICER RONALD
FEOLA, OFFICER RAMONA WALLS, OFFICER ANGELA WALTER, and OFFICER
CHRISTOPHER WORLEY are and were at all times relevant to this action police
officers employed by CITY OF HENDERSON and were acting under color of state
law. They are sued in their individual capacities as to Plaintiffs claims arising under
28 U.S.C. 1983, and are sued in their individual and official capacities as to
Plaintiffs state law claims.
13. Defendants JANET REYES-SPEER is and was at all times relevant to
this action a Deputy City Attorney for the CITY OF HENDERSON and was acting
under color of state law and also a complaining witness in criminal complaints filed
against ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL. She is sued in her
individual capacity as to Plaintiffs claims arising under 28 U.S.C. 1983, and is
sued in her individual and official capacities as to Plaintiffs state law claims.
14. Defendants SERGEANT MICHAEL WALLER, OFFICER DREW
ALBERS, OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, OFFICER ERIC ROCKWELL, and
OFFICER SNYDER (first name unknown) are and were at all times relevant to this
action police officers employed by CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS and were acting
under color of state law. They are sued in their individual capacities as to Plaintiffs
claims arising under 28 U.S.C. 1983, and are sued in their individual and official
capacities as to Plaintiffs state law claims.
15. The true names, identities or capacities, whether individual, corporate,
political, associate or otherwise of the Defendants herein designated as DOES 1-40,
inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this timeand include without limitation
police officers, employees, agents, contractors and/or servants of the CITY OF
HENDERSON and / or the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGASwho therefore sue these
Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon
allege that each of the fictitiously named DOES are legally responsible, either

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

intentionally, negligently, or in some other actionable manner, for the events and
happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby legally caused the injuries, damages,
and violations and/or deprivation of rights hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs request
leave of the Court to amend this Complaint and insert the true names and capacities
of said fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained.
16. The true names, identities or capacities, whether individual, corporate,
political, associate or otherwise of the Defendants herein designated as ROES
CORPORATIONS 1-40, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, who
therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed,
believe, and thereon allege that each of these ROE CORPORATIONS is legally
responsible, either intentionally, negligently, or in some other actionable manner,
for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby legally caused the
injuries, damages, and violations and/or deprivation of rights hereinafter alleged.
Plaintiffs request leave of the Court to amend this Complaint and insert the true
names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when the same have
been ascertained.
17. The reason why Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities
of Defendants herein sued as DOES and ROE CORPORATIONS is that the same
have been unascertainable as of the date of filing of this Complaint, due to the fact
that these DOES and ROE CORPORATIONS may be state police officers, sergeants,
lieutenants, captains, commanders, deputy chiefs and/or civilian employee agents,
policy makers and representatives of HPD or NLVPD, or employees, agents,
contractors and/or representatives of Defendants CITY OF HENDERSON or CITY
OF NORTH LAS VEGAS and/or other state political entities. As such, many records
of these individuals are protected by state statutes and can only be ascertained
through the discovery process.
18. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that all Defendants
were the agents, employees, contractors and/or co-conspirators of the other

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants, and each of them were acting within the course and scope of their
agency, employment, and/or concert of action, and are vicariously liable, jointly and
severally, for the actions, inactions, and/or omissions of themselves and of the other
Defendants, which proximately resulted in the physical, emotional, and future
damages to the Plaintiffs as herein alleged.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
19. This is an action for money damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the laws of
the State of Nevada, against the named Defendants, police officers of the HPD and
the NLVPD, in their individual and official capacities, against the CITY OF
HENDERSON and the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, and against DOES 1-40 and
ROE CORPORATIONS 1-40.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
20. On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the HPD responded to
a domestic violence call at the residence of a Plaintiffs neighbor, Phillip White, who
lives at 363 Eveningside Avenue, Henderson, Nevada..
21. Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL woke up at approximately 8:20 a.m. at
his home at 362 Eveningside Avenue, Henderson, Nevada, and noticed that he had
received a telephone call from Mr. White, who lived across the street, and who had
left a message that the police were at Mr. Whites door and that Mr. Whites wife had
told the police that Mr. White had assaulted her.
22. MICHAEL MITCHELL called Mr. White back and was informed that
the police had told Mr. White to come out of his house, but that Mr. White explained
to the police that he could not leave because he had a one month old baby in the
house, and had asked the officers to come inside instead. Mr. White explained that
the police officers did not come in, but instead retreated and called for back-up, and
that Mr. White then sat on his couch with his front door open.

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

23. MICHAEL MITCHELL then went to the front of his house and seeing
nothing, went to get his newspaper on the driveway. Before he could get his
newspaper, an HPD officer told him to get back to his house, which he did.
24. A short time later, MICHAEL MITCHELL heard police sirens and the
police directing Mr. White over a bullhorn to come out of his house with his hands
up and unarmed.
25. At approximately 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL was
awakened at his home at 367 Eveningside Avenue, Henderson, Nevada, by sirens in
front of his home which is located near Mr. Whites home and across the street from
the home of his parents, MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL.
26. The sirens continued to sound, and at approximately 9:37 a.m.,
ANTHONY MITCHELL returned a missed call from his father, MICHAEL
MITCHELL, who informed ANTHONY MITCHELL about his conversation with Mr.
White.
27. While ANTHONY MITCHELL was on the telephone with MICHAEL
MITCHELL, he opened the front door of his residence, telephone in hand, and
yelled for the officers outside to shut the siren off, and ended the call a short time
later.
28. MICHAEL MITCHELL, ANTHONY MITCHELL and LINDA
MITCHELL became very concerned about the conduct of the police and began
taking photographs of the polices conduct from the inside of their respective homes
with the intent to disseminate these photographs to the public and to the news
media. The named Defendants police officers herein and Defendant DOE police
officers 1-40 saw ANTHONY MITCHELL, MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA
MITCHELL taking photographs of their activities or were informed of them doing
so.
29. MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL observed police officers
and police vehicles congregating in front of Mr. Whites house across the street, and

8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

then taking positions further down the street. They observed a SWAT vehicle place a
chain around a tree in Mr. Whites yard, rip it out of the ground, and SWAT
personnel and vehicles assembling where the tree had been located. They observed
DOE police officers 1-10 pointing their loaded firearms at them, their home, the
home of their son ANTHONY MITCHELL, at the homes of their neighbors, and
LINDA MITCHELL informed MICHAEL MITCHELL that police officers repeatedly
pointed their loaded firearms at her when she looked out of their window.
MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL were extremely concerned about the
conduct of the police based on their apparent disregard for Mr. Whites concern
about the presence of an infant in Mr. Whites house.
30. ANTHONY MITCHELL observed DOE police officers 1-10 pointing
their loaded firearms at him, his home, the home of his father MICHAEL
MITCHELL and at the homes of their neighbors.
31. When LINDA MITCHELL looked out of the front door window and
bedroom window of her home, she observed DOE police officers 1-10 pointing their
loaded weapons at her.
32. MICHAEL MITCHELL went into his backyard for safety reasons to be
as far as possible from the armed and apparently reckless police officers on the
street, and directed his wife, Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL, to also go to the back of
the house as well for safety reasons. A short time after MICHAEL MITCHELL was
in his backyard, he was told by HPD to go back in his house, which he did.
33. While MICHAEL MITCHELL was taking photographs of the police
from inside his home through a guest room window, a member of the NLVPD SWAT
team, Defendant DOE police officer 1, saw him and pointed his loaded firearm at
him. MICHAEL MITCHELL then went to look out his front door to find the same
NLVPD SWAT officer pointing his loaded firearm at him again.
34. Over the next two hours, ANTHONY MITCHELL made several calls to
MICHAEL MITCHELL and spoke to him about the escalating police activity on the

9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

street. During this time, ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL
observed the Defendant DOE police officers 1-10 pointing loaded firearms at their
homes and the homes of other neighbors.
35. At approximately 10:45 a.m., Defendant OFFICER CHRISTOPHER
WORLEY (HPD) contacted Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL by telephone.
WORLEY told ANTHONY MITCHELL that police needed to occupy his home in
order to gain a tactical advantage against the occupant of the neighboring house,
presumably Mr. White. ANTHONY MITCHELL told the officer that this was not a
time of war where officers were allowed to occupy his home, that he did not want to
become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Ignoring this
explanation, WORLEY asked Plaintiff why he did not want to leave his home, to
which Plaintiff responded that he had more rights inside his home than outside.
WORLEY asked Plaintiff why he thought that, and again asked Plaintiff if he would
come outside and allow the police to occupy his home. When ANTHONY
MITCHELL replied in the negative, WORLEY ended the call.
36. After this phone call, ANTHONY MITCHELL observed Defendant DOE
police officers 1-10 pointing their loaded firearms at him whenever he walked in
front of his window. Fearing for his life and safety after observing the
indiscriminate and reckless manner in which the police officers were handling and
pointing their firearms, ANTHONY MITCHELL donned a protective ballistic vest
which he used in his employment as a bail enforcement agent. Also during this
period, ANTHONY MITCHELL attempted to call Mr. White to find out what was
going on, but could not get through.
37. Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL was extremely troubled and concerned
for his safety based on WORLEYS insistence about entering his home without a
warrant, and became concerned that serious police misconduct was taking place and
that armed police would attempt to enter his home without a warrant.
. . .

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

38. Beginning at approximately 10:52 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL called
his father, MICHAEL MITCHELL, several more times, expressing his concerns
about his telephone conversation with WORLEY. He asked his father to look up the
telephone number for Fox 5 Vegas KVVU because he felt that the press needed to
know about what was going on.
39. At approximately 11:08 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL called Mr. White,
who explained that the police were there based on a claim that Mr. White had struck
his wife, which he said he did not do.
40. At approximately 11:17 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL called 411 to
obtain the telephone number for Fox 5 Vegas KVVU, but they were unable to provide
it.
41. At approximately 11:20 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL called his father
again, who was able to provide him with the number for Fox 5 Vegas KVVU.
42. At approximately 11:22 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL called Fox 5 Vegas
KVVU and spoke to a reporter, explaining his troubling telephone conversation with
WORLEY, and that if they wanted to interview him, they would have to send a
cameraman to the house, because he was not leaving his home.
43. ANTHONY MITCHELL called Mr. White a few more times over the
next half-hour and let him know that he had contacted Fox 5 Vegas KVVU and that
they would be calling Mr. White.
44. At approximately 11:44 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL received a call
from the reporter at Fox 5 Vegas KVVU, who informed him that Mr. White was not
answering his telephone.
45. The Defendants knew that ANTHONY MITCHELL was calling Fox 5
Vegas KVVU and knew that ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL
were taking photographs of the police conduct from inside their homes.
46. Shortly before 11:53 a.m., ANTHONY MITCHELL was on the telephone
and stepped in front of his window. At that time, he once again observed several of

11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant DOE police officers 1-10 pointing their loaded firearms at him through
the window. As ANTHONY MITCHELL walked back and forth in front of his
window, he observed Defendant DOE police officer 2 following him in the sights of
his loaded firearm through the window. ANTHONY MITCHELL then photographed
the officer through his window and gave the officer a hand gesture with his middle
finger, expressing his disapproval of the officers conduct. The Defendants saw
ANTHONY MITCHELL make this gesture or were informed of him making it.
47. After Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL refused to allow the police to
enter his home, after he photographed one or more of Defendant DOE police officers
1-10 pointing their loaded firearms at him, and after giving Defendant DOE police
officer 2 the middle finger gesture, the Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, including
without limitation Defendants SERGEANT MICHAEL WALLER, OFFICER DAVID
CAWTHORN, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WORLEY, conspired among themselves to
force ANTHONY MITCHELL out of his residence and to occupy his home for their
own use. Defendant OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN outlined the Defendants plan
in his official report:
It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact
Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he
refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If
Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and
Mitchell would be arrested.
48. At approximately 11:52 a.m., Defendant DOE police officers 1-10,
including without limitation Defendants SERGEANT MICHAEL WALLER,
OFFICER ALBERS, OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, OFFICER ROCKWELL, and
OFFICER SNYDER, arrayed themselves in front of Plaintiff ANTHONY
MITCHELLs house and prepared to execute their plan. The Defendant police
officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly yelled resident 367 come to the
door.
49. Surprised and perturbed, Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL immediately
called his mother (Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL) on the phone, exclaiming to her that

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the police were beating on his front door.
50. Seconds later, Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, including without
limitation OFFICER ROCKWELL, smashed open Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELLs
front door with a metal ram as Plaintiff stood in his living room. The Defendant
DOE police officers 1-10 made this forceful entry into ANTHONY MITCHELLs
home without a warrant, without probable cause, without any legal justification, and
without ANTHONY MITCHELLs permission.
51. As Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL stood in shock, the Defendant DOE
police officers 1-10 aimed their loaded firearms at ANTHONY MITCHELL and
repeatedly shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
52. Fearing for his life, Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL dropped his phone
and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face with his
hands.
53. Addressing Plaintiff as asshole, Defendant DOE police officers 1-10,
including without limitation OFFICER SNYDER, shouted conflicting orders at
ANTHONY MITCHELL, commanding him both to shut off his phone, which was on
the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to crawl
toward the officers. At no time prior to this moment did any police officer instruct
ANTHONY MITCHELL to turn off his phone or to not use his phone.
54. Confused and terrified, Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL remained
curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no
movement.
55. Although Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL was lying motionless on the
ground and posed no threat, Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, including without
limitation OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, then fired multiple pepperball rounds
at Plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. ANTHONY
MITCHELL was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring
him and causing him severe pain.

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

56. As a result of being shot by Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, Plaintiff
ANTHONY MITCHELL experienced psychological horror and extreme emotional
distress due to his fear and belief that he had been mortally wounded by gunfire.
Further, in addition to the shock and bruising caused by the impact of the
pepperball rounds on his body at close range, the caustic and irritating chemicals
released caused ANTHONY MITCHELL to suffer extreme and prolonged pain in his
eyes, nose, throat, lungs, and skin, as well as causing him to experience
uncontrollable coughing and difficulty breathing.
57. Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELLs dog, Sam, was cowering in the corner
when Defendant DOE police officers 1-10 smashed through the front door. Although
the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or
more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from
the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without
access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while
temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
58. Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL was talking to her son ANTHONY
MITCHELL via telephone at the time that officers smashed through ANTHONY
MITCHELLs front door. Over the telephone, she was able to hear Defendant DOE
police officers 1-10 shouting obscenities and weapons being fired. As a result of the
officers actions, she experienced extreme emotional distress due to her fear and
belief that her son had been severely wounded or killed. While she was screaming
her sons name over and over into the phone, one of Defendant DOE officers 1-10
inside ANTHONY MITCHELLs home callously hung up the phone.
59. As Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL lay incapacitated and in agony on
his living room floor, several of the Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, including
without limitation OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, forcefully pressed their knees
atop the back of ANTHONY MITCHELLs neck and body, and roughly and wantonly
wrenched his arms behind his back and handcuffed him, all of which was intended

14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to cause and did cause ANTHONY MITCHELL to suffer further severe pain and
distress.
60. Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, including without limitation
OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, then roughly and wantonly dragged Plaintiff
ANTHONY MITCHELL out of his residence by his arms, all of which was intended
to cause and did cause him pain and humiliation.
61. Once outside the residence, Defendant DOE police officers 1-10,
including without limitation OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, roughly and wantonly
slammed ANTHONY MITCHELL against the exterior of Plaintiffs home, and
forcefully pressed Plaintiffs face into the stucco wall, holding him in this painful and
humiliating configuration for several minutes. When ANTHONY MITCHELL
begged to be released and pleaded that he was not a threat, Defendant DOE police
officers 1-10, including OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, did not relent, but
commented that Plaintiff should have come out of his home when commanded to do
so by the police, and continued to press his face against the wall for an additional
thirty seconds. All of this conduct was intended to cause and did cause ANTHONY
MITCHELL pain and humiliation.
62. During this time period, one of Defendant DOE police officers 1-10 said
to ANTHONY MITCHELL, you wanna flip us off, huh? Another Defendant DOE
police officer then turned around and told the officer, shhhh.
63. ANTHONY MITCHELL was then forcibly taken by foot while
handcuffed to the HPD command center, where he was eventually arrested.
64. One of the Defendant DOE police officers then told Plaintiff ANTHONY
MITCHELL that he was under arrest for Obstructing a Police Officer.
65. A short time later, ANTHONY MITCHELL was taken into custody by
OFFICER ANGELA WALTER.
66. At no time did Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL disobey any lawful
commands of any police officers or in any manner obstruct any police officers.

15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

67. Defendant DOE police officers, including Defendants SERGEANT
MICHAEL WALLER, OFFICER ALBERS, OFFICER ROCKWELL, OFFICER
SNYDER and DOE police officers 1-10, then swarmed through Plaintiff ANTHONY
MITCHELLs home home at 367 Eveningside Avenue, searching through his rooms
and possessions and moving his furniture, without permission or a warrant, and
then subsequently occupied it and used it as an observation post to surveil the
neighboring house at 363 Eveningside Avenue.
68. Meanwhile, starting at approximately 11:25 a.m., Defendant DOE police
officers 11-20 entered the back yard of Plaintiffs MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA
MITCHELLs residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue without permission. They asked
Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL if he would be willing to vacate his residence and
accompany them to their command center under the guise that the officers wanted
MICHAEL MITCHELL to speak to the suspect, Mr. White, and assist them in
negotiating the surrender of Mr. White, at 363 Eveningside Avenue. Plaintiff
MICHAEL MITCHELL reluctantly agreed to follow the officers from his back yard to
the HPD command center, which was approximately one quarter mile away. He also
informed the officers that Mr. Whites only concern was for his baby, and that if they
told him that his wife was on the street and ready to pick up the baby, he would
surely come out of the house. It was shortly after MICHAEL MITCHELL left with
the officers that LINDA MITCHELL received the call from ANTHONY MITCHELL
wherein she heard the police officers were forcibly entering his home.
69. At approximately 11:58 a.m., a group of Defendant DOE police officers
21-30 entered the back yard of Plaintiffs MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA
MITCHELLs residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue without permission. They
banged on the back door of the house and demanded that Plaintiff LINDA
MITCHELL open the door.
70. Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL complied and opened the door to her
home. When she told Defendant DOE police officers 21-30 that they could not enter

16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her, entered her home, and began
searching it. One female officer, Defendant DOE police officer 21, seized LINDA
MITCHELL by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.
71. Defendant DOE police officer 21 then forcibly grabbed Plaintiff LINDA
MITCHELLs arm and began to forcibly pull her out of her house, and then forcibly
then seized her purse from LINDA MITCHELLs person and began rummaging
through it, without permission, consent, or a warrant.
72. Another unidentified male Defendant DOE police officer 22 then
grabbed Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL and pulled her out of the house and into her
yard where a female Defendant DOE police officer 23 grabbed her arm and dragged
LINDA MITCHELL at a brisk pace through her yard and up the hill toward the
Command Post while maintaining a firm grip on her upper arm. Plaintiff LINDA
MITCHELL is physically frail and had difficulty breathing due to the heat and the
swift pace. However, Defendant DOE police officer 23 ignored her pleas to be
released or to at least slow down, and refused to provide any explanation for why she
was being treated in such a manner. After reaching the command center, LINDA
MITCHELL witnessed the detention and / or arrest of ANTHONY MITCHELL and
MICHAEL MITCHELL.
73. In the meantime, Defendant DOE police officers 21-22, 24-30 searched
and occupied Plaintiffs MICHAEL MITCHELLs and LINDA MITCHELLs house.
When Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL returned to their home, the cabinets and closet
doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about.
Water had been consumed from their water dispenser, and approximately 15
disposable plastic cups were in the kitchen trashcan which were not there
previously. The sliding glass door in the bedroom leading to the outside was left
ajar. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar, and mustard and mayonnaise
had been left on their kitchen floor.
. . .

17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

74. While MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL were away from
their residence, the Defendant DOE police officers 21-22, 24-30 opened and
searched truck owned by MICHAEL MITCHELL and a truck owned by ANTHONY
MITCHELL which were parked in the driveway of MICHAEL MITCHELL and
LINDA MITCHELLs residence without permission, probable cause or legal
justification or authority.
75. When Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL arrived at the HPD command
center, he was informed that the suspect, Mr. White, was not taking any calls and
that Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL would not be permitted to call the suspect
neighbor from his own phone. At that time, MICHAEL MITCHELL realized that the
request to accompany officers to the HPD command center was a tactic to remove
him from his house so that he would no longer be able to witness, photograph and
document the Defendants conduct. He waited approximately 10 minutes at the HPD
command center and was told he could not return to his home.
76. Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL then left the HPD command center and
walked down Mauve Street toward the exit of the neighborhood. After walking for
less than 5 minutes, an HPD car pulled up next to him. He was told that his wife,
LINDA MITCHELL, had left the house, and would meet him at the HPD command
center.
77. MICHAEL MITCHELL then walked back up Mauve Street to the HPD
command center and met his wife, LINDA MITCHELL, shortly after she witnessed
the detention / arrest of ANTHONY MITCHELL. MICHAEL MITCHELL then called
his son, James Mitchell, to pick him up at the point of the police barricade where
various news reporters were located. When Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL
attempted to leave the HPD command center to meet James at the barricade, he was
arrested, handcuffed by Defendant DOE police officer 31, and shortly thereafter was
placed in the back of a marked police car.
. . .

18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

78. MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL asked the Defendant
DOE police officer 31 what MICHAEL MITCHELL was being arrested for, but the
officer did not respond.
79. Neither Defendant DOE police officer 31 nor any other police officer
had any grounds to detain Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL, nor probable cause to
suspect him of committing any crime.
80. At no time did Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL disobey any lawful
commands of any police officers or in any manner obstruct any police officer.
81. MICHAEL MITCHELL was then placed in the back of a parked HPD
vehicle. It was extremely hot in the vehicle. As time passed, MICHAEL MITCHELL
repeatedly complained that the heat was unbearable and begged the officers to do
something to relieve him from the oppressive heat and to roll down the windows.
The officers ignored these requests. Later, one of Defendant DOE police officers 31-
35 entered the vehicle and sat in the drivers seat and turned on the air conditioning
for himself. However, the front and rear seats were separated by a partition that did
not allow any cool air to reach MICHAEL MITCHELL, and the officer in the drivers
seat refused to open the rear air conditioning vents to give relief to MICHAEL
MITCHELL from the oppressive heat.
82. MICHAEL MITCHELL again begged the Defendant DOE police officers
31-35 to roll down the windows, but he was ignored. Feeling that the situation had
become life-threatening, MICHAEL MITCHELL begged the Officers to do
something because the heat was unbearable, and positioned himself to kick the rear
window open. Only at this time did an officer outside the vehicle open the back door
and did one of the officers partially roll down the windows.
83. Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL were
subsequently transported to Henderson Detention Center and were booked on
charges of Obstructing an Officer. Both ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL were detained for at least nine hours and were required to pay a bond to

19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

secure their release from custody.
84. While in custody at the Henderson Detention Center, ANTHONY
MITCHELL informed Defendant DOES 36 and 37 that he required seizure
medication and asked to receive it as a matter of medical necessity.
85. Defendant DOES 36 and 37 ignored ANTHONY MITCHELLs request
for his seizure medication.
86. ANTHONY MITCHELL filled out and submitted a prisoner grievance
requesting that he be provided his medication or that his brother be allowed to drop
it off and it could be provided to him by the facilitys staff.
87. The grievance was ignored, and despite the fact that ANTHONY
MITCHELLs medication was delivered by 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, it was not given
to him until after he was released.
88. The deprivation of the medication necessary to treat ANTHONY
MITCHELLs medical condition caused him great fear and anxiety that he might
have a seizure while in custody.
89. On or about July 9, 2011, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WORLEY
prepared a police report that contained knowingly false statements, with the intent
that it be used to maliciously prosecute ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL.
90. On or about July 9, 2011, OFFICER ANGELA WALTER prepared a
police report that contained knowingly false statements, with the intent that it be
used to maliciously prosecute ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL.
91. On or about July 12, 2011, OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN prepared a
police report that contained knowingly false statements, with the intent that it be
used to maliciously prosecute ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL.
92. On or about July 13, 2011 Defendant Henderson Deputy City Attorney
JANETTE R. REYES-SPEER filed criminal complaints as complainant under
penalty of perjury against Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL in the Municipal Court of

20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the CITY OF HENDERSON, Case Nos. 11CR9103 and 11CR9104, charging him with
Obstructing an Officer and Failure to Obey Police Officer, knowing that the
criminal complaint contained false statements, that ANTHONY MITCHELL
committed no crime, and that there was no probable cause to initiate criminal
proceedings against ANTHONY MITCHELL.
93. On or about July 13, 2011 Defendant Henderson Deputy City Attorney
JANETTE R. REYES-SPEER filed a criminal complaint as complainant under
penalty of perjury against Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL in the Municipal Court of
the CITY OF HENDERSON, Case No. 11CR9107, charging him with Obstruct [sic]
an Officer, knowing that the criminal complaint contained false statements, that
MICHAEL MITCHELL committed no crime, and that there was no probable cause
to initiate criminal proceedings against MICHAEL MITCHELL.
94. All criminal charges against Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL were
ultimately dismissed with prejudice on November 9, 2011.
95. All criminal charges against Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL were
ultimately dismissed with prejudice on November 3, 2011.
96. OFFICER ANGELA WALTER, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WORLEY,
OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN and Defendant DOE police officers 38-45 caused
Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL to be jailed and
caused criminal complaints to issue against them in order to violate their
constitutional rights, to provide cover for Defendants wrongful actions, to frustrate
and impede Plaintiffs ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further
intimidate and retaliate against Plaintiffs.
97. Upon information and belief, none of the officers involved in the above-
alleged incidents were ever subjected to official discipline or inquiry regarding their
actions.
98. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs did not give any police officers or
Defendants permission to enter or search their homes.

21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

99. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs had not committed any crime.
100. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were unarmed, were never
observed to be armed, and never made any threats of crime or violence.
101. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs did not pose a threat to the safety
of any police officers or of others and did not pose a threat to the property of any
police officers or of others.
102. At all times relevant herein, no Defendant or police officer had any basis
to believe that Plaintiffs had committed any crime or posed a threat to the safety or
property of anyone.
103. At all times relevant herein, except as noted in paragraphs 53 and 75, at
no time did any Defendant or police officer tell the Plaintiffs they could not use their
telephones or not call Mr. White, and any such instruction would be unreasonable
and unlawful.
104. At all times relevant herein, no police officer or Defendant had any legal
basis or probable cause to enter any of Plaintiffs homes without a warrant, to detain
Plaintiffs, or arrest Plaintiffs.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER (42 U.S.C. 1983)
RETALIATION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED EXPRESSION
105. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference
paragraphs 1104 as though fully restated herein.
106. At all times relevant herein, ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL were taking photographs from within their confines of their homes of
what they believed to be serious police misconduct carried out by NLVPD and HPD
police officers with the intent to disseminate these photographs and related
information to the public and the news media, including without limitation, Fox 5
Vegas, KVVU. LINDA MITCHELL also intended and desired to disseminate the
photographs and information concerning the police misconduct to the public and

22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the news media.
107. Both ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL made efforts
to contact Fox 5 Vegas KVVU to bring the police misconduct to this news outlets
attention, and with the intent to provide their photographs to this and other media
outlets.
108. There was a great likelihood that the message of police misconduct
which ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL sought to capture in their
photograph and disseminate to the public and the news media would be understood
by those who viewed it.
109. ANTHONY MITCHELLs and MICHAEL MITCHELLs photographing
of the police misconduct with the intent to disseminate the photographs to the
public and the news media constituted speech and expression protected under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
110. ANTHONY MITCHELLs informing the HPD, NLVPD, OFFICER
CHRISTOPHER WORLEY (HPD) and other Defendants as to what he believed were
his legal rights to remain secure in his home, to not become involved in the police
operations, to not give the police permission to enter his home, and to express his
disapproval as to the request that the police be allowed to enter his home,
constituted speech and expression protected under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
111. ANTHONY MITCHELLs giving Defendant DOE police officer 2 and
other officers the middle finger gesture and expressing his disapproval of the
officers conduct constituted speech and expression protected under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
112. ANTHONY MITCHELLs yelling to DOE Defendant police officers to
shut the siren off and expressing his disapproval of the conduct of the officers
present constituted speech and expression protected under the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

113. The named Defendants and DOE Defendants witnessed or were
otherwise aware of ANTHONY MITCHELLs and MICHAEL MITCHELLs protected
speech and expression described in this claim for relief.
114. The conduct of the named Defendants and DOE Defendants as
complained of in the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth,
Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth,
Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Claims for Relief herein were carried out
against the Plaintiffs with the intent to intimidate, chill and silence Plaintiffs from
photographing police misconduct and disseminating it to the public and the news
media, and their intent to cause this chilling effect was a but-for cause of their
actions, in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Their conduct was also
intended to intimidate, chill and silence any news media outlets from disseminating
any accounts of the police misconduct at issue.
115. The actions complained of in this claim for relief were unreasonable and
in violation of clearly established law.
116. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliatory conduct set forth in
this claim for relief, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering,
humiliation, physical injuries, and loss of community reputation, entitling them to
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
117. The Plaintiffs each seek punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
trial as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and reckless
indifference to violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
118. Plaintiffs have each been forced to engage the services of an attorney,
and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any
other applicable state or federal law.
. . .
. . .
. . .

24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983
UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO AND SEARCH OF ANTHONY MITCHELLS
HOME AND VEHICLE AND THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE AND ARREST OF
ANTHONY MITCHELL
120. Defendants SERGEANT MICHAEL WALLER, OFFICER ALBERS,
OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN, OFFICER ROCKWELL, OFFICER SNYDER, and
Defendant DOE police officers 1-10 seized and arrested ANTHONY MITCHELL in
his home and entered into and searched his home without warrant, permission,
probable cause, or legal justification, violating his rights guaranteed by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and no exigent
circumstances or other legal justification obviated the need for a warrant.
121. Defendant DOE police officers 21-22, 24-30 entered into and searched
ANTHONY MITCHELLs vehicle without warrant, permission, probable cause, legal
justification, violating his rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, and no exigent circumstances or
other legal justification obviated the need for a warrant.
123. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct set forth in this claim for
relief, ANTHONY MITCHELL suffered severe emotional distress, pain and
suffering, humiliation, physical injuries, and loss of community reputation, entitling
him to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
124. ANTHONY MITCHELL seeks punitive damages in an amount to be
proven at trial as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and
reckless indifference to violation of his constitutional rights.

25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

125. ANTHONY MITCHELL has been forced to engage the services of an
attorney, and is entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988
and any other applicable state or federal law.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST ANTHONY MITCHELL
127. Regardless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the arrest, Defendants
SERGEANT MICHAEL WALLER, OFFICER ALBERS, OFFICER DAVID
CAWTHORN, OFFICER ROCKWELL, OFFICER SNYDER, and Defendant DOE
police officers 1-10 subjected Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL to excessive force and
battery, violating his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
128. ANTHONY MITCHELL did not resist seizure or arrest or attempt to
flee, and there were no circumstances that justified the excessive force used against
ANTHONY MITCHELL.
129. The excessive force and battery used against ANTHONY MITCHELL
includes, without limitation, pointing loaded firearms at ANTHONY MITCHELL,
firing multiple pepperball rounds at him, and the manner in which he was cuffed,
dragged out of his home, slammed against the exterior of his home, had his face
pressed into the stucco wall, and held in this painful and humiliating configuration
for several minutes. All of this conduct was unnecessarily rough and wanton and
was intended to cause and did cause ANTHONY MITCHELL severe pain and
humiliation.
. . .

26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

relief, ANTHONY MITCHELL suffered severe emotional distress, pain and
him to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
132. ANTHONY MITCHELL seeks punitive damages in an amount to be
133. ANTHONY MITCHELL has been forced to engage the services of an
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNLAWFUL SEIZURE AND ARREST OF MICHAEL MITCHELL
135. Defendant DOE police officers 31-35 seized and arrested MICHAEL
MITCHELL without warrant, probable cause or legal justification, violating his
rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution.
relief, MICHAEL MITCHELL suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering,
humiliation, physical injuries, and loss of community reputation, entitling him to
138. MICHAEL MITCHELL seeks punitive damages in an amount to be

27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

139. MICHAEL MITCHELL has been forced to engage the services of an
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNLAWFUL SEIZURE AND ARREST OF LINDA MITCHELL
141. Defendant DOE police officers 21-30 seized and arrested LINDA
MITCHELL without warrant, probable cause or legal justification, violating her
Constitution.
relief, LINDA MITCHELL suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering,
humiliation, physical injuries, and loss of community reputation, entitling her to
144. LINDA MITCHELL seeks punitive damages in an amount to be proven
at trial as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and reckless
indifference to violation of her constitutional rights.
145. LINDA MITCHELL has been forced to engage the services of an
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO AND SEARCH OF
MICHAEL MITCHELLS AND LINDA MITCHELLS HOME AND VEHICLE
147. Defendant DOE police officer 21-30 entered into and searched the
property, home and vehicle of MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL
without permission, warrant, probable cause, or legal justification, violating their
Constitution, and no exigent circumstances or other legal justification obviated the
need for a warrant.
relief, MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL suffered severe emotional
distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, physical injuries, and loss of community
reputation, entitling each of them to compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.
150. MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL each seek punitive
damages in an amount to be proven at trial as Defendants acted with malice, intent,
oppression, knowledge and reckless indifference to violation of their constitutional
rights.
151. MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL have each been forced
to engage the services of an attorney, and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other applicable state or federal law.
. . .
. . .

29

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PEACETIME QUARTERING OF DEFENDANTS IN MICHAEL MITCHELLS AND
LINDA MITCHELLS HOME WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT
153. Defendant DOE police officer 21-30 entered into and quartered
themselves in the home of MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL without
their consent, violating their rights guaranteed by the Third and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
relief, MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL suffered severe emotional
distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, and loss of community reputation, entitling
each of them to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
156. MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL each seek punitive
rights.
157. MICHAEL MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL have each been forced
to engage the services of an attorney, and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .

30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNLAWFUL PUNISHMENT OF ANTHONY MITCHELL AND MICHAEL
MITCHELL AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THEIR SERIOUS MEDICAL
NEEDS AS PRETRIAL DETAINEES
159. After ANTHONY MITCHELL was arrested and in police custody, he
was subjected to punishment while a pretrial detainee by OFFICER DAVID
CAWTHORN and denied treatment for serious medical needs by DOES 36 and 37,
violating his rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution.
160. After MICHAEL MITCHELL was arrested and in police custody, he was
subjected to punishment while a pretrial detainee by Defendant DOES 32-55,
violating his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.
161. After ANTHONY MITCHELL was arrested by OFFICER DAVID
CAWTHORN and Defendant DOE police officers 1-10 and while in their custody and
in the capacity of a pretrial detainee, ANTHONY MITCHELL was subjected to
unjustified, unnecessary, wanton and unreasonable physical punishment by these
Defendant police officers, who intended to punish and harm ANTHONY MITCHELL
in carrying out this conduct.
162. At the time this punishment was administered by OFFICER DAVID
CAWTHORN and Defendant DOE police officers 1-10, ANTHONY MITCHELL was
not resisting or in any manner posing a threat to anyone, and it was administered
without any legal cause or justification.
163. After ANTHONY MITCHELL was transported to the Henderson
Detention Center he informed Defendant DOES 36 and 37 of his serious medical

31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

need in the form of his anti-seizure medication.
164. Defendant DOES 36 and 37 acted with deliberate indifference to
ANTHONY MITCHELLs serious medical needs and failed to adequately respond to
his request for his medication.
165. After MICHAEL MITCHELL was arrested by Defendant DOE police
officer 21 and supervised by Defendant DOE police officers 31-35, and while in the
custody of these police officers in the capacity of a pretrial detainee, MICHAEL
MITCHELL was subjected to unjustified, unnecessary, wanton and unreasonable
physical punishment in the form of being subjected to excessive and life-threatening
heat after being placed in the rear of a police vehicle, and these Defendant DOE
police officers intended to punish and harm MICHAEL MITCHELL in carrying out
this conduct.
166. Defendants DOE police officers 31-35 were aware of MICHAEL
MITCHELLs serious medical needs based on his repeated and vocal demands that
something be done about the excessive heat he was being subjected to in the rear of
the police vehicle.
167. Defendant DOE police officers 31-35 acted with deliberate indifference
to MICHAEL MITCHELLs serious medical needs and failed to adequately respond
to his requests to relieve the oppressive and life-threatening heat he was being
subjected to.
relief, ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL suffered severe emotional
proven at trial.
169. ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL each seek punitive

32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

rights.
170. ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL have each been
forced to engage the services of an attorney, and are entitled to attorneys fees and
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other applicable state or federal law.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WITH INTENT TO DEPRIVE ANTHONY MITCHELL
AND MICHAEL MITCHELL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
172. OFFICER ANGELA WALTER, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WORLEY,
OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN and Defendant DOE police officers 38-45 acted
willfully, knowingly, and with malice and specific intent to deprive ANTHONY
MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL of their constitutional rights to freedom
from illegal searches, unlawful arrest, detention, and their rights to freedom of
expression, to physical liberty, and to due process of law under the First, Fourth,
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by causing
Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL to be jailed, filing
police reports containing knowingly false statements, and causing criminal
complaints to issue against them while knowing that there was no probable cause to
initiate the criminal proceedings against ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL.
173. On or about July 13, 2011 Defendant JANETTE R. REYES-SPEER acted
willfully, knowingly, and with malice and specific intent to deprive ANTHONY
MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL of their constitutional rights to freedom
from illegal searches, unlawful arrest, detention, and their rights to freedom of
expression, to physical liberty, and to due process of law under the First, Fourth,
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by filing

33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

criminal complaints as complainant under penalty of perjury against Plaintiffs
ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL as described in paragraphs 92
and 93 herein, while knowing that the criminal complaints contained false
statements, that ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL committed no
crime, and that there was no probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against
ANTHONY MITCHELL or MICHAEL MITCHELL.
174. The criminal proceedings that were the subject of the July 13, 2011
criminal complaints against ANTHONY MITCHELL terminated on November 9,
2013 when all charges were dismissed with prejudice.
175. The criminal proceedings that were the subject of the July 13, 2011
criminal complaint against MICHAEL MITCHELL terminated on November 3, 2013
when all charges were dismissed with prejudice.
relief, ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL suffered severe emotional
proven at trial.
rights.
178. ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL have each been
forced to engage the services of an attorney, and are entitled to attorneys fees and
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other applicable state or federal law.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .

34

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CUSTOM, POLICY AND PRACTICE
paragraphs 1-178 as though fully restated herein.
180. Prior to the events of June 10th, 2011, the the HPD, the CITY OF
HENDERSON, the NLVPD and the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS developed and
maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the
Constitutional rights of United States citizens, which caused the violations of
Plaintiffs rights.
181. The actions of the Defendants herein resulted from and were taken
from a de facto policy of the HPD, the CITY OF HENDERSON, the NLVPD and the
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS which is implemented by the police officers, attorneys
and employees, agents, servants and contractors of HPD, the CITY OF
HENDERSON, the NLVPD and the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS. This de facto
policy includes, without limitation:
a. Summarily violating the constitutional rights of individuals and
punishing person who refused to obey police orders, whether lawful or
not, by means of unlawful detention, arrest, search, assault, battery,
excessive force and malicious prosecution;
b. Searching homes and ordering citizens to leave their homes without
warrant, probable cause, or legal justification;
c. Summarily violating the constitutional rights of individuals and
punishing personsby means of unlawful detention, arrest, search,
assault, battery, excessive force and malicious prosecutionwho
exercise their First Amendment right to express their legal rights and
remedies, express their opinion about police conduct, photograph police
activities and conduct, and disseminate and intend to disseminate

35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

information about police conduct to the news media;
d. Summarily punishing persons in an unlawful manner without
corroborating information, probable cause, legal excuse and / or rightful
authority of law by means of unlawful detention, arrest, search, assault,
battery, excessive force and malicious prosecution; and
e. Covering up, refusing to investigate, and misrepresenting facts
concerning allegations or cases of police misconduct.
182. The existence of the de facto policy described in paragraph 181 has been
known to supervisory and policy-making officers and officials of the HPD and the
NLVPD for a substantial period of time.
183. On or about August 1, 2013, representatives for the CITY OF
HENDERSON and the HPD made public statements to the press confirming aspects
of this policy and custom, including without limitation, justifying the conduct
complained of herein based on Plaintiffs using provocative language against police
officers, asserting that the entry into and search of the home of MICHAEL
MITCHELL and LINDA MITCHELL was to remove the occupants from continuing
to do their activities, and making statements at odds with the July 12, 2011, police
report of OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN.
184. Despite their knowledge of the said illegal policy and practices, the
supervisory and policy-making officials of the HPD, the CITY OF HENDERSON, the
NLVPD and the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, as a matter of policy, have not taken
steps to terminate said practices or investigate them, have not disciplined or
otherwise properly supervised individual police officers and attorneys who engaged
in said practices, have not effectively trained or supervised police officers and
attorneys with regard to the proper constitutional and statutory limits on the
exercise of their authority, and have instead sanctioned the policy and practices
described in paragraph 181 through their deliberate indifference to the effect of said
policy and practices upon the constitutional rights of the residents of and visitors to

36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the CITY OF HENDERSON, the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, and the County of
Clark.
185. The foregoing acts, omissions, and systematic failures are customs and
policies of the the HPD, the CITY OF HENDERSON, the NLVPD and the CITY OF
NORTH LAS VEGAS and caused the named Defendants and Defendant DOES to
believe that determination of the right to detain, search, compel removal from a
home, use force and the amount of allowable legal force, punish individuals for
exercising their First Amendment rights of expression, and file false criminal
complaints and without probable cause of a crime being committed was within their
discretion, and that complaints of illegal detainment, search, arrest, removal from a
home, punishment, use of excessive force, and filing false criminal complaints
without probable cause would not be honestly or properly investigated, with the
foreseeable result that these Defendants would be likely to illegally detain, search,
arrest, punish, compel removal from homes, use excessive force and make false
criminal complaints without probable cause.
186. The above-described polices and/or customs demonstrate a deliberate
indifference on the part of Defendants CITY OF HENDERSON and CITY OF
NORTH LAS VEGAS to the Constitutional rights of United States citizens, and were
the cause of the violations of Plaintiffs rights alleged herein.
187. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, omissions,
policies and customs of the the HPD, the CITY OF HENDERSON, the NLVPD and
the CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, Plaintiffs were improperly and illegally detained,
searched, arrested, forcibly removed from their homes, punished for their lawful
expression protected under the First amendment and maliciously prosecuted and
suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, physical injuries,
and loss of community reputation, entitling each of them to compensatory damages
in an amount to be proven at trial.
. . .

37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

188. Plaintiffs each seek punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial
as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and reckless
indifference to violation of their constitutional rights.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)
191. Defendants, beginning at a time no later than the early morning hours
of July 10, 2011, combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and with
and among each other to knowingly and willfully engage in and commit acts in
furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights guaranteed and
protected under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the First, Third, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The acts and agreement include,
without limitation:
a. violating Plaintiffs civil rights;
b. causing Plaintiffs to be harassed and arrested;
c. causing Plaintiffs to be punished as pretrial detainees;
d. intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Plaintiffs;
e. seeking and causing Plaintiffs to be prosecuted criminally without
probable cause;
f. making false statements and preparing police reports containing false
statements;
g. denying Plaintiffs medical treatment and ignoring their serious medical
needs;
h. punishing Plaintiffs for engaging in expression protected under the First

38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Amendment.
relief, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation,
physical injuries, and loss of community reputation, entitling each of them to
as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and reckless
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLECT TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1986
196. Defendants, and each of them, knew of the conspiracy to deprive
Plaintiffs of their civil rights as alleged above.
197. Defendants, and each of them, had the power to prevent or aid in
preventing the violations of Plaintiffs civil rights.
198. Defendants, and each of them, neglected or refused to prevent or aid in
the prevention of the violations of Plaintiffs civil rights.
as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and and reckless

39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

201. Plaintiffs have been forced to engage the services of an attorney, and are
entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other
applicable state or federal law.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Assault)
203. As described hereinabove, by pointing loaded firearms at Plaintiffs, and
making threatening moves and advancing upon Plaintiffs, Defendants caused
Plaintiffs to feel fear of harmful or offensive physical contact on multiple occasions.
204. The actions of Defendants in causing Plaintiffs to fear such harmful or
offensive physical contact were intentional, and undertaken with malice, oppression,
and a willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights, and without probable cause, legal
justification, permission or consent.
205. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs fear of harmful or
offensive physical contact, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress, pain and
as Defendants acted with malice, intent, oppression, knowledge and a conscious
disregard of Plaintiffs rights.
. . .
. . .
. . .

40

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Battery)
209. As a result of being seized, shot, thrown to the ground, slammed into
walls, handcuffed, beaten, and otherwise touched without consent, Plaintiffs
suffered harmful or offensive physical contact at the hands of Defendants.
210. The actions of Defendants in inflicting such harmful or offensive
physical contact were intentional, and undertaken with malice and oppression.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT)
215. Defendants detained and arrested Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL and
restrained his liberty without cause by dragging him from his home, handcuffing
him, placing him in a police vehicle, and jailing him, all against his will and without
his consent.
. . .

41

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

216. Defendants detained and arrested Plaintiff MICHAEL MITCHELL and
restrained his liberty without cause by physically preventing him from leaving the
Command Center, handcuffing him, placing him in a police vehicle, and jailing
him, all against his will and without his consent.
217. Defendants detained and arrested Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL and
restrained her liberty without cause by seizing her by the arm, forcefully dragging
her away against her will, and preventing her from remaining in her home, all
against her will and without her consent.
218. Defendants detention and arrest Plaintiffs was without legal authority,
without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without probable cause to believe
that a crime had been committed, without exigent circumstances, and without a
judicial warrant.
219. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice in detaining,
arresting and restraining the liberty of Plaintiffs.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

42

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

224. As set forth hereinabove, Defendants conduct was intentional,
malicious, and oppressive, and constituted extreme and outrageous conduct with
either the intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress.
225. As the actual and proximate result of Defendants extreme and
outrageous conduct, including without limitation the invasion of Plaintiff
ANTHONY MITCHELLs home, the invasion of the home of LINDA MITCHELL and
MICHAEL MITCHELL, the forcible removal of LINDA MITCHELL from their home,
the quartering of Defendants in their home without their consent, the shooting of
Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL and his dog while he was on the phone with his
mother, and the unjustified handcuffing and detention of Plaintiffs ANTHONY and
MICHAEL MITCHELL in each others presence and in the presence of LINDA
MITCHELL, physically abusing ANTHONY MITCHELL during and after his arrest,
locking MICHAEL MITCHELL in a dangerously hot vehicle, and denying
ANTHONY MITCHELL his anti-seizure medication, Plaintiffs suffered humiliation,
mental anguish, physical discomfort, injury, and severe emotional distress, entitling
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
229. Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL, via her telephone, was subjected to the
sounds of her son being shot and brutalized by Defendant officers after they broke

43

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

into his home.
230. As a direct and proximate result of observing these acts, Plaintiff
LINDA MITCHELL suffered shock and emotional injury entitling her to
231. Plaintiff LINDA MITCHELL has each been forced to engage the services
of an attorney, and is entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988 and any other applicable state or federal law.
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(CIVIL CONSPIRACY)
233. Defendants, acting in concert, agreed among themselves to detain,
arrest, punish and employ physical violence against Plaintiffs, in the manners and
ways previously alleged, all the while knowing that they had no legal right to do so.
234. Defendants further agreed among themselves to provide a false
accounting of the incident for the purpose of concealing their own wrongdoing and
causing Plaintiffs to be arrested and jailed.
235. The actions of Defendants were undertaken with fraud, oppression, and
malice.
236. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs

44

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(ABUSE OF PROCESS)
240. Defendants filed criminal complaints against Plaintiffs ANTHONY
MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL not for the purpose of resolving a legitimate
dispute, but for the ulterior purpose of legitimizing and/or concealing their wrongful
detention and arrest of Plaintiffs and other wrongful conduct complained of herein.
241. Defendants had no probable cause to file the criminal complaints filed
against ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL.
242. The criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal compliant
were terminated in favor of MICHAEL MITCHELL and ANTHONY MITCHELL.
243. The actions of Defendants constitute an abuse of process.
244. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice in initiating the
criminal process against Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL.
245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, ANTHONY
MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL suffered severe emotional distress, pain and
oppression, knowledge and a conscious disregard of their rights.
247. ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL have been forced to
engage the services of an attorney, and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs
. . .

45

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
249. Defendants initiated criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs ANTHONY
MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL by filing a complaint in the Municipal Court
of the CITY OF HENDERSON charging Plaintiffs each with obstruction.
250. Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Plaintiffs ANTHONY
MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL had committed said crimes.
251. The charges against Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL were dismissed with prejudice, thereby terminating the proceedings
against Plaintiffs.
252. The dismissal of said charges was not based on any agreement, request
or acceptance of mercy, or compromise, and such termination was in the favor of
Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL.
253. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice in initiating
criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL
MITCHELL.
254. As a result of the criminal proceedings initiated by Defendants,
Plaintiffs ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL were wrongfully
imprisoned, forced to post bond, and suffered severe emotional distress, pain and
oppression, knowledge and a conscious disregard of their rights.
256. ANTHONY MITCHELL and MICHAEL MITCHELL have been forced to
engage the services of an attorney, and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs

46

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)
258. Defendants CITY OF HENDERSON and CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS
are liable for the tortious acts of their agents and employees, as hereinabove alleged,
under the theory of Respondeat Superior.
259. As a direct and proximate result of those tortious acts, Plaintiffs
TWENTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION, AND TRAINING)
owed a duty to citizens, such as Plaintiffs, to exercise care in the hiring, training, and
supervision of their police force and attorneys, so as to protect citizens from false
arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and the like, at the hands of poorly
trained, poorly supervised, unwisely hired, or unwisely retained police officers and
attorneys.

47

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

breached this duty by
a. negligently tolerating and/or ratifying the practice or policy of their
police officers in detaining, seizing, and arresting citizens without
probable cause or reasonable grounds, punishing pretrial detainees and
ignoring their serious medical needs, punishing citizens based on their
expression protected under the First Amendment, maliciously
prosecuting citizens, and violating citizens Constitutional rights to due
process and to freedom from unreasonable seizure, as manifested by
Defendants failure to discipline the officers and attorneys who
committed such acts as alleged above;
b. negligently tolerating and / or ratifying the practices and policies
described in paragraph 181 and the Tenth Claim for Relief herein; and
c. failing to properly screen individuals who apply to become police
officers and attorneys, and failing to remove dangerous police, as
manifested by Defendants failure to conduct an internal investigation
and inquiry under the circumstances described herein.
265. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter a judgment in their favor
and against Defendants, jointly and severally, and award:
1. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial as to each and every
claim herein;
2. Exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial
as to each and every claim herein, save for the Seventeenth and Twenty-Second
claims for relief;
3. Prejudgment interest pursuant to law;
4. Declaratory relief declaring Defendant Officers' conduct to be
unconstitutional;
5. Following a proper motion, a permanent injunction requiring
Defendants CITY OF HENDERSON and CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS to adopt
appropriate policies regarding the hiring, training, and supervision of their police
officers;
6. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to all applicable state and
federal statutes, codes, and rules, including without limitation 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
7. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues in this action to the
extent authorized by law.
DATED this day of October, 2013.
BENJAM C. DURH , ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7684
FRANK H. COFER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11362
COFER, GELLER & DURHAM, LLC
601 South Tenth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 631-6111
(702) 946-0826 fax
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48

Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Nevada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Nevada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Nevada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like