Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Maffey v. City of Vernal Complaint

Maffey v. City of Vernal Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 101|Likes:
Published by Siouxsie Law
Complaint
Complaint

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Siouxsie Law on Jan 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Andrew
R.
Fackrell, #13695
Attorney
for
Plaintiff
1234 W. South Jordan Pkwy, #C2South Jordan, UT 84095Tel: (801) 446-3788Fax:(801)365-7215arfackrell@hotmail.com
FILED
U.S. DISTRICT
COUR
r
ZOIJ
JAN
-3
A
8:
Sb
DISTRICT
OF
UTAH
BY:
DEPUTYCLERf\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAHBEN D. MAHAFFEY,Plaintiff,CITY OF VERNAL, a municipal corporation;City Manager KEN BASSETT, PoliceOfficers SHAWN SMITH and RODESKELSON;
Chief
of
Police DYLANROOKS; and Assistant
Chief
of
PoliceKEITH CAMPBELL,Defendants.
COMPLAINT
FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS (42 U.S.C §1983)AND INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION(JURY
TRIAL
DEMANDED)
-----------------
--------
--
Case: 2:13cv00004Assigned
To
:
Sam,
DavidAssign. Date : 1/3/2013
Description:
.Mahaffey v. City
of
Vernal
et
al
COMES
NOW
Ben
D.
Mahaffey, Plaintiff in the above entitled case by through theundersigned counsel, Andrew Fackrell, and brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C.'
1983,seeking damages to remedy violations
of
his rights secured by the
4th,
5t\
and
14th
Amendmentsto the Constitution. Mr. Mahaffey also seeks damages for intrusion upon seclusion pursuant toUtah common law.
I.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
1.
Jurisdiction
of
this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§
1331 and 1343, 42
Case 2:13-cv-00004-DN Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 11
 
U.S.C.
§§
1983 and 1988, and common law. Supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant statelaw claims is proper pursuant to
28
U.S.C. § 1367(a) and common law.2. This Court possesses proper subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties.
3.
Venue is appropriate in this district.
4.
Defendants are citizens
of
and reside in the state
of
Utah.
5.
The acts complained
of
occurred in the state
of
Utah. Plaintiffs causes
of
actionarose in the state ofUtah.
II. PARTIES
6.
Plaintiff is a citizen
of
the United States and is a resident
of
St. George, Utah.
7.
Defendant CITY OF VERNAL (hereinafter "CITY") is a municipal corporation dulyorganized and existing under the laws
of
the State
of
Utah.
8.
Upon information and belief, Defendant KEN BASSETT (hereinafter "CityManager") is and was at all relevant times the city manager
of
the CITY. He is sued in hisofficial capacity as city manager
of
the CITY.
9.
Defendants SHAWN SMITH and ROD ESKELSON (hereinafter "Officers") are andwere at all relevant times employed as police officers by the CITY and committed the actscomplained ofherein while acting within the scope and course
of
their official duties as policeofficers. They are sued in their official capacities.
10.
KEITH CAMPBELL is and was at all relevant times the Assistant Chief
of
Police
of
Vernal City (hereinafter "Assistant Chief ofPolice") and he committed the acts complained
of
herein while acting in his official capacity as Assistant Chief
of
Police. He is sued in his official2
Case 2:13-cv-00004-DN Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 11
 
capacity.11. DYLAN ROOKS is and was at all relevant times the
Chief
of
Police
of
Vernal City(hereinafter
"Chief
of
Police") and he committed the acts complained
of
herein while acting inhis official capacity as
Chief
of
Police. He is sued in his official capacity.12. With respect to all facts and violations alleged in this complaint, Defendants actedunder color
of
state law.
III. ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS
13.
On
or about May 21, 2012,
Plaintiffs
wife
of
58 years passed away in
Plaintiffs
home.14. While awaiting the arrival
of
the mortician, Plaintiff remained in the room with hisdeceased wife to say goodbye.15. A short time later the Defendant Police Officers knocked
on
the door and entered
Plaintiffs
home.16. The Defendant Police Officers showed Plaintiff no warrant and simply stated thatthey had come to confiscate any and all prescription medications belonging to
Plaintiffs
wife,who had
just
passed on.
17.
Although still in shock from the passing
of
his wife
of
58 years, and although still
in
need
of
attending to his wife's body to ensure a dignified and respectful transfer
of
the bodyfrom the home, Defendant police officers nonetheless insisted that the Plaintiff abandon hisattendance to his wife's body and aid them
in
their search for prescription drugs.18. Although distraught, Plaintiff nonetheless complied with the orders.3
Case 2:13-cv-00004-DN Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 11

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->