1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross PO Box 6946 Reno NV 89513 (775) 626-0895 IN PRO SE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs ) ) ) Ernestine Montgomery ) ) Cornelius Montgomery ) Defendants. ) ________________________)

COMPLAINT NO.

INTRODUCTION 17 1) This action seeks monetary relief from the defendants for the tort of outrageous conduct 18 and the intentional infliction of emotional distress and the loss of consortium between the Plaintiff 19 father, and his children who were hidden away until past the age of majority by the defendants. 20 21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22 2) The allegations in this complaint do not request the District Court to issue a divorce, 23 alimony, or child custody decree, the suit is appropriate for the exercise of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 24 jurisdiction given the existence of diverse citizenship between petitioner and respondents and the 25 pleading of the relevant amount in controversy. Ankenbrandt v. Richards 504 U. S. 689 112 S. Ct. 26 2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468, 60 U.S.L.W. The court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. 1367 to hear Plaintiffs state law claims because those claims are related to Plaintiff’s federal 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

law claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related facts. Plaintiff’s state law claims are related to Plaintiff’s federal law claims such that those claims form part of the same case of controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

3) Venue is proper in that the claims alleged here arose due to the Plaintiffs residence within the Northern District of Nevada

PARTIES 4) Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross is a black disabled American who resides in Reno, NV and is a citizen of the United States.

5) Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross brings this action on behalf of himself pursuant to the Tort of Outrageous Conduct and that loss of consortium by way of the Defendants actions of actively concealing the Plaintiffs children in order to wantonly, recklessly and without regard to the mental health of the children and of the Defendant concealed the children from the Plaintiff until past the age of majority. Plaintiff had a right to reasonable visitation with the children.

6) Defendant Ernestine Montgomery is the Mother of the two children of Hiawatha HoeftRoss: Shanina DOB 3-15-84 and Hiawatha James Ross DOB 9-27-79. Defendant Ernestine Montgomery actively and with malice deliberately hid the children from the Plaintiff to frustrate visitation. 6) Defendant Cornelius Montgomery is the new husband of Ernestine Montgomery and exercises control over the children. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the defendant Cornelius Montgomery aided and abetted in the concealment active of the children.

/// -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

FACTS

Plaintiff and Defendant Ernestine Montgomery were married on April 22 1979 and were separated February 27 1987. Defendant Ernestine Montgomery frustrated visitation right from the beginning by not letting Plaintiff see his children. Plaintiff was inseparable from his two children since the date of their birth. Although Ernestine Montgomery stated in her dissolution (which was filed in ex-parte) that there should be reasonable visitation, she never allowed it. After her bankruptcy and loss of the house in 1988, she went to Washington State without motioning the court for a move-away sometime in Late 1989 and returned in the summer of 1990 when she deposited the children with the Plaintiff for three months. For a short time thereafter visitation was reasonable, until Defendant Cornelius Montgomery was In the picture, visitation then stopped altogether. During the time between the forfeiture of the family residence and 1990, Plaintiff did not know where Defendant Ernestine Montgomery was residing After the reasonable visitation had stopped, Plaintiff had to use a service to locate Ernestine Montgomery by and through her new husband Cornelius Montgomery. This was done so that papers could be served on him to stop interfering in visitation. In 1993 several calls were place to the Montgomery residence and calls were either intercepted by and answering machine, or were terminated by Defendant Ernestine Montgomery. In October of 1993 special counsel for the children was ordered since visitation was not happening. It was determined that the children wanted 40% visitation with their father, but Ms. Montgomery objected for several reasons and went so far as to bribe the children with a trip to Hawaii in exchange for saying that they did not want to see their father any more. There is an extensive outline of the years of frustration of visitation by the defendants. Sometime in 1994, Defendants left the Fremont area and Plaintiff has not seen his children since. He tried to initiate telephone contact with the daughter in 1997, but was cut short by the Defendant Ernestine Montgomery in that she would file another restraining order against Plaintiff if he tried to contact his daughter again. Plaintiff has not seen or heard of children since. /// -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

INJURIES

7) By reason of defendants outrageous acts, and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury the would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

First claim SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-7 of the complaint herein.

9) By reason of defendants outrageous acts, and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

Second claim INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS DISREGARD 10) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-9 of the complaint herein.

11) Defendants acted with the intent to inflict injury and with the realization that an injury was substantially certain to result from their conduct. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages. -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

Third Claim OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT 12) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-11 of the complaint herein.

13) By defendants concealing the children for almost 15 years the conduct is so outrageous that it exceeds all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury the would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

Fourth claim NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 14) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-13 of the complaint herein.

15) Injuries were proximately caused by the Defendants by their negligent conduct and willful violation of a statutory standard. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

Fifth Claim ABUSE OF PROCESS 16) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-14 of the complaint herein.

17) Defendants, with malice, used the legal process to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designated - that being keeping plaintiff apart from his children. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed -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

head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

Sixth Claim LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 18) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-17 of the complaint herein.

19) Plaintiff is of the state of mind that concealment of his children is worse than the death of the children, that he has suffered a loss of love, advice, comfort, companionship and society. Such concealment was done with malice and reckless disregard of the statutory scheme and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

/// -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 ____________________________ Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross IN PRO PER Respectfully submitted This _____day of April 2002

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross prays for entry of judgement against the Defendants that: 1) Compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000; 2) Special damages (punitive) in the amount of $100,000; 3) that all costs of suit herein be awarded; 4) such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

-7-