You are on page 1of 63
CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MICHELLE MACDONALD SHIMOTA and THOMAS G. SHIMOTA, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT. vw BOB WEGNER, Individually, andi) (JURY TRIAL DEMAND) his official capacity; CHRISTOPHER MEL TON, individually, and in his official enpacity; TIMOTHY GONDER, individually, and in his official enpacity, JON NAPPER, individually and in his official capacity, DANIEL FLUEGEL, FLUEGEL LAW FIRM P.A,, DAKOTA COUNTY, ond JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Plaintiffs MICHELLE MACDONALD SHIMOTA AND THOMAS G. SHIMOTA, by and through their attomeys M, ‘Tayati Garrett and Nathan Busch, for this their Complaint alloge as follows: IL INTRODUCTION 1. While representing an indigent client pro bono, Plaintiff MICHELLE MACDONALD SHIMOTA ("MACDONALD") filed a federal action against, and sought to recuse, a Dakota County judge on September 11, 2013. ‘The next day, on Seaees eects eee nveec “COMPLAINT - I [Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 63 September 12, 2013, MACDONALD was summoned to that judge’s courtroom where Deputy Sheriffs of Dakota County unceremoniously handcuffed, detained and tortured MACDONALD in the courthouse and their jail facilities for several hours, then continuing the illegal detention and torture overnight and through the next day. MACDONALD was disallowed a single phone call during this ordeal although she was, much later, charged with eriminal Contempt of Court, A visiting judge subsequently dismissed the “trumped up” criminal charge on April 4, 2014 for luck of probable enuse, 2. This is an action for monetary damages and injunctive roliof against DAKOTA COUNTY, BOB WEGNER, CHRISTOPHER MELTON, TIMOTHY GONDER, JON NAPPER, DANIEL FLUEGEL, FLURGEL LAW FIRM P.A., and “JOHN and/or JANE DORS” 1 through 10, representing unknown and unidentified persons believed to be members of the Dakota County Sheriff's Office (collectively, “Defendants”), for committing acts under color of law, depriving Plaintiffs of rights scoured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and State of Minnesota, including, but not limited 10, excessive force, assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of ‘emotional distress, failure to intervene, conspiracy and loss of consortium, IL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This federal civil rights action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pursuant to Article 1 §§ 5, 7, 8, 10 of the Constitution of ~ COMPLAINT - 2/Page ‘MaeDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et.al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 63 the State of Minnesota, 4, Jurisdiction in this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. Plaintiffs further invoke the ‘supplemental jarisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and decide claims arising under state lav, 5, Venue is properly laid in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), this boing the District in which at least ono of the defendants resides and wiero the unlawful practices delincated hercin occurred. 6, At all relevant times, MACDONALD was and is a citizen of the United States end the State of Minnesota, She was a resident of Dakota County, Minnesota when she was illegally detained, assaulted and tortured by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS on or about September 12 and 13, 2013. At all relevant times, MACDONALD was and is married to THOMAS G. SHIMOTA (“SHIMOTA”), who resides with MACDONALD in Dakota County, ‘Minnesota. At all relevant times, Plaintiff SHIMOTA was and is « citizen of the United States and the State of Minnesota. 8, Atal relevant times, Defendant Dakota County (“COUNTY”) was and is « municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota with its principal offices located at 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033-2343, At all times mentioned, the Dakota County Sheriff's Office was and is a department or agency of the COMPLAINT - 3|Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et al, v. Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 63 COUNTY, At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY was and is responsible for the control of the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, their agents and employees, and the COUNTY was and is responsible for the appointment, training, supervision, promotion, discipline of sheriffs, correction officers and civilian employees including individu defendants WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1 through 10 (Coliectively, “DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS”), In naming “COUNTY,” Plaintiffs included and intended to include the Dakota County Shetifi’s Office, 9. On information and belief, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were and are citizens of the United States and the State of Minnesota, Atall relevant times, these individuals were employed and, on information and belief, are still are employed, by defendant Dakota County and acted under color of law and under color of their authority as officers, agents, servants and employees of Defendant COUNTY, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ate sued individually and in their official capacities, 10. Defendant Dan Fluegel is the owner and operator of Fluegel Law Firm P.A, in Minnesota. On information and belief, Defendant Daniel Fluegel was and is a citizen of the United States and the State of Minnesota, 11, Fluogel Law Firm P.A. is a private law firm organized and existing under the laws of the statc of Minnesota with its principal executive offices located at 999 ‘Westview Drive, Suite 1, Hastings, MN 55033, USA, Fleugel Jaw Fiem PA. may be COMPLAINT - 4/Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 63 served on its registered agent, Donald J. Fluegel 999 Westview Drive, Hastings, MN 35033, On information and belief, Fluegel Law Firm P.A. benefits financially from a contract with the City of Hastings in Dakota County, wherein, at all relevant times, it was. and is contracted to prosecute misdemeanor erim WV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND 12. On or about September 26, 2014, pursuant to Minnesota Stat. 466.05 Subd. 1, and the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs served on municipal defendant COUNTY, and all other defendants, detailed and timely Notices of Claim and Evidence Preservation Requests, 13. After receiving Plaintiffs’ Notices, Dakota County Attomey James Backstrom filed a complaint with the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board against Plaintiffs’ attomey, which was dismissed with no action, Plaintiffs? attorney fears this move by Backstrom was made in an effort to threaten her Legal career ‘and impact the prosecution of this ease.’ 14, Although Judge David Knutson is not a defendant in this matter, his atforney in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office indicated in prior proceedings that she wes in possession of materials necessary to the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ case, ‘Thus, out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs served their Spoliation/Evidence Preservation "Te may be noted that this frivolous Board complaint by Backstrom parallels another matter where the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board publicly reprimanded him in 2009; in that case, Backstrom was publicly reprimanded after a Dakota County medical examiner resigned from a case because she felt Backstrom threatened her career and livelihood. COMPLAINT - 5|Page. MacDonald Shimota et al, v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 6 of 63 Requests upon Assistant Attorney General Alethea Huyser, Without providing legal or other basis for her position, Huyser flatly indicated a refusal to comply with the requests and Plaintifis? Counset?s subsequent phone calls to Huyser were not returned. 15, This action has been commenced within two years after the slate law causes of action set forth herein accrued, and within this disttic’s applicable statute of limitations for federal civil rights actions, v. FACTUAL BACKGROUND i. September IL and 12, 2013 Graceint-Rucki Trial 16, Plaintiff MACDONALD js a wife, mother, family advocate and attorney with good standing in the state of Minnesota, the Minnesota federal district court, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, as well as the United States Supreme Court, She had been practicing law in excess of a quatter century when approached to handle a pro bono matter for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in Dakota County. 17, Inresponse to what she, in her extensive family law experience, considered bizarre, legally baseless and unprecedented abusive behavior by Judge David Knutson, MACDONALD (on behalf of her client) filed multiple appeals, writs, and complaints against Judge Knutson through the date of her ultimate arrest. In fact, on September 11, 2013, MACDONALD filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of Sandra Grazzini- Ruoki and her children (hereinafter denoted as the “Grazzini Federal Case”), naming, Judge Knutson as one of the defendants to the unconstitutional actions and violations of COMPLAINT - 6|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 7 of 63 constitutional rights that, among other concetns, separatéd Grazzini-Rucki from her children and forced her into homelessness and despondency.? 18. ~ Later that day, on September 11, 2013, MACDONALD was required to atend a state court trial before Judge Knutson and involving the custody of Grezzin Ro children, Before the trial commenced, and in the presence of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MACDONALD asked Judge Knutson fo recuse himself, Judge Kmutson refused the motion and proceeded with the trial through the end of the day. 19, On September 12, 2013, a day after she filed Grazzini-Rucki’s federal class action lawsuit, MACDONALD appeared in the Dakota County courthouse to attend a second day of the Grazzini-Rucki trial before Judge Knutson, By this time, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were well aware of MACDONALD’s federal complaint, which was also discussed in their presence. 20, Oddly, the court administrator disseminated information to the media and other members of the public that the continuance of Grazzini-Rucki's trial before Judge Kautson on September 12 was cancelled, Howover, in further pursuing the matter, MACDONALD observed that the daily court docket from the Court Administration office indicated that the trial would proceed. 21, The errant publication concerning the cancellation of the Grazzini-Rucki trial ensured that most members of the media and public that relied on the publicly 7 As of the filing of this Complaint, the Grazzini-Rucki complaint against Judge Knutson is pending in the 8 Cireuit Court of Appeals for the United State of America, COMPLAINT - 7|Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et.al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 8 of 63 disseminated information would not be prosent to witness what would happen to MACDONALD that day. 22. To obtain evidence for the Grazzini Federal Case, MACDONALD took « photograph of both the paper copy daily docket document, which was available at the Office of the Comt Administration, as well as the publicly available electronic daily docket monitor, which was also outside of the courtroom. MACDONALD also took photographs of Grazzini-Rucki outside of the courtroom, ‘Then, once inside of the courtcoom, but before the trial began, MACDONALD took a photograph of GONDER, ‘who was posing and smiling, perhaps ominously, while waving at the eamera, 23, At the time that she took the photographs, MACDONALD had no notice that taking photographs was forbidden, and there was no Minnesota law prohibiting the same. 24, Nonetheless, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS subsequently, illegally, seized and searched MACDONALD’s camera, 25. Also, during a moring break” in the September 12, 2013 trial, as MACDONALD was working, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS approuched and illegally seized and detained MACDONALD in her person, 26. In detaining MACDONALD, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS quickly approached her from behind while she was working, forcibly 3 During the break, Judge Knutson exited the courtroom, purportedly to allow MACDONALD and her client fo locate a document necessary for cross-examination, lator enonymously placed jn her property bag. _ i COMPLAINT - 8|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15:cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page:9 of 63 removed her from the court and placed her into a holding area, which was immediately adjacent to the courtroom, without warning or apparent ease, 27. At the time the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS defained MACDONALD, they knew or should have known there wes no probable cause to believe MACDONALD had committed a crime or was in the process of committing a crime, 28, To wit, as a example: as trained officers of the law, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew, or should have known, that the taking of photographs did not evince eximinal conduct, 29, Hach DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT acted in his own, personal capacity under the color of law as a Deputy Sheriff, by forcibly removing MACDONALD from the courtroom and into the holding coll to intentionally initiate a plan to persecute and punish MACDONALD for bringing a Section 1983 Case against Judge Knutson and seeking his reeusal, 30, During the process of removing MACDONALD from the courtroom and placing her in a holding cell, each of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS used means of physical force and show of authority, 31, Whilst being detained in the holding area, MACDONALD inquited as to the legal basis and motivation of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS for their interrogation, display of force, and show of authority to no avail. COMPLAINT - 9|Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et. a. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 10 of 63 32, At the time that the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had MACDONALD locked in the holding area, they verbally taunted her and later placed her ina solitary cell. 33. When MACDONALD finally began fo ery and request permission to make a single phone call, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS taunted her ‘more saying thal they were “crocodile teats,” and made disperaging references to the late South African President Nelson Mondeta, 34, There were others nearby watching the ordeal and DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS | insisted that these witnesses were mocking MACDONALD because she was powerless before the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS despite her status as an attorney. 35, The male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS took their fist opportunity to handle MACDONALD’s body and personal property. 36. MACDONALD was made to feel uncomfortable and personally invaded as one of the men stripped her of her hairpieve, shoes, eye glasses, and jewelry, including her wedding rings and a gold necklace with a cross pendant that was given to her by her husband. 37. To date, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have not returned MACDONALD's gold necklace with a cross pendant despite repeated requests, COMPLAINT - 10|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 11 of 63 38, Without cause or explanation, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS unceremoniously handcuffed and jailed MACDONALD after toking her property. the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 39. At no point read or otherwise recite the Miranda Rights to MACDONALD. 40, ‘The illegal seizure and unlawful detention occurred after Judge Knutson refused to remove himself ftom the case, and afer the Grazzini Federal Case was mentioned in the presence of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. 4l, According to DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Judge Knutson communicated with them during this ordeal, where he ordered they return MACDONALD to his court wherein she was further humiliated. 42. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS then returned to MACDONALD’s jail cell with a wheelchair; they forced MACDONALD onto the Wheelchair and then restrict her thereon by fitting her with a belt fo wear around her waist ‘and handoutfing her to the belt, 43, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS thereafter wheoled MACDONALD to Judge Knutson’s court. 44, TLwas after she was wheeled beck to counsel fable in Judge Knutson's court did MACDONALD discover that all of her client files and boxes were missing, along with her belongings, including, without limitation, her cell phone and a large pocketbook COMPLAINT - 11|Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et. al. . Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 12 of 63 with her wallet, money, eredit cards and other personal items, Her elient, Ms, Grazzini- Rucki, was also missing, 45. Ms, Grazzini-Rucki later told MACDONALD that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS instructed the client to leave the court along with ‘courtroom supporters; however, the opposing attorneys and their clients, including two guardian ad litems, remained present, 46, When Judge Knutson re-entered the court, he demanded MACDONALD cither enter a default on her clients behalf (ie. just quit), or complete trial under hor current conditions and without the case files, eyeglasses and other materials confiscated by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, 47. Of course, MACDONALD refused to accept the default loss on the very important child custody matter; thereforo, sho was forced to conduet the remainder of the {tial without evidence, without the presence of her client, without her client files and without eyeglasses or shoes, 48. On information and belief, because of the public notification that the trial had been cancelled, the only persons observing MACDONALD’s tribulations in the courtroom were DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Judge Kitson and those opposing MACDONALD and Grazzini-Rucki, ‘They all distegarded MACDONALD’ condition. 49, In fact, Judge Knutson oven called a lunch break, whereby the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wheeled MACDONALD ont of the courtroom COMPLAINT - 12|Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 13 of 63 and locked her back in the jail cell — still in the wheelchair and handcuffed. It was “business as usual” for all involved, 50. At one point during the lunch break, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS callously threw a lunch bag at her, which she believed she could not reach due to her wheelchair restriction, 51, Thereafter, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS returned MACDONALD to the courtroom, still handcuffed, confined to s wheelchair, without shoes or glasses, and without pen and paper for trial, 52, During the remainder of the Grazzini-Rucki custody tvial on September 12, 2013, MACDONALD was in handeuffs attached to the belt around her waist, restricted to a wheel chair, and guarded with guns by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS standing immediately behind her, 53. Obviously, any lawyer would be at a disadvantage at trial without necessary eyeglasses, the benefit of their client’s presence, in handeuffs and without case files, 54, Kitson not only ruled against GrazziniRucki, but also capitalized on the situation by complaining to the Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility for Jawyers (the “Board”) that MACDONALD was ineffective counsel to Grazzini-Rucki while in handcuffs that day, and further attaching his adverse ruling to a Motion in his defense of the Grazzini Federal Case. : 55. MACDONALD was forced to hite a lawyer to defend herself with the currently pending Board complaint by Judge Knutson, COMPLAI |Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 14 of 63 56, Knutson's complaint may result in MACDONALD's suspension or loss of her law license, despite the alleged ineffective services being the direct result of MACDONALD’s unlawful arrest and confinement by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. it, September 12 to 13, 2013 Jail Confinement 57. After the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial concluded, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS continued the seizure of the person of MACDONALD and continued to confine her to the wheelchair whilst handcuffed to the prisoner belt that was around her waist. MACDONALD’s detention continued after the termination of the ‘tial, throughout that night and into the following day. Even though the judge, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, and MACDONALD were together in the courtroom, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS did not seek an arrest warrant fiom the judge and did not seck a warrant to hold MacDonald in investigative detention, 58. On information and belief, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew that the only reason they would continue to detain and torture MACDONALD was-to punish her and persecute her for secking to recuse, filing and serving a Section 1983 Case against their judge, 59, To this end, at the end of the trial on September 12, 2013, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wheeled MACDONALD through a tunnel to the adjacent jail, where at least three male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT - i4|Page. ‘MacDonald Shimota et, al, v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 15 of 63 DEFENDANTS got into the elevator with her and many, many, more handled her throughout the rest of the day, throughout the night and the next day. 60. During the aforcmentioned period of incarcerations, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew, and were well aware, that: (1) MACDONALD was not in the process of committing criminal activity; (2) none of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was in progress; (3) even if there was some pumpose for the seizure of the body of MACDONALD, the length of the period of detention was not circumscribed in its temporal extent so as to allow the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS an opportunity to effectuate the purpose of a seizure; (4) the investigative methods employed by the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were the most intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the suspicion of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS that criminal activity was afoot; (5) MACDONALD represented no threat to the personal safety of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; and (6) MACDONALD was neither armed nor dangerous, Gi. Also, during the period of incarceration: (1) MACDONALD was not charged with any crime; (2) no bail had been set; (3) the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wore not conducting an investigation into the circumstances or facts pertaining to any crime; (4) neither a warrant nor authorization For the arrest or detention of MACDONALD had been sought or granted; and, (5) since the COMPLAINT - 15|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 16 of 63 Judge was readily available, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS hold MACDONALD far longer than was reasonably necessary to obtain either a warrant for her arrest or authorization for holding her in detention, 62. It is notable that one of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Defendant NAPPER, has a history of violence against women in the custody of the County Sheriffs, 63. In one example, JON NAPPER “knocked out” citizen Jill Ann Kelly, causing her fo break her leg and costing the county over $315,000 to settle the lawsuit, 64, Despite NAPPER’s history of violence and abuse ageinst women, Dakota County has continued to employ NAPPER and place him in positions of power and conitol over non-violent and defenseless female detainees such as MACDONALD. 65. NAPPER and other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS forced MACDONALD into an all-cement cell in the jail filled with only male detainees, as far as she could tell. 66, The jail cell where MACDONALD would stay ovemight initially had a toilet, toilet paper, a plastic mattress, and pillow, all of which MACDONALD was grateful to ulilize, However, this gratitude was short lived because Defendant GONDER later entered her cell to maliciously and unnecessarily removed the mattress, pillow, and toilet paper. 67. MACDONALD believed her jail cell was near freezing temperatures. Without the mattress and pillow, she further felt like the bare cement block DAKOTA COMPLAINT - {6|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 17 of 63 COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS forced her to sleep on was akin to lying on an. ice block in a freezer all night, 68, Many male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS deliberately “found” a reason to handle or otherwise interact with MACDONALD throughout the night, MACDONALD was not provided her Miranda rights or allowed to make a single phone call despite being jailed, her property confiscated as “evidence”, and having been interrogated while in handeufls earlier that day, 69. Indeed, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS told MACDONALD that she was not entitled to hearing her constitutional rights. 70. Given theiv blatant disregard for constitutional rights, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS made MACDONALD even more fearfut when they insisted on taking pictues of her while two DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS used this as an excuse to improperly handle and touch her while referring to MACDONALD as “beautiful”, And several months after MACDONALD's criminal case was dismissed for lack of probable cause, Dakota County Sheriffs have continued their abuse and intimidation of MACDONALD by releasing at least one of these pictures fo reporters, and making unnecessary appearances when she is in court in Dakota County, 71. At the time of detention, rather than answer her questions about the basis for being held against her will, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. repeatedly told MACDONALD that she had to be “booked” and could not make a phone COMPLAINT - 17|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 18 of 63 call until she was “booked.” And yel, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS never booked MACDONALD. 72, Throughout the overnight detention, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS purposely kept the temperature in her cell extremely low, and kept the bright lights on all night (o keop her awake; they also removed her toilet paper and nylons ‘when she attempted to use these items for warmth and (o cover her eyes. 73. With MACDONALD, they kept a small curtain open, where male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were able to peer at her through the night and watch her go to the bathroom, 74, Tor a person that had never been incarcerated, the experience and conditions were traumatic, terrifying and permanently life altering for MACDONALD. 78. MACDONALD’s fear, despair and frequent anxiety attacks over being detained without just cause, due process, and without access to the outside world caused het to push the medical alert button in her jeil cell numerous times throughout her detention. 76, Sirens were going off in the jail, and DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS menacingly told MACDONALD that others in the jail were attempting suicide in their continuing effort to traumatize the activist, wife and mother. 77. One Dakota County Individual Defendant told MACDONALD that she found a dead prisoner, At another point during the night, a male DAKOTA COUNTY )MPLAINT - i8|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 19 of 63 INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT threatened to stip MACDONALD naked and put her in a straight - jacket and a padded coll. ‘These are just a fow example. 78. With her consttational rights already, unceremoniously, stripped, MACDONALD could do nothing more than ery and pray for her worried family and for the others detained in the jail, She also prayed for protection from the male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. 79. During her solitary detention, MACDONALD was in a thin shin bra, thin pants, and underwear that became soiled due fo the lack of toilet paper and fear of using the foilet under the constant gaze of male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, 80. There were constant menacing and torturous behaviors towards MACDONALD throughout the entire detention. 81, Defendant GONDER, in parlicuter, made loud noises all night by rattling keys just outside MACDONALD’s door, and freely entered her jail cell throughout the night. Such tactics had no purpose other than to torture MACDONALD by depriving her of sleep and scaring her into believing she would be physically violated by being beaten or raped, 82, MACDONALD’s tears and prayers only served to encomage DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, who told MACDONALD that things would get “far worse” in the night, COMPLAINT ~ 19[Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et a CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 20 of 63 83. The DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS also taunted MACDONALD by repeatedly showing her blankets but then saying she could not have one, despite having caused MACDONALD 1o be extremely cold, 84, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS also kept the lights bright in her cell all night to watch her and further deprive her of sleep. There were many ee dg 85. MACDONALD asserts. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS utilized at least seven of the eleven intemationally recognized forms of torture against MACDONALD during her detention — (1) Sexual humiliation, (2) Sleep Deprivation, (3) Sensory Deprivation, (4) Solitary Confinement/Isolation, (5) ‘Temperature Extremes, (6) Sensory Bombardment (Noise), and (7) Psychological ‘Techniques, 86. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS achieved success in their attempts to “break MACDONALD, where at one point she indicated she was suicidal with the hopes that they would stop causing her severe physical and mental suffering. MACDONALD became so distressed she offered to “confess” to unknown charges in order to be released, 87, At no time during her detention did Knutson or any other person issue MACDONALD a citation for criminal contempt of court or any other criminal charge, COMPLAINT - 20|Page MacDonald Shiinota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1, Filed 03/25/15 Page 21 of 63 88, —Atall times relevant to this case, and continuing to the date of filing of this lawsuit, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS refused to identify the specific reason for MACDONALD’ jail confinement, iii, September 13, 2013 Court Ordered Release 89, On September 13, 2013, in the late aftemoon following her initial ares, MACDONALD still had not been charged or booked, and remained without the nylons, shoes, suit jacket, jewelry and other items DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had taken from her the provious day. 90. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS finally took MACDONALD before Dakola County Judge Tim Wermager, in the wheelchair and handoffs, where, appeating frazzled and frantic because of her overnight ordeal with DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MACDONALD tried to frantically explain part of the torture fo which she had been subjected. 91, ‘There was no prosecutor present and Judge Wermager signed an order to release her immediately. 92, Despite having Judge Wermager’s Release Order, DAKOTA ce INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had not concluded _their_tortwre of MACDONALD, 93. A Dakota County Individual Defendant approached and confirmed that FLUEGEL would bring criminal charges but that they would not release MACDONALD, despite the Wermager Order, unless she went with him and agreed to be “booked”. COMPLAINT = 21|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 22 of 63 94, MACDONALD ‘refused the ultimatums asserted by the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DBFBNDANTS, and reminded them that Judge Tim Wermager stated that she could be released without being booked. In response, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS stated FLUEGEL would bring « motion to circumvent the release order unless she was booked. 95, MACDONALD remained in detention despite the cout order, The seemingly enclless exchange belween MACDONALD and DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS continued for what felt like hours to MACDONALD, 96. When MACDONALD esisted any actions in violation of Judge Wermager’s order, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS threatened to keep MACDONALD jn jail for another 30 days, and then abruptly and forcibly returned her to a jail coll 91, MACDONALD fully expected that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS would continue to detain her in the all-male jail for 30 additional days ~ even though she was clutching Judge Wermager’s release order in her hand, 98, After what MACDONALD believed to be @ significant amount of time, a secutity officer named “Chris” opened MACDONALD’s jail cell and escorted her to another area to ostensibly get her property. 99. Without farther explanation, he then escorted her through a door leading to the outside - and her release! ~ COMPLAINT - 22[/Page. MacDonald Shimota et, al. v, Wegner et.al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 23 of 63 100, MACDONALD’s husband, paralegal, lawyer, and many other persons whom were denied access to her during the detention had been waiting outside the jail for her release, 101. When MACDONALD finally arrived home, and was with her husband, SHIMOTA, in the secmity of their home, she inventoried her jail property bag and obtained for the first time a citation for contempt that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS tipped into her bag without her knowledge, She also noticed a calendar 2011 printed out on a courthouse computer that was not her property. 102, Missing from the property bag was the camera DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS illegally confiscated from MACDONALD. 103. Most troubling, MACDONALD also noticed that the diamond Cross necklace her SHIMOTA had given her, and which she always wore, was missing with no propetty lst, inventory or explanation, She was devastated, 104, SHIMOTA attempted to console his wife as she confirmed that Defendant MELTON removed the necklace just before he handcuffed MACDONALD at the beginning of her tortuous ordeal. tn, Criminal Contempt of Court Charges 105, Tho week following her jail confinement, MACDONALD subpoenaed security videos in and outside the courthouse and jail for September 6, 11, 12, and 13 and related times and including any audio recordings and transcripts for evidenee of her ordeal, 23[Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Weguer et, al CASE 0;15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 24 of 63 106, ‘These subpoenaed items have not been produced and Dakota County Attomey James Backstrom has obsteucted their turnover, 107, MACDONALD also subpoenaed a related court appearance of September 16, 2013 in Scott County before Judge Rex Stacy. 108: While Backstrom blocked the turnover of evidence to MACDONALD, FLUEGEL was able to obtain the security videos and brought a single misdememor charge of criminal Contempt of Court against MACDONALD, 109. The complaint, filed in Dakota County District Coutt, asserted: O®FENSE - COUNTI CRIMINAL CONTEMPT (MISDEMEANOR) /iolation of M,8.588,20 (2)(4) ‘That on September 12, 2013, in the City of Hastings, Dakota COUNTY, Minnesota, MICHELLE L, MACDONALD SHIMOTA, then and thore being, willfully disobeyed a lawful process or other mandate of the court by taking a photogtaph within a courtroom of the Dakota COUNTY Government Center, as prohibited by the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. (State y. MACDONALD SHIMOTA, Coust File No, 19-HA-CR13-2934, Page 2), il0, Thus, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS- handcuffed MACDONALD, tormented her in jail, denied her basic constitutional protections, and subjected her fo torture and maltreatment over a two-day period because of an alleged misdemeanor resulting from unspecified civi? rules (not crimes) drafted by a commissioner's office (not a judge), and with no suggestion that MACDONALD had the notice necessary for a criminal contempt of court charge. COMPLAINT - 24|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al, v. Wegner et al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 25 of 63 111, Following what at feast one third-party observer deseribed as “sadistic behavior by the male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS at Dakota County jail, MACDONALD was required to hie an attorney to fight the basoless charges brought by FLUEGEL. 112, Visiting Judge Leslie Metzen ultimately determined that MACDONALD’s constitutional rights had been violated and dismissed the ease because no probable cause had been established, 113, FLUBGBL’s pursuit of frivolous criminal charges against MACDONALD, for financial or other gain is not limited to the baseless contempt charge described above. In another example, despite having blood (est evidence confirming MACDONALD had zero alcohol/drugs in her system during a May 2013 traffic stop, FLUBGEL relentlessly pursued to verdict a DWI charge against MACDONALD where a jury found her NOT GUILTY, 114. Defendant FLUEGEL’s criminal charges against MACDONALD were, and continue {o be, fodder for news media outlets, both online and print. 115, Nows reporters flocked to the jail where MACDONALD was confined, and 4 story about her incarceration ran on the television news as well as legal periodicals. 116. Indeed, Plaintiffs incurred actual and future damages including, without limitation, those items further detailed below. + Damages to MICHELLE MACDONALD (@ Actual Damages COMPLAINT - 25|Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et al. v. Wegner et.al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 26 of 63 117, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS nover returned the while gold cross necklace. with diamonds that defendant MELTON removed from MACDONALD’s neck when he took her into custody. 118, Jail protocol is to prepare a property list of contents taken from anyone being detained, but this was not done for MACDONALD. 119. The actual value of the Cross necklace is ostimated to have exceeded $1,500, but the sentimental value is practically immeasurable to the Plaintiff. 120, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have also refiised fo retum the camera they illegally took from MACDONALD on September 12, 2013, despite a written order by Judge Leslie Metzen instructing the return of the camera, 121, The actual value of the camera is estimated at $100, but the value of the thousands of family pictures in the eamera is nearly immeasurable, (b) Financial Stress 122, Defendants have caused MACDONALD’s faw practice to suffer significantly, 123, Plaintiffs have had to hite and pay attorneys for MACDONALD's criminal defense, as well as the resulting Board complaint, which is still pending. 124, | MACDONALD’s attorney fees and costs ate easily rising into six figures, 125, MACDONALD is aware that, while her family might be able to afford representation by using their emergency savings and home equity lino of credit, by the MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et, al. COMPLAINT - 26|Page CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 27 of 63 lime the Board process has concluded, legal representation could wipe out her entire safety net, 126, Plaintiffs continue to worry about their family and how they would survive if MACDONALD were to lose her law license. 127, Because of the negative media coverage related to her case, MACDONALD believes it would be virtually impossible to find a job with a salary anywhere near what she made prior to being jailed, 128, Because of the financial stress directly related to MACDONALD’s confinement, Plaintifts and their family also have made significant changes to their lifestyle since MACDONALD's 2013 confinement and initiation of criminal charges, 129, ‘The financial restrictions had also impaired MACDONALD's bid to the Minhesota Suprome court, where she has been able fo donate very little to her own campaign, having raised less than $500 during one of the reporting period immediately preceding this Notice. She received 46.54% of the vote despite this rosttiction, suggesting that she would have won the bid but for Defendants? actions. (©) Mental and Physical Health Issues 130, Among other issues, MACDONALD has struggled with posttraumatic stress, weight loss, anxiety, depression and insomnia as a direct result of the stress related to her arrest, confinement, torment and baseless criminal contempt charge. 131, MACDONALD’S mental and physical health issues because of Defendants? actions causes additional stress and concern for Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT - 27|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al, v. Wegner et. al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 28 of 63 (@) Damage to Reputation 132, Integrity and perception of integrity is a critical element to an attorney's, career, 133, _Atlomeys are highly trained on the concept of probable cause, and they know that a person cannot be charged with a ctime unless probable cause exists to believe that a crime, in fact, ocentred, 134, MACDONALD’s reputation has been permanently damaged throughout the legal community as a result of Defendants? decisions and actions, 135, The assumption of the public who learned about this case through word of mouth and the news media is that, at a minimum, probable cause existed fo charge her with a crime. 136. Many memibers of the public will assume that MACDONALD “beat” the charge, when in fact, no charge should have existed and would not have existed but for the intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct of Defendants, 137, | MACDONALD founded a nonprofit, Family Innocence, several years ago and asserts that her arrest and criminal charge has severely affected this organization, including her own relationship with other board members, volunteers and clients. 138, _ MACDONALD has, indeed, become shunned and ostracized in the legal community as a result of Defendants? actions, 139, Motcover, to date, any member of the public would see MACDONALD was charged for a crime related (o honesty, placing her at a significant disadvantage COMPLAINT - 28|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 29 of 63 compared to others in politics and the legal field, particulerly as a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court, 140, Tt was very difficult and embarrassing for MACDONALD to have to explain her experiences to her fiiends, colleagues, clients, and total strangers when she an for Minnesota Supreme Coutt, considers running for public office again, and talks to client prospects. 141, MACDONALD had to miss seminars, appointments and continue court ‘appearances as a result of Defendants’ actions. She, further, feels a constant fear, intimidation and anxiety in the Dakota County court, where she freely worked and prospered for neatly a quavter century. 142. Before being detained and tortured by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, humiliated during a court trial, jailed, tormented and then charged and persecuted by FLUEGEL, MACDONALD was well regarded in the community as an honest, law abiding, hard working and well-liked attorney, 143, MACDONALD was a trusted Adjunet Judge in the small claims cout and family court, founder of a non-profit organization designed to assist families, well- adjusted mother, wife and attorney with 27 years experience. Indeed, she was well known for her professionalism, integrity and accomplishments in her chosen profession of service, 144, Now, the first things members of the public may associate with MACDONALD are her arrest and critninal charge. ‘MacDonald Shimota et, al, v. Wegner et, al, COMPLAINT - 29|Page CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 30 of 63 145, Most notably, after being a small claims court judge for fifteen (15) years, MACDONALD received a letter from the chief Judge of Hennepin County in Minnesota that her services were no longer necessary anly months after her confinement, vi, Damages to Thomas G. Shimota : 146, ‘Thomas G. Shimota (“SHIMOTA”) is married to MACDONALD, 147, Asa diect result of the arrest and subsequent eriminal complaint lodged against his wife, he experienced significant stress, depression, anxiely and changes in lifestyle, 148, He incorporates the facts outlined above in the damages section for Michelle MACDONALD and offers the following additional information: 149. SHIMOTA witnessed first-hand the effects. MACDONALD’s incarceration and criminal contempt of court charge had on her, which include depression and trauma, She even picked up smoking, 150, ‘There ate many sleepless nights and conversations about how the family ‘would move forward from the incident, 151, MACDONALD is SHIMOTA’s best friend and confident; however, in this situation, SHIMOTA felt he could not talk to her about how the arrest and eriminal charge affected her, as he did not want to further burden his wife, whom he knew was suffering from embarrassment and shame related to the conditions of the arrest and subsequent eximinal charge. COMPLAINT - 30|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 31 of 63 152, SHIMOTA knows that MACDONALD did not do anything wrong, but feols ashamed that hee family is in a dificult position because of hor illegal jal confinement Loss of Consortium 153. Because of MACDONALD’s arrest, incarceration, criminal charges with possible additional jail time, and the accompanying stress, Plaintiffs experienced marital difficulties that did not previously exist 154, MACDONALD had significant anxiety regarding what she experienced at the hands of Defendants, and due to the considerable stress she was experiencing, for the first time in their mariage, she has been unable fo provide, among other things, the companionship, emotional support, affection, love, society and comfort previously provided. 155, This has resulted in additional stress and disappointment for the Plintifis, 156. SHIMOTA also notices that his wife has been unable to “mentally disengage” for over a year now, is unable to let her guard down and becomes easily angered, particularly when confionted with the idea of having to appear at the Dakota County courthouse —a necessity in her practice. VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONS COUNT 1; 42 U8.C, $1983 AGAINST FLUEGEL WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES COMPLAINT - 31]Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et. al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 32 of 63 157. Plaintifis reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 158, Title 42 U.S.C, § 1983 prohibits, inter alia, state actors from depriving citizens of rights, priviloges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution, including the right to be free from excessive force, unreasonable search and seizes, and unlawful arrest as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. This right was cleatly established at all times relevant to this Complaint, 159. Tn violation of Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, Defendants, acting under the color of state law, subjected MACDONALD to the foregoing acfs and omissions without due process of law and in violation of 42 U.S.C, § 1983 thereby depriving MACDONALD of her rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, deprivation of the following constitutional rights: A. Freedom to engage in protected speech, association, and expressive conduct; B, Freedom from unreasonable seizure of her person, including ‘unreasonable conditions of confinement and excessive use of force; C. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of property; D, Freedom from atrest without probable cause; EB. Freedom ftom false imprisonment, that being wrongful detention without good faith, reasonable suspicion or legal justification, of which MACDONALD was aware and to which she did not consent; Se eeeeae eee eeeeeveee COMPLAINT ~ 32|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 33 of 63 F, Freedom from the lodging of false charges against her by law enforcement officers; G. Freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law; H, Freedom from the denial of equal protection, privileges and immunities under the laws, 160, Defendants’ actions wore not objectively reasonably under the Fourth Amendment for the purposes of qualified immunity under the tolality of the circumstances, 161. AS a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff ‘MACDONALD has been injured with physical, mental, and emotional pain, discomfort, embarrassment, fear, anxiety, apprchension, sleeplessness, depression and has been affected in other ways, including public scorn, and a generally diminished sense of personal safety, outrage, and for attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with the commencement of this lawsuit, 162, Funther, Plaintiff SHIMOTA suffered pecuniary and other losses including, but not limited to, economic damages, and a loss of spousal aid, comfort, companionship, guidance, and protection for an extended period, 163, Defendants, as a result of their outrageous and illegal behavior, are liable to Plaintiffs for the aforomentioned injuries and damages as well as punitive damages. COMPLAINT - 33|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 34 of 63 164, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, fo be further determined at trial, 165, That by reason of the foregoing, total damages suffered by Plait SHIMOTA are in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 166. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject fo the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549,20. COUN’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 MONELL CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE AGAINST COUNTY 167, Plaintiffs seatleye and incorporate the allegations in the precoding ‘paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 168, Defendant COUNTY, by and through their polioymakers, ereated and maintained respective customs, policies and/or practices for failing to adequately train, supervise and discipline their employees and agents, including the named and unnamed defendants in this ease, regarding obtaining probable cause to ensure that civilians not be falsely anvested, falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted; and civilians’ right to be free fiom unreasonable and illegal seizure, withholding and theft of personal property. 169, Defendant COUNTY had actual or constructive notice of thefr failures to train, supervise and discipline their employees. This is because Defendant COUNTY COMPLAINT » 34|/Page. ‘MacDonald Shimota ct al. v. Wegner et al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 35 of 63 knew that it was foreseeable that their officers would confiont situations requiring knowledge of probable cause, and limitations on seizure of persons and property, and that without the necessary training, supervision and discipline, constitutional violations would result. Yet Defendant COUNTY chose not to provide such training, supervision and diseiplin 170, Defendant COUNTY’s, failure to tain, supervise and’ discipline amounted to gross negligence, deliberate indifference and/or intentional mniseonduct, and encouraged and/or permitted the named and unnamed individual defendants fo engage in the conduct which proximately and dircetly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries ond damages set foxth above, 171, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be. further determined at trial, 172, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S, 30 (1983), and as such, ate not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20, COUNT3: 42 US.C, § 1986 — CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, JOHN/TANE DOES 173, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations. in the preceding paragraplis all as more fully set forth herein, COMPLAINT - 35|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 36 of 63 174, Defendants, acting under color of law, collectively and individually, engaged in actions and abuses which: have deprived Plaintiff MACDONALD of her rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution, ineluding but not limited fo, rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, 175, In derogation of their duties, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, having the power to do s0, failed, neglected and/or refused to prevent the commission of the unlawful search and seizure, false detainment, unlawful accusation, wrongful atrest, false imprisonment, and wrongful seizure of MACDONALD and her property, thereby directly and proximately resulting ia the deprivation of MACDONALD’: constitutional rights. 176, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be finther determined at trial, 177, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20, COUNT 4: 42 U.8.C, § 1983 - CONSPIRACY LUEGEL, WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHNAANE DOES AGAINST F COMPLAINT - 36/Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 37 of 63 178, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 179, Dofondants, under color of law, conspired with one another to deprive MACDONALD of her constitutional rights, including the rights: to be fee from the intentional use of unreasonable force; to be free from unreasonable scarches and to be free from false arrest, and false imprisonment, : 180, Ik was part of the conspiracy that Defendants did, among other acts, participate in various form of torture against MACDONALD while she was in custody. 181 In furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to cover up the acts of torture, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS engaged in the following, without limit 4) falsely arresting and jailing MACDONALD; b) fabricating and contriving criminal charges lodged against MACDONALD; ©) refusing to allow MACDONALD fiee access to a single telephone call while in custody; 4) circulating false and defamatory information concerning MACDONALD to the nows media, including forwarding MACDONALD’s “mug shot” to during her political campaign (despite the matter having long been dismissed), in an offort to diminish her credibility, ©) refusing to turn over video and other evidence and information that would incriminate the individuals involved. 182, Acting jointly over a period of many years, COUNTY, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS and FLUEGEL (a private Law Fitm), together COMPLAINT - 37|[Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 38 of 63 established policies and customs which allow even the most brazenly brutal sheriffs to believe they can use excessive force and torture with impunity. 183. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be futher determined at tral 184, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat $549.20. USCS Pres AMENDMENT, UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES 185, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 186, By their conduct, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, under color of law, deprived MACDONALD of her constitutional right to be free from ‘excessive and unreasonable force, 187, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continnes to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be farther determined at trial, 188, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Sinith v Wade, COMPLAINT - 38|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 39 of 63 461 US, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549,20, COUNT 6; 42 US.C. § 1983 ~TALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES 189, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 190, By their conduct and under color of law, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS deprived MACDONALD of her constitutional right to be free from falso arrest and false imprisonment. 191, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 192, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and ate hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. counr7; 42 US.C. § 1983 ~ FAILURE TO INTERCEDE AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES: 193, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein. COMPLAINT - 39|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document Filed 03/25/15 Page 40 of 63 194, By their conduct and under color of state law, itis believed DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS each had opportunities to intercede on behalf of MACDONALD to prevent the excessive use of force (torture) and unreasonable seizure but due to their intentional conduct or deliberate indifference declined or refused todo so, 195, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and ‘continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial 196, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Snith v Wade, 461 U.S, 30 (1983), and as such, ate not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standatd of proof set forth in Mion, Stat §549.20, COUNT 8: 42, U.S.C. § 19853) - CONSPIRACY WITH GENDER ANIMUS AGAINST FLUEGEL, WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/TANE DOKS 197. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding Paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein. 198, The DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, under color of law, conspired with each other and with FLUEGEL, to undertake a course of conduct to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate MACDONALD in the free exercise and enjoyment of the rights and privileges and equal protection of the law secured to her by the Constitution, COMPLAINT - 40|Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 41 of 63 199, ‘The conduct of Defendants was motivated by gender animusibias and by their desire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate MACDONALD because of her gender, female, 200, On information and belief, at least one of the defendants, Deputy Sheriff NAPPER, is a known woman abuser, haying “knocked out” a woman by the name of Jill ‘Ann Kelly and breaking her leg in asserting his authority. 201, Among other acts, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS manhandled MACDONALD to take a photograph, and then menacingly told her she looked “pretty” to strike finther fear and gender-linked intimidation, 202. The conduct of the male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS was motivated by gender animus and by their desire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Michelle MACDONALD because of her gender, fora, 203, Ik was part of the conspiracy that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS did, among other acts, mentally torture MACDONALD while she was in their custody and repeatedly requested a phone eal. 204, In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to conceal the crimes and misconduct of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Defendants engaged in a cover up by, among other things, continuing to withhold MACDONALD’s property (camera) and refusing to (um over the entirety of incriminating video in its possession, COMPLAINT - 41|Page MacDonald Shiniota et. al. . Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 42 of 63 205, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary’ damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at tral 206. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith » Wade, 461 US, 30 (1983), and as such, aro not subject to the pleading requirements or the Jiffering standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. JUNT 9: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) - CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE JUSTICE AGAINST FLUEGEL, WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHNMANE DOES 207, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 208, Each of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. conspired to impede the due course of justice in Minnesota, with the intent of denying MACDONALD the equal protection of the laws. 209, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff’ MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, fo be further determined at trial. 210, ‘Phat by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the Giffering standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20, eee COMPLAINT - 42|Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 43 of 63 COUNT 10: 42. U.S.C, § 1983 ~ SUPERVISORY LIABILITY AGAINST JOHNJANE DOES 2A1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more folly set forth herein, 212. Certain of the John/Jane Does 1 through 10 were held supervisory positions (hereinafter, “Supervisory Does”). These Does were, at the relevant times, ‘supervisory personnel at the Dakota County Sheriff's Office with oversight responsibility for certain other named and unnamed DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS whom deprived Plaintiff MACDONALD of her constitutional rights. Supervisory does were personally involved in authorizing, furthering and failing to take preventative and remedial measures to guard against the constitutional doprivations suffered by Plaintiff MACDONALD, 213, It is bolioved these Supervisory Does received complaints about the conduct of certain other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, knew about past complaints, aberrant behavior (particularly behavior toward women), and disciplinary infractions, or, in the exercise of due diligence, would have perceived that these coriain other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had conduct ‘and disciplinary problems that posed a pervasive and unreasonable isk of harm to Plaintiff MACDONALD. COMPLAINT - 43|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 44 of 63 214, ‘These Supervisory Does knew, or in the exercise of due diligence, would have known that the conduct of eertain other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS was likely to oceur, 215. On information and belief, these Supervisory Does failed to take preventative and remedial measures to guard against the actions by certain other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. Had they taken appropriate action, MACDONALD would not have been injured. 216. For example, on information and belief, only months prior to the MACDONALD incident, Dakota COUNTY received and sottled for $315,000 a lawsuit alleging Defendant JON NAPPER engaged in excessive force against another woman, 217. Dakota County and the Supervisory Does also failed to take any conective disciplinary action against certain other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS whom testified untruthfully in the course of MACDONALD’s criminal proceedings, On information and belief, all DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS remain on the force, 218, The failure of these Supervisory Does to train, supervise and discipline certain other named and unnamed DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS as well as to refiain from themselves authorizing, furthering or failing to prevent the constitutional deprivations suffered by Plaintiff MACDONALD amounted to gross negligence, deliberate indifference, or intentional misconduct which directly and proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintififs set forth above. a PAINT - 44|Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et.al, v. Wegner et. a CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 45 of 63 219. ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 220, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549,20, COUNT 11; 42 USC § 1983; FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION ‘THROUGH MALICIOUS PROSECUTION DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND FLUEGEL 21, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paregraphs all as more fally set forth herein, 222, Defendants violated MACDONALD’ clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment not to be subjected to criminal prosecution based ‘upon illegally obtained evidence and otherwise without any legal basis 223, There isa constitutional right to be free from criminal prosecution based upon evidence that was illegally obtained by the government (See Deveraux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9" Cir, 2001, en banc), 224, When a government agent “knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless distegard for the truth” illegally obtains evidence or pursues criminal charges without a basis in law, a claim arises under 42 USC §1983, Franks ». Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). COMPLAINT - 45|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 46 of 63 225, Here, as a pretext for anest, Defendants knowingly and intentionally confiscated MACPONALD’s camera (and phone) without a warrant for pictures allegedly taken prior to the commencement of the Grazzini-Rucki Trial, 226. ‘Thereafter, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS in. conjunction with the FLUEGEL Law Firm, the county prosecutor, used the illegally obtained camera and photographs to detain and prosecute MACDONALD. 227, This was determined by Judge Metzen to constitute an illegal search and soizure, but not for several months and not before MACDONALD experienced several ‘categories of damages, 228, Here, FLUEGEL deliberately charged and criminally prosecuted ‘MACDONALD using evidence they knew, or should have known, was illegally obtained. 229, FLUEGEL, further, fashioned a charge of criminal contempt of court based on a civil rule when he knew, ot should have known, the law did support such charge. 230. The single charge of contempt of court terminated in favor of MACDONALD, where a couit ovaluated the ease and properly determined probable cause did not exist before dismissing the charge. 231, As a direct result of Defendant FLUEGEL’s intentional, grossly negligent and reckless conduet, MACDONALD’s personal and professional reputation havo been severely damaged through the legal and other communities, with a continual and ongoing affect on her law practice, COMPLAINT - 46|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 47 of 63 232, MACDONALD received negative media coverage affecting her law practice and career aspirations, 233, She finther suffered actual damages when she was forced to hire an attorney to fight the eximinal charges and subsequent Board complaint. 234, FLUEGEL's wrongful acts and omissions constitute wrongful conduet resulting in damages to Plaintiffs, and for which Minn, Stat, allows recovery, 235, As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been injured, 236. Namely, the behavior of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS and FLUEGEL's decision fo pursue criminal charges against MACDONALD with no logal besis are both extreme and outrageous. 237. Defendants’ actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for the near cextainty that law-abiding citizens wrongfully confined in jail, subjected to cruel and humilieting behavior, and then charged with a crime after having done nothing wrong, would experience extreme emotionat distress — particularly where DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS employed torture techniques over the course of two days, 238, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 239. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, COMPLAINT - 47/Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 48 of 63 461 US, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20, UNT 1 MINNESOTA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES 240, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 241, Defendants WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER AND JOHN AND JANE DOES’ foregoing acts and omissions breached the protections guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Minnesota State Constitution, Article I, §§ 5,7,8, and 10, including, without limitation, the following constitutional rights: A. Freedom to engage in protected speech, association, and expressive conduct; B. Freedom from unreasonable seizwe of her person, including unreasonable conditions of confinement and excessive use of force; Freedom ftom unreasonable search and seizure of property; D. Freedom from arrest without probable cause; B, Freedom fiom false imprisonment, that boing wrongful detention without good faith, reasonable suspicion or legal justification, of which MACDONALD was aware and to which she did not consent; F. Freedom fiom the lodging of false charges against her by law enforcement officers; G.._ Freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law; H. Freedom from the denial of equal protection, privileges and immunities ‘under the laws, COMPLAINT - 48|Page imota et, al, v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 49 of 63 242, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 243, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and ate hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith » Wade, 461 U.S, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549,20, COUNT 13: NEGLIGENCE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST FLUEGEI AND DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 244, Plaintiffs reallogo and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 245, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, by theit aforementioned acts, negligently failed to use due care in the performance of their duties in that they, among other negligent ets: A. Failed to perform their duties as reasonably prudent and eatefl Law enforcement officer or supervisor would have done under similar circumstances; B, Catelessly and recklessly seized and detained MACDONALD; C, Carelessly and recklessly amested and detained MACDONALD without a warrant or probable cause; D. Carelessly and recklessly searched, seized and withheld MACDONALD’S property; and COMPLAINT - 49|Page™ MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner el. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 50 of 63 E, Carelessly and recklessly subjected MACDONALD to unreasonable conditions of confinement, 246, BLUEGHL by its aforementioned acts, negligently failed to use due care in the performance of their cuties in that they, among other negligent acts: A. Failed to perform their duties as reasonably prudent and careful lawyer would have done under similar eircuinstances; B, Carelessly and recklessly pursued @ criminal complaint against MACDONALD without legal basis; and G. Sanctioned the careless and reckless search, seizure and withholding of MACDONALD’S property, 247. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 248, ‘That by-reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a mattor of federal common law, Smith » Wade, 461 U.S, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn. Stat §549,20, COUNT 14 ASSAULT AND BATTERY SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 249. Plaintiffs, reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as mote fully sot forth herein, 250. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wrongfully and intentionally made offensive bodily contact with MACDONALD without her permission COMPLAINT ~ 50|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 51 of 63 and/or placed her in imminent apprehension of wrongful and offensive contact, including, but not limited to, using excessive force against MACDONALD therefore causing her to suffer physical pain and emotional injuries. 251. Specifically, the acts of assault and battery against! MACDONALD included, without limitation, throwing items at her, forcing her into a wheel ch manhandling her to take unnecessary photographs, taunting and threatening her without cause, and engaging in various forms of torture while she was in the custody of the t MACDONALD. Dakota County jail. The use of physical and mental intimidation ag ‘was unnecessary and excessive, ted the 252. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS com ovegoing acts intentionally, willfully and with malicious disregard for Plaintiffs’ sights, and are therefore liable for punitive damages. 253, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be farther determined at trial 254, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages ate also properly awvardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject fo the pleading requitements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat $549.20. ' COUNT 1s: FALSE ARREST SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, JOHN/JANE DOES ae COMPLAINT - Si|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 52 of 63 255, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding patagraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 256. Acting under color of law, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS unlawfully attested MACDONALD, caused MACDONALD to be anested, and/or otherwise failed to intervene in MACDONALD being unlawfully arrested without probable cause or other legal justification. 287, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS committed the foregoing acts intentionally, willfully and with malicious distegard for Plaintiff MACDONALD’s tights, resulting in the injuries and damages set forth above, and are therefore liable for punitive damages. 258, Afr her arrest, MACDONALD was wrongfully harassed, threatened, ‘and subjected to fingerprinting and the taking of mug shots in a parlieularly humiliating fashion, 259. At all relevant times. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were employees of Dakota County, and were acting for, upon and in furtherance of the business of their employers and within the seope of their employment, 260. As a result of the false arrest, MACDONALD was subjected to humiliation, ridicule, and disgrace. She was required to incur bills for legal services rendered, and was otherwise injured and damaged, COMPLAINT - 52|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 53 of 63 261, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 262, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and ave hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Suith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Mina, Stat §549.20, COUNT 16; FALSE IMPRISONMENT SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION, AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, JOHN/JANE DOES: 263. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein. 264, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wrongfully detained MACDONALD and deprived her of her liberty without good faith, reasonable suspicion or other legal justification, 265, MACDONALD was conscious of, and did not consent to, her confinement, 266. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS committed the foregoing acts intentionally, willfully and with malicious disregerd for Plaintiff MACDONALD’s rights, resulting in the injuries and damages set forth above, and are therefore liable for punitive damages, COMPLAINT - 53|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 54 of 63 267. As a result of the false imprisonment, Defendants subjected MACDONALD to humiliation, ridicule, and disgrace, She was requived (0 inout bills for, legal services rendered, and was otherwise injured and damaged, 268, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injmry and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 269, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, ate not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat $549.20. COUNT 17: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINS' FLUEGEL AND DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 270, Plaintifs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding ‘paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 271. Defendants, by their aforementioned acts; did intentionally, willfully, and knowingly cause MACDONALD to suffer mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering and damage to name and reputation, 272, Defendants committed the foregoing acts intentionally, willfully and sus disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and are therefore liable for punitive COMPLAINT - 54[Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et, al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1. Filed 03/25/15 Page 55 of 63 273, On information and belief, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS pursued a malicious campaign to continue to inflict mental and ‘emotional distress upon MACDONALD by spreading false suggestions in the community and press by releasing her mug shot after the case had long been dismissed. These false suggestions, as these DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew or should have known, caused MACDONALD continued humifiation and ridicule, 274, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS continue to intimidate MACDONALD by inexplicably appearing in multitude at Dakota County court hearings in which she is involved. 275, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer ineparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 26. ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a mailer of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, ate not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. COUNT 1 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRES SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST FLUEGEL AND DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANIS 271, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, COMPL - 55|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 56 of 63 278. Defendants, by their aforementioned acts, did negligently cause MACDONALD to suffer mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering, and damage to name and reputation, 279. ‘That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetaty damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial 280. ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages ate also properly awordable and are hereby claimed es « matter of federal common law, Sith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, ave not subject to the pleading requirements ot the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn. Stat 549,20, COUNT 19: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST FLUEGEL AND DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 281. Plaintiffs reallege and incomporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as mote fully sot forth herein 282, FLUEGEL AND DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, acting under color of law, maliciously caused to be commenced and continued « eriminal prosecution against MACDONALD, Jacking in probable cause, which was terminated in MACDONALD’s favor. 283, ‘There is a presumption that a prosecution was “actuated by malice” when the action is initiated without probable cause. ~ COMPLAINT - 56[Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 57 of 63 284, Defendants committed the foregoing acts intentionally, willfully and with malicious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, resulting in the injuries and damages set forth above, and are therefore liable for punitive damages. 285, ‘That by xcason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer ineparable injury and monetary damages in exeess of $75,000, to be futher determined at trial 286, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith » Wade, 461 ULS, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standacd of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. COUNT 21 RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST COUNTY 287, Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all ag more fully set forth herein, 288, Defendant COUNTY is liable for the actions of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 289, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be farther determined at trial, 290, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, age et.al, CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document Filed 03/25/15 Page 58 of 63 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn. Stat §549.20. COUNT 21; ‘THEFT/UNLAWFUL TAKING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AGAINST DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 291, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 292. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS intentionally and without claim of right, retained possession of MACDONALD’s property, including, without limitation, a gold and diamond Cross Necklaco ond Camera, without MACDONALD’s consent and with the intent to permanently depriver her of said property. 293.. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and ‘continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages to be further determined at tial, 294, ‘That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages ate also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as 9 matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 USS, 30 (1983), and as such, ato not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549,20. COUNT 22: 42. U.S.C, § 1983 AND PENDENT CLAIMS BY PLAINTIEF THOMAS SHIMOTA COMPLAINT - 58|Page MacDonald Shimota et al. v. Wegner et. a. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 59 of 63 295. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 296. tall times retevant to this action, SHIMOTA was and is the lawful spouse of MACDONALD and, as such, was and is entitled to the comfort, enjoyment, sociely and services of his spouse, By reason of the foregoing conduet by Defendants, SHIMOTA was deprived of the comfort and enjoyment of the services and society of his spouse, which are guaranteed to SHIMOTA under the laws and constitution of the State ‘of Minnesota and can be adjudicated in this Ii tion under the Court's supplementary, Jurisdiction. Moreover, Defendants! conduct undermined SHIMOTA’s liberty interest in preserving the integcty and stability of the marital relationship from intervention by the state without due process of law, vu. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 297, Plaintiffs teallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 298. As alleged above, the Minnesota District Court, honorable Judge Metzen presiding, ordered DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS retun to MACDONALD her personal property, namely a camera that they unlawfully seized from Plaintiff. 299, Despite repeated demands by Plaintiffs, and others on their behalf, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have refused to return tl COMPLAINT - 59|Page. MacDonald Shimota et a v, Wegner et.al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 60 of 63 personal camera, which contain hundreds, if not thousands, of business and sentimental family photographs belonging to Plaintiffs, PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's Michelle MacDonald Shimota and ‘Thomas G. Shimota request the following relief against Defendants, jointly and severally: A, judgment declaring the actions and conduct of defendants unconstitutional; B, injunctive relief, C. full and fair compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury; D, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury; E, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and disbursements of this action; F, pre and post judgment interest; and G, sucli other further relief as this honorable Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Plaintiffs are entitled to, and hereby demand, a trial by jury. Dated: March 19, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, By:hl MeTagant Garrett M. ‘Tayari Garrett (SBN 0342075) 100 Crescent Court, Ste, 700 Dallas, TX 75201 ‘Tel/Fax: 877.829.2740 mail: m.tayari@tayacilaw.com Attorney for Platutiffs COMPLAINT - 60|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 61 of 63 AND By: /s/Nathan Busch oe Nathan Busch (SBN 315612) 10223" Avenue P.O, Box 151 Windom, MN 56101 ‘Tel: 612-554-0609 Email: Busch034@umn.edn Attorney for Plaintiffs COMPLAINT - 61[Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v, Wegner et. al. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 62 of 63 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT. AND CERTIFICATION BY PLAINTIFF MICHELL MACDONALD SINMOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Jas COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) J,_Biehd jd_, having first been duly swom and upon osth, depose and say as follows: Shieutt 1, TamPlaintff Michelle MACDONALD SHIMOTA in this civil proceeding, 2, Thave reed the above-entitted civil Complaint prepared by my altomey and I believe that all of the ficls contained in it ate truo, to the best of iny knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquity, 3. believe that this civil Complaint is well grounded in fat and warranted by existing law. ot by a good faith argument for the extensioin, modification, ot reversal of existing law. 4, Tbelicve that this civit Complaint isnot interposed for any improper purpose, such as to haiwss any Defendant(s), canse unnecessary delay (0 any Wefendant(), or oreate a ngediess ineroase in the cost of litigation to any Defendant(s), named in the Complain. 5. Tam singing this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes set forth in it, Grad Fee Lenco ichelle MACDONALD SHIMOTA Subserlbed and sworn to before me this 19 Peay of Moun 2041S. CASE 0:15-cv-01590-DSD-JJK Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 63 of 63 YERIEICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CHRUIHICANION UY Pr AINTHEte THOMAS G. SiIMOTA STATR OF MINNESOTA ) de COUNTY OF BENNEPIN ) Hy rats Ch cal, ‘having fel beon duly syvorn ancl upon orth, depose and say as follows: 4, 1am Pletatit Thoms 0, SEIMOTA in this civil proceeding. 2, Lhave read the above-entltted olvil Complaint prepared by ny atlorney and I boliovo that all of the ets contained Jn I ato tee, to tho best of my knowledgo, Information and boffef formed aftor reasonabte nquity, . 1 bollove that this clyil Complaint is well grouncted in fet aud wassante! by existing aw ‘or by a good filth argument for the extension, modltication, or reversal of exisling law, 4. Lolieve that ths elvit Complaints not nterposed for any lmproper spose, ouch es 0 hhowwss any Dofondint(), cmiso unnecessary delay to any Defeaxlant@), or erento a Aicedlosslnereaso inthe cost of liigatton to iy Defendant), named in ho Complaint, 5, Lawn binging tis olvlt Complaint i good faith andl solely forthe punposes sel forth Init, ‘Thomas 6. SHIMOTA Subvarlbed and sworn to before me

You might also like