Scribd

010203040506070809101112131415161718192021222324252627

B

ENJAMIN

C. D

URHAM

, E

SQ

.Nevada Bar No. 7684C

OFER

, G

ELLER

& D

URHAM

, LLC601 South Tenth StreetLas Vegas, Nevada 89101(702) 631-6111(702) 946-0826 faxbdurham@vegasdefense.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

U

NITED

S

TATES

D

ISTRICT

C

OURT

D

ISTRICT OF

N

EVADA

A

NTHONY

M

ITCHELL

, L

INDA

M

ITCHELL

,and M

ICHAEL

M

ITCHELL

,

Plaintiffs,vs.

C

ITY OF

H

ENDERSON

, N

EVADA

; J

UTTA

C

HAMBERS

, individually and in her capacityas Chief of the Henderson PoliceDepartment; G

ARRETT

P

OINER

, R

ONALD

F

EOLA

, R

AMONA

W

ALLS

, A

NGELA

W

ALKER

, and C

HRISTOPHER

W

ORLEY

,individually and in their official capacities asHenderson police officers; C

ITY OF

N

ORTH

L

AS

V

EGAS

, N

EVADA

; J

OSEPH

C

HRONISTER

, individually and in hisofficial capacity as Chief of the North LasVegas Police Department; D

OE

individualsI–X, individually and in their officialcapacities as police officers; and R

OE

individuals I–X, individually and in theirofficial capacities, jointly and severally,

Defendants.



Case No:

C

OMPLAINT

J

URY

D

EMANDED

C

OME NOW

the Plaintiffs, A

NTHONY

M

ITCHELL

, L

INDA

M

ITCHELL

, and M

ICHAEL

M

ITCHELL

, by and through their counsel, B

ENJAMIN

C. D

URHAM

, E

SQ

., of C

OFER

, G

ELLER

& D

URHAM

, LLC, and for their claims for relief against Defendants, and each of them, jointly1

Case 2:13-cv-01154-APG-CWH Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 18

010203040506070809101112131415161718192021222324252627

and severally, based upon knowledge, information, and reasonable belief derived therefrom, allege,complain, and state as follows:J

URISDICTION AND

V

ENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343 overPlaintiffs’ causes of action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and due to the deprivation of rights,privileges, and immunities secured to Plaintiffs under the Third, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amend-ments to the United States Constitution.2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action arising underNevada state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.3. Venue lies in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because one or moreDefendants is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, and because the underlying acts,omissions, events, injuries and related facts upon which the present action is based occurred inClark County, Nevada.P

ARTIES

4. Plaintiff A

NTHONY

M

ITCHELL

is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a United Statescitizen and a resident of the District of Nevada, and is the son of Plaintiffs L

INDA

M

ITCHELL

andM

ICHAEL

M

ITCHELL

.5. Plaintiffs L

INDA

M

ITCHELL

and M

ICHAEL

M

ITCHELL

are, and at all times herein men-tioned were, United States citizens and residents of the District of Nevada. They are a marriedcouple.6. Defendant C

ITY OF

H

ENDERSON

is a governmental entity organized and existing under thelaws of the State of Nevada, and is a political entity of the State of Nevada.7. Defendant C

ITY OF

N

ORTH

L

AS

V

EGAS

is a governmental entity organized and existingunder the laws of the State of Nevada, and is a political entity of the State of Nevada.2


010203040506070809101112131415161718192021222324252627

8. At all times, Defendant C

ITY OF

H

ENDERSON

possessed the power and authority to adoptpolicies and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices affecting all facets of the training, super-vision, control, employment, assignment and removal of individual members of the HendersonPolice Department (hereinafter, “HPD”). In this case, Defendant C

ITY OF

H

ENDERSON

actedthrough agents, employees, and servants, including its policymakers, and through DefendantJ

UTTA

C

HAMBERS

.9. At all times, Defendant C

ITY OF

N

ORTH

L

AS

V

EGAS

possessed the power and authorityto adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations, and practices affecting all facets of the training,supervision, control, employment, assignment and removal of individual members of the NorthLas Vegas Police Department (hereinafter, “NLVPD”).10. Defendant J

UTTA

C

HAMBERS

was at all times relevant to this action the Chief of HPD.She is sued in this action as an individual.11. Defendants S

ERGEANT

G

ARRETT

P

OINIER

, O

FFICER

R

ONALD

F

EOLA

, O

FFICER

R

AMONA

W

ALLS

, O

FFICER

A

NGELA

W

ALTER

, and O

FFICER

C

HRISTOPHER

W

ORLEY

are andwere at all times relevant to this action police officers employed by C

ITY OF

H

ENDERSON

. Theyare sued in both their individual and official capacities.12. Defendants S

ERGEANT

M

ICHAEL

W

ALLER

, O

FFICER

A

LBERS

, O

FFICER

D

AVID

C

AWTHORN

, O

FFICER

R

OCKWELL

, and O

FFICER

S

NYDER

are and were at all times relevantto this action police officers employed by C

ITY OF

N

ORTH

L

AS

V

EGAS

. They are sued in boththeir individual and official capacities.13. Does 1–10 are fictitious names for employees, agents and/or servants of C

ITY OF

H

EN

-

DERSON

, and D

OES

11–20 are fictitious names for employees, agents, and/or servants of C

ITYOF

N

ORTH

L

AS

V

EGAS

. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendantssued herein as D

OES

, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs areinformed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is legally re-sponsible, either intentionally, negligently, or in some other actionable manner, for the events andhappenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby legally caused the injuries, damages, and violations3
