Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Excessive Force Lawsuit Against Jefferson County Sheriff's Office
Excessive Force Lawsuit Against Jefferson County Sheriff's Office
Defendants.
PRESTON DALE MCDOWELL, for cause of action against the above-named defendants,
alleges as follows:
1.
This is an action for money damages and declaratory relief arising under 42 U.S.C.
'1983, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
2.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
1B
4.
Plaintiff is, and at all times material hereto was, a resident of Jefferson County,
5.
Defendant Jefferson County, at all times material hereto, was a political subdivision
Idaho.
of the State of Idaho acting pursuant to established county policies, procedures, and practices.
6.
Defendant Blair Olsen was and is the duly elected Sheriff of Jefferson County until
his criminal conviction on May 13, 2015, after he was replaced by acting Sheriff, defendant Steve
Anderson. At all times material hereto said defendants were acting under color of Idaho law and
within the courses and scopes of their employment as Sheriff, and acting Sheriff, respectively, of
Jefferson County, and were ultimately responsible for the proper training, supervision, and control
of Defendants Antonio Gonzales and Emerson Parsons, and the investigation and remediation or
ratification of their deputies= misconduct.
7.
Defendants Antonio Gonzales and Emerson Parsons were, at all times material
hereto, duly appointed deputy Sheriffs, acting in their individual capacities within the courses and
scopes of their respective employment with Defendant Jefferson County
8.
Defendants John Does I through III were, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
duly appointed deputies, agents, and/or employees of defendant Jefferson County, acting under
color of Idaho law and within the courses and scopes of their respective employment/agency and
in their respective individual capacities, in their direct supervision and control over the proper
training supervision defendants, Antonio Gonzales and Emerson Parsons.
9.
Plaintiff does not know the true names or identities of the defendants named herein
as John Does I through III and therefore prays leave to amend this Complaint to substitute their
names herein when their identities are ascertained.
2B
10.
On or about June 23, 2015, defendants Gonzales and Parsons entered the curtilage
of Plaintiff=s residential property, without warrant and without Plaintiff=s consent, to investigate an
alleged misdemeanor malicious injury to property charge made by an acquaintance of Plaintiff.
11.
Through the crack of his mostly front door repeatedly stated to Gonzales and
Parsons that they had no right to be on his property, that they were not welcome, and demanded
that they leave.
12.
In response, defendants Gonzales and Parsons not only refused Plaintiff=s demands
but walked onto Plaintiff=s front porch and Gonzales stuck his foot in Plaintiff=s front door, which
was slightly ajar, in order to prevent Plaintiff from shutting the door.
13.
Plaintiff told defendants Gonzales and Parsons he did not want to talk to them about
the alleged malicious injury to property allegations right now, but that he would talk to them about
it tomorrow.
14.
Plaintiff again repeatedly stated that defendants Gonzales and Parsons had no right
to be in his house and demanded that they leave. Defendants Gonzales and Parsons refused.
15.
During this entire interchange, Plaintiff=s entire body remained several feet inside
During this entire interchange defendant Gonzales kept his right foot wedged in
Plaintiff=s door, until finally he forced Plaintiff=s door all the way open, stepped into Plaintiff=s
home with both feet, grabbed Plaintiff and forcibly dragged him from his home and forced him to
the ground while defendant Parsons subjected Plaintiff to several excruciating stuns from a Taser,
all pursuant to a warrantless investigation of misdemeanor allegations of minor injury to property.
3B
17.
The defendants warrantless entry into Plaintiff=s home as described above was a
clear violation of Plaintiff=s sacred right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures in his
home, guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. '1983.
18.
The defendants used unreasonable and excessive force in their unlawful seizure of
Plaintiff from his home, in violation of his rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. '1983.
19.
Defendants Jefferson County, Blair Olsen, Steve Anderson, and John Does I
through III failed to properly train, supervise, direct, and/or control the defendant staff responsible
for Plaintiff's healthcare and safety.
20.
Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent injuries to his left leg which easily could have been
prevented had the defendants not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff=s condition, including
but not limited to permanent and debilitating peroneal nerve damage and consequent paralysis and
muscle atrophy
21.
and excessive use of force of the kind exhibited toward Plaintiff and described above, by virtue of
training their deputies that such misconduct is lawful and constitutional, engaging in repeated
constitutional violations of such kind and/or approval and ratification thereof, failure to adopt or
implement departmental policies, rules, or regulations governing the need for warrants to enter a
persons home to make an arrest under such circumstances described above, and the proper use of
force in making such an arrest.
4B
22.
above, Plaintiff has suffered serious, irreparable physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain,
distress, anguish, embarrassment and humiliation, in amounts to be proven at trial.
23.
The defendants' conduct and policies as alleged above were malicious, wanton,
oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected rights, for which he is
entitled to an award of punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. '1983.
24.
Plaintiff=s legal remedies are inadequate as his injuries are likely to continue in the
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following judgment and relief against the
defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
1.
For a judicial declaration that the defendants= conduct and policies were in violation
of Plaintiff's rights secured by the United States Constitution.
2.
For injunctive relief, enjoining the defendant from similar future misconduct.
3.
For an award of damages for, inter alia, Plaintiff's physical, mental, and emotional
pain, suffering, anguish, distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
5B
4.
5.
6.
7.
For such further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
By:
/s/
T. Jason Wood
6B