Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hein V Chandler Amended Complaint
Hein V Chandler Amended Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
18
19
20
For his Complaint against Defendants City of Chandler, Brian and Jane Doe
21
Hawkins, and William and Jane Doe Nocella (collectively, Defendants), Plaintiff Luke
22
23
24
1.
25
U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants as a result of their use of excessive force, unlawful
26
arrest and detention, malicious prosecution, and other wrongful acts, occurring in and
1
2
1
2
3
4
Defendants Brian Hawkins and William Nocella are sued both in their
Defendants Hawkins and Nocella took within the course and scope of their authority, as
caused by and/or ratified by the City, and by virtue of its longstanding practices and/or
customs.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8
9
4.
10
for deprivation of civil rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
11
United States Constitution, the Arizona Constitution, and other claims arising out of the
12
13
5.
14
6.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims of violation of his civil
15
rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims
16
17
7.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 in that the acts
18
and omissions that give rise to this action occurred within this District within one year of
19
the filing of the original Complaint, and this Court otherwise has jurisdiction.
20
8.
This case presents an actual case in controversy arising under the Fourth and
21
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the provisions of 42
22
23
24
25
26
9.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Brian and Jane Doe Hawkins are a
-2-
1
2
allegations in this Complaint, Mr. Hawkins was acting in his capacity as a City of
Chandler Police Officer and acting under the color of law. He is sued in his individual
11.
Upon information and belief Defendants William and Jane Doe Nocella are
a married couple residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At all times material to the
allegations in this Complaint, Mr. Nocella was acting in his capacity as a City of Chandler
Police Officer and acting under the color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity and
10
11
12
12.
13
the laws of the State of Arizona. The City operates and maintains a law enforcement
14
15
14.
The City is under a duty to run its policing activities in a lawful manner so
16
as to preserve the peace of the City of Chandler and to preserve for its citizens the rights,
17
privileges, and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the Constitutions and laws
18
19
15.
20
21
procedures and/or customs used by law enforcement officers employed by the City of
22
Chandler, including Defendants Brian Hawkins and William Nocella (collectively, the
23
Defendant Officers), regarding the investigation, detention, arrest, and use of force
24
25
26
16.
Every act and omission of the Defendants detailed in this Complaint was
performed under the color and pretense of the Constitutions, statutes, ordinances,
-3-
1
2
regulations, customs and uses of the United States of America, the State of Arizona, and
the City of Chandler, by virtue of their authority as law enforcement officers, and within
the course and scope of their employment with the City of Chandler Police Department.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4
5
17.
Jeremy Logan responded to the Stone Oaks Apartment complex (the Complex) at 2450
9
10
18.
Upon arrival the officers observed a Jeep Grand Cherokee that appeared to
11
19.
12
13
20.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The officers contacted the driver, Zoe Beth Shunick, and requested that she
Ms. Shunick indicated she did not wish to exit the vehicle, asking the
Officers multiple times whether she was being detained and was under arrest.
21.
heard the commotion and came outside to see what was happening.
22.
Defendant Hawkins explained to Plaintiff that Ms. Shunick had crashed the
car and that they were trying to convince her to exit the vehicle.
23.
Defendant Hawkins then requested that Plaintiff assist him with the
Shunick that she exit the vehicle. Ms. Shunick then complied.
25.
As Ms. Shunick walked away from her vehicle, Officer Logan stepped
behind her to close the drivers side door, turning his back on her.
26.
open-fist strike to Ms. Shunicks chest, knocking her back and onto the ground.
-4-
1
2
27.
exclaimed hey!
28.
his forearm into Plaintiffs throat, and slammed Plaintiff against the vehicle, bending him
29.
attempting to comply with Defendant Hawkins commands and asking for an explanation
9
10
11
12
13
30.
not fair.
32.
14
to get fucked up?!, before grabbing Plaintiff by his throat, lifting him off of the vehicle
15
16
33.
17
Defendant Hawkins controlled both of Plaintiffs wrists in pressure holds and tackled him
18
to the ground.
19
34.
Defendant Hawkins then wrenched Plaintiffs arms behind his back and
20
handcuffed him.
21
35.
Plaintiff, compliant with Defendant Hawkins but having just been assaulted
22
for no reason, called out for help and requested that somebody record what was happening
23
to him.
24
25
26
36.
Ms. Shunick.
37.
1
2
1
2
3
4
When Plaintiff indicated that he did not believe he was injured, Defendant
7
8
9
40.
how he did and that he was not charging [him] with any crimes.
41.
After escorting Plaintiff to the curb, Defendant Hawkins stated for a second
10
time that he was not charging Plaintiff with any crimes, explaining that he only detained
11
Plaintiff because he believed his relationship with Ms. Shunick and his likely desire to
12
13
14
15
42.
16
supervisor and, as such, has the authority, responsibility, and obligation to provide
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44.
Defendant Hawkins sought out Defendant Nocella to brief him on the level
Plaintiff sitting on the curb and stated, so he can go ahead and go to jail, right?
47.
26
-6-
1
2
48.
release Plaintiff without a citation was not an option. Defendant Nocella specifically
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
49.
Defendant Hawkins sought input from Defendant Nocella about the crimes
Defendant Nocella, who arrived after Plaintiff was already handcuffed and
seated on the curb and who had not observed any of the conduct, responded [h]indering
[prosecution] not following orders whatever. You were here.
51.
in order to find a crime with which to charge Plaintiff, as long as Defendant Hawkins got
him in a police car on his way to jail immediately: If you can make the stretch, if he
raised his voice above what mine is now, he goes for dis[orderly] con[duct]. But hes
going in a patrol car in the next five [minutes].
52.
Hawkins arrested Plaintiff, transported him to jail, and cited him for violating section 1111 of the Chandler City Code.
53.
person who willfully resists, delays or obstructs any public officer in the discharge or
attempt to discharge any duty or his office or who fails to obey any lawful order of any
public officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.
25
26
-7-
1
2
54.
justify it, and it was made against Plaintiff solely in an effort to cover-up the Defendants
unconstitutional actions.
55.
56.
to Chandler City Jail, booked, and held in custody for approximately 14 hours before he
was released.
10
57.
Plaintiff appeared in Chandler City Court on the date scheduled, and learned
11
that the City of Chandler Prosecutors Office was offering him the opportunity to enter
12
13
14
15
58.
Plaintiff rejected the plea agreement, refusing to resolve the case until he
16
Hawkins body camera, which Plaintiff remembered being told was recording that night
17
(the Video).
18
19
20
60.
The Video exonerated Plaintiff, showing that not only did he not interfere
21
with a police investigation but, to the contrary, had actually assisted the investigation by,
22
23
24
62.
25
26
-8-
1
2
63.
5
6
9
10
11
13
14
12
65.
Defendant Hawkins was, at all times relevant hereto, acting under the color
15
of law in his capacity as a City of Chandler police officer, and his acts and omissions were
16
17
67.
18
19
20
68.
21
would have known that the Constitution clearly establishes the right of American citizens
22
23
69.
24
objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him and
25
26
-9-
1
2
70.
Defendant Hawkins actions and use of force, as described herein, were also
4
5
6
71.
Under the circumstance, the force Defendant Hawkins used against Plaintiff
73.
10
11
Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional rights, and with conscious awareness that he
12
13
74.
14
Plaintiffs injuries, intentionally depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and causing
15
16
17
18
75.
19
20
21
77.
22
suffered injuries and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him to
23
24
determine at trial.
25
78.
26
1
2
79.
1983, in that the actions of this Defendant were taken maliciously, willfully, or with a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
17
18
12
16
82.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States; both of the Defendant Officers are
The Defendant Officers, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under the
19
color of law in their respective capacities as City of Chandler police officers and their acts
20
or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
21
84.
22
23
free from criminal prosecution without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
24
85.
25
would have known that the Constitution clearly establishes the right of American citizens
26
1
2
86.
The Defendant Officers violated these rights when they conspired and/or
acted in concert to institute, procure, and continue a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff
for violation of Section 11-11 of the Chandler City Code that never occurred.
87.
constitutional rights.
88.
10
89.
11
Chandler Prosecutors Office voluntarily dismissed the charges without any compromise
12
by Plaintiff, reflecting a prosecutorial judgment that there was not even probable cause to
13
14
90.
15
intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him
16
other damages.
17
18
19
91.
The Defendant Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the
complained-of conduct.
92.
At all times relevant hereto the Defendant Officers were acting pursuant to
20
21
22
93.
23
has suffered actual injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling
24
25
26
94.
1
2
95.
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendant Officers under 42 U.S.C.
1983, in that the actions of each of these defendants were taken maliciously, willfully or
6
7
8
9
10
96.
11
13
14
15
17
18
12
16
98.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States; Defendant Officers are persons for
At all times relevant hereto the Defendant Officers were acting under the
19
color of law in their capacity as City of Chandler police officers and their acts or
20
omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
21
100.
22
Amendments clearly established Plaintiffs right to be free from arrest and detention
23
without an officer having probable cause to believe the citizen had committed a crime
24
25
26
101.
would have known that the Constitution clearly establishes the right of American citizens
- 13 -
1
2
1
2
and/or acted in concert to secure false charges against him, arrest him, and cause him to be
booked into jail and held in custody for 14 hours despite their knowledge that they lacked
103.
104.
10
Officers knew to be false was malicious, shocking, and objectively unreasonable in light
11
of the circumstances.
12
105.
13
intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him
14
other damages.
15
16
17
106.
The Defendant Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the
complained-of conduct.
107.
At all times relevant hereto the Defendant Officers were acting pursuant to
18
19
20
108.
21
has suffered actual injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling
22
23
24
25
26
109.
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendant Officers under 42 U.S.C.
- 14 -
1
2
1983, in that the actions of each of these defendants were taken maliciously, willfully or
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
15
16
10
14
113.
17
Amendments to the United States Constitution guaranteed Plaintiff the right to be free
18
from unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, and malicious prosecution under the Fourth and
19
Fourteenth Amendments.
20
21
22
115.
23
described herein, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused
24
25
117.
26
described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights
- 15 -
1
2
1
2
3
4
Defendants Nocella and City of Chandler were, at all times relevant hereto,
policymakers for the City of Chandler Police Department and, in that capacity, established
120.
the arrest, detention, and criminal citation of Plaintiff, Defendant Nocella acted as a
10
121.
11
12
constitutional rights of citizens, which were moving forces behind and proximately caused
13
the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the
14
other claims, resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action
15
16
122.
17
18
19
train and/or supervise its officers in a manner amounting to deliberate indifference to the
20
21
123.
22
23
arresting, detaining, and ultimately charging citizens with crimes in an effort to insulate
24
itself from claims of excessive force, even if doing so requires fabrication of factual
25
evidence.
26
- 16 -
1
2
124.
125.
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein
7
8
126.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
127.
As set forth herein, during his contact with Plaintiff, Defendant Hawkins
As set forth herein, Defendant Hawkins acted outside the scope of his
authority to use lawful force, and therefore had no legal right to cause the harmful or
offensive contact with Plaintiff.
130.
offensive contact, Plaintiff was injured and suffered other damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.
131.
As set forth herein, Defendant Hawkins was acting within the course and
scope of his employment as a police officer for the City of Chandler when he made
contact with Plaintiff: Defendant Hawkins was performing an act he was authorized to
perform; he was on-duty working in his regular job capacity; and his actions were
motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the City of Chandler.
- 17 -
1
2
132.
Because Defendant Hawkins was acting within the course and scope of his
employment for the City of Chandler, Defendant City of Chandler is vicariously liable for
4
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Abuse of Process under Arizona law
(Against All Defendants)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
133.
individuals that the State has probable cause to believe committed a criminal offense.
135.
As set forth herein, the Defendant Officers willfully used the criminal
12
justice system to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which the process or procedure was
13
not designed namely, causing him to be charged with a criminal offense in an effort to
14
discourage, dissuade, or procedurally preclude Plaintiff from filing suit against Officer
15
16
17
18
136.
The improper purpose set forth in the forgoing paragraph was, in fact, the
19
or procedure Plaintiff was injured and suffered other damages in an amount to be proven
20
at trial.
21
138.
As set forth herein, the Defendant Officers were acting within the course
22
and scope of their employment as police officers for the City of Chandler when decided to
23
charge Plaintiff with a criminal offense: The Defendant Officers were performing acts
24
they were authorized to perform; were on-duty, working in their regular job capacity; and
25
their actions were motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the City of Chandler.
26
- 18 -
1
2
139.
Because the Defendant Officers were acting within the course and scope of
their employment for the City of Chandler, Defendant City of Chandler is vicariously
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendant Officers under Arizona law
because both of these defendants took deliberate, intentional, and malicious action against
him.
8
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Malicious Prosecution under Arizona law
(Against All Defendants)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
141.
As set forth herein, the Defendant Officers initiated and/or took active part
As set forth herein, the criminal prosecution against Plaintiff was terminated
16
in Plaintiffs favor when the City of Chandler voluntarily dismissed the criminal
17
18
144.
As set forth herein, the Defendant Officers acted with malice, causing him
19
20
preclude Plaintiff from filing suit against Officer Hawkins and/or the City of Chandler for
21
excessive force.
22
23
24
145.
conduct, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
146.
As set forth herein, the Defendant Officers were acting within the course
25
and scope of their employment as police officers for the City of Chandler when decided to
26
charge Plaintiff with a criminal offense: The Defendant Officers were performing acts
- 19 -
1
2
they were authorized to perform; were on-duty, working in their regular job capacity; and
their actions were motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the City of Chandler.
147.
Because the Defendant Officers were acting within the course and scope of
their employment for the City of Chandler, Defendant City of Chandler is vicariously
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendant Officers under Arizona law
because both of these defendants took deliberate, intentional, and malicious action against
him.
10
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Negligence
(Against All Defendants)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
149.
The Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, namely, the duty
18
among other things, he: placed Plaintiff into a potentially dangerous situation, namely, a
19
20
from her vehicle; used unreasonable and unnecessary force against Plaintiff; caused
21
22
transported to jail; caused Plaintiff to be booked into jail and detained for 14 hours; and
23
caused Plaintiff to be cited and prosecuted for a criminal violation without probable cause.
24
25
152.
these actions.
26
- 20 -
1
2
153.
among other things, he: instructed Defendant Hawkins to charge Plaintiff with a criminal
offense even if though there was no probable cause to maintain such a charge; caused
Plaintiff to be arrested and transported; caused Plaintiff to be booked into jail and detained
for 14 hours; and caused Plaintiff to be cited and prosecuted for a criminal violation
7
8
9
154.
these actions.
155.
10
when, among other things, it: permitted Defendant Hawkins to be in a position to injure
11
Plaintiff despite prior issues, including at least one prior lawsuit for excessive force;
12
13
unconstitutional orders; and failed to provide adequate and reasonable training and
14
supervision to these officers about proper methodologies in using force, conducting arrests
15
16
17
18
19
20
156.
omissions, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
158.
As set forth herein, the Defendant Officers were acting within the course
21
and scope of their employment as police officers for the City of Chandler during the sum
22
of their involvement in this matter: The Defendant Officers were performing acts they
23
were authorized to perform; were on-duty, working in their regular job capacity; and their
24
actions were motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the City of Chandler.
25
26
159.
In addition to its independent and direct liability for negligence, because the
Defendant Officers were acting within the course and scope of his employment for the
- 21 -
1
2
City of Chandler, Defendant City of Chandler is vicariously liable for the damages caused
3
4
5
6
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Luke Hein hereby requests that the Court enter judgment
against Defendants as follows:
a. For damages in an amount to compensate Plaintiff fairly and fully for the
numerous violations of his Constitutional Rights;
but not limited to his pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost wages, and
10
11
12
e. For attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and as provided for
13
by Arizona law;
14
f. For Plaintiffs costs and other expenses incurred in this action; and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 22 -
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
3
I hereby certify that on the 27th day of July, 2015, the foregoing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court utilizing the CM/ECF filing system,
and that on said date I sent via electronic mail and U.S. Mail a copy of the foregoing
to:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 23 -