Electronically Filed
51512022 2:19 PF
Steven D. Grierson
LER OF THE CO
COMP . . Phish dbo
ROBERT S. MELCIC
Nevada Bar No. 14923 7
3315 E. Russell Rd. Loan y CASE NO: A-22-8
32179-C
Ste. A4-271 - LLeipe. Department 29
Las Vegas, NV 89120 g
Phone: (702) 526-4235 Vv ols Z
Clerk: (725) 577-8013 c oY
Attorney for Plaintiff Allanna Warren
DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
ALLANNA WARREN, Case No.:
Plaintiff, Dept. No.:
vs.
COMPLAINT
SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT, @ BUR YiTne DEN ENDED.
government entity; DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10; and
DOE INDIVIDUALS 2 through 50 in
their individual and official capacities.
Defendants.
COMES NOW Plaintiff, ALLANNA WARREN, by and through her
counsel, Robert S. Melcic of The Law Office of Robert S. Melcic, and complains
against SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-
10, and DOE INDIVIDUALS 2 through 50 in their individual and official
capacities, as follows.
is
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case arises from the unlawful use of force and unlawful arrest on two
dates: June 14, 2020 and June 20, 2020. On May 7, 2020, Ms. WARREN
Case Number:
Page | of 45
S
(case Number: A22-852178-C(hereinafter, “Ms. WARREN” or “PLAINTIFF”) was walking along a path on
public land known as a “fire trail.” A man named Steven Saults and his wife were
present on the trail. The couple were walking their two, large dogs who were off.
their leashes and running loose. The dogs came near to Ms. WARREN, who asked
the Saults to leash them. Mr. Saults, Caucasian, began to scream racial epithets at
Ms. WARREN, who is African-American, including by calling her “a fat nigger
bitch.”
Afraid for her safety, Ms. WARREN pulled out her smartphone and began
recording Mr. Saults yelling at her. Saults battered Ms. WARREN when he
grabbed her arm and tried to slap her phone out of her hand. Thereupon, Ms.
WARREN sprayed Mr. Saults with pepper spray in an attempt to get him to stop
attacking her physically. For reasons either having to do with the power on her
phone or with the phone's ability to data transfer, these videos that Ms. WARREN
took are presently without audio, but Plaintiff is working to recover her evidence.
Ms. WARREN was successfully able to get the Saults cited by Washoe
County Regional Animal Services for not leashing and not vaccinating their dogs.
She also attempted to file a police report against Mr. Saults on May 7, 2020 and
received a police report back on June 3, 2020. There is also body cam footage
extant of the SPARKS POLICE going to the Saults” house to inquire about the
incident. There, the white police are extremely deferential to Mr. Saults’ version
of events and at no point cite him for battery or a hate crime. Ms. WARREN again
encountered the Saults and their unleashed dogs on the same fire trail on May 29,
2020.
Following the May incidents with the dogs, on Sunday, June 14, 2020, two
SPARKS POLICE officers named Patterson and Jones detained Ms. WARREN
while she was walking in her neighborhood. The officers pulled their SUV up to
block her from walking. Officers Patterson and Jones screamed at Ms. WARREN
Case Number:
Page 2 of 45to sit down on the asphalt in weather that was then approximately 80 degrees with
scattered cloud cover. The officers also wanted Ms. WARREN to sit directly in
front of their SUV, where she was exposed to exhaust fumes emanating from
underneath the police SUV. Ms. WARREN sat on the hot asphalt for over 20
minutes, when she tried to arise, Officer Patterson chest bumped her to sit back
down.
Officers Patterson and Jones opined that Ms. WARREN was mentally
unstable. They did not explain their reason for detaining her. Because Ms.
WARREN was walking casually around her neighborhood, she did not have ID on
her at the time, The police harassed her for not having ID. All of this is captured
‘on video taken by Ms. WARREN.
Officers Patterson and Jones intimated that they planned to arrest Ms.
WARREN for not having ID and for not declaring to them what she was doing.
Officer Jones then stated, “That guy a couple weeks ago with these dogs. We told
him if he ever sees you in this neighborhood, he needs to call us.”
So, the officers were essentially saying that Ms. WARREN was trespassing
by walking in her own neighborhood. Officers Patterson and Jones indicated that
they “did not care” about whatever police report Ms. WARREN had filed about
the Saults. On June 14'", SPARKS POLICE eventually allowed Ms. WARREN to.
leave.
But then, on Saturday, June 20, 2020, Ms. WARREN was officially arrested
by SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT for first degree misdemeanor stalking of
the Saults.
Ms. WARREN had had no interaction with the Saults apart from the two
incidents in May: The first, on May 7, when Mr. Saults battered Ms. WARREN
' For the approximate weather in Sparks, Nevada, on this day, please see:
https://www.timeanddate,com/weather/@5512862/historic?month=6&yeat
Case Number:
Page 3 of 45and screamed racial epithets at her and she videotaped and pepper-sprayed him for
her own safety; and the second, on May 29, when Ms. WARREN again
encountered the Saults and their unleashed dogs on the fire trail, after which point,
Ms. WARREN reported the Saults to Washoe County Regional Animal Services
and the Saults were cited.
‘The arresting officers, a woman named Ginger Miller and an unknown male
officer referred to herein as “DOE 1,” paraded Ms. WARREN around her entire
apartment complex, The Villas at d’Andrea Apartments in Sparks, before taking
her in. By this point, the police had already gone to various neighbors in the
apartment complex to inquire and warn about Ms. WARREN.
Ginger Miller twisted Ms. WARREN’s arm and would not let her record the
incident. When Ms. WARREN asked why she was being arrested, Officer Miller
stated, “for taking pictures and that guy with the dogs is aftaid of you.” Officer
Miller smashed food that Ms. WARREN had purchased for her mother. SPARKS.
POLICE would not release footage from Officer Miller’s body cam. Officer
Miller’s partner officer, DOE 1, cut off the sound and video to his body cam
footage.
Ms. WARREN had no criminal record at the time of her arrest and should
have been released on her own recognizance. Regardless of this, Ms. WARREN
languished in jail for a week, from June 20, 2020 to June 26, 2020. During this
entire time, she was placed in solitary confinement for no reason.
By “solitary confinement,” PLAINTIFF means that she was in a small,
separate place within the jail, completely alone, and that this place only had room
for one person. Ms. WARREN languished in this small space for six solid days.
She was given no reason for her segregation from the main jail population.
When Ms. WARREN was released from jail, her car—which was legally
parked on a side street near to her apartment building prior to her arrest—
Case Number:
Page 4 of 45,mysteriously had a tow sticker placed upon it for no reason. The date on the tow
sticker was June 23, 2020 and the responding officer was badge number 432.
The charges against Ms. Warren were entirely dropped on September 15,
2021 because SPARKS POLICE made a deal with Ms. Warren’s defense attorney,
Richard Davies, that if she waited a year to go to court, the charges against her
would be dropped. Ms. WARREN did not realize at the time and was not informed
by her criminal defense attorney that this delay of a year cut into her statute of
limitations for timely filing a civil matter against the police.
Ms. WARREN and her elderly mother had to move from the Villas at
d’Andrea apartment complex in Sparks to another area of Reno because of ongoing
harassment at the old apartment complex. The move cost Ms. WARREN
significant moving expenses. Eventually, Ms. WARREN and her mother had to
leave Reno altogether due to ongoing harassment at the new apartment building.
The WARRENS moved to Las Vegas to escape being harassed by SPARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
But the problems for Ms. WARREN did not stop in Washoe County. In
November 2021, during a training course for her new job in Las Vegas, a co-worker
teased Ms. WARREN by showing her a copy of her booking photo that had been
taken by the SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT when she was arrested.
Ms. WARREN suffers from alopecia. When she was booked by the police
in Sparks on June 20, 2020, Officer Miller removed Ms. Warren's hat before her
booking photo was taken, so Ms, WARREN appears bald in the photo. Somehow,
Ms. WARREN’s co-worker got his hand on this photo, and stated that he had
actually gotten the photo from their training instructor. Thereupon, Ms.
WARREN’ classmates in the training program teased her with photos of bald
people and the instructor harassed her also.
The booking photo cannot be found online. Ms. WARREN called the
Case Number:
Page 5 of 45Washoe County Sherriff’s Office, who stated to her that such a photo is only a
public record when an individual is incarcerated, but that after incarceration is
over, the photo is removed from their website. The Sheriff's office additionally
stated that the only way the picture could be released at this point would be either
at Ms. WARREN’s own request for it, or in response to a request from someone
inside SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Therefore, on information and belief, SPARKS POLICE impermissibly
released Ms, Warren’s booking photo online or to her then-current employer in Las
Vegas in an effort to harass, embarrass, stalk, and belittle her. After PLAINTIFF
complained about the arrest photo to her employer, she was placed on
administrative leave and ultimately fired.
Prior to her ordeal, MS. WARREN suffered from anxiety, depre:
alopecia. Now, subsequent to her ordeal at the hands of SPARKS POLICE, she
in, and
additionally suffers from PTSD and paranoia. Following her confinement, and
likely due to stress and the filthy conditions inside the Washoe County jail, Ms.
WARREN developed hidradenitis suppurativa, a painful skin condition that causes
small, painful lumps to form under her skin. Following her jailing, MS. WARREN
developed these sores and pustules all over her body, for which she sought the help
of a dermatologist.
I
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction over a party to a civil action on
any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the Constitution
of the United States.” NRS 14.065.
2. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper because this is a complaint seeking monetary
relief in excess of $10,000, the PLAINTIFF is a resident citizen of Nevada, and
Case Number:
Page 6 of 45the DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT is a governmental
entity paid for by the County of Washoe, Nevada and the City of Sparks, County
of Washoe, Nevada.
3. Venue is proper in this Court because:
a. The events or omissions giving rise to this claim, while they initially
occurred in Washoe County, have now followed PLAINTIFF to Las
Vegas, Nevada.
b. PLAINTIFF and her elderly mother have relocated to Las Vegas out of a
concern for their safety and civil rights were they to stay in the Reno area;
c. Given all the factors in this situation, including how defense counsel in
Reno mishandled her case, PLAINTIFF does not believe that she can
obtain a fair hearing in the Reno courts;
d. The PLAINTIFF currently resides in Las Vegas, Nevada, where a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims of this
case occurred.
m1.
PARTIES
4. At all times relevant to this action, PLAINTIFF was a resident of the State of
Nevada, County of Washoe, and then, County of Clark.
5. On information and belief, DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT
is a governmental agency situated in Washoe County, Nevada
6. On information and belief, the true names, capacities, and specific involvement
of the Defendants sued herein as DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITITES | through
10 and DOE INDIVIDUALS 2 through 50 are unknown to PLAINTIFF, who
sues these Defendants by such fictitious names; PLAINTIFF alleges that each
of the Defendants sued herein as DOEs performed acts and are responsible in
Case Number:
Page 7 of 45,some manner for the events and injuries alleged herein
IV.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
7. PLAINTIFF is a forty-four year old African-American woman.
8. PLAINTIFF suffers from pre-existing alopecia, depression, and anxiety; as a
result of her ordeal at the hands of SPARKS POLICE, she now also suffers
from hidradenitis suppurativa, PTSD, and paranoia.
9, PLAINTIFF has been a resident of the state of Nevada throughout the entirety
of this ordeal.
10. PLAINTIFF moved to Las Vegas from Reno due to her fear of retribution by
DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
11. On Thursday, May 7, 2020, PLAINTIFF was walking on public land known
as a “fire trail” in an area near to her apartment building.
12. PLAINTIFF then noticed two dogs running loose on the land, not wearing
leashes, and accompanied by a Caucasian couple now known to be Steven and
Alana Saults,
13. The dogs were coming closer to PLAINTIFF, who asked for them to be
leashed.
14, Steven Saults screamed racial epithets at PLAINTIFF including by calling her
“a fat nigger bitch.”
15. PLAINTIFF began recording Mr. Saults and his dogs; these recordings are
presently without audio for the reasons stated supra.
16. Upon realizing that he was being recorded, Mr. Saults battered the PLAINTIFF
by grabbing PLAINTIFF’s arm and attempting to slap PLAINTIFF’s phone out
of her hand.
17. PLAINTIFF pepper-sprayed Steven Saults to get him to stop attacking her
Case Number:
Page 8 of 45physically.
18. Following this incident, PLAINTIFF tried to file reports about it: first, she filed
a report on May 7, 2020 with Nevada State Representative Skip Daly; then she
filed a report with Sparks Mayor Ron Smith on May 8, 2020.
19. PLAINTIFF also shared e-mails back and forth with other Northern Nevada
Representatives such as Jill Dickman.
20. On May 9, 2020, PLAINTIFF received a response from Mayor Smith that he
had forwarded her concerns to his police chief.
21. On June 3, 2020, PLAINTIFF finally received a written police report back with
a case number from Sparks Police: the report number is 20-3870 and the
reporting officer was “C. Fleiner,” badge number 242.
22. Almost everything on this police report is typed except for the date on the first
page, which was whited out and written in as “5/7/20.”
23. Bodycam footage subsequently obtained shows that, subsequent to the incident
on the fire trail, SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT went to the Saults’ home
to investigate where they were highly deferential to Mr. Saults, viewed him as
the victim, and did nothing to cite him for the battery of PLAINTIFF or for a
hate crime against PLAINTIFF.
24.On May 29, 2020, PLAINTIFF was again on the fire trail and again
encountered the Saults on the trail with their dogs unleased; PLAINTIFF took
pictures of this and reported the Saults to Regional Animal Services for Washoe
County; PLAINTIFF stated her concerns to Animal Services that she was being
stalked by the Saults.
25. On May 30, 2020 the Saults were cited by Washoe County Regional Animal
Services for not leashing and not vaccinating their dogs.
26. On Sunday, June 14, 2020, PLAINTIFF was walking in her neighborhood; this
was a casual walk, so PLAINTIFF was not carrying a purse with ID in it.
Case Number:
Page 9 of 4527. Two police officers known to PLAINTIFF as Patterson and Jones pulled up in
their SUV and blocked PLAINTIFF from continuing forward on her intended
path of travel.
28. Officers Patterson and Jones yelled at PLAINTIFF to sit down on the asphalt
in front of their SUV where PLAINTIFF directly exposed to exhaust fumes
emanating from beneath the police SUV.
29. PLAINTIFF sat on hot asphalt in hot weather for over 20 minutes; she
attempted to rise but Officer Patterson chest-bumped PLAINTIFF to make
PLAINTIFF sit back down.
30. It was very uncomfortable for PLAINTIFF to sit on the hot asphalt that day;
she was wearing shorts and the temperature was approximately 80 degrees with
scattered cloud cover? so the asphalt was very hot against her thin shorts and
bare legs.
31. Officers Patterson and Jones would not tell PLAINTIFF why she was being
detained.
32. Officers Patterson and Jones harassed PLAINTIFF for not having ID with her
even though carrying ID is only required when someone is driving and it is
common for women walking around their neighborhoods casually not to carry
a purse or wallet.
33. Officers Patterson and Jones threatened to arrest PLAINTIFF for not having
ID and not declaring what she was doing.
34. Officers Patterson and Jones opined that PLAINTIFF was “mentally unstable”
because she had used pepper spray to defend herself from a battery and hate
crime by Steven Saults and his two large, unleashed, and unvaccinated dogs.
35. Officer Jones said, “That guy a couple weeks ago with these dogs. We told him
2 For the approximate weather in Sparks, Nevada, on this day, see
hitps://www..timeanddate.com/weather/@5512862/historic?month=6& year=2020.
Case Number:
Page 10 of 45if he ever sees you in this neighborhood, he needs to call u:
36. “This neighborhood” was also PLAINTIFF's neighborhood, so SPARKS
POLICE was stating that PLAINTIFF was trespassing by being in her own
neighborhood.
37. On information and belief, SPARKS POLICE perceived PLAINTIFF as
someone who did not belong in her own neighborhood because she is African-
American.
38. PLAINTIFF mentioned the police report that she had received on June 3, 2020.
39. The Officers stated that they did not care about PLAINTIFF’s police report.
40. After a protracted detention of PLAINTIFF on the asphalt in front of SPARKS
POLICE’s car that lasted approximately 30 minutes, Officers Patterson and
Jones let PLAINTIFF go without any citation.
41. To date, SPARKS POLICE refuses to release Officers’ Patterson and Jones”
bodycam and dash cam footage during Ms. WARREN’s detention on June 14,
2020; Ms. WARREN’s criminal defense attorney could not even obtain this
footage during discovery in her criminal matter.
42. On information and belief, SPARKS POLICE is withholding this information
because Officer Patterson is currently under investigation for other police
misconduct incidents involving him in Sparks.
43. Nothing more occurred between PLAINTIFF and SPARKS POLICE between
Sunday, June 14, 2020 and Friday, June 19, 2020.
44, Then, on Saturday, June 20, 2020, PLAINTIFF was arrested by SPARKS
POLICE for first degree misdemeanor stalking of Steven Saults, the man with
the unleashed dogs.
45, Upon returning home on the afternoon of June 20, 2020, PLAINTIFF saw her
neighbors in their front yards and a maintenance man outside her apartment
building, the Villas at d’ Andrea Apartments in Sparks.
Case Number:
Page 11 of 4546. Two police officers, Ginger Miller and DOE 1, an unidentified white male
officer, approached PLAINTIFF.
47. PLAINTIFF pulled her camera out to record but Officer Miller twisted her arm
and stated that PLAINTIFF was under arrest.
48, Officers Miller and DOE 1 did not state that PLAINTIFF was being arrested
for stalking; instead, they stated that she was arrested “for taking pictures and
that guy with the dogs is afraid of you.”
49. PLAINTIFF subsequently learned that the police had knocked on the doors of
the surrounding apartments and had told PLAINTIFF’s neighbors that they
were looking for her.
50. In audio evidence subsequently obtained, the maintenance man for the Villas
at d’Andrea Apartments states that he believes the police have “probable cause”
to arrest PLAINTIFF and identifies Officer Miller by name.
51.On information and belief, this means that the maintenance man to
PLAINTIFF’s apartment building had been coached regarding preparing for
PLAINTIFF’s arrest and PLAINTIFF had also been defamed to the
maintenance man by SPARKS POLICE.
52. Officers Miller and DOE | smashed food that PLAINTIFF had purchased for
her mother; PLAINTIFF’s pepper spray was also confiscated and the shorts she
was wearing were eventually lost by the police while PLAINTIFF languished
in jail.
53. When PLAINTIFF was photographed for her arrest photo, Officer Miller
pulled off PLAINTIFF’s hat revealing her bald head because PLAINTIFF
suffers from alopecia.
54. Officer Miller, who is not a detective, also contacted PLAINTIFF’s mother
over the phone and asked PLAINTIFF’s mother for private medical information
regarding PLAINTIFF.
Case Number:
Page 12 of 4555.To date, SPARKS POLICE refuses to release Officer Miller's bodycam
footage and there are points where Officer DOE | cuts off the sound and video
to his bodycam footage on June 20, 2020, the day of PLAINTIFF’s arrest.
56, At some point amid this ordeal, Steven Saults claimed to the police that
PLAINTIFF had thrown watermelon rinds in the Saults’ backyard.
57. PLAINTIFF is highly allergic to all parts of a watermelon: the rinds, seeds,
pulp. and juice.
58. The association of African-Americans with watermelon consumption is a
longstanding racial stereotype in the United States.
59. PLAINTIFF, who had herself been battered and had faced hateful racial
epithets from Steven Saults, languished in the Washoe County Jail for a week,
from June 20 to June 26, 2020.
60. PLAINTIFF was kept in jail even though, with no criminal record and no prior
arrests, she should have been released on her own recognizance.
61. During the entire course of PLAINTIFF’s confinement, PLAINTIFF was
placed in solitary confinement within Washoe County Jail for no known reason.
62. After being released from jail, PLAINTIFF discovered that her car, which was
legally parked on a side street near her apartment building, had a tow sticker on
it for no reason; the tow notice affixed to the car was dated June 23, 2020 and
signed by an Officer “432”; PLAINTIFF removed the sticker and drove her car
closer to her apartment.
63. PLAINTIFF hired a criminal defense attomey, Richard Davies, who, in
September 2020, cut a deal with the city attorney that all charges would be
dropped if PLAINTIFF agreed to wait a year before returning to court.
64. Thus, on Wednesday, September 15, 2021, all criminal charges against
PLAINTIFF were dropped.
65. Unbeknownst to PLAINTIFF at the time, this year-long delay cut into the time
Case Number:
Page 13 of 45PLAINTIFF had to file this civil matter against SPARKS POLICE.
66. Following her false arrest, PLAINTIFF and her elderly mother were harassed
by neighbors at the Villas at d’Andrea Apartments so badly that they had to
move across Reno to a new apartment at significant cost to them.
67. Reno is so small that the new apartment eventually also found out about the
arrest; on information and belief, this was because of ongoing defamation of
PLAINTIFF by SPARKS POLICE.
68. PLAINTIFF and her mother then had to relocate to Las Vegas to escape
ongoing harassment by neighbors and the threat to their civil rights and safety
by SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
69. In November 2021, PLAINTIFF was training at a new job she had secured in
Las Vegas when one of her co-workers teased her by showing her a copy of her
arrest photo in which she appears bald.
70. The classmate indicated that he had obtained the photo from the course
instructor.
71. PLAINTIFF asked her employer where the photo was obtained as it cannot be
found online.
72. PLAINTIFF called the Washoe County Sherriff's Office for more information.
73. The Sherriff's office stated to PLAINTIFF that arrest photos are only public
records while someone is incarcerated but that, after incarceration ends, the
photos are removed from the Sherriff's website.
74. The Sherriff's office indicated that there were only two ways for the arrest
photo to be obtained after it was taken down from their website: First, the
previously-incarcerated person could request it. Second, SPARKS POLICE
could request it.
75. Thus, on information and belief, DOE officers working for SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT placed this booking photo online and/or gave a copy to
Case Number:
Page 14 of 45PLAINTIFF’s new employer in Las Vegas an effort to continue to harass
PLAINTIFF from another county.
76. After PLAINTIFF complained about the arrest photo to her employer, she was
placed on administrative leave and ultimately fired.
77. Plaintiff suffered from alopecia, depression, and anxiety prior to this ordeal:
subsequent to this ordeal, she has new health problems, including, hidradenitis
suppurativa, a painful skin condition acquired after PLAINTIF languished in
the filthy conditions inside Washoe County jail in solitary confinement for six
days, PTSD, and paranoia.
Vv.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Assault
(Asserted against All Defendants)
78, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
79. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT intended to put
PLAINTIFF in imminent apprehension of bodily harm when they forced her to
sit on the hot asphalt in front of their SUV on a hot summer day in Sparks,
Nevada, on June 14, 2020.
80. When PLAINTIFF was chest bumped as she attempted to arise from the hot
asphalt, PLAINTIFF imminently apprehended that she could become the victim
of grave physical danger.
81, DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT intended to put
PLAINTIFF in imminent apprehension of bodily harm when they arrested her
without cause on June 20, 2020.
82. When PLAINTIFF was falsely arrested, she imminently apprehended that she
Case Number:
Page 15 of 45could become the victim of grave physical danger.
83. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT intended to put
PLAINTIFF in imminent apprehension of bodily harm when they forced her to
remain in solitary confinement for the entire six days that she was jailed.
84. While within solitary confinement, PLAINTIFF imminently apprehended that
she could become the victim of grave physical danger.
85. PLAINTIFF has suffered psychological trauma as a result of the violent and
threatening behavior of officers working for DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
86. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover both actual and punitive
damages, as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
87. As a further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Vi.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery
(Asserted against All Defendants)
88, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein,
89. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT knew with substantial
certainty that injury would result to PLAINTIFF when they forced her to sit on
hot asphalt in front of their SUV on June 14, 2020.
90. The unwanted, violent, physical behavior of DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT in chest-bumping PLAINTIFF on June 14, 2020 and in falsely
arresting her on June 20, 2020 constituted harmful and offensive contacts with
Case Number:
Page 16 of 45the PLAINTIFF's person that were not warranted at law; it was not illegal for
PLAINTIFF to walk in her neighborhood without identification and
PLAINTIFF had not committed a crime when she defended herself against a
battery and hate crime by Mr. Saults on May 7, 2020.
91. PLAINTIFF was directly physically impaired by the harmful and offensive
contact of DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT against her
person on both Sunday, June 14, 2020 and Saturday. June 20, 2020.
92. PLAINTIFF was both physically and psychologically injured as a result of
DEFENDANTS’ battery of her.
93. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover both actual and punitive
damages, as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
94, As a further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
VL.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Imprisonment / Untawful Arrest
(Asserted against All Defendants)
95. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
96.On June 14, 2020, DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT
intended to confine and restrain PLAINTIFF to an area from which she could
not escape when they chest-bumped her physically and compelled her to remain
seated on the hot asphalt in front of their SUV that was also spewing exhaust
fumes into PLAINTIFF’s face without arresting her.
97. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT did actually confine
Case Number:
Page 17 of 45PLAINTIFF to an area from which she could not escape when they chest-
bumped her physically and compelled her to remain seated on the hot asphalt
in front of their SUV that was also spewing exhaust into PLAINTIFF’s face
without arresting her.
98. Once PLAINTIFF was so confined, there was no reasonable means for her to
escape.
99. PLAINTIFF was conscious of her confinement; she was not able to leave the
area where she was confined to, including the immediate area in front of the
police SUV for, on information and belief, about half an hour.
100. Part of this confinement occurred because the police deemed PLAINTIFF
to be “mentally unstable” without any evidence that PLAINTIFF presented a
mental health threat to herself or others apart from the fact that she had
successfully defended herself against Steven Saults, a man who had battered
PLAINTIFF and had been screaming racial epithets at her.
101. Then, on June 20, 2022, PLAINTIFF was falsely arrested by Officers Miller
and DOE | when she was arrested for something that was not a crime: “taking
pictures of that guy with the dogs” and because “he is afraid of you.”
102. PLAINTIFF was falsely arrested because she was charged for stalking
when she had not actually stalked anyone; in fact, she had been followed and
battered by the dog owner and was subsequently stalked by SPARKS POLICE
who: a.) monitored PLAINTIFF while she was walking in her neighborhood
and b.) defamed PLAINTIFF to her neighbors and apartment maintenance man.
103. PLAINTIFF was falsely arrested because the charges against her for
stalking were ultimately dropped a year later.
104. PLAINTIFF was falsely arrested because SPARKS POLICE lacked
probable cause to arrest PLAINTIFF for stalking on June 20, 2020; racial bias
against African-Americans is not probable cause.
Case Number:
Page 18 of 45105. PLAINTIFF was falsely arrested because SPARKS POLICE lacked
reasonable suspicion to arrest PLAINTIFF for stalking on June 20, 2020; racial
bias against African-Americans is not reasonable suspicion.
106. Following PLAINTI
during which entire time, she was placed in solitary confinement without
false arrest, she languished in jail for a week,
explanation
107. PLAINTIFF was hurt by both periods of confinement by SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT in an amount to be determined at trial: in each instance, she
was removed from her intended course of travel by walking in her
neighborhood where she had the lawful right to be, and she was removed from
her home and family and placed in jail.
108. As a result of DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT’s
unlawful false imprisonment of PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF was afraid for her
physical safety throughout both periods of her confinement.
109. PLAINTIFF has suffered emotionally as a result of these two periods of
confinement and she has suffered physically in that she developed hidradenitis
ing.
110. Accordingly. PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
suppurativa, a painful skin condition, following her j
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
111. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
i
Mt
Mh
i
Mt
Case Number:
Page 19 of 45,Vu.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Malicious Prosecution, NRS § 199.310
(Asserted against All Defendants)
112. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
113. Malicious prosecution occurs in Nevada when “a person who maliciously
and without probable cause therefor, causes or attempts to cause another person
to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of which that person is
innocent.” NRS § 199.310.
114. PLAINTIFF was not guilty of a crime when she successfully defended
herself against a battery and a hate crime on May 7, 2020.
115. PLAINTIFF was not guilty of a crime when she was not carrying
identification with her on June 14, 2020.
116. PLAINTIFF was not guilty of any crime, including stalking, when she was
falsely arrested on June 20, 2020.
117. PLAINTIFF was not guilty of a crime for walking in her neighborhood or
walking along the fire path near her neighborhood, where, in each case, she had
the legal right to be.
118. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT did not have probable
cause to detain or arrest PLAINTIFF on June 14, 2020.
119. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT did not have probable
cause to detain or arrest PLAINTIFF on June 20, 2020.
120. Probable cause is “that line [which] draws a meaningful distinction between
an officer's mere inkling and the presence of facts within the officer's personal
knowledge which would convince a reasonable man that the person seized has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime.” Terry v.
Case Number:
Page 20 of 45Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 38 (1968); in Nevada, “probable cause is a standard of
reasonableness which must be interpreted in a common-sense and realistic
manner.” Azbill v, State, 84 Nev. 345, 358 (Nev. 1968).
121. A police officer's racial bias against an African-American woman who has
successfully defended herself against a battery and a hate crime by a white man
is not probable cause.
122. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT did not have reasonable
suspicion to detain or arrest PLAINTIFF on June 14, 2020.
123. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT did not have
reasonable suspicion to detain or arrest PLAINTIFF on June 20, 2020.
124. The U.
Supreme Court “has recognized that an officer’s reasonable
suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer
to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate
further.” Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Nev., Humboldt Cty, $42 U.S. 177, 178
(2004).
125. In walking around her neighborhood on June 14, 2020, and in walking from
her car to her apartment on June 20, 2020, PLAINTIFF had done nothing to
indicate that she was involved in any criminal activity.
126. A police officer’s racial bias against an African-American woman who has
successfully defended herself against a battery and a hate crime by a white man
is not reasonable suspicion.
127. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT was at least negligent
in carrying out this detention, and, later, false arrest, as no officer from the
DEPARTMENT had reasonable suspicion nor probable cause for arresting
PLAINTIFF.
128. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT’s attempt to detain
PLAINTIFF on June 14, 2020 was not sufficient to establish reasonable
Case Number:
Page 21 of 45suspicion or probable cause for their later arrest of PLAINITFF on June 20th.
129. In fact, on June 14, 2020, and again on June 20, 2020, PLAINTIFF was
falsely detained, imprisoned, and arrested in retaliation for her good faith
attempt to defend herself against a battery and a hate crime by a white man.
130. PLAINTIFF was innocent of every crime, and yet, she was unlawfully
detained, falsely imprisoned, falsely arrested, and prosecuted by DEFENDANT
SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT in contravention of Nevada law.
131. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
132. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Ix.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Detention beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the
detention was first effected, NRS § 171.123
(Asserted against All Defendants)
133. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
134. In Nevada, a peace officer may detain an individual if that person has
committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. NRS § 171.123; Terry
¥. Ohio, 392 US. 1, 38 (1968).
135. On June 14, 2020, prior to her detention by DEFENDANT SPARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF had committed no crimes.
136. Under the statute, “A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably
necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60
Case Number:
Page 22 of 45minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate
vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is
arrested.” NRS § 171.123(4)
137. Nonetheless, on June 14, 2020, PLAINITFF was detained for half an hour
as though she was a criminal without being placed under a valid, legal arrest, in
violation of Nevada state law.
138. DEFENDANT’s detaining of PLAINTIFF on June 14, 2020 served no other
purpose than to harass and stalk PLAINTIFF for not having identification, to
behave vindictively toward her for having defended herself against a white man
SPARKS POLICE saw it as their job to defend, and to humiliate her by forcing
her to sit on hot asphalt in front of her neighbors.
139, DEFENDANT’s detaining of PLAINTIFF on June 14, 2020 then extended
to detention, and, ultimately, false arrest on June 20, 2020 when PLAINTIFF
was now arrested for the same matter for which she had previously been
detained on the 14th.
140. PLAINTIFF’s false arrest on June 20, 2020 occurred more than 60 minutes
after and in a new location following her detention on June 14, 2020.
141. PLAINTIFF had had no further interaction with the Saults between June 14
and June 20, 2020.
142. Thus, that DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE waited a full six days to arrest
PLAINTIFF after detaining her for the same matter means that NRS § 171.123
has surely been violated.
143. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
144, Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDAN
Sas alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Case Number:
Page 23 of 45x.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unlawful Injury or Loss Suffered by a Vulnerable Person,
NRS § 41.1395,
(Asserted against All Defendants)
145. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
146. PLAINTIFF is a vulnerable person as defined by NRS § 41.1395 4(e)(1-2)
in that she has a physical health impairment—alopecia—and psychological
health impairments—depression and anxiety—that limit one or more of her
major life activities, and she has medical records of these impairments.
147. Because of her ordeal, PLAINTIFF now also suffers from a very painful
skin condition called hidradenitis suppurativa, and from new psychological
problems including PTSD and paranoia.
148. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT were unjustified when
they inflicted injury, pain, and anguish on PLAINTIFF with their unlawful use
of force lacking in reasonable suspicion and probable cause, as described above
149, PLAINTIFF’s medical vulnerability was made plain to DEFENDANT when.
Officer Miller ripped off PLAINTIFF's hat for her booking photo.
150, To the extent that SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT is responsible for the
later publication of that booking photo to PLAINTIFF's new employer in Las
Vegas, SPARKS POLICE has additionally exploited the medical vulnerability
ofa vulnerable Nevadan, in contravention of state law.
151. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover two times her damages, as
allowed under NRS § 41.1395(1), in an amount to be determined at trial.
152. If itis established by a preponderance of the evidence that DEFENDANTS
are liable because they acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, and/or malice,
Case Number:
Page 24 of 45PLAINTIFF is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. NRS § 41.1395(2)
XI.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Public Disclosure of a Private Fact
(Asserted against All Defendants)
153. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
154. When, on information and belief, DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT released PLAINTIFF’s arrest photo to her new employer in
Las Vegas sometime on or near November 2021, DEFENDANTS made public
the disclosure of a fact about PLAINTIFF’s private medical condition.
155. This disclosure by SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person because baldness in women is considered ugly.
comical, and highly taboo in our image-conscious culture; further, because
PLAINTIFF is African-American, baldness only heightens her vulnerability as
a member of a protected class.
156. This disclosure by SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT was communicated
to the general public either via the Internet and/or by placing the photograph in
the hands of someone who could be counted upon to distribute it to
PLAINTIFF’s new work acquaintances in Las Vegas.
157. The disclosure of the private fact of PLAINTIFF’s alopecia is not
newsworthy and serves no legitimate public interest.
158. While PLAINTIFF’s arrest photo from July 2020 may arguably have been
a matter of public record at the time when she was incarcerated, it was no longer
a matter of public record by November 2021 when PLAINTIFF had moved
Case Number:
Page 25 of 45from Reno and was living and working in Las Vegas.
159. By the Washoe County Sheriff's own admission, DEFENDANT SPARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT is at fault for making this disclosure since there were
only two ways for the arrest photo to be obtained once it had been removed
from the Sherriff's website: either via a request from PLAINTIFF herself, or.
via a request from someone in SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
160. The actions of DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT are both
the actual and proximate cause of the harm the PLAINTIFF has suffered, harm
which includes public humiliation and firing from her job.
161. PLAINTIFF has additionally suffered significant emotional distress and
mental anguish as a result of this embarrassing disclosure.
162. Because of DEFENDANTS’ public disclosure of a private fact about
PLAINTIFF’s medical condition, PLAINTIFF’s reputation, finances, and
mental health have suffered to a degree to be determined at trial.
163. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages.
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
164. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS. as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Xi.
EIGTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Negligence and Gross Negligence
(Asserted against All Defendants)
165. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein,
166. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT owed a legal duty to
Case Number:
Page 26 of 45PLAIN
'F and to the public to exercise the reasonable care and ordinary
prudence that a reasonably prudent police department acting under authority of
state law would exercise under the same circumstances, such as when
performing a legal Terry stop and/or lawful arrest or stopping a woman walking
in her neighborhood who had the legal right to be there.
167. Asa government entity, DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT
owed a legal duty to the public to employ police officers who would exercise
the reasonable care and ordinary prudence that a reasonably prudent police
officer acting under authority of law would exercise under the same
circumstances, such as when performing a traffic stop and arrest.
168. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT’s breach of said duty to
PLAINTIFF constituted Negligent Hiring and Entrustment, plead at greater
length within this Complaint, infra.
169. All DEFENDANTS breached their duty by failing to exercise the degree of
care that was owed to PLAINTIFF, including, but not limited to, by:
a. Stalking the PLAINTIFF in anger in her neighborhood without
reasonable suspicion or probable cause;
b. Attempting to batter and detain the PLAINTIFF without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause;
c. Failing to explain to PLAINTIFF the legal reason for which they had
detained her on July 14, 2020;
d. Using Excessive Force;
e. Making a false arrest on June 20, 2020 without a warrant, without
reasonable suspicion, and without probable cause;
f. Confining PLAINTIFF in solitary confinement for the six days that
she was in jail;
g. Defaming PLAINTIFF to her neighbors, apartment staff, and co-
Case Number:
Page 27 of 45workers in Las Vegas:
h. Threatening to tow PLAINTIFF’s legally-parked car for no legal
reason.
170. When engaging in their culpable conduct described herein, all of the
DEFENDANTS were not only negligent, but they were grossly negligent in that
they failed to exercise even the slightest amount of care, with a conscious
disregard of the rights or safety of the PLAINTIFF.
171. When engaging in their culpable conduct described herein, all of the
DEFENDANTS were grossly negligent because they acted with willful, wanton,
and/or reckless disregard for the safety of PLAINTIFF.
172. DEFENDANTS exhibited a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s rights
and safety when they knew the probable harmful consequences of their
wrongful acts of falsely detaining, and, ultimately, falsely arresting the
PLAINTIFF which probable harmful consequences included physical and
mental injury to her, which DEFENDANTS recklessly, willfully, and/or
deliberately failed to act to avoid.
173. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary
damages, as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
174. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the Defendants, as alleged in
this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys in
this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Wt
uv
W
MW
uv
iW
Case Number:
Page 28 of 45XUL
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defamation
(Asserted against All Defendants)
175. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
176. When DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT made
PLAINTIFF sit on the asphalt in front of their SUV on June 14, 2020 without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest her, DEFENDANTS published
a false and defamatory statement concerning PLAINTIFF’s reputation to her
neighbors at the Villas at d°Andrea Apartments in Sparks.
177. When DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT knocked on the
doors of PLAINTIFF’s neighbors seeking information regarding PLAINTIFF
on June 20, 2020, DEFENDANTS published a false and defamatory statement
concerning PLAINTIFF’s reputation to her neighbors.
178. When DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT contacted the
maintenance man for her apartment building seeking information regarding,
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS published a false and defamatory statement
concerning PLAINTIFF’s reputation to her neighbors and to her apartment's
maintenance staff.
179. Every time that PLAINTIFF tried to return to her neighborhood following
this incident, she was aftaid for her safety and felt shame at how she had been
publicly humiliated in front of her neighbors and her apartment’s maintenance
staff.
180. When, on information and belief, DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT published PLAINTIFF’s arrest photo online and/or to her new
Case Number:
Page 29 of 45employer in Las Vegas sometime on or near November 2021, DEFENDANTS
published a false and defamatory statement concerning PLAINTIFF’s
reputation to her employer.
181. This false and defamatory publication by DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT also disclosed an embarrassing fact about PLAINTIFF’s
private medical condition to the public: the fact that PLAINTIFF suffers from
alopecia.
182. After her arrest photo that also discloses her medical condition was released
to her Las Vegas employer and PLAINTIFF made inquiries about this; because
of the photo and her inquiries, PLAINTIFF was ultimately fired from her new
job in Las Vegas.
183. Because of DEFENDANTS’ false and defamatory statements about
PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF’s reputation, work history, finances, physical, and
mental health have suffered to a degree to be determined at trial.
184. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
185. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
XIV.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Public Records Violations, NRS 239 et seq.
(Asserted against All Defendants)
186. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
Case Number:
Page 30 of 45,187. To date, SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT has committed many
violations involving the public records at issue in PLAINTIFF’s case; the
following list is not exhaustive:
188. First, SPARKS POLICE falsified the date of their police report in order to
obscure what had happened to PLAINTIFF on May 7, 2020; on that report,
almost everything is typed except the date, which has been whited out and
written in,
189. Second, following PLAINTI
and Jones on June 14, 2020, SPARKS POLICE refused to release body or dash
cam video for either officer; Ms. WARREN’s criminal defense attorney
FF’s unlawful detention by Officers Patterson
Richard Davies could not even obtain this in discovery: the failure to disclose
is particularly concerning because, on information and belief, Officer Patterson
has several police misconduct cases currently pending against him in Sparks.
190, Third, following PLAINTIFF’s false arrest, SPARKS POLICE would not
release footage from Officer Miller's body cam to PLAINTIFF; this is
particularly concerning because Officer Miller, who is not a detective,
subsequently attempted to retrieve private medical information about
PLAINTIFF from PLAINTIFF’s mother.
191. Fourth, Officer Miller’s partner officer, DOE 1, cut off the sound and video
to his body cam footage during PLAINTIFF’s arrest, rendering it useless.
192. Fifth, SPARKS POLICE violated PLAINTIFF’s confidentiality and
impermissibly disclosed public records pertaining to her when they contacted
her apartment's maintenance man and gave him ideas about their alleged
“probable cause” to arrest PLAINTIFF; but for SPARKS POLICE’ disclosure,
the apartment maintenance man would have no cause to know about Ms.
WARREN’s dispute with the dog owner, Steven Saults.
193. Sixth, on information and belief, SPARKS POLICE made publicly available
Case Number:
Page 31 of 45,and/or somehow released PLAINTIFF’s arrest photo to her new employer in
Las Vegas in an effort to harass, intimidate, stalk, and belittle her.
194. This booking photo cannot be found online.
195. Ms. Warren called the Washoe County Sherriff’s Office, who stated to her
that such a photo is only a public record when an individual is incarcerated, but
that after incarceration is over, the photo is removed from their website.
196. ‘The Washoe County Sheriff's office additionally stated that the only way
the picture could be released at this point would be either at Ms. WARREN’s
own request for it, or at the request of SPARKS POLICE.
197. The intentional behavior of DEFENDANTS to falsify records that they
should have preserved in their original form, to reveal records that they should
not have revealed, to fail to safeguard records that should have been
safeguarded, and to fail to disclose records that should have been disclosed upon
PLAINTIFP’s request is the direct and proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’s harm
and suffering in this claim for relief.
198. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damiages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial, all the remedies
available under NRS 239, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
199. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
xv.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Trespass to Chattels
(Asserted against All Defendants)
200. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
Case Number:
Page 32 of 45,as though fully set forth herein.
201. On the day she was arrested, June 20, 2020, PLAINTIFF was carrying with
her goods that she had just purchased, including food for her mother.
202. After PLAINTIFF was taken into police custody, the food was returned to
her mother smashed and damaged.
203. The intentional behavior of DEFENDANTS damaged property that
belonged to PLAINTIFF.
204. The intentional behavior of DEFENDANTS is the actual and proximate
cause of the damage to PLAINTIFF’s property that was intended for her mother.
205. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
206. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
XVI.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Conversion
(Asserted against All Defendants)
207. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
208. On the day she was arrested, June 20, 2020, PLAINTIFF was carrying with
her a black backpack that contained pepper spray and she was wearing shorts.
209. After PLAINTIFF was taken into police custody, the pepper spray was
confiscated by the police and PLAINTIFF’s shorts were never returned to her.
210. The intentional behavior of DEFENDANTS permanently converted
property that belonged to PLAINTIFF to their own use.
Case Number:
Page 33 of 45211. Upon PLAINTIFF’s release from jail, she had to wear someone else’s pants
because her shorts were just gone, the jail said.
212. The intentional behavior of DEFENDANTS is the actual and proximate
cause of the damage to PLAINTIFF’s property.
213. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial
214, Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS, as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
XVIL.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Asserted against All Defendants)
215. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this Complaint,
as though fully set forth herein.
216. DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT acted intentionally to
stalk, terrorize, and falsely arrest a Nevada citizen without reasonable suspicion
or probable cause.
217. The actions of DEFENDANTS were extreme and outrageous: they detained
PLAINTIFF in a place where she had the lawful right to be without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause: then, seven days later, they decided to arrest
PLAINTIFF for the same reason they had previously detained her but without
reasonable suspicion or probable cause sufficient to establish the alleged reason
for her arrest: stalking; actually, PLAINTIFF had successfully defended herself
against battery and hate crime by Steven Saults, a white man with unleashed
dogs who had called PLAINTIFF “a fat nigger bitch.”
Case Number:
Page 34 of 45,218. During her entire week in jail for a crime that she did not commit,
PLAINTIFF was left to languish in solitary confinement for no known reason;
PLAINTIFF would have been able to avoid this if she had not been falsely
arrested in the first place.
219. As a result of the actions of DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, the PLAINTIFF has suffered severe emotional distress and
physical harm.
220. The intentional behavior of DEFENDANTS is the direct and proximate
cause of PLAINTIFF’s deteriorated health and ongoing mental anguish.
221. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages,
as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
222. Asa further result of the culpable conduct of the DEFENDANTS. as alleged
in this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys
in this matter, for which she seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
—THEORIES OF LIABILITY APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS—
XVIII.
Respondeat Superior Liability®
Vicarious Liability of Employers for Conduct by Their Employees, Occurring
in the Course and Scope of Employment
3 Respondeat superior is not properly a cause of action or a claim for relief, but
rather, a method of assigning liability to an employer for the conduct of its
employees. See Fernandez v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. 2021 WL 1832571,
1 (D. Nev. 2012) (citing Cruz v. Durbin, 2011 WL 1792765 (D. Nev. 2011)).
Accordingly, this section is not labeled as a claim for relief, but it seeks to assign
liability to Defendants SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10, vicariously, for the acts of their employees,
including Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, and DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-
50.
Case Number:
Page 35 of 45(Asserted against Defendants SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and
DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10)
223. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
224. At all relevant times herein, Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones, and DOE 1,
and DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them, were under the control of
their respective employers, including DEFENDANT SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10.
At all relevant times herein, the acts of Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones,
DOE 1, and DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them, complained of
herein, caused injury and harm to PLAINTIFF and created culpability for
violating the law, as alleged herein.
226. At all relevant times herein, the culpable and injurious acts of Officers
Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, and DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of
them, occurred when they were under the control of their respective employers.
DEFENDANTS SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10, and such acts by these employees occurred
within the course and scope of their employment.
227. Based on the foregoing, PLAINTIFF is entitled to invoke the doctrine of
respondeat superior to impose vicarious liability on DEFENDANTS SPARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10 as
respective employers of Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, and DOE
INDIVIDUALS 2-50 for the culpable conduct of these employees occurring
within the course and scope of their employment.
i
i
i
Case Number:
Page 36 of 45XIX.
Negligent Hiring and Entrustment*
Vicarious Liability of Employers for Hiring Bad Employees and
Entrusting Sensitive Tasks to Employees not Able to Carry Them Out
(Asserted against Defendants SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10)
228, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
229, DEFENDANTS SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10 had a duty to PLAINTIFF and to the public
to use reasonable care in the training and supervision of their police employees
to ensure that they were fit for their positions, including by training police
employees to discern the difference between the true victim and the true
perpetrator of a crime and impermissible profiling on the basis of race, gender,
and disability.
230. DEFENDANTS SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10 had a duty to PLAINTIFF and to the public
to train their police officers regarding, but not limited to:
Negligent hiring and entrustment are not properly causes of action or claims for
relief, but rather, methods of assigning liability to an employer for the conduct of
its employees. To state a claim for negligent training and supervision in Nevada,
the Plaintiff must show “(1) a general duty on the employer to use reasonable care
in the training and/or supervision of employees to ensure that they are fit for their
positions; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) causation.” Okeke v, Biomat USA, Inc.,
927 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1028 (D. Nev. 2013) citing Reece v. Republic Services,
Inc., 2011 WL 868386, *11 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2011). Claims for negligent training
and supervision are based upon the premise that an employer should be liable when
it places an employee—who it knows or should have known behaves wrongfully—
in a position in which the employee can harm someone else. /d, citing Daisley v.
Riggs Bank, N.A., 372 F.Supp.2d 61, 79 (D.D.C.2005).
Case Number:
Page 37 of 45®
Recognizing and understanding animal control laws regarding
unleashed and unvaccinated dogs;
Recognizing and understanding when a battery has occurred;
Recognizing and understanding when a hate crime has occurred:
Recognizing and understanding what self-defense is and when its use
is merited;
Recognizing and understanding the difference between genuine
mental instability and the instinct that all people have to defend
themselves against unwarranted attacks:
Recognizing and understanding that an individual cannot trespass
when walking peacefully inside their own neighborhoos
Recognizing and understanding that carrying proper identification is
required when driving but not when walking:
Recognizing and understanding what the crime of stalking is, legally;
Recognizing and understanding what the crime of trespass is, legally:
Recognizing and understanding what constitutes reasonable suspicion
sufficient to detain:
. Recognizing and understanding what constitutes probable cause
sufficient to arrest;
Recognizing and under
‘anding what constitutes excessive use of
force:
Recognizing and understanding how to de-escalate situations to
prevent the need for the use of force:
. Recognizing and understanding what constitutes impermissible bias
and profiling on the basis of race;
. Recognizing and understanding what constitutes impermissible bias
and profiling on the basis of disability:
Case Number:
Page 38 of 45,p. Recognizing and understanding what constitutes impermissible bias
and profiling on the basis of gender:
q. Recognizing and understanding how to handle vulnerable Nevadans
who are protected by NRS § 41.1395;
r. Recognizing and understanding when a detention becomes unlawful
under NRS § 171.123;
s. Complying with the standards for search, seizure, and arrest as
analyzed by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Terry v. Ohio
and Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. C1. of Nev., Humboldt Cty, $42 U.S. 177,
184 (2004);
t. Complying with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
231. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, DEFENDANTS.
SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-
10 through its officers, managers, supervisors, agents, and/or employees, was
responsible for training, supervising, and retaining employees, including
training and supervision pertaining to Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1,
DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them.
232. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, DEFENDANTS
SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES I-
10 through its officers, managers, supervisors, agents, and/or employees, and
each of them, owed a general duty to use reasonable care in the training,
supervision, and retention of such employees, including Officers Miller,
Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them, to make
sure that their employees are fit for their positions and to prevent harm to third
parties, including PLAINTIFF, by the employees’ tortious or wrongful conduct,
of the type alleged herein.
Case Number:
Page 39 of 45233. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, DEFENDANTS
SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-
10 through its officers, managers, supervisors, agents, and/or employees
breached this duty of care when they placed and retained Officers Miller,
Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them, in their
positions as police officers without properly training and supervising Officers
Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them,
whom they knew or should have known would fail to properly perform their
duties, and that in the position in which they were placed and retained, Officers
Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them,
could harm someone innocent, including PLAINTIFF, as alleged herein.
234. On information and belief, DEFENDANTS SPARKS POLICE
DEPARTMENT and DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10 through its
officers, managers, supervisors, agents, and/or employees were negligent in the
training, supervision and retention of Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1.
DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them, including but not limited to
training in the areas of: recognizing self-defense, recognizing trespass, racial
bias, use of force, civil rights, de-escalation, and identifying the actual victims
of crimes, the lack of training in which caused the harm and injuries to
PLAINTIFF, as alleged herein.
235, When engaging in their culpable conduct described herein, DEFENDANTS.
sued in this cause of action, and each of them, acted with malice, express or
implied, in that DEFENDANTS engaged in despicable conduct by virtue of the
egregious nature of their failures to properly train, supervise, and retain the
individuals responsible for the safety and rights of PLAINTIFF, and these
DEFENDANTS had a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of
PLAINTIFF and of vulnerable persons similarly situated to PLAINTIFF.
Case Number:
Page 40 of 45236. DEFENDANTS exhibited a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights
and/or safety when they knew of the probably harmful consequences of their
wrongful acts of neglecting to properly train, supervise, and retain Officers
Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each of them,
the probable harmful consequences of which included physical and mental
injury as well as the violation of PLAINTIFF’s rights that DEFENDANTS
recklessly, willfully, and/or deliberately failed to act to avoid
237. DEFENDANTS breached their duty to PLAINTIFF when they allowed
Officers Miller, Patterson, Jones, DOE 1, DOE INDIVIDUALS 2-50, and each
of them, to take adverse action against PLAINTIFF on the basis of profiling
bias that targeted PLAINTIFF because of her race, disability, and gender.
238. The hostile and capricious actions of DEFENDANTS” employees directly
and proximately caused injury to PLAINTIFF.
239. DEFENDANTS SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10 should have known better than to entrust
sensitive screening of individuals to police employees who were liable to treat
those individuals as a public threat simply by virtue of their race, disability, and
gender.
240. The incompetence of DEFENDANTS negligently-hired and poorly-trained
police employees was both the direct and proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’s
injuries.
241. PLAINTIFF has sustained damage including but not limited to: new
psychological and physical conditions, moving fees to move both within Reno
and from Reno to Las Vegas, embarrassment in front of neighbors and work
colleagues, lost work, lost property, damage to her reputation, profiling her for
having a disability that is protected by the ADA and Nevada state law, and
capricious exclusion from an apartment complex where she had the legal right
Case Number:
Page 41 of 45to be.
242. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary
damages, as allowed by law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
243. Asa further result of the culpable conduct by DEFENDANTS, as alleged in
this cause of action, PLAINTIFF has had to retain the services of attorneys in
this matter, for which he seeks costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
—REMEDIES COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS—
XX.
Declaratory Relief
(Asserted Against All Defendants)
244, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in. this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
245. Pursuant to NRS 30.030, NRS 30.100, NRS 651.090(2)(a), and the Court's
inherent equitable powers, PLAINTIFF seeks, and is entitled to have,
declaratory relief awarded in his favor, to declare her rights and obligations of
the Defendants sued herein, where such declaratory relief is necessary and
proper to the termination of the disputes raised herein, including as specifically
prayed for below.
246. This includes declaratory relief whereby the Court issues a declaration that
Defendants unlawfully discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against
PLAINTIFF and otherwise violated PLAINTIFF’s rights under the law, and
any other declaration the Court finds necessary and proper.
XXI.
Injunctive Relief
(Asserted against All Defendants)
247, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all other allegations in this
Case Number:
Page 42 of 45Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
248. Based on the foregoing, PLAINTIFF has suffered an irreparable injury, and
the remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
compensate for that injury.
249. PLAINTIFF is entitled to injunctive relief, which would include expunging
PLAINTIFF’ criminal record and any other public records related to her in this
matter, including her booking photo, and removal of any and all defamatory
publications made by SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT about PLAINTIFF
on third-party websites.
250. Considering the balance of hardships between PLAINTIFF and
DEFENDANTS. a remedy in equity is warranted and the public interest will be
served by issuance of such injunctive relief.
251, Pursuant to NRS 33.010 ef seg., NRS 651.090(2)(a), and the Court’s
inherent equitable powers, PLAINTIFF is entitled to have injunctive relief
awarded in her favor, including by restraining the acts complained of and
compelling the obligations of the DEFENDANTS sued herein to give effect to
the declaratory and other relief awarded by the Court in this action.
252, Such injunctive relief is necessary and proper to the resolution of the
disputes raised herein, including as specifically prayed for below. and any other
declarations and equitable relief that the Court deems necessary and proper.
XXIL
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against all DEFENDANTS,
|jointly and severally, as follows:
1. For general damages in an amount in excess of $100,000.00;
2. For special damages in an amount in excess of $100,000.00;
Case Number:
Page 43 of 453. For past and future compensatory damages, and other expenses incurred by
reason of DEFENDANTS’ intentional misconduct, acts, omissions,
carelessness, recklessness, negligence, gross negligence, deliberate
indifference, and other culpable conduct, described herein, in an amount in
excess of $100,000.00:
4. For punitive and exemplary damages:
5. For costs of the suit incurred herein;
6. For attorneys” fees. costs and prejudgment interest;
7. For declaratory relief, in the form of declarations that:
(A) PLAINTIFF was battered by DEFENDANT SPARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT and wrongly arrested in violation of her
rights under the U.S. Constitution and Nevada law.
(B) PLAINTIFF was discriminated against by DEFENDANT
SPARKS POLICE DEPARTMENT on the basis of her race,
gender, and disability.
Case Number:
Page 44 of 45(c)
PLAINTIFF'S current medical damages are the direct and
proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS SPARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENTITIES 1-50.
Dated this 5th Day of May, 2022
and DOE GOVERNMENTAL
The Law Offices of Robert S. Melcic
is/ Robert S. Melcic
ROBERT S. MELCIC
Nevada Bar No. 14923
3315 E. Russell Rd.
Ste. A4-271
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Phone: (702) 526-4235
Clerk: (725) 577-8013
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff Allanna Warren
Case Number:
Page 45 of 45