Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 11

MICHAEL E. ROSE, OSB #753221


mrose@civilrightspdx.com
BETH CREIGHTON OSB #972440
beth@civilrightspdx.com
CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC
500 Yamhill Plaza Building
815 S.W. Second Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: (503) 221-1792
Fax: (503) 223-1516

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ALLYSON DROZD, Civil No.

Plaintiff,

vs. COMPLAINT
(Civil Rights / State Law / Damages)
JOHN DOES 1-6, as individuals, and CITY
OF PORTLAND,
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The City of Portland has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Portland

Police Association (PPA) for provision of police services. The terms of the new contract

negotiated before the end of Mayor Charlie Hales term of office, when released to the public,

were controversial, drawing strenuous community objections, and sparked public opposition at a

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 1 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 11

level rarely seen at City Hall: rallies, demonstrations, a camp-out and even two lockouts from

City Council proceedings. On or about October 12, 2016, the Portland City Council met to

consider and approve the CBA. The morning of the Council hearing to vote on the CBA,

objectors filled the Council chambers. Mayor Hales recessed the Council meeting and

reconvened the meeting that afternoon in a smaller conference room on the floor above at City

Hall, where the Council met behind closed doors to approve the CBA. Police officers blocked

members of the public from access to the reconvened Council meeting. About an hour after the

vote, the mayor ordered police officers to remove the public from City Hall. Members of the

public, including activists and journalists, were warned that anyone who remained would be

arrested, and were then forcibly pushed to the exit doors by a line of police officers. Plaintiff

Allyson Drozd (Drozd) had been inside City Hall, but left the building when instructed to do

so. While standing outside of City Hall, observing and filming the goings-on inside through a

window, and safely out of the flow of foot traffic, Drozd was sprayed in the face with pepper

spray by a Portland Police Officer. While attempting to leave the scene, Drozd was sprayed

again from behind with a blast of pepper spray by a Portland Police Officer.

Plaintiff brings this action for damages against the individual officers and the City of

Portland under state and federal law.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal claims by virtue of 28 USC

1331 and 1343, and over plaintiffs state law claims by virtue of 28 USC 1367.

3. Venue is in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 USC 1391(b) because the

claims arose in this judicial district.

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 2 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 11

4. Plaintiff has filed this action within 180 days of the incident, and has thereby

satisfied the requirements of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, as specified in ORS 30.275(3)(c).

III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff ALLYSON DROZD is a resident of Portland, Oregon.

6. At all material times herein, defendants JOHN DOE 1-6 were City of Portland

Police Officers acting within the course and scope of their employment. Each JOHN DOE

defendant is sued in his individual capacity only.

a. JOHN DOES 3 and 4 were the Incident Commander (IC) and supervisor,

who were responsible to ensure that all orders given to the crowd were consistent, lawful, and

appropriate for the circumstances and to make the final decision as to what control actions were

taken to address the crowd event, and were thus responsible for the conduct of JOHN DOES 1

and 2.

b. JOHN DOES 5 and 6 were the Crowd Control Incident Commanders

(CCICs), who had the authorization and responsibility for all police actions at the crowd event

described herein, and were responsible for the conduct of JOHN DOES 1-4.

7. At all material times herein, defendant CITY OF PORTLAND (Portland) was

and is a public body in the State of Oregon responsible under state law for the acts and omissions

of its law enforcement officers, agents, and other employees, including those whose conduct is at

issue herein.

IV. FACTS

8. At all times material herein, defendants acted under color of law.

9. On or about October 12, 2016, the Portland City Council met to consider and

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 3 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 11

approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) it had negotiated with the Portland

Police Association (PPA). The CBA was a matter of intense controversy and a matter of

significant public concern.

10. The morning of the council hearing to vote on the CBA, members of the public

filled the Council chambers. Mayor Hales recessed the Council after objectors made noise, and

reconvened council on the floor above at City Hall, where the council met behind closed doors to

approve the CBA. Police officers blocked protesters and other members of the public from

access to the reconvened council meeting. Shortly after the Council adopted the CBA, police

ordered protesters and other members out of City Hall.

11. Drozd was one of the protesters inside City Hall, but left the building when

instructed to do so by police officers.

12. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Drozd was standing outside and to the side of the

doorway at City Hall, observing and taking pictures through a window next to the door of the

ongoing activities involving protestors and police officers inside the building and taking pictures.

Drozd was standing behind the open glass door, plainly visible from both inside and outside the

building, was out of the way of foot traffic, and was not in any way blocking the doorway or

obstructing ingress or egress into or out of the building.

13. With no warning, provocation or prior instruction or command of any sort,

defendant DOE 1, opened the door, reached around the open door and sprayed Drozd in the face

with pepper spray. Defendant DOE 1 had neither probable cause to believe nor a reasonable

suspicion that Drozd had committed or was about to commit a crime, nor any reason to believe

that Drozd had been or was about to be causing or attempting to cause physical harm to any

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 4 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 11

person or threatening imminent physical injury to any person, or engaging in looting or the

destruction of property, or engaging in or displaying any intent to engage in passive resistance or

physical resistance to a lawful order of any law enforcement officer or other officer, official or

agent of Portland.

14. Upon being sprayed in the face, Drozd promptly left their position behind the

glass door and attempted to depart the scene, walking down the stairs of City Hall, away from

the door and the throng of officers standing there in riot gear, when Drozd was sprayed a second

time by JOHN DOE 1 or 2. Said Defendant DOE had neither probable cause to believe nor a

reasonable suspicion that Drozd had committed or was about to commit a crime, nor any reason

to believe that Drozd had been or was about to be causing or attempting to cause physical harm

to any person or threatening imminent physical injury to any person, or engaging in looting or

the destruction of property, or engaging in or displaying any intent to engage in passive

resistance or physical resistance to a lawful order of any law enforcement officer or other officer,

official or agent of Portland.

15. As a result of defendants conduct, Drozd sustained substantial physical

injuries.

16. As a result of defendants conduct, Drozd suffered economic loss.

17. As a result of defendants conduct, the Drozd suffered severe emotional

distress.

18. On information and belief, City of Portlands polices and practices, as applied to

law enforcement, caused Drozds injuries as described above.

19. A reasonable officer in the individual defendants position should have known

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 5 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 6 of 11

that the above-described conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established rights under the First,

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

V.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 USC 1983 - Fourth Amendment - Excessive Force, Against Individual Defendants)

20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

herein.

21. As described above, defendants DOE 1-6 violated Drozds right not to be

subjected to excessive physical force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, which caused their resulting injuries.

22. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non-

economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

23. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs

against defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

VI.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. 1983 United States Constitution, First Amendment, Against Defendants
John Doe 1-6)

24. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

herein.

25. By the acts described above, the JOHN DOE defendants retaliated against Drozd

for the exercise of their rights to free expression, association, and assembly, in violation of the

First Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the State of Oregon and

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 6 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 7 of 11

its political subdivisions through the 14th Amendment.

26. As a direct and proximate result of said defendants unlawful acts, Drozd has

suffered significant emotional distress, public humiliation, damage to reputation, depression, loss

of dignity and self esteem, anxiety, and loss of enjoyment of life, all in amounts to be determined

by the jury at trial.

29. Drozd is entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable attorneys fees and costs

pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

VII.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Battery Against City of Portland)

30. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

herein.

31. Defendants John Doe 1-6 intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive

contact with Drozd, and were acting in the course and scope of their employment when they

sprayed Drozd with pepper spray.

32. Defendant City of Portland is responsible for the tortious conduct of its officers,

agents and employees, which caused the injuries to Drozd.

33. As a result of this battery, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

34. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non-

economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

35. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert fees, against defendants.

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 7 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 8 of 11

VIII.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence Against Defendant City of Portland)

36. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set

forth.

37. Defendants actions as alleged above violated the standard of care required of law

enforcement under the circumstances.

38. Defendants actions created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of injury to

Drozd.

39. As a result of the above, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

40. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non

economic damages against defendants, in amounts to be determined at trial.

41. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert fees against defendants.

IX.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Defendant City of Portland)

42. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

herein.

43. As described above, the officers, agents and employees of City of Portland

intentionally and/or with reckless disregard inflicted severe emotional distress on Drozd.

44. As described above, the above defendants acts constituted an extraordinary

transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 8 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 9 of 11

45. As a result of the above, defendants caused Drozd severe emotional distress.

46. As a result of the above, plaintiff is entitled to an award of economic and non-

economic damages against Defendant in amounts to be determined at trial.

47. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert witness fees, against

Defendants.

X.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Section 1983 - Fourth Amendment Violation, City of Portland)

48. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

herein.

49. Prior to October 12, 2016, defendant City of Portland developed and maintained

policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of people to

whom their law enforcement officers would respond, which caused the violation of plaintiffs

rights.

50. It was the policy and/or custom of defendant City of Portland to inadequately

supervise and train its officers and deputies, including the defendants, thereby failing to

adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its officers and deputies.

City of Portland did not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of officers and

deputies who were known to have engaged in police misconduct.

51. As described above and at least in part, one or more of City of Portlands policies,

official well-established practices or acts caused the violation of Drozds right not to be

subjected to excessive physical force and their resulting injuries, as guaranteed by the Fourth

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 9 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 10 of 11

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

52. As a result of the above, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

53. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and

noneconomic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

54. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs

against defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

XI.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Section 1983 - First Amendment Violation, City of Portland)

55. Paragraphs 1 through 19 and 49-50 are incorporated by reference as though fully

set forth herein.

56. As described above and at least in part, one or more of City of Portlands policies,

official well-established practices or acts caused the violation of plaintiffs right not to be

subjected to retaliation for the exercise of their rights to free expression, assembly and

association, and their resulting injuries, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

57. As a result of the above, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

58. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and

noneconomic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

59. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs

against defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 10 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 11 of 11

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief from the Court as follows:

1. Assume jurisdiction in this matter over plaintiffs claims;

2. Award plaintiff economic and non-economic damages against defendants in

amounts to be determined at trial in accordance with the allegations set forth above;

3. Award plaintiff their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs against

defendants in accordance with the allegations set forth above; and

4. Grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

DATED this 7 April, 2017 CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC

s/ Michael E. Rose
MICHAEL E. ROSE, OSB #753221
mrose@civilrightspdx.com
BETH CREIGHTON, OSB #97244
beth@civilrightspdx.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.

CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW

65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 11 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com