1983 Complaint

1 H. Douglas Daniel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF H. DOUGLAS DANIEL

2 611 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1204
Los Angeles, CA 90017
3 Telephone (213) 689-1710
Facsimile (213) 489-3315
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff, WILLIAM ALVARADO
5
6
7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPEIROR COURT
8 CENTRAL DISTRICT
9
10 WILLIAM ALVARADO ) Case No.:
11 )
Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT
12 ) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS
v. ) VIOLATIONS
13 ) 42 U.S.C. § 1985 CONSPIRACY TO
PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ARA ) COMMIT CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
14 BZDIGIAN, JAVIER AGUILAR, TERYSA ) PENDENT STATE LAW CLAIMS
15 ROJAS, PHILLIP SANCHEZ and DOES 1- ) DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
50, inclusive )
16 )
Defendants. )
17 _____________________________________ )
18
19 PARTIES
20 Plaintiff, William K. Alvarado, is a forty year male who is a permanent resident who had
21 previously obtained a resident card, however due to a wrongful conviction his resident card was
22
terminated.
23
Defendant Ara Bzdigian was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the Pasadena Police
24
Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Burke participated in the conspiracy
25
26 complained of, in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope of his
27 employment and duties as an employee and police officer of the Pasadena Police Department.
28 1
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
IMMIGRATION MANDAMUS COMPLAINT TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF
IMMIGRATION PETITION
1 Defendant Javier Aguilar was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the Pasadena Police
2 Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Burke participated in the conspiracy
3
complained of, in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope of his
4
employment and duties as an employee and police officer of the Pasadena Police Department.
5
Defendant Terysa Rojas was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the Pasadena Police
6
7 Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Burke participated in the conspiracy
8 complained of, in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope of his
9 employment and duties as an employee and police officer of the Pasadena Police Department.
10
Defendant Phillip Sanchez was at all relevant times the Chief of Police of the Pasadena Police
11
Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity.
12
Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and
13
14 therefore sues them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that
15 information and belief alleges, that each of those defendants was in some manner negligently and
16 proximately responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint and for plaintiff's injuries
17
and damages.
18
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that at
19
all times mentioned in this complaint, defendants were the agents and employees of their codefendants,
20
21 and in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of that agency
22 and employment.
23
24 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
25
On August 8, 2001 at approximately 4:45 p.m. defendants Aguilar, Rojas and Bzdigian who were
26
assigned to the Hispanic Gang Intelligence Unit of the Pasadena Police Department travelled to
27
28 2
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 Plaintiff’s residence located at 1735 Magnolia Street in the City of Monrovia. Defendants in their report
2 allege that they intended to arrest Plaintiff as had an outstanding warrant for violation of Penal Code
3
Section 458 – auto burglary.
4
Defendant Bzdigian knocked on the door of Plaintiff’s residence and Plaintiff’s sister, Magda
5
Alvarado came to the door. Defendant Bzdigian asked her if Plaintiff was home. She called for Plaintiff
6
7 and seconds later her came to the door. Defendant Bzdigian advised Plaintiff that he was under arrest as
8 a result of the warrant and Plaintiff was taken into custody.

9 Minutes later Bzdigian and Aguilar without a warrant of the the consent of any of Plaintiff’s
10
family members entered the residence and searched the common areas including the living room and
11
discovered a hand gun and methamphetamines. Defendants then inquired of Magda whether their
12
mother or some other adult was in the house. Magda indicated to defendants where the mother’s room
13
14 was located. Defendants knocked on the mother’s identifying themselves as police officers and
15 requested that the mother open the door come out. At that time the mother was in bed and not dressed.
16 They demanded that she come out and they told her that they had found weapons or drugs in the other
17
room. They asked her where Plaintiff slept. Defendant Aguliar informed Plaintiff’s mother that she
18
had to sign a document Later defendant Aguilar wrote Plaintiff’s mother’s name on the document and
19
certain Spanish words and sentences in his own handwriting. He did not consult with Plaintiff’s mother
20
21 prior to writing the Spanish words.
22
23
24
25
Of course, Officer Aguilar claimed that the mother had said the words he wrote. Later officer Aguilar
26
according to William’s mother threatened her several times that she should not tell anyone what
27
28 3
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 happened and that she should no support William. In fact, according to William and his mother, office
2 told her no to testify and to help him
3
4
5
6
7
8 13. In 2001 Mr. Alvarado was wrongfully convicted of ________________. He was sentenced
9 to ____ and served _____ in county jail before being released on ____________. Shortly after his
10
release, however, an immigration hold was placed on him by the U.S. Immigration and Customs
11
Enforcement (ICE) and he was immediately transferred to an immigration detention center in Eloy,
12
Arizona. Without an attorney Mr. Alvarado contested his case, however, he lost and was deported to
13
14 Guatemala in 2002.
14. Mr. Alvarado’s 2001 conviction for _______________ was wrongful because
15
____________.
16 15. Mr. Alvarado remained in Guatemala from 2002 to 2006; however, in 2006 he decided to
17
return to the United States with his family and arrived in California. Shortly after his return he was
18
stopped by a Los Angeles County Sherriff Deputy in El Monte, California. The sheriff took down his
19
information and transported him to another detention center and three months later he was again
20
21 deported to Guatemala based on the prior invalid conviction of 2001.
16. In 2009 Mr. Alvarado returned to the United States again and upon his arrival he retained the
22
undersigned attorney to file a motion to vacate the criminal conviction of 2001. The motion was
23
granted as a result of the violation of Mr. Alvarado’s constitutional rights. A true and correct copy of the
24
25 court’s nunc pro tunc order vacating the criminal charges is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
17. In ________the undersigned also filed a Motion to Reopen Mr. Alvarado’s immigration case
26
and it was reopened. On February 19, 2013 the Honorable Judge Christine E. Stancill ordered that Mr.
27
28 4
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 Alvarado’s proceedings be terminated and that as a result of the nunc pro tunc order vacating the
2 conviction on constitutional grounds he was and is not subject to deportation. A true and correct copy of
3
Judge Stancill’s order is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
4 Defendant Michael Burke was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the Josephine County
5 Sheriff’s Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Burke participated in the
6 conspiracy complained of, in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope
7
of his employment and duties as an employee and police union representative of the Josephine County
8
Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Burke has recently been relieved of duty with the Josephine County
9
Sheriff’s Department.
10
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11 Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights-- Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights
(42 U.S.C. § 1983/1985 – False Imprisonment
12 Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reference.
By their actions as described herein, Defendants under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
13
14 or usage, subjected Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
15 Constitution and laws; namely, Plaintiff's right to freedom from false imprisonment by conspiracy to
16 charge and convict him for crimes he did not commit as a cover up for an unlawful police shooting.
The deprivations of constitutional rights set forth above, were caused by the Defendants acting
17
18 under color of law in the following manner:
Sheriff Daniel and Under-sheriff Anderson failed to supervise Geiger and Johnson and obstructed
19
justice by suppressing and secreting a confession made by Geiger at the scene that he might have
20
21 unlawfully fired his weapon at Korff and the vehicle. Other deputies, such as Burke, also heard this
22 confession and knew that the statements made by Geiger and Johnson were not true, but were cover-ups
23 in an attempt to exonerate them from the illegal use of deadly force that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries and
24 prosecution for attempted murder of police officers. Sheriff Gilbertson ratified said actions by not
25
investigating and correcting the situation immediately upon notice.
26
27
28 5
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 77. The actions of the above Defendants, as described in this complaint, were malicious,
2 deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious disregard of, the
3 harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff and were undertaken to obtain a wrongful conviction. As a
4 result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants listed
5 above, in their individual capacities, in an amount sufficient to punish them and to deter others from like
6 conduct.
7 78. Defendants violated rights held by Plaintiff which were clearly established, and no reasonable
8 official similarly situated to the individual defendants could have believed that his conduct was lawful or
9 within the bounds of reasonable discretion. Defendants as named above thus lack qualified or statutory
10
immunity from suit or liability.
11 79. Defendant Josephine County is liable for actual damages caused by Defendants conduct
12 under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services and Adickes v. Kress because an official final decision was
13 made to fabricate and synchronize the police reports to conceal the truth of the shooting and thereby
14
violated Plaintiff Korff’s civil rights.
15 80. As a direct and proximate result of the actions described herein, Plaintiff sustained actual
16 damages as alleged herein; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to

proof at trial.
17
81. Plaintiff was required to hire attorneys to represent him in this matter and is thus
18 entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
19
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20 Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights -- Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process
21 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Individual Liability)
82. Paragraphs 1 through 81 are incorporated herein by reference.
22 83. By their actions as described herein, Defendants Geiger, Johnson, Daniel, Anderson,Gilbertson,
23 Beck, Burke, Dovci, Quick, and Webb, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,
24 subjected Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
25
laws; namely, Plaintiff's right to freedom from malicious prosecution and abuse of process in the
26
following manner: All of which was done to prosecute Plaintiff with malice in order to deny him his
27
28 6
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 right to be free from malicious prosecution and abuse of process; The actions of the above Defendants,
2 as described in this complaint, were malicious, deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the
3
knowledge of, or in conscious disregard of, the harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff and were
4
undertaken to obtain a wrongful conviction. As a result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to
5
punitive damages against Defendants listed above, in their individual capacities, in an amount sufficient
6
7 to punish them and to deter others from like conduct.
Defendants violated rights held by Plaintiff which were clearly established, and no
8 reasonable official similarly situated to the individual defendants could have believed that his
conduct was lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion. Defendants as named above thus
9 lack qualified or statutory immunity from suit or liability.86. As a direct and proximate result of the
10
actions described herein, Plaintiff sustained actual damages alleged herein; all to his damage in an
11
amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial. 87. Defendant Josephine County is liable for actual
12
damages caused by Defendants conduct under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services and Adickes v. Kress
13
14 because an official final decision was made to fabricate and synchronize the police reports to conceal the
15 truth of the shooting and thereby violated Plaintiff Korff’s civil rights. 88. Plaintiff was required to hire
16 attorneys to represent him in this matter and is thus entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and
17
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
18
19
20 PRAYER
21 WHEREFORE, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein, Mr. Alvarado
22
respectfully prays that the Defendants be cited to appear herein and that, upon due
23
consideration, the Court enter an order:
24
(a) Requiring Defendants, within 30 days, to permit fingerprinting of Mr. Alvarado so that his I90
25
26 application can be processed.
27 (b) Awarding Mr. Alvarado reasonable attorney’s fees; and
28 7
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 (c). Granting such other relief at law and in equity as justice may require.
2
3
4
Respectfully submitted,
5
Dated: April ___, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF H. DOUGLAS DANIEL
6
7
8 By:
H. DOULGAS DANIEL
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This is a civil rights action brought by Kurtis Korff.
26
1. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of being shot, arrested, incarcerated, and falsely
27
28 8
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 PAGE 2—COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
2 charged and prosecuted by the above captioned individuals, Josephine County, Josephine County
3
Adult Corrections, and Oregon State Police officers: (a) individually listed Defendants violated
4
Titles 1983 and 1985 of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 through violations of, and
5
conspiracy to violate, civil rights guaranteed by the substantive and procedural components of the
6
7 U.S. Constitution; (b) individually listed Defendants are liable for violations of the Oregon
8 Constitution, and are liable for assault, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
9 negligent infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution under state law; (c) Josephine
10
County and Oregon State Police are liable for the individual Defendants' violations of the Oregon
11
Constitution, and are liable for the individual Defendants' assault, negligence, intentional infliction
12
of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution, under
13
14 the state theory of respondeat superior.
15 2. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages against Defendants in their
16 individual capacities, and attorneys' fees and costs.

17
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
3. This civil action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and
19
therefore this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).
20
21 4. With regard to state law claims, this Court has pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
22 § 1367.
23 5. The actions giving rise to this complaint took place in, and at least one Defendant
24 resides in, Grants Pass, Josephine County, Oregon, which is in the Medford District; thus, venue is
25
properly vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
26
III. PARTIES
27
28 9
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 6. Plaintiff Kurtis Korff has resided in Josephine County, Oregon, and is a citizen of the
2 United States of America at all times material to this case.
3
PAGE 3—COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
4
7. Defendant James Geiger was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the
5
Josephine County Sheriff’s Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Geiger
6
7 carried out the actions complained of, including using deadly force against the Plaintiff, in his
8 individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope of his employment and
9 duties as an employee of the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department.
10
COMPLAINT
11
42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS
12
VIOLATIONS
13
14 42 U.S.C. § 1985 CONSPIRACY TO
15 COMMIT CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
16 PENDENT STATE LAW CLAIMS

17
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
18
19
9. Defendant Michael Burke was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the
20
21 Josephine County Sheriff’s Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Burke
22 participated in the conspiracy complained of, in his individual capacity, under color of state law,
23 and in the course and scope of his employment and duties as an employee and police union
24 representative of the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Burke has recently been
25
relieved of duty with the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department.
26
10. Defendant former Sheriff David Daniel was the sheriff of Josephine County on or
27
28 10
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 about February 26, 2006, and was the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of Josephine County
2 at the time of this incident. Until approximately May 2006, Daniel was an employee or agent of the
3
Josephine County Sheriff’s Department, and was the supervisor for Geiger and Johnson until that
4
time, and is sued in his official capacity as such, as well as individually. Daniel carried out the
5
actions or omissions complained of in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the
6
7 course and scope of his employment and duties as an employee of the Josephine County Sheriff’s
8 Department.
10
11. Defendant Under-sheriff Brian Anderson was at all relevant times an employee or
11
agent of the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department, and was the direct supervisor for Geiger and
12
Johnson at the time of this incident, and is sued in his official capacity as such, as well as
13
14 individually. Anderson carried out the actions complained of in his individual capacity, under color
15 of state law, and in the course and scope of his employment and duties as an employee and
16 supervisor of the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department. Anderson was in charge of the Josephine
17
County Sheriff’s department due to the incapacitation of the elected Sheriff at the time. Anderson is
18
no longer employed by Josephine County.
19
12. Defendant Gil Gilbertson has been the sheriff of Josephine County and was elected
20
21 on or about May 2006, and is the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of Josephine County. At
22 all relevant times Gilbertson was an employee or agent of the Josephine County Sheriff’s
23 Department, and was the supervisor for Geiger and Johnson since May 2006, and is sued in his
24 official capacity as such, as well as individually. Gilbertson carried out the actions or omissions
25
complained of in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope of his
26
employment and duties as an employee of the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department.
27
28 11
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 13. At all material times Defendant Josephine County is a public body responsible under
2 state law for the acts and omissions of its employees and officials, including those whose conduct is
3
at issue herein.
4
14. Defendants Josephine County Jail medical staff and/or Dr. James Shames are sued in
5
their official capacity as such, as well as individually. Dr. Shames and others carried out the actions
6
7 complained of in their individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope of
8 their employment and duties as an employee or agent of the Josephine County Jail responsible for
9 providing necessary and adequate medical care for Korff, a pretrial detainee.
10
15. Defendants Oregon State Police, David Beck, Jeffrey Dovci, Josh Quick, and Ray
11
12
Webb are, at all times pertinent, officers employed by the Oregon State Police as forensic scientists
13
14 and/or investigators, and are sued in their individual capacities. They were assigned key
15 investigative roles in the Korff case including the “securing” of the crime scene, all evidence,
16 internal affairs, and other investigative responsibilities involved in this police shooting incident.
17
IV. BACKGROUND FACTS
18
A. Arrest
19
16. On or about February 26, 2006, several individuals including Plaintiff Korff were
20
21 involved in an altercation on or about 37000 Redwood Highway, Cave Junction, Oregon.
22 17. Josephine County Sheriff’s Deputies James Geiger and Brad Johnson responded to
23 the scene and made contact with a vehicle that contained four individuals, including Korff, who was
24 seated in the front passenger seat.
25
18. Officer Johnson, who was standing closest to Korff, claimed Deputy Geiger had
26
fallen in the mud while the vehicle accelerated toward Geiger and then fired one shot that hit Korff
27
28 12
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 in the head.
2 19. Officer Geiger fired at least six shots at the occupants of the vehicle.
3
20. A bullet lodged in Korff’s jaw and he survived this shooting. The December 8, 2006,
4
medical report states the bullet entry was in the right temple and traveled through the mandible
5
lodging in the submandibular region. Korff and the other three individuals in the vehicle were
6
7 subsequently taken into custody. Korff was also taken to the hospital as a result of his gunshot
8 wound to the head.

9 21. After shooting at Korff, Defendant Geiger told Korff that “society would be better
10
off with you dead.”
11
22. Plaintiff was charged with attempted aggravated murder, attempted assault in the
12
first degree, 2 counts of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first and second degree, assault
13
15 in the second degree, theft in the first degree, unlawful use/carrying of a dangerous weapon, and
16 felon in possession of a firearm. Plaintiff has pleaded guilty to the charge of felon in possession of
17
a firearm, and awaits trial on all other charges.
18
23. The first trial occurred on or about June 2007, and ended in a mistrial because
19
Oregon State Police (OSP) Officer Beck intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the
20
21 defense. Josephine County District Attorney Stephen Campbell indicated he was angry and
22 unaware that OSP Officer Beck had not turned over all of the evidence in the case. This mistrial
23 resulted in another delay in Korff’s trial and additional months of incarceration.

24 B. Police Investigation and Documentation of the Incident
25
24. Defendants Geiger and Johnson falsely alleged that Korff attempted to run them over
26
with a vehicle in an attempt to cover up their unreasonable shooting of Korff.
27
28 13
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 25. In truth and fact, Korff did not slide into the driver’s seat and attempt to run Geiger
2 and Johnson over with the vehicle. Geiger began firing his weapon without cause, which resulted in
3
Johnson thinking he was being fired at, and Johnson then fired one shot into the open driver’s side
4
window striking Korff in the head at close range.
5
26. Numerous errors and omissions occurred at the crime scene, which establish that the
6
7 processing of the crime scene and evidence was not performed in an objective scientific manner.
8 The laboratory methods and reported conclusions and opinions in the lab reports generated by OSP
9 Forensic Laboratory are written to confirm the accuracy of the officer’s perjured statements.
10
27. Police reports indicate Geiger shot Korff through the windshield. Bullets that
11
penetrate glass usually have fragments of glass embedded in them. No glass was identified by the
12
crime lab or in our examination on the bullet that penetrated Korff. No fine glass fragments were
13
14 noted in or near the entrance wound.
15 28. No attempt was made by the crime lab to explain the .40 caliber cartridge case found

17
next to the driver’s door. No attempt was made to explain this item as related to Defendant
18
Johnson’s stated attempt to shoot the rear tire.
19
29. OSP and Defendants Josephine County failed to adequately investigate and process
20
21 this crime scene, which resulted in the Plaintiff being falsely charged with attempted murder and
22 assault 1.
23 30. Defendants destroyed and tampered with evidence, including the critical total station
24 measurement information and diagrams of the crime scene, Geiger and Korff’s clothing, and other
25
items. This evidence was exculpatory to Korff.
26
31. Defendants failed to conduct any bloodstain pattern analysis on the vehicle door
27
28 14
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 despite the fact that the incident involved an officer shooting. Simple DNA tests on the blood
2 located on the door were not completed to even confirm the blood was Korff’s. Bloodstain pattern
3
analysis strongly contradicts the statements made in police reports by Geiger and Johnson.
4
32. Expended bullets can be examined to match them to the barrel of a particular
5
firearm. Despite the fact that multiple shooters were involved in this incident, no attempt was made
6
7 to match the bullets back to the weapons and no reports exist.
8 33. Police reports falsely state that Defendant Geiger slipped in the mud as he was
9 crossing from the south side of the road to the north. The mud patterns in photographs of Defendant
10
Geiger in the uniform clothing he wore during the incident do not support statements that he fell
11
into the mud. There are no transferred mud stains consistent with Geiger having slipped and fallen
12
into the mud.
13
14 34. Deputy Geiger’s father, a reserve deputy with the Josephine County Sheriff’s
15 department, guarded the crime scene involving an officer shooting by Deputy Geiger and Johnson
16 overnight.
17
35. No required internal affairs investigation or “shooting board” review was conducted
18
19
or reported as a result of this police shooting incident. Numerous Defendants are aware of this
20
21 omission and deliberately failed to correct it to date.
22 C. Effects of Arrest and Incarceration on Plaintiff
23 36. As a result of their failure to provide evidence, which resulted in a mistrial, Korff
24 continued to be imprisoned at the Josephine County Jail pending his retrial, which is currently
25
scheduled for February 2008.
26
37. As a result of the above conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff Korff was left in jail for six
27
28 15
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 months with a bullet lodged in his jaw. This caused extreme pain, permanent nerve damage,
2 migraine headaches, balance and equilibrium problems that may be permanent, and broken teeth.
3
As a result of a failure by jail medical staff to provide him adequate medical treatment while
4
incarcerated, Plaintiff’s jaw has healed improperly, causing permanent damage, and continued pain
5
and suffering. Plaintiff shall require ongoing medical care for said injuries.
6
7 38. As a result of the above conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff Korff has suffered physical
8 pain and suffering, including problems with ordinary tasks such as eating, walking and enjoying a
9 pain-free life.
10
39. As a result of the above conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff Korff has suffered
11
emotional distress, mental and psychological pain and suffering, including anxiety, depression,
12
post-traumatic stress, flashbacks and nightmares.
13
14 40. Said bullet was removed from Korff’s jaw on July 20, 2006. His doctor indicated the
15 bullet had caused a major infection and should have been removed much earlier. Korff was harmed
16 as a result of the delay in removing the bullet while in pretrial custody at the Josephine County Jail.
17
41. Defendant Johnson repeatedly attempted to intimidate Korff by unnecessarily glaring
18
at him in his jail cell, and through the jail cell window. Despite the fact that Johnson was ordered to
19
refrain from such conduct by Sheriff Gilbertson, Johnson failed to comply with that order and
20
22 returned to intimidate Korff on subsequent occasions. Johnson was not relieved of his duties at any
23 time.
24 42. As a result of the above conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff Korff has incurred
25
substantial medical expenses and will continue to accrue medical costs for the rest of his life.
26
43. Plaintiff Korff was forced to hire attorneys and incur the costs of criminal and civil
27
28 16
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 representations.
2 V. FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS
3
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4
DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ARISING FROM USE OF DEADLY FORCE
5
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violations of 4th & 14th Amendments)
6
7 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein by reference.
8 45. Plaintiff is entitled to be safe and secure from unlawful seizure and undue and
9 unreasonable deadly force during arrest and while in custody pursuant to the parameters of the 4th
10
and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
11
46. At all times mentioned, the acts and omissions of Defendants Geiger and Johnson
12
violated Plaintiff’s protected rights and were an excessive intrusion onto his person without just
13
14 cause, were objectively unreasonable based on the totality of circumstances, and amounted to
15 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights. Defendants violated the requirements of the
16 4th and 14th Amendment rights held by Plaintiff to his physical integrity and unconstitutionally used
17
excessive deadly force, without probable cause or belief that Korff presented a danger to themselves
18
or others.
19
47. In respect to the acts set forth below, Defendants Geiger and Johnson acted under
20
21 color of their office as deputy sheriffs in the course and scope of their employment by Defendant
22 Josephine County, and in the name and on behalf of Defendant sheriff’s department.
23 48. The specific acts of Defendants Geiger and Johnson individually and in concert with
25
each other, and alleged to be objectively unreasonable, are more particularly set forth below:
26
a. Both Defendants decided to use deadly force against Korff even after
27
28 17
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 observing that Korff was unarmed and in the passenger seat of the vehicle,
2 was not then presenting any objective danger to others or themselves, and
3
consequently failed to rely on an objectively reasonable assessment of the
4
facts.
5
b. Both Defendants made a choice to use a higher level of force to make Korff
6
7 comply with commands when Korff presented no danger to anyone and was
8 therefore objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

9 c. Neither Defendant attempted to use a degree of force less than a gun and
10
that choice was objectively unreasonable under the circumstance.
11
d. Neither Defendant had probable cause to believe that Korff presented any
12
danger to themselves or others and as a consequence, the decision to shoot
13
14 Korff was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
15 49. Defendants acted individually or together to continue a pattern and practice of abuse
16 and misuse of authority to cover up the illegal shooting of Plaintiff by Defendants Geiger and
17
Johnson, including destroying evidence, doctoring reports to defend the deputies’ misconduct,
18
suppressing the truthful account of the shooting incident, and falsely testifying at grand jury
19
proceedings.
20
21 50. As a direct result of the misconduct of Defendants Geiger, Johnson, and Josephine
22 County, as set forth above, Kurtis Korff was shot in the head and seriously and permanently injured.
23 Plaintiff sustained actual damages, including a gunshot to the skull which resulted in permanent
24 Trigeminal nerve and jaw damage; hearing loss; loss of balance; loss of his liberty; mental and
25
emotional suffering; worry; fear; anguish; shock; nervousness; anxiety; depression. He suffered and
26
27
28 18
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 endured conscious pain and suffering, and was denied the right to enjoy his life, all to his damage in
2 the sum of $1,000,000.
3
51. The actions of Defendants Geiger and Johnson, as described in this complaint, were
4
malicious, deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious
5
disregard of, the harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff. As a result of said intentional conduct,
6
7 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants, in their individual capacities, in an
8 amount sufficient to punish them and to deter others from like conduct, $2,000,000.
9 52. Defendants Geiger and Johnson violated rights held by Plaintiff which were clearly
10
established, and no reasonable official similarly situated to the individual defendants could have
11
believed that his conduct was lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion. Defendants
12
Geiger and Johnson thus lack qualified or statutory immunity from suit or liability.
13
14 53. Plaintiff was required to hire attorneys to represent him in this matter and is thus
16 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17
Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights—Due Process
18
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Individual Liability)
19
20
21 55. Kurtis Korff was deprived of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by
22 Defendants, in that Plaintiff was denied his constitutionally protected rights to liberty, fair Grand
23 Jury proceedings, a fair and speedy trial, and to be free from malicious prosecution. These
24 deprivations were accomplished by Josephine County, by and through its Sheriff’s Department and
25
Oregon State Police, as a result of the inadequate policy of training officers regarding the following
26
areas:
27
28 19
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 a. In having a policy and/or custom and practice of permitting police officers
2 to shoot citizens without cause to utilize deadly force;
3
4
b. In failing to properly train in the tactics to be utilized by police officers in
5
making traffic stops and calling for back up;
6
7 c. In failing to properly train Defendants Geiger and Johnson in the tactics to
8 be used when a suspect in a motor vehicle fails to obey verbal instructions;

9 d. In failing to properly train Defendants Geiger and Johnson in the proper and
10
legal use of deadly force;
11
e. In failing to properly train Defendants in the proper and legal methods of
12
crime scene preservation and investigation;
13
14 f. In having a policy and/or custom and practice of failing to preserve crime
15 scene evidence and failing to conduct required internal affairs investigations
16 subsequent to a police officer shooting;

17
g. In having a policy and/or custom and practice of ratifying and approving
18
unreasonable shooting incidents of citizens by Josephine County police
19
officers without implementing methods and training necessary to prevent
20
21 future shootings and deaths;
22 h. In having a policy and/or custom and practice of failing to terminate the
23 employment of police officers who unreasonably shoot and seriously injure

24 citizens;
25
i. In having a policy and/or custom and practice of finding shooting (death or
26
otherwise) complaints brought against Josephine County police officers as
27
28 20
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 “unfounded,” even when said shootings are unreasonable and/or have
2 violated the constitutional rights of citizens;
3
4
j. In having a policy and/or custom and practice permitting the utilization of
5
deadly force by Josephine County officers that provides less protection to
6
7 citizens than the protections guaranteed in the United States Constitution.
8 56. Defendants further violated the Substantive Due Process rights of Plaintiff in the
9 following particulars:
10
A. Not providing exculpatory evidence in their possession to Plaintiff and his
11
counsel, including but not limited to: crime scene photographs, forensic tests, reports, diagrams,
12
and internal affairs reports regarding the officer shootings which occurred in this instance.
13
14 B. Intimidating and threatening Korff in order to scare him out of exercising his
15 legal right to a fair trial after the mistrial was ordered.
16 C. Suborning perjury in order to secure favorable testimony before the Grand Jury
17
and at the first trial, to wit: witnesses Geiger, Johnson, and others.
18
D. Failing to promptly and adequately investigate and document the crime scene,
19
including preserving exculpatory evidence.
20
21 57. Mary Landers, the criminal attorney for Kurtis Korff, was not aware at the time of
22 the first trial of the exculpatory evidence set forth in paragraph A, above.
23 58. Josephine County’s policies of improper and inadequate training of sheriff’s deputies
24 were the direct cause of Plaintiff’s damages alleged herein in an amount to be determined at trial.
25
26
entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
27
28 21
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 Defendant Michael Burke was at all relevant times an employee or agent of the Josephine County
2 Sheriff’s Department, and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Burke participated in the
3
conspiracy complained of, in his individual capacity, under color of state law, and in the course and scope
4
of his employment and duties as an employee and police union representative of the Josephine County
5
Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Burke has recently been relieved of duty with the Josephine County
6
7 Sheriff’s Department.
8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9 Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights – Failure to Treat Medical Needs
10
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Violation of 5th & 14th Amendments)
11
12
67. As a pretrial detainee Plaintiff has a protected liberty interest under the Due Process
13
14 Clause to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution to reasonable treatment of his medical needs
15 while in custody.
16 68. The deprivations of constitutional rights set forth above, were caused by the
17
Defendants Josephine County Jail Medical Staff and Dr. James Shames, acting under color of law in
18
the following manner:
19
A. Leaving a bullet in Plaintiff’s head for approximately six months causing
20
21 infection, permanent damage, and exacerbated pain and suffering;
22 B. Refusing to allow Plaintiff to answer medical staff questions, and instead law
23 enforcement answered the questions incorrectly for Plaintiff thereby jeopardizing his medical care;
24 C. Failing to ensure Plaintiff was brought to scheduled medical appointments,
25
D. Failing to provide necessary medical care such as timely medications and therapy
26
as prescribed;
27
28 22
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 E. Failing to adequately monitor and address his health care needs relating to his
2 serious injuries, including but not limited to forcing Plaintiff to lie on the floor of a jail cell
3
4
immediately after being shot in the head instead of providing him with a gurney or cot.
5
69. The actions of Defendants Josephine County and Dr. Shames as described in this
6
7 complaint, were malicious, deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in
8 conscious disregard of, the harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff. Said actions led to
9 exacerbation of Plaintiffs injuries. As a result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to
10
punitive damages against Defendants Josephine County Jail medical staff in their individual
11
capacities and Dr. Shames, in an amount sufficient to punish them and to deter others from like
12
conduct.
13
14 70. Defendants violated rights held by Plaintiff which were clearly established, and no
15 reasonable official similarly situated to Defendants could have believed that his/her conduct was
16 lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion. Defendants thus lack qualified or statutory
17
immunity from suit or liability.
18
71. As a direct and proximate result of the actions described herein, Plaintiff sustained
19
actual damages, including a gunshot to the skull which resulted in permanent Trigeminal nerve
20
21 damage; jaw and mouth injury; permanent jaw damage as a result of his injuries healing improperly;
22 hearing loss; loss of balance; loss of his liberty; mental and emotional suffering; worry; fear;
23 anguish; shock; nervousness; anxiety; depression; all to his damage in an amount to be determined
24 at trial.
25
26
27
28 23
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights-- Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights
3
(42 U.S.C. § 1983/1985 – False Imprisonment)
4
5
74. By their actions as described herein, Defendants Geiger, Johnson, Daniel, Anderson,
6
8 Gilbertson, Beck, Burke, Quick, Dovci, and Webb, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation,
9 custom, or usage, subjected Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured
10
by the Constitution and laws; namely, Plaintiff's right to freedom from false imprisonment by
11
conspiracy to charge and convict him for crimes he did not commit as a cover up for an unlawful
12
police shooting.
13
14 75. The deprivations of constitutional rights set forth above, were caused by the
15 Defendants acting under color of law in the following manner:
16 A. The manufacturing of evidence;

17
B. Knowing use of that evidence in grand jury and trial;
18
C. Failure to provide exculpatory evidence and destruction of evidence;
19
D. Failure to conduct an internal affairs investigation into the shooting;
20
21 E. Failure to conduct independently scientific investigation of crime scene evidence
22 with the knowledge that the incident involved multiple officer shootings.
23 76. Sheriff Daniel and Under-sheriff Anderson failed to supervise Geiger and Johnson
24 and obstructed justice by suppressing and secreting a confession made by Geiger at the scene that
25
he might have unlawfully fired his weapon at Korff and the vehicle. Other deputies, such as Burke,
26
also heard this confession and knew that the statements made by Geiger and Johnson were not true,
27
28 24
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 but were cover-ups in an attempt to exonerate them from the illegal use of deadly force that resulted
2 in Plaintiff’s injuries and prosecution for attempted murder of police officers. Sheriff Gilbertson
3
ratified said actions by not investigating and correcting the situation immediately upon notice.
4
77. The actions of the above Defendants, as described in this complaint, were malicious,
5
deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious disregard of, the
6
7 harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff and were undertaken to obtain a wrongful conviction.
8 As a result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants
10
listed above, in their individual capacities, in an amount sufficient to punish them and to deter
11
others from like conduct.
12
78. Defendants violated rights held by Plaintiff which were clearly established, and no
13
15 conduct was lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion. Defendants as named above thus
16 lack qualified or statutory immunity from suit or liability.

17
79. Defendant Josephine County is liable for actual damages caused by Defendants
18
conduct under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services and Adickes v. Kress because an official final
19
decision was made to fabricate and synchronize the police reports to conceal the truth of the
20
21 shooting and thereby violated Plaintiff Korff’s civil rights.
22 80. As a direct and proximate result of the actions described herein, Plaintiff sustained
23 actual damages as alleged herein; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to
24 proof at trial.
25
26
27
28 25
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights -- Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process
3
4
5
83. By their actions as described herein, Defendants Geiger, Johnson, Daniel, Anderson,
6
7 Gilbertson, Beck, Burke, Dovci, Quick, and Webb, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation,
8 custom, or usage, subjected Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured
9 by the Constitution and laws; namely, Plaintiff's right to freedom from malicious prosecution and
10
abuse of process in the following manner:
11
A. The manufacturing of evidence;
12
13
14 B. Knowing use of that evidence;
15 C. Failure to provide exculpatory evidence and destruction of evidence;
16 D. Failure to conduct an internal affairs investigation into the shooting;

17
E. Threatening and intimidating Plaintiff and witnesses to the crime;
18
F. All of which was done to prosecute Plaintiff with malice in order to deny him his
19
right to be free from malicious prosecution and abuse of process;
20
21 84. The actions of the above Defendants, as described in this complaint, were malicious,
22 deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious disregard of, the
23 harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff and were undertaken to obtain a wrongful conviction.
24 As a result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants
25
listed above, in their individual capacities, in an amount sufficient to punish them and to deter
26
others from like conduct.
27
28 26
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 85. Defendants violated rights held by Plaintiff which were clearly established, and no
3
conduct was lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion. Defendants as named above thus
4
lack qualified or statutory immunity from suit or liability.
5
6
7 actual damages alleged herein; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof
8 at trial.
9 87. Defendant Josephine County is liable for actual damages caused by Defendants
10
conduct under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services and Adickes v. Kress because an official final
11
decision was made to fabricate and synchronize the police reports to conceal the truth of the
12
shooting and thereby violated Plaintiff Korff’s civil rights.
13
17
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights -- Attempt to Coerce Guilty Plea
19
20
22 90. The deprivations of constitutional rights, particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th
23 Amendments to the US Constitution, were caused by the deputies and their supervisors acting under
24 color of law.
25
91. The acts of Defendant deputies alleged below were committed at the direction of
26
Defendant Sheriff Daniel and/or Gilbertson, or with his knowledge and consent, or were afterward
27
28 27
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 approved and ratified by Defendant Sheriff.
2 92. Plaintiff was charged by indictment of certain crimes including attempted murder
3
and assault in the first degree and was held in custody by Defendant Sheriff and Defendant deputies
4
in the county jail of Josephine County, Oregon, awaiting trial on that indictment.
5
93. Defense counsel Mary Landers of Grants Pass, Oregon, represented plaintiff in his
6
7 criminal case. On advice of counsel, Plaintiff entered pleas of not guilty to the above-mentioned
8 indictment.
9 94. Defendants thereafter entered into a conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, and
10
intimidate Plaintiff because Plaintiff was exercising the rights and privileges secured to Plaintiff by
11
the Constitution and laws of the United States and State of Oregon to plead not guilty to an
12
indictment against him; and attempted to coerce and intimidate plaintiff to change Plaintiff’s pleas
13
14 of not guilty to guilty, thus exonerating Defendants Geiger and Johnson of their unlawful use of
15 deadly force against Plaintiff Korff.
16 95. In furtherance of the above-described unlawful conspiracy, Defendant deputies,

17
acting under color of their offices, threatened, intimidated, and coerced Plaintiff while in his jail
18
19
cell, or needlessly accompanied Plaintiff to medical appointments, knowing that Plaintiff was
20
21 represented by counsel and that any such contact was unlawful by Defendants who had attempted to
22 shoot and kill Plaintiff. Said actions were done with the intent of scaring Plaintiff into pleading
23 guilty, not going to trial, not requiring Defendant deputies to further perjure themselves at trial, and
24 exonerating them of their unlawful use of deadly force.
25
26
actual damages, including mental and emotional suffering; worry; fear; anguish; shock;
27
28 28
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 nervousness; anxiety; depression; nightmares and flashbacks, all to his damage in an amount to be
2 ascertained according to proof at trial.
3
4
5
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6
7 Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights – Supervisory Liability
8 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Individual Liability)

9 98. Paragraphs 1 through 97 and are incorporated herein by reference.
10
99. At all material times, the individual Defendants were employed by Josephine County
11
and engaged in a widespread, lengthy course of conduct which was well known to other members of
12
the Josephine County Sheriff’s Department, including the Sheriffs and former Under-sheriff
13
14 Anderson.
15 100. The deprivations of constitutional rights set forth above, were caused by Defendants
16 Daniel, Anderson and Gilbertson (“Supervisors”), acting under color of law in the following
17
manner:
18
A. Supervisors participated directly and personally in deprivation of rights as well as
19
by taking prior actions that lead to deputies’ deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights;
20
22 B. Failure to prevent unconstitutional acts of subordinates for which supervisors
23 were actually present for or for which the supervisor was informed, or directed, encouraged, or
24 acquiesced. Specifically, Daniel, Anderson and Gilbertson’s failure to ensure truthful accounts of
25
the shooting incident were investigated and reported, instead of suppressing the truthful account to
26
protect the deputies; thereby allowing deputies to enter into a conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs rights
27
28 29
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 and wrongfully prosecute him for unwarranted charges.
2 C. Failure to train subordinates to properly approach vehicle, use deadly force, give
3
medical treatment, investigate and report on crime scene incidents especially regarding an officer
4
shooting.
5
D. Failure to ensure Plaintiff had proper medical treatment and was free from verbal
6
7 abuse and harassment by deputies under his control;
8 E. Failure to ensure proper crime scene investigation and documentation; and failing
9 to ensure internal affairs investigation and reporting of allegations of excessive deadly force by a
10
police officer;
11
F. Failure to supervise or control deputies who had history of prior misconduct or
12
were otherwise unfit to serve as on duty officers. Defendants Daniel, Anderson and Sheriff
13
14 Gilbertson knew, or should have known, of actual or potential problems and failed to correct or
15 prevent them.
16 G. A reasonable person in a similar situation would have known their failure

17
represented deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
18
19
actual damages as alleged herein; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to
20
21 proof at trial.

25
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
26
Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights – Defective Policy: By Act of Policy Maker
27
28 30
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- 4th & 14th Amendment Violations )
2 103. Paragraphs 1 through 102 and are incorporated herein by reference.
3
104. The actions of Defendants alleged in Claims 1-5 for Relief were endorsed and
4
approved by the duly elected Sheriff (Daniel and ratified by Gilbertson).
5
105. The Sheriff of Josephine County is an official policymaker and his actions in
6
7 endorsing the illegal actions of his officers constitute official public policy of Josephine County.
8 By endorsing the actions of subordinate staff which includes failing to monitor the activities of
9 sheriffs’ deputies, crime scene investigations and evidence preservation, and failing to discipline
10
officer for lying and abusing their positions and misuse of public resources violates the 4th and 14th
11
Amendment protections held by Plaintiff and are unconstitutional per se.
12
106. The official policy of shielding responsibility for wrongful acts of officers who may
13
14 have illegally shot a citizen, was endorsed and created by the elected Sheriff and was the direct
15 cause of the damages alleged herein by Plaintiff.
16 107. The actions in failing to adequately investigate the shooting of Plaintiff, improperly
17
and illegally tampering with evidence, secreting evidence and information, and maintaining a
18
culture of secrecy and abuse were all official policy of Josephine County by and through the official
19
actions of the Sheriffs who authorize, often order and endorse the actions themselves.
20
21 108. The official policy of failing to investigate shooting incidents by officers, tampering
22 with evidence, providing false information and statements to others about investigations, are all
23 designed to create an unofficial policy within the sheriff’s department to keep outside inquiry and
24 investigation from occurring and to maintain an office which is allowed to carry on unlawful and
25
26
illegal actions, including shootings, in secret, a.k.a, “the blue wall of silence.”
27
28 31
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 109. As a direct and proximate result of the actions described herein, Plaintiff sustained
2 actual damages, in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.
3
4
5
VI. STATE LAW CLAIMS
6
7 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 (Violation of State Constitution - Unreasonable Seizure)

10
112. The actions and omissions herein alleged constitute violations of the Oregon
11
Constitution Art. I Sec. 9, prohibiting unreasonable seizure.
12
113. The actions of Defendants Geiger and Johnson as described in this complaint, were
13
14 malicious, deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious
15 disregard of, the harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff. As a result of said intentional conduct,
16 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants Geiger and Johnson, in their individual
17
capacities, in an amount sufficient to punish them and to deter others from like conduct.
18
19
20
21 damage; jaw and mouth injury; hearing loss; loss of balance; loss of his liberty; mental and
22 emotional suffering; worry; fear; anguish; shock; nervousness; anxiety; depression; all to his
23 damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

24 115. Plaintiff was required to hire attorneys to represent his in this matter and is entitled to
25
an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
26
27
28 32
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Violation of State Constitution - Unreasonable Treatment of Arrested Persons)
3
4
117. The actions and omissions herein alleged constitute violations of the Oregon
5
Constitution Art. I Sec. 13 and 16, prohibiting unreasonable and cruel and unusual treatment of
6
7 arrested citizens.
8 118. The actions of using unwarranted deadly force, failing to provide adequate medical
9 treatment while awaiting trial, verbal abuse and harassment of Korff, and conspiracy to violate
10
Plaintiff’s rights by Defendants, including but not limited to, Geiger, Johnson, Dr. Shames and other
11
jail medical staff, Daniel and Gilbertson, and others as described in this complaint, were malicious,
12
deliberate, intentional, and embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious disregard of, the
13
14 harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff. As a result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is
15 entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants named above, in their individual capacities, in
16 an amount sufficient to punish them and to deter others from like conduct.
17
18
19
damage; jaw and mouth injury; hearing loss; loss of balance; loss of his liberty; mental and
20
23 120. Plaintiff was required to hire attorneys to represent his in this matter and is entitled to
24 an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
25
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
26
(Negligent Shooting)
27
28 33
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
2 122. At all times material Defendants Josephine County, Geiger and Johnson were
3
4
employees of the County of Josephine and were at all times relevant acting within the scope of their
5
employment. They were on duty and all acts which resulted in harm to Plaintiff were a natural
6
7 consequence of the performance of duties as a law enforcement officer.
8 123. Oregon law mandates that all public employees be sued through their employer the
9 public entity. Oregon law mandates that the real party in interest in such actions is the public
10
employer. Plaintiff may also sue the individual officer.
11
124. Defendants Johnson and Geiger had a duty to act in compliance with the law and to
12
avoid the negligent use of deadly force in the arrest of Plaintiff Korff.
13
14 125. Defendants breached that duty by acting unreasonably, in light of the risk of harm in
15 violating Plaintiff's rights as alleged within this complaint.
16 126. It was reasonably foreseeable to each Defendant that their actions would cause harm
17
to the Plaintiff.
18
19
20

24 128. Plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
25
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
26
(Negligence)
27
28 34
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
2 130. Defendants Dr. Shames and other jail medical staff, had a duty to act in compliance
3
with the law and to ensure adequate medical treatment for Plaintiff Korff while he was in their
4
custody awaiting trial.
5
131. Defendants breached that duty by acting unreasonably, in light of the risk of harm in
6
8 violating Plaintiff's rights as alleged within this complaint.

9 132. It was reasonably foreseeable to each Defendant that their actions and inactions
10
would cause harm to the Plaintiff.
11
12
13
14 damage; jaw and mouth injury; including permanent jaw damage; hearing loss; loss of balance; loss
15 of his liberty; mental and emotional suffering; worry; fear; anguish; shock; nervousness; anxiety;
16 depression; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

17
134. Plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
18
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
20
22 136. Defendants' conduct alleged herein was intentional and voluntary, specifically, the
23 unreasonable use of deadly force, the failure to provide adequate medical treatment; the practice of
24 verbal abuse and harassment by deputies, and in the act of conspiring to falsify evidence and
25
reports.
26
137. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct would cause Plaintiff to
27
28 35
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish.
2 138. Defendants' conduct constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of
3
socially tolerable conduct.
4
5
6
10
11
140. Plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
12
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13
14 (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
16 142. Defendants' conduct constitutes ordinary negligence as set forth in Claims 12 and 13.
17
143. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff, and knew or should have known that their
18
conduct would cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish.
19
144. Defendants' conduct constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of
20
21 socially tolerable conduct.
22 145. Defendants' negligence, which occurred through its unreasonable physical impacts
23 on Plaintiff Korff, as well as through its violation of Plaintiff Korff’s constitutionally protected
24 interests and rights, caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
25
26
27
28 36
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
3
damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.
4
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
5
(Malicious Prosecution)
6
8 148. Defendants Geiger, Johnson, Anderson, Gilbertson and others commenced

9 prosecution against Plaintiff for attempted aggravated murder of a police officer and attempted
10
assault in the first degree.
11
149. Plaintiff is pending trial on these charges at the time this complaint is filed and after
12
the court declared a mistrial due to defendants’ failure to provide exculpatory evidence.
13
15 150. Defendants manufactured evidence, destroyed evidence, failed to provide
16 exculpatory evidence, provided perjured testimony and coerced other officers and witnesses to
17
acquiesce to said perjured statements, in order to prosecute Plaintiff for the above charges in an
18
unlawful attempt to defend themselves against excessive use of deadly force consequences as a
19
result of the illegal shooting incident which had occurred at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest.
20
21 151. Said prosecution was done with malice in order to deny Plaintiff his constitutional
22 rights and as a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions described herein, Plaintiff
23 sustained actual damages, including a gunshot to the skull which resulted in permanent Trigeminal
24 nerve damage; jaw and mouth injury; hearing loss; loss of balance; loss of his liberty; mental and
25
emotional suffering; worry; fear; anguish; shock; nervousness; anxiety; depression; all to his
26
damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.
27
28 37
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Respondeat Superior)
3
4
153. Under Oregon state law, Defendants Josephine County and Oregon State are liable in
5
respondeat superior for the actions of the individual Defendants described herein.
6
7 154. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions described herein,
8 Plaintiff sustained actual damages, including a gunshot to the skull which resulted in permanent
9 Trigeminal nerve damage; jaw and mouth injury; hearing loss; loss of balance; loss of his liberty;
10
mental and emotional suffering; worry; fear; anguish; shock; nervousness; anxiety; depression; all
11
to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.
12
VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
13
14 Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
15 A. On his First Claim for Relief:
16 1. For general damages in the amount of 1,000,000.00

17
18
2. For special damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00
19
3. For plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees; and
20
21 4. For plaintiff’s costs and disbursements incurred herein.
22 B. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained according to
23 proof on all remaining claims;

24 C. Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial against Defendants
25
Geiger, Johnson, Daniel, Anderson, Gilbertson, Burke, Beck, Quick, Webb, Dovci and Shames in
26
their individual capacities, in an amount sufficient to punish them and deter others from like
27
28 38
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1 conduct on all remaining claims;
2 D. Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
3
E. Declare that Josephine County and Oregon State Police must investigate all police
4
shootings and prepare written reports including findings and conclusions.
5
F. That Josephine County and Oregon State Police conduct standardized, professional
6
7 crime scene investigations and subsequent forensic laboratory examinations in a timely and
8 scientific manner—including ensuring the preservation of all evidence.

9 G. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
10
Dated this __25th___ day of February, 2008.
11
Respectfully submitted,
12
By: _/s/ Lauren C. Regan
13
14 Lauren C. Regan (OSB#97087)
15 Attorney At Law
16 259 East 5th Avenue, Suite 300-A

17
Eugene, Oregon 97401
18
Ph: 541.687.9180
19
Fax: 541.686.2137
20
21 Email: lregan@cascwild.org
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 39
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
1
2
3
4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
5
1. Exhibit “A” -- Nunc pro tunc order dated ________________.
6
7 2. Exhibit “B” – Order of Judge Stancill dated Feburary 19, 2013
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 40
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__

1983 Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1983 Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1 H. Douglas Daniel, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF H. DOUGLAS DANIEL

8 a result of the warrant and Plaintiff was taken into custody.

16 damages as alleged herein; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to

27 (b) Awarding Mr. Alvarado reasonable attorney’s fees; and

15 2. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages against Defendants in their

16 individual capacities, and attorneys' fees and costs.

15 COMMIT CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

16 PENDENT STATE LAW CLAIMS

8 wound to the head.

23 resulted in another delay in Korff’s trial and additional months of incarceration.

16 PAGE 7—COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

22 C. Effects of Arrest and Incarceration on Plaintiff

8 therefore objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

16 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8 be used when a suspect in a motor vehicle fails to obey verbal instructions;

15 scene evidence and failing to conduct required internal affairs investigations

16 subsequent to a police officer shooting;

22 h. In having a policy and/or custom and practice of failing to terminate the

23 employment of police officers who unreasonably shoot and seriously injure

15 legal right to a fair trial after the mistrial was ordered.

8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15 Defendants acting under color of law in the following manner:

16 A. The manufacturing of evidence;

16 lack qualified or statutory immunity from suit or liability.

15 C. Failure to provide exculpatory evidence and destruction of evidence;

16 D. Failure to conduct an internal affairs investigation into the shooting;

15 PAGE 20—COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

15 deadly force against Plaintiff Korff.

16 95. In furtherance of the above-described unlawful conspiracy, Defendant deputies,

8 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Individual Liability)

22 B. Failure to prevent unconstitutional acts of subordinates for which supervisors

16 G. A reasonable person in a similar situation would have known their failure

23 PAGE 23—COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

15 cause of the damages alleged herein by Plaintiff.

8 (Violation of State Constitution - Unreasonable Seizure)

23 damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

22 damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

15 violating Plaintiff's rights as alleged within this complaint.

23 damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

8 violating Plaintiff's rights as alleged within this complaint.

16 depression; all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

15 141. Paragraphs 1 through 140 are incorporated herein by reference.

8 148. Defendants Geiger, Johnson, Anderson, Gilbertson and others commenced

15 150. Defendants manufactured evidence, destroyed evidence, failed to provide

15 A. On his First Claim for Relief:

16 1. For general damages in the amount of 1,000,000.00

22 B. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained according to

23 proof on all remaining claims;

8 scientific manner—including ensuring the preservation of all evidence.

16 259 East 5th Avenue, Suite 300-A

Anda mungkin juga menyukai