Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Paul Gattone State Bar Number 012482 LAW OFFICE OF PAYSON & GATTONE 360 S. Convent Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 623-4455 pgattone@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ROXANNA ORRELL, Plaintiff, Vs. MARICOPA COUNTY, an Arizona municipality, THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, in his individual and official capacity, LT. BRACKMAN #1296, in his individual and official capacity, and DEPUTY MCGUIRE #868, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Comes now the Plaintiff who alleges: 1. INTRODUCTION This civil action for damages is based on the physical and emotional harm inflicted on

the Plaintiff by the Defendants while acting in their capacity as law enforcement officers and governmental agents of Maricopa County, and the Maricopa county Sheriffs Department. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her civil rights, privileges and immunities as guaranteed under the

-1-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and of the Constitution and Laws of the State of Arizona. 2. This civil action for money damages is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and

1988 and the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the law of the State of Arizona. 3. This Court also has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1343 and pursuant to its pendent jurisdiction over all claims arising under state law. 4. PARTIES Plaintiff Roxanna is an attorney licensed to practice law in the states of Texas and

Minnesota. All of the actions taken against her by the Defendants took place in Phoenix, Arizona and within Defendants jurisdiction. 5. Defendant Maricopa County, is, and at all times relevant to the facts alleged herein

was, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona. Defendant Maricopa County is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies, including the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and its agents and employees. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, the City of Tucson was responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and its employees complied with the laws and Constitution of the United States and of the State of Arizona. The constitutional violations and torts committed by the Defendants resulted from policies and customs of the Maricopa County. 6. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriffs Department is the entity responsible for law

enforcement and protection of the citizens of Tucson, Arizona, and as such has overall responsibility

-2-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 3 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

for the training, supervision and discipline of members of the officers of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department as well as for the Departments policies and practices. 7. Defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio was, and is at all times relevant to the facts alleged

herein, the duly elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona and was acting within the course and scope of his employment and under color of state law. Defendant Arpaio is also responsible for the direction and supervision of the actions of the individual Defendants. Defendant Arpaio is being sued in his official and individual capacities. 8. Defendant Lt. Brackman #1296 is, and was at all times relevant to the facts alleged

herein, a duly appointed officer in the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and was acting within the course and scope of his employment and under the color of state law. Defendant Brackman is being sued in his official and individual capacities. 9. Defendant Deputy McGuire #868, is, and was at all times relevant to the facts alleged

herein, a duly appointed officer in the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and was acting within the course and scope of his employment and under the color of state law. Defendant McGuire is being sued in his official and individual capacities. 10. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, all individual Defendants were duly

appointed, qualified and sworn personnel and/or agents of Maricopa County and of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department, employed as such and by the Department and acting within the course and scope of their employment and/or agency and under color of state law. 11. All acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed by and attributable to

all Defendants, each acting as agent, employee or under the direction and control of the others. All such acts and failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment and under -3-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 4 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

color of law, and each Defendant participated in, approved and/or ratified the acts and omissions of other Defendants complained of herein. 12. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maricopa County,

explicitly or through acquiescence, ratified the conduct alleged herein and failed adequately to train, supervise and monitor all persons responsible for the policies, practices and customs complained of herein. 13. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maricopa County

ratified the conduct alleged herein and failed adequately to train, supervise and monitor the Defendant Officer who performed unlawful acts complained of herein, and failed to promulgate adequate policies or regulations to prevent such unlawful acts. 14. Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their individual and professional capacities.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 15. On July 29th, 2010 Plaintiff, an attorney, was in Phoenix, Arizona providing legal

support for individuals protesting against S.B. 1070 and the anti-immigrant actions of Defendant Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department. 16. During the time that Plaintiff appeared at protest actions she was acting in her role as

a legal observer and not a direct participant in the protest actions. 17. Plaintiff, in her role as a legal observer never took part in the actions, but rather was

present to videotape the protests and to provide legal support and information to protestors as the situation unfolded. 18. At each protest where Plaintiff was present she followed legal observer protocol by

standing legally on the sidewalks, except for brief periods when she would enter the street to advise -4-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 5 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

protestors, take information, or to speak with them for other reasons related to their concerns about arrest. 19. At all times after police gave orders to disperse or to clear the street, Plaintiff was

careful to abide by these orders and to be on the sidewalk. 20. 21. At one point a group of protestors moved to the 4th Avenue Jail. The 4th Avenue Jail in Phoenix is operated under the direction and control of

Defendant Arpaio, and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department. 22. Plaintiff traveled to the 4th Avenue Jail to provide legal support and to continue in her

role as a legal observer. 23. arrived. 24. When Plaintiff arrived at the jail she spoke with some of the protestors and got A large crowd of media and others had already gathered at the jail when Plaintiff

relevant information from them. 25. She was joined at the jail by another lawyer who was also present to provide legal

support to the protest actions. 26. As was the case at other protest sites, Plaintiff was acting in her role as a legal

observer and was careful abide by the orders of orders of law enforcement. 27. At one point officers came out of the jail sally port, arrested several protestors, and

attempted to push a large number of protestors back. 28. When the officers came out a second time, they began to arrest protestors who were

holding a banner, or who were standing in their vicinity. 29. Plaintiff was on the sidewalk at this time and was filming the arrests of the protestors. -5-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 6 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

30.

At one point it became clear that the deputies were targeting legal observers. The deputies arrested the other lawyer, who was also acting as a legal observer and was near Plaintiff on the sidewalk.

31.

At that point Defendant Deputy McGuire #868 came onto the sidewalk area and came directly at Plaintiff. 32. Defendant Deputy McGuire pulled Plaintiff off of the sidewalk and took her into the

jail to place her under arrest. 33. Defendant Deputy McGuire arrested Plaintiff and the other Legal Observers at the

direction of Defendant Lt. Brackman #1296 and Defendant Sheriff Arpaio. 34. At no point was Plaintiff doing anything illegal prior to being arrested and was clearly

arrested because of her obvious support of the protestors. 35. Plaintiff was initially placed inside the jail garage structure and was briefly questioned

by deputies as to the identity of the person who had arrested her. 36. 37. Plaintiff was the last person from the group of arrestees taken into the booking area. The booking process was complicated by the fact that that Plaintiffs arrest paperwork

kept getting lost. 38. In the booking area, the deputies allegedly couldnt find Plaintiffs information, and

she was kept waiting until virtually everyone else from the protest group and all other arrestees had been processed. 39. Later, a number of protestor arrestees were taken for fingerprinting in a group, but

Plaintiff was taken out of the fingerprint room without being fingerprinted.

-6-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 7 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

40.

While others were given documents with their charges Plaintiff was not given hers

until later, in the cell. 41. After all of the arrestees had gone before the judge, others were processed for release,

but Plaintiff was separated and put back with the general incoming population. 42. Eventually, Plaintiff was taken back in the fingerprinting room with a group as a

matter of routine, and was able to convince one of the on duty deputies to look at her release papers. 43. The unidentified deputy found Plaintiffs situation to be rather bizarre and he walked

Plaintiff down to the cells where the rest of the release group were waiting. 44. midnight). 45. 46. Plaintiff was left in the cell through two more groups of prisoners being released. While the other prisoners were taken out of that cell and released without problems, Even there, those who were with Plaintiff were processed relatively quickly (before

both Plaintiff and another protest arrestee were taken to the property window, processed, and then returned for quite some time before finally being let go. 47. The booking process was complicated by the fact that that Plaintiffs arrest paperwork

kept getting lost. 48. In the booking area, the deputies allegedly couldnt find Plaintiffs information, and

she was kept waiting until virtually everyone else from the protest group and all other arrestees had been processed. 49. Later, a number of protestor arrestees were taken for fingerprinting in a group, but

Plaintiff was taken out of the fingerprint room without being fingerprinted.

-7-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 8 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

50.

While others were given documents with their charges Plaintiff was not given hers

until later, in the cells. 51. After all of the arrestees had gone before the judge, others were processed for release,

but Plaintiff was separated and put back with the general incoming population. 52. Eventually, Plaintiff wound up back in the fingerprinting room with a group as a

matter of routine, and was able to convince one of the on duty deputies to look at her release papers. 53. The deputy found Plaintiffs situation to be rather bizarre and he walked Plaintiff

down to the cells where the rest of the release group were waiting. 54. midnight). 55. 56. Plaintiff was left in the cell through two more groups of prisoners being released. While the other prisoners were taken out of that cell and released without problems, Even there, those who were with Plaintiff were processed relatively quickly (before

both Plaintiff and another protest arrestee were taken to the property window, processed, and then returned for quite some time before finally being let go. 57. After the incident, Plaintiff was charged with a violation of A.R.S. 13-2402

Obstructing a Governmental Operation, and Failure to Obey a Police Officer, both of which carry a potential fine and jail time. 58. The Charge of Failure to Obey a Police Officer is a Class 1 Misdemeanor and carries

a maximum penalty of a $1000.00 fine and six months in jail. 59. Having these false and baseless charges not only caused Plaintiff great stress and

anxiety but also posed a potential threat to her being able to practice law.

-8-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 9 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

60.

Plaintiff had a court date set for August 19, 2010. However, after an attorney entered

a notice of appearance on her behalf, the charges were voluntarily dismissed by the Maricopa County Attorneys Office. 61. Defendants actions were not justified by any actions taken by Plaintiff on the July 29,

2010 and done in violation of her legal and constitutional rights and in reckless disregard for her physical safety and well being. 62. Each Defendant acted or failed to act in a manner that contributed to the violations of

the law set out below. They participated in a common operation that resulted in the above described violation of Plaintiffs civil rights and physical harm, or allowed acts to be set in motion that they knew or should have known would lead to these injuries and illegal consequences. 63. Defendants Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and Maricopa County have by

their policies and customs caused the violation of constitutional rights set out above. 64. Defendants Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and Maricopa County

demonstrated deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff by giving Defendant Arpaio, and the officers under his control, including Defendant Brackman and McGuire unfettered discretion to use excessive and unnecessary force against members of the public, and to arrest persons for questionable reasons, and under improper circumstances. 65. Defendant Maricopa County and Maricopa County Sheriffs Department have

encouraged the violations of constitutional rights described herein by their failures, (a) to adequately train corrections personnel, including those involved in the actions taken against Plaintiff, and (b) adequately supervise the action of officers under their control.

-9-

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 10 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 70. 69. 68.

COUNT ONE (Federal Constitutional Violations 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments 42 U.S. C 1983) Against Defendants Arpaio, McGuire and Brackman 66. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 67. Plaintiff claims damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendant Arpaio, McGuire

and Brackman for violating her civil rights under color of state law and as secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution including: a. Freedom to engage in protected speech; b. Freedom from false imprisonment, c. Freedom from lodging false charges against her; d. Freedom from deprivation of her liberty without due process of law; and e. Equal protection, privileges and immunities under the law. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants acts, Plaintiff suffered mental injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional and economic losses. COUNT TWO (42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriffs Department, Arpaio and Brackman) Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Maricopa County and Maricopa County Sheriffs Department, by their policy making employees, including Defendants Arpaio, Brackman and McGuire, authorized,

- 10 -

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 11 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 75. 74. 73. 72. 71.

encouraged, sanctioned and/or ratified the individual police defendants wrongful acts; and/or failed to prevent or stop those acts; and/or allowed or encouraged those acts to continue. Plaintiff claims damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and Defendants Arpaio and Brackman for developing, implementing, and maintaining policies or customs which exhibit deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and for allowing and encouraging the false arresting members of the public. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants acts, Plaintiff suffered mental injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional and economic losses. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Arizona Constitution Article, II 4, 6, and 8) Against Brackman, McGuire and Arpaio Plaintiff alleges and incorporates every reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth therein. The acts of Defendants Brackman, McGuire and Arpaio, taken under color of law, in participating in the ordering, authorizing, approving, and/or failing to prevent the arrest of Plaintiff without due process or probable cause and in retaliation of her rights as protected by Article II 6 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona deprived Plaintiff of rights guaranteed under Article II 4, 6, and 8 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) Against all Defendants Plaintiff alleges and incorporates every reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth therein. - 11 -

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 12 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

76.

Defendants actions against Plaintiff were intentionally aimed at causing Plaintiff extreme emotional distress and other injuries, and/or were made with reckless disregard of the fact that they were likely to cause Plaintiff extreme emotional distress and other injuries.

77.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts, Plaintiff suffered mental injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress and economic injuries. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Arrest) Against all Defendants.

78.

Plaintiff alleges and incorporates every reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth therein.

79.

Defendants participated in, ordered, authorized, approves, and/or acquiesced in the arrest and subsequent detention of Plaintiff without legal authority, probable cause, legal process, and without Plaintiffs consent.

80.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants acts, Plaintiff suffered mental injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional and economic losses.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff asks that this court grant her the following relief: a. General damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined upon consideration of the evidence; b. Punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined upon consideration of the evidence; c. Costs of this suit; - 12 -

Case 2:11-cv-01492-ROS Document 1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 13 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

d. Attorneys fees pursuant to applicable statutes, including, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988; a. Granting any and all other relief that the court deem appropriate.

A JURY TRIAL IS REQUESTED IN THIS MATTER.

REPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of July 2011.

_s/Paul Gattone______________________ Paul Gattone Attorney for Plaintiff

- 13 -