Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 16

U.S. DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Eddie Frizell,

Case No.: ________________

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

v.
Jane Harteau, in her individual and
official capacities, and the City of
Minneapolis,

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Eddie Frizell, for his Complaint against Defendants City of Minneapolis
and Jane Harteau, in her individual and official capacities, states as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Eddie Frizell is a resident of the City of Maple Grove, County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
2. Defendant Harteau, upon information and belief, is a resident of the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and, at all relevant times, was Chief of Police for the
City of Minneapolis.
3. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota, and at all relevant times, was the employer of both Frizell and Defendant
Harteau.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This action arises, in part, under the Constitution and laws of the United

111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 16

States, including the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
5. Jurisdiction in this Court is properly conferred with respect to the allegations
set forth herein under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
6. Venue is appropriate in this Court in that the parties reside and the cause of
action arises in the District of Minnesota.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Frizell joined the Army after graduating from the University of Iowa in 1987.
After an honorable discharge from the Army, he served in the Minnesota Army
National Guard for over 26 years and currently holds the rank of Colonel. He has
served in active duty on several occasions, most recently serving a one-year deployment
to Iraq from April 2011 to April 2012.
8. Frizell began his career with the Minneapolis Police Department in 1993.
When he joined the department, he sought and received veterans status.
9. Frizell worked in the Third Precinct as a patrol officer and on the Community
Response Team (CRT). He was also assigned to the Recruitment Unit and the First
Precinct Community Response Team. He was promoted to Sergeant in 2000, and at that
rank, was variously assigned to the Domestic Assault Unit, Internal Affairs Unit, and as
a patrol supervisor in the Fourth Precinct. He also served as a Mediation Compliance
Sergeant, supervisor in the Mounted Patrol Unit, and as a SWAT Hostage Negotiator.
10. In 2007, Frizell was promoted to Lieutenant and assigned in the Fifth Precinct
as a sector lieutenant and as the Police Academy Pre-Service Commander. He was

2
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 16

detailed as a Captain and Mobile Field Force Division Commander during the
Republican National Convention. In September 2009, he was promoted to Inspector of
the Fifth Precinct.
11. In May 2012, immediately after his return from deployment to Iraq, Frizell
became Inspector of the First Precinct, which includes downtown Minneapolis. While
holding that position, he was recognized for overseeing significant crime reduction and
for improving community engagement efforts.
12. As a result of his accomplishments in the First Precinct, Defendant Jane
Harteau appointed Frizell as Deputy Chief of Patrol on December 6, 2012.
13. In addition to his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Iowa,
Frizell has a Masters of Arts in Leadership from Augsburg University and is presently
completing a second Masters of Strategic Studies from the U.S. War College. He is also
a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Academy and the Senior
Management Institute for Police.
14. In 2014, Frizell took a six-month leave of absence to run for Hennepin County
Sheriff against incumbent Rich Stanek.

Although he was considered a qualified

candidate, Frizell was unsuccessful, and so he planned to return to work the week after
the November 4, 2014 election.
15. Chief Harteau told Frizell not to return until she was back from vacation,
because she wanted to meet with him first. As a result, Frizell was forced to take
additional unplanned vacation days while waiting for Chief Harteaus return.

3
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 4 of 16

16. When Chief Harteau finally returned from vacation on or about Monday,
November 17, 2014, she met with Frizell and informed him that she was moving [him]
out of the front office. When Frizell asked for an explanation, Chief Harteau said it
was due to team dynamics and refused to elaborate.
17. The next day, Chief Harteau informed Frizell that his position as Deputy
Chief of Patrol had been eliminated because it fit better under the Assistant Chief,
and she was moving him to a newly created position, Commander of Operations and
Administration. Commander is an appointed position, but it is lower ranked than
Deputy Chief, and it also has a lower salary. At the same time, she provided Frizell
with a Severance Agreement and Full Release prepared by a Minneapolis Assistant City
Attorney.

Chief Harteau pressured Frizell to sign the agreement that day, and

discouraged him from consulting with counsel. Frizell refused to sign the agreement
until he was able to consult with an attorney.
18. Near the end of the day on November 18, 2014, Chief Harteau provided
Frizell with a letter stating, It is the Citys practice to provide notice of removal from a
position pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 197.46 (2012) regarding a veterans right to request
a hearing. Consistent with this practice, enclosed please find the Notice of Legal Rights
and deadlines for exercising ones rights. Attached to the letter was a blank Discharge,
Suspension or Involuntary Demotion Form.
19. When Chief Harteau handed these documents to Frizell, she stated that they
would not do him any good. No hearing regarding Frizells demotion was scheduled
or conducted.
4
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 5 of 16

20. On November 19, 2014, Chief Harteau issued a press release announcing
Frizells demotion to Commander. In the press release, Chief Harteau claimed The
Patrol Bureau will remainunder the Assistant Chief for continuity and synergy. She
also announced a number of other organizational changes, most of which were not
supposed to take effect until January 11, 2015.
21. That evening, a reporter from the Star Tribune contacted Frizell at home
seeking comment about his demotion and indicated that he planned to run his story
regardless of whether Frizell gave a comment. Frizell told the reporter that he was
dismayed he was not given a reason for his demotion, and felt it was not deserved.
22. On November 20, 2014, Chief Harteau met with Frizell and Deputy Chief of
Professional Standards, Travis Glampe. Chief Harteau had a copy of the Star Tribune
article on her desk, with Frizells comments highlighted. She then proceeded to discuss
the article at length with Frizell; she dissected the words he used, questioned how the
reporter obtained his phone number, discussed his relationship with the reporter, and
disputed whether Frizell had been given an explanation for his demotion. At the end of
the conversation, Chief Harteau said that in light of the article, she needed to think
about where his head was and make a decision. Frizell understood that she was
threatening to withdraw the offer of the Commander position because of his comments
in the article. Later that evening, Glampe called Frizell to set up another meeting with
the Chief for the following day.
23. On November 21, 2014, Chief Harteau told Frizell that effective Monday,
November 24, 2014, he was assigned as a Lieutenant in the Domestic Violence Task
5
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 6 of 16

Force. Lieutenant was the lowest rank to which he could be demoted under the union
contract. She also claimed he was being demoted from Deputy Chief because it was
obvious he didnt want to be here, based on his run for Sheriff and his application
to be Police Chief of Maple Grove. Chief Harteau then provided Frizell with a new
Severance Agreement and Full Releasealso prepared by a Minneapolis Assistant City
Attorney--and again pressured him to sign it.
24. Many other Deputy Chiefs have applied for Chief of Police positions
throughout the history of the Minneapolis Police Department, including Chief Harteau,
who applied to be Chief of Police of Bloomington, Minnesota while she was Deputy
Chief. Assistant Chief Matt Clark recently applied for both the Maple Grove Chief of
Police position as well as Chief of Police for Bellevue, Washington.
25. As a result of his demotion to Lieutenant, Frizells salary was reduced from
$123,037.00 to $106,500.16, along with his rank and duties. He now supervises four
officers, has a tiny office, and is now required to report to a formerly subordinate
officer.
26. Frizells opportunities for promotion have also been severely limited as a
result of his demotion. As Deputy Chief, Frizell was qualified for positions such as
Assistant Chief or Chief of Police for large metropolitan areas and suburbs. As a
Lieutenant who has been demoted from Deputy Chief, he would no longer be
considered for such positions.
27. On December 24, 2014, Chief Harteau filled the Commander of Operations
and Administration position with a less-qualified non-veteran.
6
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 7 of 16

28. The Deputy Chief of Patrol position has existed throughout the entire history
of the Minneapolis Police Department. During periods of vacancy, including Frizells
leave of absence, the Assistant Chief has assumed the duties of the Deputy Chief of
Patrol position, but only on a temporary basis.
29. Patrol is the largest bureau in the Minneapolis Police Department. As Deputy
Chief of Patrol, Frizell had overall responsibility for Minneapolis five police precincts,
as well as a separate Special Operations unit that he created. The five precincts provide
day-to-day police services, such as 911 Response, Directed Patrol, Investigations, CRT,
Mounted Patrol and Crime Prevention. Special Operations was tasked with responding
to emergencies, and consisted of Canine, Community Engagement Team, Special
Events, SWAT, Bomb/Arson, Crisis Negotiations, and Mobile Command units. Deputy
Chief of Patrol was a full time, demanding position that required a significant amount
of time meeting with the five precincts, supervising Special Operations, and dealing
with administrative duties, as well as preparing for and responding to high-profile
incidents at any time.
30. Before Frizells demotion, the Assistant Chief reported directly to the Chief
and oversaw the three Deputy Chiefs as they managed the day to day operations of the
Department.

The Assistant Chief also provided the Chief with information on

Department strategies and operations and assisted her with maintaining the core
missions of the Department. After he assumed the duties of Deputy Chief of Patrol, the
Assistant Chiefs direct reports increased from three people to at least eight, and he is
now performing two full-time jobs.
7
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 8 of 16

31. Chief Harteau made no mention of any plan to eliminate the Deputy Chief of
Patrol position in her 2014 budget request to the City Council; to the contrary, she
sought and received a significant budget increase for administrative positions, allowing
her to add four new full-time positions in the front office.
32. In addition, the Minneapolis Police Department sought and received funding
to allow it to hire a total of 100 new officers in 2014 and 2015. Most, if not all of those
new officers will be assigned to the Patrol Bureau, further increasing the need for
supervision of that bureau.
33. Chief Harteau has failed to provide any valid explanation for her decision to
remove Frizell from his position as Deputy Chief of Patrol position and give the job to
the Assistant Chief in addition to his other responsibilities.
34. Chief Harteau has also failed to provide any valid explanation for her
decision to demote Frizell first to Commander, and later to Lieutenant.
COUNT I
Violation of Minnesotas Veterans Preference Act(Against all Defendants)
35. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 34 as if fully
set forth herein.
36. Plaintiff has been granted veteran status by the City of Minneapolis under
Minnesotas Veterans Preference Act, Minn. Stat. 197.447.

8
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 9 of 16

37. As a veteran, Plaintiffs employment as Deputy Chief of Patrol could only be


terminated for incompetence or misconduct shown after a hearing, unless the position
was eliminated in good faith.
38. Plaintiff was not given a pre-termination hearing regarding his demotion
from Deputy Chief.
39. Plaintiffs position as Deputy Chief was not eliminated in good faith. Rather,
the position was reassigned to the Assistant Chief as a subterfuge to remove Plaintiff
from his position.
40. Plaintiff was not given a pre-termination hearing regarding his demotion
from Commander to Lieutenant, nor did the City eliminate the position.
41. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the City of
Minneapolis to reinstate him as Deputy Chief of Patrol and to pay him back pay and
any other consequential damages.
COUNT II
1983 Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment Violation Denial of Due Process
Against Chief Harteau in her Individual Capacity
42. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 41 as if fully
set forth herein.
43. Under the Veterans Preference Act, Plaintiff has a property interest in his
position and is entitled to due process before he can be discharged from that position.

9
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 10 of 16

44. Plaintiff was denied due process when Chief Harteau removed him from his
position as Deputy Chief of Patrol position and reassigned its duties to the Assistant
Chief without a pre-termination hearing.
45. Plaintiff was again denied due process when Chief Harteau removed him
from the Commander position and gave the position to a non-veteran without a pretermination hearing.
46. Chief Harteaus conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to
Plaintiff of which reasonable persons in her position knew or should have known.
47. Chief Harteaus acts were done under color of state law.
48. Chief Harteau engaged in the conduct described above intentionally,
knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs
federally protected constitutional rights.
49. Chief Harteaus conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages,
and losses to Plaintiff, including but not limited to lost salary, diminished earning
capacity, lost career and business opportunities, loss of reputation, humiliation,
embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress, litigation
expenses including attorney fees, and other compensatory damages, in an amount in
excess of $50,000, to be determined by a jury and the Court.

10
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 11 of 16

COUNT III
1983 Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment Violation Denial of Due Process
Against Chief Harteau in her Official Capacity and the City of Minneapolis
50. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 49 as if fully
set forth herein.
51. Chief Harteaus conduct in denying Plaintiffs due process rights violated
clearly established rights belonging to Plaintiff, of which reasonable persons in her
position knew or should have known.
52. Chief Harteaus acts were done under color of state law and in her official
capacity as Chief of Police.
53. Chief Harteau is the final policymaker with regard to appointed positions
such as Deputy Chief and Commander, as her decisions are not subject to review by
another official or governing body.
54. The City of Minneapolis also has a policy of giving Chief Harteau unfettered
discretion to make employment decisions regarding appointed positions, even where
those decisions violate the law.
55. Therefore, the City of Minneapolis is jointly and severally liable for Chief
Harteaus decisions.
56. Defendants

engaged

in

the

conduct

described

by

this

Complaint

intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and in reckless disregard of


Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional rights.

11
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 12 of 16

57. Defendants conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages and


losses to Plaintiff, including but not limited to lost salary, diminished earning capacity,
lost career and business opportunities, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment,
inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress, litigation expenses
including attorney fees, and other compensatory damages, in an amount in excess of
$50,000, to be determined by a jury and the Court.
COUNT IV
1983 First Amendment Violation Retaliation for Exercise of Free SpeechAgainst Chief Harteau in her Individual Capacity
58. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 57 as if fully
set forth herein.
59. When he ran for Hennepin County Sheriff during his leave of absence from
the Minneapolis Police Department, Plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected
activity as a private citizen.
60. Plaintiffs campaign for Sheriff was a matter of public concern.
61. When Plaintiff spoke to the Star Tribune reporter about his demotion,
Plaintiff was also engaged in a constitutionally-protected activity as a private citizen.
62. Plaintiffs statements to the Star Tribune were a matter of public concern.
63. When Chief Harteau demoted Plaintiff to Commander the day he returned to
work from his campaign for Sheriff, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action.

12
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 13 of 16

64. When Chief Harteau further demoted Plaintiff to Lieutenant two days after
he spoke to the Star Tribune reporter, Plaintiff suffered another adverse employment
action.
65. Chief Harteaus adverse actions caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury that would
likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity.
66. The adverse actions were motivated at least in part as a response to Plaintiffs
exercise of his constitutional rights.
67. The interest of Plaintiff as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public
concern, outweighs the City of Minneapolis interest in promoting the efficiency of the
public services it performs through its employees.
68. Chief Harteaus conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to
Plaintiff, of which reasonable persons in her position knew or should have known.
69. Chief Harteaus acts were done under color of state law.
70. Chief Harteau engaged in the conduct described above intentionally,
knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs
federally protected constitutional rights.
71. Chief Harteaus conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages
and losses to Plaintiff, including but not limited to lost salary, diminished earning
capacity, lost career and business opportunities, loss of reputation, humiliation,
embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress, litigation
expenses including attorney fees, and other compensatory damages, in an amount in
excess of $50,000, to be determined by a jury and the Court.
13
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 14 of 16

COUNT V
1983 First Amendment Violation Retaliation for Exercise of Free SpeechAgainst Chief Harteau in her official capacity and the City of Minneapolis
72. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 72 as if fully
set forth herein.
73. Chief Harteaus conduct in demoting Plaintiff immediately after he engaged
in constitutionally-protected activitytwiceviolated clearly established rights
belonging to Plaintiff, of which reasonable persons in her position knew or should have
known.
74. Chief Harteaus acts were done under color of state law and in her official
capacity as Chief of Police.
75. Chief Harteau is the final policymaker with regard to appointed positions
such as Deputy Chief and Commander, as her decisions are not subject to review by
another official or governing body.
76. The City of Minneapolis also has a policy of giving Chief Harteau unfettered
discretion to make employment decisions regarding appointed positions, even where
those decisions violate the law.
77. Therefore, the City of Minneapolis is jointly and severally liable for Chief
Harteaus decisions.
78. Defendants

engaged

in

the

conduct

described

by

this

Complaint

intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and in reckless disregard of


Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional rights.

14
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 15 of 16

79. Defendants conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages and


losses to Plaintiff, including but not limited to lost salary, diminished earning capacity,
lost career and business opportunities, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment,
inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress, litigation expenses
including attorney fees, and other compensatory damages, in an amount in excess of
$50,000, to be determined by a jury and the Court.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eddie Frizell, requests the following relief against Defendants:
A. For a Writ of Mandamus requiring the City of Minneapolis to reinstate
Plaintiff as Deputy Chief of Patrol and pay his lost wages.
B. For appropriate declaratory relief regarding the unlawful and
unconstitutional acts and practices of Defendants.
C. For an Order awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in a sum in excess of
$50,000 against Defendants;
D. For an Order awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in a sum in excess of
$50,000 against Defendant Harteau in her individual capacity;
E. For an Order granting equitable relief against all Defendants as allowed by
the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, including the enjoining and
permanent restraining of these violations, and directing Defendants to take
such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of the
unconstitutional and unlawful employment practices are eliminated and do
not continue to affect Plaintiffs, or others, employment opportunities;
15
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 16 of 16

F. For an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred pursuant to the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
G. For such other and further relief as deemed just and equitable by the Court.
HALLELAND HABICHT PA
Dated: January 14, 2015

By: S/NATALIE WYATT-BROWN


Natalie Wyatt-Brown (#260757)
Ryan Wahlund (#0392575)
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 836-5500
nwyatt-brown@hallelandhabicht.com
rwahlund@hallelandhabicht.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Eddie Frizell

16
111570.v1

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1-1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 2

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Eddie Frizell

Janee Harteau, in her individual and official capacities, and the City of
Minneapolis

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Hennepin

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)


NOTE:

Hennepin

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)


IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)


Natalie Wyatt-Brown, Halleland Habicht PA
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3900
Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)836-5500

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)


1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

U.S. Government
Defendant

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff


(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1

DEF
1

and One Box for Defendant)


PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

Incorporated and Principal Place


of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)


CONTRACT

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure


of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS


870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES

375 False Claims Act


400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)


1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

42 U.S. Code 1983

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

First amendment retaliation, violation of Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth amendment, Veteran's Preference Act

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION


VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:


Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

s/Natalie Wyatt-Brown

01/12/2015
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

Print

APPLYING IFP

Save As...

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

CASE 0:15-cv-00078-DSD-TNL Document 1-1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)

(b)

(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.


Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.