Frizell v. Harteau et al

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Eddie Frizell, Plaintiff, v. Janeé Harteau, in her individual and official capacities, and the City of Minneapolis, Defendants.

Case No.: ________________

COMPLAINT

Jury Trial Demanded

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Eddie Frizell, for his Complaint against Defendants City of Minneapolis

and Janeé 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 1 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 veteran’s 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


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 Janeé

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 Investigation’s 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 Harteau’s return.

3 111570.v1


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 City’s practice to provide notice of removal from a

position pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 197.46 (2012) regarding a veteran’s right to request

a hearing. Consistent with this practice, enclosed please find the Notice of Legal Rights

and deadlines for exercising one’s 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 Frizell’s demotion was scheduled

or conducted.

4 111570.v1


20. On November 19, 2014, Chief Harteau issued a press release announcing

Frizell’s demotion to Commander. In the press release, Chief Harteau claimed “The

Patrol Bureau will remain…under 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 Frizell’s 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


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 “didn’t 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 Release—also 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, Frizell’s 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. Frizell’s 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


28. The Deputy Chief of Patrol position has existed throughout the entire history

of the Minneapolis Police Department. During periods of vacancy, including Frizell’s

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 Frizell’s 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 Chief’s direct reports increased from three people to at least eight, and he is

now performing two full-time jobs.

7 111570.v1


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 Minnesota’s 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

Minnesota’s Veteran’s Preference Act, Minn. Stat. § 197.447.

8 111570.v1


37. As a veteran, Plaintiff’s 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. Plaintiff’s 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


set forth herein.

43. Under the Veteran’s 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


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 pre-

termination hearing.

46. Chief Harteau’s conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to

Plaintiff of which reasonable persons in her position knew or should have known.

47. Chief Harteau’s 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 Plaintiff’s

federally protected constitutional rights.

49. Chief Harteau’s 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


COUNT III

§ 1983 Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment Violation – Denial of Due Process Against Chief Harteau in her Official Capacity and the City of Minneapolis


set forth herein.

51. Chief Harteau’s conduct in denying Plaintiff’s due process rights violated

clearly established rights belonging to Plaintiff, of which reasonable persons in her

position knew or should have known.

52. Chief Harteau’s 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

Harteau’s decisions.

56. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint

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

Plaintiff’s federally protected constitutional rights.

11 111570.v1


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 Speech- Against Chief Harteau in her Individual Capacity


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. Plaintiff’s 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. Plaintiff’s 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


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 Harteau’s 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 Plaintiff’s

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 Harteau’s conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to

Plaintiff, of which reasonable persons in her position knew or should have known.

69. Chief Harteau’s 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 Plaintiff’s

federally protected constitutional rights.

71. Chief Harteau’s 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


COUNT V

§ 1983 First Amendment Violation – Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech- Against Chief Harteau in her official capacity and the City of Minneapolis


set forth herein.

73. Chief Harteau’s conduct in demoting Plaintiff immediately after he engaged

in constitutionally-protected activity—twice—violated clearly established rights

belonging to Plaintiff, of which reasonable persons in her position knew or should have

known.

74. Chief Harteau’s 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

Harteau’s decisions.

78. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint

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

Plaintiff’s federally protected constitutional rights.

14 111570.v1


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 Plaintiff’s, or others’, employment opportunities;

15 111570.v1


F. For an award of reasonable attorney’s 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.

Dated: January 14, 2015

HALLELAND HABICHT PA 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 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Eddie Frizell

16 111570.v1


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe 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 asprovided 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 thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

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

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

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 ’ 410 Antitrust’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 450 Commerce

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 460 Deportation’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 891 Agricultural Acts’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 893 Environmental Matters’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 895 Freedom of Information

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION

Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition

’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

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

’ 1 OriginalProceeding

’ 2 Removed fromState Court

’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated orReopened

’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

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

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBERDATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

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

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

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 asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired 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 ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) 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.

(b) 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.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin 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 thissection 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.

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

Documents

Frizell v. Harteau et al