IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ...media.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty_impact/other/Strip...Leonard R. Berman 4711 SW Huber St., Suite E-3 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 473-8787

Leonard R. Berman4711 SW Huber St., Suite E-3Portland, OR 97219(503) 473-8787OSB # [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Portland Division____________________________________

:WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT GRAUE , : Case No. 3:14-CV-820DAVID HODGES, Individually, on behalf : of a class of others similarly situated, : : CLASS ACTION

: COMPLAINTPlaintiff(s), : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:::

v. ::

CLACKAMAS COUNTY, :CRAIG ROBERTS, :both individually and in his :official capacity as Sheriff, :

:Defendants. :

____________________________________:

///

INTRODUCTION

This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights

secured to the Plaintiff William Dillon and scott Graue and the proposed Class Members

COMPLAINT1

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 1 of 20 Page ID#: 1

by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, the

Fourth And Eighth Amendments and the Oregon Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 9

-Unreasonable Search and Seizure and Sec. 16- Cruel and Unusual Punishment. For at

least the past two years, Clackamas County (hereinafter, “CC”) has had a policy of strip-

searching inmates in public and in public and group settings with closed circuit cameras

in view in violation of the ABA Standard 23-7.9 Searches of prisoners’ bodies and OAR

291-041-0020 Inmates (infra) for random searches, after court hearings, and during

routine searches as well as one mass search of 160 inmates on or about October 10, 2012.

These group and public strip searches have been conducted in the hallways and open

areas in the Clackamas County Jail (hereinafter “CCJ”) on a daily basis since May 21,

2012. No pat-downs occur. Other corrections facilities do pat-down searches and only

conduct strip searches when reasonable suspicion arises from a pat-down and in private,

individually. On or about October 10, 2012, several dozen inmates up to 160 or more

were pulled out of their cells in pairs by deputies in camouflage commando gear and

publicly strip searched. Upon information and belief, this strip search practice derived

from the custom, practices and/or written procedures of the aforementioned County

Departments, and was promulgated by senior Department officials.

With this as a background, Plaintiff William Dillon, Scott Graue, and david

Hodges individually, by and through counsel, hereby complains as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive

damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights

COMPLAINT2


of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the

Constitutionality of the policies of a local government.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to

Plaintiffs’ claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Scott Graue resides in Clackamas County, Oregon, Dillon and

Hodges live in other counties.

4. Defendant Clackamas County (hereinafter,“CC”) is a county government

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all times relevant

hereto, the County, acting through its Corrections Department, was responsible for the

policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to

the MCIJ and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of

all Department personnel. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible

for enforcing the rules of the CCJ, and for ensuring the personnel employed in the CCJ

followed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Oregon.

5. Defendant Craig Roberts is the sheriff and final decision-maker and policy

makers with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the CCJ

exercises custodial or other control.

COMPLAINT3


CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

situated individuals who were strip searched in public and group settings.

7. The classes that Plaintiffs seek to represent are defined as follows:

Class One

All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the CCJ regardless of charges, while unclothed in a group and public setting in open areas involving one or more deputy who:

A. Inspects the individual from top to bottom;B. Inspects his hair, ears, mouth, hands, armpits, feet, between toes, nostrils;C. Inspects a woman’s breasts or tells a man to separate his penis and testicles;D. Inspects beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised male;E. Requires the individual to bend and spread buttocks;F. Requires the individual to face a wall so staff can inspect the back of the body;

The class period commences on May 19, 2012 and extends to the date on which Clackamas County (CC) is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting group and public strip searches after court hearings, on routine schedules and/or on a random basis. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.

CLASS TWO

All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the CCJ regardless of charges, while unclothed in a group and public setting in open areas involving one or more deputy who:

COMPLAINT4


G. Inspects the individual from top to bottom;H. Inspects his hair, ears, mouth, hands, armpits, feet, between toes, nostrils;I. Inspects a woman’s breasts or tells a man to separate his penis and testicles;J. Inspects beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised male;K. Requires the individual to bend and spread buttocks;L. Requires the individual to face a wall so staff can inspect the back of the body;

The class period pertains to a one-time public search of at least 160 inmates on or about October 10, 2012 and the class commences on May 19, 2012 and extends to the date on which Clackamas County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting such strip searches. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.

8. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action

under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy

requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

9. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable.

Upon information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people arrested

who are placed into the custody of CC every month – all of whom are members of the

proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least

2,000 individuals.

10. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is

impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class

members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members

presently residing outside of the County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon

COMPLAINT5


information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not

speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.

11. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that

they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’

conducting strip searches in an unreasonable fashion. All members of the class were

placed into the custody of their CCJ facilities, and all were illegally strip searched in

violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.

12. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.

Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’

course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered

by the class members.

13. The representative Plaintiff (s) have the requisite personal interest in the

outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.

14. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in

the prosecution of civil rights litigation and class action litigation.

15. Counsel for Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the class, or

between counsel and members of the class.

16. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the

Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members

were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals placed

into the custody of MC and involved in kitchen duty. In short, the aforementioned

COMPLAINT6


County Departments, the Policy Making Defendants and County Corrections Officers

acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.

17. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff

(s) seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and

predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These

common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and

predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy/practice

of strip searching in an unreasonable fashion, all individuals committed to the MCIJ is a

violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.

19. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the

class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are

dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of

individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the

class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of

adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation

would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By

contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer

management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and

protects the rights of each member of the Class.

COMPLAINT7


20. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the

Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though

the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for the past several

years.

21. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff(s)

also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

COMPLAINT8


FACTS

Facts Applicable to the Class Generally

22. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state and

county officials, such as the Policy Making Defendant in this action and the Corrections

Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches in an unreasonable fashion on

pre-trial detainees.

23. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state and

county officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections


sentenced inmates, as an example of cruel and unusual punishment.

24. Upon information and belief, CC and the Policy Making Defendants have

instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all

individuals who participate in kitchen duty in the custody of CC (by forcing them to

remove their clothing for a visual inspection of their bodies and/or forcing them to submit

to a visual inspection of their body cavities in a public setting in front of fellow inmates

and other deputies) and are later allowed to dress back into jail clothing. For purposes of

this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as “strip

searches.”

25. The aforementioned CC, and the Policy Making Defendant know that they

may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting

strip searches unreasonably.

COMPLAINT9


26. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom

mandating wholesale unreasonable strip searches has been promulgated, effectuated

and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.

27. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned CC and Policy Making

Defendant have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written

and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of public, mass strip-searching all in the

custody of CCJ in an unreasonable fashion.

28. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Classes,

including the named Plaintiffs, were the victims of a routine strip group and public strip

searches.

29. This policy, custom or practices of group strip searches are in violation of the

ABA Standard 23-7.9 Searches of prisoners’ bodies and OAR 291-041-0020 Inmates to

wit:

ABA Standard 23-7.9

(a) In conducting a search of a prisoner’s body, correctional authorities should strive to preserve the privacy and dignity of the prisoner. Correctional authorities should use the least intrusive appropriate means to search a prisoner. Searches of prisoners’ bodies should follow a written protocol that implements this Standard.

(b) Except in exigent situations, a search of a prisoner’s body, including a pat-down search or a visual search of the prisoner’s private bodily areas, should be conducted by

(d) Visual searches of a prisoner’s private bodily areas, whether or not inspection includes the prisoner’s body cavities, should:

(i) be conducted only by trained personnel in a private place out of the sight of other prisoners and of staff not involved in the search, (emphasis added) except that a prisoner should be permitted to request that more than one staff member be present; and

The relevant OAR states in part:

COMPLAINT1


291-041-0010 Definitions(c) Skin: A search procedure wherein the person being searched removes all of his/her

clothing and is visually examined and clothing removed is carefully inspected before return and redressing, for the purpose of detecting contraband.

291-041-0020 Inmates

(7) Skin Searches: Skin searches conducted by DOC staff will be of the same gender as the inmate, unless there is an emergency. Except in emergencies, inmates undergoing skin searches will be removed to a private area for the search. (Emphasis added)

30. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted

pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches –

each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff(s) – have suffered or will suffer

psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

Facts Applicable to the Plaintiff Scott Graue

31. Scott Graue's experiences are representative of the class at large. On a daily

basis, seven days a week from on or about May 19, 2012 until the present CC searched

inmates randomly , after hearings and on a routine schedule. Mr. Graue and others

sustained multiple public strip searches, and on October 10, 2012 Graue sustained a mass

public strip search in open areas of the CCJ likely exceeding 160 inmates, and deputies

strip searched him and others in a group and public fashion. A tort claim notice from

Graue timely issued on January 21, 2013.

32. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Graue and others removed all of their

clothing, including underpants.

COMPLAINT11


33. A Corrections Officer inspected Mr. Graue from top to bottom while naked.

The deputy then instructed him to bend over and spread his buttocks, lift and separate the

penis and testicles. (Women have to lift breasts ).


pursuant to CC policy, practice and custom, he has suffered and continues to suffer


Facts Applicable to the Plaintiff David Hodges

35. David Hodges' experiences are representative of the class at large. On a

daily basis, seven days a week from on or about May 19, 2012 until the present CC

searched inmates randomly , after hearings and on a routine schedule, and Mr. Hodges

and others sustained multiple public strip searches, and on October 10, 2012 Hodges

sustained a mass public strip in open areas of the CCJ likely exceeding 160 inmates, and

deputies strip searched him and others in a group and public fashion.

36. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Hodges and others removed all of

their clothing, including underpants.

37. A Corrections Officer inspected Mr. Hodges from top to bottom while naked.



COMPLAINT1


Facts Applicable to the Plaintiff William Dillon

38. William Dillon's experiences are representative of the class at large. Mr.

Dillon suffered group strip searches on multiple occasions in 2013 including but not

limited to on or about February 15, 2013 and February 19, 2013, after court dates.

39. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Dillon and others removed all of their

clothing, including underpants.

40. A Corrections Officer inspected Mr. Dillon from top to bottom while naked.




pursuant to CC policy, practice and custom, he has suffered and continues to suffer


CAUSES OF ACTION

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law

-- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement County Policies to Avoid Constitutional Deprivations Under of Color of State Law --

42. Plaintiff(s) incorporate by reference and realleges each and every allegation

stated in paragraphs 1 through 41.

43. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens

and pre-trial detainees from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and

prohibits deputies from conducting strip searches of individuals absent some

particularized suspicion and in a group and in a public and demeaning fashion.

COMPLAINT1


44. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state and

county officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections


sentenced inmates, as an example of cruel and unusual punishment.

45. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs' rights under the

United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for CC Officers

to strip search Plaintiff (s) and class members absent probable cause and in a public and

group setting. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants

to order/direct County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.

46. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice

of the County and the County’s Department. As such, the County is directly liable for the

damages of the named Plaintiff(s) and members of the Class(es).

47. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned Sheriff Roberts is

responsible for establishing the policies, customs, practices, and procedures to be utilized

in the operation of their facilities, and is responsible for the implementation of the strip

search policy questioned in this lawsuit and/or ratified the policy. As such, each named

individual is individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff(s) and

members of the Class.

48. Named individuals knew that the strip search policy was illegal, and acted

willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the

Class of their Constitutional rights.

49. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.

COMPLAINT1


50. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above,

Plaintiff(s) and members of the proposed class have been irreparably injured.

51. Defendant Roberts is the Clackamas County Sheriff , and final decision-maker

with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and sentenced detainees and inmates over which

the CC exercises custodial or other control. He is made a defendant in this action in both

his individual and official capacities. Mr. Roberts is referred to as the “Policy Making

Defendant.”

COMPLAINT1


AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

-- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --

52. Plaintiff(s) incorporate by reference and realleges each and every allegation


53. The policy, custom and practice of the County Departments, the County and

the Policy Making Defendants are clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and

individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals on kitchen duty

in CC custody without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have

either contraband or weapons, and the searches are unconstitutional in their scope,

manner and duration.

54. Plaintiff(s) and members of the Class(es) request that this Court issue a

declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policies of the County and the

County Departments to be unconstitutional.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

-- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --

55. Plaintiff incorporate by reference and realleges each and every allegation


56. The policy, custom and practice of the County Departments, the County and

the Policy Making Defendants are clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and

individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches CC custody in a group and public

setting and absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have

either contraband or weapons.

COMPLAINT1


57. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the CC

facilities, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms

that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff(s).

58. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals in group and public

settings will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class,

an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.

59. Plaintiffs demand that the County, the County Departments, the Policy

Making Defendants and County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip

searching individuals placed into their custody whether pre-trial or sentenced, in group

and puvlic settings and also absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in

question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent

injunction from this Court ordering as much.

COMPLAINT1


DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

60. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in

that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a

fact that their actions are unconstitutional.

61. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendant Roberts, the County and the

County Departments and all other named defendant counties have no respect for the civil

rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive

damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to

them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government

officials in all named counties.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

62. The Plaintiff(s) hereby demand trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs William Dillon, Scott Graue, David Hodges

individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this

Honorable Court grants them the following relief:

A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First

Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each

named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be

COMPLAINT1


determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide

basis.

C. A judgment against each individual Defendant on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages for each.

D. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the aforementioned

Counties and County Departments’ policies, practices and customs of group

and public strip and visual cavity searching, regardless of suspicion of

contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper.

E. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals in group and public

fashion all in custody absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the

arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband.

F. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

Respectfully submitted by:

S//S Leonard R. BermanDated: May 18, 2014 ___________________________

Leonard R. Berman, OSB # 96040ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S) AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

COMPLAINT1


COMPLAINT2


JS 44 (Rev. 09/11) 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 as providedby 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 initiatingthe 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 (Excl. 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/Mgmt. Relations ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 891 Agricultural Acts’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 893 Environmental Matters’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. Malpractice ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. ’ 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ ’ 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 462 Naturalization Application

Employment ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 463 Habeas Corpus -’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee

Other ’ 560 Civil Detainee - (Prisoner Petition)’ 448 Education Conditions of ’ 465 Other Immigration

Confinement Actions

V. ORIGINTransferred fromanother district(specify)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)’ 1 Original

Proceeding’ 2 Removed from

State Court’ 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court’ 4 Reinstated or

Reopened’ 5 ’ 6 Multidistrict

Litigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite 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 F.R.C.P. 23

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

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

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

William Dillon, Et al

Clackamas

Leonard Berman , 4711 SW Huber #3, PDX 97219 503-516-3715

Clackamas County et al

42 USC Sec. 1983

Illegal Jail strip searches✔

05/18/2014 S//S Leonard R. Berman

Print Save As... Reset

Leonard R. Berman

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#: 21

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/11)

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 requiredby 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 theuse 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 civilcomplaint 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 onlythe 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, givingboth 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 thetime 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 condemnationcases, 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.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in oneof 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 theConstitution, 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 box1 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 ofthe different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; 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 sectionfor 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, issufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature ofsuit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven 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 petitionfor 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 multidistrictlitigation 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 thisbox is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.

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 statutesunless 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 dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) 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 numbersand the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.


AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of Oregon

Portland Division

WILLIAM DILLON, ET AL

Plaintiff

v.CLACKAMAS COUNTY ET AL

Defendant

))))

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-820)))

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

Stephen Madkour, Esq.

Clackamas County Counsel

2051 Kaen Road

Oregon City, OR 97045

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

Leonard Berman4711 SW Huber #E3Portland, OR 97219

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT


Date: Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk


AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:





Documents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ...media.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty_impact/other/Strip...Leonard R. Berman 4711 SW Huber St., Suite E-3 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 473-8787