Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters

8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters

1/21

Page 1 - COMPLAINT

Andrew Altschul, OSB No. 980302E-mail: [email protected] Ferrer, OSB No. 140814E-mail: [email protected] ANGELI ALTSCHUL

& SULLIVAN LLP321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600Portland, OR 97204Telephone: 503.974.5015Facsimile: 971.230.0337

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

LEONARD WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS, an Oregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an individual, in her personal capacity,

Defendants.

Civil No. 6:16-cv-00783

COMPLAINT

(42 U.S.C. §1983 – Violation of First

Amendment and Due Process Rights;Whistleblowing Retaliation in violation

of ORS 659A.203, 659A.230 and659A.199; Wrongful Discharge)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

INTRODUCTION

1.

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, including

attorneys’ fees and costs, to redress unlawful actions and employment practices to which

Defendants subjected Plaintiff, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional, statutory, and common

law and contractual rights.

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 16


2/21

Page 2 - COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1343, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. This Court has

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

3. Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because

the claims arose in this judicial district.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Leonard Williamson (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Salem, Oregon. During

the relevant period, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Oregon Department of Corrections

(“DOC”), serving as Inspector General and working in Salem, Oregon.

5. Defendant DOC is an Oregon state agency. DOC officials acting in their official

capacity were, at all relevant times, acting under color of state law.

6. Defendant Colette Peters (“Defendant Peters”) is, on information and belief, a

resident of Sherwood, Washington County, Oregon. Defendant Peters was appointed Director of

DOC in February 2012, and held that position during the relevant period. Plaintiff brings this

suit against Defendant Peters in her personal capacity.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff held the position of Inspector General for DOC from September 2011

until his termination on October 23, 2015. Before becoming DOC Inspector General, Plaintiff

worked as Attorney-in-Charge of the Torts and Employment Section in Trial Division of the

Oregon Department of Justice.

8. Defendant Peters was appointed DOC Director in February 2012. She previously

held the positions of Inspector General and Assistant Director for Public Service.



3/21

Page 3 - COMPLAINT

9. Defendant Peters has terminated several employees during her tenure for

questionable reasons. In 2007, for example, while Defendant Peters was working as DOC’s

Inspector General, she created a new lead worker role for her friend Daryl Borello, and then had

Borello take the lead in investigating a long-term employee, Teri Gill, for alleged wrongdoing

that occurred years before Peters and Borello assumed their managerial roles over Gill. Peters

and Borello also attempted to justify Gill’s termination based on her alleged dishonesty. An

arbitrator later reversed Gill’s termination, expressly finding that he “does NOT question [Gill’s]

credibility” but instead, the arbitrator noted in his ruling that he “discounted Peters’ testimony on

credibility grounds.”

10.

Defendant Peters has also demonstrated a pattern of intentionally creating job

vacancies by terminating employees or causing them to quit in order to create opportunities for

her to appoint her personal friends, even if not the most qualified, to the positions. In 2013

Defendant Peters terminated the Director of Oregon’s Correction Enterprises and replaced him

with her longtime friend Ken Jeske, who dubbed himself as Defendant Peters’ “handbag,”

against the advice of the Policy Group and the Deputy Director at the time. In 2014, Defendant

Peters ordered the termination of the DOC Assistant Director of Government Efficiencies and

Communications, and then hired a personal friend, Heidi Stewart, for the position. Also in 2014,

the DOC Assistant Director of General Services took early retirement due to the treatment she

received from Defendant Peters. Defendant Peters appointed her friend Borello to fill the

position, despite Borello’s relatively low qualifications and low ranking among the many

applicants and against the advice of the recruitment team.

11. Plaintiff received consistently positive performance reviews and feedback during

his first three years as Inspector General.



4/21

Page 4 - COMPLAINT

12. In November 2013 and 2014, Plaintiff was awarded paid leave in recognition of

his “exceptional performance.”

13. Starting in or about May 2015, Defendant Peters began taking overt steps to

undermine Plaintiff’s reputation within DOC for the purpose of creating an opportunity to

appoint one of her friends to replace him. Defendant Peters told her friend Jeske that she

planned to appoint him as Inspector General.

14. Around the same time, Defendant Peters told an executive coach who had been

hired from outside of the DOC that Plaintiff had “credibility issues with his staff.” The

executive coach expressed surprise and strong disagreement with Peters’ statement.

15.

In May 2015, Peters ordered an investigation into two stale allegations regarding

Williamson: a previously resolved complaint raised two years prior in 2013 by another DOC

employee, and Plaintiff’s September 2014 statement regarding the DOC’s K-9 handler unit,

where Plaintiff relayed information provided by then-Deputy Inspector General Garrett Laney

which, unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, was untrue.

16.

As Defendant Peters knew, the 2013 complaint already had been resolved. The

complainant had acknowledged that her concerns stemmed from a misunderstanding between

herself and Plaintiff, and Plaintiff had received no disciplinary action in connection with the

incident.

17. Both DOC Deputy Director Kim Brockamp and Oregon State Police

Superintendent Rich Evans had advised Defendant Peters that further investigation into

Plaintiff’s 2014 statement regarding the K-9 handler unit was not warranted. Nevertheless,

Defendant Peters persisted in her efforts to find a way to oust Plaintiff.

18. Defendant DOC’s investigation, ordered by Defendant Peters, began on June 12,

2015.



5/21

Page 5 - COMPLAINT

19. Martin Imhoff, a low-ranking DOC Human Resources employee, conducted the

investigation.

20. DOC assigned Imhoff to lead the investigation despite multiple conflicts of

interest; Imhoff was seeking a promotion to a position for which Laney—the source of the false

information that Plaintiff had repeated regarding the K-9 handler unit—was on the hiring

committee. Laney was also Imhoff’s mentor at DOC and was close friends with Imhoff’s direct

supervisor, Assistant Director of Human Services Chris Popoff.

21. Almost immediately, Plaintiff became concerned about the fairness of the

investigation, and he shared those concerns with the DOC Deputy Director and other DOC

employees during the following weeks and months.

22. On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff made a public records request for emails of Defendant

Peters and several other DOC employees, believing that the records would assist him in

revealing the baselessness of the investigation against him. After being advised that the cost of

his request was extremely high, Plaintiff made a second narrower request on August 24, 2015.

DOC never responded to the second request.

23. On or about August 17, 2015, Laney told Plaintiff that Jeske had boasted that

Defendant Peters had planned to replace Plaintiff and appoint Jeske as Inspector General, but

that Jeske had turned down the position because it would have entailed a pay cut.

24. Plaintiff shared this information with the DOC Deputy Director, who expressed that

Defendant Peters was “very angry” about the public records request that Plaintiff had made on July

31, 2015.

25. Based on his concerns about the fairness of the ongoing investigation and

suspecting that the investigation was simply a ruse to create an opportunity for Defendant Peters



6/21

Page 6 - COMPLAINT

to replace Plaintiff with one of her friends, Plaintiff filed a tort claim notice on September 3,

2015 indicating his intent to sue Defendant DOC and Defendant Peters.

26. Also on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint with the Oregon

Government Ethics Commission. His ethics complaint detailed his concerns that, since her

appointment as DOC Director, Defendant Peters had engaged in a pattern and practice of

removing employees from their positions and appointing her friends who were not the most

qualified candidates.

27. Also on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff and his then-attorney met with Deputy

Attorney General Fred Boss regarding Plaintiff’s concerns that the investigation was a sham.

Plaintiff also advised Boss about his concerns regarding the investigator’s conflicts of interest,

and called attention to Defendant Peters’ pattern and practice of removing DOC employees,

either by terminating them or making their working conditions intolerable, and then appointing

her friends, at times not qualified, to the vacant positions.

28. Plaintiff requested that Deputy Attorney General Boss conduct an independent

investigation into the allegations against Plaintiff, the conflict of interest in the investigation,

Defendant Peters’ statement to Jeske about appointing him Inspector General, and other conduct

by Peters that raised ethics concerns.

29. Upon information and belief, Boss did not attempt any investigation, and instead

shared Plaintiff’s complaint with Defendant Peters.

30. Less than three weeks later, DOC Spokesperson Liz Craig, acting at the direction

of Defendant Peters, revealed to the press that Plaintiff was under investigation by the DOC’s

human resources department. At no point did Defendant Peters or Defendant DOC offer

Plaintiff a name-clearing hearing regarding the human resources investigation.



7/21

Page 7 - COMPLAINT

31. On or about October 19, 2015, Imhoff completed his investigation report, which

contained no findings of wrongdoing by Plaintiff or recommendations for discipline against him.

32. That same day, Defendant Peters sent Plaintiff a termination letter in which she

offered to let Plaintiff work for three more months on a “project assignment” if, among other

things, he agreed to withdraw the tort claim notice and “release…all claims.”

33. Defendant Peters offered no explanation as to the reason for Plaintiff’s

termination, other than she was making a “change in leadership.”

34. Plaintiff refused to release his claims.

35.

On October 23, 2015, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

36.

On or about October 27, 2015, Defendant DOC released to The Oregonian all

documents and email exchanges related to the human resources investigation without any notice

to Plaintiff or opportunity to clear his name before his reputation was publicly damaged. In a

statement to The Oregonian, DOC Spokesperson Craig said that “[t]he human resources

investigation recently completed factored in” to the decision to terminate Plaintiff, “but was not

the only factor.”

37. Plaintiff was never told the reason for his termination.

38. On account of the unlawful actions of defendants, Plaintiff has suffered economic

damages as well as embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,

inconvenience, and damage to his personal reputation.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Deprivation of First Amendment Rights

Against Defendant Peters in her Personal Capacity

39.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 38.



8/21

Page 8 - COMPLAINT

40. At all materials times, Defendant Peters was acting within the course and scope of

her role as Director of DOC and under color of state law.

41. Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment right to free speech when he issued a tort

claim notice, filed an ethics complaint regarding Defendant Peters’ conduct, and reported

Defendant Peters’ conduct to the Deputy Attorney General.

42. In exercising his right to free speech, Plaintiff spoke as a citizen and not as part of

his official duties.

43. Plaintiff’s speech was on a matter of public concern.

44.

Defendant Peters took an adverse action against Plaintiff when she terminated or

caused Defendant DOC to terminate his employment.

45. Plaintiff’s speech was a substantial or motivating factor for his termination.

46. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s First

Amendment right by terminating or causing Defendant DOC to terminate his employment in

retaliation for his protected speech.

47.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in the form of lost income and benefits, in an amount to

be determined at trial.

48. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,

inconvenience, and damage to his professional reputation and is entitled to an award of

compensatory damages in the amount of not less than $750,000.

49. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendant Peters acted

with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s federally

protected rights.



9/21

Page 9 - COMPLAINT

50. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable

attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Right to DueProcess Against Defendant Peters in her Personal Capacity

51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 50.

52. At all materials times, Defendant Peters was acting within the course and scope of

her role as Director of DOC and under color of state law.

53. Plaintiff has a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States to be free from false charges made under color of

state law which involve or imply malfeasance in office, or which adversely reflect upon or

damage Plaintiff’s standing and ability to obtain gainful employment in his field, or damage his

career and his future in his profession.

54. In or about September 2015, Defendant Peters, acting on her own and through her

subordinates, caused information to be disseminated to members of the press and public at large

indicating that Plaintiff was under investigation and would soon be terminated, falsely implying

that Plaintiff had committed malfeasance in office. Defendant Peters refused to offer Plaintiff

adequate due process to clear his name.

55. In or about October 2015, Defendant Peters, acting on her own and through her

subordinates, caused information to be disseminated to members of the press and public at large

falsely suggesting that Plaintiff had been terminated as a result of the investigation and falsely

implying that Plaintiff had committed malfeasance in office. Defendant Peters refused to offer

Plaintiff adequate due process to clear his name.



10/21

Page 10 - COMPLAINT

56. Defendant Peters’ conduct adversely reflected on and damaged Plaintiff’s

reputation and standing.

57. Defendant Peters’ conduct rendered Plaintiff unable to continue to work in his

chosen occupation.

58. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s

constitutional liberty right to due process.

59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in the form of lost income and benefits, in an amount to

be determined at trial.

60.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,

inconvenience, and damage to his professional reputation and is entitled to an award of

compensatory damages in the amount of $750,000.

61. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendant Peters acted

with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s federally

protected rights.

62. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable

attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of ORS 659A.203—Retaliation Against a Public Employee for Whistleblowing

Against Defendant DOC

63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 above.

64.

Defendant DOC is a public employer.

65. By issuing a tort claim notice, filing an ethics complaint, and reporting Defendant

Peters’ conduct to the Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information that



11/21

Page 11 - COMPLAINT

he reasonably believed was evidence that defendants violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or

regulations, including but not limited to the Oregon Government Ethics Law, ORS Chapter 244,

and/or that defendants engaged in mismanagement or abuse of authority.

66. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated

his employment.

67. Defendant DOC’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment was because of

Plaintiff’s protected activity. Defendant DOC’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment is the

type of conduct that reasonably would be expected to discourage or dissuade a public employee

from challenging violations of law.

68.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory

right to report conduct he reasonably believed violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or

regulations and/or constituted mismanagement or abuse of authority.

69. Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive and equitable relief that may be appropriate,

including but not limited to reinstatement.

70.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and out-

of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the statutory

rate of 9% per annum.

71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,

degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an

amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.

72. Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his

reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and



12/21

Page 12 - COMPLAINT

ORS 20.107.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of ORS 659A.230—Discrimination for Initiating Civil Proceedings


73.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72

above.

74. Plaintiff, in good faith, initiated a civil proceeding against defendants on

September 3, 2015 when he filed an official tort claims notice and a complaint with the Oregon

Government Ethics Commission outlining his complaints.


his employment.


Plaintiff’s protected activity.

77. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory

right to initiate civil proceedings.

78.

Plaintiff is entitled to all appropriate injunctive and equitable relief.


Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest

thereon at the statutory rate of 9% per annum.






reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and



13/21

Page 13 - COMPLAINT

ORS 20.107.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of ORS 659A.199—Retaliation for Whistleblowing


82.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 81 above.

83. By issuing a tort claim notice, filing an ethics complaint, and reporting defendant

Peters’ conduct to the Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information that

he believed was evidence that defendants violated one or more state and/or federal laws, rules, or

regulations, including but not limited to the Oregon Government Ethics Law, ORS Chapter 244.

84. Plaintiff acted in good faith in reporting the violations.


his employment.


Plaintiff’s reports or disclosures.

87. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory

right to report conduct he reasonably believed violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or

regulations.

88. Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive and equitable relief that may be appropriate,

including but not limited to reinstatement.



of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the statutory

rate of 9% per annum.





14/21

Page 14 - COMPLAINT




reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and

ORS 20.107.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Wrongful Discharge


92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 91

above.

93.

Defendant DOC engaged in actions, including terminating Plaintiff’s

employment, designed to discourage Plaintiff’s protected activity and motivated in substantial

part by Plaintiff’s decision to engage in protected activity as described above and by Defendant

Peters’ desire to replace Plaintiff with one of her personal friends. Terminating Plaintiff for any

or all of these reasons was wrongful and in violation of public policy.

94.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions alleged herein,


of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest.

95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions alleged herein,




WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. On Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief, against Defendant Peters:

a. A declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment



15/21

Page 15 - COMPLAINT

right to free speech;

b. An award of economic damages for past and future lost wages and benefits

and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;

c. An award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $750,000;

d. Punitive damages; and

e. Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.

2. On Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief:

a. A declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s constitutional liberty

interest in due process;

b.

An award of economic damages for past and future lost wages and benefits

and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;

c. An award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $750,000;

d. Punitive damages; and

e. Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.

3.

On Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief:

a. A declaration that Defendant DOC violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights;

b. All appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, including but not limited to

reinstatement;

c. An award of economic damages for backpay, front pay, lost benefits, and

out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. An award of noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial,

but not less than $750,000;

e. An award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum; and

f. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, expert fees and costs incurred herein.



16/21

Page 16 - COMPLAINT

4. On Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief:

a. A declaration that Defendant DOC violated Oregon law by terminating

Plaintiff’s employment in violation of public policy;

b. All appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, including but not limited to

reinstatement;

c. An award of economic damages for backpay, front pay, lost benefits, and

out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial; and

d. An award of noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial,

but not less than $750,000.

5.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2016.

BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL& SULLIVAN LLP

s/ Andrew Altschul

Andrew Altschul, OSB No. 980302

E-mail: [email protected] M. Ferrer, OSB No. 140814E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (503) 974-5028Attorneys for Plaintiff



17/21

~ S

44 (Rev. 12107)

CIVIL

COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civtl 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 provi

by local rules ofcourt.

This

form, approved by the Judicial

Conference

of he United States in September 1974, is requtred for the use of he Clerk of Court for the purpose ofmitia

the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE

OF

THE FORM.)

I. (a)

P L A I N T I F F S

LEONARD WILLIAMSON

D E F E N D A N T S

ORE GON

DEP ARTM ENT O F

CORRE CT IONS

an d COLLETTE

P E T E R S

(b) County of Residence ofFtrst Listed Plaintiff ..:.M:.:.::a:.:.rio;;.:.:.n

County of Residence of Ftrst Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT

IN

U S PLAINTIFF CASES)

(C)

Attorney ' s (Finn Name, Address,

and

TeleJlhone Number)

Andrew

Altschul,

Bu ch an an

Angeli Altschul Sullivan LLP,

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE:

IN

LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, U

SE

THE

LO

CATION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED

Attorneys (If Known)

32 SW Fourth Street , Ste.

600,

Portland O R

97204, 503/974-5023

II.

B A S I S

O F

J U R I S D I C T I O N (Place

an

X in One Box Only) I I I . C I T I Z E N S H I P

O F

P R I N C I P A L

P A R T I E S

CPia ce

an

X in

one

Box for Piain

0

I U.S. Go,·emment

Plaintiff

0 2 U.S Government

Defendant

I V N

T U R E O F S U I T

I

CONTRACT

0

I

10

Insurance

0 120

Marine

0

0 130

Miller

Act

0

0

140

Negotiable Instrument

0 I

50

Recovery of Overpayment

0

&

Enforcement

of

udgment

0

I I Medicare Act

0

0

I52 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans

0

(Excl. Veterans)

0

0

153

Recovery of Overpayment

of

Veteran's Benefits

0

0

160

Stockholders' Suits

0

0

190

Other Contract

0 195 Contract Product Liabolity

0

0 196 Franchise

l

RE

AL PROPERTY

0

210

Land

Condemnation

0

0 220 Foreclosure

. :

0

230 Rent Lease

&

Ejectment

0

0

240 Torts to Land

0 245 Tort Product Liability

0

0

290 All Other

Real

Property

0

0

0

1 1

3 Federal Questoon

(U.S Government Not a Party)

0 4 Divmity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III

(Place

an

X

in

One Box Onl

vl

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY PERSO

NA

L INJ URY

310 Airplane

0

362 Personal Injury -

315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice

Liability 0 365 Personal Injury -

320 Assault, Libel

&

Product Liability

Slander

0

368 Asbestos Personal

330 Federal Employers ' Injury Product

Liability Liability

340 Marine PERSONAL

PROP

ERTY

34 Marine Product

0

370 Other Fraud

Liability 0

371

Truth in Lending

350 Motor Vehicle

0

380 Other Personal

355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage

Product Liability

0

385 Property Damage

360 Other Personal

Product Liability

ln'urv

CIVIL

RIGH

TS

PRISO

NER

PETI

TI

O

NS

441 Voting

0

510 Motions to Vacate

442 Employment Sentence

443 Housing/ Habeas Co

rp

us:

Accommodations

0

530 General

444 Welfare 0

535 Death Penalty

445 Amer. w/Disabilities-

0

54 Mandamus & Other

Employment 0

55

Civil Rights

446 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0

555

Prison Condition

Other

440 Other Civil

Rights

(For Di\ ersity Cases Only)

PTF

and One Box for Defendant)

DEF PTF DEF

Cotizen ofThis State 0 I

0 I Incorporated or Principal Pla ce 0 4 0 4

of

Business

In

This State

Citizen

of

Another State

0

2

0

2 Incorporated om/ Principal Place

of

Business

In

Another State

0

3

0

3 Foreign Nation

0 1 1

0 6 0 6

[, Jf 0 RFEITUREIPENA

I:.

TY

l."

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STA'I'UTES

0

610 Agriculture

0

422 Appeal28

USC 158

0

400 State Reapponoonment

0

620 Other Food

&

Drug

0

423 Withdrawal

0

410

An o

trust

0 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 usc

157

0

430 Banks and Banking

of Property 21 USC

881

0

450 Commerce

0

630 Liquor Laws

' 'RIGHTS 0 460 Deportation

0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights

0

4

70

Racketeer Influenced an

0 650 Airline Regs.

0 830 Patent

Corrupt Organizations

0

660 Occupational

0 840 Trademark

0

480 Consumer Credit

Safety/Health

0

490 Cable/Sat TV

0 690 Other

0 810 Selective Service

SOCIAL

0 850 Securities/Commodities

0 710 Fair Labor Standards

0 861

HIA (1395fl)

Exchange

Act

0 862 Black Lung (923)

0

875 Customer Challenge

0

720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations

0

863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

12 usc 3410

0

730 Labori lllgmt.Reporting

0

864 SSID Title

XVI

0

890 Other Statutory Actions

& Disclosure Act 0 865 RSI (405(g))

0

891 Agricultural Acts

0 740 Railway Labor Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

0

892 Economic Stabilization

0

790

Other Labor Litigation

0

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

0

893 Environmental Matters

0 791 Empl. Ret. Inc . or Defendant)

0

894 Energy Allocation Act

Security Act 0 871 IRS - Third Party

0

895 Freedom oflnfonnntoon

26

usc 7609

Act

IMM IGRATION


18/21

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

)

)))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

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:

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

District of Oregon

LEONARD WILLIAMSON,

6:16-cv-00783

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, anOregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an

individual, in her personal capacity,

Oregon Department of Corrections

Andrew AltschulBUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600Portland, OR 97204

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1-2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2


19/21

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

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) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

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

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

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

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

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:

6:16-cv-00783

0.00



20/21

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

)

)))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

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:

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

District of Oregon

LEONARD WILLIAMSON,

6:16-cv-00783

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, anOregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an

individual, in her personal capacity,

Colette Peters

Andrew AltschulBUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600Portland, OR 97204



21/21

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

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) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

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

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

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

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

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:

6:16-cv-00783

0.00


Documents

Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters