6 1 07 NVD Doc 1-2 40 Pages White B Sferrazza Holmes SBN 255

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 40
HOWARD LEE WHITE, 24575

P.O. Box 607
Carson City, Nevada 89702
Plaintiff Pro se on behalf
of himself and all others
similarly situated
8Y:

fiLED RECEIVED
EiHERED __ SERVED ON
COUNSEUPARTIES Of RECORD
JUN - 1 2007
CLERK US DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DEPUTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
HOWARD LEE ALLEN HALLING,
JAMES WRIGHT, FliEDERICK GREEN"
MARTIN JONES, JERRY DOW, NOVA
CAMPO, OTIS J. HUGHES, GILBERT
TYLER, MONTY KOSSOW, DEVONTAY
WILLIAMS, KENNETH DORSEY, MARVIN
MORRIS, JALMAA CINQUE, F'osfe."
JOHNNEY WILLIMfS, ANTHONY SHEPARD,
JOSEPH CRESCI, ROBERT BENSON: MIC-
HAEL GEIGER, CHARLES MORRIS, KEVIN
STONE and MICHAEL DRAKE, on behalf
of themselves and all other
larly situated and prospective of-
fenders, -
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DAVID HANKE, ROBERT LARKIN, PETE
SFERRAZZA, BONInE WEBER, and JIM
GALLOWAY, as Commissioners of Wa-
shoe County; its Public Defender
JEREMY BOSLER and MICHAEL R. Spe-
CCHIO(Former Public Defender), and
every other deputy, investigator
and agent past and present, RICHARD
GAMMICK, as District Attorney, and
DOROTHY NASH HOLMES{Former District
Attorney), and every other assis-
tant, investigator , past and pre-
sent, THE STATE OF NHVADA, its
Northern Judicial System of the
Second Judicial District Court MILLS
LANE{Former jUlige), BRENT ADAMS,
Civil No.
3:07 -cv-00255
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
... AND' TNJUNCTIVE REL1EF
(42 USC II 1983 &1985)
CONNIE STEINHE IMER, Judge, JANET
BERRY, Judge, and STEVEN R. KOSACH,
Judge; THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA(Reno)
and PHILLIP J. PATTEE, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________ 1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaint.iffs above named bring. this action against the
above-named defendants for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs
constitutional rights are being and have been violated because of
their Indigency and Race in Washoe County, and for a permanent in-
junction preventing defendants' from continuing to violate the
plaintiffs rights while acting under color of state law. Where,
as here, Washoe County Officials pursuant to custom, continuously
advise indigent offenders, including the plaintiffs that "this is
a Redneck town and if you go to jury trial you will be found
guilty, not because you is guilty, but because you is a Bla.ck
man", and the adoption of the Early Case Resolution (ECR) and
Direct Filing Program (DFP) policies which are in violation of the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court under 5 U.S.C. I
552(e)(5), 28 U.S,C. II 1331 and l343(a)(3), PROVIDING FOR fede-
- ~
..
ral question and over claiDlS arising"' under 42 U. S. c. II 1983 and
1985(2)(3) and 28 U.S.C. I 2201 and 2202 and particularly Article
4, I 2(1), Article 6, I 2, and Amendments 1, V, VI and XIV of the
United States Constitution. This Court has pendent jurisdiction
-2-
to adjudicate claims arising under Nevada law, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. I 1367.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the United
States and State of Nevada and are incarcerated within the Nevada
Department of Corrections; who were subjected to said invidious
discrimination as alleged in this complaint by defendants due to
their indigeney and race and for no other reasons.
4. The plaintiffs are part and representatives of a class
within the meaning of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Class represented by plaintiffs WHITE, HALLING, WRIGHT, GREEN}
JONES, DOW, CAMPO, HUGHES, TYLER, KOSSOW, WILLIAMS, DORSEY, MOR-
RIS, CINQUE, Fos4er; J. WILLIAMS, SHEPARD, CRESCI, C. MORRIS, STONE
and DRAKE including all others similarly situated and prospective
class not yet known, who were or will in the future be subjected
to the invidious discrimination perpetrated by defendants of
Washoe County. The classes are proper for the following reasons:
(a) The members of the class are so nnmherons that
of all of them is impracticable;
(b) The members of the class are readily identifiable
from the defendants records;
(c) There are questions of law and fact common to each
class;
(d) The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claim
of their respective classes;
(e) The defendants have acted or refuse to act on grounds
-3-
-
generally applicable to the classes;
(f) The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interest of the class.
5. Defen.lants ROBERT LARIIN, DAVID HANIE, PETE SFERRAZZA,
JIM GALLOWAY and BONNIE WEBER are, and at all times relevant
herein have been, Commissioners of the County of Washoe. Defen-
dants constitute the governing board of the County and are res-
ponsible for the allocation of funds for all county purposes,
policies, and training of county employees not pursuant
to law. Defendants are sued in their official and individual
capacity.
6. Defendants JEREMY BOSLER, MICHAEL SPECCHIO, deputies
agents, and investigators are employed by the Washoe County Com-
missioners and assigned to the Washoe County Public Defender's
Office and as such are responsible for representing indigent
person(s) charged with a public offenSe. These defendants are
representativE! of a class, within the meaning of Rule 23, Fede-
ral Rules of Civil Procedure, consisting of all employees as-
signed to the Reno office. This class (hereinafter referred to as
Defendant Class 1) is sued in their official capacity.
7. Defendant RICHARD GAMMICI, is the duly elected District
Attorney of tbe County of Washoe, as district attorney, defendant
Gammick is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of
the policies and procedure by which criminal prosecutions are in-
itiated in thE' courts of the State of Nevada against persons and
for determining whether, under what circumstances or offense
:--.
-4-
4If' ,
sons accused of violating the laws of the State of Nevada will be
prosecuted, and for autherizing and supervising the initiation
and maintenanc:e of prosecutions for violation of said laws in the
courts of the State of Nevada, and is sued both in his official
capacity and as an individual.
8. Defendant DOROTHY NASH HOLMES is the former District At-
torney of the County of Washoe, and is sued in her official ca-
pacity.
9. Defendants BRENT ADAMS, MILLS LANE, CONNIE STEIHEi,TMER,
JANET BERRY and STEVEN R. (OSACH are, and at all times relevant
herein were duly elected, and qualified Judges of the Second Ju-
dicial Distric:t Court of the State of Nevada and at all times
residents of \fashoe County. Defendants are sued in their offical
capacity.
10. Defendlant STATE BAR OF NEVADA is a corporation organized
under the law of the State of Nevada, and has been at all times
relevant herein given the authority to investigate charges of
professional misconduct as a body corporate under the laws of the
State of Nevada. Defendant PHILLIP J. PATTEE is, and at all times
material hereto was, an individual working as an employee and
agent of Defendant State Bar (Reno). This action is brought
against PATTEE, both individually and also in his official ca-
pacity.
11. Defendant STATE OF NEVADA is, and at all times herein
relevant has been, a State and existing under the laws of the
UNited States Constitution of America, and subject to equity lia-
-5-
bility foir the malfeasance of state judicial and executive of-
ficers.
12. Defendants and each of them are, and at all times here-
in mentioned bave been, the co-conspirators, aider and abettor,
and agent in doing the acts and maintaining the practices herein
complained of, are and have been acting within the course and
scope of their official duty and
13. In doing all the acts and omissions, and in maintaining
,the practices, herein described, Defendants, and each of them,
separately and in concert, have been and were acting under color
of the laws, customs and usages of the State of Nevada. Said acts
and omissions were committed and practices were maintained by the
Defendants' personally and through actions of their deputies, in-
vestigators and agents, acting pursuant to customs and policies
officially adopted and promulgated by the elected officials.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
14. The and each of them, conspired to deprive
plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws of Nevada, to wit;
the laws in relation to assistance of counsel for their defense,
and particularly those relating to established tribunal, their
organization, procedure and course of justice; and further con-
spired to deprive plaintiffs and all others similarly situated of
those rights I.rovided under the Constitution and laws of the
United States and particularly those set forth in Counts I, II,
Ill, IV and V herein, and conspired to impede, hinder, obstruct
and defeat the due course and due process of law and justice in
. .
, -
-6-
the County of Washoe, State of Nevada; and further conspired to
deprive plaintiffs of the rights, privileges and immunities
secured by thle Constitution and laws of the United States ex-
tended to citizens of the United States and State of Nevada and
particularly those set forth in Counts 1, 11, Ill, IV and V here-
in; that all of said acts and those set forth throughout this
Complaint were committed by defendants, and each of them, while
acting under color and pretence of statute, policy, custom,
office and laws of the State of Nevada.
15. In furtherance of the object of the aforesaid conspiracy
defendants Comlmissioners, Bosler, Specchio, Gammick, and Nash
Holmes acting under color and pretence of statute, policy, custom,
office and the laws of the State of Nevada and in willful, inten-
tional, malicj_ous and discriminating misuse of their authority,
that of their subordinates, and of others, including Judges Adams
Lane, Berry and Iosach, wilfully acting in concert
with the other defendants, their agents, each and all procuring,
aiding and encouraging the other, did purposely and systematiC-
ally and intentionally with a pattern for discriminating against
plaintiffs and subjecting them to inequality of treatment in the
following particulars which were not privileged or compelled by
law:
(a) By engaging in partisan conduct in a professional
capacity manifesting prejudice;
(b) Threatening, coercing and intimidating indigent
clients, including plaintiffs to plea guilty stating "this is a
-7-
,
r
1
Redneck town and if you go to jury trial you will be found guilty
not because you is guilty, but because you is a black man", pre-
venting clients/plaintiffs from making any objection or prepare a
defense to the alleged charge(s) AGAINST THEK:
(c) By acting in concert with prosecution and judge to im-
panel all jury to convict indigent clients/plaintiffs in
any criminal trial;
(d) By bribing numberous indigent clients/plaintiffs in
concert with elected officials and agents, both with cash, gifts
and the promise of lesser sentence(s), TO wit:
1. MARVIN MORRIS -- January, 2002
by Larry Carlson
Public Defender Investigator
2. GILBERT TYLER -- November, 2001
by Michael Specchio and Paul Giese
3. DEVONTAY WILLIAMS -- May, 2004
by John Malone
$200.00
(e) By intentionally signingg and verifying waiver of in-
digent clients/plaintiffs preliminary hearing Without consent of
at the behest of defendant Richard Gammick;
(f) By, and as a matter of practice, routinely abandon
responsibility owed indigent clients/plaintiffs upon being court
appointed for their defense:
(g) By, and as a matter of practice reveal defense
stragey of clients/plaintiffs seeking to establish a de-
fense to the dssistant district attorney;
(h) By, and as a matter of practice, routinely direct in-
. digent clients/plaintiffs to remain silent or just answer "Yes"
-8-
during sentencing hearing to voluntariness of guilty plea;
(i) By, and as a matter of practice, routinely fail to
timely initiate Notice of Appeal for indigent client/plaintiffs
after a specific request to do so;
(j) Informing indigent clients/plaintiffs named herein of
the bigatry of named defendant Judges, e.g., Kevin Van Ry (defen-
dant of class 1) informed Plaintiff James Wright's mother "Judge
Adams is a racist and Bigot, and that Wright was never going to
receive a fair trial in Judge Adams courtroom cause Nevada is the
Mississippi of the West, and every black that he (Van Ry) went to
trial with in Judge Adams courtroom lost, not because they were
guilty, but because they were 'black' and Judge was going
to allow this to transpire because Judge Adams already believed
'Wright' to be guilty. See Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
16. In the object of the aforesaid conspiracy
defendant Commissioners, Gammick, Specchio, Bosler and others,
acting under color and pretence of statute, policy, custom, of ice
and the laws of the State of Nevada and in willful, intentional,
malicious and discriminating misuse of their authority, that of
their subordinates, and others, including Judges Adams, Lane,
Steinheimer, Berry and Kosach, wilfully acting in concert with
the other defendants, their agents, each and all procuring, aid-
ing and encouraging the other, did purposely and systematically
and intentionally with a pattern for discriminating against plain-
tiffs and subjecting them to inequality of treatment in the fol-
-9-
~
lowing particulars which were uot privileged or compelled by law:
(a) In the willful intrusion into attorney-client rela-
tionship to prevent indigent plaintiffs charged with public of-
fense an opportunity to prepare a defense to the alleged charge
or charges against them with assistance of counsel for defense;
(b) By engaging in partisan conduct in a professional
capacity manifesting prejudice;
(c) B,r wilfully inducing plaintiffs assigned public de-
fender to wai're preliminary hearing in order to give jurisdiction
to district court!
(d) By acting in concert with Public DEfender and Judges
to impanel all white jury to convict indigent plaintiffs in any
criminal trial;
(e) In giving preferential treatment to offenders repre-
sen ted by retained defense attorney's so that they could effec-
tively assist in preparing a defense, obtain bail and appear as
effective witnesses for themselves;
(f) By suborning perjury of 'victims' and 'witnesses' to
testify falsely;
(g) In the willful adoption of the "ECR" and "DFP" poli-
cies to avoid adversial litigation and coerce indigents p l a i n ~
tiffs to enter plea of guilty without any advisement of their
constitutional rights;
(h) By wilfully stating to the Reno Gazette-Journal that
"I can say that this office, working closely with the Public De-
fender, the Sheriff, the Courts, the County Commission\'and
-10-
others ln the system, has been able to develope several lnnova-
tlve approaches to crlmlnal justlce that have proven effectlve
and efflclent whlle always safeguardlng everyone's rlghts."
17. Defendants ADAMS, LANE, STEIHE. IMER, BERRY and KOSACH
have alded and abetted the other named defendants ln vlolatlng
Artlcle 1, I 8(5), acted as an accessory after the fact outslde
of thelr judlclal offlce ln vlolatlon of Code of Judlclal Conduct
Cannons 1, 2, 3{B), and (D), and have wllllngly and actlvely par-
tlclpated ln an obstructlon of justlce, oppresslon and brlbery
that may lnvolve thousands of other cases.
18. Defendant SPECCHIO, prlor to June, 2005 whlle servlng at
the pleasure of the board of county commlssloners, co-authored,
approved and personally adopted sald 'custom' outllned ln )para.
l5{b, whlch was part of the scheme to lntlmldate plalntlffs
charged wlth Jlubllc offense. Upon lnformatlon and bellef, each
and every deputy acted under the authorlty of defendant Specchlo
and acted wlthln the scope of thelr employment. Upon lnformatlon
and belief, said 'custom' has continued under the supervision of
Defendant Bosler.
19. Defendants HANKE, LARKIN, SFERRAZZA, WEBER and GALLOWAY
knew of the 'custom' and practlce descrlbed ln para. 15{a)-{g)
and the "ECR" and "DFP" as alleged ln para. l6{a)-{h), ACQUIESC-
lng ln thelr appllcatlon to plalntlffs and all slmllarly sltu-
ated lndlvlduals charged wlth publlc offense ln Washoe County, to
prevent plalntlffs and all lndlgent lndlvlduals charged wlth publte
-11-
offense any constitutional rights that they may
be aware of.
20. Upon information and belief, defendant Dorothy Nash
\
Holmes, while District Attorney of Washoe County, without due re-
gard for the rights of indigents formulated "they're black, they'
they're going to prison, innocence or not."
21. Upon information and belief, at all times pertinent
hereto, defendant State Bar of Nevada (Reno) and Phillip J. Pat-
tee have maintained a system of review of complaints filed
against the other named defendants which is so cursory as to be
ineffective and permit and tolerate the willful denial of rights
secured to indigent plaintiffs and all similarly situated indivi-
duals pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution and Article 1, I 8(1)(5) of the Nevada
Constitution.
22. The State of NEvada, despite knowledge and adequate op-
portunity to learn of the invidious discriminatory practices of
its agencies and agents, adopted, approved, and ratified the said
customs, policies and practices of de feud ant Washoe County Public
Officials.
23. The totality of the aforesiad facts demonstrate that the
Defendants, and all of them, in wilful violation of the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, estab-
lished on or about August 4, 1791 and June 6, 1868, respectfully,
did purposely and intentionally discriminate against the indigent
plaintiffs and all similarly siyuated individuals and subject _-
-12-
them to inequality of treatment.
24. Plaintiffs have no adequate or complete remedy at law,
and have suffered irreparable harm and unless defendants are en-
joined from the enforcement of the custom "this is a Redneck town
and if you go to jury trial you will be found guilty, not because
you is guilty, but because you is a black man", and, the "ECR"
and "DFP" policies by order of this court the unconstitutional
conduct of the Defendants will continue.
25. At all times relevant herein, defendants' acted inten-
tionally and under color of authority of the law of the State of
Nevada.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. I 1983
INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION
26. Plainl:iffs incorporates herein by reference the allega-
tions contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive.
27. Defendants, under color of state law, has caused and will
continue to cause Plaintiffs and all similarly situated indivi-
duals, and other to be subjected to the deprivation of their
constitutional rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. I 1983.
28. Plaintiffs are presumable innocent and for the most part
are too poor t.o afford counsel. Yet, were advised by
their court appointed public defender that they should plead
guilty to the offense because "this is a Redneck town and if you
go to jury trial you will be found guilty, not because you is
guilty, but because you is a black man." While firmly believing
they are not guilty of any offense, indigent plaintiffs none the
,
-13-
,-, -
less were forced toplea guilty and were sentenced to harsher term
because of their indigency and race.
29. The psychologically oppressive phrase (para. 28) impair
plaintiffs' mental and emotional ability so that they cannot be
effective witnesses for themselves or assist in preparing their
defense, as well as the restrictions placed on their access to
counsel and to the courts undermine the integrity of the entire
trial process and infringe on their rights to a fair trial there-
by depriving Ithese plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them by the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. I 1983.
30. Because of the actions of Defendants HANKE, LARKIN, SEER-
RAZZA, WEBER, GALLOWAY, SPECCHIO and BOSLER, Plaintiffs have suf-
fered violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United
States Constitution and are therefore entitled to declaratory and
injunctive relief, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rules 57 and 65, and 28 U.S.C. I 2201, to redress, remedy, and
prevent future violations of their rights and the rights of other
others.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VJ[OLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. I 1983
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
31. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the a l l e g a ~
32. The o)lpressive phrase and "ECR" and "DFP" custom, policy
and practices of Defendants HANKE, LARKIN, SFERRAZZA, WEBER, GAL-
LOWAY, SPECCHIO, BOSLER, GAMMICK, LANE, ADAMS, BERRY, STEINHEt-
-14-
and KOSACH, caused Plaintiffs to believe that actions (paras.
15, l5(a)_(j} and 16, l6(a)-(h}}, were within defendants discre-
tion and not violative of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985.
33. The actions of Defendants, as described in this complaint
were motivated by partsan and political considerations and were
designed to deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty and abridge right
rights, privileges and immunities as a prerequisite to assistance
of counsel.
34. Upon information and belief, the Defendants' committed
the unlawful acts against the Plaintiffs and others because of
their indigency and race; these Defendants have not acted in the
detail manner (para. 32), towards wealthier persons charged
public offense iu-Washoe County. By 6ontrast, wealthier Ilerson(s}
have, inter alia unrestricted access to court and counsel; the
opportunity to contact witnesses; the opportunity to effectively
assist in preparation of their defense and to appear as effective
witnesses for themselves.
35. Because of the actions of Defendants' , Plaintiffs have
suffered violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United
States Constitution and are therefore entitled to declaratory and
injunctive relief, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rules 57 and 65, and 28 U.S.C. 2201, to redress, remedy, and
prevent violations of their rights and the rights of
others.
-15-
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1985
CONSPIRACY
36. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allega-
37. The actions of Defendants GAMMICK, HANKE, LARKIN, SFER-
RAZZA, WEBER, GALLOWAY, SPECCHIO, BOSLER, LANE, ADAMS, BERRY,
STEINHERIMER and KOSACH, described in paras. 16, l6(a)-(h), and
17, were motivated by partisan and political considerations and
were designed to deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty and abridge
of counsel.
38. Each act of the object had similar purposeS, involved the
same or similar participates and had similar results impacting
similar plaintiffs; namely the defendants' are part of a recur_
ring pattern (If similar schemes of inequality of treatment as
that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), in order to deprive
indigent, including the plaintiffs and all similarly situated
individuals of rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
were motivated by partisan and political considerations and were
designed to deprive plaintiffs of their liberty and abridge
of counsel.
40. Because of Defendants',actions, plaintiffs have suffered
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States
-16-
Constitntion and are therefore entitled to declaratory and injun-
ctive relief, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules
57 and 65, and 28 U.S.C. 2201, to redress, remedy, and prevent
future violations of their rights and the rights of others
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. I 1983
CUSTOM, POLICY AND PRACTICE
41. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allega-
42. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and upon that basis
alleges that in taking the actions of which complaint is made
herein , defendant Gammick, and, working closiy with the public
defender, the sheriff, the courts, the County Commissioners and
others in the system, authorized and acquiesced in the initation
and maintenance of the "ECR" and "DFP" with the intent and effect
of depriving the Plaintiffs and the members of the class due pro-
cess of law, the equal protection of the laws and of rights, pri-
vileges and immunities secured by, inter alia, Sixth and Four-
teenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
designed to deprive plaintiffs of their liberty and abridge
of counsel. These costoms, policies and practices Were enforced
by Defendants GAMMICK, HANEE, LARKIN, SFERRAZZA, WEBER, GALLOWAY,
HOLMES, SPECCHIO, BOSLER, LANE, ADAMS, BERRY, STEINHEJIMER and
KOSACH, and was the moving force, proximate cause, or affirmative
-17-
link behind the willful intrusion into the attorney-client rela-
tionship causing the plaintiffs and all similarly situated in-
dividuals irreparable injury.
44. Despite their knowledge of the said illegal custom, pol-
icy and practices, the policy-making and supervisory officials
and officers of the said Defendant County, as a matter of policy
have not taken steps to terminate said practices, and have in-
stead, sanctioned the custom, policy and practices described in
paragraphs l5(b){c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j), l6(a)(c) (d)(e)(f(g)
and 19, through their indifference to the effect of said custom,
policy and practices upon the constituional rights of the indi-
gent citizens of Washoe County, including the plaintiffs.
45. Because of Defendant' actions, plaintiffs have suffered
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States
Constituion and are therefore entitled to declaratory and injun-
ctive relief, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules
57 and 65, ancl 28 U.S.C. I 2201, to redress, remedy, and prevent
future violations of their rights and the rights of others.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF NEVADA LAW
46. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by refernce the allega-
47. Defendants HANKE, LARKIN, SFERRAZZA, WEBER, GALLOWAY,
GAMMICK, HOLMI:S, SPECCHIO, BOSLER, LANE, ADAMS, BERRY,
IMER AND KOSACH custom, policy and practices deny to Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated individuals:
-18-
(A) Their right to due process of law guaranteed by Art.
I, t 8(1) to the Nevada Constitution in that these practices dis-
criminate against them in seeking and obtaining assistance of
counsel and fair trial on the basis of indigency and race;
(B) Their right to equal protection of the law guaranteed
by Art. I, D 8(5) to the Nevada Constitution in that they estab-
lish a class of minority persons to whom equal assistance of
counsel and fair trial is denied.
designed to deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty and abridge right
privileges and immunities as a prerequisite to assistance of
counsel.
49, Upon information and belief, and thereon Plaintiffs and
all similarly situated individuals alleges Defendants custom
"this is a redneck town and if you go to jury trial you will be
found guilty, not because you is guilty, but because you is a
black man" the "ECR". and "DFP" policies inter fer with the basic
elements of the adversary fact finding process in criminal pro-
ceeding are violations of Art. I, I 8(1)(5), S.C.R. 150-203.5,
NRS 197.110, 199.010, 199.020, 199.150, 199.230, 199.240, 199.
480(f)(g) and 252.190.
50. Defendant judicial officers fails in their duty pursuant
to Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Cannon I, "A judge shall up-
hold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and violate
NRS 199.020.
-19-
..
51. DEfendants, State Bar of Nevada (Reno) and Phillip J.
Pattee fails in their duty pursuant to Nevada Rules of Profes-
sional Conduct Rules 1.1 - 1.18, 2.1 - 4.4, 5.1 - 5.5, 7.1, 8.2 -
8.5 to enforce, monitor and conduct thorough and objective inves-
tigation of bar members to determine whether complaints of "con-
structive denial of counsel, bribery, selective prosecution,
denial of fair trials" are based solely upon indigency and race
..
See Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herein by refernce.
52. Because of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs have suffered
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Nevada Consti-
tution and or therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive
relief to redress, remedy, and prevent future violations of their
rights and the rights of others.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pary for judgment as follows:
1. That the Court certify this action as a class action on
behalf of the class, pursuant to Fed. R. CIV. P. 23;
2. Further, Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that the psy-
chologically oppressive custom is unconstitutional because it
violates plaintiffs rights to assistance of counsel, fair trial,
due process, and equal protection guaranteed by the United States
and the Nevada Constitution;
3. Further, Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that the "ECR"
and "DFP" poli.:ies or unconstitutional because they violate plain-
tiffs rights oj[ assistance of counsel, intrude into the attorney-
client relationship, right to a preliminary hearing, fair trial,
-20-

. !
due process, and equal protection guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the Nevada Constitution.
4. That the Court issue a permanent injunction requiring
Defendants, and each of them, their officers, agents, employees,
successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or parti-
cipation with them, to abide by the provisions of said Amendments
Titles, Article, Statutes and Nevada Rules of Professional Con-
duct, and ordering specific actions to ensure that these Laws are
met and not furthered violated, so that Defendants are refrained
from invidiouB discriminating and refusing to extend to any per-
sones) chargeel with public offense in Washoe County, including
Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals the full and
equal protection of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
5. That the Court retain jurisdiction over defendants until
such time that the Court is satisfied that the Customs, policies,
and practices alleged herein no longer exist and will not re-
occur.
6. That the Court award any attorney fees, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 1988, and costs of suit herein to plaintiffs.
7. That the Court award such other relief as may be necessary
and proper.
-21-
Respectfully submitted,
By
Howard Lee White
P.O. Box 607
Carson City, NV 89702
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss:
CARSON CITY )
I, HOWARD LEE WHITE, hereby aver and says:
1. That I am the lead Plaintiff in the above entitled ac-
tion, that he is the person who executed the foregoing
that he has read the same and knows the contents thereof; that
the matters stated therein are true to his knowledge, except such
matters as are stated to be upon information and belief and as to
those matters he believes them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
See 28 U.S.C. I 1746 and 18 U.S.C. I 1621.
Executed this .;;15"1 day of May, 2007.

AwJllvttJ.ttto
-22-
Howard Lee White
P.O. Box 607
Carson City, NY 89701
DECLARATION OF HOWARD LEE WHITE
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss:
CARSON CITY )
I, , , herebu declare and says:
1. That I am the declarant and one of the Plaintiffs in the
foregoing complaint and mades this declaration in support and be-
Ii eves that the name defendants, have a personal bias and preju-
dice against him and the similarly situated persons, and each of
them and favors governmental officials by committing the follow-_
ing;
a. That declarant state upon information and belief that
Richard Gammick, in the City Reno, made statements before certain
staff reporter of the Reno Gazette-Journal of that City on the .'
subject of lall enforcement. In one of these statements Gammick
told the reporter in substance, and through him the general pub-
lic, that "Whi.le it is true that the Washoe County public defen-
der and the Washoe County district attorney are adversaries in
the criminal In_particular in the courtroom, this is by
no means the entire story. If the two offices were to stop work-
ing together with each other on Administrative matters and pro-
cedures the entire criminal justice system would bog down A
great example of the two offices working together has been the
adoption and continuing operation of the Early Case Resolution
(ECR) program and the more recent Direct Filing Program (DFP) ,
both of which are extremely beneficial to the taxpaying pUblic,
as well as improving the efficiency of the process I can say
that this office, working closely with the public defender, the
sheriff, the courts, the County Commission and others in the sys-
tem, has been able to develop several innovative approaches to
criminal justice that have proven effective and efficient while
always safeguarding everyone's rights . These programs have not
been a product of my dictating to anyone but have evolved from
equal participation by all involved agencies."
b. Declarant has been informed that Jeremy Bosler, has ex-
pressed a willingness to assist the District Attorney's office in
obtaining guilty pleas, by permitting deputies of the Washoe
County Public Defender's office to be used as agents for the pur-
pose of obtaining convictions against mentally deficient indigent)
indigents and blacks, and this declarant has been further informed
that public defenders advises indigent client "this is a Redneck
town and if you go to jury trial you will be found guilty, not be
'"
cause you is "guilty, but because you is a black man." See Exhibit
G, H and I.
c. Declarant futher state that on several occasions, Bosler
and Specchio permitted indigent client to be placed in the pre-
sence of other indigent clients, for the purpose of using the
client in the obtaining of evidence against the other for the Dis-
trict Attorney's office.
d. Declarant further state that on or about January 7, 2002
Washoe County Public Defender investigator Larry Carson made cash
deposit for Marvin Morris as payment for guilty plea. See Exh. I.
& Declarant further has been informed that Public e f e n d e r ~
use other inducement to obtain guilty pleas in nameing judges,
-2-
Calvert, 'he appear in front of Judge Kosach, everyday
and the judge always goes along with his requests, Molone, advise
its hard being 'black' in Reno, that its hard being 'black' with
a case in Reno and being 'black' and innocent with a case in Reno
its the Judges, juries and police; Van Ry, advises Judge Adams is
a racist and Bigot; Merkin, advises I been knowing Judge Adams
for 15 years. Everything I tell him it goes; Herbig, advises if
we take this case to trial the State will pick a 'Redneck' jury
and haug us, because you're a black man; aud VaunHall,
declarant on Judge Berry that "she's new, she's out to get every-
body."
f. Declarant further state it is the policy, custom and
practice of the County Commission to deprive indigent offenders
constitutional adequate representation.
g. Declarant state upon information and belief that Richard
Gammick, further stated "Since these programs account for about
35 percent of our case load, both offices have been able to ope-
rate without substantial increases in staff. In spite of criti-
cism by private defense attorneys, never been a suc-
cessful legal challenge to either progeam. In fact, there has
been only one unsuccessful challenge pursued in eight years."
h. Declarant has been informed that non indigent accused
are given preferential treatment to indigent accused represented
by retained defense lawyer's so that they could effectively as-
sist in preparing a defense, obtain bail and appear as effective
witnesses for themselves.
-3-
i. Declarant further state that. indigent minorities are
charged with the greater offense than non-minorities committing
like offenses. See Exh. A.
j. Declarant further state that Richard Gammick has a cus-
tom of retaliating against assistant who expose unlawful govern-
mental practices, as not being a team player.
k. Declarant further state that the rights of indigent,
mentally deficient indigents and blacks' are not protected by the
courts allowing prosecutions of indigents without jurisdiction
and imposing lesser penalties on non-minorities for like offenses
See Exhibit J.
1. Declarant has been informed that Judges Lane, Berry,
Kosach, Steinheimer and Adams have interest in prosecutions and
failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
by lending the prestige of judicial office to advance Washoe
County officials political interests.
m. Declarant further state that the State of Nevada has a
duty to ensure an uobias justice system free of discriminatory
animus and to enforce laws necessary to protect the rights of
declarant and others similarly situated from acts of racial preju-
dice.
n. Declarant further state that said customs, policies and
practices of are not rationally related to legitimate
law enforcement objectives.
ca. By reason of the foregoing, a controversy exists be-
-4-
tween Plaintiff(s) and Defendants' in that declarant is the party
beneficially interested and has not nor has any co-plaintiff a
plain, speed.y and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
to address this racial animus.
See 28 U.S.C. I and 18 U.S.C. I 1621.
Executed this day of May, 2007.

Howard Lee White.
-5-
EXHIBIT !l
}J
\
Declaration of Robert Benson
State of Nevada )

SS.
Carson City
I, Robert Benson, Do Hereby Declare under penalty of perjury
that the following averments of fact are true and correct, to wit:
1. I am over the age of 21, and can attest to the statements
contained herei.n, all of which are made upon personal knowledge
and in support of Howard Lee White, et al. v. David Hanke, et al.,
to which I am a party.
2. Declarant, being African-American was subjected to invidious
discrimination by Richard Gammick, John Malone, Michael Speechio,
John P. Calvert, Steven R. Kosach, Judge and other officials of
Washoe County in the following respects:
a. On January 4, 2004, I was charged with robbery with the
use of a deadly weapon and kidnapping in the first degree. On or
about December 21, 2004, I was found guilty of said charges and
sentenced by Judge Kosach to serve two consecutive prison terms
of thirty five (35) to one hundred fifty six (156) months for the
robbery and two consecutive prison terms of five (5) to fifteen
(15) years for the kidnapping, in case number CR04-163A-B. Order
of Affirmance filed October 4, 2005, in Supreme Court of Nevada
docket number 44739.
b. Declarant will be eligible for parole after serving
approximately si.xteen (16) years.
c. On c,r about January 21, 2004, John Malone, Deputy Public
Defender and Karl Hall, Assistant District Attorney, in concert
denied my right to testify before the grand jury. Mr. Hall had
c
advised grand jury of my presence and that I would testify.
Subsequently, Mr. Hall advised affiant that he had no lawyer and
then falsely advised grand jury that affiant had no evidence to
give.
d. Declarant suffered invidious discrimination on a number
of levels. for example, Judge Kosach showed a complete disregard
for my rights. He emphasized this by saying the following: "Free
attorneys, this is the way things are. Go down and hire Johnie
Cochran right now and tell him to come here and try the case on
April 5th. And I'll bet you he says, I can't do it!" These comments
could be interpreted to mean Kosach had an impermissible bias and
prejudice against me and African-American people. Arguably these
remarks amounted to a racial slur. In fact, Judge Kosach was
disrespecting and mocking me because I was unable to hire a African-
American defense attorney. Kosach challenged me by betting me
about what Mr. Cochran would do in this situation.
e. On or about July 30, 2004 in the parking lot of the
northwest Reno Wal-Mart Richard Martin forced his wife into his
car and attempted to kill her throws her in the car. "The
whole time he's saying to her 'I'm going to kill you.' and 'Do you
want to die?'" The Washoe County District Attorney charged him
with second-degree kidnapping and attempted murder. Judge Kosach
sentenced him t() a maximum of ten (10) years on the second-degree
kidnapping and fifteen (15) years on the attempted murder. Martin
will be eligible for parole after serving six years.
Declaration of ll:obert Benson
Re: Howard Lee White, et al. v. David Hanke, et al.
Page Two of Three Pages
See 28 U.S.C. 1746.
Declaration of Robert Benson
Re: Howard Lee White, et al. v. David Hanke, et al.
Page Three of Three Pages
~ J
~ . 2.-
EXHIBIT :B
,
~
1 MICHAEL AIGELO DRAIE
NDOC No. 1()1l22
2 Nevada State Prison
3301 E. Fifth Street / POB 607
8 Carson City, Nevada 89702-0607
4 DECLARANT, In Propria Persona
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
28
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NORTHERN NEVADA
--00000--
HOWARD L I ~ WHITE,
et al.,
)
V,n.
DAVID HANJ:E, et
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
) Case No.:
)
al. ,
)
)
. Defendants.
)
)
SWORN DECLARATION OF
MICHAEL ANGELO DRAIE
State of Nevada
)
: S8
County of Carson City
)
I, MICHAEL ANGELO DRAKE (hereinafter "Declarant"). being
first duly sworn accprding to law, of legal age, depose as fol-
lows:
2. That I am the Declarant in the foregoing Sworn Declara-
tion;
3. That this Declaration Is made In good faith, and not
interposed for any improper purpose;
4. That I am able to make competent testimony, before a
court of law, as to the foregoing truthful statements, as to my
own personal knowledge and belief;
"
r

1 5. That Declarant makes this Sworn Declaration in support of
2 Howard Lee White, et a1. vs. David Hanke, et al., in the above
3 entitled action;
4 6. That on the 6th day of September, 2001, I was the Peti-
5 tioner in a proceeding, to wit: Drake v. Budge, et al., Case No.
6 CR98-P-2596 (consolidated with CR98-P-2504 and CR98-P-2504), and
7 the follOWing testimony under oath was represented in colloguy by
8 Carolyn Tanner, ESQ., than a Deputy Public Defender, Washoe
9 County, State of Nevada (now in private practice);
10 Q. Do you recall having any discussion with Mr. Drake, in
which his ethnicity or his race was an issue?
11
12
13
TANNER: Yes.
Q. Could you describe that for me?
TANNE:R: Sure. I usually have discussions with my clients
14 of color when we talk about issues that they need
to think about in making their decisions, as to "
15 whether or not to accept an offer versus going to
jury trial. And my discussions usually include,
16 and did include with Mr. Drake, that he is an
African-American man in a predominantly White com-
17 munity, and in my experience, predominantly white
jurors, and that is an issue that he should con-
18 sider with equal weight, with any other issue that
he might consider when he, if he was considering
19 going to, having a jury trial.
20 7. That this statement was nothing more than racial discri-
21 mination, ,and I unsuccessfully compelled Ms. Tanner to file for a
22 change of venue, based on her discriminatory statements to insure
23 fair j udic:ial proceeding;
24 8. That despite her racial statement, Ms. Tanner refuse to
25 file for a change of venue, and aggressively encouraged Declarant
26 to enter into a guilty plea, based on the racism of a jury makeup
27 and verdict of guilty, based on Declarant being an African;
28 9. That the District Attorney's Office, representing the
-2-
1 State of Nevada, and a key witness, Laura Walker, was married to
2 a prosecuting attorney, Egan Walker. Laura Walker was a key wit-
8 ness against Declarant;
4 10. That Declarant informed, both, Ms. Tanner and Judge Janet
5 Berry of the relationship between the prosecuting attorney and
6 they key witness, and that Ms. Tanner, or Judge Berry took "no"
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

26

action to address the conflicts, and ignored Declarant's requests
to do so;
11. That as a result of the racial discrimination, and the
relationship (witness and District Attorney), that Declarant
filed a proper person pleading, and sworn affidavit, for the re-
cusal of Judge Berry, for allowing the bias prejudice to remain;
12. That Judge Berry denied Declarant's Motion for Recusal;
13. That the actions of Ms. Tanner and Judge Berry, in con-
cert amounted to Drake's fundamental denial of due process and
equal protection, a deprivation so gross that it violated Drake's
federal protected constitutional rights;
14. That Declarant believes, that the actions described here-
in were SO obvious and egregiOUS, that a reasonable person would
labor doubts about the impartiality, and bring into question, as
to the fairness of Drake, based on Ms. Tanner's belief of the
jurors racial bias and discrimination;
15. That the personal (marital) relationship, in which Judge
Berry and Ms. Tanner, knew or should have known, would have a
tremendous impact of conflict and fairness to Declarant, and that
. .

-3-
1 conflict prosecution should have been assigned, and Declarant's
2 case moved to another judicial district;
3 16. Tbat Declarant was greatly prejudiced by Judge Berry,
4 Ms. Tanner, and the District Attorney's Office, whom felt that
5 Drake's race did not matter, nor the victim-prosecution relation-
6 ship;
7 FUITHEI, Your Declarant sayethn@ught;
8 this date, by the undersigned Declarant, under the
9 penalties of perjury, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 1746 and MIS 208.
10 165 (execution of documents in absence of notary, by an incarce-
11 rated person), at Carson 'City County, State of Nevada, and United
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
States of America.
DATE]) THIS DAY OF __ ' 2007.
III
III
III
III
III
-4-
___ _
MICHA L A GELO DRAIE, 61122
DECLARANT
t
, :
J
.0
EXHIBIT c

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES WRIGHT, JR.
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss:
CARSON CITY )
I, JAMES WRIGHT, JR., hereby aver under the penalty of
perjury and says:
1. "During the time my case was pr oceeding bef ere Judge
B r en tAd am s of th e Sec on d J u d i i: i a 1 Dis." tr i c t C au r t of th e S ta te of
Nevada, C cun ty of Wash oe my app oin ted attorney KBl IN V AN RY. Mr.
van Ry began to s ta te things to me indica ting tha t if I wen t to
tr i a 1 I w cu 1 d 1 os e bas e d upon th e fa c t th a t th e de te c ti v e Mr.
DAVID JENKINS was a kn own 'RACIST and kn OWn to fabrica te evidence
against BLACK PEOPLE, coercion of witnesses, and threatening wit-
nesses. Thereaf ter , he began to say some pr of ound and dis turbing
stat-ements tomy mother and wife. He iT AN RY told them that Judge
BRENT ADAMS was a RACIST AND BIGOT, and tha t I was never going to
receive a fair trial in Judge Bren t Adams c our tr oom. He V AN RY
als 0 said to my Mother and Wife tha t the Dis tric t A ttorney RICHARD
GAMMICK has con tr 01 over the jury selec ti on so tha t the jury be
only 'CONSEINATIV E WHITE PEOPLE, and no BLACKS, cause NBl ADA is the
the MISSISSIPPI of the Wes t, and tha t every Black Man tha t he has
respresented at trial 1n Judge Brent Adams courtroom lost, not
because they were guil ty, bu t because they were BLACK. He V AN RY
fur ther stated tha t Judge Adams .was going to allow ab ove s ta ted
fac ts to transpire, because Judge Adams already believe me (Wrigh t)
toobeguilty based upon my skin color. Additionally, during a cour t
appearance Judge Adams sp oke to my previ DUS a ttorney ED HORN by
admonishing him stating "Not to get sidetracked."
( ('
'1
2. KEll IN V AN RY, als 0 told my wife tha t if she would g:il e him
$25,000.00 he would give my case priority and he would win the case. Ad-
d i ti on all y , V AN R Y s u g g e s te d th a tIs h ou 1 d jus t pIe a d g u i 1 ty to th e cas e
that he acknowledged in front of witnesses that he believe i did not com-
mi tit.
UNDER THE PI:NALTY OF PERJURY, Pursuant to NRS 208.165 the above
affidavit is true and correct to the best of my personal know-
ledge.
Dated this ~ day of March, 2006.
:}
,?,
( .'
( .
EXHIBIT I ) ~

6 1 07 NVD Doc 1-2 40 Pages White B Sferrazza Holmes SBN 255

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

6 1 07 NVD Doc 1-2 40 Pages White B Sferrazza Holmes SBN 255

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 40

HOWARD LEE WHITE, 24575

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen