Portland Oregon Pushes Disabled People Down A Staircase Backwards, Peppersprays, Breaks Arm, Body Slams

Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 11
MICHAEL E. ROSE, OSB #753221

mrose@civilrightspdx.com
BETH CREIGHTON OSB #972440
beth@civilrightspdx.com
CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC
500 Yamhill Plaza Building
815 S.W. Second Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: (503) 221-1792
Fax: (503) 223-1516
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
ALLYSON DROZD, Civil No.
Plaintiff,
vs. COMPLAINT
(Civil Rights / State Law / Damages)
JOHN DOES 1-6, as individuals, and CITY
OF PORTLAND,
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The City of Portland has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Portland
Police Association (PPA) for provision of police services. The terms of the new contract
negotiated before the end of Mayor Charlie Hales term of office, when released to the public,
were controversial, drawing strenuous community objections, and sparked public opposition at a
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 1 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
level rarely seen at City Hall: rallies, demonstrations, a camp-out and even two lockouts from
City Council proceedings. On or about October 12, 2016, the Portland City Council met to
consider and approve the CBA. The morning of the Council hearing to vote on the CBA,
objectors filled the Council chambers. Mayor Hales recessed the Council meeting and
reconvened the meeting that afternoon in a smaller conference room on the floor above at City
Hall, where the Council met behind closed doors to approve the CBA. Police officers blocked
members of the public from access to the reconvened Council meeting. About an hour after the
vote, the mayor ordered police officers to remove the public from City Hall. Members of the
public, including activists and journalists, were warned that anyone who remained would be
arrested, and were then forcibly pushed to the exit doors by a line of police officers. Plaintiff
Allyson Drozd (Drozd) had been inside City Hall, but left the building when instructed to do
so. While standing outside of City Hall, observing and filming the goings-on inside through a
window, and safely out of the flow of foot traffic, Drozd was sprayed in the face with pepper
spray by a Portland Police Officer. While attempting to leave the scene, Drozd was sprayed
again from behind with a blast of pepper spray by a Portland Police Officer.
Plaintiff brings this action for damages against the individual officers and the City of
Portland under state and federal law.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal claims by virtue of 28 USC
1331 and 1343, and over plaintiffs state law claims by virtue of 28 USC 1367.
3. Venue is in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 USC 1391(b) because the
claims arose in this judicial district.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
4. Plaintiff has filed this action within 180 days of the incident, and has thereby
satisfied the requirements of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, as specified in ORS 30.275(3)(c).
III. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff ALLYSON DROZD is a resident of Portland, Oregon.
6. At all material times herein, defendants JOHN DOE 1-6 were City of Portland
Police Officers acting within the course and scope of their employment. Each JOHN DOE
defendant is sued in his individual capacity only.
a. JOHN DOES 3 and 4 were the Incident Commander (IC) and supervisor,
who were responsible to ensure that all orders given to the crowd were consistent, lawful, and
appropriate for the circumstances and to make the final decision as to what control actions were
taken to address the crowd event, and were thus responsible for the conduct of JOHN DOES 1
and 2.
b. JOHN DOES 5 and 6 were the Crowd Control Incident Commanders
(CCICs), who had the authorization and responsibility for all police actions at the crowd event
described herein, and were responsible for the conduct of JOHN DOES 1-4.
7. At all material times herein, defendant CITY OF PORTLAND (Portland) was
and is a public body in the State of Oregon responsible under state law for the acts and omissions
of its law enforcement officers, agents, and other employees, including those whose conduct is at
issue herein.
IV. FACTS
8. At all times material herein, defendants acted under color of law.
9. On or about October 12, 2016, the Portland City Council met to consider and
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) it had negotiated with the Portland
Police Association (PPA). The CBA was a matter of intense controversy and a matter of
significant public concern.
10. The morning of the council hearing to vote on the CBA, members of the public
filled the Council chambers. Mayor Hales recessed the Council after objectors made noise, and
reconvened council on the floor above at City Hall, where the council met behind closed doors to
approve the CBA. Police officers blocked protesters and other members of the public from
access to the reconvened council meeting. Shortly after the Council adopted the CBA, police
ordered protesters and other members out of City Hall.
11. Drozd was one of the protesters inside City Hall, but left the building when
instructed to do so by police officers.
12. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Drozd was standing outside and to the side of the
doorway at City Hall, observing and taking pictures through a window next to the door of the
ongoing activities involving protestors and police officers inside the building and taking pictures.
Drozd was standing behind the open glass door, plainly visible from both inside and outside the
building, was out of the way of foot traffic, and was not in any way blocking the doorway or
obstructing ingress or egress into or out of the building.
13. With no warning, provocation or prior instruction or command of any sort,
defendant DOE 1, opened the door, reached around the open door and sprayed Drozd in the face
with pepper spray. Defendant DOE 1 had neither probable cause to believe nor a reasonable
suspicion that Drozd had committed or was about to commit a crime, nor any reason to believe
that Drozd had been or was about to be causing or attempting to cause physical harm to any
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
person or threatening imminent physical injury to any person, or engaging in looting or the
destruction of property, or engaging in or displaying any intent to engage in passive resistance or
physical resistance to a lawful order of any law enforcement officer or other officer, official or
agent of Portland.
14. Upon being sprayed in the face, Drozd promptly left their position behind the
glass door and attempted to depart the scene, walking down the stairs of City Hall, away from
the door and the throng of officers standing there in riot gear, when Drozd was sprayed a second
time by JOHN DOE 1 or 2. Said Defendant DOE had neither probable cause to believe nor a
reasonable suspicion that Drozd had committed or was about to commit a crime, nor any reason
to believe that Drozd had been or was about to be causing or attempting to cause physical harm
to any person or threatening imminent physical injury to any person, or engaging in looting or
the destruction of property, or engaging in or displaying any intent to engage in passive
resistance or physical resistance to a lawful order of any law enforcement officer or other officer,
official or agent of Portland.
15. As a result of defendants conduct, Drozd sustained substantial physical
injuries.
16. As a result of defendants conduct, Drozd suffered economic loss.
17. As a result of defendants conduct, the Drozd suffered severe emotional
distress.
18. On information and belief, City of Portlands polices and practices, as applied to
law enforcement, caused Drozds injuries as described above.
19. A reasonable officer in the individual defendants position should have known
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
that the above-described conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established rights under the First,
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
V.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 USC 1983 - Fourth Amendment - Excessive Force, Against Individual Defendants)
20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
21. As described above, defendants DOE 1-6 violated Drozds right not to be
subjected to excessive physical force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, which caused their resulting injuries.
22. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non-
economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.
23. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs
against defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1988.
VI.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983 United States Constitution, First Amendment, Against Defendants
John Doe 1-6)
herein.
25. By the acts described above, the JOHN DOE defendants retaliated against Drozd
for the exercise of their rights to free expression, association, and assembly, in violation of the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the State of Oregon and
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
its political subdivisions through the 14th Amendment.
26. As a direct and proximate result of said defendants unlawful acts, Drozd has
suffered significant emotional distress, public humiliation, damage to reputation, depression, loss
of dignity and self esteem, anxiety, and loss of enjoyment of life, all in amounts to be determined
by the jury at trial.
29. Drozd is entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable attorneys fees and costs
pursuant to 42 USC 1988.
VII.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(State Law Claim - Battery Against City of Portland)
herein.
31. Defendants John Doe 1-6 intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive
contact with Drozd, and were acting in the course and scope of their employment when they
sprayed Drozd with pepper spray.
32. Defendant City of Portland is responsible for the tortious conduct of its officers,
agents and employees, which caused the injuries to Drozd.
33. As a result of this battery, Drozd suffered damages as described above.
34. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non-
economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.
35. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert fees, against defendants.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
VIII.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence Against Defendant City of Portland)
36. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set
forth.
37. Defendants actions as alleged above violated the standard of care required of law
enforcement under the circumstances.
38. Defendants actions created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of injury to
Drozd.
39. As a result of the above, Drozd suffered damages as described above.
40. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non
economic damages against defendants, in amounts to be determined at trial.
41. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert fees against defendants.
IX.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Defendant City of Portland)
herein.
43. As described above, the officers, agents and employees of City of Portland
intentionally and/or with reckless disregard inflicted severe emotional distress on Drozd.
44. As described above, the above defendants acts constituted an extraordinary
transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
45. As a result of the above, defendants caused Drozd severe emotional distress.
46. As a result of the above, plaintiff is entitled to an award of economic and non-
economic damages against Defendant in amounts to be determined at trial.
47. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert witness fees, against
Defendants.
X.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Section 1983 - Fourth Amendment Violation, City of Portland)
herein.
49. Prior to October 12, 2016, defendant City of Portland developed and maintained
policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of people to
whom their law enforcement officers would respond, which caused the violation of plaintiffs
rights.
50. It was the policy and/or custom of defendant City of Portland to inadequately
supervise and train its officers and deputies, including the defendants, thereby failing to
adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its officers and deputies.
City of Portland did not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of officers and
deputies who were known to have engaged in police misconduct.
51. As described above and at least in part, one or more of City of Portlands policies,
official well-established practices or acts caused the violation of Drozds right not to be
subjected to excessive physical force and their resulting injuries, as guaranteed by the Fourth
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
53. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and
noneconomic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.
XI.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Section 1983 - First Amendment Violation, City of Portland)
55. Paragraphs 1 through 19 and 49-50 are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
56. As described above and at least in part, one or more of City of Portlands policies,
official well-established practices or acts caused the violation of plaintiffs right not to be
subjected to retaliation for the exercise of their rights to free expression, assembly and
association, and their resulting injuries, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
58. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and
noneconomic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief from the Court as follows:
1. Assume jurisdiction in this matter over plaintiffs claims;
2. Award plaintiff economic and non-economic damages against defendants in
amounts to be determined at trial in accordance with the allegations set forth above;
3. Award plaintiff their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs against
defendants in accordance with the allegations set forth above; and
4. Grant such other relief as may be just and proper.
DATED this 7 April, 2017 CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC
s/ Michael E. Rose
MICHAEL E. ROSE, OSB #753221
mrose@civilrightspdx.com
BETH CREIGHTON, OSB #97244
beth@civilrightspdx.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792

Portland Oregon Pushes Disabled People Down A Staircase Backwards, Peppersprays, Breaks Arm, Body Slams

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

Portland Oregon Pushes Disabled People Down A Staircase Backwards, Peppersprays, Breaks Arm, Body Slams

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 11

MICHAEL E. ROSE, OSB #753221

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ALLYSON DROZD, Civil No.

Portland under state and federal law.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

3. Venue is in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 USC 1391(b) because the

claims arose in this judicial district.

5. Plaintiff ALLYSON DROZD is a resident of Portland, Oregon.

defendant is sued in his individual capacity only.

b. JOHN DOES 5 and 6 were the Crowd Control Incident Commanders

7. At all material times herein, defendant CITY OF PORTLAND (Portland) was

8. At all times material herein, defendants acted under color of law.

significant public concern.

ordered protesters and other members out of City Hall.

instructed to do so by police officers.

obstructing ingress or egress into or out of the building.

13. With no warning, provocation or prior instruction or command of any sort,

destruction of property, or engaging in or displaying any intent to engage in passive resistance or

the destruction of property, or engaging in or displaying any intent to engage in passive

official or agent of Portland.

15. As a result of defendants conduct, Drozd sustained substantial physical

16. As a result of defendants conduct, Drozd suffered economic loss.

17. As a result of defendants conduct, the Drozd suffered severe emotional

law enforcement, caused Drozds injuries as described above.

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

States Constitution, which caused their resulting injuries.

economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

against defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

its political subdivisions through the 14th Amendment.

by the jury at trial.

pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(State Law Claim - Battery Against City of Portland)

31. Defendants John Doe 1-6 intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive

sprayed Drozd with pepper spray.

agents and employees, which caused the injuries to Drozd.

33. As a result of this battery, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence Against Defendant City of Portland)

enforcement under the circumstances.

38. Defendants actions created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of injury to

39. As a result of the above, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

economic damages against defendants, in amounts to be determined at trial.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Defendant City of Portland)

44. As described above, the above defendants acts constituted an extraordinary

transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.

economic damages against Defendant in amounts to be determined at trial.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Section 1983 - Fourth Amendment Violation, City of Portland)

policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of people to

deputies who were known to have engaged in police misconduct.

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

52. As a result of the above, Drozd suffered damages as described above.

53. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and

noneconomic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial.

against defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1988.