Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 13

GREGORY W. STEVENS (USB # 7315) 2825 East Cottonwood Parkway Suite 500 Cottonwood Corporate Center Salt Lake City, UT 84121-7060 Telephone: (801) 990-3388 Facsimile: (801) 606-7378 Email: utlaw@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

BRITT JOY HAWKER and CRAIG DEE HAWKER, as guardians for C.G.H., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. SANDY CITY CORPORATION and OFFICER TINA MARIA ALBRAND, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) Case No. 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

As and for this Complaint against Defendants Sandy City (the City), a body corporate and politic within the State of Utah, and including the Sandy City Police Department (the Department), as a department, office, or entity within a body corporate and politic within the State of Utah; and Officer Tina Maria Albrand, in her individual capacity, who at all relevant times was acting under color of law and as an officer, employee and agent of Sandy City (collectively, the Defendants),

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 2 of 13

Plaintiffs Britt Joy Hawker and Craig Dee Hawker, as guardians for C.G.H, the victim of Defendants civil rights violations, by and through their attorney, alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This civil action seeks damages against pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against: (a) Officer Albrand, in her individual capacity acting under color of law as officer, employee and agent of Sandy City and the Sandy City Police Department, for her violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on her use of force against C.G.H. when no force at all was necessary and use of excessive force against C.G.H., in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983; and (b) the City, through the Department, based on its deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of C.G.H. and other members of the public; and by its inadequate training, supervision, lack of discipline, and continued retention of Officer Albrand, and the ratification of the actions of Officer Albrand by the City and Department, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the following provisions: (a) 28 U.S.C. 1331, because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States; (b) 28 U.S.C. 1343(3), because this action arises under a law of the United States providing for equal rights; and (c) 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, because this action is being brought pursuant to Section 1983 to redress deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 3 of 13

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because C.G.H. resides within the jurisdiction of this Court; because the Defendants reside and have been located within the jurisdiction of this Court; and because the unlawful actions were committed by the Defendants within the jurisdiction of this Court. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff C.G.H. was, during all times relevant to this Complaint, a nine-year-old boy who resides with his grandmother and grandfather and legal guardians, Britt Joy Hawker and Craig Dee Hawker, in Salt Lake County, Utah. 5. Plaintiff Britt Hawker is, and during all relevant times has been, C.G.H.s guardian and an adult citizen of the United Sates and resident of Salt Lake County, Utah. 6. Plaintiff Craig Dee Hawker is, and during all relevant times has been, C.G.H.s guardian and an adult citizen of the United States and residence of Salt Lake County, Utah. 7. Officer Albrand, upon information and belief, is, and during all relevant times has been, an employee of the City and, in particular, was a Police Officer with the Sandy City Police Department acting in her official capacity and under color of law; is being sued in her individual capacity; and resides in Salt Lake County, Utah. 8. Defendant Sandy City, upon information and belief, is, and during all relevant times has been, a body corporate and politic within the State of Utah, and, in that capacity, has been the employer of and, through the Sandy City Police Department, had supervisory authority over Officer

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 4 of 13

Albrand and is and has been the final policy-making authority over personnel decisions in the Department; and has its principal place of business located in Salt Lake County, Utah. 9. The Department, upon information and belief, is a department, division, or office within the City and has the function on behalf of the City of providing police services. NOTICE OF CLAIM 10. The requirements prescribed by Utahs statutory notice of claim provisions, including the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (the Act), Utah Code Ann. 63-30d-401, are not applicable to the claims being asserted in this civil action because the claims being asserted in this civil action are being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. EVENTS REQUIRING RELIEF Conduct Under Color of Law 11. During all times relevant to this Complaint, each of Defendants was acting under color of the Constitution and, statutes, laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of Utah, Sandy City, and the United States. 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants had the duty and opportunity not to interfere with and violate the mental and physical well-being and freedom of C.G.H. and other members of the public with whom Officer Albrand would come into contact. 13. Officer Albrand, upon information and belief, engaged in the conduct described below in accordance with custom, policy and/or practice of the City and Department that encouraged, permitted and/or condoned such activity.

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 5 of 13

14. During all times relevant to this Complaint, each Defendant engaged in the wrongful acts described below with malice, evil intent, and reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of C.G.H. Officer Albrands Use of Force Against C.G.H. 15. C.G.H. is nine years of age and weighed about 67.68 pounds at the time he saw a physician following his injuries by Officer Albrand. 16. C.G.H. is a student at Bell View Elementary School in the Canyons School District, has been diagnosed with ADHD with impulsive behaviors, and is on an IEP Plan. 17. On or about August 30, 2011, C.G.H. had stolen an iPad that was the property of the Canyons School District and taken it home that evening. 18. While holding the iPad in the hall the next day at School, he was confronted by Christine Web, the Principal of Bell View. 19. C.G.H. ran away but was located and became physically aggressive. 20. In response, teachers on the scene put C.G.H. into a hold used by the Canyons District for the restraint of children known as a Mandt hold, which involved holding C.G.H.s legs and arms. 21. The teachers successfully restrained C.G.H. without injury to him or to themselves. 22. The School contacted Ms. Hawker, she arrived at the School and, when she did, C.G.H. calmed down and the teachers released him. 23. Officer Albrand arrived about ten minutes after Ms. Hawker arrived and, when she did, C.G.H. was sitting up against the wall.

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 6 of 13

24. Officer Albrand instructed C.G.H. to stand up and asked C.G.H. questions. 25. C.G.H. leaned over and looked up at Officer Albrand but did not sit up or respond to her questions. 26. Officer Albrand then grabbed C.G.H. and placed him into a twist lock to get him to stand up. 27. Due to the shock and pain, C.G.H. began to kick and scream. 28. Officer Albrand forced him up and against the wall then placed him in handcuffs. 29. In her Report, Officer Albrand claims that C.G.H. grabbed for and took hold of her weapon; but the assertion is false and no other witness makes the same assertion. 30. Principal Webb apologized to Ms. Hawker for the treatment given to her grandson by Officer Albrand. 31. When they arrived at Ms. Webbs office, Ms. Hawker told the Officer that her aggression and use of excessive force was uncalled for and that she had no right to manhandle C.G.H. or treat him that way. 32. Officer Albrand said that she had every right to handle him as she saw fit. 33. After Ms. Hawker and C.G.H. arrived home, C.G.H. said that his shoulder and arm really hurt; and Ms. Hawker, in turn, took C.G.H. to see a physician. 34. By then, C.G.H. was scared, docile and fearful of all adults except for his grandparents. 35. He was treated for a fracture of his collar bone and released to go home.

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 7 of 13

36. Although his arm has been removed from the sling that he was given, he still complains of pain. Deliberate Indifference: Obvious Failures 37. Sandy City, by and through the Department, had a clear constitutional duty and obvious need to train, monitor, supervise and/or discipline employees of the Department about recurrent situations that such employees would be certain to face, including but not limited the type of situation set forth above in this Complaint. 38. Failure to provide specific training and failure to monitor, supervise, and/or discipline such employees of the City and Department of the constitutional limits on the intentional and/or reckless use of force and excessive force, beyond any training provided through Police Officer Standards Training (POST), created and creates a highly predictable consequence that a constitutional violation will occur as it did here. 39. The sort of situation presented in this Complaint has, upon information and belief, occurred previously, including a prior situation involving C.G.H., putting Sandy City, by and through the Department, on notice of its failure to provide essential training and failure to monitor, supervise and/or discipline employees of the City and Department concerning their constitutional duties in situations like the one described above. 40. The City, by and through the Department, failed to provide specific training beyond that provided through POST and failed to monitor, supervise and/or discipline employees of the Department, including but not limited to Officer Albrand, on the use of excessive force.

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 8 of 13

41. The actions of Officer Albrand, through her use of excessive force, causing injury to C.G.H., when no force at all was needed, alone demonstrate that Officer Albrand was not afforded even the minimal training needed to perform the duties of her position. 42. Such failure to train, monitor, supervise and/or discipline on the part of Sandy City, by and through the Department, upon information and belief, constituted deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of C.G.H. Ratification of the Actions of Officer Albrand 43. The City and the Department ratified and approved of the actions of Officer Albrand more fully described above and showed a deliberate and/or reckless indifference to whether Officer Albrand engaged in such a constitutional violation. 44. Officer Albrand, upon information and belief, continues to be employed by the City and Department as a law enforcement officer 45. The City and Department, having been notified of Officer Albrands actions against C.G.H. by Ms. Hawker, informed her that they believed that Officer Albrands actions were appropriate, justified and in keeping with the policy of the City and Department. C.G.H.s Injuries and Losses 46. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful activities of the Defendants described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, C.G.H. suffered physical injuries, including but not necessarily limited to the injuries to his shoulder and arm and fracture of his collar bone.

-8-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 9 of 13

47. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful activities of the Defendants described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, C.G.H. has incurred actual medical expenses for treatment to his physical injuries paid by his guardians, Medicaid and/or an insurance carrier, all in an amount to be determined at trial. 48. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful activities of the Defendants described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, C.G.H. experienced and will continue to experience trauma, stress, emotional pain, suffering, and inconvenience of being subjected to excessive force when no force was required. 49. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful activities of the Defendants described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, C.G.H. suffers an emotional meltdown and becomes fearful and clingy when he sees a police officer or any other person in uniform. 50. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful activities of the Defendants described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, C.G.H. now suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and possibly Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), obtains treatment from a therapist regularly, and has been proscribed Zoloft. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Constitutional Rights (Officer Albrand) 51. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are restated as part of this Count as if fully alleged herein. -9-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 10 of 13

52. By virtue of the activities described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint stated in this Count, Officer Albrand violated clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, based on Officer Albrands use of force against C.G.H. when no force at all was necessary and use of excessive force against C.G.H. 53. The foregoing rights and duties are secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. 54. As a direct and proximate consequence of these violations by Officer Albrand, C.G.H. has been damaged and will continue to be damaged, and the Defendants are liable for C.G.H.s compensatory damages for physical injury to C.G.H.; medical expenses and financial damages incurred; emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish; and other nonpecuniary losses, all in an amount not yet fully ascertained but at least equal to approximately $300,000, plus prejudgment interest thereon. 55. Officer Albrand is also responsible to pay punitive damages, to punish these Defendants and to deter them and others from engaging in the same type of unlawful conduct in the future, in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but at least equal to three times actual damages, or approximately $900,000. COUNT II 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Constitutional Rights (Sandy City) 56. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged as if fully stated herein. -10-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 11 of 13

57. By virtue of the activities described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, the City, through the Department, violated clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known by having a custom, policy or practice that encouraged, permitted and/or condoned the activity in which Officer Albrand engaged; and/or by engaging in deliberate indifference and/or reckless disregard of the deprivation of C.G.H.s rights as more fully described above, including but not limited to the Citys failure to train, monitor, supervise, and/or discipline Officer Albrand, and the Citys ratification of the unlawful conduct of Officer Albrand. 58. The foregoing rights and duties are secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. 59. As a direct and proximate consequence of these violations by the City, C.G.H. has been damaged and will continue to be damaged, and the City is liable for C.G.H.s compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and other nonpecuniary losses, all in an amount not yet fully ascertained but at least equal to approximately $300,000, plus prejudgment interest thereon. 60. The City is also responsible for punitive damages, to punish this Defendant and to deter these Defendants and others from engaging in the same type of unlawful conduct in the future, in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but at least equal to three times actual damages, or approximately $900,000.

-11-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 12 of 13

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 61. WHEREFORE, C.G.H. respectfully demands judgment awarding him the following: (a) on Count I, judgment that Officer Albrand violated Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code and that C.G.H. is entitled to damages from Officer Albrand in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to compensatory damages for physical injury pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and inconvenience, all in an amount to be determined at trial but at least equal to $300,000; and punitive damages to punish and deter Officer Albrand and to deter others from engaging in the same unlawful conduct, in an amount to be determined at trial but at least equal to three times actual damages, or $900,000; (b) on Count II, judgment that the City, through the Department, violated Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code and that C.G.H. is entitled to damages from the City in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to compensatory damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and inconvenience, all in an amount to be determined at trial but at least equal to $300,000; (c) costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys fees at prevailing market rates for attorneys of like experience, incurred by C.G.H. in pursuing this civil action and any appeal of the judgment in this civil action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; (d) prejudgment interest accrued between the date of the jurys verdict and final judgment, and post-judgment interest accrued between the date of final judgment and the full and complete satisfaction of the judgment; and

-12-

Case 2:12-cv-00001-BCW Document 2 Filed 01/03/12 Page 13 of 13

(e) such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate, including but not limited to reinstatement and such other relief as is necessary to effectuate the purposes of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. JURY TRIAL DEMAND 62. C.G.H. demands a trial by jury on each of the claims set forth in this Complaint. Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January 2012: /s/ Gregory W. Stevens Gregory W. Stevens Attorney for Plaintiff

-13-