Pratt Civil Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON DONALD PRATT, LINDA PRATT ) NO. 2:12-CV-02052 RAJ ) 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR Plaintiffs, ) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, ) FALSE ARREST, FALSE v. ) IMPRISONMENT, BATTERY, ASSAULT ) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF COUNTY OF WHATCOM (WCSO), ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (OUTRAGE), RYAN RATHBUN individually and in ) DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE II of the his capacity as a DEPUTY of the ) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS ) VIOLATION OF 504 of THE OFFICE, CHAD HEINRICH, ) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 individually and in his Official ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Capacity as a DEPUTY of the ) WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS ) OFFICE; RESERVE DEPUTY WINTON ) individually and in his Official ) Capacity as a RESERVE DEPUTY of ) the WHATCOM COUNTYSHERIFFS ) OFFICE; DOES 1-250, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________ ) DONALD PRATT AND LINDA PRATT by and through their attorney of record, allege as follows:
PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
LAWRENCE A. HILDES (WSBA # 35035) P.O. Box 5405 Bellingham, WA 98227 Telephone: (360) 715-9788 Fax: (360) 714-1791 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
I. JURISDICTION
1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Title 28, United States Code Sections 1331, 1332, 1343, and 1367, and venue is properly set in the Western District Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. 2. The claims upon which this suit is based occurred in this judicial district. 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the named Defendants reside in this judicial district.
II. PARTIES 1.1 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT is a deaf, married man residing primarily in the
State of Washington, in WHATCOM County within the Western District of Washington. Plaintiff was the victim of an unjustified arrest, imprisonment, and discriminatory conduct by the above listed and other Officers of the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office, under color of their authority using their position and authority to justify the incident. But for Plaintiffs disability they would not have been treated in this manner. Defendants had the ready ability to respond in an entirely different and reasonable manner had they chosen to do so. This tortious and discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs severe pain, humiliation, ongoing injury, and severe emotional distress and violations of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment Rights, and their right to be free of discriminatory conduct by a public agency under Title II of the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 1.2 Plaintiff LINDA PRATT is a deaf, married woman residing primarily in the State of Washington, in WHATCOM County within the Western District of Washington, and the wife of DONALD PRATT. She was also verbally abused and humiliated and extremely fri9ghtened both for herself and for her husband and detained at the scene. 1.3 Defendant DEPUTY RYAN RATHBUN, upon belief resides in Whatcom County within the Western District of Washington State and, upon belief is and was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE (hereinafter identified as WCSO), acting within the scope of his duties. 1.4 Defendant Deputy CHAD HEINRICH, upon belief resides in Whatcom County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon knowledge and belief, DEPUTY HEINRICH is and was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE (hereinafter identified as WCSO), acting within the scope of his duties. 1.5 Defendant Reserve Deputy WINTON, upon belief resides in Whatcom County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon knowledge and belief, RESERVE DEPUTY WINTON is and was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE (hereinafter identified as WCSO), acting within the scope of his duties.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1.6 DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM is a government entity in WHATCOM COUNTY governed and functioning under the laws of the State of Washington. It employs Deputies RATHBUN, HEINRICH, and RESERVE DEPUTY WINTON as well as John and Jane Doe deputies and supervisors of the WCSO and other officials and police officers whose identities are unknown, who were involved in this incident and the arrest/detention of Plaintiffs and were involved in the physical and verbal abuse and discriminatory conduct against Plaintiffs. 1.7 There are other persons, identities presently unknown to Plaintiff who are, and were at all times mentioned herein, deputies, supervisors, incident commanders, training, and/or disciplining officers, and/or decision-makers of the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, who acted in concert with the above named Defendants and who devised or approved the police actions wherein Plaintiffs were arrested/detained and physically battered and verbally abused in the incident that is the subject of this action and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law as agents of the WCSO, and with that agencys full consent and approval. 1.8 DOES 1-250 are, and were at all times mentioned herein, OFFICERS, Supervisors, Incident Commander for this incident , involved actors, including the interpreter who, when she finally arrived, acted in a manner to degrade, humiliate, and further harm Plaintiffs and otherwise add to the harm caused by the law enforcement Defendants, and Police or Governmental Officials involved in the incident itself, and/or in the Planning, Creation, Development, training in, policy leading to the false arrest,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
false imprisonment, and or use of force against Plaintiff, and the violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights and other discriminatory conduct in the incident which is the subject of this action, or Exercise Of Police Force and Control, and/or failing to discipline officers thus tacitly encouraging this incident to occur employed against Plaintiff in the incident which is the subject of this action, and in committing the acts and omissions hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law as agents of the WCSO who violated Plaintiffs rights as discussed. 1.10 This action is brought pursuant to the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title II of The Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Article 1, Section 5 and Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, Revised Code of Washington Title 9, Chapter 62, Section 10(1), Washington State common law prohibiting assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage), false arrest and false imprisonment, and Washington common law negligence. 1.11 On February 7, 2012, counsel for Plaintiffs delivered to the clerk of the Whatcom County Council notices of claims. The County acknowledged the claims within a week, and rejected them by letter several weeks later.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1
II. FACTS In the evening of April 21, 2011, Donald and Linda Pratt, a married
couple, were watching their television at their home in Blaine, Washington, with a friend. 2.2 2.3 All three individuals are deaf. There was a knock at the door. They were aware of this because the
dog began barking, and the light on their lamp is hooked to the doorbell, so that it flickers when the bell is pushed. 2.4 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT went to the door to find a WCSO Deputy, one
of the named Defendants, standing there. 2.5 PRATT. 2.6 doorway. 2.7 2.8 2.9 The Deputy then wrote on a piece of paper, Are you Donald? Plaintiff DONALD PRATT nodded yes. A second Deputy, also one of the named Defendants, standing behind DONALD PRATT turned to face the Deputy, so that his back was to the The Deputy entered the Pratts home, and walked past Plaintiff DONALD
DONALD PRATT immediately handcuffed him. 2.10 The second officer handcuffed Plaintiff PRATT so roughly that he left
bruises on Plaintiffs wrists/arms that lasted for several days after this incident.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2.11
The handcuffs also left his palms and wrists in pain for several days
afterward. He had trouble signing, his primary means of communication, because of this. 2.12 He was not given an opportunity to sign or communicate through writing
that he is deaf and only can communicate through sign language or through writing on paper. 2.13. He kept trying to ask, as best he could, what this was about and why he was being arrested. Because of his disability, and the Defendants actions to deprive him of his ability to communicate, this mostly came out as grunts. The Deputies never responded, never wrote anything else on a piece of paper, never tried to communicate with Plaintiff DONALD PRATT in any way, as they would have with someone who did not have a disability. 2.14 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was taken to a WCSO marked car that was at
the back of a line of several police cars, all parked on his street, with lights flashing. 2.15. He was left in that police car for an extremely long time, at least two hours, and he believes longer. 2.16. The entire time, he was handcuffed. 2.16 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was seated on a hard plastic seat and in a
cramped, confined area, in such a way that his body was leaning against his hands and handcuffs, so that it put further pressure on his wrists, arms, shoulders and back.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2.17
Plaintiff DONALD PRATT is an older man, 76, and this position, which
the seat configuration required and the deputies left him in for at least two hours, and probably longer, caused him pain in his back, wrists, arms and shoulders. In addition, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT is diabetic. 2.18 After approximately an hour or more, Plaintiff PRATT began to indicate
to the officers that he needed a bathroom. 2.19 This need became so urgent that he finally did urinate on himself,
causing him great humiliation and emotional pain, as well as physical discomfort. 2.20 When he was finally walked back into his house, he walked in with
stained pants, a further humiliation. 2.21 Plaintiff PRATT has been a law-abiding citizen his entire life. He has
never been arrested before or since. 2.22 Being arrested in such a public manner, with several police cars, lights
flashing, parked in front of his home, was extremely humiliating. 2.23 arrested. 2.24 During his arrest, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT attempted to ask why he had He has had neighbors ask him what was happening, and why he was
been arrested, what the charges were, and to demand an interpreter. The lack of response and silence left him frightened and dehumanized, and further humiliated him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2.25
Because of the handcuffs, he was not allowed to communicate (through
paper or sign language) any questions or request for a bathroom, and he was not informed about what was going on. 2.26 After an extremely long time of increasing discomfort and humiliation, the
deputies finally brought a female interpreter to Plaintiff DONALD PRATT. 2.27 As the interpreter was signing to him, a WCSO Deputy shone a light in
Plaintiff DONALD PRATTS face, directly in his eyes, so he could not see what she was signing, and otherwise acted to worsen the incident for him. 2.28 Again, he was not released from the handcuffs, preventing him from
communicating, either through sign language or by writing. 2.29 He could not ask any questions of the interpreter, could not see what she
was signing, and could not respond to her. 2.30 He felt publicly humiliated by the fact that he had soiled his clothing, and that he had been arrested (especially so publicly) when he has not been arrested in decades, and then only for a minor adolescent incident involving stolen hub caps, and has been careful his entire adult life to always obey the law. 2.31 The deputies then put him back into the police car, where he waited for
what felt like another very long time. 2.32 The deputies eventually and took him out of the car.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2.33
When they finally released him from the handcuffs, he had bright red
marks on his palms and around his wrists. It was painful to move his hands and painful to sign, thus further depriving him of his ability to communicate. 2.34 When the deputies brought him back to his house, they demanded to
know where his guns were. 2.35 He showed them the guns, unlocked the cabinets, and took them out.
The deputies handled each one and documented it, and then took all of his guns. 2.36 They never told him why they were taking the guns or explained why he
had been arrested. 2.37 2.38 2.39 The deputies had told his wife that he had threated to kill his son. He has never threatened to kill his son. The deputies also asked Plaintiff LINDA PRATT several questions that
indicated they thought she was a victim of domestic violence. They also gave her a sheet of paper referring to domestic violence and the services available in the county. 2.40 Before Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was brought back to the house, she
informed them that she had never been a victim of domestic violence and that her husband had never hurt her. 2.41 Despite this, the deputies continued to treat Plaintiff DONALD PRATT in
a humiliating manner. 2.42 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT later found out that the incident was triggered
by a complaint against him from his son, Tom Pratt. His son was angry because the
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Plaintiffs had kicked him out of their home several months earlier and then would not loan him a motorhome he requested. 2.43 DONALD PRATTS son is an ex-convict. He has a lengthy record in
California, with some charges here in Washington. 2.44 2.45 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was never cited or taken to jail. And yet, he was not allowed to hear the claims against him, was not
allowed to give his side, and was treated as if he were a criminal. 2.46 During the incident, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT remained calm, and did
not interfere with the officers. As the deputies left, one of them thanked him for his patience and good behavior. 2.47 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT has continued to suffer from trauma,
humiliation, and fear from this incident. He has frequent nightmares about it, and wakes up in the middle of the night due to panic attacks as a result of the incident. He no longer trusts the police, which, prior to the incident, he always had, making him now feel vulnerable. 2.48 Plaintiff LINDA PRATT also suffered from trauma, humiliation, and fear
during this incident. 2.49 She watched helplessly as the officers arrested her husband without
asking him any questions or telling him anything.

11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2.50
She saw the expression of pain on his face as the officer yanked his
arms behind his back, and she could tell that he was being handled in a manner that hurt him. 2.51 When the interpreter arrived, the officers implied that Plaintiff DONALD
PRATT had hurt her and that she was a victim of domestic violence. She kept telling them that this was not true, and that DONALD PRATT has not harmed her in nine years of marriage. 2.52 She told them that he has never abused her, has never threatened her in
any way, and has never threatened her with a gun. It was clear that the officers did not believe her, which was humiliating and frightening to her. 2.53 When her husband came back to the house, it was clear he had soiled
his clothing from being in the police car for so long. 2.54 2.55 Eventually, they released him and did not charge him with anything. However, they took his property with them, and never explained to either
Plaintiff LINDA PRATT, nor to her husband, why they were taking the property. 2.56 LINDA PRATT is now nervous around the police, when she has always
trusted them before. She also has had to watch her husband suffer from nightmares and panic attacks about the incident. 2.57 Defendant COUNTY of WHACOM receives Federal Funding through the Department of Homeland Security and the Us Department of Justice for various programs run and administered by the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3.1 As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent III. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained deprivation of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment Rights; the Right to be treated Equally by a Public Agency pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of Property without just cause, ongoing pain and suffering-physical and emotional, and ongoing injuryphysical and emotional, in amounts that will be established at trial. 3.2 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or
negligent acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have to retain legal counsel to vindicate their rights in court at an amount to be established at trial and for which they are entitled to be reimbursed. 3.3 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and
negligent acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT has incurred medical expenses for treatment in an amount to be established at trial and for which he is entitled to be reimbursed. 3.4 Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the Constitutional and
personal harms Defendants inflicted on them, their loss of enjoyment in life and curtailment of the activities that gave their lives meaning and pleasure.
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 COUNT ONE VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983) (As To All Individual Defendants and DOES 1-100) 4.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 3.4 of this complaint. 4.2. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs as alleged herein, of certain Constitutionally protected rights including, but not limited to: (a) The right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law; (b) The right to be free from invasion or interference with Plaintiff zone of privacy; (c) The right to equal protection of the law; (d) The right to be free from unreasonable seizure; (e) The right to be free from police use of unreasonable and excessive force; (f) The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. (g) The right to be free from False Arrest and False Imprisonment, seizure of lawfully owned and maintained guns without due process all in violation of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment Rights. IV. CAUSE OF ACTIONS:

14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
(h) The Right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement based on disability, in violation of their rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 4.3 In violating Plaintiffs rights as delineated above, and other rights according to proof, Defendants acted by verbal threat and intimidation, reckless, unreasonable, unprovoked, and excessive use of force, discriminatory law enforcement based on disability, unjustified arrest and detention, false imprisonment, or by ratifying personally the above listed conducts, and/or cruel and unusual punishment without Plaintiffs having committed any crime or violation, Defendants acted to violate Plaintiffs rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 4.4 DOES 2-250 are the other officers involved directly in the incident in question. 4.5 Defendants had and knew they had a sign language interpreter at the station and available to them, and chose not to bring her to the scene for a deliberately extensive period of time, and then prevented Plaintiffs from communicating with and through her and treated Plaintiffs in a degrading, humiliating, frightening, and discriminatory manner that they would not have done had they not been deaf.

15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
4.6 As a direct and proximate result of the violations of their Constitutional rights by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 4.7 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT TWO Violation of Civil Rights (Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983) (As To DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF WHATCOM, and Does 1-250) 4.8 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.7 of this complaint. 4.8 At all times herein mentioned, Defendant COUNTY OF WHATCOM employed Defendants RATHBUN, HEINRICH, WINTON, and the other at least three r law enforcement officers who reported to the scene and were involved in the Constitutionally violative, statutorily violative, and tortious conduct against Plaintiffs. The WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline Defendants RATHBUN, HEINRICH, WINTON and the other WCSO personnel involved in this incident, including failing to train them as to how to respond and treat hearing impaired individuals and others needing an interpreter to communicate with law enforcement officers, resulting in the harm to Plaintiffs. PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
4.10 These acts and omissions deprived Plaintiffs of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, including, but not limited to their rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504,and their rights under the Washington State Constitution. 4.11. The Doe supervisors of named Defendants acted deliberately to ratify the above-described policy and actions, and fail to ensure that their deputies were properly trained in accordance with Federal Law, and failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline named Defendants and other involved officers, 4.12 In committing the acts complained of herein and in their official and individual capacity, Doe Defendants acted with a design and intention to deprive Plaintiff of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, and its associated laws, and acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights. 4.13 As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint. 4.14 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
COUNT THREE VIOLATION OF TITLE II, ADA (As to Defendant COUNTY OF WHATCOM) 4.15 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.14 of this complaint. 4.16. By deliberately delaying (for more than an hour) the arrival of an ASL interpreter onto the scene, and instead, forcibly arresting and imprisoning Plaintiff Donald Pratt in a police car, for a drastically long period of time, unable to communicate and without explaining what was going on or why, to the point that he urinated on himself, in a manner that they would never have treated a non-disabled person., DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM, a local government entity receiving Federal Funding for the Sheriffs Offices law enforcement programs through grants and funding from US DHS and US DOJ, and its Defendant officers and employees unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff Donald Pratt based on and because of his disability 4.17 Similarly, DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM, a local government entity receiving Federal Funding for the Sheriffs Offices law enforcement programs through grants and funding from US DHS and US DOJ, and its Defendant officers and employees deliberately failed to offer any explanation or communication to Linda Pratt as to why she could not leave and why her husband was being arrested for supposedly threatening her, in a manner that they would never have treated a nondisabled person.
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
4.18 In then deliberately preventing Plaintiff Donald Pratt from communicating with the interpreter that they finally provided, and disrupting said communications that they were supposedly waiting for to determine how to treat Plaintiff Donald Pratt, DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM, a local government entity receiving Federal Funding for the Sheriffs Offices law enforcement programs through grants and funding from US DHS and US DOJ, and its Defendant officers and employees further deliberately discriminated against him. 4.19 All of the above alleged discriminatory conduct, violated Plaintiffs clear
and well established rights to be treated equally by law enforcement without discrimination based on their disability pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4.20 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that they were
inflicting this discrimination and the County failed to ensure that they were trained, supervised, and disciplined to not commit such discrimination. 4.21 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their rights by
Defendants, and of Defendants discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 4.22 The excessive and discriminatory conduct and the resulting abuse of
Plaintiffs was directly and proximately caused by Defendants training, supervision and failure to discipline, and the above ratification.

19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
4.23 Defendant County of Whatcom and its named and doe officers and employees also violated Plaintiffs Rights under the ADA by failing, in their policies and actions to make reasonable adaptations of programs to make them accessible to persons who are deaf, thereby directly resulting in the harm inflicted on Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. COUNT FOUR VIOLATION OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 504 (As to ALL DEFENDANTS ) 4.24 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.23 of this complaint. 4.25 By deliberately delaying (for more than an hour) the arrival of an ASL
interpreter onto the scene, and instead, forcibly arresting and imprisoning Plaintiff Donald Pratt in a police car, for a drastically long period of time, unable to communicate and without explaining what was going on or why, to the point that he urinated on himself, in a manner that they would never have treated a non-disabled person Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Donald Pratt based on his disability . 4.26 Similarly, Defendants deliberately failed to offer any explanation or
communication to Linda Pratt as to why she could not leave and why her husband was being arrested for supposedly threatening her, in a manner that they would never have treated a non-disabled person. 4.27 In then deliberately preventing Plaintiff Donald Pratt from communicating with the interpreter that they finally provided, and disrupting said communications that PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
they were supposedly waiting for to determine how to treat Plaintiff Donald Pratt, Defendant officers and employees further deliberately discriminated against him. 4.28 All of the above alleged discriminatory conduct, violated Plaintiffs clear
and well established rights to be treated equally by law enforcement without discrimination based on their disability pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 4.29 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that they were
inflicting this discrimination. 4.30 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their rights by
Defendants, and of Defendants discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 4.31 The excessive and discriminatory conduct and the resulting abuse of
Plaintiffs was directly and proximately caused by Defendants training, supervision and failure to discipline, and the above ratification. 4.32 Defendant County of Whatcom and its named and doe officers and employees also violated Plaintiffs Rights under the REHAB ACT by failing, in their policies and actions to make reasonable adaptations of programs to make them accessible to persons who are deaf, thereby directly resulting in the harm inflicted on Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
COUNT FIVE ASSAULT AND BATTERY AS TO PLAINTIFF DONALD PRATT (As to All Defendants) 4.33 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.32 of this complaint. 4.34 Without provocation, warning, explanation, or proper inquiry or
investigation, and in direct contradiction to the actual scene when they entered the house, Defendants present on the scene forcibly seized and arrested Plaintiff Donald Pratt and physically removed him, imprisoning him in the back of a patrol car for a lengthy period of more than an hour before physically taking him back to the house, finally making inquiries and releasing him. 4.35 This caused great physical pain, fear, and emotional pain to both Plaintiffs without justification or necessity. 4.36 This inexplicable, unexplained, and unjustified action and other tortious conduct by Defendants caused Plaintiff Donald Pratt to reasonably and foreseeably fear further battery and other imminent harm to his health and safety, and he did so fear. This fear constitutes common law assault. 4.37 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that they were and
would inflict this reasonable fear on Plaintiffs. 4.38 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his rights by
Defendants, and of Defendants tortious conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4.39
The excessive and unreasonable uses of force, detention, functional
arrest and the resulting abuse of Plaintiff Donald Pratt was directly and proximately caused by Defendants training, supervision and failure to discipline, and the above ratification. 4.40 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT SIX FALSE ARREST AND DETENTION (As to All Defendants)(As to Plaintiff DONALD PRATT) 4.41 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.24 of this complaint. 4.42 Defendants should not as a matter of law and had insufficient basis for basis for arresting Plaintiff Donald Pratt, absent investigation, and imprisoning him for well over an hour in the back of a patrol car with no ability to communicate and no explanation given the state of the scene. 4.43 Defendants detention, seizure and arrest of Plaintiff Donald Pratt without
probable cause or a warrant violated Plaintiffs rights under Article 1 of the Washington State Constitution, Section 7.4.4. PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
4.44
The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or
reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged. 4.45 As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiff Donald Pratt has suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT SEVEN FALSE IMPRISONMENT (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS) (As to all Defendants) 4.46 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.45 of this complaint. 4.47 As discussed above, there was no basis for the extended imprisonment of Plaintiff Donald Pratt and it was part and parcel of the discriminatory conduct described above throughout, not legitimate law enforcement activities. 4.48. Plaintiffs Donald Pratt, in the vehicle, and Linda Pratt in the house were unjustly deprived of liberty for that period and subjected to abuses therein. 4.49 Defendants knew or should have known that there was no basis for arresting, imprisoning and indeed detaining Plaintiffs.
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
4.50. As a further direct and proximate result of the false arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff(s), they suffered damages and injuries as heretofore alleged in this complaint. 4.51 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT EIGHT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (OUTRAGE) (As to All Defendants) 4.52 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.51 of this complaint. 4.53 In carrying out the false arrest, false imprisonments, discriminatory law
enforcement, battery and assault, verbal and physical abuse of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and each, of them sought to cause emotional distress and trauma to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs did suffer such emotional distress with accompanying physical symptoms. 4.54 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional and Statutory rights by Defendants and Defendants other tortious conduct against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4.55
The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, extreme
and outrageous, and reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT NINE NEGLIGENCE (As to All Defendants) 4.56 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.55 of this complaint. 4.57 Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care at or about the times of the aforementioned incidents. 4.58 In committing the aforementioned acts and/or omissions, Defendants, and each of them, negligently breached said duty to use due care, directly and proximately resulting in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. COUNT TEN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60.030 (As to Both Plaintiffs (As to All Defendants)
4.59 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.58 of this complaint.
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
4.60 For all of the discriminatory conduct detailed under counts 3 and 4 above and in the fact section of this complaint, Defendants are liable under RCW 49.60.030 for deliberately discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their disability and for violating Plaintiffs right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement and discrimination based on their disability under Washington Law. 4.61 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional and Statutory rights by Defendants and Defendants other tortious conduct against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 4.62 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, extreme
and outrageous, and reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. . V. JURY TRIAL DEMAND 5.0 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this matter.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as follows: 1. For general damages including pain and suffering together with special
damages for Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary legal expenses, and medical

27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
expenses both past and future, the exact amount of which will be established at the time of trial; 2. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant to Federal and State law; 3. For actual attorneys fees and litigation costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 4. 5. For statutory attorneys fees and costs; and For court supervised training and regulations requiring that the involved
agencies and officers properly train their officers on proper procedures for treating disabled people, particularly deaf person, in conformity with the Justice Department Office of Civil Rights model guidelines for doing so, and institute proper investigative, and disciplinary procedures. 6. For an injunction, to be directly supervised by the court that the Department be required to train and implement standards of conduct for addressing the special needs of persons with disabilities. 7. For an injunction, to be supervised by the court requiring the Department to bring an appropriate court certified interpreter with them to any call that they know involves a deaf person, or person they otherwise cannot communicate with, and to have a court certified ASL interpreter or interpreter in whatever language the deaf person communicates in, on call for situations that they discover in progress involve a deaf person, and that personnel of the Department will take no more action than is
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
absolutely necessary for safety against or involving a deaf person or person they otherwise cannot communicate with until an appropriate interpreter arrives on the scene 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: January 23, 2013 ________/s/ LAWRENCE A. HILDES___________ LAWRENCE A. HILDES, WSBA # 35305 P.O. Box 5405, Bellingham, WA 98227 (360) 715-9788 lhildes@earthlink.net Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs DONALD and LINDA PRATT

29

Pratt Civil Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pratt Civil Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Because of the handcuffs, he was not allowed to communicate (through

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

asking him any questions or telling him anything.

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The excessive and unreasonable uses of force, detention, functional

The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, extreme

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

S-ar putea să vă placă și