Cathy Woods Lawsuit

Case 3:16-cv-00494-MMD-CWH Document 170 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 43
1 Edmund J. Gorman, Jr.

NV Bar # 11518
2 335 W. First St.
Reno, NV 89503
3 O: 775.622.3274
ejgormanjr@ejgormanlaw.com
4 Designated Resident Nevada Counsel for Plaintiff Cathy Woods (a/k/a Anita Carter), by and
through her Personal Representative, Linda Wade
5
Elizabeth Wang* David B. Owens*
6 LOEVY & LOEVY LOEVY & LOEVY
2060 Broadway, Ste. 460 311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl.
7 Boulder, CO 80302 Chicago, IL 60607
O: 720.328.5642 O: 312.243.5900
8 elizabethw@loevy.com david@loevy.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
9 Counsel for Plaintiff Cathy Woods (a/k/a Anita Carter), by and through her Personal
Representative, Linda Wade
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
13 CATHY WOODS (a/k/a ANITA CARTER), )

by and through her Personal Representative, )
14 LINDA WADE, ) Case No.: 3:16-cv-00494-MMD-CWH
)
15 Plaintiff, )
v. ) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
16 ) JURY DEMAND
CITY OF RENO, NEVADA, LAWRENCE C. )
17 DENNISON, DONALD W. ASHLEY, )
CLARENCE A. “JACKIE” LEWIS, and )
18 CALVIN R. X. DUNLAP, )
)
19 Defendants. )
)
20
Now comes Plaintiff, CATHY WOODS (a/k/a ANITA CARTER), by and through her
21
Personal Representative, LINDA WADE, and complains of Defendants CITY OF RENO,
22
NEVADA, former Reno Police Lieutenant LAWRENCE C. DENNISON, former Shreveport
23
Police Detective DONALD W. ASHLEY, former Shreveport Police Detective CLARENCE A.
24
25
1
1 “JACKIE” LEWIS, and former Washoe County District Attorney CALVIN R. X. DUNLAP, as
2 follows:
3 Introduction
4 1. Plaintiff, Cathy Woods, also known as Anita Carter, was wrongfully convicted for
5 the 1976 murder of Michelle Mitchell—a crime she did not commit. Arrested in 1979, Plaintiff
6 served over 35 years of a life sentence before she was exonerated in September 2014. She is one
7 of the longest-serving wrongfully convicted persons to be exonerated in United States history.
8 Ms. Woods is also the longest-serving wrongfully convicted woman to be exonerated in United
9 States history.
10 2. Ms. Woods was exonerated after DNA testing conducted on evidence from the
11 crime scene revealed that the actual killer was a serial rapist and murderer, a man named Rodney
12 Halbower. Halbower is currently serving a prison sentence in Oregon.
13 3. Facing the pressure of solving a high-profile cold case they had previously (and
14 rightly) investigated as a crime perpetrated by a man, who they also believed was a serial killer,
15 Defendants decided to contradict their years of prior investigation and turn to misconduct in
16 order to “solve” the case.
17 4. Specifically, Defendants decided to pursue Ms. Woods—a woman who was
18 diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and involuntarily committed in a state mental hospital—
19 as a suspect. In so doing, the Defendants coerced and fabricated statements attributed to Ms.
20 Woods they knew to be false and involuntary. Egregiously, the Defendants preyed on Ms.
21 Woods because she was mentally vulnerable and also due to their own homophobia, as they
22 believed she was a lesbian.
23
24
25
2
1 5. In sum, Defendants’ misconduct included but was not limited to the coercion and
2 fabrication of Ms. Woods’ false confession, and the fabrication of additional false evidence
3 against Ms. Woods, as well as the suppression of exculpatory evidence.
4 6. Ms. Woods will never get 35 years of her life back, and nothing about being
5 mentally vulnerable could ever justify being wrongfully convicted for over three decades. Ms.
6 Woods therefore brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law, seeking
7 redress for the wrongs done to her, as well as to deter future misconduct.
8 Jurisdiction and Venue
9 7. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
10 1331, because she asserts claims for violations of her constitutional rights, including under the
11 Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as described in more detail below. This Court has
12 jurisdiction over her state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
13 8. Venue is proper because, upon information and belief, most of the individual
14 defendants reside within this district, and events giving rise to the claims asserted herein
15 occurred within this district.
16 Parties
17 9. Plaintiff Cathy Woods, also known as Anita Carter, is 69 years old. Ms. Woods’
18 real name is Anita Carter, but she was prosecuted and convicted in Nevada under the name
19 Cathy Woods. Due to her mental illness, which was worsened by her decades of imprisonment,
20 Ms. Woods is cared for by Linda Wade, who has full guardianship of Ms. Woods’ person and
21 estate. When Ms. Woods was arrested in 1979, she was 29 years old and living in Shreveport,
22 Louisiana.
23 10. Defendant Lawrence C. Dennison was at all times relevant to this Complaint a
24 lieutenant with the Reno Police Department in Reno, Nevada. At all times relevant, Defendant
25
3
1 Dennison acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment for the Defendant
2 City of Reno and the Reno Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity.
3 11. Defendant Donald W. Ashley was at all times relevant to this Complaint a
4 detective with the Shreveport Police Department in Shreveport, Louisiana. At all times relevant,
5 Defendant Ashley acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment. He is sued
6 in his individual capacity.
7 12. Defendant Clarence A. “Jackie” Lewis was at all times relevant to this Complaint
8 a detective with the Shreveport Police Department in Shreveport, Louisiana. At all times
9 relevant, Defendant Lewis acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment. He
10 is sued in his individual capacity.
11 13. Defendants Dennison, Ashley, and Lewis are referred to herein as the “Defendant
12 Officers.” Defendant Dennison, at all times relevant, a final policymaker or had been delegated
13 such authority, for the Defendant City of Reno.
14 14. Defendant City of Reno (the “City”) is a Nevada municipal corporation that
15 operates the Reno Police Department (the “Department”). The City is liable for all state law torts
16 committed by Defendant Dennison while employed by the City pursuant to the doctrine of
17 respondeat superior. The City is additionally responsible for the policies and practices of the
18 City and Department.
19 15. Defendant Calvin R. X. Dunlap was at all times relevant to this Complaint the
20 District Attorney of Washoe County, Nevada. At all times relevant, Defendant Dunlap acted
21 under color of law and within the scope of his employment for Washoe County and the Washoe
22 County District Attorney’s Office. Defendant Dunlap is being sued in his individual and official
23 capacities, and for actions taken in an investigative capacity alone.
24
25
4
1 16. Defendants Dennison, Ashley, Lewis, and Dunlap are collectively referred to as
2 the “Law Enforcement Defendants.”1
3 Factual Background
4 17. Cathy Woods was born in Georgia. During her childhood, she lived in several
5 different states because her father was in the military. Ms. Woods had a difficult childhood. She
6 received only a sixth-grade education, could barely read, and had a below-average IQ.
7 18. Ms. Woods has a lifelong history of severe mental illness. She was diagnosed
8 with and hospitalized for schizophrenia at the age of 12. By the time she was in her 20s, she had
9 been hospitalized numerous times for psychiatric treatment. She also has a family history of
10 mental illness.
11 19. At the same time, Ms. Woods was able to live a happy and productive life. She
12 was able to live independently, work to support herself, and form relationships with others.
13 20. In about 1969, Ms. Woods moved to Reno, Nevada, where she lived and worked
14 until 1977. In February 1976, Ms. Woods was working as a bartender and manager of a bar in
15 Reno. Ms. Woods was living and working on her own, and her schizophrenia, while ever present,
16 was under control. Ms. Woods lived in Reno until 1977, when she moved back to Shreveport,
17 Louisiana, where her family was living.
18 The Murder of Michelle Mitchell
19 21. On the evening of February 24, 1976, Michelle Mitchell, a 19 year-old University
20 of Nevada, Reno, student, was murdered.
21 22. Cathy Woods did not murder Michelle Mitchell. She had nothing to do with this
22 crime whatsoever and is completely innocent.
23
24
1
Pursuant to Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), Plaintiff does not re-plead
25 herein claims or defendants that were previously dismissed with prejudice.
5
1 23. Ms. Mitchell’s body was found in a detached garage at a house on Evans Avenue
2 near the University campus. Her hands were tied and her throat had been slashed.
3 24. There was a cigarette butt that had been found near her body at the scene. The
4 murder weapon was never found.
5 25. There were two sets of footprints on the dirt floor of the garage: Ms. Mitchell’s
6 and the killer’s.
7 26. The killer’s shoeprints reflected a male shoe, approximately size 9 or 9.5 men’s
8 shoe.
9 27. At that size, the killer’s male shoeprint was more than two shoe sizes larger than
10 Ms. Woods’ smaller, feminine shoe size.
11 28. Ms. Mitchell had gone missing a few hours earlier after her car broke down near
12 the University campus. She used a pay phone near the Agricultural Building of the University to
13 call her mother to come pick her up. She then walked back to her car to wait. When her mother
14 arrived, Michelle Mitchell was not there.
15 29. Ms. Mitchell’s abduction and murder was extensively reported in the news. There
16 were numerous contemporaneous, published reports containing information that was known
17 about the circumstances of the crime, including the kind of car she was driving, where she was
18 found, and how she was found.
19 30. For instance, it was publicly reported that: Ms. Mitchell’s car broke down across
20 from the University Agricultural Building; her car was a Volkswagen bug; her body was
21 discovered in a garage nearby; her throat had been slashed; she was 19 years old; her hands had
22 been tied behind her; and she was fully clothed and there was no evidence of sexual assault or
23 molestation. Ms. Mitchell’s picture was also published, showing her to have long, blond hair.
24
25
6
1 31. Ms. Woods had seen the news coverage of Michelle Mitchell’s murder, as had
2 many other residents of Reno.
3 32. In the days immediately after Ms. Mitchell’s death, numerous witnesses who were
4 on or near campus on the night of the murder came forward to the police with information.
5 33. Some witnesses reported information about the abduction itself. For instance, two
6 witnesses told the police that, as Ms. Mitchell walked back to her car after making a phone call,
7 they saw a man come out from in or near her car and put his arms around her, startling her. They
8 described him as taller than her; Ms. Mitchell was approximately 5’11” tall.
9 34. Several of these witnesses reported seeing a suspicious man running away from
10 the scene of the crime at around the time that the crime was believed to have occurred. For
11 instance, a number of fraternity brothers at the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (“SAE”) fraternity house
12 near Evans Avenue and 9th Street also told the police that they saw a man walking hurriedly
13 away from Evans Avenue.
14 35. Another witness who was driving near the SAE house told police investigators
15 she almost hit a man who ran in front of her car away from the scene of the crime. This witness
16 told the police that this man appeared to have blood on him and had one hand held oddly under
17 his jacket or held to his side as he ran.
18 36. In sum, the witnesses uniformly described the suspect as a man with medium to
19 heavy build, longish dirty hair, approximately six feet tall, and wearing a jacket.
20 37. Based on this and other information, the police believed that the suspect in Ms.
21 Mitchell’s murder was a single man.
22 38. In fact, the police believed that Ms. Mitchell’s killer was probably a male serial
23 killer, given similar killings of young women in the region.
24
25
7
1 39. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, the Reno Police Department put out
2 composite sketches seeking information about the crime seeking tips from community members.
3 And, owing to the highly public nature of Ms. Mitchell’s abduction and murder, the Department
4 received scores of responses.
5 40. In addition, investigators worked with other law enforcement agencies to identify
6 possible connections to other cases, all the while looking for a single, male serial criminal. In so
7 doing, detectives coordinated with other law enforcement agencies in the Northern California
8 and Pacific Northwest region, and sent their composite sketch to a number of other agencies.
9 41. Despite these steps and a number of community-suggested leads, the police
10 investigation did not result in any arrests. The high-profile case went cold.
11 Cathy Woods’ Involuntary Commitment at LSU Medical Center in February 1979
12 42. Ms. Woods left Reno about a year after Michelle Mitchell’s murder, and she
13 moved to Shreveport, Louisiana to be near her family. There, her mental condition deteriorated.
14 43. As a result, Ms. Woods had to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. She was
15 involuntarily committed at Central Louisiana State Hospital from approximately October 1978
16 through December 1978.
17 44. Just two months later, in February 1979, Ms. Woods was involuntarily committed
18 again, at the LSU Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. This was the second time in six
19 months that she needed to be hospitalized against her will in order to receive treatment for her
20 severe mental illness. At the time, Ms. Woods was suffering profoundly from her mental illness
21 and was an easily confused and extremely vulnerable woman.
22 45. While at LSU Medical Center, Ms. Woods was treated for chronic schizophrenia.
23 In addition, Ms. Woods suffered from thought disorder, meaning that her thinking was not
24
25
8
1 logical or coherent, and she had auditory hallucinations, meaning that she heard voices in her
2 head that were not real.
3 46. Ms. Woods was classified by physicians as “extremely psychotic,” and her
4 thought disorder manifested itself outwardly in an obvious way. She was very ill.
5 47. Indeed, in the days leading up to March 6-8, 1979, and despite receiving
6 medication, her condition grew worse than it was at the time of her admission.
7 48. While at LSU Medical Center, Ms. Woods asked repeatedly when she could go
8 home. She was told that she could not go home, and she was not allowed to go home.
9 Ms. Woods Speaks to an Institutional Counselor
10 49. On or about March 6, 1979, while she was floridly psychotic and hearing voices,
11 Ms. Woods told a counselor at LSU Medical Center, Carol Sherman, about a girl named
12 Michelle being murdered in Reno several years earlier.
13 50. Ms. Woods’ statement to Sherman was vague, and she did not tell Sherman
14 anything about the crime that had not been publicly reported.
15 51. Nonetheless, and unlawfully, Sherman called Defendant Donald Ashley, a
16 Shreveport detective.
17 52. Thereafter, Defendant Ashley and his partner, Defendant Clarence Lewis, began
18 to investigate the Mitchell murder—a case they listed as a “foreign homicide” in Reno, Nevada.
19 In so doing, Defendants Ashley and Lewis knew they were investigating a homicide case that
20 would, if successful, result in the prosecution and conviction of Plaintiff in the State of Nevada.
21 53. As reflected in their initial “Offense Report,” which created a unique case number
22 for the “Foreign Homicide” of Michelle Mitchell in Reno, Defendants Ashley and Lewis
23 identified Cathy Woods as a suspect, with an address at her mother’s home.
24
25
9
1 54. In this role, Defendants Ashley and Lewis took investigative steps both
2 independently and in conjunction with Defendants Dennison and Dunlap and Reno Police
3 Detective John Kimpton.2 For instance, Defendants Ashley and Lewis interviewed Ms. Sherman
4 about her alleged conversations with Ms. Woods.
5 55. Even though Ms. Woods’ statement bore no indicia of reliability and was false,
6 Defendant Ashley called the Reno Police Department and spoke with Defendant Dennison and
7 Detective Kimpton about the Mitchell homicide. As a result of this conversation, the Law
8 Enforcement defendants decided that Ms. Sherman would be re-interviewed by officers from
9 Reno pursuant to their investigation of Cathy Woods for the Michelle Mitchell murder.
10 The Defendants Were Eager to Solve a Cold Case
11 56. On March 6, 1979, Defendant Dennison and a Reno Police Captain, Kenneth
12 Pulver, met with Defendant Dunlap, who was the District Attorney of Washoe County at the
13 time, about what the next investigative steps should be with respect to Plaintiff. In that
14 conversation, acting as an investigator, Defendant Dunlap advised and directed the other
15 Defendants about how the investigation would be conducted and what the next steps should be.
16 57. The Law Enforcement Defendants agreed to take these steps despite the fact there
17 were there no reasonable grounds to believe that Ms. Woods was actually involved in Michelle
18 Mitchell’s death. Indeed, her physical appearance at the time of the crime and at the time of her
19 involuntary commitment bore no resemblance to the description of the male suspect provided by
20 witnesses. Ms. Woods was several inches shorter than the suspect and had a womanly figure.
21 The idea that Ms. Woods was the killer was contrary to all reliable evidence the Defendants had.
22
23
24
2
25 Kimpton is deceased.
10
1 58. Nevertheless, after discussing the matter, Defendants Dennison and Dunlap
2 agreed and decided that they would send Dennison to Shreveport, Louisiana, to interrogate Ms.
3 Woods.
4 59. Defendants Dennison and Dunlap wanted to know whether or not Ms. Woods had
5 information in addition to that which had been published in the local media at the time of the
6 death of Michelle Mitchell (that is, non-public facts about the crime).
7 60. Defendant Dunlap was familiar with the details of the case, including non-public
8 facts about the crime. Dunlap even viewed the crime scene after Ms. Mitchell’s body was found
9 in February 1976.
10 61. Defendant Dennison was also familiar with the details of the case, including non-
11 public facts about the crime. For instance, he reviewed the case file and crime scene photos, and
12 he was thoroughly briefed about the case before leaving for Shreveport.
13 62. At the time of the interrogations, Defendants Dennison and Dunlap and the Reno
14 police were eager to solve a highly-publicized murder case that had become a cold case.
15 63. Though completely unreliable, the information Defendants Dennison and Dunlap
16 and the Reno police had received about Ms. Woods’ alleged statement to Carol Sherman was the
17 first lead they had had in years.
18 64. Given the sensational nature of the crime, Defendants Dennison and Dunlap and
19 the Reno police were under pressure to solve the case. There existed a belief among each of the
20 Defendants that getting Ms. Woods to confess was the surest way to obtain a speedy resolution.
21 Ms. Woods’ Interrogation and Involuntary Statements on March 7, 1979
22 65. Defendant Dennison traveled to Shreveport, Louisiana. Upon his arrival on March
23 7, 1979, Defendant Dennison contacted Defendants Ashley and Lewis.
24
25
11
1 66. Together, the Law Enforcement Defendants affirmed their agreement to continue
2 to pursue Ms. Woods as a suspect. Pursuant to that agreement, Defendants Dennison and Ashley
3 went to the LSU Medical Center to interrogate Ms. Woods “in reference to” the Michelle
4 Mitchell homicide on March 7, 1979.
5 67. As evidence of their agreement, the Law Enforcement Defendants and Detective
6 Kimpton prepared and reviewed each other’s police reports. Defendant Dunlap also reviewed
7 these reports, including those that contained fabricated evidence.
8 68. Before Ms. Woods purportedly “confessed,” in addition to the conversation with
9 Dunlap, Dennison, and Pulver, the Law Enforcement Defendants consulted with one another
10 about the interrogation and how it would be conducted. In addition, these officers also advised
11 local authorities about the investigation of a “foreign homicide” in Reno and Ms. Woods’ alleged
12 “involvement.”
13 69. In so doing, Defendants Ashley and Lewis continued to participate in the
14 investigation of Ms. Woods for the murder of Michelle Mitchell.
15 70. At no point did Defendant Ashley or Lewis refuse to participate in the
16 investigation or intervene on behalf of Ms. Woods to ensure that her constitutional rights were
17 not violated.
18 71. Instead, in concert with Defendants Dunlap and Dennison, Defendants Ashley and
19 Lewis agreed to participate, conduct, and cooperate with Dunlap and Dennison in various phases
20 of the investigation.
21 72. Pursuant to the Law Enforcement Defendants’ agreement and plan, on March 7,
22 1979, Defendants Dennison and Ashley interrogated Ms. Woods in a room at the LSU Medical
23 Center, where she was being involuntarily held.
24
25
12
1 73. Defendant Dunlap supervised the interrogation, provided advice, and coordinated
2 with the other Defendants on the manner in which the interrogation would be conducted.
3 74. When she was being questioned, Ms. Woods indicated that she did not have any
4 personal knowledge about the Michelle Mitchell murder.
5 75. Ms. Woods was interrogated by Defendants Dennison and Ashley even though
6 they knew she was seriously mentally ill and manifesting outward signs of her mental illness.
7 76. Ms. Woods was not free to leave the room during the interrogation.
8 77. Nor was Ms. Woods free to leave the hospital during the interrogation.
9 78. At no time during the interrogation did anyone tell Ms. Woods that she was free
10 to leave.
11 79. Ms. Woods knew that she was not free to leave.
12 80. In the days leading up to the interrogation on March 7, 1979, Ms. Woods had not
13 responded to her psychiatric medication and, in fact, her condition had deteriorated to worse than
14 it was when she was first committed.
15 81. At the time of the interrogation, the Law Enforcement Defendants knew that Ms.
16 Woods was so mentally ill that, among other things, she was involuntarily committed to the LSU
17 Medical Center by order of a court; she had been diagnosed as schizophrenic; she was suffering
18 from psychosis; she was hearing voices; she had a history of schizophrenia; and she had been in
19 and out of hospitals for psychiatric treatment in the months before her commitment at LSU
20 Medical Center in February 1979.
21 82. In March 1979, including at the time of the interrogation, Ms. Woods was
22 suffering from her mental illness, which interfered with her ability to function properly. She was
23 experiencing disorganized thoughts, an inability to think in a linear or logical fashion, and
24
25
13
1 auditory hallucinations. Ms. Woods was having difficulty communicating in a logical and linear
2 fashion due to her then-existing mental condition.
3 83. As a result of Ms. Woods’ inability to communicate in a normal manner, as well
4 as her below-average intelligence and limited education, it was immediately obvious to any
5 person—including Defendants—who questioned Ms. Woods at any point on March 6, 7, or 8,
6 1979, that she was suffering from cognitive deficiencies and symptoms of mental illness, she had
7 little to no education or understanding of the situation, and she could not voluntarily or
8 knowingly make any statements.
9 84. Neither before nor during the interrogation on March 7, 1979, did anyone,
10 including any of the Defendants, inform Ms. Woods of her constitutional rights pursuant to
11 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966).
12 85. When Defendants Dennison and Ashley questioned Ms. Woods on March 7,
13 1979, Ms. Woods did not indicate that she had any non-public information about the crime.
14 Defendants Dennison and Ashley secured what they knew to be a false and involuntary
15 “confession” from Ms. Woods by, among other things: (a) asking leading questions that supplied
16 Ms. Woods with non-public information about the crime; (b) asking her the same questions
17 repeatedly even when she was unable to answer; (c) telling her to guess the answers to questions
18 when she did not know the answers; (d) correcting her complete guesses to match the facts of the
19 crime; (e) pressuring her, while supplying correct information in an effort to get her to change
20 her answers to their questions; and (f) otherwise feeding her information about the crime so that
21 the “confession” she involuntarily gave would appear consistent and reliable. Ms. Woods knew
22 that the Defendants were police officers or officers of the law. They wore guns during the
23 interrogations, contributing to the coercive nature of their questioning.
24
25
14
1 86. During the March 7, 1979 interrogation, Defendant Dennison asked the questions,
2 fed Ms. Woods non-public information, corrected her complete guesses, pressured her, fed her
3 information about the crime and otherwise committed the conduct described in the preceding
4 paragraph. Defendant Ashley was present and had the opportunity to intervene and stop
5 Defendant Dennison’s unlawful conduct. However, he did not do so, despite his knowledge that
6 Defendant Dennison’s conduct violated Ms. Woods’ constitutional rights.
7 87. The presence of a medical student, Douglas Burks, in the room during a portion of
8 the interrogation on March 7, 1979 also contributed to the coercive circumstances, since hospital
9 staff was often used to help control patients.
10 88. During the interrogation, Defendants Dennison and Ashley observed Ms. Woods’
11 obvious cognitive deficiencies and symptoms of mental illness. Rather than take steps to ensure
12 that Ms. Woods was truly and freely agreeing to confess, these Defendants took advantage of her
13 diminished capacity and mental vulnerabilities and continued their interrogation in a manner
14 intended to force Ms. Woods to falsely confess.
15 89. Defendants Dennison and Ashley overcame Ms. Woods’ will through improper
16 means and thereby succeeded in getting her to provide a false, involuntary “confession” to the
17 murder of Michelle Mitchell.
18 90. Defendant Ashley was present and had the opportunity to intervene and stop
19 Defendant Dennison’s unlawful conduct. However, he did not do so, despite his knowledge that
20 Defendant Dennison’s conduct violated Ms. Woods’ constitutional rights.
21 91. In the totality of the circumstances, and in particularly in light of Ms. Woods’
22 mental and physical status (being involuntarily committed at a state psychiatric hospital), the
23 Defendants’ conduct during the interrogation was coercive.
24
25
15
1 92. Prior to Ms. Woods’ “confession,” there was no probable cause to believe that she
2 had committed any crime.
3 93. After Ms. Woods’ “confession,” there was no probable cause to believe that she
4 had committed any crime.
5 94. At no time was there probable cause to believe that Ms. Woods had participated
6 in the murder of Michelle Mitchell in any way whatsoever.
7 95. Ms. Woods’ false “confession” during her interrogation was not memorialized or
8 written down in any way.
9 96. It was not audio recorded, even though the Law Enforcement Defendants had the
10 capacity to record statements.
11 97. In fact, Reno police detectives audio-recorded numerous witness statements
12 during their investigation of the Michelle Mitchell homicide.
13 98. Nor did Defendants Dennison or Ashley ask Ms. Woods to write her “confession”
14 down.
15 99. Nor did Defendants Dennison or Ashley contemporaneously write the
16 “confession” down for her and ask her to review or sign it.
17 100. At no time on March 7, 1979 did Defendants Dennison or Ashley document Ms.
18 Woods’ purported “confession” or any of the statements she supposedly made to them.
19 101. After the interrogation with Ms. Woods on March 7, 1979, Defendant Dennison
20 spoke with Captain Pulver and Defendant Dunlap in Reno to inform them of the circumstances
21 and course of the interrogation.
22 102. Defendant Dennison informed Pulver and Defendant Dunlap that Ms. Woods did
23 not have any non-public information about the crime and that she had not provided a reliable
24 “confession” as a result of the questioning that day.
25
16
1 103. Defendants Dennison and Dunlap and Captain Pulver discussed the matter and
2 collectively decided that Defendant Dunlap and Reno detective Kimpton would fly to Shreveport
3 the next day in order to interrogate Ms. Woods again.
4 104. Defendant Dunlap’s purpose in going to Shreveport was to interrogate Plaintiff in
5 the hopes of getting a confession that was not obviously unreliable.
6 105. Before she was involuntarily committed, Plaintiff lived with her mother, Elenora
7 Carter, at her house in Shreveport. As further evidence of the absence of reasonable grounds to
8 suspect Plaintiff, Defendants Dennison and Ashley had been unsuccessful in their attempts to
9 obtain a search warrant from a judge for Elenora Carter’s house on March 7, 1979. Accordingly,
10 their plan, as agreed to with Defendant Dunlap, was to have Defendant Dunlap assist them in
11 obtaining a search warrant for the house in addition to attempting to get a confession from
12 Plaintiff.
13 The March 8, 1979 Search and Fabrication of Police Reports
14 106. On the morning of March 8, 1979, Defendant Dunlap and Detective Kimpton
15 arrived in Shreveport, Louisiana.
16 107. After picking up Defendant Dunlap and Detective Kimpton, Defendants Dennison
17 and Ashley provided an in-depth briefing to them about the investigation that had happened the
18 day before, including but not limited to their questioning of Ms. Woods the day before.
19 108. Defendants Dunlap, Dennison, Ashley and Detective Kimpton agreed to obtain an
20 involuntary confession or statements from Ms. Woods and, if they were unable to obtain
21 inculpatory statements from her, they were determined to fabricate such statements.
22 109. Defendants Dunlap and Dennison and Detective Kimpton met with Ms. Woods at
23 the LSU Medical Center, where they knew that she was being involuntarily held. They informed
24 Ms. Woods that she would be questioned again after the search of her mother’s house.
25
17
1 110. Defendants Dunlap, Dennison, Ashley, and Lewis agreed to pursue additional
2 “investigation” of Ms. Woods in an attempt to find corroboration for their recently-obtained false
3 “confession” before the Reno-based Defendants left town. In so doing, the Law Enforcement
4 Defendants worked together, and at the direction of Defendant Dunlap, to collectively continue
5 to investigate Ms. Woods relative to the murder of Michelle Mitchell.
6 111. Being local, Defendants Ashley and Lewis were instrumental in facilitating this
7 part of their agreement with Defendants Dunlap and Dennison to investigate and later prosecute
8 Cathy Woods for the murder of Michelle Mitchell. One of the ways in which they carried out
9 their agreement was to assist in obtaining a search warrant for Elenora Carter’s house and
10 executing that search.
11 112. Together, on March 8, 1979, Defendants Ashley, Dunlap, Dennison and Detective
12 Kimpton sought and obtained a search warrant for Ms. Woods’ mother’s house. After obtaining
13 the warrant, they contacted Defendant Lewis and others to assist in executing the warrant and
14 searching the home.
15 113. Despite the fact that it was years after the crime, and the fact that they were
16 looking for a common household item, they told Ms. Woods and her family members they were
17 looking for a murder weapon, which they believed was a knife.
18 114. The Law Enforcement Defendants and Detective Kimpton brought Ms. Woods to
19 her mother’s house for the search. They searched the home. Ms. Woods was in Defendants’
20 custody the entire time. She was not allowed to leave, and she was handcuffed.
21 115. During the search, the Law Enforcement Defendants interrogated Ms. Woods yet
22 again, despite being aware of her mental vulnerabilities. During the questioning, each of the
23 Defendants—Dunlap, Dennison, Ashley, and Lewis—observed Ms. Woods’ obvious cognitive
24 deficiencies and symptoms of mental illness. The Defendants overcame Ms. Woods’ will
25
18
1 through improper means and thereby succeeded in getting her to provide additional false,
2 incriminating statements that were not knowingly or voluntarily given.
3 116. Defendant Dunlap, like the other Defendants, was present and knew that this was
4 happening but did not intervene to stop it, as doing so was part of Defendants’ agreement to
5 pursue Ms. Woods for the murder.
6 117. The search of Elenora Carter’s house in Shreveport did not reveal any piece of
7 evidence linking Ms. Woods to the crime, including any knife related to the crime.
8 118. After the search, Ms. Woods told one of her physicians, Dr. Linda Boswell, that
9 she wanted to have an attorney.
10 119. Dr. Boswell informed Defendants Dennison and Lewis that Ms. Woods had asked
11 for an attorney.
12 120. Defendant Dennison communicated this information to Defendants Dunlap and
13 Ashley.
14 121. The Law Enforcement Defendants knew that Ms. Woods had invoked her right to
15 an attorney and that she did not wish to speak with them.
16 122. Ms. Woods was brought back to the LSU Medical Center after the search of her
17 mother’s house on March 8, 1979.
18 123. The Law Enforcement Defendants agreed that one of them would question her
19 again, despite the fact that she had invoked her right to an attorney and to remain silent, and even
20 though they were aware of her mental illness and cognitive deficiencies. Defendants Dunlap and
21 Dennison also falsely promised Ms. Woods that things would go “quicker” and easier if she did
22 not have an attorney. This took place at LSU Medical Center.
23 124. After Dr. Boswell advised her that she should have an attorney, Ms. Woods
24 invoked her right to an attorney.
25
19
1 125. Despite this invocation, the Law Enforcement Defendants conferred with each
2 other and agreed that they would attempt to obtain further involuntary and false statements from
3 Ms. Woods.
4 126. Pursuant to this agreement, Defendant Dennison engaged in further questioning of
5 Ms. Woods. Ms. Woods did not say anything inculpatory during this session on March 8, 1979.
6 127. Defendants Dunlap, Ashley, and Lewis all had the opportunity to intervene to
7 prevent this questioning, but they chose not to, as the questioning was in furtherance of their
8 agreement to pursue Ms. Woods for the murder of Michelle Mitchell.
9 128. Defendant Dennison later falsely claimed in police reports that Ms. Woods told
10 him that Michelle Mitchell said “please don’t kill me,” and that Ms. Woods was not afraid of
11 hitchhikers because she would kill them.
12 129. Ms. Woods never said these things.
13 130. Because Ms. Woods had not provided any information about the Michelle
14 Mitchell murder which had not been publicly reported, the Law Enforcement Defendants
15 decided to fabricate false evidence implicating Ms. Woods. The Law Enforcement Defendants
16 discussed the matter and agreed that Dennison and Ashley would create a false police report
17 which purported to summarize the “confession” and other inculpatory statements that Ms.
18 Woods had supposedly made on March 7 and 8, 1979. (Henceforth referred to as the “Fabricated
19 Confession Report.”)
20 131. Towards the end of the day on March 8, 1979, Defendants Dennison and Ashley
21 dictated the Fabricated Confession Report at the Shreveport Police Department.
22 132. The Law Enforcement Defendants had to generate the Fabricated Confession
23 Report because there was absolutely no contemporaneous documentation of their interrogations
24 of Ms. Woods on March 7 or 8, 1979. Defendants did not record their questioning, keep
25
20
1 contemporaneous notes, or have Ms. Woods sign and initial any confession or inculpatory
2 statement.
3 133. This dictation (the Fabricated Confession Report) contained false and fabricated
4 statements about what Ms. Woods had supposedly said about the crime. The Fabricated
5 Confession Report claims that Ms. Woods provided certain non-public facts about the crime
6 which she had never told them. These non-public facts were added in order to make it appear as
7 if (1) there had been an actual confession, and (2) that the purported confession, though false,
8 was reliable.
9 134. The Fabricated Confession Report was created both at the direction of Defendant
10 Dunlap and pursuant to Defendants’ agreement with Defendant Dunlap to fabricate evidence
11 against Ms. Woods. After this report was created, Defendant Dunlap reviewed it and had the
12 opportunity to prevent it from being used to deprive Ms. Woods of her liberty. But, acting
13 pursuant to his agreement with the other Defendants, he failed to do so.
14 135. The non-public facts added by Defendants Dunlap, Dennison, and Ashley in the
15 Fabricated Confession Report included but were not limited to the following: Ms. Mitchell was
16 kneeling and fell forward on her face after her throat was slit; that her hair was red from blood at
17 the bottom; that her eyes were open; that Ms. Mitchell’s body had been moved after her throat
18 was slit. This fabricated police report also included numerous statements that Ms. Woods never
19 said at all, including that Ms. Mitchell said “please don’t kill me” to Ms. Woods and that Ms.
20 Woods said that she didn’t fear hitchhikers because she would kill them.
21 136. Due to his familiarity with the case, Defendant Dunlap knew what the public and
22 non-public facts about the crime were. Defendant Dunlap knew that Ms. Woods had no non-
23 public information about the crime because Defendants Dennison and Ashley had told him so
24 after their first interrogation of Ms. Woods on March 7, 1979.
25
21
1 137. Due to his familiarity with the case, Defendant Dennison knew what the public
2 and non-public facts about the crime were. He also knew what Ms. Woods said and did not say
3 during the interrogation of her on March 7, 1979 and during the further interrogation of her on
4 March 8, 1979.
5 138. Defendant Ashley knew what Ms. Woods said and did not say during his and
6 Defendant Dennison’s interrogation of her on March 7, 1979. Yet, he participated in the
7 fabrication of evidence when he and Defendant Dennison dictated the Fabricated Confession
8 Report on March 8, 1979.
9 139. Defendant Dennison took the audio recording of the dictation with him back to
10 Reno.
11 140. The audio recording of the dictation was eventually transcribed.
12 141. This recording has been lost and/or destroyed.
13 142. This transcribed dictation—the Fabricated Confession Report—was the only
14 documentation of Ms. Woods’ “confession,” and it was used against her to deprive her of liberty,
15 both in seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings against Ms. Woods and later at trial.
16 143. The Fabricated Confession Report was used in myriad ways to support the
17 prosecution of Ms. Woods, including but not limited to supporting the testimony of the testifying
18 defendants and at Ms. Woods’ trials to “refresh” the recollection of the only third-party witness
19 to the March 7, 1979 interrogation, medical student Douglas Burks, who had little memory of the
20 interrogation.
21 144. Defendants Dunlap and Ashley had the opportunity to prevent the Fabricated
22 Confession Report from being used to deprive Ms. Woods of her liberty, but they failed to
23 intervene owing to their agreement with other individual Defendants to pursue the bogus case
24 against Ms. Woods.
25
22
1 145. Defendant Dunlap also directed Defendant Dennison to create a second fabricated
2 police report—the Fabricated Non-Public Facts Report—which contained a listing of non-public
3 facts about the crime that they falsely attributed to Ms. Woods.
4 146. The Fabricated Non-Public Facts Report contained the following non-public facts
5 about the crime that Defendants Dunlap and Dennison falsely attributed to Ms. Woods: that at
6 the time of the killing, Ms. Mitchell was kneeling; that Ms. Mitchell fell forward after her throat
7 was slashed; that her body was moved slightly after her throat was cut; that her head was
8 pointing toward the door; that her eyes were open; that her mouth had blood on it; that the
9 bottom part of her hair was red with blood; and that her face was to one side and her hair laid
10 down across her face. This fabricated police report also included numerous statements that Ms.
11 Woods never said at all, including that Ms. Mitchell said “please don’t kill me” to Ms. Woods
12 and Ms. Woods said that she didn’t fear hitchhikers because she would kill them.
13 147. As with the Fabricated Confession Report, the non-public facts in the Fabricated
14 Non-Public Facts Report were added in order to make it appear as if (1) there had been an actual
15 confession, and (2) that the purported confession, though false, was reliable.
16 148. The Fabricated Non-Public Facts Report was used against Ms. Woods to deprive
17 her of her liberty, both in seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings against Ms. Woods and
18 later at trial.
19 149. It was also used in myriad ways to support the prosecution of Ms. Woods,
20 including but not limited to supporting the testimony of the testifying defendants.
21 150. Ms. Woods had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
22 surrounding the murder contained in the police reports. Instead, Ms. Woods recalled only vague
23 information about the crime that had been publicly reported.
24
25
23
1 151. Being totally innocent, and having no knowledge of the crime, Ms. Woods could
2 not have provided the information contained in these police reports without Defendant Dennison
3 having provided the non-public facts to her during the course of her interrogations, or having
4 recalled specific public information that had been reported in the news.
5 152. The Law Enforcement Defendants were subjectively aware that Ms. Woods had
6 no personal knowledge about the murder. As described above, Defendant Dennison suggested
7 answers and fed her information about the crime in order to bolster her “confession” and
8 Defendants fabricated false police reports purporting to document her “confession.”
9 153. The Law Enforcement Defendants also focused on what they thought was Ms.
10 Woods’ homosexuality, claiming that Ms. Woods told them that she killed Michelle Mitchell
11 because Michelle had rejected a sexual advance by Ms. Woods.
12 Additional “Investigation” Relative to the False Case Against Ms. Woods
13 154. On March 9, 1979, the Law Enforcement Defendants also agreed to investigate
14 Ms. Woods’ mother, Elenora Carter, in order to attempt to provide corroboration to their
15 unlawfully obtained “confession.” Specifically, after the search, Defendant Lewis contacted
16 Detective Kimpton, and both agreed to return to Elenora Carter’s home in an attempt to obtain a
17 taped conversation as to Plaintiff’s “activities,” and specifically about what sort of activities Ms.
18 Woods had been involved in while living in Reno.
19 155. In addition, Defendant Lewis and Detective Kimpton, under the supervision of
20 Defendant Dunlap, decided to go to the Rines Alcohol Abuse Center to attempt to find more
21 information about Plaintiff, which they believed would assist in their efforts to prosecute her for
22 the Michelle Mitchell murder in Reno.
23
24
25
24
1 156. At another point, Defendant Lewis obtained the Shreveport Police Department rap
2 sheet and mug shot of Plaintiff and provided that to Defendants Dunlap and Dennison to assist in
3 the investigation.
4 157. Defendants Ashley and Lewis continued similar investigative efforts after
5 Kimpton, Dunlap and Dennison, had returned to Reno in continuing their role as investigators of
6 the Michelle Mitchell homicide. For example, several days after Kimpton, Dunlap, and Dennison
7 had left town, Defendants Ashley and Lewis, together, re-interviewed Ms. Sherman, the
8 counselor from LSU Medical Center.
9 158. Eventually, Defendants Dunlap and Dennison were able to obtain an arrest
10 warrant for Ms. Woods concerning the murder of Michelle Mitchell.
11 159. Defendants Dennison and Dunlap together wrote the criminal complaint against
12 Ms. Woods. They knowingly and intentionally included in the complaint false statements about
13 Ms. Woods’ supposed involvement in the crime.
14 160. Defendant Dennison wrote an affidavit in support of the complaint and warrant
15 for Ms. Woods’ arrest which included material falsehoods concerning Ms. Woods’ purported
16 statements to him about the crime. Dennison included these falsehoods knowingly and
17 intentionally.
18 161. Defendants Ashley and Lewis continued to confer, coordinate, and correspond
19 with Defendants Dunlap and Dennison throughout the investigative process.
20 Ms. Woods Is Charged with the Murder of Michelle Mitchell
21 162. Ms. Woods was extradited to Nevada in order to face criminal charges for the
22 murder of Michelle Mitchell. At the time they agreed to participate in the investigation of Cathy
23 Woods for the murder of Michelle Mitchell, Defendants Ashley and Lewis knew that Michelle
24
25
25
1 Mitchell had been murdered in Reno and that Ms. Woods would be prosecuted in Nevada, not
2 Louisiana.
3 163. The only evidence that led to the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms.
4 Woods was her false “confession” and involuntary statements obtained by the Law Enforcement
5 Defendants in March 1979 and the fabricated police reports created by them.
6 164. Ms. Woods was detained continuously from her arrest in March 1979 until her
7 conviction was vacated in September 2014.
8 Ms. Woods’ Trial and Wrongful Conviction
9 165. In 1980, Ms. Woods was tried for Michelle Mitchell’s murder.
10 166. At trial, the State’s theory was that Ms. Woods committed the crime alone and
11 that she did so out of rage because Ms. Mitchell had rejected a sexual advance by Ms. Woods.
12 Ms. Woods was also painted as a “sexual deviant” by the Law Enforcement Defendants, because
13 they believed that she was a homosexual and they believed that labeling Ms. Woods a
14 homosexual would aid their efforts to secure her conviction.
15 167. Ms. Woods’ attorneys presented extensive evidence on her behalf, including
16 testimony from witnesses who described seeing a man flee from the scene, and testimony that
17 Ms. Woods’ physical appearance was markedly different from the witnesses’ description of the
18 male suspect.
19 168. As concerns the physical evidence presented at trial, none of it linked to Ms.
20 Woods and there was no physical evidence tying Ms. Woods to the crime whatsoever.
21 169. Concerning the killer’s much larger shoeprint, as one of Ms. Woods’ attorneys
22 later remarked, “Why would she wear clown shoes to a murder?”
23 170. Despite this evidence, Ms. Woods was convicted on the basis of her false,
24 involuntary, and fabricated statements and the fabricated police reports.
25
26
1 171. She was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
2 172. Ms. Woods’ conviction was reversed on direct appeal.
3 173. Ms. Woods was tried a second time. Again, no physical evidence linked her to the
4 crime. Nonetheless, in 1985, Ms. Woods was again wrongfully convicted on the basis of her
5 false confession and involuntary statements and fabricated police reports and sentenced to life
6 without the possibility of parole.
7 174. Defendant Dunlap was not the trial prosecutor at Ms. Woods’ second trial and
8 served no prosecutorial function at that trial.
9 The Crimes of Rodney Halbower
10 175. In November of 1975, Rodney Halbower raped and attempted to murder a woman
11 in Reno. He was arrested, but was released on bail in December 1975 for a period of several
12 months.
13 176. While he was out on bail, Halbower committed numerous known and unknown
14 crimes in the northern California and Nevada area, and possibly other states, including several
15 killings of young women.
16 177. Halbower appeared in court on his pending case in Reno on February 23, 1976.
17 178. On February 24, 1976, Halbower murdered Michelle Mitchell despite the fact he
18 was awaiting trial for the rape and attempt murder of the woman in Reno in November 1975.
19 179. Halbower’s physical appearance in February 1976 was similar to that given by
20 contemporaneous witnesses in Michelle Mitchell’s case.
21 180. Halbower was eventually convicted of the November 1975 crime, but he escaped
22 from prison in Nevada and fled to Oregon in 1986.
23 181. Once in Oregon, Halbower stabbed yet another woman in a parking lot, and he
24 was subsequently convicted of attempted murder, assault, and robbery.
25
27
1 182. When he was arrested for the Oregon attempted murder, Halbower was extradited
2 to Nevada to complete his sentence on the 1975 case.
3 183. In the summer of 2014, once he had served his time on the 1975 case, Halbower
4 was returned to the Oregon Department of Corrections to begin serving his life sentence for the
5 1986 attack.
6 184. Halbower is currently incarcerated in Oregon and has been linked through DNA
7 evidence to the murders of three other young women (including Paula Baxter and Veronica
8 Cascio) in Northern California that occurred around the same time as Michelle Mitchell’s
9 murder.
10 185. On the basis of the new DNA evidence, Halbower was tried in San Mateo County,
11 California for the 1976 murders of Paula Baxter and Veronia Cascio.
12 186. On September 18, 2018, Halbower was convicted of the murders of Veronica
13 Cascio and Paula Baxter.
14 Ms. Woods’ Exoneration
15 187. In 2013, DNA testing was conducted on evidence from the Michelle Mitchell
16 crime scene, including a cigarette butt found next to Michelle’s body. The testing revealed that
17 the DNA did not come from Ms. Woods and instead revealed a single male profile.
18 188. In 2014, after he was required to provide DNA during his transfer from Nevada to
19 the State of Oregon, it became known that the DNA from the crime scene matched Halbower.
20 189. Following the DNA “hit” to Halbower—a serial criminal who has committed an
21 unknown number of crimes against women—Ms. Woods’ conviction was vacated on September
22 10, 2014.
23
24
25
28
1 190. Even then, though released from prison, Ms. Woods’ liberty was restrained due to
2 conditions of bond and charges remained pending against Ms. Woods for an additional six
3 months.
4 191. In March 2015, the charges against Ms. Woods were dismissed at the request of
5 the State.
6 192. In so doing, the State publicly declared that the charges were being dismissed due
7 to the fact that Ms. Woods was innocent. Representatives of the State of Nevada further publicly
8 declared that Ms. Woods was innocent and that she did not commit the crime.
9 Ms. Woods’ Injuries
10 193. Ms. Woods lost over three decades of her life before she was finally exonerated.
11 She was deprived of almost her entire adult life. Imprisoned at age 29 and released at age 64, Ms.
12 Woods must now attempt to make a life for herself outside of prison without the benefit of the
13 decades of life experience which ordinarily equip adults for that task.
14 194. Additionally, the emotional pain and suffering caused by losing 35 years in the
15 prime of life has been enormous. During her wrongful incarceration, Ms. Woods was stripped of
16 the various pleasures of basic human experience, from the simplest to the most important, which
17 all free people enjoy as a matter of right. She missed out on the ability to share holidays, births,
18 funerals, and other life events with loved ones, the opportunity to fall in love and marry, and the
19 fundamental freedom to live one’s life as an autonomous human being.
20 195. Ms. Woods also suffered particularly due to her mental illness. For instance, she
21 tried to kill herself in prison, tried to set herself on fire, and was subjected to electroshock
22 therapy. Ms. Woods also suffered physically and was assaulted during her incarceration.
23
24
25
29
1 196. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Woods has suffered tremendous damage,
2 including physical sickness and injury and emotional damages, all proximately caused by
3 Defendants’ misconduct.
4 Count I: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Involuntary Confession
5
197. Each preceding paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
6
herein.
7
198. In the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement Defendants,
8
acting as investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, forced Plaintiff
9
to incriminate herself falsely and against her will, in violation of her rights secured by the Fifth
10
and Fourteenth Amendments.
11
199. The false, involuntary “confession” and statements obtained by the Law
12
Enforcement Defendants and attributed to Plaintiff were used against Plaintiff to her detriment
13
throughout her criminal case.
14
200. In addition, Plaintiff’s interrogations were custodial in nature. Prior to Plaintiff’s
15
interrogations, the Law Enforcement Defendants did not provide her with any of the warnings
16
required by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966), or with any
17
effective warnings.
18
201. The Law Enforcement Defendants’ misconduct directly resulted in the unjust
19
criminal conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying Plaintiff her right against self-incrimination and
20
to due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
21
202. Furthermore, in the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement
22
Defendants, acting individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, deliberately engaged
23
in arbitrary and conscience-shocking conduct that contravened fundamental canons of decency
24
25
30
1 and fairness and violated Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth
2 Amendment.
3 203. The above-described misconduct took place under the direct supervision of one or
4 more of the Defendants, including but not limited to Defendant Dunlap. The constitutional
5 violations alleged herein occurred at these Defendants’ direction, and these Defendants were
6 deliberately indifferent thereto. Absent knowing participation by these Defendants, including but
7 not limited to Defendant Dunlap, the misconduct alleged in this Complaint could not have
8 occurred.
9 204. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was
10 undertaken intentionally, with reckless and deliberate indifference to the rights of others.
11 205. The Law Enforcement Defendants were acting under color of law and within the
12 scope of their employment when they took these actions.
13 206. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the official policies of the Defendant City and
14 the Department, by the practices and customs of the Defendant City and the Department, as well
15 as by the actions of final policymaking officials for the Defendant City and the Department.
16 207. At all times relevant and for a period of time prior thereto, and upon information
17 and belief, Defendant City did not have adequate rules, regulations, policies, and procedures
18 governing questioning of criminal suspects, questioning of mentally ill suspects, in-court
19 testimony, preparation and presentation of witness testimony, preservation and disclosure of
20 investigative materials and evidence, and training, supervision, and discipline of employees and
21 agents of the Defendant City, including employees and agents of the Department. The Defendant
22 City was aware of the need for adequate policies, training, and supervision, was deliberately
23 indifferent to the need, and made a deliberate choice not to adopt adequate policies, training, or
24 supervision, all of which was an official policy.
25
31
1 208. In addition, at all times relevant and for a period of time prior thereto, Defendant
2 City had notice of a widespread practice by its officers and agents under which individuals
3 suspected of criminal activity, such as Plaintiff, were routinely deprived of exculpatory evidence,
4 were subjected to criminal proceedings based on false evidence, were forced to provide
5 involuntary inculpatory statements, and/or were deprived of their liberty without probable cause,
6 such that individuals were routinely implicated in crimes to which they had no connection and
7 for which there was scant evidence to suggest that they were involved.
8 209. These widespread practices were allowed to flourish because the leaders,
9 supervisors, and policymakers of the Defendant City directly encouraged and were thereby the
10 moving force behind the very type of misconduct at issue by failing to adequately train,
11 supervise, and discipline their officers, agents, and employees who withheld material evidence,
12 fabricated false evidence and witness testimony, coerced false confessions and statements from
13 suspects, and pursued wrongful prosecutions and convictions.
14 210. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled as to
15 constitute the de facto policy of the Defendant City, were allowed to exist because municipal
16 policymakers with authority over the same exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem,
17 thereby effectively ratifying it.
18 211. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policy
19 and practices of the Defendant City in that the constitutional violations committed against
20 Plaintiff were committed with the knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking
21 authority for the City and the Department, or were actually committed by persons with final
22 policymaking authority.
23
24
25
32
1 212. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving force behind
2 the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and proximately caused Plaintiff
3 to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and damages set forth above.
4 213. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by officers, agents, and employees of the
5 Defendant City, including but not limited to Defendant Dennison, who acted pursuant to the
6 policies, practices, and customs set forth above in engaging in the misconduct described in this
7 Count.
8 214. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered
9 loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and
10 suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.
11 Count II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process
12
215. Each preceding paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
13
herein.
14
216. In the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement Defendants,
15
acting as investigators, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other, deprived Plaintiff
16
of her constitutional right to due process and a fair trial.
17
217. In the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement Defendants
18
fabricated and solicited false evidence, as well as withheld exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff
19
and from state prosecutors, among others, thereby misleading and misdirecting the criminal
20
prosecution of Plaintiff. The Law Enforcement Defendants continued their investigation of the
21
Plaintiff despite the fact that they knew, or were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s innocence,
22
and the results of the investigation were used to convict the Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendants used
23
investigative techniques that were so coercive and abusive that they knew, or were deliberately
24
25
33
1 indifferent to the fact that those techniques would yield false information that was used to
2 convict Plaintiff.
3 218. The Law Enforcement Defendants’ misconduct directly resulted in the unjust
4 criminal conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying her constitutional right to due process and a fair
5 trial guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent this misconduct, the prosecution of
6 Plaintiff could not and would not have been pursued, and she would not have been convicted.
8 more of the Law Enforcement Defendants, including but not limited to Defendant Dunlap. The
9 constitutional violations alleged herein occurred at these Defendants’ direction, and these
10 Defendants were deliberately indifferent thereto. Absent knowing participation by these
11 Defendants, including but not limited to Defendant Dunlap, the misconduct alleged in this
12 Complaint could not have occurred.
20 223. Defendant Dennison’s misconduct described in this Count was undertaken
21 pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of the Defendant City, in the manner more fully
22 described above.
23
24
25
34
1 Count III: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

Federal Malicious Prosecution, Deprivation of Liberty,
2 and Detention without Probable Cause
3 224. Each preceding paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
4 herein.
5 225. In the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement Defendants,
6 acting as investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, accused Plaintiff
7 of criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and perpetuate judicial
8 proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of the fact that
9 they knew Plaintiff was innocent.
10 226. Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings were terminated in her favor, in a manner
11 indicative of innocence.
12 227. The Law Enforcement Defendants caused Plaintiff to be unreasonably seized
13 without probable cause and deprived of her liberty, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights secured by
14 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
15 228. The Law Enforcement Defendants deprived Plaintiff of fair state criminal
16 proceedings, including the chance to defend herself during those proceedings, resulting in a
17 deprivation of her liberty without due process.
18 229. In addition, the Law Enforcement Defendants subjected Plaintiff to arbitrary
19 governmental action that shocks the conscience in that Plaintiff was deliberately and
20 intentionally framed for a crime of which she was totally innocent, through Defendants’
21 misconduct. Defendants’ actions contravened fundamental canons of decency and fairness and
22 violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
24 more of the Law Enforcement Defendants, including but not limited to Defendant Dunlap. The
25
35
1 constitutional violations alleged herein occurred at these Defendants’ direction, and these
2 Defendants were deliberately indifferent thereto. Absent knowing participation by these
3 Defendants, including but not limited to Defendant Dunlap, the misconduct alleged in this
4 Complaint could not have occurred.
12 234. Defendant Dennison’s misconduct described in this Count was undertaken
13 pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of the Defendant City, in the manner more fully
14 described above.
15 Count IV: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Intervene
17 herein.
18 236. In the manner described more fully above, during the constitutional violations
19 described herein, Defendants Dunlap, Ashley, and Lewis stood by without intervening to prevent
20 the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, even though they had the opportunity to do so.
23 238. Defendants Dunlap, Ashley, and Lewis were acting under color of law and within
24 the scope of their employment when they took these actions.
25
36
4 Count V: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
6 herein.
7 241. Prior to Plaintiff’s conviction, all of the Law Enforcement Defendants, acting in
8 concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an agreement among
9 themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime she did not commit and thereby to deprive her of her
10 constitutional rights, all as described in this Complaint. All of the Law Enforcement Defendants
11 agreed to investigate and cause the prosecution of Ms. Woods for a crime she did not commit
12 and took overt actions in conformity with that agreement.
13 242. As further described above, Defendants Dennison, Dunlap, and Ashley agreed to
14 fabricate evidence against Ms. Woods in the form of false police reports purportedly detailing
15 statements that Ms. Woods had made about the Mitchell murder which they knew she had never
16 made.
17 243. In so doing, these co-conspirators conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose
18 by an unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one
19 another from liability by depriving Plaintiff of these rights.
20 244. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators committed overt
21 acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity, as described more fully above
24
25
37
6 Count VI: Nevada State Law – Malicious Prosecution
7 248. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
9 acting as investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, and maliciously,
10 instituted or continued the prosecution of Plaintiff without probable cause. As a consequence of
11 the criminal prosecution, Plaintiff was unlawfully seized, deprived of liberty, and wrongfully
12 convicted of a crime of which she is innocent.
13 250. Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution was terminated in her favor in a manner indicative
14 of innocence.
17 252. Through the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant City is liable as principal
18 for all state law torts committed by their employees or agents, including the misconduct
19 described in this Count.
20 253. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff’s rights were
21 violated and she suffered injuries and damages, including but not limited to loss of liberty,
22 physical sickness and injury, emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing
23 injuries and damages as set forth above.
24
25
38
1 Count VII: Nevada State Law – Abuse of Process
3 255. The Law Enforcement Defendants took the actions described more fully above,
4 including instituting and continuing a criminal proceeding against the Plaintiff, with an ulterior
5 purpose other than resolving a legal dispute or resolving the guilt or innocence of Plaintiff in the
6 murder of Michelle Mitchell. The Defendants also committed willful acts in the use of the legal
7 process which were not proper in the regular conduct of Plaintiff’s criminal proceeding.
17 Count VIII: Nevada State Law – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
20 acting as investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, engaged in
21 extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of or reckless disregard for, causing Plaintiff
22 emotional distress, and Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress. The Defendants’
23 misconduct was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s severe or extreme emotional
24 distress.
25
39
4 for all state law torts committed by their employees and agents, including the misconduct
10 Count IX: Nevada State Law – Civil Conspiracy
13 acting in concert with other known and unknown co-conspirators conspired and intended by
14 concerted action to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming Plaintiff, which
15 resulted in damage to Plaintiff. All of the Law Enforcement Defendants—Dennison, Dunlap,
16 Ashley, and Lewis—agreed to investigate and prosecute Ms. Woods for a crime she did not
17 commit and took overt actions in conformity with that agreement.
18 266. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Law Enforcement Defendants committed
19 overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity, as described more fully above.
20 267. As further described above, Defendants Dennison, Dunlap, and Ashley agreed to
21 fabricate evidence against Ms. Woods in the form of false police reports purportedly detailing
22 statements that Ms. Woods had made about the Mitchell murder which they knew she had never
23 made.
24
25
40
10 Count X: Nevada State Law – Respondeat Superior
12 272. While committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant
13 Dennison and Detective Kimpton were employees of the Defendant City, acting at all relevant
14 times within the scope of their employment.
15 273. Defendant City is liable as principal for all state law torts committed by their
16 agents.
17 Count XI: Nevada State Law – Indemnification
19 275. Nevada law provides that the Defendant City is directed to pay any tort judgment
20 for compensatory damages for which their employees are liable within the scope of their
21 employment activities.
22 276. Defendant Dennison was an employee of the Defendant City and acted within the
23 scope of his employment at all times relevant in committing the actions and omissions described
24 herein.
25
41
1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CATHY WOODS (a/k/a ANITA CARTER), by and through
2 her Personal Representative, LINDA WADE, respectfully requests that this Court enter a
3 judgment in her favor and against Defendants CITY OF RENO, NEVADA, former Reno Police
4 Lieutenant LAWRENCE C. DENNISON, former Shreveport Police Detective DONALD W.
5 ASHLEY, former Shreveport Police Detective CLARENCE A. “JACKIE” LEWIS, and former
6 Washoe County District Attorney CALVIN R. X. DUNLAP, awarding compensatory damages,
7 costs, and attorneys’ fees against each Defendant, along with punitive damages against each of
8 the individual Defendants, as well as any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
9 JURY DEMAND
10 Plaintiff, CATHY WOODS (a/k/a ANITA CARTER), by and through her Personal
11 Representative, LINDA WADE, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
12 Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
13 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
14 CATHY WOODS (a/k/a ANITA CARTER),
by and through her Personal Representative,
15 LINDA WADE
16 By: /s/ Elizabeth Wang
One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
17
Elizabeth Wang* Edmund J. Gorman, Jr.
18 Loevy & Loevy NV Bar # 11518
2060 Broadway, Ste. 460 335 W. First St.
19 Boulder, CO 80302 Reno, NV 89503
O: 720.328.5642 O: 775.622.3274
20 elizabethw@loevy.com ejgormanjr@ejgormanlaw.com
21 David B. Owens*
Loevy & Loevy
22 311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl.
Chicago, IL 60607
23 O: 312.243.5900
david@loevy.com
24 *Admitted pro hac vice
25
42
Counsel for Plaintiff Cathy Woods (a/k/a Anita Carter), by and through her Personal
1 Representative, Linda Wade
2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
3 I, Elizabeth Wang, hereby certify that on March 22, 2019, I filed the foregoing via
CM/ECF, which was electronically delivered to all counsel of record.
4
/s/ Elizabeth Wang
5
Counsel for Plaintiff
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43

Cathy Woods Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Cathy Woods Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 3:16-cv-00494-MMD-CWH Document 170 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 43

1 Edmund J. Gorman, Jr.

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 CATHY WOODS (a/k/a ANITA CARTER), )

7 of the longest-serving wrongfully convicted persons to be exonerated in United States history.

12 Halbower. Halbower is currently serving a prison sentence in Oregon.

16 order to “solve” the case.

17 4. Specifically, Defendants decided to pursue Ms. Woods—a woman who was

22 believed she was a lesbian.

3 against Ms. Woods, as well as the suppression of exculpatory evidence.

8 Jurisdiction and Venue

12 jurisdiction over her state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

15 occurred within this district.

6 in his individual capacity.

10 is sued in his individual capacity.

13 such authority, for the Defendant City of Reno.

18 City and Department.

23 capacities, and for actions taken in an investigative capacity alone.

2 the “Law Enforcement Defendants.”1

17 Louisiana, where her family was living.

18 The Murder of Michelle Mitchell

20 of Nevada, Reno, student, was murdered.

22 crime whatsoever and is completely innocent.

4 murder weapon was never found.

6 and the killer’s.

10 Ms. Woods’ smaller, feminine shoe size.

14 arrived, Michelle Mitchell was not there.

18 found, and how she was found.

2 many other residents of Reno.

13 away from Evans Avenue.

17 his jacket or held to his side as he ran.

21 Mitchell’s murder was a single man.

23 killer, given similar killings of young women in the region.

4 received scores of responses.

11 Cathy Woods’ Involuntary Commitment at LSU Medical Center in February 1979

16 through December 1978.

21 and was an easily confused and extremely vulnerable woman.

2 head that were not real.

9 Ms. Woods Speaks to an Institutional Counselor

12 Michelle being murdered in Reno several years earlier.

15 51. Nonetheless, and unlawfully, Sherman called Defendant Donald Ashley, a

23 identified Cathy Woods as a suspect, with an address at her mother’s home.

4 about her alleged conversations with Ms. Woods.

10 The Defendants Were Eager to Solve a Cold Case

17 first lead they had had in years.

21 Ms. Woods’ Interrogation and Involuntary Statements on March 7, 1979

23 7, 1979, Defendant Dennison contacted Defendants Ashley and Lewis.

4 Mitchell homicide on March 7, 1979.

7 these reports, including those that contained fabricated evidence.

13 69. In so doing, Defendants Ashley and Lewis continued to participate in the

14 investigation of Ms. Woods for the murder of Michelle Mitchell.

15 70. At no point did Defendant Ashley or Lewis refuse to participate in the

23 Center, where she was being involuntarily held.

4 personal knowledge about the Michelle Mitchell murder.

14 it was when she was first committed.

20 Medical Center in February 1979.

23 experiencing disorganized thoughts, an inability to think in a linear or logical fashion, and

2 fashion due to her then-existing mental condition.

3 83. As a result of Ms. Woods’ inability to communicate in a normal manner, as well

5 person—including Defendants—who questioned Ms. Woods at any point on March 6, 7, or 8,

8 knowingly make any statements.

11 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966).

23 interrogations, contributing to the coercive nature of their questioning.