Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Federal Lawsuit Filed by Michelle MacDonald - March 19, 2015

    Uploaded by

    mbrodkorb
    5K views63 pages
    This is a federal lawsuit filed by Michelle MacDonald against "Dakota County Deputy Sheriffs, the Fluegel Law Firm and others seeking injunctions and money damages for more than twenty claims including False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, and Malicious Prosecution."

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This is a federal lawsuit filed by Michelle MacDonald against "Dakota County Deputy Sheriffs, the Fluegel Law Firm and others seeking injunctions and money damages for more than twenty claims including False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, and Malicious Prosecution."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5K views63 pages

    Federal Lawsuit Filed by Michelle MacDonald - March 19, 2015

    Uploaded by

    mbrodkorb
    This is a federal lawsuit filed by Michelle MacDonald against "Dakota County Deputy Sheriffs, the Fluegel Law Firm and others seeking injunctions and money damages for more than twenty claims including False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, and Malicious Prosecution."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 63
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MICHELLE MACDONALD SHIMOTA and THOMAS G. SHIMOTA, CASE FILE NO.: Plaintiffs, ¥ COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) } BOB WEGNER, individually, andin ) (JURY TRIAL DEMAND) his official capacity; CHRISTOPHER) MELTON, individually, and in his) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) official capacity; TIMOTHY GONDER, individually, and in his offictal capacity, JON NAPPER, individually and in his official capacity, DANIEL FLUEGEL, FLUEGEL LAW FIRM P.A,, DAKOTA COUNTY, and JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Plaintiffs MICHELLE MACDONALD SHIMOTA AND THOMAS G. SHIMOTA, by and through their attorneys M. Tayari Garrett and Nathan Busch, for this their Complaint allege as follows: L INTRODUCTION 1. While representing an indigent client pro bono, Plaintiff MICHELLE MACDONALD SHIMOTA (“MACDONALD”) filed a federal action against, and sought to recuse, a Dakota County judge on September 11, 2013, The next day, on COMPLAINT - 1|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v, Wegner et, al. September 12, 2013, MACDONALD was summoned to that judge’s courtroom where Deputy Sheriffs of Dakota County unceremoniously handcuffed, detained and tortured MACDONALD in the courthouse and their jail facilities for several hours, then continuing the illegal detention and torture overnight and through the next day. MACDONALD was disallowed a single phone call during this ordeal although she was, much later, charged with criminal Contempt of Court. A visiting judge subsequently dismissed the “trumped up” criminal charge on April 4, 2014 for lack of probable cause. 2. This is an action for monetary damages and injunctive relief against DAKOTA COUNTY, BOB WEGNER, CHRISTOPHER MELTON, TIMOTHY GONDER, JON NAPPER, DANIEL FLUEGEL, FLUEGEL LAW FIRM P.A., and “JOHN and/or JANE DOES” | through 10, representing unknown and unidentified persons believed to be members of the Dakota County Sheriff's Office (collectively, “Defendants”), for committing acts under color of law, depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and State of Minnesota, including, but not limited to, excessive force, assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of ‘emotional distress, failure to intervene, conspiracy and loss of consortium. A JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This federal civil rights action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pursuant to Article 1 §§ 5, 7, 8, 10 of the Constitution of COMPLAINT - 2|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al. the State of Minnesota. 4, Jurisdiction in this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions, Plaintifls further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and decide claims arising under state law, 5. Venue is properly laid in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), this being the District in which at least one of the defendants resides and where the unlawful practices delineated herein occurred. In, PARTIES 6. Atal relevant times, MACDONALD was and is a citizen of the United States and the State of Minnesota. She was a resident of Dakota County, Minnesota when she was illegally detained, assaulted and tortured by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS on or about September 12 and 13, 2013. 7, Atall relevant times, MACDONALD was and is married to THOMAS G. SHIMOTA (“SHIMOTA”), who resides with MACDONALD in Dakota County, Minnesota, At all relevant times, Plaintiff SHIMOTA was and is a citizen of the United States and the State of Minnesota, 8, Atall relevant times, Defendant Dakota County (“COUNTY”) was and is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota with its principal offices located at 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033-2343, At all times mentioned, the Dakota County Sheriff's Office was and a department or agency of the COMPLAINT - 3|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et. al, COUNTY. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY was and is responsible for the control of the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, their agents and employees, and the COUNTY was and is responsible for the appointment, training, supervision, promotion, discipline of sheriffs, correction officers and civilian employees including individual defendants WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1 through 10 (Collectively, “DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS”). In naming “COUNTY,” Plaintiffs included and intended to include the Dakota County Sheriff's Office. 5 On information and belief, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were and are citizens of the United States and the State of Minnesota. At all relovant times, these individuals were employed and, on information and belief, are still are employed, by defendant Dakota County and acted under color of Jaw and under color of their authority as officers, agents, servants and employees of Defendant COUNTY, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS are sued individually and in their official capacities, 10. Defendant Dan Fluegel is the owner and operator of Fluegel Law Firm P.A. in Minnesota, On information and belief, Defendant Daniel Fluegel was and is a citizen of the United States and the State of Minnesota, LL. Fluogel Law Firm P.A. is a private law firm organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota with its principal executive offices located at 999 ‘Westview Drive, Suite 1, Hastings, MN 55033, USA. Fleugel Law Firm P.A. may be OMPLAINT - 4|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. a served on its registered agent, Donald J. Fluegel 999 Westview Drive, Hastings, MN 55033. On information and belief, Fluegel Law Firm P.A, benefits financially from a contract with the City of Hastings in Dakota County, wherein, at all relevant times, it was and is contracted to prosecute misdemeanor crimes, qv. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND TIMELINESS 12. Onor about September 26, 2014, pursuant to Minnesota Stat. 466.05 Subd. 1, and the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’ served on municipal defendant COUNTY, and all other defendants, detailed and timely Notices of Claim and Evidence Preservation Requests. 13, After receiving Plaintiffs’ Notices, Dakota County Attomey James Backstrom filed a complaint with the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board against Plaintiffs’ attorney, which was dismissed with no action. Plaintiffs? attorney fears this move by Backstrom was made in an effort to threaten her legal career and impact the prosecution of this case.' 14, Although Judge David Knutson is not a defendant in this matter, his attorney in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office indicated in prior proceedings that she was in possession of materials necessary to the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ case. Thus, ‘out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs served their Spoliation/Evidence Preservation Tt may be noted that this ftivolous Board complaint by Backstrom parallels another matter Where the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board publicly reprimanded him in 2009; in that case, Backstrom was publicly reprimanded after a Dakota County medical examiner resigned from a case because she felt Backstrom atened her career and livelihood. COMPLAINT - 5|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al Requests upon Assistant Attorney General Alethea Huyser. Without providing legal or other basis for her position, Huyser flatly indicated a refusal to comply with the requests and Plaintiffs” Counsel’s subsequent phone calls to Huyser were not returned. 15, This action has been commenced within two years after the state law causes of action set forth herein accrued, and within this district’s applicable statute of limitations for federal civil rights actions. v. FACTUAL BACKGROUN. i. September 11 and 12, 2013 Grazzini-Rucki Trial 16, Plaintiff MACDONALD is a wifo, mother, family advocate and attomey with good standing in the state of Minnesota, the Minnesota federal district court, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, as well as the United States Supreme Court, She had been practicing Jaw in excess of a quarter century when approached to handle a pro bono matter for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in Dakota County, 17. In response to what she, in her extensive family law experience, considered bizarre, legally baseless and unprecedented abusive behavior by Judge David Knutson, MACDONALD (on behalf of her client) filed multiple appeals, writs, and complaints against Judge Knutson through the date of her ultimate arrest. In fact, on September 11, 2013, MACDONALD filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of Sandra Grazzini- Rucki and her children (hereinafter denoted as the “Grazzini Federal Case”), naming Judge Knutson as one of the defendants to the unconstitutional actions and violations of “COMPLAINT - 6|jPage MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al constitutional rights that, among other concerns, separated Grazzini-Rucki from her children and forced her into homelessness and despondeney.” 18, © Later that day, on September 11, 2013, MACDONALD was required to attend a state court trial before Judge Knutson and involving the custody of Grazzini- Rucki’s children. Before the trial commenced, and in the presence of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MACDONALD asked Judge Knutson to recuse himself Judge Knutson refused the motion and proceeded with the trial through the end of the day. 19, On September 12, 2013, a day after she filed Grazzini-Rucki’s federal class action lawsuit, MACDONALD appeared in the Dakota County courthouse to attend a second day of the Grazzini-Rucki trial before Judge Knutson, By this time, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were well aware of MACDONALD’s federal complaint, which was also discussed in their presence. 20. Oddly, the court administrator disseminated information to the media and other members of the public that the continuance of Grazzini-Rucki's trial before Judge Knutson on September 12 was cancelled. However, in further pursuing the matter, MACDONALD observed that the daily court docket from the Court Administration office indicated that the trial would proceed, 21. The errant publication concerning the cancellation of the Grazzini-Rucki trial ensured that most members of the media and public that relied on the publicly ? As of the filing of this Complaint, the Grazzini-Rucki complaint against Judge Knutson is pending in the 8° Circuit Court of Appeals for th d State of Ame COMPLAINT - “7|Page. MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al disseminated information would not be present to witness what would happen to MACDONALD that day. 22. To obtain evidence for the Grazzini Federal Case, MACDONALD took a photograph of both the paper copy daily docket document, which was available at the Office of the Court Administration, as well as the publicly available electronic daily docket monitor, which was also outside of the courtroom, MACDONALD also took photographs of Grazzini-Rucki outside of the courtroom. Then, once inside of the courtroom, but before the trial began, MACDONALD took a photograph of GONDER, who was posing and smiling, perhaps ominously, while waving at the camera. 23, At the time that she took the photographs, MACDONALD had no notice that taking photographs was forbidden, and there was no Minnesota law prohibiting the same. 24, Nonetheless, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS subsequently, illegally, seized and searched MACDONALD’s camera. 25. Also, during a morning break? in the September 12, 2013 trial, as MACDONALD was working, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS approached and illegally seized and detained MACDONALD in her person. 26. In detaining MACDONALD, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS quickly approached her from behind while she was working, forcibly 2 During the break, Judge Knutson exited the courtroom, purportedly to allow MACDONALD and her client fo locate a document necessary for cross-examination, which was later anonymously placed in her property bag. Baaeecie COMPLAINT - 8|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. removed her from the court and placed her into a holding area, which was immediately adjacent to the courtroom, without warning or apparent cause. 27. At the time the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS detained MACDONALD, they knew or should have known there was no probable cause to believe MACDONALD hed committed a crime or was in the process of committing a crime, 28. To wit, as a example: as trained officers of the law, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew, or should have known, that the taking of photographs did not evince criminal conduct, 29. Each DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT acted in his own personal capacity under the color of law as a Deputy Sheriff, by forcibly removing MACDONALD from the courtroom and into the holding cell to intentionally initiate a plan to persecute and punish MACDONALD for bringing a Section 1983 Case against Judge Knutson and seeking his recusal, 30. During the process of removing MACDONALD from the courtroom and placing her in a holding cell, each of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS used means of physical force and show of authority, 31. Whilst being detained in the holding area, MACDONALD inquired as to the legal basis and motivation of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS for their interrogation, display of force, and show of authority to no avail. COMPLAINT - 9[Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al 32, At the time that the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had MACDONALD locked in the holding area, they verbally taunted her and later placed her in a solitary cell 33. When MACDONALD finally began to cry and request permission to make a single phone eall, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS taunted her more saying that they were “crocodile tears,” and made disparaging references to the late South Aftican President Nelson Mandela, 34, There were others nearby watching the ordeal and DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS insisted that these witnesses were mocking MACDONALD because she was powerless before the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS despite her status as an attorney. 35. The male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS took their first opportunity to handle MACDONALD’s body and personal property. 36. MACDONALD was made to feel uncomfortable and personally invaded as one of the men stripped her of her hairpiece, shoes, eye glasses, and jewelry, including her wedding rings and a gold necklace with a cross pendant that was given to her by her husband. 37. To date, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have not returned MACDONALD’s gold necklace with a cross pendant despite repeated requests. COMPLAINT - 10|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. 38, Without cause or explanation, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL. DEFENDANTS unceremoniously handcuffed and jailed MACDONALD after taking her property. 39, At no point did the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. read or otherwise recite the Miranda Rights to MACDONALD. 40, The illegal seizure and unlawful detention cccurred after Judge Knutson refused to remove himself fiom the case, and afler the Grazzini Federal Case was mentioned in the presence of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. 41. According to DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Judge Knutson communicated with them during this ordeal, where he ordered they return MACDONALD to his court wherein she was further humiliated. 42, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS then returned to MACDONALD’s jail cell with a wheelchair; they forced MACDONALD onto the wheelchair and then restrict her thereon by fitting her with a belt to wear around her waist and handcuffing her to the belt. 43. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS thereafter wheeled MACDONALD to Judge Knutson’s court. 44, It was after she was wheeled back to counsel table in Judge Knutson’s court did MACDONALD discover that all of her client files and boxes were missing, along with her belongings, including, without limitation, her cell phone and a large pocketbook COMPLAINT - I1|Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et. al. with her wallet, money, credit cards and other personal items, Her client, Ms, Grazzini- Rucki, was also missing, 45. Ms. Grazzini-Rucki later told MACDONALD that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS instructed the client to leave the court along with courtroom supporters; however, the opposing attomeys and their clients, including two guardian ad litems, remained present. 46. When Judge Knutson re-entered the court, he demanded MACDONALD either enter a default on her clients behalf (ce., just quit), or complete trial under her current conditions and without the case files, eyeglasses and other materials confiscated by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. 47. Of course, MACDONALD refused to accept the default loss on the very important child custody matter; therefore, she was forced to conduct the remainder of the trial without evidence, without the presence of her client, without her client files and without eyeglasses or shoes, 48. On information and belief, because of the public notification that the trial had been cancelled, the only persons observing MACDONALD’s tribulations in the courtroom were DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Judge Knutson and those opposing MACDONALD and Grazzini-Rucki. They all disregarded MACDONALD’s condition, 49. In fact, Judge Knutson even called a lunch break, whereby the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wheeled MACDONALD out of the courtroom COMPLAINT - 12|Page. MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al and locked her back in the jail cell ~ still in the wheelchair and handcuffed. It was “business as usual” for all involved. 50, At one point during the lunch break, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS callously threw a hunch bag at her, which she believed she could not reach due to her wheelchair restriction. 51. Thereafter, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS returned MACDONALD to the courtroom, still handcuffed, confined to a wheelchair, without shoes or glasses, and without pen and paper for tial, 52, During the remainder of the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial on September 12, 2013, MACDONALD was in handcuffs attached to the belt around her waist, restricted to a wheel chair, and guarded with guns by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS standing immediately behind her 53. Obviously, any lawyer would be at a disadvantage at trial without necessary eyeglasses, the benefit of their client’s presence, in handeufi's and without case files. 54, Knutson not only ruled against Grazzini-Rucki, but also capitalized on the situation by complaining to the Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility for lawyers (the “Board”) that MACDONALD was ineffective counsel to Grazzini-Rucki while in handcufis that day, and further attaching his adverse ruling to a Motion in his, defense of the Grazzini Federal Case, 55, MACDONALD was forced to hire a lawyer to defend herself with the currently pending Board complaint by Judge Knutson. COMPLAINT - 13|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al. 56. Knutson’s complaint may result in MACDONALD’s suspension or loss of her law license, despite the alleged ineffective services being the direct result of MACDONALD’s unlawful arrest and confinement by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. ii, September 12 to 13, 2013 Jail Confinement 57. After the Grazzini-Rucki custody trial concluded, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS continued the seizure of the person of MACDONALD and continued to confine her to the wheelchair whilst handeuffed to the prisoner belt that was around her waist. MACDONALD’ detention continued after the termination of the trial, throughout that night and into the following day. Even though the judge, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, and MACDONALD were together in the courtroom, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS did not seek an arrest warrant from the judge and did not seek a warrant to hold MacDonald in investigative detention, 58. On information and belief, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew that the only reason they would continue to detain and torture MACDONALD was to punish her and persecute her for seeking to recuse, filing and serving a Section 1983 Case against their judge, 59, To this end, at the end of the trial on September 12, 2013, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS wheeled MACDONALD through a tunnel to the adjacent jail, where at least three male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT - 14|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al DEFENDANTS ot into the elevator with her and many, many, more handled her throughout the rest of the day, throughout the night and the next day, 60. During the aforementioned period of incarcerations, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS knew, and were well aware, that: (1) MACDONALD was not in the process of committing criminal activity; (2) none of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was in progress; (3) even if there was some purpose for the seizure of the body of MACDONALD, the length of the period of detention was not circumscribed in its temporal extent so as to allow the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS an opportunity to effectuate the purpose of a seizure; (4) the investigative methods employed by the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were the most intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the suspicion of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS that criminal activity was afoot; (5) MACDONALD represented no threat to the personal safety of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; and (6) MACDONALD was neither armed nor dangerous. 61, Also, during the period of incarceration: (1) MACDONALD was not charged with any crime; (2) no bail had been set; (3) the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were not conducting an investigation into the circumstanees or facts pertaining to any crime; (4) neither a warrant nor authorization for the arrest or detention of MACDONALD had been sought or granted; and, (5) sinee the COMPLAINT - 15|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. judge was readily available, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS held MACDONALD far longer than was reasonably necessary to obtain either a warrant for her arrest or authorization for holding her in detention. 62. Tt is notable that one of the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Defendant NAPPER, has a history of violence against women in the custody of the County Sheriffs, 63, In one example, JON NAPPER “knocked out” citizen Jill Ann Kelly, causing her to break her leg and costing the county over $315,000 to settle the lawsuit. 64, Despite NAPPER’s history of violence and abuse against women, Dakota County has continued to employ NAPPER and place him in positions of power and control over non-violent and defenseless female detainees such as MACDONALD. 65. NAPPER and other DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS forced MACDONALD into an all-cement cell in the jail filled with only male detainees, as far as she could tell, 66. The jail cell where MACDONALD would stay overnight initially had a toilet, toilet paper, a plastic mattress, and pillow, all of which MACDONALD was grateful to utilize, However, this gratitude was short lived because Defendant GONDER later entered her cell to maliciously and unnecessarily removed the mattress, pillow, and toilet paper. 67. MACDONALD believed her jail cell was near freezing temperatures, Without the mattress and pillow, she farther felt like the bare cement block DAKOTA, COMPLAINT - 16|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS forced her to sleep on was akin to lying on an ice block in a freezer all night, 68. Many male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS deliberately “found” a reason to handle or otherwise interact with MACDONALD throughout the night. MACDONALD was not provided her Miranda rights ot allowed to make a single phone call despite being jailed, her property confiscated as “evidence”, and having been interrogated while in handcuffs eatlier that day. 69. Indeed, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS told MACDONALD that she was not entitled to hearing her constitutional rights. 70, Given their blatant disregard for constitutional rights, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS made MACDONALD even more fearful when they insisted on taking pictures of her while two DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS used this as an excuse to improperly handle and touch her while referring to MACDONALD as “beautiful”. And several months after MACDONALD's criminal case was dismissed for lack of probable cause, Dakota County Sheriffs have continued their abuse and intimidation of MACDONALD by releasing at least one of these pictures to reporters, and making unnecessary appearances when she is in court in Dakota County. 71. At the time of detention, rather than answer her questions about the basis for being held against her will, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS repeatedly told MACDONALD that she had to be “booked” and could not make a phone COMPLAINT - 17|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al, v. Wegner et. al. call until she was “booked.” And yet, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS never booked MACDONALD. 72. Throughout the overnight detention, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS purposely kept the temperature in her cell extremely low, and kept the bright lights on all night to keep her awake; they also removed her toilet paper and nylons when she attempted fo use these items for warmth and to cover her eyes, 73, With MACDONALD, they kept a small curtain open, where male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were able to peer at her through the night and watch her go to the bathroom, 74, For a person that had never been incarcerated, the experience and conditions were traumatic, terrifying and permanently life altering for MACDONALD. 75. MACDONALD’s fear, despair and frequent anxiety attacks over being detained without just cause, due process, and without access to the outside world caused her to push the medical alert button in her jail cell numerous times throughout het detention, 76. — Sitens were going off in the jail, and DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS menacingly told MACDONALD that others in the jail were attempting suicid their continuing effort to traumatize the activist, wife and mother. 77. One Dakota County Individual Defendant told MACDONALD that she found a dead prisoner. At another point during the night, a male DAKOTA COUNTY COMPLAINT - 18|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT threatened to strip MACDONALD naked and put her in a straight - jacket and a padded cell, These are just a few examples. 78. With her constitutional rights already, unceremoniously, stripped, MACDONALD could do nothing more than ery and pray for her worried family and for the others detained in the jail, She also prayed for protection from the male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. 79. During her solitary detention, MACDONALD was in a thin shirt, bra, thin pants, and underwear that became soiled due to the lack of toilet paper and fear of using the toilet under the constant gaze of male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. 80. There were constant menacing and torturous behaviors towards MACDONALD throughout the entire detention. 81. Defendant GONDER, in particular, made loud noises all night by rattling keys just outside MACDONALD’s door, and freely entered her jail cell throughout the night, Such tactics had no purpose other than to torture MACDONALD by depriving her of sleep and scaring her into believing she would be physically violated by being beaten or raped. 82. MACDONALD’s tears and prayers only served to encourage DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, who told MACDONALD that things would get “far worse” in the night. COMPLAINT - 19{Page ‘MacDonald Shimota et.al. v. Wegner et. al 83, The DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS also taunted MACDONALD by repeatedly showing her blankets but then saying she could not have one, despite having caused MACDONALD to be extremely cold, 84. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS also kept the lights bright in her cell all night to watch her and further deprive her of sleep. ‘There were many additional things done to her for hours, depriving her of sleep and peace. 85, MACDONALD asserts DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS utilized at least seven of the eleven internationally recognized forms of torture against MACDONALD during her detention — (1) Sexual humiliation, (2) Sleep Deprivation, (3) Sensory Deprivation, (4) Solitary Confinement/Isolation, (5) Temperature Extremes, (6) Sensory Bombardment (Noise), and (7) Psychological Techniques, 86. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS achieved suecess in their attempts to “break” MACDONALD, where at one point she indicated she was suicidal with the hopes that they would stop causing her severe physical and mental suffering. MACDONALD became so distressed she offered to “confess” to unknown charges in order to be released. 87. At no time during her detention did Knutson or any other person issue MACDONALD a citation for criminal contempt of court or any other criminal charge. COMPLAINT - 20|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v, Wegner et, al 88. At all times relevant to this case, and continuing to the date of filing of this lawsuit, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS refused to identify the specific reason for MACDONALD 's jail confinement. iti, September 13, 2013 Court Ordered Release 89. On September 13, 2013, in the late afternoon following her initial arrest, MACDONALD still had not been charged or booked, and remained without the nylons, shoes, suit jacket, jewelry and other items DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS had taken from her the previous day. 90. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS finally took MACDONALD before Dakota County Judge Tim Wermager, in the wheelchair and handeufls, where, appearing frazzled and frantic because of her overnight ordeal with DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MACDONALD tried to frantically explain part of the torture to which she had been subjected. 91. There was no prosecutor present and Judge Wermager signed an order to release her immediately. 92. Despite having Judge Wermager’s Release Order, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had_not concluded their_torture_of MACDONALD. 93. A Dakota County Individual Defendant approached and confirmed that FLUEGEL would bring criminal charges but that they would not release MACDONALD, despite the Wermager Order, unless she went with him and agreed to be “booked”. COMPLAINT - 21|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. 94, MACDONALD ‘efused the ultimatums asserted by the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, and reminded them that Judge Tim Wermager stated that she could be released without being booked. In response, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS stated FLUEGEL would bring a motion to circumvent the release order unless she was booked. 95. MACDONALD remained in detention despite the court order. The seemingly endless exchange between MACDONALD and DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS continued for what felt like hours to MACDONALD. 96. When MACDONALD resisted any actions in violation of Judge Wermager’s order, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS threatened to keep MACDONALD in jail for another 30 days, and then abruptly and forcibly returned her to a jail cell, 97, MACDONALD fully expected that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS would continue to detain her in the all-male jail for 30 additional days ~ even though she was eluiching Judge Wermager’s release order in her hand. 98, After what MACDONALD belioved to be a significant amount of time, a security officer named “Chris” opened MACDONALD’s jail cell and escorted her to another area to ostensibly get her property. 99, Without further explanation, he then escorted her through a door leading to the outside - and her release! COMPLAINT - 22|Page MacDonald Shimota etal. v. Wegner et, al. 100, MACDONALD’s husband, paralegal, lawyer, and many other persons whom were denied access to her during the detention had been waiting outside the jail for her release, 101. When MACDONALD finally artived home, and was with her husband, SHIMOTA, in the security of their home, she inventoried her jail property bag and obtained for the first time a citation for contempt that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS slipped into her bag without her knowledge. She also noticed a calendar 2011 printed out on a courthouse computer that was not her property. 102, Missing from the property bag was the camera DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS illegally confiscated from MACDONALD. 103. Most troubling, MACDONALD also noticed that the diamond Cross necklace her SHIMOTA had given her, and which she always wore, was missing with no property list, inventory or explanation, She was devastated, 104, SHIMOTA attempted to console his wife as she confirmed that Defendant MELTON removed the necklace just before he handcuffed MACDONALD at the beginning of her tortuous ordeal, in, Criminal Contempt of Court Charges 105. The week following her jail confinement, MACDONALD subpoenaed security videos in and outside the courthouse and jail for September 6, 11, 12, and 13 and related times and including any audio recordings and transcripts for evidence of her ordeal. COMPLAINT - 23|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et, al. 106. ‘These subpoenaed items have not been produced and Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom has obstructed their turnover. 107, MACDONALD also subpoenaed a related court appearance of September 16, 2013 in Scott County before Judge Rex Stacy. 108. While Backstrom blocked the turnover of evidence to MACDONALD, FLUEGEL was able to obtain the security videos and brought a single misdemeanor charge of criminal Contempt of Court against MACDONALD. 109. The complaint, filed in Dakota County District Court, asserted: OFFENSE - COUNT I CRIMINAL CONTEMPT (MISDEMEANOR) ‘That on September 12, 2013, in the City of Hastings, Dakota COUNTY, Minnesota, MICHELLE L. MACDONALD SHIMOTA, then and there being, willfully disobeyed a lawful process or other mandate of the court by taking a photograph within a courtroom of the Dakota COUNTY Government Center, as prohibited by the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. (State v. MACDONALD SHIMOTA, Court File No. 19-HA-CR13-2934, Page 2). 110. Thus, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. handeuffed MACDONALD, tormented her in jail, denied her basic constitutional protections, and subjected her {o torture and maltreatment over a two-day period because of an alleged misdemeanor resulting from unspecified civil rules (not crimes) drafted by a ‘commissioner's office (not a judge), and with no suggestion that MACDONALD had the notice necessary for a criminal contempt of court charge. COMPLAINT - 24|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. 111, Following what at least one third-party observer described as “sad behavior by the male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS at Dakota County jail, MACDONALD was required to hire an attorney to fight the baseless charges brought by FLUEGEL. 112. Visiting Judge Leslie Metzen ultimately determined that MACDONALD’ constitutional rights had been violated and dismissed the case because no probable cause had been established, 113. FLUEGEL's pursuit of frivolous criminal charges against MACDONALD. for financial or other gain is not limited to the baseless contempt charge described above, In another example, despite having blood test evidence confirming MACDONALD had zero alcohol/drugs in her system during a May 2013 traffic stop, FLUEGEL relentlessly pursued to verdict 2 DWI charge against MACDONALD where a jury found her NOT. GUILTY. 114, Defendant FLUEGEL?s eri nal charges against MACDONALD were, and continue to be, fodder for news media outlets, both online and print. 115. News reporters flocked to the jail where MACDONALD was confined, and a story about her incarceration ran on the television news as well as legal periodicals. 116. Indeed, Plaintiffs incurred actual and future damages including, without limitation, those items further detailed below. Damages to MICHELLE MACDONALD (a Actual Damages COMPLAINT - 25|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. 117. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS never returned the white gold cross necklace. with diamonds that defendant MELTON removed fom MACDONALD’s neck when he took her into custody. 118. Jail protocol is to prepare a property list of contents taken from anyone being detained, but this was not done for MACDONALD. 119. ‘The actual value of the Cross necklace is estimated to have exceeded $1,500, but the sentimental value is practically immeasurable to the Plaintiffs. 120. DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have also refused to return the camera they illegally took from MACDONALD on September 12, 2013, despite a written order by Judge Leslie Metzen instructing the return of the camera, 121, ‘The actual value of the camera is estimated at $100, but the value of the thousands of family pictures in the camera is nearly immeasurable, (®) Financial Stress 122, Defendants have caused MACDONALD’s law practice to suffer significantly. 123, Plaintiffs have had to hire and pay attomeys for MACDONALD’s criminal defense, as well as the resulting Board complaint, which is still pending. 124, MACDONALD’s attomey fees and costs are easily rising into six figures, 125, MACDONALD is aware that, while her family might be able to afford representation by using their emergency savings and home equity line of credit, by the COMPLAINT - 26|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et. al. time the Board process has concluded, legal representation could wipe out her entire safety net, 126. Plaintiffs continue to worry about their family and how they would survive if MACDONALD were to lose her law license. 127, Because of the negative media coverage related to her case, MACDONALD believes it would be virtually impossible to find a job with a salary anywhere near what she made prior to being jailed. 128. Because of the financial stress directly related to MACDONALD’s confinement, Plaintiffs and their family also have made significant changes to their lifestyle since MACDONALD’s 2013 confinement and initiation of criminal charges. 129, ‘The financial restrictions had also impaired MACDONALD’s bid to the Minnesota Supreme court, where she has been able to donate very little to her own campaign, having raised less than $500 during one of the reporting period immediately preceding this Notice. She received 46.54% of the vote despite this restriction, suggesting that she would have won the bid but for Defendants? actions. (©) Mental and Physical Health Issues 130, Among other issues, MACDONALD has struggled with posttraumatic stress, weight loss, anxiety, depression and insomnia as a direct result of the stress related to her arrest, confinement, torment and baseless criminal contempt charge. 131 MACDONALD’S mental and physical health issues because of Defendants’ actions causes additional stress and concern for Plaintiffs. COMPLAINT - 27|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al, (W Damage to Reputation 132, Integrity and perception of integrity is a critical element to an attorney's career, 133. Attorneys are highly trained on the concept of probable cause, and they know that a person cannot be charged with a crime unless probable cause exists to believe that a crime, in fact, occurred, 134, MACDONALD’s reputation has been permanently damaged throughout the legal community as a result of Defendants’ decisions and actions. 135. The assumption of the public who leamed about this case through word of mouth and the news media is that, at a minimum, probable cause existed to charge her with a crime. 136, Many members of the public will assume that MACDONALD “beat” the charge, when in fact, no charge should have existed and would not have existed but for the intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct of Defendants. 137, | MACDONALD founded a nonprofit, Family Innocence, several years ago and asserts that her arrest and criminal charge has severely affected this organization, including her own relationship with other board members, volunteers and clients. 138. MACDONALD has, indeed, become shunned and ostracized in the legal community as a result of Defendants’ actions, 139. Moreover, to date, any member of the public would see MACDONALD ‘was charged for a crime related to honesty, placing her at a significant disadvantage COMPLAINT - 28|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et, al. compared to others in polities and the legal field, particularly as a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court. 140. It was very difficult and embarrassing for MACDONALD to have to explain her experiences to her friends, colleagues, clients, and total strangers when she ran for Minnesota Supreme Court, considers running for public office again, and talks to client prospects. 141 MACDONALD had to miss seminars, appointments and continue court appearances as a result of Defendants’ actions, She, further, feels a constant fear, intimidation and anxiety in the Dakota County court, where she freely worked and prospered for nearly a quarter century. 142. Before being detained and tortured by DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, humiliated during a court trial, jailed, tormented and then charged and persecuted by FLUEGEL, MACDONALD was well regarded in the community as an honest, law abiding, hard working and well-liked attorney. 143. MACDONALD was a trusted Adjunct Judge in the small claims court and family court, founder of a non-profit organization designed to assist families, well- adjusted mother, wife and attomey with 27 years experience. Indeed, she was well known for her professionalism, integrity and accomplishments in her chosen profession of service. 144, Now, the first things members of the public may associate with MACDONALD are her arrest and criminal charge. COMPLAINT - 29|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v, Wegner et, al. 145, Most notably, after being a small claims court judge for fifteen (15) years, MACDONALD received a letter from the chief Judge of Hennepin County in Minnesota that her services were no longer necessary only months after her confinement vi, Damages to Thomas G. Shimota 146, Thomas G. Shimota (“SHIMOTA”) is married to MACDONALD. 147, Asadirect result of the arrest and subsequent criminal complaint lodged against his wile, he experienced significant stress, depression, anxiety and changes in lifestyle. 148. He incorporates the facts outlined above in the damages section for Michelle MACDONALD and offers the following additional information: 149, SHIMOTA witnessed first-hand the effects =MACDONALD’s incarceration and criminal contempt of court charge hacl on her, which include depression and trauma, She even picked up smoking. 150, There are many sleepless nights and conversations about how the family would move forward from the incident, 151. MACDONALD is SHIMOTA’s best friend and confident; however, in this situation, SHIMOTA felt he could not talk to her about how the arrest and criminal charge affected her, as he did not want (o further burden his wife, whom he knew was suffering fiom embarrassment and shame related to the conditions of the arrest and subsequent criminal charge. MacDonald Shimota et. a. v. Wegner et. al. COMPLAINT ~- 30|Page 152, SHIMOTA knows that MACDONALD did not do anything wrong, but feels ashamed that her family is in a difficult position because of her illegal jail confinement, Loss of Consortium 153. Because of MACDONALD’s arrest, incarceration, criminal charges with possible additional jail time, and the accompanying stress, Plaintiffs experienced ‘marital difficulties that did not previously exist. 154, MACDONALD had significant anxiety regarding what she experienced al the hands of Defendants, and duc to the considerable stress she was experiencing, for the first time in their marriage, she has been unable to provide, among other things, the companionship, emotional support, affection, love, society and comfort previously provided, 155. This has resulted in additional stress and disappointment for the Plaintiffs. 156. SHIMOTA also notices that his wife has been unable to “mentally disengage” for over a year now, is unable to let her guard down and becomes easily angered, particularly when confronted with the idea of having to appear at the Dakota County courthouse ~ a necessity in her practice. VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONS COUNT1: 42 USC. § 1983 AGAINST FLUEGEL WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/ANE DOES COMPLAINT - 31[Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et, al 157, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein 158, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prohibits, inter alia, state actors from depriving citizens of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution, including the right to be free from excessive force, unreasonable search and seizures, and unlawful arrest as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, This right was clearly established at all times relevant to this Complaint. 159, In violation of Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, Defendants, acting under the color of state law, subjected MACDONALD to the foregoing acts and omissions without due process of law and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 thereby depriving MACDONALD of her rights, privileges, and immunities sceured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including, without mitation, deprivation of the following constitutional rights: A. Freedom to engage in protected speech, association, and expressive conduct; B, Freedom from unreasonable seizure of her person, including unreasonable conditions of confinement and excessive use of force; C. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of property; D. Freedom from arrest without probable cause; E. Freedom from false imprisonment, that being wrongful detention without good faith, reasonable suspicion or legal justification, of which MACDONALD was aware and to which she did not consent; COMPLAINT - 32|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et, al. F, Freedom from the lodging of false charges against her by law enforcement officers; G. Freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law; H. Freedom from the denial of equal protection, privileges and immunities under the laws. 160, Defendants’ actions were not objectively reasonably under the Fourth Amendment for the purposes of qualified immunity under the totality of the circumstances, 161. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff MACDONALD has been injured with physical, mental, and emotional pain, discomfort, embarrassment, fear, anxiety, apprehension, sleeplessness, depression and has been affected in other ways, including public scorn, and a generally diminished sense of personal safety, outrage, and for attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with the commencement of this lawsuit 162, Further, Plaintiff SHIMOTA. suffered pecuniary and other losses including, but not limited to, economic damages, and a loss of spousal aid, comfort, companionship, guidance, and protection for an extended period, 163, Defendants, as a result of their outrageous and illegal behavior, are liable to Plaintiffs for the aforementioned injuries and damages as well as punitive damages. COMPLAINT - 33|Page MacDonald Shimota et, al. v. Wegner et, al. 164, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial 165. That by reason of the foregoing, total damages suffered by Plaintiff SHIMOTA are in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 166. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 USS. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn. Stat §549.20. COUNT 2; 42 US.C. § 1983 MONELL CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE AGAINST COUNTY 167. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 168. Defendant COUNTY, by and through their policymakers, created and maintained respective customs, policies and/or practices for failing to adequately train, supervise and discipline their employees and agents, including the named and unnamed defendants in this case, regarding obtaining probable cause to ensure that civilians not be falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted; and civilians’ right to be fice from unreasonable and illegal seizure, withholding and theft of personal property. 169. Defendant COUNTY had actual ot constructive notice of their failures to train, supervise and discipline their employees. ‘This is because Defendant COUNTY COMPLAINT - 34|Page MacDonald Shimota et.al. v, Wegner et, al. knew that it was foreseeable that their officers would confront situations requiring knowledge of probable cause, and limitations on seizure of persons and property, and that without the necessary training, supervision and discipline, constitutional violations would result, Yet Defendant COUNTY chose not to provide such training, supervision and discipline. 170. Defendant COUNTY’s failure to train, supervise and discipline amounted to gross negligence, deliberate indifference and/or intentional misconduct, and encouraged and/or permitted the named and unnamed individual defendants to engage in the conduct which proximately and directly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages set forth above. 171. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial, 172. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S, 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549,20. COUNT 3: 42. U.S.C, § 1986 - CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, JOHN/JANE DOES 173. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, COMPLAINT - 35|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. 174, Defendants, acting under color of law, collectively and individually, iff MACDONALD of her engaged in actions and abuses which have deprived PI rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution, including but not limited to, rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, 17. In derogation of their duties, the DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, having the power to do so, failed, neglected and/or refused to prevent the commission of the unlawful search and seizure, false detainment, unlawful accusation, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and wrongful seizure of MACDONALD and her property, theteby directly and proximately resulting in the deprivation of MACDONALD’s constitutional rights 176, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer itrepatable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 177, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat $549.20. COUNT 4: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - CONSPIRACY AGAINST FLUEGEL, WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/TANE DOES COMPLAINT - 36|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. 178. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 179, Defendants, under color of law, conspired with one another to deprive MACDONALD of her constitutional rights, including the rights: to be free from the nal use of unreasonable force; to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; intenti to be free from false arrest, and false imprisonment, 180, It was part of the conspiracy that Defendants did, among other acts, participate in various form of torture against MACDONALD while she was in custody. 181. In furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to cover up the acts of torture, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS engaged in the following, without limitation: ) falsely arresting and jailing MACDONALD; ) fabricating and contriving criminal charges lodged against MACDONALD; ) refusing to allow MACDONALD free access to a single telephone call while in custody; 4) circulating false and defamatory information conceming MACDONALD to the news media, including forwarding MACDONALD’s “mug shot” to during her political campaign (despite the matter having long been dismissed), in an offort to diminish her credibility; ¢) refusing to tun over video and other evidence and information that would incriminate the individuals involved. 182, Acting jointly over a period of many years, COUNTY, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS and FLUEGEL (a private Law Firm), together COMPLAINT - 37|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et, al. established policies and customs which allow even the most brazenly brutal sherifiS to believe they can use excessive force and torture with impunity. 183. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 184, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. COUNT 5: 42. US.C, § 1983-8" AMENDMENT, UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES 185. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, 186. By their conduct, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, under color of law, deprived MACDONALD of her constitutional right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force. 187, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer ineparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial. 188. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, COMPLAINT - 38|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al. 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. COUNT 6: 42. U.S.C, § 1983 - FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT. AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES 189, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein. 190. By their conduct and under color of law, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS deprived MACDONALD of her constitutional right to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment. 191. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be farther determined at trial 192, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn. Stat $549.20. COUNT 7: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ~ FAILURE TO INTERCEDE AGAINST WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/JANE DOES 193. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein, COMPLAINT - 39|/Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et. al. 194. By their conduct and under color of state law, it is believed DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS each had opportunities to intercede on behalf of MACDONALD to prevent the excessive use of force (orture) and unreasonable seizure but due to their intentional conduct or deliberate indifference declined or refused todo so. 195, That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to sulfer imeparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at tial 196, That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 US. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the differing standard of proof set forth in Minn, Stat §549.20. COUNT 8: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) - CONSPIRACY WITH GENDER ANIMUS AGAINST FLUEGEL, WEGNER, MELTON, GONDER, NAPPER, and JOHN/TANE DOES 197. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs all as more fully set forth herein. 198, The DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, under color of law, conspired with each other and with FLUEGEL, to undertake a course of conduet to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate MACDONALD in the free exercise and enjoyment of the rights and privileges and equal protection of the law secured to her by the Constitution, COMPLAINT - 40|Page MacDonatd Shimota et. al. v. Wegner et. al 199, The conduet of Defendants was motivated by gender animus/bias and by their desire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate MACDONALD because of her gender, female 200, On information and belief, at least one of the defendants, Deputy Sheriff NAPPER, is a known woman abuser, having “knocked out” a woman by the name of Jill Ann Kelly and breaking her leg in asserting his authority. 201, Among other acts, DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS manhandled MACDONALD to take a photograph, and then menacingly told her she looked “pretty” to strike further fear and gender-linked intimidation. 202. The conduct of the male DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS was motivated by gender animus and by their desire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Michelle MACDONALD because of her gender, female, 203. It was part of the conspiracy that DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS did, among other acts, mentally torture MACDONALD while she was in their custody and repeatedly requested a phone call, 204, In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to conceal the crimes and misconduct of DAKOTA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Defendants engaged in a cover up by, among other things, conti to withhold MACDONALD’s property (camera) and refusing fo fu over the entirety of incriminating video in its possession. COMPLAINT - 4l|Page MacDonald Shimota et. al. v, Wegner et. al. 208. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff MACDONALD suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages in excess of $75,000, to be further determined at trial 206. That by reason of the foregoing, punitive damages are also properly awardable and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements or the

    You might also like