Unrelated Lawsuit Names Officer Involved in Clark Death

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nataniel Hanson,
Court File No.: ___________

Plaintiffs,
vs.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze,

Nate Kinsey and Aric Gallatin,
Defendant.
TO:
The Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 24, 2015, undersigned counsel for
Defendants City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey and Aric Gallatin removed
the above-captioned action from the District Court of Hennepin County, Fourth Judicial
District, Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Removal is proper on the following grounds:
1.
On or about November 5, 2015, an action was commenced against
Defendants City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey and Aric Gallatin in the
District Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, by
service of a Summons and Complaint upon one of the named Defendants. This is the
only process, pleadings or orders which have been served upon Defendants to date in the
Hennepin County District Court action. A copy of the Summons and Complaint is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendants City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze, Nate
CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2
Kinsey and Aric Gallatin are the only Defendants named in the above-entitled civil
action.
2.
The action described in Paragraph 1 above is a civil action of which this
Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that it is a
civil action arising under the laws of the United States and involves a federal question,
as Plaintiff alleges in his complaint violations of Federal Constitution-False Arrest, 42
U.S.C. 1983 (Count I); and Federal Constitution-Excessive Force, 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Count II). As such, this action may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1441.
3.
This Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days after the first named
Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C.
1446.
Date: November 24, 2015
s/ Daniel P. Kurtz
Daniel P. Kurtz (#387858)
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Telephone: (651) 281-1276
Facsimile: (651) 281-1298
Email: dkurtz@lmc.org
Attorneys for Defendants
CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 10
DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Case Type: Civil Rights
Civil File No.
Nataniel Hanson,
Plaintiff,
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

vs.

Nate Kinsey, and Aric Gallatin,
Defendants.
TO:
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dustin Schwarze
Address unknown
Nate Kinsey
Address unknown
Aric Gallatin
Address unknown
1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against
you. The Plaintiff's Complaint against you is attached to this summons. DoYou
not
throw these
papers
away.
They
are official papers
that
affect your rights.
must respond to this lawsuit even though it may not yet be filed with the Court
and there may be no court file number on this summons.
2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR

RIGHTS.
You must give or mail to the person who signed this summons a
written response called an Answer within 20 days of the date on which you
received this Summons. You must send a copy of your Answer to the person
who signed this summons to the address below.
3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written

response to the Plaintiffs Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether
you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the

Complaint. If you believe the
for in
Plaintiff
should
not
be
given
everything
asked
the Complaint,
you must
EXHIBIT A
say so in your Answer.
4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN

RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS
SUMMONS. If you do not Answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You
will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide
against you
If you do not
and award
the Plaintiff everything
asked
for in the
complaint.
want to contest the claims stated in the complaint, you do not need to respond.
A default judgment can then be entered against you for the relief requested in
the complaint.
5. LEGAL
ASSISTANCE. You
may
wish
to
get
legal
help
from
lawyer.
If
you do not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about
places
where you can
get
legal
assistance.
Even if you cannot get legal help,
you must still provide a written Answer to protect your rights or you may
lose the case.
6.
RESOLUTION.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
The parties may agree to or
be ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution

process under
You must still send your
Rule 114
of
Rules
the Minnesota General
of
Practice.
written response to the Complaint even if you expect to use alternative means
of resolving this dispute.
Dated: November 3, 2015

Tim M. Phillips (# 390907)
tphillips@jrwilliamslaw. com
Joshua R. Williams (#389118)

jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw. com
2836 Lyndale Avenue S, Suite 160

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
612) 486- 5540
612) 605- 1944 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Civil File No.
Nataniel Hanson,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
vs.
City
of
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Richfield, Dustin Schwarze,
Nate Kinsey, and Aric Gallatin,

Defendants.
THE PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff is an adult male who resides in Minnesota.
2.
Defendants Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey, and Aric Gallatin are
adults who at all times relevant to the allegations set forth in this Complaint
were acting under color of state law in their capacities as law enforcement
officers
employed
by
the
City
of
Plaintiff is suing them in
Richfield, Minnesota.
their individual capacities.
Defendant City of Richfield is a political subdivision of the State of
3.
Minnesota.
Minneapolis employed Defendants Schwarze, Kinsey, and Gallatin
as police officers at all
times
relevant
to this
action.
Richfield is sued directly
and also, on all relevant claims, on the theories of respondeat superior or

vicarious
conduct
liability
of
and pursuant
to Minn. Stat.
Defendants Schwarze,
Kinsey,
and
466. 02 for the unlawful
Gallatin.
Richfield is the
political subdivision charged with training and supervising law enforcement

officers.
Richfield has
established
and
implemented,
or
delegated the
responsibility for establishing and implementing, policies, practices,
procedures, and customs used by law enforcement officers employed by

Richfield regarding
being
sued
directly
seizures and
pursuant
the
use of
to Monell
v.
force.
Richfield is therefore also
Dept. of Soc. Svcs., 436 U. S. 658
1978).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is an action for monetary and declaratory relief under 42
4.
1988.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter
U. S. C.
1983
pursuant
to Minn. Stat. 484. 01
County,
and
Minnesota
pursuant
et
seq.
Venue lies properly in Hennepin
to Minn. Stat. 542. 01.
et
seq., as the events
giving rise to this action occurred in Hennepin County.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5.
On December 11, 2011,
at or around
2: 27
a. m.,
Plaintiff was a
passenger in a vehicle stopped by Richfield police officers.

6.
Plaintiff identified himself with his driver' s license.
7.
Officer Schwarze performed one or more field sobriety tests on the
driver of the vehicle.
8.
Officer Schwarze informed Plaintiff and another passenger in the
vehicle that if they exited the vehicle, he would " beat the shit out of them.
9.
When Officer Schwarze made this comment, he was pointing his
Taser at Plaintiff.
10.
Sergeant Steen then approached the back seat with Officer
Schwarze and instructed Plaintiff to exit the vehicle.
11.
Plaintiff did not immediately exit the vehicle, however, because
Sergeant Steen' s instruction flatly contradicted Officer Schwarze' s instruction;
so Plaintiff did not know whether Sergeant Steen was ordering him to exit or
daring him to exit and have Officer Schwarze Taser or " beat the shit out of
him.
12.
Officer Kinsey hit Plaintiff in face with a closed fist.
13.
Officers pulled Plaintiff from the rear of the vehicle.
14.
Plaintiff was prone on the ground and his hands were above his
15.
Officer Kinsey hit Plaintiff with a closed fist approximately nine
head.
more times.
16.
Officer Schwarze removed the cartridge from his Taser, held the
trigger down, and delivered drive stuns to Plaintiff.'

17.
Officer Schwarze delivered approximately three drive stuns to
Plaintiff for at least one to two seconds each.

18.
Officer Schwarze also managed to drive stun Officer Cook in the
left leg.
19.
Officer Gallatin kicked Plaintiff approximately three times and
stomped on him approximately twice.

20.
Officers handcuffed Plaintiff.
When the cartridge is removed, the Taser may be operated in " drive stun"
mode and used as
a pain compliance
tool.
In drive stun mode, the Taser' s
electrical probes are applied directly to the person, causing incapacitating pain.
3
I
i
21.
Plaintiff was arrested for, but not convicted of, felony fourth degree
assault against a police officer.
22.
Plaintiff was transported to and booked at the Hennepin County
Jail.
COUNT I
DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U. S. C.
1983 AND
THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS - FALSE ARREST
23.
Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though fully incorporated herein.

24.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, arrested Plaintiff
without a warrant.
25.
At the time Defendants arrested Plaintiff without a warrant, it was
clearly established that a warrantless arrest complies with the Fourth

Amendment only " if it is
supported
by
probable cause."
Borgman v. Kedley,
646 F. 3d 518, 522 ( 8th Cir. 2011).

26.
Defendants did not have probable cause, or even arguable
probable cause, to arrest Plaintiff.
27.
Defendants, by arresting Plaintiff without a warrant or probable
cause, caused Plaintiff harm.

COUNT II
DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U. S. C.
1983 AND
THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS - EXCESSIVE FORCE
28.
Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the previous
paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.
29.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, used force against
Plaintiff.
30.
This use of force was excessive because it was not reasonably
necessary under the circumstances.

31.
Plaintiff was harmed as a direct result of this excessive use of
32.
At the time of this excessive use of force, it was clearly established
force.
that the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable
seizures, which includes the right to be free from excessive force by police
officers.
33.
Even if Defendants did not use excessive force against Plaintiff,
they witnessed one or more other officers using excessive force against Plaintiff.
34.
At the time Defendants used force against Plaintiff, it was clearly
established that police officers have an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf

of people whose Fourth Amendment rights are being violated in their presence
by
one or more other officers.
1983);
Webb v. Hiykel, 713 F. 2d 405, 408 ( 8th Cir.
Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F. 2d 415, 423 ( 8th Cir. 1981).

35.
Defendants failed to intervene on Plaintiff's behalf.
36.
Plaintiff was harmed as a direct result of this failure to intervene.

JURY DEMAND
37.
Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

5
1.
Enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor on his claims against

Defendants in
an amount
exceeding $ 50, 000,
including litigation
expenses and attorneys' fees, the exact amount to be proven at

trial;
2.
Declare that Defendants' conduct, as set forth above, violated 42

U. S. C.
3.
1983;
Award Plaintiff damages to compensate him for the harm he

suffered as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct;
4.
If Defendants remove this case to federal court, award Plaintiff
punitive damages with respect to his claims under federal law, the
exact amount to be proven at trial;
S.
Grant Plaintiff leave to amend this Complaint to include a claim for

punitive damages, the exact amount to be proven at trial;
6.
Award Plaintiff reasonable expenses incurred in this litigation,
including
attorney
and expert
fees,
pursuant
to 42 U. S. C.
1988;
7.
Grant Plaintiff all statutory relief to which he is entitled;
8.
Grant Plaintiff leave to amend this Complaint to supplement any
factual deficiencies or otherwise address any pleading deficiencies

herein; and
9.
Grant any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

tphillip s@j rwilliam slaw. com

Joshua R. Williams (# 389118)
jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw. com

612) 486- 5540
612) 605- 1944 Facsimile
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REQUIRED BY MINN. STAT. $ 549. 211
Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, acknowledges that sanctions,

attorneys'
fees,
and witness
fees may be imposed
under
Minn. Stat. 549. 211.

tphillips@jrwilliamslaw. com
Joshua R. Williams (# 389118)
jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com
612) 486- 5540
612) 605- 1944 Facsimile

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
DISTRICT COURT
Court File No.
Nataniel Hanson,
Plaintif,
VS

DEFENDANT CITY OF RICHFIELD, DUSTIN

SCHWARZE, NATE KINSEY AND ARIC
GALLATIN'S NOTICE OF FILING OF
NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL
COURT
Defendant.
TO:
The Court Administrator, County of Hennepin, Fourth Judicial District, State of

Minnesota; and Tim M. Phillips and Joshua R. Williams, Williams Law,2836 Lyndale
Avenue South, Suite 160, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55408, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that aNotice of Removal of the above-entitled action from the
District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District, to the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota (a copy of the Notice is annexed hereto) was duly
filed on November 24,2015, with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. All further proceedings with respect to this action shall be before said Court.
Dated:
l/ - 9 -aat
Kurtz (# 878s8)
145 University Avenue V/est
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
65r.281.1241
Attorney for Defendants
EXHIBIT B
LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Court File No.:
Nataniel Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
VS.

Defendant.
TO
The Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 24,2015, undersigned counsel for

Defendants City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey and Aric Gallatin removed
the above-captioned action from the District Court of Hennepin County, Fourth Judicial
District, Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Removal is proper on the following grounds:
1
On or about November 5, 2015, an action was commenced against
Defendants City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey and Aric Gallatin in the
District Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, by

service of a Summons and Complaint upon one of the named Defendants. This is the
only process, pleadings or orders which have been served upon Defendants to date in the
Hennepin County District Court action. A copy of the Summons and Complaint is
attached hereto as Exhibit
A. Defendants City of Richfield,
Dustin Schwarze, Nate
Kinsey and Aric Gallatin are the only Defendants named in the above-entitled civil
action
2.
The action described in Paragraph 1 above is a civil action of which this
Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. $ 1,331, in that it is
civil action arising under the laws of the United States and involves a federal question,
as
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint violations of Federal Constitution-False Anest,42
U.S.C. $ 1983 (Count I); and Federal Constitution-Excessive Force, 42 U.S.C. S 1983
(Count
II).
As such, this action may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1441,.
3.
This Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days after the first named
Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C
$l
446.
s/ Daniel P. Kurtz
Daniel P. Kurtz (#387858)
Date: November 24,2015

145 University Avenue'West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Telephone: (65 1) 281-127 6
Facsimile: (651) 281-1298
Email: dkurtz@lmc.org
Attorneys for Defendants
DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OII HtrNNEPIN
Case TYPe: Civil Rights
Civil File No.
Nataniel Hanson,
Plaintiff,
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
VS
City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze'

Naie KinseY, and Aric Gallatin,
Defendants
TO
City of Richfield
67OO Portland Avenue
Richfietd, MN 55423
Dustin Schwarze
Address unknown
Nate KinseY
Address unknown
Aric Gallatin
Address unknown
t.'YoUAREBEINGSUED'ThePlaintiffhasstartedalawsuitagainst
-o^pt^irt against you is attached to this summons' Do not
you. The plaintiff,s
papers that affect your rights' You
throw these papers away. They tr" otri"iul may not yet be filed with the court
it
must respond to this lawsuit even thougrr
this summons'
on
number
and ther may be no court file
TO PROTECT YOUR
2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS
who signed this summons a
RIGHT*. vu.,, ,,'rrut give or mail to the person
writtenfesponsecalledanAnswerwithin20daysofthedateonwhichyou
receivedthisSummons'YoumustsendacopyofyourAnswertotheperson
below'
who signed this summons to the address
S.YoUMUSTRESPoNDToEACHCLAIM.TheAnswerisyourwritten
responsetothePlaintiffsComplaint.InyourAnsweryoumuststatewhether
youagreeordisagreewithea"hpu,ao"onof-theComplaint'Ifyoubelievet}re
sked for in the Complaint' you must
plaintiff should not be given
",rrty,ftlg
EXHIBIT A
say so in Your Answer.
4.YoUWILLLoSEYOURcAsEIFYoUDoNoTSENDAWRITTEN
REsPoNsEToTHECOMPLAINTToTHEPERSoNwHoSIGNEDTHIS
sUMMoNs'IfyoudonotAnswerwithin20days,youwilllosethiscase.You
may decide against you
will not get to teli your side of the story, and the Court
complaint' If you do not
and award the Plaintiff everything askld for in the
you do not need to respond'

want to contest the claims *tu-t"d in the compiaint,
you for the relief requested in
A default judgment can then be entered against
the comPlaint'
you may wish to get legal help from a lawyer' If
5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
may have information about
you do not have a lawyer, the court Administrator
placeswhereyo,,"..'gerlegalassistance.Evenifyoucannotgetlegalhelp'
your rights of you may
you must still provid a *iittett Answer to protect
lose the case'
6.ALTERNATrVEDISPUTERESoLUTION.Thepartiesmayagreetoor
dispute resolution process under
be ordered to participate in an alternative
You must still send your
Rule 114 of the Minesota General Rules of Practice'
writtenresponsetotheComplaintevenifyouexpecttousealternativemeans
of resolving this disPute'
,1l,y
Tim M. PhilliPs (# 390907)

tphillip @j rwilliam slaw' com
ioshua n. Wltti.*s (#389118)
jwiliiam @1 rwilliamslaw' com
bggo t ynale Avenue S, suite 160
MinnePolis, Minnesota 55408
f6L2l 486-5540
io rzi 6o5-L944 Facsimile
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNtrPTN

Case TYPe: Civil Rights
Civil File
Nataniel Hanson,
No.
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
VS

Nate KinseY, and Aric Gallatin,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
THE PARTIPS
l.PiaintiffisanadultmalewhoresidesinMinnesota'
2.DefendantsDustinSchwarze,NateKinsey,andAricGallatinare
in this complaint
adults who at all times relevant to the allegations set forth
as law enforcement
were acting under color of state law in their capacities
Plaintiff is suing them in
officers employed by the city of Richfield, Minnesota'
their individual caPacities'
3.
of the state of
Defendant city of Richfield is a political subdivision
Kinsey, and Gallatin

Minnesota, Minneapolis empioyed Defendants schwarze,
directly
at all times relevant to this action' Richfield is sued
as police ofticers
of respondeat superior or
and also, on a1 relevant claims, On the theories
vicariousliabilityandpursuanttoMinn'Stat'$466'O2fortheunlawful
conductofDefendantsSchwarze,Kinsey,andGallatin'Richfietdisthe
political subdivision charged with training and supervising
1aw enforcement
officers.Richfieldhasestablishedandimplemented,ordelegatedthe
responsibiiity for establishing and implementing, policies, practices,

procedures, and customs used by law enforcement officers employed by
Richfield regarding seizures and the use of force. Richfield is therefore also
being sued directly pursuant ta Monell u. Dept. o/ Soc, Sucs', 436 U.S. 658
(1e78),
JURISDICTIO N AND VENUE
4.
This is an action for monetary and declaratory relief under 42
U.S.C, SS i983 and 1988. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 4B4.OI et seq. Venue lies properly in Hennepin

County, Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 542.01 et seq., as the events
giving rise to this action occurred in Hennepin County.
GENERI\L .,LLEGAIrONS
5.
On December 1 I , zOL 1 , at or around 2:27 a.m., Plaintiff was a
passenger in a vehicle stopped by Richfield police officers.
6.
Piaintiff identified himself with his driver's license'
Z.
Officer Schwarze performed one or more field sobriety tests on the
driver of the vehicle.
8.
Officer Schwarze informed Plaintiff and another passenger in the
vehicle that if they exited the vehicie, he would "beat the shit out of' them'
When officer schwarze made this comment, he was pointing his
Taser at Plaintiff.
10.
sergeant steen then approached the back seat with officer
Schwarze and instructed Plaintiff to exit the vehicle'

c
1.
Plaintiff did not immediately exit the vehicle, however, because
Sergeant Steen's instruction flatly contradicted Officer Schwarze's instruction;

so Plaintiff did not know whether Sergeant Steen was ordering him to exit or
daring him to exit and have Officer Schwarze Taser or "beat the shit out of'
him.
72.
Officer Kinsey hit Plaintiff in face with a closed fist,
13,
Officers pulled Piaintiff frclm the rear of the vehicle,
14.
Piaintiff was prone on the ground and his hands were above his
15.
Officer Kinsey hit Plaintiff with a closed fist approximately nine
head,
more times.
76.
Officer Schwarze removed the cartridge from his Taser, held the
trigger down, and delivered drive stuns to Plaintiff.l
17,
Officer Schwarze delivered approximately three drive stuns to
Plaintiff for at least one to two seconds each.
18.
Officer Schwarze also managed to drive stun Officer Cook in the
left leg.
1g.
Officer Gallatin kicked Plaintiff approximately three times and
stomped on him approximately twice.
20.
Officers handcuffed Plaintiff'
When the cartridge is removed, the Taser may be operated in "drive stun"
mode and used as pain compliance tool. In drive stun mode, the Taser's
electrical probes are pplied directly to the person, causing incapacitating pain
1
.)
2I.
Plaintiff was arrested for, but not convicted of, felony fourth degree
assault against a police officer.
22. Plaintiff
was transportecl to and booked at the Hennepin County
Jail,
CO-UNT I
DEPRTVATION OF CrvIL RIGHTS IN VTOLATION O 42 U.S.C. S 1983 AND
TH FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AI/IENDMENTS. FALSE ARREST
23.
Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as though fully incorporated herein.
24.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, arrested Plaintiff
without a warrant.
25.
At the time Defendants arrested Plaintiff without a warrant, it was
clearly established that a warrantless arrest complies with the Fourth
Amendment only "if it is supported by probable cause." Borgman u. Kedley,

646 F.3d 578,522 (Bth Cir. 2011).
26.
Defendants did not have probable cause) or even arguable
probable cause, to arrest Plaintiff.

27
Defendants, by arresting Plaintiff without a warrant or probable
cause, caused Plaintiff harm,
couNLII
DpRrvATroN oF cIVru RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. S 1983
THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
28.
Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the previous
paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.
AND
EXCESSIVE FORCE
29.
f)efendants, acting under color of state law, used force against
Plaintiff.
30.
This use of force was excessive because it was not reasonably
necessary under the circumstances,
31,
Plaintiff was harmed as a direct result of this excessive use of
32.
At the time of this excessive use of force, it was clearly established
force,
that the Fourth Amendment ggarantees the right to be free from unreasonable
seizures, which includes the right to be free from excessive force by police
officers,
33,
Even if Defendants did not use excessive force against Plaintiff,
they witnessed one or more other officers using excessive force against Plaintiff
94.
At the time Defendants used force against Plaintiff, it was clearly
established that police officers have an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf

of people whose Fourth Amendment rights are being violated in their presence
by one or more other officers, Webb u. Higkel, T13 F.2d 405, 408 (8th Cir.
1983); Putman u. Gerloff,639 F,2d
4I5,423 (Bth Cir'
1981).
'
35.
Defendants failed to intervene on Plaintiff's behalf.
36,
Plaintiff was harmed as a direct result of this failure to intervene.

JURY DEMAND-
37.
Plaintiff demands
jury trial'
REQUEST T'OR RELIEF'

WHEREFORtr, Plaintiff respectfuily requests that the Court:
5
Enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor on his claims against

Defendants in an amount exceeding $50,000, including litigation
expenses and attorneys'fees, the exact amount to be proven at
trial;
2
Declare that Defendants' conduct, as set forth above, violated 42
u.s,c. s i9B3;
.)
Award Plaintiff damages to compensate him for the harm he

suffered as a resuit of Defendants'unlawful conduct;
If Defendants remove this case to federal court, award Plaintiff

punitive damages with respect to his claims under federal law, the
exact amount to be proven at trial;
Grant Plaintiff leave to amend this Complaint to include a claim for

punitive damages, the exact amount to be proven at trial;
Award Plaintiff reasonable expenses incurred in this litigation,
including attorney and expert fees, pursuant lo 42 U.S.C. S 1988;

statutory relief to which he is entitled;
Grant Plaintiff
Grant Plaintiff leave to amend this Complaint to supplement any
al1
factuai deficiencies or otherwise address any pleading deficiencies

herein; and
Grant any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
;l\*
\
Tim M. Phillips (#390907)

tphillip @j rwilliam slaw, com
Joshua R. \Milliams {#389118)
jwilliam @j rwilliam slaw. com
(612) 486-5540
(6 12) 605- 1944 Facsimile
ATTORNDYS FOR PLAINTIFF
4.CKNOTVLEDqEI4pNT REQUTRED By MrNN. STAT. S 549.211
Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, acknowledges that sanctions,

attorneys'fees, and witness fees may be imposed under Minn. Stat. S 54g.21I
'F
Tim M. Phillips (#390907)

tphillip @j rwilliam slaw. com
Joshua R. Williams (#389118)
jwiliiam @jrwilliam slaw, com
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408'
(61.2) 486-5s40
(6 12) 605- 7944 Facsimle
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIF'F
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Hanson v. Richfield
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
Linda J. Durrence, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that on November
24, 2015, she served the following:
1.
Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal
by depositing a copy of said documents in an envelope, postage prepaid, at St. Paul, Minnesota,
addressed as follows:
Tim M. Phillips
Joshua R. Williams
Law Office of Joshua R. Williams, PLLC
2836 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 160

Minneapolis, MN 55408
K_
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this
24th
day of November, 2015.
Notary Publ.
ESLEY R. BROWN
r Notary Public-Minnesota
M
My Commission Expires Jen 91. 2020
f da J. Durre ce
N,
JS 44 (Rev. 11/04)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Nataniel Hanson
City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey and Aric Gallatin

County of Residence of First Listed
Defendant
Hennepin
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Hennepin

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)

Daniel P. Kurtz (387858)
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
651-281-1276
Tim M. Phillips and Joshua R. Williams

Williams Law
2836 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 160
612-486-5540
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
(Place an X in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place

(For Diversity Cases Only)
X 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
2 U.S. Government
Defendant
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties
in Item III)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT
Citizen of This State
Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
(Place an X in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
&
Enforcement
of
Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excl. Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
DEF
PTF
1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff
an X in One Box for
Plaintiff
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
of Veterans Benefits
350 Motor Vehicle
160 Stockholders Suits

190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
400 State Reapportionment

410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc.
460 Deportation
368 Asbestos Personal
640 R.R. & Truck
PROPERTY RIGHTS
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
650 Airline Regs.

660 Occupational
Safety/Health
690 Other
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
810 Selective Service
850 Securities/Commodities
SOCIAL SECURITY
710 Fair Labor Standards

Act
720 Labor/Mgmt Relations
861 HIA (1395ff)

862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
730 Labor/Mgmt Reporting
865 RSI (405(g))
210 Land Condemnation

220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
444 Welfare
510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence
Habeas Corpus:
530 General
535 Death Penalty
& Disclosure Act

740 Railway Labor Act
290 All Other Real Property
445 Amer. w/
Disabilities Employment
540 Mandamus & Other
791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
OTHER STATUTES
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
PRISONER
PETITIONS
CIVIL RIGHTS
BANKRUPTCY
610 Agriculture
620 Other Food & Drug
625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC
881
630 Liquor Laws
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
355 Motor Vehicle

Product Liability
360 Other Personal
I j
REAL PROPERTY
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
362 Personal Injury
Med. Malpractice
365 Personal Injury
Product Liability
790 Other Labor Litigation
Exchange
875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 3410
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
892 Economic Stabilization Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
893 Environmental Matters

894 Energy Allocation Act
895 Freedom of Information Act
900 Appeal of Fee Determination
446 Amer. w/
Disabilities - Other
440 Other Civil Rights
550 Civil Rights
Security Act
871 IRSThird Party
Under Equal Access to Justice
26 USC 7609
950 Constitutionality of State

Statues
555 Prison Condition
V. ORIGIN
1
Original
Proceeding
(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)
X 2
Removed from
State Court
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Remanded from
Appellate Court
Reinstated or
Reopened
Transferred from
another district
(specify)
Multidistrict
Litigation
(Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 42 U.S.C.1983
Brief description of cause: Violation of Federal Constitution-False Arrest, 42 U.S.C. 1983, violation of Federal Constitution-Excessive Force, 42 U.S.C
1983, and Civil Rights Violations under Monell v. Dept of Social Services.
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

X Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
(See
instructions):
JUDGE
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
November 24, 2015
x/Daniel P. Kurtz
DOCKET NUMBER
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT #
Appeal to District
Judge from
Magistrate
Judgment
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
EXHIBIT C
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/04
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of
Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney
filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.
(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full
name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and
title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of
filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county
of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this
section (see attachment).
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an X in one of
the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an
act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different
parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for
each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to
enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most
definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an X in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for
removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation
transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is
checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judges decision.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity.
Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.
Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Unrelated Lawsuit Names Officer Involved in Clark Death

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unrelated Lawsuit Names Officer Involved in Clark Death

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Court File No.: ___________

City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze,

On or about November 5, 2015, an action was commenced against

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2

The action described in Paragraph 1 above is a civil action of which this

Date: November 24, 2015

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 10

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case Type: Civil Rights

Civil File No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

City of Richfield, Dustin Schwarze,

are official papers

affect your rights.

2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR

3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written

you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 10

say so in your Answer.

4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN

the Plaintiff everything

where you can

Even if you cannot get legal help,

The parties may agree to or

be ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution

Dated: November 3, 2015

Joshua R. Williams (#389118)

2836 Lyndale Avenue S, Suite 160

612) 605- 1944 Facsimile

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 10

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case Type: Civil Rights

Civil File No.

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

Richfield, Dustin Schwarze,

Nate Kinsey, and Aric Gallatin,

Plaintiff is an adult male who resides in Minnesota.

Defendants Dustin Schwarze, Nate Kinsey, and Aric Gallatin are

Plaintiff is suing them in

their individual capacities.

Defendant City of Richfield is a political subdivision of the State of

Minneapolis employed Defendants Schwarze, Kinsey, and Gallatin

as police officers at all

Richfield is sued directly

and also, on all relevant claims, on the theories of respondeat superior or

466. 02 for the unlawful

political subdivision charged with training and supervising law enforcement

CASE 0:15-cv-04210-RHK-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 10

responsibility for establishing and implementing, policies, practices,

procedures, and customs used by law enforcement officers employed by

Richfield is therefore also

Dept. of Soc. Svcs., 436 U. S. 658

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This is an action for monetary and declaratory relief under 42

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter

to Minn. Stat. 484. 01

Venue lies properly in Hennepin

to Minn. Stat. 542. 01.

seq., as the events

giving rise to this action occurred in Hennepin County.

On December 11, 2011,