case 2:15-cv-02041-su document 1 filed 10/29/15 page 1 of...

- COMPLAINT

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3089

TELEPHONE (503) 227-1111 | FACSIMILE (503) 248-0130

Clifford S. Davidson, OSB No. 125378 [email protected] Kristen G. Hilton, OSB No. 151950 [email protected] SUSSMAN SHANK LLP 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97205-3089 Telephone: (503) 227-1111 Facsimile: (503) 248-0130 Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Addison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON (Pendleton Division)

BRIAN ADDISON, an individual,

Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BAKER CITY, a municipal corporation, Police Chief WYN LOHNER, in his individual capacity, and DOE OFFICERS 1-10, in their individual capacities,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-2041

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Retaliation for First Amendment

Conduct (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(2) Tortious Interference with Economic Relations

(3) Defamation

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, a journalist, wrote an editorial criticizing the Baker City Police

Department in 2008. Since, and as the result of, the publication of his editorial, Plaintiff

has been the subject of a series of harassing, defamatory and economically damaging

actions by Baker City police officers.

Case 2:15-cv-02041-SU Document 1 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 19

- COMPLAINT



2. Even years after Plaintiff wrote the editorial, the Baker City police

contacted his new employer and suggested that Plaintiff had a criminal background that

made him unsuitable for employment. Plaintiff’s employer fired him as a result of this

statement and an inaccurate “Fact File” that Defendants advised Plaintiff’s employer to

obtain.

3. Defendants’ conduct has left Plaintiff unemployed and fearful of further

retaliation.

4. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive

damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). Plaintiff further invokes this Court’s

supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiff’s state law claims

as those claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United

States Constitution.

6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiff

resides in this District and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

7. This Complaint has been filed in the Pendleton Division pursuant to Local

Rule 3-2 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims

occurred in Baker County, Oregon.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Brian Addison is a private citizen. At all times during which the


- COMPLAINT



wrongful acts alleged occurred, he was a resident of Baker City, Oregon. Plaintiff is a

journalist. He has been a reporter for the Record-Courier and Wallowa County

Chieftain, in addition to freelance work. He currently is a contract reporter for the Baker

County Press.

9. At all relevant times, Defendant Lohner has been the Police Chief of the

Baker City Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity and is a “person”

subject to suit within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Lohner is domiciled

in Oregon.

10. At all relevant times, Defendant Doe Officers 1-10 have been, or were,

members of the Baker City Police Department. They are sued in their individual

capacities and are “persons” subject to suit within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The true names of Defendant Doe Officers 1-10 are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will

seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these

defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitious named Defendants

is responsible for some part of the conduct or liabilities alleged herein. Discovery will

reveal further information concerning Doe Officers 1-10, but Plaintiff is informed and

believes, and thereon alleges, that Doe Officers 1-10 have been domiciled in Oregon at

all relevant times.

11. At all relevant times, Defendant City of Baker City has been a municipal

corporation duly incorporated and authorized under the State of Oregon pursuant to

ORS 221.020. Defendant City of Baker City is authorized under section 5 of the Baker

City Charter to maintain a police department, the Baker City Police Department, which

acts as its agent in the area of law enforcement and for which it is ultimately


- COMPLAINT



responsible. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

Lohner is the final policymaker for Defendant City of Baker City in matters pertaining to

the Baker City Police Department.

12. At all relevant times, Defendants acted under color of state law.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Speech Activity in 2008

13. In March 2008, Plaintiff was employed as a news reporter at the Record-

Courier, a newspaper in Baker City, Oregon. Plaintiff’s duties included investigating and

writing articles about local news and politics, and writing opinion pieces. Plaintiff began

working for the Record-Courier in or around February 2006.

14. Also in March 2008, Defendant Lohner wrote a weekly column that

appeared in the Record-Courier.

15. On March 6, 2008, the Record-Courier published an editorial bearing the

headline “How About a Favorable Interpretation of the 4th Amendment,” which was

authored by Plaintiff. The editorial criticized the Baker City Police Department Drug

Enforcement Canine Unit for patrolling the Baker High School gymnasium during

halftime of a high school girls’ basketball game and called the “random search by a

canine unit” a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the

“Editorial”). A true and correct copy of the Editorial is attached as Exhibit A and

incorporated herein.

16. On March 7, 2008, the morning after the Editorial was published,

Defendant Lohner demanded a meeting with Plaintiff and the editor of the Record-

Courier, Debbie Schoeningh.


- COMPLAINT



17. At the meeting, which Plaintiff attended, Lohner demanded that the

Record-Courier retract the Editorial. Lohner threatened to stop writing his weekly

column if the newspaper did not agree to this demand.

18. The Record-Courier did not retract the Editorial. However, on March 8,

2008, it issued a statement clarifying that the Editorial was purely Plaintiff’s opinion and

did not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. This clarification by the Record-Courier

further stated that the newspaper supported Plaintiff’s right to express his opinion.

The Leader of the Canine Team Criticized in the Editorial Issues Plaintiff a

Stalking Citation Shortly After the Editorial Runs

19. The Record-Courier changed owners shortly after the Editorial ran.

20. On June 5, 2008, Plaintiff was terminated from his position at the Record-

Courier.

21. The following day, June 6, 2008, Plaintiff returned to the offices of the

Record-Courier to retrieve his final paycheck. While there, Plaintiff became enmeshed

in a heated discussion with the Record-Courier’s new owner/editor and publisher. While

Plaintiff made some inflammatory statements, the parties involved later stated that they

did not feel threatened by him.

22. Later that day, June 6, 2008, Officer Wayne Chastain of the Baker City

Police Department appeared at Plaintiff’s house and notified Plaintiff that a harassment

complaint had been made against him by persons at the Record-Courier.

23. Officer Chastain issued Plaintiff a civil stalking citation and told him to

appear in court on June 10, 2008.

24. Officer Chastain is the same Baker City Police Officer who led the canine


- COMPLAINT



unit through the high school girls’ basketball game, as Plaintiff described and criticized

in the Editorial.

25. The stalking citation required Addison to appear in Baker County Circuit

Court on June 10, 2008 to show cause why a restraining order should not be issued.

26. The Circuit Court declined to issue a restraining order and dismissed the

citation.

Baker City Police Officers Target Plaintiff

27. Prior to publication of the Editorial in March 2008, Plaintiff’s only police-

initiated contact had been in the 1980s when he received a few traffic citations.

28. Shortly after the Editorial was published, Plaintiff was stopped by Baker

City Police Officer Mike Regan while walking home from the grocery store. Officer

Regan asked Plaintiff for ID and then began rifling through Plaintiff’s grocery bags.

Officer Regan did not issue Plaintiff a warning or citation, and never explained the

reason for stopping Plaintiff.

29. Between June 2008 and April 2010, Plaintiff regularly was followed by

Baker City Police officers while driving and was occasionally stopped for alleged traffic

violations. Plaintiff was warned by police but never cited.

30. In 2010, Plaintiff moved to Enterprise, Oregon to take a job as a reporter

for the Wallowa County Chieftain, a newspaper there. He moved back to Baker City in

April 2012.

31. Shortly after Plaintiff’s return to Baker City, the Baker City Police

Department resumed its practice of regularly following Plaintiff while he was driving and

stopping him for alleged traffic violations. On all but one of those occasions, Plaintiff


- COMPLAINT



was given warnings by police but was not ticketed. The only ticket Plaintiff received

was for expired tags. That ticket was issued on or about April 25, 2013.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the actions

taken by Baker City Police Officers against Plaintiff between 2008 and 2014, including

following Plaintiff while he was driving, and stopping Plaintiff without arresting or

ticketing him, were done at the direction of or with the knowledge and approval of

Defendant Lohner. As discussed in greater detail below, Lohner had flagged Addison

for special police attention.

The Baker City Police Retaliate Further, This Time Costing Plaintiff His Job

33. On or about August 25, 2014, Plaintiff was hired by New Directions

Northwest, Inc. (“New Directions”), a non-profit organization that serves Baker County,

Oregon with drug and alcohol addictions services, residential treatment, and prevention.

Plaintiff was an at-will employee with the title of Supported Employment Specialist.

Plaintiff’s salary was approximately $30,000 per year.

34. On November 10, 2014, the Baker City Herald, a newspaper in Baker City,

published an article about Plaintiff and his work at New Directions (the “Article”). A true

and correct copy of the Article is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference

herein. The Article also states that Plaintiff had recently appeared before the Baker City

Council to explain his role at New Directions and ask that the city consider hiring his

clients.

35. On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff was fired by New Directions. Following

his firing, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of Oregon Bureau of Labor and

Industries (“BOLI”), alleging wrongful termination.


- COMPLAINT



36. In or around January 2015, the BOLI investigator assigned to Plaintiff’s

complaint sent Plaintiff copies of two police records that had been obtained by New

Directions on November 14, 2014, just prior to New Directions’ termination of Plaintiff.

One record was titled “Fact File,” and the other record was the Incident Report related

to Plaintiff’s 2008 civil stalking citation. A redacted copy of the “Fact File” is attached as

Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein.1

37. The “Fact File” contains false statements of fact and/or falsely implies

undisclosed facts. For instance, the “Fact File” states that Plaintiff had been ticketed

eleven times since 2009. In fact, Plaintiff received one ticket from the Baker City Police

Department for having expired tags.

38. The “Fact File” also states, “Per 601, flag as caution.” Plaintiff is informed

and believes, and thereon alleges, that “601” refers to the Chief of the Baker City Police

Department, Defendant Lohner.

39. The Incident Report contains the redacted notes of the Police Officer who

issued the stalking citation complaint. The Incident Report states that the officer “issued

the Stalking Citation to” Plaintiff and the “Fact File” reflects that Plaintiff received a ticket

for stalking on June 6, 2008. Neither the Incident Report nor the “Fact File” state that

the stalking citation was dismissed.

40. The Baker County Sheriff’s Office, which is located in Baker City, Oregon

is the custodian of records for the Baker City Police Department. Plaintiff is informed

1 The redaction in the “Comments” section of Exhibit C, and at the bottom of Exhibit C, were not made by Plaintiff.


- COMPLAINT



and believes and thereon alleges that the “Fact File” and Incident Report were created

by the Baker City Police Department and that the information contained therein was

input by Defendant Doe Officers 1-10, not by employees of the Baker County Sheriff’s

Office.

41. Plaintiff withdrew his BOLI complaint and the BOLI case was closed on or

about February 10, 2015. Plaintiff withdrew his BOLI complaint in light of information

from BOLI indicating that it was police misconduct, rather than wrongful acts by New

Directions, that resulted in his termination.

Plaintiff Learns That Baker City Police Contacted His Employer

42. On or about July 30, 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon,

acting on Plaintiff’s behalf, made a Public Records Request to BOLI for Plaintiff’s BOLI

investigation file and any final report issued in connection therewith.

43. Plaintiff received a copy of the BOLI investigation file on or about August

18, 2015. The BOLI investigation file includes a position statement submitted by

counsel for Plaintiff’s former employer, New Directions.

44. Based on information contained in the BOLI investigation file, Plaintiff is

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on November 12, 2014, Defendant

Doe Officer 1 of the Baker City Police Department called Marji Lind, Clinical Director at

New Directions, regarding Plaintiff. Based on information contained in the BOLI

investigation file, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

Doe Officer 1 stated to Ms. Lind that Doe Officer 1 had seen the November 10, 2014

Baker City Herald article about Plaintiff, suggested that New Directions implement more

rigorous background check procedures, and urged New Directions to request public


- COMPLAINT



records about Plaintiff from local law enforcement – the implication being that Mr.

Addison has a criminal history and that he was not suited for employment at New

Directions.


informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that as a result of the telephone call from

Defendant Doe Officer 1, on November 14, 2014, a New Directions employee requested

copies of public records relating to Plaintiff from the Baker County Sheriff’s Office.

Based on information contained in the BOLI investigation file, Plaintiff is informed and

believes, and thereon alleges, that New Directions obtained copies of the “Fact File”

and Incident Report from the Baker County Sheriff’s Office and that those are the only

public records that New Directions received from law enforcement pertaining to Plaintiff.


informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that New Directions terminated Plaintiff’s

employment relationship with Plaintiff because of the information contained in the “Fact

File” and Incident Report.

47. Although the BOLI investigation file indicates that New Directions was still

evaluating Plaintiff and whether he was a good fit for New Directions – he had worked

there for only a few months – New Directions took no action against Plaintiff until after

receiving the “Fact File” and Incident Report on November 14, 2014. Prior to that date,

Plaintiff was an employee in good standing, and had qualified for benefits. Indeed, he

had been provided benefits paperwork to complete only one day earlier on November

13, 2014.

48. Since his termination from New Directions, Plaintiff has worked as a


- COMPLAINT



contract reporter for the Baker County Press. Because of the actions taken against

Plaintiff by the Baker City Police Department, Defendant Lohner, and Defendant Doe

Officers 1-10, Plaintiff is unable to report on Baker City news and politics. This inability

has injured Plaintiff’s ability to earn a livelihood because Baker City is the largest city in,

and the county seat of, Baker County, Oregon.

49. Plaintiff has relocated out of Baker City because of fear of further

retaliation by the Baker City Police Department and its officers – despite the fact that his

elderly mother lives in Baker City and requires his frequent care and attention.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

First Amendment Retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants Lohner and Doe Officers 1-10)

50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set

forth herein.

51. Plaintiff’s Editorial is speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

52. Plaintiff’s Editorial is the speech of a private citizen on a matter of public

concern.

53. In 2014, Defendants, acting under color of law, took action against Plaintiff

in retaliation for Plaintiff’s protected speech. Defendants’ retaliatory actions include (1)

making false and misleading statements about Plaintiff in the “Fact File”, and (2)

contacting Plaintiff’s then employer, New Directions, and suggesting that Plaintiff has a

significant criminal history precluding employment at New Directions when, in fact, he


- COMPLAINT



does not.

54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the actions of

Defendant Doe Officer 1 were done at the direction of, or with the knowledge and

approval of, Defendant Lohner, as well as other Defendant Doe Officers.

55. In the alternative, Lohner conspired with Defendant Doe Officer 1 and/or

additional Defendant Doe Officers to undertake the actions described above.

56. Chilling Plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor

for Defendants’ actions. This motive is evidenced by the fact that (1) the false “ticket”

entries in the “Fact File” were made after publication of the Editorial; (2) Plaintiff was

speaking in the newspaper (the Article) two days before Defendant Doe Officer 1

contacted New Directions; and (3) the Article describes Plaintiff’s frequent advocacy on

behalf of New Directions and its clients before the City Council of Baker City.

57. The conduct described in this Claim was objectively unreasonable and

was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

and to the harm that would result to Plaintiff.

58. The conduct described in this Claim was undertaken with malice,

willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

59. As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages, including

termination of his employment.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Supervisory Liability (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendant Lohner)

60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49, 51-54 and


- COMPLAINT



56 as if fully set forth herein.

61. Defendant Lohner was responsible for the supervision of Defendant Doe

Officers 1-10. Defendant Doe Officers 1-10, acting under color of law, took the actions

described above against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff’s protected speech.

62. Defendant Lohner, acting under color of law, directed Defendant Doe

Officers 1-10 to retaliate against Plaintiff or, alternatively, Defendant Lohner knew or

should have known that Defendant Doe Officers 1-10 were retaliating against Plaintiff

for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and Defendant Lohner failed to

act to prevent Doe Officers 1-10 from engaging in such conduct.

63. Defendant Lohner’s conduct was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and to

the resulting harm to Plaintiff.

64. Defendant Lohner’s conduct was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and

reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

65. As a result of Defendant Lohner’s acts or omissions, Plaintiff suffered

damages, including termination of his employment.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Municipal Liability (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendant City of Baker City)

66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49, 51-54 and

56 as if fully set forth herein.

67. At all relevant times, Defendant Lohner, Chief of the Baker City Police

Department, acted under color of law.


- COMPLAINT



68. The acts of Defendant Lohner deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit

retaliation for the exercise of free speech.

69. The City of Baker City is liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s First

Amendment rights because the deprivation was pursuant to a city custom, policy or

practice of the City and/or its agents retaliating against citizens who criticize the Baker

City Police Department. Plaintiff is aware of others against whom Defendant Lohner

and the Baker City Police Department have retaliated for lawful conduct.

70. At all relevant times, Defendant Lohner had final policymaking authority for

the City of Baker City’s police department and engaged in the acts alleged herein while

acting as a final policymaker for defendant City of Baker City. As a result, Defendant

City of Baker City is liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights

because the unlawful actions were performed or approved by a person in a

policymaking position for Defendant City of Baker City.

71. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant City of Baker City’s

policies, customs, and practice, including termination of Plaintiff’s employment.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Economic Relations



forth herein.

73. Plaintiff, an at-will employee of New Directions, had an economic

relationship with New Directions.


- COMPLAINT



74. Defendants were not parties to the economic relationship between Plaintiff

and New Directions.

75. Defendants were aware of the economic relationship between Plaintiff and

New Directions, and intended to interfere with the economic relationship between

Plaintiff and New Directions. This intention to interfere is a reason Defendant Doe

Officer 1 called New Directions upon seeing the Article.

76. Lohner conspired with Defendant Doe Officer 1 and/or additional

Defendant Doe Officers to undertake the actions described above.

77. It was the object of Lohner and at least one Doe Officer to interfere with

Plaintiff’s economic relationship with New Directions.

78. Defendants interfered with the economic relationship between Plaintiff and

New Directions through improper means, namely by retaliating against Plaintiff for

exercising his First Amendment Rights and by defaming Plaintiff. Specifically, (1)

Defendants published or directed to be published false or misleading statements about

Plaintiff in Baker City Police Department records and (2) Defendant Doe Officer 1

contacted New Directions and indicated or suggested during a telephonic conversation

that Plaintiff had a criminal record, and/or that Plaintiff was unsuited for employment at

New Directions, even though Defendant Doe Officer 1 knew such statement was false

or had no reasonable basis for believing such statement was true.

79. Defendants’ interference caused harm to Plaintiff’s economic relationship

with New Directions because it resulted in New Directions’ terminating Plaintiff’s

employment.

80. Defendants’ interference resulted in damages to Plaintiff.


- COMPLAINT



81. Defendants were not acting in the course or scope of their employment

when they interfered with Plaintiff’s economic relationship with New Directions.

82. Lohner conspired with Defendant Doe Officer 1 and/or additional

Defendant Doe Officers to undertake the actions described above.

83. It was the object of Lohner and at least one other Doe Officer to interfere

with Plaintiff’s economic relationship with New Directions.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Defamation



forth herein.

Count 1

85. As described above, Doe Officer 1 called Plaintiff’s employer and

intentionally made statements implying to Plaintiff’s employer that Plaintiff had a criminal

history that precluded employment at New Directions.

86. Based on the BOLI file, Plaintiff believes, and on that basis alleges, that

Doe Officer 1 informed New Directions that Doe Officer 1 was with the Baker City Police

Department.

87. Based on the BOLI file, Plaintiff believes, and on that basis alleges, that

Doe Officer 1 informed New Directions that Doe Officer 1 was calling in response to the

Article in which Plaintiff was featured.

88. In context, Doe Officer 1’s statements were defamatory as they, at a

minimum, excited adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings toward Plaintiff – as


- COMPLAINT



evidenced by the fact that he was fired.

89. Doe Officer 1’s statements were false. Plaintiff’s criminal history

comprised (and still comprises) a ticket for expired tags in 2013 and some traffic tickets

in the 1980s.

90. Doe Officer 1 knew that his or her statements were false, or reasonably

should have known them to be false, in light of Doe Officer 1’s position with the Baker

City Police.

91. Plaintiff’s employer, New Directions, was a third party.

92. Because Doe Officer 1’s statements imputed to Plaintiff a criminal history,

Doe Officer 1’s statement(s) constituted slander per se.

93. Because Doe Officer 1’s statements suggested that Plaintiff was unfit for

employment, Doe Officer 1’s statement(s) constituted slander per se.

94. Because Doe Officer 1’s statements tended to injure the Plaintiff in his

business or profession, Doe Officer 1’s statements(s) constituted slander per se.

95. Based on the “Fact File’s” notation that Plaintiff had been flagged by

Defendant Lohner for special treatment, and based on the fact that harassment of

Plaintiff by the police restarted only after the Article was published, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Lohner conspired with Doe Officer 1 and/or additional Doe Officers to publish

defamatory statements.

Count 2

96. The “Fact File” falsely indicated that Plaintiff had been ticketed 11 times, in

addition to the stalking citation.

97. Further, by failing to mention the disposition of the stalking citation, the


- COMPLAINT



Fact File falsely implied that the stalking citation was valid and had not been dismissed,

and that Plaintiff had been restrained pursuant to it.

98. The inaccuracies of the “Fact File” were exacerbated by Doe Officer 1’s

suggestion, described in Count 1 above, that Plaintiff’s criminal record precluded him

from working at New Directions and Doe Officer 1’s reference to the “Fact File” as

supporting evidence.

99. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Doe Officers 1

through 10 revised the “Fact File” specifically in anticipation of New Direction’s request

for that “Fact File.” This belief is supported by the fact that although the document is

dated November 14, 2014, the comments section of the first page states “Brian was

fired today 060608 from Record Courier where he was a reporter.” There is no

apparent reason why the comments section to the file as a whole would mention the

“stalking” incident from six years prior.

100. Defendants Doe Officers 1 through 10, and Defendant Lohner, published

the information in the “Fact File” by preparing the document and suggesting to New

Directions that someone retrieve it.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. On all claims for relief, an award of economic/compensatory and non-

economic/special damages, including: loss of income and past and future impairment of

earning capacity; injury to reputation, economically verifiable and otherwise; expenses

related to having to relocate out of Baker City for fear of further retaliation; and emotional

distress – all in an amount according to proof at trial.


- COMPLAINT



B. On Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for Relief, for punitive damages in an

amount to be proven at trial;

C. On Plaintiff’s First, Second and Third Claims for Relief, for reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

D. On Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third and Fifth Causes of Action, for an

injunction (1) prohibiting Defendants from distributing the “Fact File” as presently drafted;

and (2) requiring the Baker City Police to modify the “Fact File” to accurately reflect

Plaintiff’s criminal history; and

E. For such further and other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

Dated this 29th day of October, 2015 SUSSMAN SHANK LLP By /s/ Clifford S. Davidson Clifford S. Davidson, OSB No. 125378 Kristen G. Hilton, OSB No. 151950 Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Addison *23310-001\(02191980)


EXHIBIT A

Case 2:15-cv-02041-SU Document 1-1 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 8

unqipit \

2-Baker City Oregon, Thursday, MARCH 6, 2008

tEIp? jEecorb -Courier

VEditorials M

==

City Council HasNot Passed Final

held in Baker City, with a gym full of visitors Amendment. Authorization Forfrom Joseph and Imbler, the Baker City Police The thing that makes the point of my «¦ p i- _ p iMrlinn

Canine Drug Enforcement Unit patrolled the argument such a pernicious and insidious INeW lOIICe DU I IQ I HQBaker High School gymnasium. It looked like comparison is that some of the most By Brian Addisonjust a nice random stroll, and fishing expedi- adamant supporters of the 2nd Amendmenttion, oh, and a violation of the 4th Amendment, are people who work in the police and law and claiming that not enough public

Remember how briefly the 2nd Amendment enforcement communities. This group of process has been allowed during thehas been written; a mere 27 words establishes 2nd Amendment supporters is the group city's consideration of purchasing aour rights as citizens ot the United States to which also disregards such legal scrutiny new building for the police station,keep and bear arms. Nowhere in those 27 and favorable interpretation when it comes should realize that they are involved inwords does it say, Tfiou Shalt Not Microstamp to the 4th Amendment. The erosion of the the very public process they are claim-Firing Pins for Identification, or Thou Shalt Not 4th Amendment only weakens the 2nd ing doesn't exist.Establish a National Data Base. But, most Amendment, and the Constitution of the

Americans see these types of actions as exer- United States, and it weakens arguments

tions of control and a threat and violation to 2nd protecting our rights.Amendment rights.

My question is; Where's all the supportand favorable interpretation for the 4thAmendment? If microstamplng firing pins

threatens the 2nd Amendment (and in myopinion It certainly does), then isn't a random search by a canine unit during a publicevent a violation ot the 4th Amendment? Tome it most certainly is a violation of therights established under the 4th

How About a Favorable Interpretation OfThe 4th Amendment Li

"The right of the people to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers, and effects, againstunreasonable searches and seizures, shall notbe violated, and no Warrants shall issue, butupon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the

place to be searched, and the persons orthings to be seized." — 4th Amendment

Hey al! you supporters of the 2ndAmendment out there. I question some of 'youalls' motivation when it comes to standing forthe 2nd Amendment. Some of you voice yoursupport with a hearty, 'They can have my gunswhen they pry them from my cold dead hands."

I think some people support the 2ndAmendment only for their love of guns and not

for the love and respect for the 2nd

Amendment. I say this after witnessing overthe past 25 years, the erosion of rights estab

lished under the 4th Amendment. And, I'vewatched some of the strongest supporters ofthe 2nd Amendment lead the erosion of the 4thAmendment.

During halftime of the girls' final of the 7-1 ADist. Boys and Giris Basketball tournament

What'sTourname

Those citizens currently crying foul

Citizens need to understand that

during the Feb. 26 Baker City Councilmeeting, City Manager Steve Brocato

A quick study of world and US history will was authorized by a 3 to 2 city councilhelp people learn about the use of dogs vote to carry out negotiations only onagainst citizens. I. won't name any names, a possible purchase of the building andnot going to go there, but the last century property at 1768 Auburn Ave. Councilwitnessed a national government and police did not vote on a final purchase autho-force that ended up getting quite a bit of rization. Final authorization to go for-mileage out of their canine units. My fear is ward with the purchase of the property

that we will be able to gain some sense ot would not even have been possible onthis history simply by watching what hap- Feb. 26 because as stated bypens next here in our own country. (BA) Councilors Gail Duman and Beverly g^, jj^

Calder, a final cost had not yet been

determined.The public process continues con-

The microstamping of firearms may seem refusing to sell firearms to anyone residing in basically means a Federal Firearms bufidiifg^ri Aubum^^If ^ wifdislike an innocuous bill that is geared toward the state due to the increased costs to man- Licensee will not be able to trade or sell a ee ^lth the proposect purchasehelping solve crimes or even discouraging ufacture guns with the microstamping and used semiautomatic pistol manufactured tbere is s{yj time j0 become involved

crimes from happening, but it couid also be because they say they are fierce supporters before 2010. With no legal way to sell or in the pubbc process by voicing your

the catalyst that paves the way for future leg- of the Second Amendment. trade them, what will this do to the monetary nn'. J, writing a letter to citvislative gun control. I can't fault STI for taking this stand, but value of the 250 million guns already in exis- officyQS or the iocai papers and the

Legislative proponents of gun control they-are unwittingly; playing directly into the tence? ' same goes for those in support of the

know they have little chance of passing a gun hands of California s legislative gun control Microstamping will not affect criminals prop0se(j building purchase there is

bill that would blatantly violate our Second activists. If other gun manufacturers follow other than encouraging them to steal still time to voice your support

Amendment rights, but here's a bill that could suit to protest this bill, California will have no weapons as they do for the most part any- ' B,lker cjt c0ljncj| llu!rls nLjn onget the gun control ball rolling. need to implement gun control because resi- way, and perhaps a file or two to grind off the M V , , ' ritv .

It's already happening In Cllllornlu. The dents won't be ablo to purchase them any- microstamping, Bui It will affect thosa who 7 ( ' | |( ( p| „'y ( . '

•<

H

Microstamping Bill — One Step Closer To Gun Controlj.

$


EXHIBIT B


'Itio 4ffiyearroJd Addison is

best known in Baker County asa reporter and a musician whefepla^d the trombone prafesion-

JOB-SEEKING HELP

New ifiiy

His background disc includes

a degree ill j^yobglogjt wliirh heearned n± Eastern Oregon IMver-

atv in 1931 Addison also spent

two wars working at the Center

for Human Development in La

Directionsoffersprogram

Grande (row 2001 fo20(B.Since September; he 3 changed

direction and instead ofiuvpsfi-gotingnews hps, he's ferreting

out ways to help find jobs for hisBy Chris Collinsdfents — or in some cases evenfwi ris^Jnglflsr&ilyhetsId styri

(rente jobs for (Jam

Addison explained his rote to

the Baker City Council at its Oct.14 meeting. Ifa asked the ciiy to

consider hiring hum Jus pool of

workers who be says am finoti-vated to get tip and get jnjia51

He said he also has met withGreg Smith.. Baker CountyEconomic Development. director,

lij ojMkter ways that Arirfferm'acheats could possibly wot k with

immunity partners. Smith has

offered to train people who are

interested in Jrow to develop theirown small businesses and providecontracted service# to employers,

Addison suggested, Sir example,,that instead of idty employes

being called away from theirjob

duties at a higher wage to perform

tasks such as washing oily yfr

hides, city oflidals might consider

J filing one of his clients at a lowerrate through a contract.

Funding a job ill today's marker

and economic downturn can be arough task.

Add to it a.iobseeker who hashad difficulties in

other areas ofhi;or fail' life and it

gets even mure

complicated.

That's where a

Hew Directions Behavioral [JeaLth

*¦

'5JAddrson

and Wellness program hopes tohelp through, iff supported employment program.

Hew Diirdims, which has provided drug and alcohol treatmentin [lie community for many yours,

merged July 1 with MountainValley Mental Health Services, thelongtime mental health provider.

New7 Directions BehavioralHealth and Wellness offers ser

vices that in the past had beenprovided in the community by

Munniain Valley

Brian Addison is the agency's

supported einykiyiimt spedflltet


EXHIBIT C


m:;. ., . ,i ..»

eiws OfficeJSSS'J ,.^fi ,

y/rnPfl/ siEBs±AieaaMani MA

Mitchell SouthwhUt, 8heritf

Departmental Fact File on;•|U«

ADDISON, Brian Ray I

iFHo#; 3326Address:

CltyState; Baker City

Phone;

Hair; BRO

Eyes: BRO

DLN;

ssn:

¦r>Sox: M

Race; W 1asIkDOB/Age; 49 J 1 !

!M

M; 611 g§5kt

»n8W: 165

POB;

•; lllftffl; iMHiaai ' mal we imidtji hsinpii ii'i' ¦ ill n'l in i

i

Caution: sea comments

Comments; OWNER: Brian and Janet Addison

Brian was fired today 080600 from Record Courier where he was a reporter, Ha made threatstoward • ' ' ' * - challenged • j to a fight. Per 601 (lag as caution

Departmental Contacts with this Individual:Inc#:Offense Incident location

.» ¦ ' ;k .t % •

Involvment Data Then Currant Address:' * y — « -»•*, *

Montlonod 11/9/2014 INFORMATION ONLY •

6/7/2014 Ticket: REG VIOL - IMPRO

L2D1410803 3320 Birch Street,

Washlndlon/Resort,

1201404477 WASHINGTON AND RESORT.,

S201300303 3695 Klrkwey,

Elm & Seles,

L201 308865 EST6S AND ELM,

Elm & Estes,

Elm & Seles,

L201 307769 AUBURN AND ESTES,

Auburn 6 2nd,

Auburn & 2nd,

1201304638 ASH & COURT STREET,

'Baker Clly ORTicks!

Opers tor 8/1/2014 Traffic Stop

Complalnsn 9/18/2013 Animal

Ticket 9/2/2013 Ticket: UNLAWFUL OR U

Operator 9/2/2013 Traffic 61op

Ticket 9/2/2013 Ticket: INSURANCE Via-

Ticket

Operate/

Ticket

Ticket

involved 6/26/2013 Traffic Stop

Baker City OR

Baker.Clty OR

BekarClly OR

Bake/Clly OR

.Enterprlae OR

Baker City OR

Baker City OR

Baker City OR

Enterprise OR

Enlaiprlea OR

Baker City OR

9(2)2013 Ticket: FAILURE TO CAR

8/3/2013 Traffic Stop

8/3/2013 Ticket: INSURANCE VIOL.

8/3/2013 Ticket; OPERATION WITH

\

;

Friday, November H, 20UPes' I of2

REDACTED

Exhibit LPage 1


s

w

Departmental Fact File om

f ADDISON, Brian Ray

Ticket

Ticket

Operator

Ticket

Operator <(26)2013 Traffic Stop

Complalnnn 9/11/2012 FOUND ITEltf

East and Auburn ,

East and Auburn ,

1201304188 SPRING GARDEN AT EAST,Spring Garden and East,

1201303678 SPRING GARDEN/ELM,

P201201278 3 05 Spring Garden, Baker CityComplatnan 3/14/2010 SUSPICIOUS SITUATION L2O10O3288 308 Spring Garden,

Coraplalnan 3/14/2010 SUSPICIOGS'SITUATION 1201003288 308 Spring Gardon,

Operator

Ticket

6/10/2013 Ttokat: FAIL CARRY/PRES

6/18/2013 Ticket: UNLAWFUL OR U


4/23/2013 Ticket: EXP LIC PLATE, F

Setter Cky OR

Baker City OR

BskorCHy OR

Enterprise OR

Enterprise OR

Enterprise OR

BAKER CITY ORBAKER CITY OR

i BAKER CITY OR

BAXER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

i BAKER CITY OR

BAKER CITY OR

r BAKER CITY OR

I BAKER CITY OR


2/1 4/201 0 Ticket: OPERATION WITH

1/18/2010 Ticket: OPERATION WITH

L201 001849 WASHINGTON AND RESORT,

Main and Washington,

Main • Baker,

1201000718 MAIN AND BAKER,

L200904678 308 Spring Garden,

Ticket

Operator 1/16/2010 Traffic Slop

complains n 5/21/2009 DOG-NUISANCE

Suspect

Complalnen *1/8/2000 ^HARASSMENT8/8/2008 Ticket: STALKING

1/8/2009 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 2ND L200B00206 303 Spring Garden fit,

L2OO9002IO 308 Spring Garden,

P20080075B 1718 Msln 81, Baiter CityL20OB04PI7 flake/Ares,

12015803330 8th and Madlsen,

I2(X»01415 1710 Main Street,

Ticket

Suspect 6/6/2008 INFORMATION ONLY

Mentioned 4/22/2008 F| Person C.pntad

Complalnan 2/22/2008 INFORMATION ONLY

Complatnan 12/31/2005 UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY P200502255 306. Spring Gordon,Complslnen 8/17/2004 Medical 1200405613 305 Spring Garden AVE,

2/3/2004 Animal Reglsbstlcn:131

!

'*¦ "* y"x

Fritlny, November 14, 2014Page J of2

Exhibit LPage 1


CIVIL COVER SHEET

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b)(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF PTF DEF(U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL PROPERTY

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITSHabeas Corpus:

IMMIGRATIONOther:

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CLASS ACTION DEMAND $JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

BRIAN ADDISON, an individual

Baker

Sussman Shank LLP, 1000 SW Broadway # 1400, Portland, OR 97214(503) 227-1111Clifford S. Davidson (125378), Kristen G. Hilton (151950)

CITY OF BAKER CITY, a municipal corporation, Police Chief WYNLOHNER, in his individual capacity, and DOE OFFICERS 1-10, intheir individual capacities

Unknown

42 USC sec. 1983

First Amendment retaliation by police against journalist for article criticizing police department

10/29/2015 /s/ Clifford. S. Davidson


Cliff

Typewritten Text

Monetary and injunctive relief

Cliff

Typewritten Text

Plaintiff reserves the right to demand a jury per FRCP 38(b).

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

District of Oregon


2:15-cv-2041

CITY OF BAKER CITY, a municipal corporation,Police Chief WYN LOHNER, in his individualcapacity, and DOE OFFICERS 1-10, in their

individual capacities,

City of Baker City1655 1st StreetBaker City, Oregon 97814

Clifford S. Davidson ([email protected])Kristen G. Hilton ([email protected])SUSSMAN SHANK LLP1000 SW Broadway Ste 1400Portland, Oregon 97214(503) 227-1111


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

District of Oregon


2:15-cv-2041

CITY OF BAKER CITY, a municipal corporation,Police Chief WYN LOHNER, in his individualcapacity, and DOE OFFICERS 1-10, in their

individual capacities,

Police Chief Wyn Lohnerc/o Baker City Police Department1768 Auburn AvenueBaker City, Oregon 97814

Clifford S. Davidson ([email protected])Kristen G. Hilton ([email protected])SUSSMAN SHANK LLP1000 SW Broadway Ste 1400Portland, Oregon 97214(503) 227-1111


case 2:15-cv-02041-su document 1 filed 10/29/15 page 1 of...

Documents