Keten et al v. Does 1-15 et al | 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM

8/10/2019 Keten et al v. Does 1-15 et al | 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM

1/69

CLOSED,CV,PROTO

U.S. District CourtU.S. District of Minnesota (DMN)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM

Keten et al v. Does 1-15 et alAssigned to: Judge Donovan W. Frank Referred to: Magistrate Judge Janie S. MayeronCause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 06/09/2011Date Terminated: 05/13/2013Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

James Ketenindividually and o/b/o minor child K.K.K.

represented by Andrew M. Irlbeck Andrew M. Irlbeck 332 Minnesota St., Ste W-1610St. Paul, MN 55101651-366-6909Fax: 651-223-5179Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Applebaum332 Minnesota St Ste W1610St Paul, MN 55101651-222-2999Fax: 651-223-5179Email: [email protected]


Sarah Henning332 Minnesota St Ste W1610St Paul, MN 55101612-701-0996Email: [email protected]: 05/31/2012


Plaintiff

Aisha Ketenindividually and o/b/o minor child K.K.K.

represented by Andrew M. Irlbeck (See above for address)


Paul Applebaum(See above for address)


Sarah Henning(See above for address)

CF - District of Minnesota - Live https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?573369637136537-L_1_0

3 02/01/14 1


2/69

TERMINATED: 05/31/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

John Does 1-15

in their individual and off icial capacities,as Police Officers for the City of

MinneapolisTERMINATED: 11/14/2011

represented by Sara J Lathrop

Minneapolis City Attorney's Office350 S 5th St Rm 210Mpls, MN 55415612-673-2072Fax: 612-673-3362Email: [email protected]


Timothy S SkardaMinneapolis City Attorney's Office350 South 5th Street, Room 210

Mpls, MN 55415612-673-2553Fax: 612-673-3362Email:[email protected]


Defendant

Minneapolis, The City of represented by Andrea Kloehn Naef Minneapolis City Attorney's Office350 S 5th St Rm 210Mpls, MN 55415612-673-2429Email: [email protected]

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J Lathrop(See above for address)


Timothy S Skarda(See above for address)


Defendant

Sergeant Steven Moseyin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 04/04/2013

represented by Andrea Kloehn Naef (See above for address)


Sara J Lathrop


3 02/01/14 1


3/69

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED



DefendantSergeant Mark Oslandin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012







Defendant

Sergeant Kendal Chambersin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012



Sara J Lathrop(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED



Defendant

Officer Aaron Morrison

in his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 04/04/2013

represented by Andrea Kloehn Naef




Timothy S Skarda


3 02/01/14 1


4/69

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Officer Chad Fuchsin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 04/04/2013







Defendant

Officer Steven Lynchin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 04/04/2013





Timothy S Skarda(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Officer Todd Babekuhlin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012



Sara J Lathrop




Defendant


3 02/01/14 1


5/69

Officer Lucas Petersonin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012







Defendant

Officer Scott Creightonin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012







Defendant

Officer Chris Garbischin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 04/04/2013





Timothy S Skarda(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Officer Nick Rowein his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012




3 02/01/14 1


6/69





Defendant

Officer Mark Kaspszak in his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012







Defendant

Officer Joshua Rick in his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012







Defendant

Officer Peter Rudin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012

represented by Andrea Kloehn Naef (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED




3 02/01/14 1


7/69



Defendant

Officer George Peltzin his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 04/04/2013







Defendant

Officer Mark Beauprein his individual and official capacityTERMINATED: 11/27/2012







Date Filed # clear Docket Text

06/09/2011 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Minneapolis, The City of, John Does 1-15 fromHennepin County District Court. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4055020)assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank per Civil Rights List referred to MagistrateJudge Janie S. Mayeron, filed by Minneapolis, The City of, John Does 1-15.(Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Complaint, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (jz) (Entered:06/09/2011)

06/09/2011 2 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by John Does 1-15, Minneapolis,The City of. (jz) (Entered: 06/09/2011)

06/10/2011 3 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Pretrial Conference set for 8/16/201111:30 AM in Judge's Chambers, Suite 342 (STP) before Magistrate Judge Janie S.Mayeron. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 8/2/2011. Signed by Magistrate JudgeJanie S. Mayeron on 6/10/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(JME)(Entered: 06/10/2011)


3 02/01/14 1


8/69

07/21/2011 4 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Aisha Keten, James Keten.(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Henning, Sarah) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

08/16/2011 5 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron:Initial Pretrial Conference held on 8/16/2011. Order to issue. (LPH) (Entered:08/16/2011)

08/17/2011 6 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 10/15/2011.

Discovery due by 6/1/2012. Motions (non-disp) due 6/15/2012. Motions (disp)due by 9/1/2012. Ready for trial due by 2/1/2013. Signed by Magistrate JudgeJanie S. Mayeron on 8/16/11. (LPH) (Entered: 08/17/2011)

10/24/2011 7 STIPULATION for a Protective Order by Aisha Keten, James Keten,Minneapolis, The City of. (Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

11/01/2011 8 STIPULATION to Amend Complaint by Aisha Keten, James Keten anddefendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Proposed Amended Complaint, # 2Exhibit(s) Red-Lined Complaint)(Applebaum, Paul) Added filer on 11/1/2011(RLR). (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/07/2011 9 ORDER: 1. The parties November 1, 2011 Stipulation to Amend Complaint[Docket No. 8] is granted. 2. On or before November 18, 2011, plaintiffs shallserve and file the Amended Complaint as attached as Exhibit 1 to the parties

November 1, 2011 Stipulation to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 8]. 3.Defendants shall serve and file a response to the Amended Complaint pursuant tothe Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 11/07/2011. (lmb)(Entered: 11/07/2011)

11/07/2011 10 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on11/7/11. (jam) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/11/2011 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by James Keten, Aisha

Keten. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Applebaum, Paul) (Entered:11/11/2011)

11/23/2011 12 Joint ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre,Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak,Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, George Peltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud.(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 11/23/2011)

02/28/2012 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew M. Irlbeck on behalf of All Plaintiffs.(Irlbeck, Andrew) (Entered: 02/28/2012)

02/28/2012 14 STIPULATION For Protective Order by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, KendalChambers, Scott Creighton, John Does 1-15, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak, Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of,Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, George Peltz, Lucas Peterson,Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud. (Applebaum, Paul) (Entered: 02/28/2012)

03/06/2012 15 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S.Mayeron on 3/6/12. (jam) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

04/04/2012 16 STIPULATION re 6 Scheduling Order, to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, Chad


3 02/01/14 1


9/69

Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak, Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch,Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, GeorgePeltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud. (Lathrop, Sara)(Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/09/2012 17 AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 8/1/2012.Motions (non-disp) due 11/15/2012. Motions (disp) due by 12/1/2012. Ready for trial due by 4/1/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 4/9/12.

(jam) (Entered: 04/09/2012)05/31/2012 18 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney. (Henning, Sarah) Modified on 5/31/2012

(RLR). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

07/11/2012 19 STIPULATION to Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, John Does 1-15, Chad Fuchs, ChrisGarbisch, Mark Kaspszak, Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch,Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, GeorgePeltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud. (Applebaum, Paul)(Entered: 07/11/2012)

07/18/2012 20 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by8/15/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 7/18/12. (jam)(Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/26/2012 21 STIPULATION to File Second Amended Complaint by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak, Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of,Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, George Peltz, Lucas Peterson,Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) ProposedSecond Amended Complaint)(Irlbeck, Andrew) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

07/26/2012 22 ORDER : 1. The parties' July 26, 2012 Stipulation to File Second AmendedComplaint [Docket No. 21] is granted. 2. On or before August 2, 2012, plaintiffsshall serve and file the Second Amended Complaint as attached as Exhibit 1 tothe parties Stipulation. 3. Defendants shall serve and file a response to theAmended Complaint pursuant to the Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S.Mayeron on 7/26/12. (jam) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

07/26/2012 23 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, KendalChambers, Scott Creighton, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak, StevenLynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland,George Peltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud, filed byJames Keten, Aisha Keten. (Applebaum, Paul) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

08/08/2012 24 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (second) by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre,Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, John Does 1-15, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch,Mark Kaspszak, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, StevenMosey, Mark Osland, George Peltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe,Peter Rud. (Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

11/20/2012 25 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrea Kloehn Naef on behalf of Todd Babekuhl,Mark Beaupre, Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch,Mark Kaspszak, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, StevenMosey, Mark Osland, George Peltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe,


3 02/01/14 1

n


10/69

Peter Rud. (Naef, Andrea) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/26/2012 26 STIPULATION of Dismissal as to Certain Claims and Certain Defendants byTodd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, Kendal Chambers, Scott Creighton, Chad Fuchs,Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak, Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch,Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, GeorgePeltz, Lucas Peterson, Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud. (Lathrop, Sara)(Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/27/2012 27 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND CERTAINDEFENDANTS. (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on11/27/12. (BJS) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

11/30/2012 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, StevenLynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz.(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 29 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 28 MOTION for Partial SummaryJudgment : Motion Hearing set for 1/18/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7C (STP)

before Judge Donovan W. Frank. (Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 30 MEMORANDUM in Support re 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, AaronMorrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 WordCount Compliance Certificate)(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 31 AFFIDAVIT of Sara J. Lathrop in SUPPORT OF 28 MOTION for PartialSummary Judgment filed by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Steven Lynch,Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz.(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4,# 5 Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6, # 7 Exhibit(s) 7, # 8 Exhibit(s) 8, # 9 Exhibit(s)9)(Lathrop, Sara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON12/4/12. (KT) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 32 Declaration of Chad Fuchs in Support of 28 MOTION for Partial SummaryJudgment filed by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, TheCity of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 33 AFFIDAVIT of Steven Lynch in SUPPORT OF 28 MOTION for Partial SummaryJudgment filed by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, TheCity of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s)5)(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

12/14/2012 34 JURY TRIAL NOTICE. Jury Trial set for 4/8/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7C(STP) before Judge Donovan W. Frank. See Notice for additional deadlines anddetails.(BJS) (Entered: 12/14/2012)

12/19/2012 35 ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE A Settlement Conference set for 3/11/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Janie S.Mayeron. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 12/19/2012. (jz)(Entered: 12/19/2012)


13 02/01/14 1

n


11/69

12/20/2012 36 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Steven Lynch,Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz .(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

12/22/2012 37 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgmentfiled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count ComplianceCertificate, DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE # 2 Certificate of Service)(Irlbeck, Andrew) Modified text on 12/26/2012 (MMP). (Entered:12/22/2012)

12/22/2012 38 AFFIDAVIT of Andrew M. Irlbeck in OPPOSITION TO 28 MOTION for PartialSummary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit 1 (Sealed Document), # 2 Placeholder for Exhibit 2 (Sealed Document), #3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6, # 7 Exhibit(s) 7,# 8 Exhibit(s) 8, # 9 Exhibit(s) 9, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11, # 12Exhibit(s) 12, # 13 Exhibit(s) 13, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Placeholder for Exhibit15 (Sealed Document), # 16 Exhibit(s) 16, # 17 Exhibit(s) 17, # 18 Exhibit(s) 18,# 19 Exhibit(s) 19, # 20 Exhibit(s) 20, # 21 Exhibit(s) 21)(Irlbeck,Andrew)SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON

12/21/12 Modified on 12/28/2012 (LGL). (Entered: 12/22/2012)12/24/2012 39 Declaration of Chad Fuchs in Support of 28 MOTION for Partial Summary

Judgment with attached Exhibits A-B filed by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch,Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, George Peltz. (Lathrop,Sara) Modified text on 12/26/2012 (MMP). (Entered: 12/24/2012)

12/26/2012 40 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Aisha Keten, James Keten re 38Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,, 37 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion.(Irlbeck, Andrew) Modified text on 12/26/2012 (MMP). (Entered: 12/26/2012)

01/04/2013 41 Reply to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed

by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, AaronMorrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 WordCount Compliance Certificate)(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/18/2013 42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Donovan W. Frank: MotionHearing held on 1/18/2013 re 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed

by George Peltz, Chris Garbisch, Minneapolis, The City of, Steven Lynch, ChadFuchs, Steven Mosey, Aaron Morrison. Matter taken under advisement; writtenorder to issue. (Court Reporter Jeanne Anderson) (BJS) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

02/06/2013 43 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, StevenLynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz .

(Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 02/06/2013)03/08/2013 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part

28 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (see Memorandum Opinion and Order for details) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on03/08/2013. (rlb) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/11/2013 45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron:Settlement Conference held on 3/11/2013. Settlement reached(Audio File:Courtroom 6B/03.11.13/15:30-15:41) (jz) (Entered: 03/12/2013)


13 02/01/14 1


12/69

03/29/2013 46 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: WILL REFILE. JOINT MOTION for Approval of Minor Settlement by Todd Babekuhl, Mark Beaupre, KendalChambers, Scott Creighton, John Does 1-15, Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Mark Kaspszak, Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of,Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, Mark Osland, George Peltz, Lucas Peterson,Joshua Rick, Nick Rowe, Peter Rud. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for VerifiedPetition for Approval of Minor Settlement (filed under seal))(Irlbeck, Andrew)Modified text on 4/1/2013 (MMP). DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERKSOFFICE 4/1/13. Modified on 4/2/2013 (GMW). Modified on 4/4/2013 (kt).(Entered: 03/29/2013)

03/29/2013 47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Aisha Keten, James Keten re 46 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement and Joint Motion for Approval (Irlbeck, Andrew)(Entered: 03/29/2013)

04/02/2013 48 STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice - as to individually named Defendants only by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch, Aisha Keten, James Keten,Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, Aaron Morrison, Steven Mosey, GeorgePeltz. (Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 04/02/2013)

04/04/2013 49 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs' claims againstSergeant Steven Mosey, and Officers Aaron Morrison, Chad Fuchs, StevenLynch, Chris Garbisch, and George Peltz, are DISMISSED WITHOUTPREJUDICE and without costs to either party. Signed by Judge Donovan W.Frank on 4/4/2013. (BJS) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 50 Unopposed Motion for Approval of Minor Settlement by Aisha Keten, JamesKeten. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Petition for Approval of Minor Settlement (Filed Under Seal))(Irlbeck, Andrew) Modified text on 4/4/2013(MMP). DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN THE CLERKS OFFICE ON 4/4/13.Modified on 4/5/2013 (GMW). (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Aisha Keten, James Keten re 50 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement and Unopposed Motion for Approval of Minor Settlement (Irlbeck, Andrew) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 52 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 50 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement : Motion Hearing set for 4/12/2013 03:00 PM in Judge's Chambers,Suite 724 (STP) before Judge Donovan W. Frank. (Irlbeck, Andrew) (Entered:04/04/2013)

04/09/2013 53 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Aisha Keten, James Keten . (Attachments: #1 Placeholder for Letter to District Judge (Filed Under Seal))(Irlbeck, Andrew)

DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE 4/10/13. Modified on 4/11/2013(GMW). (Entered: 04/09/2013)

04/09/2013 54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Aisha Keten, James Keten re 53 Letter toDistrict Judge (Irlbeck, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2013)

04/12/2013 55 SEALED ORDER. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/12/13. (kt) CC:Attorneys of record. (kt) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

04/12/2013 56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Donovan W. Frank: MotionHearing held on 4/12/2013 re 50 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement


13 02/01/14 1


13/69

filed by James Keten, Aisha Keten. Written order to issue. (Court Reporter JeanneAnderson) (BJS) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

05/08/2013 57 STIPULATION of Dismissal with prejudice by Chad Fuchs, Chris Garbisch,Aisha Keten, James Keten, Steven Lynch, Minneapolis, The City of, AaronMorrison, Steven Mosey, George Peltz. (Lathrop, Sara) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/10/2013 58 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE re 57 Stipulation of Dismissal

filed by George Peltz, Chris Garbisch, Minneapolis, The City of, Steven Lynch,Chad Fuchs, Steven Mosey, James Keten, Aaron Morrison, Aisha Keten. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 05/10/2013. (rlb) (Entered: 05/10/2013)


13 02/01/14 1

n


14/69

CASE 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM Document 1 Filed 06/09/11 Page 1 of 4

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T

D I S T R I C T O F M I N N E S O T A

J a m es K et en a n d A ish a K et en ,ind iv idu a lly a n d o/ b/ o m in o r ch il d r enK . K . K . a n d N . Z .K . ,

C o u r t F i l e N o . :

v s .

P l a i n t i f f s , N O T I C E O F R E M O V A L T O

F E D E R A L C O U R T

J o h n D o e s 1 - 1 5 , i n t h e i r i n d iv i d u a l a n d

officia l cap acit ies, as P oli ce O ffi cer s fort h e C ity of M in n eap ol is , an d t h e C it y ofM inn eap olis ,

JU RY TRIAL D EM AN D ED

D e f e nd a n t s .

Defend ant s, th rou gh th eir attorn ey , Sara J. Lathrop, Ass istant Minn eap olis

City Attorney, 350 South Fifth Street, Suite 210, Minn eapolis, MN 55415, hereby

give n otice to the Plain tiffs Jam es Keten an d Aish a Keten an d to th e State Cou rt

a s f o l l o w s :

1. Defen dant s John D oes 1-15 an d th e City of Minn eap olis are

D e f e nd a nt s in a s e rv e d b ut n o t f i l e d c iv i l a c t i o n in th e D is t r ic t C o u r t o f th e Fo u r t h

Ju d icia l D istr ict of th e State of M in n esota en titled ]ames Keten an d A isha Ke ten v .

John Does 1-15 and the City of M inneapolis, an d a trial h as n ot yet been had th ereon .

2 . On May 26, 2011, a copy of the Summons and Complaint in the

ab ove-ent itled action w as served u p on the City of M inn eap olis . A copy of the

Su mm on s is ann exed as Exh ib it A . A copy of the Complaint is ann exed as

Exh ib it B. A copy of Defen dant s Answ er is ann exed as Exh ib it C. Th e John


15/69


D oe d efen d ant s h av e n ot b een id en t if ied t o d ate . Th e John D oe D efen d ant s h av e

not been serve .

3 .

This N o i ce of Remov al i

sfiled pursu an t to Title 28, Un ited Sta t e

s

Cod e, Section s 1441(a) an d (b), said action in th e State Cou rt comm enced ag ain st

Defen dan ts bein g a civ il action allegin g th at Defend ant s v iolated th e civ il r ights

of th e Plain tiff resu ltin g in inju ry .

4. Th e Com plaint alleges un der 42 U .S.C. 1983 that D efend ant s

v iolated Plaint iff s right s secured by th e Fou rth an d Fou rteenth Amen dm en ts to

th e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t it u t i o n . T h e s e a r e c l a im s o v e r w h ic h t h is C o u r t h a s

origin al ju risdiction pu rsu an t to 28 U .S .C. 1343, as th ey arise un der the law s of

the United States w ith in the m ean in g of 28 U .S.C. 1331, an d this claim is

th e r e f o r e r em o v ab le un d e r 2 8 U .S .C . 14 41 .

5 . The Complain t also asser ts p en dan t comm on law claims un der

M in n e s o t a l a w .

6. Defen dant s file h erew ith a copy of all p rocess, plea din gs an d orders

serv ed u p on it in this action, h as sent w ritten n otice of the filin g of this N otice of

Rem oval to Plain tiff, w ill prom pt ly file a copy of th is N otice w ith th e Clerk of th e

D istr ict Cour t for the Fou rth Ju dicial D istr ict of th e State of M inn esota, Cou nty of

Henn epin, and attach the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 affidavit.

W H EREFORE, notice is h ereby given th at the sa id action is rem oved from

2


16/69


th e -S t a t e -C o u r t t o th is C o u r t f o r t r i a l o r s u c h o th e r d e t e r m in a t i o n a s t h is C o u r t

m ay m ake regardin g th e action an d in accordance w ith its jurisdiction al lim its

un d e r 2 8 U .S .C 14 41 .

D a t e d : S U S A N L . S E G A L

C i ty A tt o r n eyi t y A tt o r n e y J _

W I t. l a t h ro MBy

L A T H R O>*3i J j . LATH ROF *'*Assistant City A ttorn eyA t torn ey Reg . N o. 0310232T I M O T H Y S . S K A R D A

A ssistant C ity A ttorn eyA ttorn ey R eg . N o . 10 176XCity H all-Room 2103 5 0 S o u t h 5 t h S t r ee t

M inn eap olis, MN 55415(612) 673-2072Attorn eys for Defen dan ts

3


17/69


A FFID AV IT O F SARA J . LATH RO P

S T A T E O F M I N N E S O T A

)SSCOU N TY OF H EN N EP IN )

Sara J. Lathrop, b ein g first du ly sw orn, states an d alleges as follow s:

1 . Aff ian t is an attorn ey w ith th e Office of the City Attorn ey for th e

City of Minn eapolis an d represents Defendant City of Minn eapolis named

herein; th at sh e h as read th e foregoin g N otice of Rem oval of Action to Feder al

C o u r t a n d kn o w s th e c o n t ent s t h e r e o f ; th a t t h e s a m e is t r u e o f h e r o w n

know led ge, except as to any ma tters s tated therein on inform ation an d belief, a n d

a s t o th o s e m a t t e r s , sh e b e l i ev e s t h e m t o b e t r u e .

S u b s c r i be d a n o r n t ob e fo r e m e t h is

d aye i o r e r r

o f 20 1 1 .

v J

N otary Pu blicMy Com m iss ion exp ires

j . NOTARYPU l U f -MINNES T A

MyCommissiw Expires Jan 31,20'5

4


18/69

Ex. A

CASE 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/11 Page 1 of 2

STAT E O F M IN N E S O T A

C O U N T Y O F H E N N E P IN

F IL E D MMINNEAPOLIS MINN

11 HAY26 PHi2 ISCIT Y CLERK

DEPARTMENT

PEM ONALLY SERVE DD I S T R I C T C O U R T

F O U R T H JU D I C I A L D I S T R IC T

Ja mes Keten an d A ish a Keten ,indiv idually and o/ b/ o m inorc h i ld r en K .K .K . an d N .Z .K . ,

C o u r t F i le N o. :

Cas e Typ e : Civ il

P la in t if f s ,

v . S U M M O N S

John D o e s 1- 1 5 , in t h e ir

indiv idual and official capacities,as Police Office rs for th e City of M inn eapolis ,and the City of M inn eap olis ,

D e f e n d a n t s .

T O : C IT Y OF M IN N EA PO LIS , C ITY H AL L , 350 SO U T H F IFT H STRE ET ,M IN N E A P O L I S , M IN N E SO T A 5 5 4 15 .

YOU ARE HERE BY SU MMON ED and required to serve upon Plaintiffs attorneys an A n swerto the Comp laint, which is h erew ith served up on you , w ith in tw enty (20) days after the service ofthis Sum mons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment bydefault w ill be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint .

This case may be subj ect to A lternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes under M inn . Gen.R . Prac 114 .0 1. The Court Adm inistrator or your attorney can prov ide you w ith in form at ionabout ADR options and a list of neutrals available in your area . ADR does not affect yourobligations to respond to the Sum mons and Complaint w ithin tw enty (20) days ,


19/69

Ex. A


Dated: 5 / d O>/ / /Paul Applebaun M 098)First N ational BanK Bu ilding33 2 M i n n e so t a S t r e e t , S u it e W - 1 6 10

S t . P au l , M N 5 5 1 0 1Ph on e : (6 5 1) 222 -2 999Fax : (65 1) 223-5 179

Sarah Ienning (39034 8)First N ational Bank Buil ding332 Minnesota Street , Suite Wf l 610S t . P a u l , M N 5 5 1 0 1

Ph one : (6 5 1) 222 -2 999Fax : (65 1) 223-5 179


20/69Ex B


F IL E DHlfJMEAPOU S . MINN

pgRSONAUYSERVED

STATE OF MINNESOTA 11 HAY26 PH12 5

C OU N T Y O F H E N N E P INC IT Y CLE RK

DEP ARTMEN T

D I S T R I C T C O U R T

F OUR T H J UD I C I A L D I S T R I CT

Jam es Keten an d A ish a K eten ,ind iv iduall y and o/b/o m inorch i ld r en K .K .K . a n d N .Z .K .,

P l a in t i f f s ,

v .

Joh n D o e s 1- 1 5 , in t h e irin div idual and official capacities,as Po lice Officers for the City of M inn eap olis,and the C ity of M inn eap olis,

D e f en d a n t s .

C o u r t F i le N o . :Case Typ e: Civ il

C O M P L A I N T

J U R Y T R IA L D E M AN D E D

Pla intiffs , James and A isha Keten , ind iv iduall y an d on beh alf of their m inor child ren,

K . K . K . an d N .Z .K ., state and alleg e as follow s :

1. This is an action for m oney dam ages for inj uries susta ined by Plaintiff s as a result o f th e

excessive use of force and v iolation of their constitutional rights by the above-mentioned on-duty

Pol ice Of i cers ( D efen dants ) . D efen dants con duct v iolated Plaintiffs w ell -settled civ il r ights

w hile acting under the color of state law . D efen dants c o nd u c t a lso v io lat e d th e co m m on law s o f

t h e S t a t e o f M in n es o t a .

2 . Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U .S .C. 1983 and 1988, the Fourth and

Fourteenth Am endments to the Un ited States Con stitution and 2 8 U .S .C. 133 1 and 1343(3) .

1


21/69Ex B


P A R T I E S A N D V E N U E

3 . Because all of the facts complained of arose in Minneapolis, Hennepin C ounty ,

M innesota, this action properly lies in H ennepin County .

4. A t a l l t im e s re l ev an t t o t h is a c t io n , P la in t iff s w ere a n d a r e c it i z en s o f th e U n i t e d S t a t e s

and residents of H enn ep in County , M inn esota . Plaintiffs Jam es and A isha Keten are of th e age

of maj ority . At all times relevant to this action . D efend an ts w ere duly app ointed p olice o ff icers

of the City of M inn eap olis .

F A C T U A L A L L E G A T I O N S

5. A t a l l t im e s r e lev a n t t o t h is law s u it . P la in t iff s M r . a n d M rs . K et en w e re t en an t s o f th e

lo w e r le v e l o f a ho m e l o c a t ed a t 240 5 H u m bo ld t A v e nu e N o r t h, 1, Mi nn eap olis , Mi nn esota .

6 . On the m orning of April 13, 20 11, M r . and Mr s . Keten w ere a t hom e w ith th eir two

daughters . K .K .K . and N .Z .K ., as w ell as their four dogs .

7 . K .K .K . and N .Z .K . w ere in the k itchen eating breakfast while Mrs . Keten got ready for

work . Mrs. Keten h ad recently let one of th e dogs outside, so th e r ont d oor w as un locked .

8 . Defendants, who w ere at the Keten ' s h om e to execute a sea rch w arrant , barged through

the Keten ' s front door and began i ring their 9m m han dgun s . D efendants did n ot kn o ck and

a n n o unc e , as required under the w arrant , n or did they give an y w arnin g th at they w ere entering

the Keten family's h ome .

9 . On e of th e Keten ' s dogs, Kano, w as laying in the front liv ing room wh en D efend ants

entered . Before the dog had tim e to stan d up . D efendants sh ot and k illed the dog , sp lattering

blood all over the children ' s Dora the Explorer book that sat nearby . Kano did not b ark nor

2


22/69Ex B


did h e display any aggress ion tow ards D efendants. Th e i rst thing the Keten ' s h ear d that

m orn in g w hen D efend ants came through th e door w as th e sound of gunfire killing Kano .

10 . At th e same time, oth er D efendants entered the k itchen w here three-year -old K .K .K .,

and one-year-old N .Z .K., w ere eating break fast at the k itch en table, w h ile Mrs . Keten stood

nearby . W ithout w arnin g or provocation. D efendants i red mu ltip le h ollow p oint rounds t o ward s

the kitchen table, killing another of the Keten ' s dogs, Remy , and sp lattering blood al l ove r

K . K . K a n d t h e k i t ch en w a l ls a n d l o o r .

11. Becau se this happ en ed w ithout w arn ing or provocation, Remy was still lay ing on th e

f loor and had not bark ed or charged at D efendan ts when she w as sh ot dead. D efendants had a

clear v iew of K .K .K . and N .Z .K . as they sat n ex t to Rem y .

12 . Defendants w ere u sing ho llow -p oint 9mm ammun ition as they i red ind iscrim in ately

into the k itchen . One of th ese ho llow -p oint rounds was lodged in the w all directly beh ind where

th e Keten s daughters sat , w h ile several m ore entered th e f loor directly in front of th e youn g

gir ls.

13 . Mrs . Keten w as p ut in grave fear for her safety as w ell as th at of her daughters wh o

w e re in th e li n e o f i r e .

14 . Af ter k illing th e tw o dogs and nearly k illin g the two children , D efen dants began to beat

M r . Keten ab out his b ack , neck , head , and face as he lay face down on the liv ing room f loor .

15. A s Defendan ts b ea t M r . Keten they repea tedly told h im to Shut the fuck up N *** *

16. Defendants zip -tied Mr . Keten 's h ands beh ind h is b ack , pu lled his sw eatshi t over his

h e a d, and continued to bea t and kick him. Mr . Keten begged D efendants to stop k ick ing him in

3


23/69Ex B


th e face, to wh ich on e of the D efend ants rep lied, W e do wh at th e fuck w e want N ** ** r , and

stepp ed on Mr . Keten s f a c e .

17. D efendants ransacked the house, destroying much of the Keten family 's p ersonal

p rop erty . D efendants found no ev id ence of crimin al activ ity w ith in the hou se, but they d id find

and stea l $9 ,400 in cash from M r . and Mr s. Keten . D efendants did not rep ort the seizure o f th is

m oney on the receipt for th e search w arrant .

18. Defendants attempted to p ick up most of their shell casings before they lef t; how ever ,

o n c e t h e d u s t h ad s e t t led a n d M r . a n d M r s . K e t e n w e r e a b le t o a t t e n d t o th e ir t r a u m a t iz e d

children , M r . Keten discovered th at one of h is daughters had a 9m m shell casing in her m outh .

He th en discovered several more casin gs on the floor of h is home .

19 . Mr . Keten w as tr eated for his inj uries . K .K .K . an d N .Z .K . are beginn in g coun seled

because they w ere brutalized by Defendants . Three year old K .K .K . now asks her father several

t im es ea ch day to m ake sure th e door is locked .

20 . Th e Keten family, esp ecially K .K.K . an d N .Z .K ., live in a state of constant fear that

Defen dants w ill retu n to the h ouse an d k ill th em like th ey sh ot Remy and Kano . U ltimate ly , th e

K e t e n s m o v ed a s a r e su l t o f th is in c i d e n t .

C O U N T 1 - V I O L A T I O N S O F 4 2 U .S .C . 1983

Plaintiffs re-alleg e paragraphs 1-2 0 an d furth er state :

2 1. By shootin g ind iscriminately into P laintiffs ' h ome, and directly at K .K .K . and N .Z .K .,

and by bea ting and kicking Mr . Keten, Defendants acted intentionally to deprive Plaintiffs of

their right to be free from excess ive an d un ju stified dea dly force . These rights are secu red to

P laintiffs by the Fourth an d Fourteenth Amen dments to the Con stitution of the U n ited States .


24/69Ex B


2 2 . D e fen d an t s a ls o en t ered t h e h o m e w i th o u t a v a li d w ar ran t , sea r ch ed v eh ic le s w h ic h

w er e n o t n am ed in th e w arr an t , an d sto le $ 9 ,40 0 in c a sh r o m th e K eten s , in v io lation o f th e

Fourth Am en dm ent 's strictures against u nreason ab le searches and seizures .

23. As a direct and prox imate result of Defendan ts ' excessive use of force, Plaintif f s have

suffered physical inj ury , pain an d suffering, mental anguish and humiliation .

P l a in t iff s d em an d re li e f a s s e t f o r th b e lo w .

C O U N T 2 - B A T T E R Y

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraph s 1-23 and f urther state:

24. By firing indiscriminately into Plaintiffs ' home an d beating and k ick ing Mr . Keten

wh ile he w as compliant, D efendan ts used more physical force th an w as reasonab le an d n ecess ary

un d er th e c irc u m s t an c e s . Su c h u n w an t e d c o n t ac t a nd ex c e ss iv e fo rc e c o n st it u t e s c o m m on law

b att ery .

25 . A s a direct and prox imate result of D efendants ' battery , Plaintiffs suffered physical

inj ury , p ain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation.

26 . D efendant City of M inneapolis is j ointly an d severally liable for the actions of the

p olice of i cers u nder th e doctrines of agency an d r esp on dea t sup er ior .

P la in t if f s d em an d re li e f a s et f o r th b e lo w .

C O UN T 3 - A S S A U L T

Plaintiffs re-allege p aragraph s 1-26 and further state :

27 . D efendants, by th eir unw arranted sh ootin g into Plaintiffs ' hom e and their beatin g of

Mr . Keten , cau sed Plaintiffs to be in reasonab le fear o f imminent great b odily h arm and death .

These act ion s and the disp lay of force by D efen dants constitutes comm on law assault .

5


25/69

Ex B


2 8. As a direct and proxim ate resu lt of D efendants ' illegal entry, assault, an d b attery ,

Plaintiffs suffered physical inj ury, pain and suffering , mental anguish and humiliation .

29. Defendant City of Minneapolis is j ointly and severally liable for the actions of the

police off icers under the doctrines of agency and r esp ondea t sup erior .

P la in t if f s d em an d r e l i e f a s set for th b e lo w .

C O U N T 4 - C O N V E R S I O N

Plaintiffs re-allege p aragraph s 1-29 and furth er state:

30 . By stealin g $9 ,400 in cash from the Keten fam ily . D efen dants kn ow ingly con vert ed

p rop erty that belong ed to the Keten family .

3 1. This act w as inconsistent w ith the ownership rights of the Keten family , and con stituted

t h e c o m m on law t o r t o f c o n v e r s io n .

32 . D efendant City of M inn eap olis is j ointly and severally liable for th e action s of th e

police officers under the doctrines of agency and resp ondeat sup er ior .

P la in t iff s d em an d r e l i e f a s se t f o r th b e l o w .

W H E RE F O RE , P laintiffs pray for j udgm ent as follow s :

a . awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages against Defendants, j ointly and

severally ;

b . awarding Plaintiffs punitiv e damages against the Defendants, j ointly and

severally , wh ich are available on the 1983 claim against the ind iv idual officers

as a matt er of federal common law , Smith v. Wade, 46 1 U .S. 30 ( 1983) , in a n

6


26/69Ex B


c .

d .

e .

am ount to b e determ ined at trial ; P laintiffs also hereby rese rve the r ight to amend

the Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages on their state law claim s ; and

aw arding Pla intiffs all of their costs and disbursements, including rea sonable

at to rn e y s fees as allow ed by law , in cluding 42 U .S.C . 19 88; and

granting such other relief as the Court may deem j ust and equitable; and

Plaintiffs dem and a j ury trial .

D a t e d :

Paul Appleb (223098)First N ational Bank B uilding33 2 M i n n e s o t a S t r ee t , S u it e W - 1 6 1 0S t . Pa u l , M in n e so t a 5 5 1 0 1

(dir) (65 1) 222 -2 999(fax) (65 1) 223-5 179paulpappLetglhotmail .com

Sarah A . H enning (390348)First N ational Bank Building332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1 10S t . P a u l , M N 5 5 10 1

(dir) (6 12) 70 1-0996(fax) (65 1) 223-5 179sarah @sah enn in glaw .com

Attorn eys f or P la inti f s

1


27/69

Ex B


A C K N O W L E D G M E N T R EQ U I R E D B YM I NN E SO T A ST AT U TE 5 49.2 11

The party represented by the undersigned hereby ackn ow ledges that pursuant to M inn .Stat . 549.2 11, m onetary and/or non-monetary sanctions may be imposed for claims m ade inv io la t io n o f t h a t s t at u t e .

A.ated:


28/69


29/69


30/69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

11-CV-1520 (DWF/JSM) _____________________________________________________________________________

James Ke e! a!" A#s$a Ke e!%#!"#"'a a!" */+/* m#!*,

$# " K.K.K.%

a#! # s% FIRST AMENDEDCOMPLAINT

&.JUR TRIA DEMANDED

Se,3ea! s S e&e! M*se %

Ma,4 Os a!" a!" Ke!"a C$am+e,s%a!" O # e,s Aa,*! M*,,#s*!%C$a" F' $s% S e&e! ! $%T*"" a+e4'$ % ' as e e,s*!%S * C,e#3$ *!% C$,#s 6a,+#s $%

N# 4 R*7e% Ma,4 Kas8s9a4%J*s$'a R# 4% e e, R'"%6e*,3e e 9% a!" Ma,4 ea'8,e% #! $e#,#!"#"'a a!" * # #a a8a # #es%a!" $e C# * M#!!ea8* #s%

De e!"a! s.

_____________________________________________________________________________

a#! # s% James a!" A#s$a Ke e!% #!"#"'a a!" *! +e$a * $e#, m#!*, $# "

K.K.K.% s a e a!" a e3e as * *7s:

1. T$#s #s a! a #*! *, m*!e "ama3es *, #!;',#es s's a#!e" + a#! # s as a ,es' * $e

* a #*!s * $e#, *!s # ' #*!a ,#3$ s + $e a+*&e-me! #*!e" *!-"' * # e O # e

( *!"' a s* * a e" $e *mm*! a7s * $e

S a e * M#!!es* a.

1



31/69

2. a#! # s +,#!3 $#s a #*! 8',s'a! * ?2 U.S.C. @@ 1 B a!" 1 BB% $e F*', $ a!"

F*', ee! $ Ame!"me! s * $e U!# e" S a es C*!s # ' #*! a!" 2B U.S.C. @@ 1 1 a!" 1 ? ( ).

PARTIES AND VENUE

. e a'se a * $e a s *m8 a#!e" * a,*se #! M#!!ea8* #s% e!!e8#! C*'! %

M#!!es* a% $#s a #*! 8,*8e, #es #! $e D#s ,# * M#!!es* a.

?. A a #mes ,e e&a! * $#s a #*!% a#! # s 7e,e a!" a,e # #9e!s * $e U!# e" S

a!" ,es#"e! s * e!!e8#! C*'! % M#!!es* a. a#! # s James a!" A#s$a Ke e! a,e * $e a3e

* ma;*,# . A a #mes ,e e&a! * $#s a #*!% De e!"a! s 7e,e "' a88*#! e" 8* # e * #

* $e C# * M#!!ea8* #s.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. A a #mes ,e e&a! * $#s a7s'# % a#! # s M,. a!" M,s. Ke e! 7e,e e!a! s * $

*7e, e&e * a $*me * a e" a 250? 'm+* " A&e!'e N*, $% 1% M#!!ea8* #s% M#!!es* a.

. O! $e m*,!#!3 * A8,# 1 % 2011% M,. a!" M,s. Ke e! 7e,e a $*me 7# $ $e#, 7*

"a'3$ e,s% K.K.K. a!" N.G.K.% as 7e as $e#, *', "*3s.

H. K.K.K. 7as #! $e 4# $e! ea #!3 +,ea4 as 7$# e M,s. Ke e! 3* ,ea" *, 7*,4. N.G.K.

7as e se7$e,e #! $e $*me. M,s. Ke e! $a" ,e e! e *!e * $e "*3s *' s#"e% s* $e ,*! "**,

7as '! * 4e".

B. De e!"a! s% 7$* 7e,e a $e Ke e!>s $*me * e e ' e a sea, $ 7a,,a! % +a,3e" $,*'3$

$e Ke e!>s ,*! "**, 7# $*' 7a,!#!3 a!" +e3a! #,#!3 $e#, mm $a!"3'!s. De e!"a! s "#"

!*


32/69

. O!e * $e Ke e!>s "*3s% Ka!*% 7as a #!3 #! $e ,*! #!3 ,**m 7$e! De e!"a! s

e! e,e". e *,e $e "*3 $a" #me * s a!" '8% De e!"a! M*,,#s*! s$* a!" 4# e" $e "*3%

s8 a e,#!3 + **" a *&e, $e $# ",e!>s


33/69

1 . De e!"a! s 9#8- #e" M,. Ke e! s $a!"s +e$#!" $#s +a 4% 8' e" $#s s7ea s$#, *&e, $#s

$ea"% a!" *! #!'e" * +ea a!" 4# 4 $#m. M,. Ke e! +e33e" De e!"a! s * s *8 4# 4#!3 $#m #!

$e a e% * 7$# $ *!e * $e De e!"a! s ,e8 #e"%


34/69

#! as$ 7# $*' a a7 ' 8',8*se% De e!"a! s a e" #! e! #*!a * "e8,#&e a#! # s * $e#

,#3$ * +e ,ee ,*m e ess#&e a!" '!;'s # #e" "ea" *, e. T$ese ,#3$ s a,e se ',e" *

a#! # s + $e F*', $ a!" F*', ee! $ Ame!"me! s * $e C*!s # ' #*! * $e U!# e" S a es.

22. De e!"a! s a s* e! e,e" $e $*me 7# $*' a &a #" 7a,,a! % sea, $e" &e$# es 7$# $

7e,e !* !ame" #! $e 7a,,a! % a!" s * e %?00 #! as$ ,*m $e Ke e!s% #! * a #*! * $e

F*', $ Ame!"me! s s ,# ',es a3a#!s '!,eas*!a+ e sea, $es a!" se#9',es.

2 . As a "#,e a!" 8,* #ma e ,es' * De e!"a! s> e ess#&e 'se * *, e% a#! # s $a&e

s' e,e" 8$ s# a #!;', % 8a#! a!" s' e,#!3% me! a a!3'#s$ a!" $'m# #a #*!.

a#! # s "ema!" ,e #e as se *, $ +e *7.

COUNT 2 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983

a#! # s ,e-a e3e 8a,a3,a8$s 1-2 a!" ', $e, s a e:

2?. #,#!3 m' #8 e mm ,*'!"s "#,e a K.K.K. 7$# e s$e a e $e, +,ea4 as %

De e!"a! s e!3a3e" #! *!s #e! e s$* 4#!3 +e$a*, $a #! e, e,e" 7# $ $e, '!"ame! a ,#3$ s

#! * a #*! * $e F*', ee! $ Ame!"me! .

25. As a "#,e a!" 8,* #ma e ,es' * $e De e!"a! s> *!"' % 7$# $ *!s # ' es

s'+s a! #&e "'e 8,* ess * a #*!s% K.K.K. $as +ee! *, e" * e!"',e se&e,e me! a 8a#! a!"

s' e,#!3 *, 7$# $ s$e *! #!'es * '!"e,3* 8s $#a ,# *'!se #!3.

a#! # s "ema!" ,e #e as se *, $ +e *7.

COUNT 3 BATTERY

a#! # s ,e-a e3e 8a,a3,a8$s 1-25 a!" ', $e, s a e:

2 . #,#!3 #!"#s ,#m#!a e #! * a#! # s> $*me a!" +ea #!3 a!" 4# 4#!3 M,. Ke e!

7$# e $e 7as *m8 #a! % De e!"a! s 'se" m*,e 8$ s# a *, e $a! 7as ,eas*!a+ e a!" !e essa,

5



35/69

'!"e, $e #, 'ms a! es. S' $ '!7a! e" *! a a!" e ess#&e *, e *!s # ' es *mm*! a7

+a e, .

2H. As a "#,e a!" 8,* #ma e ,es' * De e!"a! s> +a e, % a#! # s s' e,e" 8$ s# a

#!;', % 8a#! a!" s' e,#!3% me! a a!3'#s$ a!" $'m# #a #*!.

2B. De e!"a! C# * M#!!ea8* #s #s ;*#! a!" se&e,a #a+ e *, $e a #*!s * $

8* # e * # e,s '!"e, $e "* ,#!es * a3e! a!"respondeat superior .

a#! # s "ema!" ,e #e as se *, $ +e *7.

COUNT 4 ASSAULT

a#! # s ,e-a e3e 8a,a3,a8$s 1-2B a!" ', $e, s a e:

2 . De e!"a! s% + $e#, '!7a,,a! e" s$** #!3 #! * a#! # s> $*me a!" $e#, +ea #!3 *

M,. Ke e!% a'se" a#! # s * +e #! ,eas*!a+ e ea, * #mm#!e! 3,ea +*"# $a,m a!" "ea $.

T$ese a #*!s a!" $e "#s8 a * *, e + De e!"a! s *!s # ' e *mm*! a7 assa' .

0. As a "#,e a!" 8,* #ma e ,es' * De e!"a! s> # e3a e! , % assa' % a!" +a e, %

a#! # s s' e,e" 8$ s# a #!;', % 8a#! a!" s' e,#!3% me! a a!3'#s$ a!" $'m# #a #*!.

1. De e!"a! C# * M#!!ea8* #s #s ;*#! a!" se&e,a #a+ e *, $e a #*!s * $


a#! # s "ema!" ,e #e as se *, $ +e *7.

COUNT 5 CONVERSION

a#! # s ,e-a e3e 8a,a3,a8$s 1- 1 a!" ', $e, s a e:

2. s ea #!3 %?00 #! as$ ,*m $e Ke e! am# % De e!"a! s 4!*7#!3 *!&e, e"

8,*8e, $a +e *!3e" * $e Ke e! am# .



36/69

. T$#s a 7as #! *!s#s e! 7# $ $e *7!e,s$#8 ,#3$ s * $e Ke e! am# % a!"

*!s # ' e" $e *mm*! a7 *, * *!&e,s#*!.

?. De e!"a! C# * M#!!ea8* #s #s ;*#! a!" se&e,a #a+ e *, $e a #*!s * $


a#! # s "ema!" ,e #e as se *, $ +e *7.

COUNT 6 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

a#! # s ,e-a e3e 8a,a3,a8$s 1- ? a!" ', $e, s a e:

5. T$e a #*!s * $e De e!"a! s% #! '"#!3 +' !* #m# e" *% $e#, a# ',e * e e, #se "'e

a,e% #!&a"e" $e ,#3$ s * K.K.K. a!" M,s. Ke e!% 7$* 7e,e 8 a e" #! $e 9*!e * "a!3e, *

8$ s# a #m8a a!" ,eas*!a+ ea,e" *, $e#, *7! sa e as 7e as $e sa e * *!e a!* $e,.

. K.K.K. a!" M,s. Ke e! $a&e s' e,e" se&e,e me! a a!" em* #*!a "#s ,ess 7# $

a e!"a! 8$ s# a ma!# es a #*!s as a ,es' * $e a *,esa#" s$** #!3. F', $e,m*,e% !* 8$ s# a

ma!# es a #*! #s !e essa, #! $#s ase +e a'se $e


37/69

. De e!"a! C# * M#!!ea8* #s #s ;*#! a!" se&e,a #a+ e *, $e a #*!s * $


a#! # s "ema!" ,e #e as se *, $ +e *7.!HEREFORE % a#! # s 8,a *, ;'"3me! as * *7s:

a. a7a,"#!3 a#! # s *m8e!sa *, "ama3es a3a#!s De e!"a! s% ;*#! a!"

se&e,a

+. a7a,"#!3 a#! # s 8'!# #&e "ama3es a3a#!s $e De e!"a! s% ;*#! a!"

se&e,a % 7$# $ a,e a&a# a+ e *! $e @ 1 B a#m a3a#!s $e #!"#"'a * #

as a ma e, * e"e,a *mm*! a7%Smith v. Wade % ? 1 U.S. 0 (1 B )% #! a!

am*'! * +e "e e,m#!e" a ,#a a#! # s a s* $e,e+ ,ese,&e $e ,#3$ * ame!"

$e C*m8 a#! * a"" a a#m *, 8'!# #&e "ama3es *! $e#, s a e a7 a#ms a!"

. a7a,"#!3 a#! # s a * $e#, *s s a!" "#s+',seme! s% #! '"#!3 ,eas*!a+ e

a *,!e s> ees as a *7e" + a7% #! '"#!3 ?2 U.S.C. @ 1 BB a!"

". 3,a! #!3 s' $ * $e, ,e #e as $e C*', ma "eem ;'s a!" e '# a+ e a!"

e. a#! # s "ema!" a ;', ,#a .

Da e": O . 1 % 2011 s/ a' A88 e+a'm____a' A88 e+a'm (22 0 B)

Sa,a$ A. e!!#!3 ( 0 ?B)F#,s Na #*!a a!4 '# "#!3

2 M#!!es* a S ,ee % S'# e W-1 10S . a' % M#!!es* a 55101("#,) ( 51) 222-2( a ) ( 51) 22 -51H

8a' 8a88 eP$* ma# . *m Attorneys for Plaintiffs

B

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


38/69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

11-CV-1520 (DWF/JSM)

I hereby cer !"y h# $% 11/11/2011& I 'er e & $r c#*'e $ be 'er e & he "$++$,!%

$c*.e% '

1. Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND.

I cer !"y& "*r her& h# I e+ec r$%!c#++y "!+e he #b$ e +!' e $c*.e% ,! h he

C+er $" C$*r by *'!% ECF& ,h!ch c$%' ! * e' 'er !ce $% he "$++$,!% ECF

#r !c! #% '& *r'*#% $ he ECF r$ce *re' "$r he D!' r!c $" M!%%e'$ #

Attorne Sara J. Lat!ro"

D# e N$ e.ber 11& 2011 Re' ec "*++y '*b.! e &

'/ #*+ A +eb#*.#*+ A +eb#*. (22304 )

F!r' N# !$%#+ 6#% 6*!+ !%332 M!%%e'$ # S ree & S*! e W-1710S 8 #*+& M!%%e'$ # 55101( !r) (751) 222-2444("#9) (751) 223-51:4

Attorney for Defendant



39/69

"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

__________________________________________________

Roberto Franco, Analese Franco,Gilbert Castillo, Michael Castillo,

Nancy Castillo, Thomas Bostwick,R.F., A.F & A.F., minors,

COMPLAINT

v.

State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey,

City of St. Paul, St. Paul Police DepartmentShawn Scovill, Steve Anderson, Patrick Chesier,Craig Gromek, Terry Ecker, Andy Gubash,Mike Heski, Rick Porras, Joe Robertson,Jeremiah Simonson, Tommy Booth, Jason Polinski,And Chris Melton Jury Trial Requested

___________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This action arises under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983 and the Fourth and FourteenthAmendments of the United States Constitution.

STATEMENT OF THE CLAIMS

1. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their Constitutional rights againstunreasonable search and seizure when they broke into and raided their home on July 13,2010 and carried out a night-time raid of their home and where they searched and seized

plaintiffs and their property at gun point without a proper search warrant.

2. The search warrant specifically named Rafael Ybarra as the intended target suspect.Plaintiff Roberto Franco was not named in the search warrant, nor was any person wholived in the raided house named in the search warrant.

3. There was never a mention of plaintiff, Roberto Franco, in any documents related tothe raid search warrant.

4. Plaintiff, Roberto Franco, had never been discussed or considered a suspect by lawenforcement, Scovill or any of the defendants directly involved or indirectly involved tin


40/69

#

the raid, relative to any alleged involvement by Franco in any distribution of contraband prior to the wrong house raid.

5. Plaintiffs allege that defendant, Shawn Scovill, provided false and misleadinginformation to a Minnesota District Court judge in order to obtain a search warrant.

Defendant Scovill lied when he informed the District Court judge who reviewed Scovillssearch warrant application that Scovill had obtained information from the confidentialinformant that the plaintiffs home was the properly targeted house and that the addressand the identity of the individuals who resided therein were the plaintiffs.

6. Plaintiffs allege that defendants negligently violated their U.S. Constitutional andfederal statutory rights as detailed below. Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that defendantsintentionally violated said rights. Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that defendants activitieswere a combination of intentional and negligent acts which caused them grave personalinjury and abridged their rights to privacy and such other rights by their illegal andimproper invasion of plaintiffs home.

7. On or about July 13, 2010, officer Shawn Scovill of the Dakota County Drug TaskForce and Officers Steve Anderson, Patrick Chesier, Craig Gromek of the St. Paul PoliceDepartment, officers Terry Ecker, Andy Gubash, Mike Heski, Rick Porras, JoeRobertson, Jeremiah Simonson, Tommy Booth, and Sgt. Jason Polinski of the DakotaCounty Drug Task Force, and Agent Chris Melton of the DEA, negligently raided thehome of plaintiffs, by raiding the wrong home and physically brutalizing all the above-named occupants of said house.

8. Defendants were attempting to arrest an individual by the name of Rafael Ybarra whoactually lived next door to the plaintiffs.

9. Defendants had a search warrant that contained the name of Rafael Ybarra as thenamed suspect who was wanted under suspicious of distribution of contraband.

10. While in the home of plaintiffs, the defendants learned that the suspect who wasnamed in the search warrant lived in the house next door, at the address of 165 AnnapolisEast, St. Paul, MN 55107.

11. The house that defendants raided was at the address of 171 Annapolis East, St. Paul,MN 55107.

12. Despite the fact that defendants learned that the suspect did not live at the addressraided, defendants remained in the home of plaintiffs and continued searching the home.

13. Defendants, handcuffed all of the inhabitants of the plaintiffs home except plaintiffAnalese Franco who was forced, virtually naked, from her bed onto the floor at gun point

by officers of the St. Paul Police Department SWAT team and officers of the St. PaulPolice Department.


41/69

$

14. Defendants performed a night-time raid of the plaintiffs home by breaking down thefront storm door and front interior door.

15. Upon forcibly breaching the plaintiffs home, defendants terrorized the plaintiffs atgun and rifle point.

16. Each plaintiff was forced to the floor at gun and rifle point and handcuffed behindtheir backs.

17. Defendants shot and killed the family dog and forced the handcuffed children to sitnext to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour whiledefendants continued to search the plaintiffs home.

18. Defendants performed an illegal search of the plaintiffs home whereupon followingsignificant time spent at searching the plaintiffs home located a .22 caliber revolver inthe lower basement bedroom of plaintiff, Gilbert Castillo.

19. Defendants improperly attributed the possession of said weapon to plaintiff, RobertoFranco and arrested him under Minn. Stat. M. S. 624.713.1(2)

20. Plaintiff Roberto Franco was wrongfully convicted of the alleged offense and iscurrently incarcerated with the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

21. While plaintiff, Gilbert Castillo, was pushing the family trash receptacle to the curbfor early morning trash pick-up, he was attacked by defendants, thrown to the ground,whereupon officers dressed in Army fatigues rushed him with weapons in hand. Onemember of the St. Paul SWAT team threw Gilbert Castillo to the ground and pounced onhim, forcing entire weight of his body upon Gilbert Castillo, rammed his knee into theshoulder blades of plaintiff Gilbert Castillo handcuffed his hands behind his back.

22. Officer St. Police Department SWAT officers broke into the bedroom of plaintiff,Roberto Franco, forced him out of bed, nearly naked out of bed and onto the floor wherehe was forcibly handcuffed and forced to remain in an awkward, uncomfortable position,hands cuffed behind his back with his weight of over 400 pounds, bearing down on thehandcuffs which induced unbearable pain upon plaintiff, Roberto Franco.

23. Plaintiff Analese Franco and her baby were forced from her bed, virtually naked, andonto the floor of her bedroom by armed SWAT officers.

24. Plaintiff Roberto Franco was illegally and improperly searched and arrested.

25. Plaintiff Michael Castillo was forced to the floor and handcuffed at gun-point. Said plaintiff was illegally and improperly searched by defendants.

26. Plainitff, Thomas Boswick was forced to the floor and handcuffed at gun-point. Said plaintiff was illegally and improperly searched by defendants.


42/69

%

27. Plaintiff, minor R.F. was kicked in the side, handcuffed and searched at gun-point bySPPD SWAT.

28. Plaintiff, minor, A.F., a diabetic, was handcuffed at gun-point and prevented by

officer from obtaining and taking her medication, thus induced a diabetic episode as aresult of low-blood sugar levels.

29. Plaintiff, Nancy Castillo, was forced to the floor at gun-point and handcuffed byofficer SWAT and other defendants.

30. Defendants improperly and illegally remained in the home of the plaintiffs searchingand seizing items despite the fact that they had learned that they had raided the wronghome.

31. Defendant, Shawn Scovill intentionally perjured himself in his sworn testimony on

the witness stand at the suppression hearing and at the trial of plaintiff, Roberto Franco.32. Defendant, Shawn Scovill intentionally misrepresented the facts of the criminal caseagainst Roberto Franco in all documents following the arrest of, plaintiff Roberto Franco.

33. Defendant Shawn Scovill intentionally misrepresented the facts in the States criminalagainst plaintiff Gilbert Castillo when he said that Gilbert Castillo did not state that theconfiscated weapon belonged to Gilbert Castillo.

34. Defendant Shawn Scovill perjured himself when he testified in the suppressionhearing and at the trial of plaintiff Roberto Franco that Scovill had received a textmessage from the confidential informant which stated the address of the house to beraided was the house address that Scovill had placed on the search warrant.

35. Defendants had identified and raided the wrong house.

36. The search warrant was defective in that it did not provide a description of thetargeted house as required.

37. Defendant Scovill was the officer who directed, supervised and orchestrated the raidof plaintiffs home.

38. The search warrant was defective in that Scovill did not provide the requiredindependent corroboration of the allegations that drug dealings were occurring in thetarget house.

39. Scovill perjured himself when he testified he and his officers had observed illegaldrug dealings occurring at plaintiffs home.


43/69

&

40. Scovill perjured himself when he testified that he had questioned plaintiff, GilbertCastillo and that Gilbert Castillo did not claim ownership of the weapon in question.

41. Scovill perjured himself after plaintiff, Francos attorney impeached when Scovillretook the witnessed stand as a rebuttal witness and changed the testimony that he

provided on direct examination as to critical evidence for the length of time and thecontent of his interrogation of plaintiffs Roberto Franco and Gilbert Castillo.

42. Officer Scovill attempted to bribe plaintiff, Franco, to agree to not pursue civilredress against defendants by assuring him that if Franco would not pursue legal redress,he would not charge Franco with any crime.

43. As a direct result of defendant Scovills perjured testimony, plaintiff, Roberto Franco,was illegally and improperly convicted of a felony for which he is currently incarcerated

pending appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court.

44. As a direct result of defendant Scovills perjured testimony, plaintiff, Gilbert Castillowas improperly convicted of possession of contraband.

45. As a result of defendants actions, plaintiffs, R.F., A.F., and A.F., have sufferedtraumatic emotional and other permanent personal injuries that require on-going therapy.

46. Each of the named plaintiffs have suffered personal injuries including emotional and psychological injuries as a result of the actions of defendants.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs pray for joint and several relief in a sum in excess of ten million dollars, ($10,000.000.00), for breach of their Constitutional rights, together with attorneys fees, costsand disbursements and any other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

Plaintiffs request twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages.

Dated: July 12, 2012 CONNER MCALISTER SELMER, LLC.

/s/Scott SelmerLic. No. 156024Attorneys for PlaintiffsP.O. Box 385091Minneapolis, MN [email protected]


44/69


U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R TD I S T R I C T O F M I N N E S O T A

11-CV -152 0 (DW F/JSM )

Jam es K et en an d A ish a K et en ,in div idu all y and o/b/o minorc h il d K .K .K . ,

P l a in t i f f s ,

v .

Sergeants Steven M osey ,

M ar k O s l an d an d K end a l C h am b e r s ,a n d O ff i c e r s A a r o n M o r r i s o n ,

Ch ad Fu chs , Steven Lyn ch ,T od d B ab ek u h l , L u c a s P e t er s o n ,

Scott Creighton , Chri s Garbisch ,N ick R ow e , M ark Kasp sz ak ,J o sh u a R i ck , P e t e r R u d ,

George Peltz , and M ark B eaupre , in th eirin div idu al and of i cial cap acities ,an d th e City of M inn eap olis ,

D e f en d an t s .

Plaintiffs, Jam es and A ish a Keten , indiv idu all y and on b eh alf of th eir m inor child,

K . K . K , state an d allege as follow s :

1 . This is an action for m on ey dam ages for injuries su stain ed b y P laintiff s as a result of th e

v iolations of their con stitutional rights b y th e ab ove-m entioned on -duty Police Officers

( D e f en d a n t s

) . The condu ct of th e D efen dants v iolated Plaintiff s' w ell-settled civ il r ights while

actin g under th e color of state law . D efen dants c o n d u c t a l so v i o l a t e d t h e c o m m o n l aw s o f th e

S t a t e o f M in n e s o t a .

S E C O N D A M E N D E D

C O M P L A I N T

J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D E D

1


45/69


46/69


9 . On e of th e Keten ' s dogs, Kano, w as layin g in th e r ont liv ing room wh en D efendant s

entered . B efore th e dog h ad tim e to stand up , D efendant M orr ison sh ot an d k il led th e dog,

splattering blood all over th e children

s

D ora th e Exp lorer b ook th at sat nearb y . Kano did n ot

b ark n or did h e display any aggression tow ards D efendants . Th e first thing th e Keten s h eard th at

m orning wh en D efendants cam e throu gh th e door w as th e sound of gunfire k il l in g Kano .

10. A t th e sam e tim e , oth er D efendants entered th e k itch en wh ere three -year-old K .K .K .,

w as eating breakfast at th e k itch en table, while Mrs . Keten stood n earb y . D efendant Fu ch s fired

multiple hollow point rounds tow ards the k itch en table, killi ng anoth er of the famil y s do gs,

Remy , and splatterin g blood all over K .K .K an d th e kitch en w alls and floor .

11. R em y h ad not b ark ed, ch arged or oth erwise b eh aved aggressively tow ards th e

D e f en d an t s b e f o r e sh e w a s sh o t d e ad . D e f en d an t s h ad a c l ea r v i ew o f K .K .K . a s sh e s a t n ex t t o

R emy at th e k itch en tab le .

12 . D efen dant Fu ch s w as u sing h ollow -point 9mm amm unition as h e i red indiscrim inately

into th e k itchen . On e of th ese h ollow -p oint rounds w as lodged in th e w all directly b ehind w h ere

K.K

.K

. sat , while several m ore entered th e f loor directly in r ont of th e young girl .

13. Mrs . Keten w as put in grave fear for h er safety as w ell as th at of her dau ghter by th e

action s of th e D efend ants . K .K .K . also feared for h er ow n safety as w ell as th at of h er fam il y

m em b e r s .

14 . Af ter k ill in g th e two dogs and nearly k il l in g on e child, D efen dants b egan to b eat M r .

Keten ab out hi s b ack , n eck , h ead , an d face as h e lay face down on th e liv in g room flo or .

15. A s D efendants b eat M r . Keten while h e lay compliant on th e floor of his own liv ing

room , D efendants rep eat edly told him to Shu t th e fu ck up ]S[*** *r

3


47/69


16 . D efendants zip -tied M r . Keten's h ands b ehind his b ack , pulled his sw eatshirt over his

h ead, and continu ed to b eat and kick him . M r . Keten b egged D efendants to stop k ick in g him in

th e face, to which on e of th e D efen dant s rep lied, W e do w h at th e fu ck w e w ant N *** *r , w h ile

continu in g to step on M r . K eten s f a c e .

17. D efendants ran sacked th e h ou se , destroyin g mu ch of th e Keten fam il y 's p erson al

prop erty . D efendants found no ev idence of crim inal activ ity w ithin th e h ou se, but th ey did find

and steal $9 ,400 in cash r om M r . an d M rs . Keten . D efen dants did not rep ort th e seizure of this

m on ey on th e receipt for th e search w arrant .

18. D efen dants attempted to pick up m ost of th eir sh ell casin gs b efore th ey le t ; h ow ever ,

o n c e t h e d u s t h ad s e t t l e d a n d M r . an d M r s . K e t en w e r e a b l e t o a t t en d t o th e ir tr au m a t iz ed

children , M r . Keten discovered th at on e of his daughters h ad a 9mm sh ell casin g in h er m outh .

H e th en discovered several m ore casings on th e f loor of hi s hom e .

19. M r . Keten w as treat ed for his inj uries . K .K .K . is b ein g coun seled b ecau se of th e

condu ct of th e D efendants . Three year old K I C K , now ask s h er fath er several tim es each day to

m ak e s u r e th e do o r i s l o c k e d .

20. Th e Keten famil y , esp eciall y K .K .K ., live in a state of con stant fear th at D efen dants

w il l return to th e h ou se an d k il l th em like th ey sh ot R em y an d K an o . U ltim ately , th e Keten s

m o v e d a s a r e su l t o f th i s in c i d en t .

C O U N T 1 - F O U R T H A M E N D M E N T V I O L A T I O N S O F 4 2 U .S .C . 1 9 8 3

Plaintiff s re-allege p aragraph s 1-2 0 and furth er state :

2 1. By ent erin g w ith out kn ockin g and ann oun cin g, shootin g indiscrim in ately into

Plaintiffs hom e and directly at K .K .K ., by beating and k icking Mr . Keten, and by seizing $9400

4


48/69


in cash w ith out a law ful purpose, D efendants acted intention ally to depriv e Plaintiffs of th eir

right to b e r ee r om excessive and unju stif ied deadly force . Th ese rights are secured to

P laintiff s b y t h e Fou rth an d F ou rteenth Am en dm ents to th e Con stitution of th e Uni ted States .

2 2 . D e f end an t s a l so en t e r ed th e h o m e w i th o u t a v a l i d w a r r an t , se a r ch e d v eh i c l e s w h i ch

w er e n o t n am ed in th e w ar ran t , an d s t o l e $ 9 ,4 0 0 in c a sh r o m th e K e t en s , in v io l a t io n o f th e

F ourth Am en dm ent 's strictures again st unreason ab le search es an d seizures .

23. A s a direct and prox im ate result of D efen dants ' excessive u se of force , P laintiff s have

suffered physical injury , p ain and suff erin g, m ental anguish an d hum iliation .

P l a i n t i ff s d e m an d r e l i e f a s se t f o r th b e l o w .

C O U N T 2 - F O U R T EE N T H A M E N D M E N T V I O L A T I O N S OF 4 2 U .S .C . 1 9 8 3

P laintiff s re-allege p aragraph s 1-23 and furth er state :

24 . By firing multiple 9mm rounds directly at K .K .K . while sh e ate h er break fast ,

D efendants en gaged in con scien ce sh ock in g b eh av ior th at interfered w ith h er fundam ental rights

in v i o l a t i on o f t h e F o u r t e ent h Am en d m en t .

25 . A s a direct an d prox im ate resu lt o f th e D efend ants ' con du ct , which con stit utes

sub stantive du e proces s v iolation s, K .K .K . h as b een forced to en dure severe m ental p ain and

su ffering for which sh e continu es to un dergo p sychiatric coun se lin g.

P l a in t i f f s d e m an d r e l i e f a s se t fo r th b e l o w .

C O U N T 3 - B A T T E R Y

Plaintiffs re-allege p aragraph s 1-2 5 an d furth er state :

26 . By firing indiscriminately into P laintiffs h om e and b ea tin g and k ick ing Mr . Keten

while h e w as compliant, D efen dants u sed m ore physical force th an w as reason able and n ecessary

5


49/69


u n d e r th e c ir c u m s t an c es . Su c h u n w an t e d c o n t ac t an d ex c e s s iv e f o r c e c o n s t i t u t e s c o m m o n l aw

b attery .

27 . A s a direct and proxim ate result of D efen dants b attery , Plaintiffs su ffered physical

injury , p ain and su ffering, m ental an guish and hum iliation .

2 8. D efendant City of M inn eap olis is j ointly an d severall y liab le for th e action s of th e

p olice officers under th e doctrin es of agen cy and r esp ondea t sup eri or .

P l a i n t i f f s d em an d r e l i e f a s s e t fo r th b e l o w .

C O U N T 4 A S S A U L T


29. D efendants, b y th eir unw arranted sh ooting into Plaintiff s' h om e and th eir b eating of

M r . Keten , cau sed P laintiffs to b e in rea son able fear of imm in ent great b od il y h arm and death .

Th ese action s an d th e display of force by D efendant s con stitute comm on law assault .

30 . A s a direct and proxim ate result of D efendants' il legal entry , assault , an d b att ery ,

Plaintiff s su ffered physical injury , p ain and su ffering, m ental an guish and humiliat ion .

3 1. D efen dant City of M inn eap oli s is j ointly and severall y liab le for th e action s of th e

p olice officers under th e doctrin es of agen cy and r esp ondea t sup er ior .

P l a in t i ff s d e m an d r e l i e f a s s e t f o r th b e l o w .

C O U N T 5 - C O N V E R S I O N


32 . By stealing $9,400 in cash r om th e Keten fam ily , D efendants know ingly converted

prop erty th at b elon ged to th e Keten family .

6


50/69


33. This act w as incon sistent w ith th e ownership rights of th e Keten fam ily , an d

c o n s t i t u t e d th e c o m m o n l aw t o r t o f c on v e r s i o n .

34 . D efendant City of M inn eap olis is j ointly an d severall y liab le for th e action s of th e

p olice officers under th e doctrines of agen cy and r esp ondeat sup eri or .

P l a in t i ff s d e m an d r e l i e f a s s e t f o r th b e l o w .

C O U N T 6 - N E G L I G E N T I N F L I C T I O N O F E M O T I O N A L D I S T R E S S

Plaintiff s re-allege p aragraph s 1-34 and furth er state :

35 . Th e action s of th e D efend ants , in clu din g b ut n ot lim it ed to , th eir fail ure to exercise du e

care, invaded the rights of K .K .K . and Mrs . Keten , wh o w ere placed in th e zone of dan ger of

physical imp act and reas on ab ly feared for th eir own safety as w ell as th e safety of on e an oth er .

3 6 . K .K .K . an d M r s . K e t en h av e su f f er ed s ev er e m en t a l an d em o t io n al d i s t r e s s w ith

attendant physical m anifestation s as a result of th e aforesaid sh ooting . Furth ermore, no physical

m anifestation is necessary in this ca se b ecause th e unu su ally disturbing exp erien ce th a t

P l a in t i ff s h av e en d u r ed as su r e s th at t h e ir em o t io n a l d i s tr e s s i s r e a l an d sev e r e .

37 . D efendant City of M inneap oli s is j ointly and severall y liab le for th e action s of th e

p olice of i cers under th e doctrin es of agen cy and r esp ondeat sup er ior .

P l a in t i ff s d em an d r e l i e f a s se t f o r th b e l o w .

C O U N T 7 - I N T E N T I O N A L I N F L I C T I O N O F E M O T I O N A L D I S T R E S S

P laintiffs re-allege p aragraph s 1-37 an d furth er state :

38. Th e ex trem e , outrageou s, and con scien ce sh ock in g action s of th e D efen dants in

sh ootin g directly at K .K .K . su ch th at sh e w as sp latt ered w ith th e blood of h er own dog w ere don e

intentionally or reck lessly and cau sed h er severe em otion al an d m ental distress .

7


51/69


39 . D efen dant City of M inn eap olis is j ointly and severally liab le for th e action s of th e

police of i cers under th e doctrin es of agency an d r esp ondent sup er ior .

P l a i n t i f f s d em an d r e l i e f a s s e t f o r th b e l o w .

W H E R E F O R E , P laintiffs pray for ju dgm ent as fol low s :

a . aw ardin g Plaintiffs comp en satory dam ages again st D efendants, j ointly an d

severall y ;

b. aw arding P laintiffs punitive dam ages again st th e indiv idu al D efendants, j ointly

an d severall y , on Counts 1, 2 , 3, 4 , 6 , an d 7, in an am ou nt to b e d etermin ed at

t r i a l ; an d

c . aw arding Plaintiff s all of th eir costs and disbursem ents, in clu din g rea son ab le

a tt o rn ey s

fees as allow ed b y law , in clu ding 42 U .S .C . 1988 ; and

d . granting su ch oth er relief as th e Court m ay deem ju st an d equitab le ; and

e . P laintiff s dem and a jury tr ial .

D ated : July 26, 20 12 . s/ Paul App leb aumPaul App leb aum (22309 8)Andrew M . Irlb eck ( 392 626)First N ation al B an k Bu ildin g3 3 2 M i n n e s o t a S t r e e t , Su i t e W - 1 6 1 0S t . P au l , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 0 1

(dir) (6 5 1) 222 -29 99(fax ) (65 1) 22 3-5 179p aulp apple@h otm ail .com

A tt or neys f or P la in ti f s

8


52/69


53/69

2

BACKGROUND

The Minneapolis Police Department requested and received a warrant to search

the residence of Plaintiff James Keten (J. Keten). (Doc. No. 33, Lynch Aff. 2, 4-8.)

The warrant was a knock and announce warrant, which requires police to knock and

announce their presence prior to making entry. (Doc. No. 31, Lathrop Aff. 2, Ex. 1

(Lynch Dep.) at 25.) J. Keten is the brother of Lamont Keten, an identified suspect in a

shooting that occurred in a North Minneapolis home on April 3, 2011. (Lynch Aff. 3 ,

4.) The police learned that, at the time of the shooting, Lamont Keten was staying at J.

Ketens home. ( Id . 4.) The search warrant sought to recover the assault rifle used in

the shooting. ( Id .; Lynch Dep. at 17; Lathrop Aff. 3, Ex. 2 (Mosey Dep.) at 16.)

During the warrants execution, Lamont Keten remained in custody.

Sergeant Mosey led the Minneapolis Police Department Special Weapons and

Tactics (SWAT) team, which consisted in part of Defendants Sergeant Mosey and

Officers Morrison, Fuchs, Garbisch, and Lynch. (Lathrop Aff. 4, Ex. 3 (Warrant

Service Log).) 1 Prior to the execution of the warrant, Officer Lynch briefed the SWAT

team on the context in which the warrant arose. (Lynch Dep. at 27; Lynch Aff. 13-14;

Mosey Dep. at 16, 43.) He also informed the SWAT team that one item sought was an

assault rifle used in the April 3, 2011 shooting, that small children lived at the residence

1 The Warrant Service Log does not indicate that Officer Garbisch was part of theteam, but the parties do not dispute that he was there.



54/69

3

to be searched, and that there were potentially four aggressive Pit Bull dogs at the

location. (Lynch Aff. 13-14.)

On the morning of April 13, 2011, J. Keten, his wife Plaintiff Aisha Keten (A.

Keten), and their two young children, K.K. (age three) and Z.K. (infant), were present in

the Keten home. (Lathrop Aff. 5, Ex. 4 (J. Keten Dep.) at 23-25; Lathrop Aff. 6,

Ex. 5 (A. Keten Dep.) at 27-28.) J. Keten was in the living room, K.K. was at the kitchen

table eating cereal, Z.K. was

Keten et al v. Does 1-15 et al | 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM

Documents

Transcript of Keten et al v. Does 1-15 et al | 0:11-cv-01520-DWF-JSM