You are on page 1of 21

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 1 of 16

Andrew Altschul, OSB No.980302


E-mail: andrew@baaslaw.com
Angela Ferrer, OSB No. 140814
E-mail: angela@baaslaw.com
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL
& SULLIVAN LLP
321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.974.5015
Facsimile: 971.230.0337
Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
Civil No. 6:16-cv-00783

LEONARD WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT
v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, an Oregon State Agency, and
COLETTE PETERS, an individual, in her
personal capacity,

(42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of First


Amendment and Due Process Rights;
Whistleblowing Retaliation in violation
of ORS 659A.203, 659A.230 and
659A.199; Wrongful Discharge)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, including

attorneys fees and costs, to redress unlawful actions and employment practices to which
Defendants subjected Plaintiff, in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional, statutory, and common
law and contractual rights.

Page 1 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 2 of 16

JURISDICTION
2.

Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1343, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3.

Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because

the claims arose in this judicial district.


PARTIES
4.

Plaintiff Leonard Williamson (Plaintiff) is a resident of Salem, Oregon. During

the relevant period, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Oregon Department of Corrections
(DOC), serving as Inspector General and working in Salem, Oregon.
5.

Defendant DOC is an Oregon state agency. DOC officials acting in their official

capacity were, at all relevant times, acting under color of state law.
6.

Defendant Colette Peters (Defendant Peters) is, on information and belief, a

resident of Sherwood, Washington County, Oregon. Defendant Peters was appointed Director of
DOC in February 2012, and held that position during the relevant period. Plaintiff brings this
suit against Defendant Peters in her personal capacity.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7.

Plaintiff held the position of Inspector General for DOC from September 2011

until his termination on October 23, 2015. Before becoming DOC Inspector General, Plaintiff
worked as Attorney-in-Charge of the Torts and Employment Section in Trial Division of the
Oregon Department of Justice.
8.

Defendant Peters was appointed DOC Director in February 2012. She previously

held the positions of Inspector General and Assistant Director for Public Service.

Page 2 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

9.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 3 of 16

Defendant Peters has terminated several employees during her tenure for

questionable reasons. In 2007, for example, while Defendant Peters was working as DOCs
Inspector General, she created a new lead worker role for her friend Daryl Borello, and then had
Borello take the lead in investigating a long-term employee, Teri Gill, for alleged wrongdoing
that occurred years before Peters and Borello assumed their managerial roles over Gill. Peters
and Borello also attempted to justify Gills termination based on her alleged dishonesty. An
arbitrator later reversed Gills termination, expressly finding that he does NOT question [Gills]
credibility but instead, the arbitrator noted in his ruling that he discounted Peters testimony on
credibility grounds.
10.

Defendant Peters has also demonstrated a pattern of intentionally creating job

vacancies by terminating employees or causing them to quit in order to create opportunities for
her to appoint her personal friends, even if not the most qualified, to the positions. In 2013
Defendant Peters terminated the Director of Oregons Correction Enterprises and replaced him
with her longtime friend Ken Jeske, who dubbed himself as Defendant Peters handbag,
against the advice of the Policy Group and the Deputy Director at the time. In 2014, Defendant
Peters ordered the termination of the DOC Assistant Director of Government Efficiencies and
Communications, and then hired a personal friend, Heidi Stewart, for the position. Also in 2014,
the DOC Assistant Director of General Services took early retirement due to the treatment she
received from Defendant Peters. Defendant Peters appointed her friend Borello to fill the
position, despite Borellos relatively low qualifications and low ranking among the many
applicants and against the advice of the recruitment team.
11.

Plaintiff received consistently positive performance reviews and feedback during

his first three years as Inspector General.

Page 3 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

12.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 4 of 16

In November 2013 and 2014, Plaintiff was awarded paid leave in recognition of

his exceptional performance.


13.

Starting in or about May 2015, Defendant Peters began taking overt steps to

undermine Plaintiffs reputation within DOC for the purpose of creating an opportunity to
appoint one of her friends to replace him. Defendant Peters told her friend Jeske that she
planned to appoint him as Inspector General.
14.

Around the same time, Defendant Peters told an executive coach who had been

hired from outside of the DOC that Plaintiff had credibility issues with his staff. The
executive coach expressed surprise and strong disagreement with Peters statement.
15.

In May 2015, Peters ordered an investigation into two stale allegations regarding

Williamson: a previously resolved complaint raised two years prior in 2013 by another DOC
employee, and Plaintiffs September 2014 statement regarding the DOCs K-9 handler unit,
where Plaintiff relayed information provided by then-Deputy Inspector General Garrett Laney
which, unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, was untrue.
16.

As Defendant Peters knew, the 2013 complaint already had been resolved. The

complainant had acknowledged that her concerns stemmed from a misunderstanding between
herself and Plaintiff, and Plaintiff had received no disciplinary action in connection with the
incident.
17.

Both DOC Deputy Director Kim Brockamp and Oregon State Police

Superintendent Rich Evans had advised Defendant Peters that further investigation into
Plaintiffs 2014 statement regarding the K-9 handler unit was not warranted. Nevertheless,
Defendant Peters persisted in her efforts to find a way to oust Plaintiff.
18.

Defendant DOCs investigation, ordered by Defendant Peters, began on June 12,

2015.
Page 4 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

19.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 5 of 16

Martin Imhoff, a low-ranking DOC Human Resources employee, conducted the

investigation.
20.

DOC assigned Imhoff to lead the investigation despite multiple conflicts of

interest; Imhoff was seeking a promotion to a position for which Laneythe source of the false
information that Plaintiff had repeated regarding the K-9 handler unitwas on the hiring
committee. Laney was also Imhoffs mentor at DOC and was close friends with Imhoffs direct
supervisor, Assistant Director of Human Services Chris Popoff.
21.

Almost immediately, Plaintiff became concerned about the fairness of the

investigation, and he shared those concerns with the DOC Deputy Director and other DOC
employees during the following weeks and months.
22.

On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff made a public records request for emails of Defendant

Peters and several other DOC employees, believing that the records would assist him in
revealing the baselessness of the investigation against him. After being advised that the cost of
his request was extremely high, Plaintiff made a second narrower request on August 24, 2015.
DOC never responded to the second request.
23.

On or about August 17, 2015, Laney told Plaintiff that Jeske had boasted that

Defendant Peters had planned to replace Plaintiff and appoint Jeske as Inspector General, but
that Jeske had turned down the position because it would have entailed a pay cut.
24.

Plaintiff shared this information with the DOC Deputy Director, who expressed that

Defendant Peters was very angry about the public records request that Plaintiff had made on July
31, 2015.
25.

Based on his concerns about the fairness of the ongoing investigation and

suspecting that the investigation was simply a ruse to create an opportunity for Defendant Peters

Page 5 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 6 of 16

to replace Plaintiff with one of her friends, Plaintiff filed a tort claim notice on September 3,
2015 indicating his intent to sue Defendant DOC and Defendant Peters.
26.

Also on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint with the Oregon

Government Ethics Commission. His ethics complaint detailed his concerns that, since her
appointment as DOC Director, Defendant Peters had engaged in a pattern and practice of
removing employees from their positions and appointing her friends who were not the most
qualified candidates.
27.

Also on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff and his then-attorney met with Deputy

Attorney General Fred Boss regarding Plaintiffs concerns that the investigation was a sham.
Plaintiff also advised Boss about his concerns regarding the investigators conflicts of interest,
and called attention to Defendant Peters pattern and practice of removing DOC employees,
either by terminating them or making their working conditions intolerable, and then appointing
her friends, at times not qualified, to the vacant positions.
28.

Plaintiff requested that Deputy Attorney General Boss conduct an independent

investigation into the allegations against Plaintiff, the conflict of interest in the investigation,
Defendant Peters statement to Jeske about appointing him Inspector General, and other conduct
by Peters that raised ethics concerns.
29.

Upon information and belief, Boss did not attempt any investigation, and instead

shared Plaintiffs complaint with Defendant Peters.


30.

Less than three weeks later, DOC Spokesperson Liz Craig, acting at the direction

of Defendant Peters, revealed to the press that Plaintiff was under investigation by the DOCs
human resources department. At no point did Defendant Peters or Defendant DOC offer
Plaintiff a name-clearing hearing regarding the human resources investigation.

Page 6 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

31.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 7 of 16

On or about October 19, 2015, Imhoff completed his investigation report, which

contained no findings of wrongdoing by Plaintiff or recommendations for discipline against him.


32.

That same day, Defendant Peters sent Plaintiff a termination letter in which she

offered to let Plaintiff work for three more months on a project assignment if, among other
things, he agreed to withdraw the tort claim notice and releaseall claims.
33.

Defendant Peters offered no explanation as to the reason for Plaintiffs

termination, other than she was making a change in leadership.


34.

Plaintiff refused to release his claims.

35.

On October 23, 2015, Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment.

36.

On or about October 27, 2015, Defendant DOC released to The Oregonian all

documents and email exchanges related to the human resources investigation without any notice
to Plaintiff or opportunity to clear his name before his reputation was publicly damaged. In a
statement to The Oregonian, DOC Spokesperson Craig said that [t]he human resources
investigation recently completed factored in to the decision to terminate Plaintiff, but was not
the only factor.
37.

Plaintiff was never told the reason for his termination.

38.

On account of the unlawful actions of defendants, Plaintiff has suffered economic

damages as well as embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,


inconvenience, and damage to his personal reputation.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983Deprivation of First Amendment Rights
Against Defendant Peters in her Personal Capacity
39.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 38.

Page 7 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

40.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 8 of 16

At all materials times, Defendant Peters was acting within the course and scope of

her role as Director of DOC and under color of state law.


41.

Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment right to free speech when he issued a tort

claim notice, filed an ethics complaint regarding Defendant Peters conduct, and reported
Defendant Peters conduct to the Deputy Attorney General.
42.

In exercising his right to free speech, Plaintiff spoke as a citizen and not as part of

his official duties.


43.

Plaintiffs speech was on a matter of public concern.

44.

Defendant Peters took an adverse action against Plaintiff when she terminated or

caused Defendant DOC to terminate his employment.


45.

Plaintiffs speech was a substantial or motivating factor for his termination.

46.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiffs First

Amendment right by terminating or causing Defendant DOC to terminate his employment in


retaliation for his protected speech.
47.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Peters unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in the form of lost income and benefits, in an amount to
be determined at trial.
48.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Peters unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,


inconvenience, and damage to his professional reputation and is entitled to an award of
compensatory damages in the amount of not less than $750,000.
49.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendant Peters acted

with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs federally
protected rights.
Page 8 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

50.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 9 of 16

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable

attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.


SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due
Process
Against Defendant Peters in her Personal Capacity
51.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 50.
52.

At all materials times, Defendant Peters was acting within the course and scope of

her role as Director of DOC and under color of state law.


53.

Plaintiff has a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States to be free from false charges made under color of
state law which involve or imply malfeasance in office, or which adversely reflect upon or
damage Plaintiffs standing and ability to obtain gainful employment in his field, or damage his
career and his future in his profession.
54.

In or about September 2015, Defendant Peters, acting on her own and through her

subordinates, caused information to be disseminated to members of the press and public at large
indicating that Plaintiff was under investigation and would soon be terminated, falsely implying
that Plaintiff had committed malfeasance in office. Defendant Peters refused to offer Plaintiff
adequate due process to clear his name.
55.

In or about October 2015, Defendant Peters, acting on her own and through her

subordinates, caused information to be disseminated to members of the press and public at large
falsely suggesting that Plaintiff had been terminated as a result of the investigation and falsely
implying that Plaintiff had committed malfeasance in office. Defendant Peters refused to offer
Plaintiff adequate due process to clear his name.

Page 9 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

56.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 10 of 16

Defendant Peters conduct adversely reflected on and damaged Plaintiffs

reputation and standing.


57.

Defendant Peters conduct rendered Plaintiff unable to continue to work in his

chosen occupation.
58.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiffs

constitutional liberty right to due process.


59.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peters unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in the form of lost income and benefits, in an amount to
be determined at trial.
60.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peters unconstitutional conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,


inconvenience, and damage to his professional reputation and is entitled to an award of
compensatory damages in the amount of $750,000.
61.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendant Peters acted

with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs federally
protected rights.
62.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable

attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.


THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of ORS 659A.203Retaliation Against a Public Employee for Whistleblowing
Against Defendant DOC
63.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 above.

64.

Defendant DOC is a public employer.

65.

By issuing a tort claim notice, filing an ethics complaint, and reporting Defendant

Peters conduct to the Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information that
Page 10 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 11 of 16

he reasonably believed was evidence that defendants violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations, including but not limited to the Oregon Government Ethics Law, ORS Chapter 244,
and/or that defendants engaged in mismanagement or abuse of authority.
66.

Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated

his employment.
67.

Defendant DOCs termination of Plaintiffs employment was because of

Plaintiffs protected activity. Defendant DOCs termination of Plaintiffs employment is the


type of conduct that reasonably would be expected to discourage or dissuade a public employee
from challenging violations of law.
68.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory

right to report conduct he reasonably believed violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations and/or constituted mismanagement or abuse of authority.
69.

Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive and equitable relief that may be appropriate,

including but not limited to reinstatement.


70.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and outof-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the statutory
rate of 9% per annum.
71.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
72.

Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his

reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and
Page 11 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 12 of 16

ORS 20.107.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of ORS 659A.230Discrimination for Initiating Civil Proceedings
Against Defendant DOC
73.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72

74.

Plaintiff, in good faith, initiated a civil proceeding against defendants on

above.

September 3, 2015 when he filed an official tort claims notice and a complaint with the Oregon
Government Ethics Commission outlining his complaints.
75.

Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated

his employment.
76.

Defendant DOCs termination of Plaintiffs employment was because of

Plaintiffs protected activity.


77.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory

right to initiate civil proceedings.


78.

Plaintiff is entitled to all appropriate injunctive and equitable relief.

79.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest
thereon at the statutory rate of 9% per annum.
80.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
81.

Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his

reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and
Page 12 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 13 of 16

ORS 20.107.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of ORS 659A.199Retaliation for Whistleblowing
Against Defendant DOC
82.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 81 above.

83.

By issuing a tort claim notice, filing an ethics complaint, and reporting defendant

Peters conduct to the Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information that
he believed was evidence that defendants violated one or more state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations, including but not limited to the Oregon Government Ethics Law, ORS Chapter 244.
84.

Plaintiff acted in good faith in reporting the violations.

85.

Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated

his employment.
86.

Defendant DOCs termination of Plaintiffs employment was because of

Plaintiffs reports or disclosures.


87.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory

right to report conduct he reasonably believed violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations.
88.

Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive and equitable relief that may be appropriate,

including but not limited to reinstatement.


89.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and outof-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the statutory
rate of 9% per annum.
90.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
Page 13 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 14 of 16

degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an


amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
91.

Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his

reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and
ORS 20.107.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Wrongful Discharge
Against Defendant DOC
92.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 91

93.

Defendant DOC engaged in actions, including terminating Plaintiffs

above.

employment, designed to discourage Plaintiffs protected activity and motivated in substantial


part by Plaintiffs decision to engage in protected activity as described above and by Defendant
Peters desire to replace Plaintiff with one of her personal friends. Terminating Plaintiff for any
or all of these reasons was wrongful and in violation of public policy.
94.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and outof-pocket expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest.
95.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOCs actions alleged herein,

Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.

On Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief, against Defendant Peters:


a. A declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiffs First Amendment

Page 14 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 15 of 16

right to free speech;


b. An award of economic damages for past and future lost wages and benefits
and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. An award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $750,000;
d. Punitive damages; and
e. Plaintiffs attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.
2.

On Plaintiffs Second Claim for Relief:


a. A declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiffs constitutional liberty
interest in due process;
b. An award of economic damages for past and future lost wages and benefits
and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. An award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $750,000;
d. Punitive damages; and
e. Plaintiffs attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.

3.

On Plaintiffs Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief:


a. A declaration that Defendant DOC violated Plaintiffs statutory rights;
b. All appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, including but not limited to
reinstatement;
c. An award of economic damages for backpay, front pay, lost benefits, and
out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
d. An award of noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
but not less than $750,000;
e. An award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum; and
f. Plaintiffs attorneys fees, expert fees and costs incurred herein.

Page 15 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

4.

Document 1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 16 of 16

On Plaintiffs Sixth Claim for Relief:


a. A declaration that Defendant DOC violated Oregon law by terminating
Plaintiffs employment in violation of public policy;
b. All appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, including but not limited to
reinstatement;
c. An award of economic damages for backpay, front pay, lost benefits, and
out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial; and
d. An award of noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
but not less than $750,000.

5.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2016.


BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL
& SULLIVAN LLP
s/ Andrew Altschul
Andrew Altschul, OSB No.980302
E-mail: andrew@baaslaw.com
Angela M. Ferrer, OSB No. 140814
E-mail: angela@baaslaw.com
Telephone: (503) 974-5028
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Page 16 - COMPLAINT

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC
~S

Document 1-1

Filed 05/05/16

Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

44 (Rev. 12107)

The JS 44 civtl cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requtred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose ofmitiating
the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

(a)

I.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS
LEONARD WILLIAMSON

(b)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and COLLETTE


PETERS

County of Residence ofFtrst Listed Plaintiff

..:.M:.:.::a:.:.rio;;.:.:.n_ _ _ _ _ __

County of Residence of Ftrst Listed Defendant


(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(EXCEPT IN U S PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES , USE THE LOCATION OF THE


LAND INVOLVED
Attorneys (If Known)

(C) Attorney ' s (Finn Name, Address, and TeleJlhone Number)

Andrew Altschul, Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP,

321

II.

0 2

IV

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
0

600,

BASIS OF JURISDICTION

0 I

0
0
0
0
0

SW Fourth Street, Ste.

Portland OR

97204, 503/974-5023

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

U.S. Go,emment
Plaintiff

1!!1 3 Federal Questoon

U.S Government
Defendant

0 4 Divmity

(U.S Government Not a Party)

Citizen of Another State

I 10 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
I 50 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement ofJudgment
I 5 I Medicare Act
I 52 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excl. Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liabolity
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

!.!!:
0
0
0
0
0

V. ORI G I N
Original
Proceeding

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers '
Liability
340 Marine
34 5 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
ln'urv
CIVIL RIGHTS
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
444 Welfare
445 Amer. w/DisabilitiesEmployment
446 Amer. w/DisabilitiesOther
440 Other Civil Rights

(Place an ''X" in One Box Only)


Removed from
0
State Court

Incorporated om/ Principal Place


of Business In Another State

1!!1 5

0 3

Foreign Nation

0 6

PERSONA L INJ URY


0 362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice
0 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
0 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
Ha beas Corp us:
0 530 General
0 535 Death Penalty
0 540 Mandamus & Other
0 550 Civil Rights
0 555 Prison Condition

Remanded from
Appellate Court

0 4

[,Jf 0 RFEITUREIPENAI:.TYl."

BANKRUPTCY

0 610 Agriculture
0 620 Other Food & Drug
0 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
0 630 Liquor Laws
0 640 R.R. & Truck
0 650 Airline Regs.
0 660 Occupational
Safety/Health
0 690 Other

0 422 Appeal28 USC 158


0 423 Withdrawal
28 usc 157

0 710 Fair Labor Standards


Act
0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
0 730 Labori!lllgmt.Reporting
& Disclosure Act
0 740 Railway Labor Act
0 790 Other Labor Litigation
0 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

0
0
0
0
0

' 'RIG HTS


0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark

SOCIA L
861 HIA (1395fl)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERA L TAX SUITS
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
0 871 IRS- Third Party
26 usc 7609

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IMMIGRATION,<:
0 462 Naturalization Application
0 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee
0 465 Other Immigration
Actions

Reinstated or
Reopened

OTHER STA'I'UTES

0
0
0
0
0
0

Transferred from 0 6 Multtdistrict


another dtstnct
Littgatton
s ectf
Cite the US Ctvil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

0 2

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

~r

400 State Reapponoonment


410 An to trust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
4 70 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
810 Selective Service
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
875 Customer Challenge
12 usc 3410
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
892 Economic Stabilization Act
893 Environmental Matters
894 Energy Allocation Act
895 Freedom oflnfonnntoon
Act
900Appeal of Fee Detennination
Under Equal Access
to Justoce
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

0 7

Appeal to District
Judge from
Magistrate
Jud ment

i-::::!4=2~~~.!.-'1~3~_V!.,!i~ol!.!i:!a~tio:!,!n.!.,;o~f'-!.F...!lir~s.l-'tA~m~el.l:nd~m.:.:;e~n.:.:.t~a~n~d..l:D:.l:u~
e'-!.P..:.ro=~s.!.Rl.!.:i:l.i.h~ts~------------CHECK YES only if demanded in complatnt

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER F .R C .P. 23

COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF

0 2

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

N A TURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Onlvl


TORTS
CONTRACT

~I

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIESCPiace an "X" in one Box for PiaintoiT


(For Di\ ersity Cases Only)
and One Box for Defendant)
DEF
PTF
PTF
DEF
Cotizen ofThis State
0 I
0 I Incorporated or Principal Place
0 4
0 4
of Business In This State

ANY

JURY DEMAND:

lilf Yes

0 No

(See onstructions).

DATE

05/05/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

------

AMOUNT

--------

APPLYING IFP

-------

JUDGE

MAG J DGE

---------

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1-2

Filed 05/05/16

Page 1 of 2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the

District
of Oregon
__________
District
of __________
LEONARD WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff(s)

v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an
Oregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an
individual, in her personal capacity,
Defendant(s)

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

Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00783

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION


To: (Defendants name and address) Oregon Department of Corrections

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 you
are 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 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Andrew Altschul
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

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

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1-2

Filed 05/05/16

Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00783


PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)


on (date)

; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1-3

Filed 05/05/16

Page 1 of 2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the

District
of Oregon
__________
District
of __________
LEONARD WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff(s)

v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an
Oregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an
individual, in her personal capacity,
Defendant(s)

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

Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00783

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION


To: (Defendants name and address) Colette Peters

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 you
are 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 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Andrew Altschul
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

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

Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC

Document 1-3

Filed 05/05/16

Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00783


PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual)

, who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)


on (date)

; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

You might also like