?jri fi'R 3 PH 2 22media.graytvinc.com/documents/amended+complaint+of+lawsuit.pdf · ?jri fi'r 3 ph 2 22 c7er;:am cizvx caoi in the united states district court janel moore, and craig

John H. Robinson, WSB # 6-2828JAMIESON ROBINSON, LLC185 W. Broadway, Ste. 101P.O. Box 4285

Jackson, Wyoming 83001307.733.7703

307.577.9435 FAX

[email protected]

F.R. Chapman, WSB # 5-1500CHAPMAN VALDEZ & LANSING Law Offices

125 W.2"''StreetP.O. Box 2710

Casper, Wyoming 82602307.237.1983 Casper307.733-1983 Jackson

[email protected]

v.z. r:?^TR;OT couni

OF wvomims

?jri fi'R 3 PH 2 22

C7Er;:AM ciZvXCAoi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JANEL MOORE, andCRAIG HEDQUIST,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JOHN PATTERSON, andTHE CITY OF CASPER,

Defendants.

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Case No. 14-CV-045-J

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY / INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;AND FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

For their causes of action against the above defendants, the plaintiffs, JANEL MOORE

("Moore"), on behalf of herself and the citizens of Ward 2 in the City of Casper in Natrona

County, Wyoming, and CRAIG HEDQUIST ("Hedquist"), individually and as City Councilman

for Ward 2 in the City of Casper, complain and petition as follows:

Moore & Heikjiiisi v. Patlerson. el alFirst Amended Complaint

Page J of42

Case 1:14-cv-00045-ABJ Document 11 Filed 04/03/14 Page 1 of 42

INTRODUCTION

In 2012, the voters of the City of Casper's Ward 2 elected Craig Hedquist to serve as one

of their four City Council members. Before his election, and because Hedquist had been critical

of Patterson and the way the City government was being run, City Manager John Patterson held

secret meetings exploring ways to prevent Hedquist's candidacy from succeeding. Patterson has

also asked the present and previous Chiefs of the Casper Police Department to abuse their

position of authority to help Patterson find a way to get Hedquist off the City Council.

From the time of Hedquist's campaign, through his election, training and swearing in,

and continuing until August of 2013, it was well-known that Councilman Hedquist was the

principal of Hedquist Construction, Inc., a general contractor specializing in street, roadway and

infrastructure projects which has for more than a decade handled numerous contracts for the City

of Casper. At the time Hedquist was elected, his company was a party to such contracts. From

his swearing-in through August of 2013, Hedquist followed the training given to him by the City

and the Wyoming Association of Municipalities, when it came to potential conflicts of interest:

whenever a vote came up on a matter with which Hedquist had even a potential for conflict, he

abstained from voting and participation.

During the first seven months of his tenure as Councilman, despite his concurrent

management of the City projects for which his company was responsible, Hedquist's allegiance

to the City was never questioned.

But then, Hedquist confronted City Manager John Patterson about his questionable

handling of a land matter involving the Boys & Girls Club and the Natrona County School

District. It started with Patterson's passive-aggressive refiisal to allow Hedquist to be involved

Moore & Hedquist v. Patterson, et alFirst Amended Complaint

Page 2 of42


in the talks. Patterson told Hedquist he would be invited - and then scheduled and attended

secret meetings with the Boys & Girls Club without Hedquist. When Hedquist discovered

Patterson's deceit, he confronted him. In a heated discussion, Hedquist questioned Patterson

about his agenda, his character, whether he was capable of assembling and managing a

competent City Staff, and whether Patterson was worth his salary of $170,000.00.

In response, Patterson spearheaded a campaign of retaliation. His staff began secretly

recording their conversations with Hedquist. At the same time. City staff was demanding of

Hedquist's company work above and beyond the project contracts, while not meeting the City's

promise to pay for the work already done. Ultimately, Patterson's staff prodded Hedquist into a

heated exchange where Hedquist challenged the City to keep its word and pay as promised,

instead of demanding things of Hedquist Construction that the company had never promised to

do. The expletives Hedquist used during this secretly recorded exchange gave Patterson what he

wanted - grounds to attack Hedquist on any possible basis with the ultimate goal to have him

removed from the Council.

Rather than consider the context of the keep your word incident, Patterson hired a former

council member and mayor to investigate the matter to determine whether workplace violence

had occurred. Then Patterson convinced the City Council to hire another lawyer to investigate a

potential "conflict of interest." But before the City Council even approved Patterson's hiring of

second lawyer, Patterson gave that him "marching orders" to find a way to remove Hedquist

from the his elected position.

In January, Patterson filed a Petition with the City Council for Hedquist's removal from

his elected office. Not only does Patterson lack the authority to petition for Hedquist's removal


Page 3 of42


from office, a Council member may only be removed by recall election, or by following the

specific removal procedure enacted by the City Council which, in this matter, requires removal

for cause on the basis of a conviction. Patterson now claims that City Council may disregard the

conviction requirement, and remove Hedquist at his whim.

In this action, Moore and Hedquist seek this Court's Declaration that Patterson's and the

City's proposed removal proceeding is illegal and impermissible, and ask this Court to issue an

injunction to stop the City in its tracks, before Patterson inflicts any more damage to Hedquist

and the citizens ofCasper who voted for him. Hedquist also brings First Amendment Retaliation

and Due Process claims against Patterson and the City.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, as well as the

First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

2. The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Supreme

Court has described as every citizen's remedy for these types of situations: "As a result of the

new structure of law that emerged in the post-Civil War era . . . the role of the Federal

Government as guarantor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established.

Section 1983 opened the federal courts to private citizens, offering a uniquely federal remedy

against incursions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the

Constitution and laws of the Nation .... The very purpose of Section 1983 was to interpose the

federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights - to

protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law." Lynch v. Household

Finance Corp., 405 US 538, 543, n.7 (1972).


Page 4 of42


3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because some claims

arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court also has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because the case is maintained to redress the deprivation - under

color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage - of rights, privileges and

immunities secured by the Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4. This Court also has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (to the extent not grounded in federal

question jurisdiction - which they are), as those claims are so related to the claims in the action

within the original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

5. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over all Plaintiffs' claims.

Parties

6. Janel Moore ("Moore") is a resident of Ward 2 of the City of Casper, who ran for

the office of City Council member for Ward 2 along side Hedquist, and who voted for Craig

Hedquist in the 2012 election.

7. Moore brings this action on behalfofherself in her capacity as a citizen of Ward 2

of the City of Casper, and on behalf of all the citizens of Ward 2 of the City of Casper, for the

Defendants' violation of her rights as a voter.

8. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff Hedquist, was, and presently is, a duly

elected City Councilman for the City ofCasper, and resident of the state of Wyoming.

9. At all times relevant hereto. Defendant John Patterson was the City Manager for

the City of Casper. Patterson is sued in his individual and official capacities.

Moore & Hedquist v. Patterson, el alFirst Amended Complaint

Page 5 of42


10. At all times relevant hereto. Defendant City of Casper was and is a municipality,

established and incorporated in accordance with Wyoming law.

11. Each and eveiy act, error or omission, herein alleged to have been committed by

Patterson - including those unauthorized by Wyoming law as further discussed herein - were

committed within the course and scope ofthe duties of his employment with the City ofCasper.

Facts Common to Ail Causes of Action

12. Hedquist is the principal of Hedquist Construction, Inc., which for years has been

the prime contractor on numerous City ofCasper road and infrastructure projects.

13. Because in his experience with Hedquist Construction, Inc., Hedquist had

witnessed what he believed were inefficient, incompetent and wasteful practices by the City, and

because he wanted to make Casper City government more competent and fiscally responsible,

Hedquist decided to run for City Council for Ward 2 in the City of Casper.

14. Before August of 2012, Hedquist met with Patterson in the capacity as the

principal for Hedquist Construction, Inc., during which Hedquist told Patterson he believed that

the City, including its Engineering department, was staffed with some incompetent employees

who were wasting the tax payers' money.

15. One of Hedquist's opponents in Ward 2 was Plaintiff Moore, who announced her

candidacy for one ofWard 2's council seats on May 29,2012.

16. After announcing his candidacy, Hedquist published his campaign platform in a

letter to voters in his Ward, in which he proclaimed:

Hi, my name is Craig Hedquist and I'm, running for Casper City Council in WardII. Why am I running? Simple, I'm a local business owner who's tired ofwatching how our government operates.


Page 6 of42


Like many of you, I've complained about the inefficiencies, policies and seeminglack of "common sense" in our government but until now, I haven't stepped upand into the fray! Again, like many of you, I am very unhappy with nationalpolitics but to be honest, it seems to me it is time to "clean our own porch" beforewe lecture the neighbors about "their weeds".

So if you are tired, fed up, angry or just confused by your local government andits haphazard policies (or lack of), please don't re-elect the same ones who havefailed already.

So, who am I? I am a father of four (all grown), husband of 30 years and proudgrandfather of one. But more important to this election and why I am asking foryour vote: I am the managing owner of Hedquist Construction, a locally-headquartered business (which I have been blessed with by my father, to whom Igive all credit). This private sector business experience affords me someadvantageous financial and business skills. I can balance a check book and dealwith real numbers and actual costs.

And for the record, regardless of what the government thinks, "We Built ThisBusiness", not them.

Please vote August 21^* and again November 6^.

Thank you and God Bless.

Craig P. Hedquist

17. Hedquist also sent the foregoing letter to the Casper Star Tribune, which

published it.

18. On August 21, 2012, both Hedquist and Moore, along with other candidates,

prevailed in the primary election to be certified as candidates for the four positions open for

Ward 2 for the City Council for Casper.

19. On information and belief, before November of 2012, Patterson and one or more

council members met with private citizens at private location or locations, on at least one

occasion, where they discussed how to prevent Hedquist from being elected.


Page 7 of42


20. Between August 21 and November 6, 2012, Patterson and Mayor Kenyene

Schlager, and other council member(s), held meetings with individual candidates for City

Council, including Moore and Hedquist.

21. Some or all of the meetings referenced in the preceding paragraph occurred at the

Metro coffee shop in Casper, where Patterson would often offer to pay the bill for the candidates.

22. These meetings at the Metro coffee shop were never announced as public

business.

23. At these Metro coffee shop meetings, Patterson and the council members present

would give each candidate the Casper 2012 City Council Handbook.

24. Moore's meeting at the Metro included Patterson, Schlager and Paul Meyer, and

although Patterson offered to pay for Moore's coffee, she refused his offer.

25. During Moore's meeting, Patterson and Schlager gave Moore advice about how to

"get along" as a council member if she were to be elected in the general election, and they

discussed ethics and conflicts of interest.

26. During Moore's meeting Patterson announced that, as a candidate for City

Council, Hedquist had a conflict of interest because of his position with Hedquist Construction,

Inc., and he asked Moore what she thought about that.

27. Moore told the group she did not see Hedquist as having such a conflict, after

which Mayor Schlager said she also did not believe Hedquist had a conflict as long as he

abstained from voting on matters involving his company.

28. Meyer agreed as well, that Hedquist did not have a conflict of interest.


Page 8 of42


29. Hedquist's meeting at the Metro also occurred with Patterson, Schlager and

Meyer. During that meeting, Patterson asked Hedquist what he had been hearing from the

people of Casper and Hedquist told the group that he had not found a single person who was in

favor spending money on the proposed downtown convention center, nor the City's decision to

purchase a new fleet of police cars, both of which were measures Patterson had touted as

beneficial for the City.

30. Between the primary election and the general election, Patterson told Hedquist

that others had concerns about whether Hedquist had a conflict of interest that would prevent

him from serving as a City Councilman, due to his position with Hedquist Construction, Inc., and

the projects it had with the City of Casper.

31. In response, Hedquist told Patterson that he had considered such potential, but

believed he had no conflict so long as he abstained from matters involving his company. At that

time, Patterson told Hedquist that he agreed with Hedquist, and that the "conflict" concerns were

those of others, not Patterson or the City.

32. After the election, Hedquist and other individuals elected to be on the City

Council, received training which instructed them that they needed to abstain from voting on, and

remove themselves from discussing, any matter that might have a personal or financial impact on

the council member or his or her immediate family.

33. At the time Hedquist was elected, Hedquist Construction, Inc., was the general

contractor on multiple projects for the City of Casper.

34. After being swom-in as a City Councilman, the projects on which Hedquist

Construction, Inc. was the general contractor, as well as new projects ultimately awarded to


Page 9 of42


Hedquist Construction, Inc., occasionally came up for discussion or vote. On each such

occasion, Hedquist removed himself from any discussion and abstained from any participation or

vote.

35. Between the general election and August 26,2013, no one in the City government

questioned Hedquist about his allegiance to the City, or whether he had a conflict due to his

interest in Hedquist Construction, Inc.

36. After the general election, on more than on occasion Hedquist candidly expressed

concerns about the competence of City staff and the manner in which the City was spending the

taxpayers' money, including his continued criticism of the proposed downtown convention

center, and the City's decision to purchase a new fleet ofpolice cars.

37. In early August, 2013, Hedquist was contacted by a Boys & Girls Club employee

who had concerns about the manner in which Patterson was handling a land matter involving the

Boys & Girls Club and the Natrona County School District.

38. Because Hedquist was concerned that the matter might unfold in a manner that

could leave the City in a negative light, he approached Patterson.

39. Patterson told Hedquist he would include Hedquist in any future meetings or

discussions with the Boys & Girls Club, but then scheduled and attended a meeting or meetings

without advising, or inviting, Hedquist.

40. When the Boys & Girls Club employee disclosed to Hedquist that Patterson had

scheduled and attended another meeting without Hedquist, as a concerned council member,

Hedquist confronted Patterson.


Page 10 of42


41. The confrontation became heated when Hedquist questioned Patterson about his

agenda, his character, whether he was capable of assembling and managing a competent City

Staff, and finally, whether Patterson was worth his salary of $170,000.00.

42. On information and belief, sometime before Casper Police Chief Chris Walsh

retired from the City of Casper Police Department, Patterson asked if Walsh would install a

surveillance system in the City Council locker / coat room that would surreptitiously record

audio and/or video of occurrences in that room.

43. On information and belief, Patterson explained to Chief Walsh that he believed if

the surveillance system could be installed, they could catch Hedquist doing something that could

compromise his position as a council member.

44. On information and belief, Walsh verified Patterson's request in an Email

message.

45. On information and belief, Walsh told Patterson he thought it could be illegal to

do what Patterson was suggesting, and refused to install the surveillance system.

46. Around this same time, Patterson's City staff began secretly recording

conversations with Hedquist, sometimes engaging in arguments with Hedquist during project

meetings.

47. These meetings, where Hedquist was being secretly recorded, occurred at a time

when the City was delinquent in its contractual financial obligations to Hedquist's company, and

simultaneously while City engineers were demanding performance above and beyond the

contract specifications while acting as if they were the Project Engineer, when that role was

Moore & Hedquist i'. Patterson, et alFirst Amended Complaint

Page 11 of42


contractually agreed to be handled by an independent Engineering Firm, Casper's C.E.P.L Staff

demanded performance above and beyond the project contracts.

48. On August 27, 2013, Hedquist and legal counsel for Hedquist Construction, Inc.,

attended a meeting with Patterson the Mayor, and the City Attorney.

49. At this meeting, they discussed the City's delinquency in paying Hedquist

Construction, Inc., which the City Manager acknowledged should have already been paid.

50. Additionally, at this meeting, Hedquist questioned the City's engineering

department's handling of certain projects, including that department's requests that Hedquist

Construction, Inc. perform tasks not agreed to in the parties' contract.

51. Additionally, at the August 27, 2013 meeting, the City Attorney raised the

question of whether Hedquist had a conflict of interest in his role as council member and

president of Hedquist Construction, Inc., which was the first time anyone with the City had

raised such a concern with Hedquist since the 2012 general election.

52. The following day, August 28, 2013, Patterson's staff prodded Hedquist into a

heated exchange during a project meeting, during which Hedquist challenged the City to keep its

word and pay his company as promised, instead of demanding things of Hedquist Construction it

had never promised to do.

53. The conversation referenced in the preceding paragraph ("keep your word

incident") was secretly recorded by at least one City employee.

54. During the keep your word incident on August 28, 2013, the following exchanges

were captured on Andrew Beamer's hidden recording device:

Beamer: Looks like you've about got Poplar licked, huh?


Page 12 of42


Hedquist: Yep.

Beamer: That's good. When do you think you're going to open it up?

Hedquist: I won't open it until the 14 days is up.

Beamer: Oh, is that right?

Hedquist: Yep. That's the contract, ain't it?

Beamer: A maximum of 14 days.

Hedquist: Yeah, so we'll take the max.

* * *

Hedquist: Okay. Before the meeting starts - make sure everybody hears this,because this is -1 was told it's important.

My name is Craig Hedquist. I'm the owner of Hedquist Construction. And I amspeaking as a contractor on this job. I'm not speaking in any other form or capacity that Ihave in the city council. Okay?

So what I want to do on this meeting, we'll talk whatever CPU - whatever they need todiscuss. And then I would like to have a meeting with just us three after to discuss otherstuff.

* * *

Beamer:

Hedquist:

Beamer:

curb/walk?

So Jim's jumping right from here over to39^ Street?

Yeah.

Okay. And then your concrete diamonds around your valves, manholes.

Hedquist: Well, first thing is, there's no item for manholes. So we will do the valveboxes and curb/walk and have them done in the next 14 days.

Beamer: You got to bring the manholes up to grade.

Hedquist: There's no item for it.

Beamer: Still got to be bring them up to grade. You can't bury manholes.


Page 13 of42


Hedquist: There's no item, so if you want to execute a change order, I guess we can- we can do that. There's no item for it So that's just got to be-

Unidentified Speaker: [unintelligible] manholes here?

Hedquist: But there's no item for it, so - just like there's no item for the striping.

Beamer: I don't believe you striped. Did you stripe Poplar Street?

Hedquist: But that's what I mean. You can't just say it has to be done. Somebodyhas to do it, I agree, but...

Larsen: How many manholes do we have here?

Hedquist: I don't know.

Francis: Two, three - three sanitaries, three or four phone - four - four sanitaries,

Larsen: We'll discuss how we want to handle that then after this, I guess.

Beamer: Okay.

Larsen: Doing all the sidewalk and curb and gutter at the same time as the valvediamonds?

Hedquist: We'll go down and do the diamonds (unintelligible).

Larsen: That all has to be done as part of this before you open up Coff - or closeCoffman Street.

Hedquist: Yeah, I know. You guys' side of the contract matters, not the part youhave to fulfill. I got it.

***

Beamer: You'll be close to being ready to tie in down there right by the alley?

Francis: Yeah. I'll be ready to set my plug and -

City Employee: So you can - can you bring up that service for that gas station?

Francis: Fora-


Page 14 of42


City Employee: Test

Francis: - test

City Employee: They just put one here and here.

Francis: That shouldn't be a [problem]. Yes, I can. But you see what I'm sayingabout the 16-inch valve -1 mean, it's at the return. My tractor is 30-feet long to dig thatditch. I'm going to have to be in Coffman to get 16-inch tested.

Beamer: I guess you better get Poplar Street open.

Hedquist: You guys going to start paying on time?

Beamer: We've already had this discussion, but -

Hedquist: Oh no. You fucking going to stand up, bitch? Are you going to startpaying?

Beamer: What did you say?

Hedquist: You heard me.

Beamer: I did hear you.

Hedquist: Yeah. Yeah. The only part of the contract that you even comprehend isthe side that I have to -

Beamer: That's not true, Craig.

Hedquist: Yeah.

Beamer: But, you know, we can have this discussion another time.

Hedquist: We will have this discussion, I promise you.

Beamer: I'm sure we will.

Hedquist: Yeah.

Beamer: I guess we may as well just have our private conversation now, if that'swhat you want, a private conversation.

Hedquist: Yeah. Let's have it.


Page 15 of42


Beamer: Okay.

55. Rather than consider the entire context of this encounter, and the apparent

meaning of Hedquist's secretly recorded words, Patterson and the City hired an attorney, who is

a former Mayor and council member, Kathleen Dixon (the "keep your word investigator"), to

investigate the incident to determine whether "workplace violence" had occurred.

56. The City and/or Patterson gave the keep your word investigator the secret audio

recording(s) of the keep your word incident.

57. The City and/or Patterson also gave the keep your word investigator other

materials, including written statements and documents concerning what had occurred.

58. At the keep your word investigator's request, on September 10, 2013, Hedquist

submitted toan interview about the August 28^ incident.

59. During the interview referenced in the preceding paragraph, Hedquist was asked

what he recalled about the incident.

60. At the time of the interview, the investigator did not tell Hedquist that the

argument had been recorded, that she had possession of the recording, nor did she give Hedquist

the opportunity to listen to the recording before she interrogated him about what had occurred.

61. Hedquist provided the keep your word investigator with his best recollection of

what had occurred.

62. At no time before the keep your word investigator arrived at her conclusions, was

Hedquist advised that the conversations had been recorded, nor was he allowed to listen to such

recordings.


Page 16 of42


63. On September 20, 2013, the keep your word investigator delivered her final

report, unsurprisingly concluding that Beamer's allegation of workplace violence against

Hedquist had been substantiated.

64. Two days before the workplace violence report issued, on September 18, 2013,

Patterson asked the City Council to appropriate money to hire the same attorney - Dixon - to

begin an investigation into whether Hedquist had a "conflict of interest" that neither Patterson,

nor the City, had never raised with Councilman Hedquist before Hedquist confronted Patterson

about his salary, his capability to lead the City's staff, or his staffs competence to do their jobs.

65. The City Council obliged Patterson and appropriated the funds.

66. Subsequently, Dixon withdrew and the City sought to hire attorney Wes Reeves

(the "conflict investigator") to conduct the "conflict" investigation.

67. When news of the decision to seek Reeves was released, on October 24, 2013,

Reeves was on vacation, to return November 1, 2013.

68. Sometime between October 24 and November 1, 2013, and before the City

Council voted to hire Reeves, Patterson communicated with Reeves about the proposed

investigation and told Reeves to find a way to remove Hedquist from his elected office.

69. On November 1, 2013, and still before the City Council had approved his hiring

as the conflict investigator. Reeves attended a meeting with Hedquist's legal counsel during

which he said that although he had not started his investigation, he had been given "marching

orders" from Patterson to find a way to remove Hedquist from the City Council.

70. On December 10, 2013, Reeves wrote in a letter to Patterson that he had found

"clear and convincing" evidence that Hedquist had violated conflict of interest rules, and


Page 17 of42


recommended that a contested case be commenced so that the City Council could "deliberate on

these issues" and "consider remedial measures."

71. Other than a general reference to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, the

December 10,2013 letter did not provide specific authority explaining how such a contested case

could be commenced, or by whom it may be commenced.

72. On December 23, 2013, Patterson spoke to the media about the August 28*^

confi*ontation between Hedquist and Beamer, and concerning Hedquist's same-day media

statement that he was regretful for using "course" words, offered the following: "I listened to the

tape and it was much more than course. It was threatening, as substantiated in the investigation."

73. On December 23, 2013, Patterson also gave the media his version about why the

conflict of interest investigation was commenced: "August 28^ crystallized our thinking and

made it much clearer and caused all of us to reflect upon our interactions with Craig for the

previous eight months. August 28^ brought those to light."

74. Finally, on whether the City conducts business in a transparent fashion, Patterson

stated during his December 23, 2013 media comments: "Everything we do is in the public view,

everything we do is in the sunshine. Our records books are open, always. There is complete

disclosure, complete transparency of information."

75. While making these public statements about Hedquist, at no time did Patterson or

the City disclose that Hedquist's alleged transgressions over work place violence or conflict of

interest were being questioned after Hedquist challenged the competence of City staff,

Patterson's salary and how the City was spending the taxpayers' money.


Page 18 of42


76. Relying upon the conflict investigator's "marching orders" conclusion, on

January 17, 2013, and five months after Patterson's competence and salary were called into

question by Hedquist, Patterson petitioned the City Council to remove Hedquist from office.

Ex. 1, Petition for Removal from Office or Other Remedies and Notice of Contested Case Rights

and Procedures.

77. Patterson's Petition did not cite to, nor explain, his authority to ask Council to

remove Hedquist fi-om office.

78. Patterson and the City should have followed the law to let the voters, or

prosecutors, determine Hedquist's fate.

79. Instead, Patterson determined he had the final authority to do what he wanted to

do - remove Hedquist from office.

80. The City Council hired Evanston attorney Sharon Rose to be the hearing officer

presiding over Patterson's contested case hearing to remove Hedquist from office.

81. On February 5, 2014, Hedquist moved to dismiss the petition. See Motion to

Dismiss, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

82. On Februaiy 18, 2014, Hedquist's counsel received a call from Hearing Officer

Rose, announcing that a meeting would occur within minutes, during which she would meet with

City Council and the Mayor to discuss the proceedings.

83. During the call referenced in the preceding paragraph. Hearing Officer Rose

announced that the meeting would occur as part of an executive session of the City Council, and

thus, would not be recorded, in any fashion.


Page 19 of42


84. The unreported/unrecorded meeting between Hearing Officer Rose and the City

Council occurred.

85. The following day, February 19, 2014, Patterson announced, through the media,

that he had spoken with Hearing Officer Rose - apparently outside the presence of Hedquist's

counsel - and Rose advised him that the meeting was not an executive session of the Council,

but rather a session of the City Council as a "hearing body".

86. On February 24, Patterson through counsel filed his Response to the Motion to

Dismiss, in which he argued that the word "conviction" means something other than "a criminal

conviction in a court of law" - which he claimed was "too narrow" - instead urging the hearing

officer to adopt his "commonsense" interpretation of the word, and thus understand "conviction"

to include a finding of "actual violation" by the City Counsel. Ex, 3, Response to Councilman

Hedquist's Motion to Dismiss, at 3.

87. The word "conviction" is not defined in the City ordinances as being something

other than conviction of a crime.

88. On February 24, Patterson transmitted to the City Council - the hearing body -

his attorney's Response the motion to dismiss, stating to the City Council:

Mayor and Council,

This document has been crafted by Wes Reeves. It addresses the ability in law tomove forward as a City (City Council) with the Contested Case Hearing onCouncilman Hedquist's alleged conflict of interest issues. Thank you.

John

89. Patterson did not copy Hedquist's counsel with this message to the hearing body.

Moore & Hedquist v. Patterson, ef a!First Amended Complaint

Page 20 of42


90. During this same time frame, in Februaiy of 2014, the City was in the process of

hiring a new Chief ofPolice in the wake of former Chief Walsh's retirement.

91. During the application process for the newly opened Chief of Police position,

various applicants were interviewed by Patterson about their applications.

92. During the hiring process, Patterson wished to hire a police chief who would

support his agenda to have Hedquist removed from the City Council.

93. On information and belief, during these interviews, instead of asking each

applicant extensive questions about their law enforcement history, or their plans for the

department, Patterson spent time inquiring of each applicant about their thoughts and feelings on

the ongoing dispute with Hedquist.

94. Ultimately on February 28, 2014, Patterson appointed Sergeant Jim Wetzel of the

Casper Police Department, to the position of Chief of Police for the City of Casper. This

promotion was significant for Wetzel, as he was essentially promoted three levels in the

department.

95. On Februaiy 24, 2013, and without waiving and specifically preserving his

objection to the proceedings as being illegal and beyond the scope of authority granted to the

City Manager and City Council, Hedquist began participating in discoveiy in the underlying

contested case.

96. Such discoveiy, however, will be limited and will not permit him to discover

much; for instance, Hedquist will not be permitted to depose the City Manager, who has been a

key figure in bringing this unconstitutional and illegal proceeding.

Moore & Hedquist v. Patterson, et a!First Amended Complaint

Page 21 of42


97. On information and belief, on or around March 4, 2014, Patterson discussed the

Hedquist matter with Wetzel, asking him if it was lawful for the Chief to run a license plate

through the various databases at the disposal of the Police Department to determine the owner of

a vehicle.

98. On information and belief, when Wetzel asked Patterson the reason for the search,

Patterson explained that it was related to Hedquist as there was a belief by some members of the

City Council that Hedquist was no longer living in his ward, and wanted to run the license plates

of a pickup truck outside of a home to determine whether or not Hedquist was indeed living

outside ofhis ward.

99. On information and belief, Chief Wetzel explained that because the search was

not for law enforcement purposes it would not be proper to run the license plates through the

federal database, as each search in that database has to be documented with a law enforcement

purpose, but that it might be okay to run the search through the local databases the Police

Department had at its disposal.

100. On information and belief, Patterson then gave Chief Wetzel the license plate

number and a description of the vehicle he wanted run through the database, and explained that

he hoped the search would not get them into trouble.

101. On information and belief, Patterson and Wetzel subsequently discussed the

license plate search again, and Patterson told Wetzel to give him the information verbally, rather

than via Email, to eliminate a paper trail concerning the request.

102. On information and belief, Patterson also told Wetzel that because Hedquist was

looking at everything Patterson was doing, they needed to ensure they are squeaky clean, after


Page 22 of42


which Wetzel told Patterson that the "juice" would not be worth the "squeeze" and that there

were better avenues for Patterson to take to find out the license plate information.

103. On information and belief, Patterson also told Wetzel that the City Council held

an executive session with its attorney, Judy Studer, the previous night concerning Hedquist, and

that he had heard from multiple council members that much of the meeting was spent convincing

Councilman Keith Goodenough that he needed to get on board with their attempts to remove

Hedquist from the Council.

104. On information and belief, Patterson also told Wetzel that he had spoken with

community members about Patterson's knowledge of the planned retirement of certain police

department officers, explaining that he had some suggestions as to former officers who had left

the force that were now interested in returning due to the installation of Chief Wetzel, and that it

would be good if these individuals were reinstated in the department.

105. During these discussions, Patterson told Wetzel that Hedquist hates law

enforcement, hated former Chief Walsh for no apparent reason, and that Hedquist is an

indiscriminatory hater, hating all in local government.

106. On March 12, 2014, Hearing Officer Rose recommended that the City Council

dismiss Patterson's Petition, relying upon Hedquist's interpretation of the word "conviction" and

determining that no such underlying conviction had been obtained and thus, the Council had no

basis for removal under the authority Patterson had recommended be utilized for Hedquist's

removal from office.

107. On the same date, March 12, 2014, Rose stayed all discovery in the contested case

matter.


Page 23 of42


108. To date, the City Council has not taken official action upon Rose's

recommendation, and have heard argument from Patterson's counsel - Wes Reeves - that they

should move forward with the removal proceeding anyhow, as the "conviction" obstacle was a

mere technicality.

109. Furthermore, if the contested case proceeds as Patterson intends, based upon

Patterson's conduct toward Hedquist both before and after the 2012 general election, including

but not limited to the Petition filed by Patterson, what he told his counsel before the conflict

investigation began, and his other attempts to find a reason to have Hedquist removed, Hedquist

reasonably believes that Patterson will request the City Council to remove Hedquist from office

at the conclusion of any such hearing.

110. If Hedquist is removed from office by the City Council as proposed by Patterson,

it will be contrary to the will of the voters of the City of Casper's Ward 2, and it will be

irreversible - as there is no process for appeal from such a decision, nor reinstatement to elected

position to which the voters of Ward to elected him.

111. As a result of Patterson's and the City's conduct as alleged herein, if permitted to

conduct the requested contested case and remove Councilman Hedquist from office, Moore,

Hedquist and the other voters of Ward 2 of the City of Casper will suffer irreparable harm, in

that their will, as expressed during the 2012 election, will have been overcome by a City

Manager determined to see one of his detractors removed from office in a fashion that is

unconstitutional and illegal.

112. As a result of Patterson's and the City's conduct as alleged herein, as a

councilman, Hedquist has suffered and continues to suffer harm and damages, including but not


Page 24 of42


limited to the retaliation for his exercise of protected First Amendment speech upon protected

public matters, the deprivation of his fundamental interest and right in his elected office without

due process of law, incurring substantial attorneys' fees in defending against these illegal and

unconstitutional proceedings; and pain, suffering, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life, all

associated with Patterson's campaign of retaliation against Hedquist.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - Declaratory and Injunctive Relief pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983: The Proposed Contested Case Hearing and Removal of Councilman

Hedquist is Arbitrary, Unsupported by Authority, and would Violate Moore'sand Hedquist's Respective Fundamental Rights to Vote and Not be Removed

from Elected Office without Due Process of Law.

113. By this reference, Moore and Hedquist incorporate each and every foregoing

allegation.

114. Moore and Hedquist bring this cause of action as voters in Ward 2 of the City of

Casper, who voted for Councilman Hedquist, and who, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28

U.S.C. § 2201, seek declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court to prevent Patterson and the

City of Casper from effectively disenfranchising herself, Hedquist, and all the voters of Ward 2

who voted to put Councilman Hedquist into office, and whose votes were cast pursuant to their

fundamental right, and are entitled to strict protection from this Court.

115. Additionally, Hedquist brings this cause of action as an elected member of the

Casper City Council who has a flmdamental right to hold his elected office absent a proper recall

election or justified and legal removal from office, which comports with due process.

116. As referenced herein, on January 17, 2014, Patterson Petitioned the Casper City

Council for Removal of Councilman Hedquist from Office. Ex. 1.


Page 25 of42


117. Patterson alleges that through his Petition, he has the authority to request the City

Council to remove Hedquist from office in accordance with the provisions of the Wyoming

Administrative Procedure Act.

118. The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act does not grant jurisdiction. To the

contrary, it mandatesthat in order for an agency to bring a proceedingand contested case hearing

under the act, the Petitioner must not only have jurisdiction to bring the action, but must provide

the authority for such jurisdiction in the Notice. Wyo.Stat.Ann. §16-3-101 et seq.

119. Specifically, the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act provides that the Notice

for a contested case hearing shall include "[t]he legal authority and jurisdiction under which the

hearing is to be held." Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-107 (b)(ii).

120. Patterson's Petition for Removal fails this initial mandate for its failure to provide

the basis ofhis authority to Petition the City Council for Hedquist's removal fi*om elected office.

121. In Wyoming, removal of an elected official from office is not insignificant, as

such contemplates the removal of an elected official who has a fimdamental right to hold that

elected office without improper restriction thereon.

122. Additionally, to overcome the will of the voters, compliance with the laws for

legitimate removal must be met.

123. None of the particular sections of the statutes and rules cited by Patterson grant

him the City the power to remove an elected city councilman on the bases he claims in his

Petition.


Page 26 of42


124. The only statute or rule that grants the legal authority to remove a councilman is

Casper Ordinance § 2.64\ but this ordinance grants that authority and power of removal to the

Casper City Council, and does not grant the City Manager the power to Petition for the removal

of a council member.

125. The only legal manner in which Hedquist may be legally removed from his

elected position is through proper recall election, pursuant to Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 15-4-110; or

through removal for cause, on the basis of a conviction of specified offenses set forth in the

Casper Municipal Code, at § 2.64.^

126. The Petition filed by John Patterson does not meet any of the requirements of the

recall statute. Therefore, the first method to remove a city councilman by recall vote has not

been exercised by Patterson nor anyone else, and is not applicable in this case.

127. City Ordinance § 2.64 authorizes the City Council to remove a member of the city

council, upon a specific "for cause" showing. Section 2.64.010 provides, in pertinent part:

Any city councilman may be removed from office, for cause, by avote of a two-third's majority of all members of the city council.The city council shall follow the procedure set forth in Section2.64.020 of this chapter in removing any such appointee orcouncilman.

128. Neither of these two ordinances, nor the statutes cited in the removal ordinance (§

2.64.020) give authority to a City Manager to remove a council member, or petition for the

removal of a council member.

^ TheCityOrdinances referenced herein are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.2

Although other bases for removal exist, Patterson and the City do not rely on any but those requiring"convictions." See Ex. 1 at 9, Ex. 3 at 3.


Page 27 of42


129. Moreover, even if a City Manager had the authority to submit a Petition for

removal, § 2.64.005 of the Casper Mimicipal Code provides the "for cause" bases for removal of

a councilman:

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have themeaning respectively ascribed to them:

"For cause" means when one of the following has happened to acouncilman:

1. Gross and persistent delinquency in being absent fromregular meetings of the council. Absence from threeconsecutive meetings without reasonable excuse shall beevidence of such delinquency;

2. Conviction of a felony;

3. Failing the residency requirements as defined in CasperMunicipal Code Section 2.04.030

4. Determination by a court having jurisdiction to be insane ormentally incompetent;

5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude orconstituting a breach ofoath of office;

6. Refusing to take the oath of office or to give or renew anofficial bond if required by law;

7. Conviction of any law involving ethics;

8. Conviction of any of Wyoming State Statute Section 12-4-103(a)(i), 15-1-113, 15-127, 15-1-128, 16-6-118 or CasperMunicipal Code Sections 3.0-4.010 or 5.08.11(A¥IV"

130. Patterson's petition for removal does not allege a "for cause" basis for Removal

of Councilman Hedquist based upon paragraphs 1-6 of Ordinance § 2.64.005. Exs. 1 and 3.

131. Instead, Patterson is petitioning the City Council to remove councilman Hedquist

based upon alleged "convictions" of laws found in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Section 2.64.0005. Id.


Page 28 of42


132. As noted, these paragraphs provide for the removal of a city councilmanupon his

conviction of any law involving ethics or specific sections of the Wyoming Statutes or the

Casper Municipal Code.

133. Conviction - in the context of the violation of a statute or ordinance - is a word of

art, with a specific meaning.

134. Neither the Wyoming Statutes, nor the Casper Municipal Code cited by Patterson

define conviction in this context as anything other than how it is understood in the law.

135. Black's Law Dictionary has defined "conviction" as follows:

The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in ajudgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Thejuncture of a criminal proceeding during which the question ofguilt is ascertained. In a case where the perpetrator has beenadjudged guilty and sentenced, a record of the summaryproceedings brought pursuant to any penal statute before one ormore justices of the peace or other properly authorized persons.

In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of lawfinds a defendant guilty of a crime. The history of convictions alsoshows that a minor law conviction can be prosecuted as anyindividual's punishment.

Gamer, Bryan A., ed. (2000). Black's law dictionary (7th ed. ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.

p. 335. ISBN 0-314-24077-2.

136. Wyoming case law is well settled on the issue of statutory construction. The

Wyoming Supreme Court in State ex rel Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Bergeron^

948 P.2d 1367, 1369 (Wyo. 1997), opined that "When the legislature has spoken in unambiguous

terms, we are bound to the results so expressed". The Bergeron court looked to the ruling in City

ofCheyenne v. Reiman Corp., 869 P.2d 125, 127-28 (Wyo. 1994):


Page 29 of42


[W]e discussed the plain meaning rule of statutory construction, saying: Torsome forty years, this court has espoused and followed, frequently, the rule thatwe do not resort to rules of statutory construction and interpretation when thelanguage of a statute is plain and unambiguous... An unequivocal corollary ofthat rule is, if the statute is determined to be plain and unambiguous, the wordsused are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Id.

137. Similarly, in another case involving construction of statutory words concerning an

elector's challenge to the Wyoming statute prohibiting a "qualified elector" from having been

convicted of a felony, the Wyoming Supreme Court dealt with the elector's challenge on the

basis that his felony conviction in Kansas would not have been a felony in Wyoming by stating:

The statute, § 22-1-102(k), infra, is operative as to one convicted of a felony.Appellant was convicted of a felony in this area of law, and it is undisputed thatwhere the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to gofurther. "The plain, ordinary and usual meaning of words used in a statutecontrols in the absence of clear statutory provisions to the contrary."

Mills V. Campbell County Canvassing Bd., 707 P.2d lAl, 750 (Wyo.1985), citing Board of

County Comm'rs ofCampbell County v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174, 1184 (1981).

138. Patterson does not allege any conviction of the enumerated laws or statutes or

code sections - because Hedquist has not been charged or convicted of any.

139. Nevertheless, Patterson casually disregards such significance, and would have the

City Council, the hearing officer (and presumably this Court) read the word "conviction" as

something broader than what it is: "While it is true that Ordinance § 2.64.005 contemplates

removal for a "conviction," an interpretation to mean a criminal conviction in a court of law is

too narrow." Ex. 3 at 3.

140. Rather than understand the City Ordinance's repeated use of the word

"conviction" - and the context in which it is used - for what "conviction" commonly means,

Patterson urges that the "commonsense resolution" is to interpret the word conviction to "mean


Page 30 of42


thatthe City Council canexpel a member on a finding [not bya judge orjury,butby theCouncil

itself] of actual violation ofone ofthe referenced statutes." Id.

141. In other words, Patterson claims that the City Council, as a hearing body, can

determine that Hedquist violated one or more of the specified ordinances or statutes, and thus,

convict Hedquist, justifying his removal, without Hedquist receiving any of the ordinary due

process protections one receives before being convicted ofcrime, such as those found in the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as those provided for in the Wyoming

Constitution.^

142. If Hedquist is removed fi*om office as proposed by Patterson, he will suffer

irreparable harm, as such removal will have been from an office he holds and to which he has a

fundamental right and interest, and such removal will be based upon a "conviction" obtained in

violation of his due process rights, including but not limited to the unavailability of any appeal (§

2.64.02 specifies that the decision of the Council on removal is not appealable).

143. Such a proceeding resulting in removal would not remotely resemble adequate

due process. To suggest it would ignores that his "impartial jury" - the City Council - has

already had private meetings with the prosecutor: Patterson, the hearing officer: Rose, and is

already made up of at least one council member who is apparently openly biased against

Hedquist - former Mayor Kenyne Schlager.'*

Notably, under Patterson's "commonsense resolution" the Casper Cit>' Council could convict its council membersof felony offenses. Casper City Ordinance § 2.64.005 @ H 2 ('"For cause" means when one of the following hashappened to a councilman:... Conviction ofa felony.")

Recently, Council member Kenyne Schlager used social media to post a link to a KCWY13.com online news storyentitled: "City Denies Councilman Hedquist's Petition to Dismiss Contested Case," and which begins: "City ofCasper attorneys say Councihnan Craig Hedquist's claim that Council doesn't have the authority to remove himfrom office is false . . ." Perhaps it means nothing - but coincidentally many of Schlager's social media contacts


Page 31 of42


144. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly in light of the lack of appropriate due

process, such removal would constitute irreparable harm because after such removal Hedquist

would not have any manner of being reinstated to the office in which the voters of Ward 2

elected him to serve as their representative.

145. Moore, Hedquist and the voters of Ward 2 for the City of Casper have and did

have a fundamental right to vote entitled to the strict protection of the courts, including this

Court.

146. Moore, Hedquist and the voters of Ward 2 for the City of Casper have inalienable

rights to fiill and effective participation in the political process of the great State of Wyoming.

147. Full and effective participation requires that each citizen has an equally effective

voice in the election of Wyoming lawmakers, including Casper City Council members.

148. If removed from office as proposed, Moore, Hedquist, and the voters of Ward 2

who elected him, would have their votes for Councihnan Hedquist rendered meaningless.

149. If removed from office as proposed, Patterson and the City would eliminate the

effective participation of the electors in elections.

150. A declaratory judgment of the imconstitutionality and illegality of the proposed

Removal process and hearing is appropriate, as there is a justiciable controversy and:

a. a declaratory Order from this Court will settle the controversy;

b. a declaratory Order would serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal

relations at issue;

posted their approval of this link, and Schlager's social media postings do not contain any links to media reportsarguably favorable to Hedquist.


Page 32 of42


c. the declaratory remedy is not being used for the purpose of procedural

fencing or to provide an arena for a race to res judicata;

d. the declaratory action will not increase friction between this Court and any

state court or courts, nor improperly encroach upon state jurisdiction; and

e. there is no alternative remedy which is better or more effective.

151. Furthermore, in declaratory judgment actions there is a well-recognized exception

that the rule requiring the existence of justiciable controversies is not followed or is relaxed in

matters of great public interest or importance.

152. Plaintiffs have met the justiciable controversy requirement, but further allege that

even had they not, there is little question that this matter is of great public interest or importance.

To date, there have been more than 20 front-page stories in the Casper Star Tribune (among

other media outlets, including some national media) concerning Patterson's proposed removal of

Hedquist from office, and Hedquist's resistance thereto.

153. As an example of how this matter is of great public interest or importance, while

the City was awaiting a determination from its conflict of interest investigator, it announced that

the proceedings would be kept secret, and that even Hedquist would not be allowed to attend,

about which the local paper wrote:

The voters elected Craig Hedquist to the Casper City Council last year.

That was a public decision.

Now, the city's investigating a number of things that would give the council areason to boot Hedquist from the job to which the public elected him.

That was a decision made publically [sic].

Yet remarkably, the city council investigation into possible conflict-of-interest


Page 33 of42


concerns related to Hedquist, also owner of a local construction company thatsnags a lot ofcity contracts, is taking place behind closed doors.

Forgive us for repeating it in case you missed it the first time through: For somereason, the Casper City Council thinks an investigation into one of its ov«i, aninvestigation that could lead the council to fire him, should be kept away from thepublic eye.

The council's decision is based on its right to close such investigation under stateopen meeting laws. The council apparently considers Hedquist a public officer,whose possible dismissal is allowed to be discussed in executive session understate law.

But let's get one thing straight: State law doesn't require the council to close theinvestigation. It simply gives the council the choice.

The council is deliberately choosing to shroud the investigation instead ofopening such proceeding to the public, where voters could see what's happeningto the man they put in office.

What's so frustrating is that Hedquist's dual roles weren't supposed to be aproblem.

Hedquist assured everyone his day job wouldn't be a problem. As head of aconstruction company that's pulled down $27 million in city contracts, it madesense he would reassure the public his dual roles wouldn't conflict.

Now, it's become a problem. The Casper City Council is examining a number ofthings relating to Hedquist. A city internal investigation sparked by a filed policereport judged that Hedquist had committed an act of workplace violence, using"fighting words," in a verbal altercation with city staff. Now the city is lookinginto confiict of interest concerns mentioned during the investigation.

For city employees it was "hard, if not impossible, for the city staff to distinguishbetween Craig Hedquist as a contractor and as a council person," according to thereport. Multiple accounts paint Hedquist as someone who has abused his electedposition to bully on behalfof his company.

That sounds like a problem to us.

Now the council is making the problem worse, closing an investigation into analready messy look into the actions of a fellow council member.


Page 34 of42


Don't forget that Casper attorney Kathleen Dixon, a former council member andmayor, just stepped down as the City of Casper's attorney and investigator intothe matter after Hedquist's lawyers said her hiring came with its own conflict ofinterest concerns. She disagreed, but chose to step down.

So for those of you keeping score at home, the council is keeping from publicview a conflict of interest investigation into an elected official, that was up untilrecently being investigated by a former public official who just stepped down dueto concerns about a conflict of interest.

Voters didn't pick Hedquist to work for the city as a contractor. City officialsdecided that through the bidding process. But voters did pick Hedquist torepresent them on the city council, and they have a right to know what'shappening to their elected official.

As an elected official, Hedquist is an expression of the will of the voters. Boththe final decision and how the council decides his fate must be kept public.

154. Councilman Hedquist has an existing, genuine, valuable and fundamental right

and interest in canying out the charge of his office, and in accordance with the oath he took to

represent the citizens of Ward 2, who elected him.

155. Moore, Hedquist and the voters of Ward 2 have a constitutional and fundamental

right to have their votes counted, and considered, instead of disregarded at the whim ofPatterson

and the City, who believe they are not obligated to follow the law.

156. Likewise, the City of Casper and Patterson have an existing interest in

determining the validity of their chosen course of conduct.

157. A judgment declaring the proposed removal process and hearing as

unconstitutional, and enjoining Patterson and the City of Casper from the proposed removal

hearing, and enjoining the proposed removal itself, shall have the operative effect of preserving

the Constitutional rights of Moore, Hedquist and the voters of Ward 2 of the City of Casper; as

well as the constitutional and fundamental right Hedquist has in his elected position of City

Moore <& Hedquist v. Patterson, el alFirst Amended Complaint

Page 35 of42


Councilman; and shall prevent the irreparable harm that will unfold if the Defendants are

permitted to continue on this arbitrary attempt to overcome the will of the voters, and disregard

the fundamental rights they have, and that held by Councilman Hedquist.

158. A final judicial determination regarding the unconstitutional and illegal attempted

removal of Hedquist from office, shall fully resolve all questions relating to that process and

Hedquist's right to retain office absent proper recall or removal procedures.


removal of Hedquist from office, shall further recognize and protect the rights of Moore,

Hedquist and the voters of Ward 2 of the City of Casper.


removal of Hedquist from office, shall also delineate the inability of the Casper City Manager to

petition for removal, and / or the Casper City Council, to usurp the power of the electorate by

arbitrary means - and contrary to their own rules concerning removal.

161. Hedquist prays for such declaratory relief pursuant to the aforementioned

authority, and 42 U.S.C. §1983, which provides for such relief to bring state and local officials

into compliance with federal standards.

162. Moreover, Moore and Hedquist pray for a preliminary (and eventual permanent)

injunction preventing the City of Casper from proceeding with the proposed contested case

hearing, because if it does not issue, they will suffer irreparable harm as outlined herein; their

irreparable harm and injury far outweighs any damage the City of Casper would suffer by the

entry of the injunction (the contested case hearing process will cease - arguably saving the City

of Casper and its citizens valuable resources).


Page 36 of42


163. Additionally Moore and Hedquist pray for the entry of the injunction above-

referenced because, if issued, the injunction will not be adverse - but rather in favor of - the

public interest; and because they enjoy a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

164. Additionally, it is important to note that when an alleged deprivation of a

constitutional right is involved as alleged herein, no further showing of irreparable injury is

necessary.

165. There is little question that the underlying controversy is adversarial in nature.

The Petition for Removal, the Motion to Dismiss, and Patterson's Response to the Motion to

Dismiss (attached as Exhibits) are all this Court needs to examine to see this requirement has

been met.

166. Thus, Moore and Hedquist are entitled to the requested declaratory relief and

injunctive relief

167. They also pray for an Order awarding attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1988.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; First AmendmentRetaliation Claim (Against Patterson, individually and in his official capacity)

168. By this reference, plaintiff Hedquist incorporates each and every foregoing

allegation.

169. Hedquist brings this cause of action against Defendant Patterson in both his

individual and official capacities.

170. Hedquist's speech about the incompetence of Patterson, his staff, his salary, and

whether tax payer money was being improperly spent by Patterson, was speech protected by the


Page 37 of42


First Amendment, as it addressed matters of public concern as they related to matters of fiscal,

administrative, and political concerns to the community.

171. Patterson has retaliated against Hedquist because of Hedquist's exercise of his

First Amendment right to free speech and free association, which consisted of Hedquist's open

criticism of Patterson and his administration.

172. Patterson's retaliation has included, but is not limited to, instigating the two

investigations and filing the Petition to have Hedquist removed from his elected office.

173. The purpose of Patterson's retaliation was to silence Hedquist and prevent him

from speaking critically about him and his administration as an elected City Councilman for

Ward 2 ofthe City of Casper.

174. The City of Casper maintains that Patterson is a final policymaker for the City of

Casper, who has the authority to instigate proceedings to remove City Council members via

Petition for removal from office, in just the fashion he did in this matter.

175. Hedquist has suffered an adverse employment action, in the form of Patterson's

Petition to the City Council to remove Hedquist from his elected office, which has required

Hedquist to hire a legal team to defend himself against these pretextual proceedings, and to keep

his elected office.

176. Patterson's conduct, as alleged herein, has proximately caused injuries and

damages to Hedquist as alleged herein, and Hedquist is entitled to an award of compensatory

damages therefore.

177. Patterson's conduct has been and continues to be egregious, willful and wanton

warranting an award of exemplary damages.


Page 38 of42


178. Hedquist is entitled to his attorneys' fees and costs for the prosecution of this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fourteenth Amendment PropertyDeprivation Claim without Due Process (Against Patterson and the Citv of Casper)

179. By this reference, Hedquist incorporates each and every foregoing allegation.

180. Wyoming law confers a legitimate claim of entitlement to the elected position of

City Council member for Ward 2 of the City of Casper.

181. Wyoming law also recognizes an important, valuable and fundamental interest

and right in an elected officer holding his public office, commensurate with a property interest.,

that cannot be taken by the government without adequate and proper due process.

182. After his election and swearing in as Council member for Ward 2 of the City of

Casper, Hedquist enjoyed a real, non-abstract and objective expectation that he would continue

to function in the office to which his constituents elected him, until his full term expired, absent

some established cause for removal from office pursuant to appropriate legal process.

183. Hedquist's fundamental interest and right to hold his office are also supported by

the Casper Municipal Ordinances, as well as the Wyoming constitution and statutory scheme

creating the City Council.

184. Under the scheme referenced in the previous paragraph, Casper City Council

members are entitled to serve during their elected terms, and can only be removed by the City for

99

185. These are statutory and / or ordinance restrictions/requirements on removal -

demonstrating that the limits on removal power are not precatory, but substantive.


Page 39 of42


186. Pursuant to Wyoming and Casper laws and ordinances, Hedquist has a

fundamental right and property interest in his elected position as council member for Ward 2 for

the City of Casper.

187. Defendants' propose to deprive Hedquist of his fundamental interest and property

right in his elected office through an illegal petition and an arbitrary process contrary to their

own rules and laws, and thus, in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.

188. The Defendants' conduct, has and continues to proximately cause injuries and

damages to Hedquist as alleged herein, and Hedquist is entitled to an award of compensatory

damages therefore.

189. Hedquist is entitled to his attorneys' fees and costs for the prosecution of this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

Prayer for Relief

Plaintiffs Moore and Hedquist hereby pray for the following relief:

1. For a Declaratory Order that Patterson and the City are without authority to conduct

the unconstitutional and illegal proceeding they have begun;

2. For an injunction enjoining the City of Casper from conducting the proposed

contested case hearing for the prospective Removal of Hedquist from his elected

office of City Councilman.

3. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

4. For an of punitive damages against Patterson, individually, in an amount to be

determined at trial;

5. For attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and


Page 40 of42


6. For any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Demand for Trial by Jury

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims and factual issues so triable.

-I a-o

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this J~' day of April, 2014.

JOHN H. ROBINSOTJ WSB # 6-2828Jamieson & Robinson, LLC185 West Broadway, Suite 101P.O. Box 4285

Jackson, Wyoming 83001307.733.7703

307.577.9435 FAX

[email protected]

F.R. Chapman, WSB # 5-1500Chapman Valdez & Lansing Law Offices

125 W.2"'̂ StreetP.O. Box 2710

Casper, Wyoming 82602307.237.1983 Casper307.733-1983 Jackson

[email protected]

Moore & Heclquisi v. Pafferson, et a!First Amended Complaint

Page 41 of42


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 3"^^ day of April, 2014, a true and correct copy of theforegoing First Amended Complaint was served as follows:

John Masterson

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP123 West P' Street, Ste. 200Casper, WY 82601

Bruce SalzburgCrowell & Moring, LLP205 Stoney BlvdCheyenne, WY 82009

• U. S. P. S. (hard copy)• Telefax 307/632-7216

• Hand deliver

IS Electronic mail:

[email protected]

• U. S. P. S. (hard copy)• Telefax 307/632-7216

• Hand deliver

HI Electronic mail

BSalzburg@,crowell.com

Moore A Hedqui.si v. Patterson, el atFirst Amended Complaint

Page 42 of42


Documents

?jri fi'R 3 PH 2 22media.graytvinc.com/documents/amended+complaint+of+lawsuit.pdf · ?jri fi'r 3 ph 2 22 c7er;:am cizvx caoi in the united states district court janel moore, and craig