Pratt Civil Complaint

PRATT V. COUNTY OF WHATCOM-1ST

AMENDED COMPLAINT LAWRENCE A. HILDES (WSBA # 35035) P.O. Box 5405 Bellingham, WA 98227 Telephone: (360) 715-9788 Fax: (360) 714-1791 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 15

16

DONALD PRATT, LINDA PRATT ) NO. 2:12-CV-02052 RAJ 17

) 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR18

Plaintiffs, ) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 19

) FALSE ARREST, FALSE 20

v. ) IMPRISONMENT, BATTERY, ASSAULT 21

) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 22

COUNTY OF WHATCOM (WCSO), ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (OUTRAGE), 23

RYAN RATHBUN individually and in ) DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE II of the 24

his capacity as a DEPUTY of the ) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; 25

WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) VIOLATION OF § 504 of THE 26

OFFICE, CHAD HEINRICH, ) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 27

individually and in his Official ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 28

Capacity as a DEPUTY of the ) 29

WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) 30

OFFICE; RESERVE DEPUTY WINTON ) 31

individually and in his Official ) 32

Capacity as a RESERVE DEPUTY of ) 33

the WHATCOM COUNTYSHERIFF’S ) 34

OFFICE; DOES 1-250, ) 35

) 36

Defendants. ) 37

______________________________ ) 38

39

DONALD PRATT AND LINDA PRATT by and through their attorney of record, allege 40

as follows: 41



2

1

I. JURISDICTION 2

3

4

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 5

Title 28, United States Code Sections 1331, 1332, 1343, and 1367, and venue is 6

properly set in the Western District Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. 7

2. The claims upon which this suit is based occurred in this judicial district. 8

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the 9

named Defendants reside in this judicial district. 10

11

II. PARTIES 12

1.1 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT is a deaf, married man residing primarily in the 13

State of Washington, in WHATCOM County within the Western District of Washington. 14

Plaintiff was the victim of an unjustified arrest, imprisonment, and discriminatory 15

conduct by the above listed and other Officers of the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office, 16

under color of their authority using their position and authority to justify the incident. 17

But for Plaintiffs’ disability they would not have been treated in this manner. 18

Defendants had the ready ability to respond in an entirely different and reasonable 19

manner had they chosen to do so. This tortious and discriminatory conduct caused 20

Plaintiffs severe pain, humiliation, ongoing injury, and severe emotional distress and 21

violations of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment Rights, and their 22

right to be free of discriminatory conduct by a public agency under Title II of the 23



3

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1

1973. 2

1.2 Plaintiff LINDA PRATT is a deaf, married woman residing primarily in the 3

State of Washington, in WHATCOM County within the Western District of Washington, 4

and the wife of DONALD PRATT. She was also verbally abused and humiliated and 5

extremely fri9ghtened both for herself and for her husband and detained at the scene. 6

1.3 Defendant DEPUTY RYAN RATHBUN, upon belief resides in Whatcom 7

County within the Western District of Washington State and, upon belief is and was at 8

the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of 9

the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (hereinafter identified as WCSO), 10

acting within the scope of his duties. 11

1.4 Defendant Deputy CHAD HEINRICH, upon belief resides in Whatcom 12

County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon knowledge and belief, 13

DEPUTY HEINRICH is and was at the time of the injuries complained of in this 14

complaint, an employee and/or agent of the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF’S 15

OFFICE (hereinafter identified as WCSO), acting within the scope of his duties. 16

1.5 Defendant Reserve Deputy WINTON, upon belief resides in Whatcom 17

County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon knowledge and belief, 18

RESERVE DEPUTY WINTON is and was at the time of the injuries complained of in 19

this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF’S 20

OFFICE (hereinafter identified as WCSO), acting within the scope of his duties. 21



4

1.6 DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM is a government entity in 1

WHATCOM COUNTY governed and functioning under the laws of the State of 2

Washington. It employs Deputies RATHBUN, HEINRICH, and RESERVE DEPUTY 3

WINTON as well as John and Jane Doe deputies and supervisors of the WCSO and 4

other officials and police officers whose identities are unknown, who were involved in 5

this incident and the arrest/detention of Plaintiffs and were involved in the physical and 6

verbal abuse and discriminatory conduct against Plaintiffs. 7

1.7 There are other persons, identities presently unknown to Plaintiff who are, 8

and were at all times mentioned herein, deputies, supervisors, incident commanders, 9

training, and/or disciplining officers, and/or decision-makers of the WHATCOM 10

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, who acted in concert with the above named 11

Defendants and who devised or approved the police actions wherein Plaintiffs were 12

arrested/detained and physically battered and verbally abused in the incident that is 13

the subject of this action and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, acted under color 14

of state law as agents of the WCSO, and with that agency’s full consent and approval. 15

1.8 DOES 1-250 are, and were at all times mentioned herein, OFFICERS, 16

Supervisors, Incident Commander for this incident , involved actors, including the 17

interpreter who, when she finally arrived, acted in a manner to degrade, humiliate, and 18

further harm Plaintiffs and otherwise add to the harm caused by the law enforcement 19

Defendants, and Police or Governmental Officials involved in the incident itself, and/or 20

in the Planning, Creation, Development, training in, policy leading to the false arrest, 21



5

false imprisonment, and or use of force against Plaintiff, and the violations of Plaintiffs’ 1

Constitutional Rights and other discriminatory conduct in the incident which is the 2

subject of this action, or Exercise Of Police Force and Control, and/or failing to 3

discipline officers thus tacitly encouraging this incident to occur employed against 4

Plaintiff in the incident which is the subject of this action, and in committing the acts 5

and omissions hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law as agents of the 6

WCSO who violated Plaintiffs’ rights as discussed. 7

1.10 This action is brought pursuant to the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 8

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title II of The Americans 9

with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Article 1, Section 5 10

and Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, 11

Revised Code of Washington Title 9, Chapter 62, Section 10(1), Washington State 12

common law prohibiting assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress 13

(outrage), false arrest and false imprisonment, and Washington common law 14

negligence. 15

1.11 On February 7, 2012, counsel for Plaintiffs delivered to the clerk of the 16

Whatcom County Council notices of claims. The County acknowledged the claims 17

within a week, and rejected them by letter several weeks later. 18

19



6

II. FACTS 1

2.1 In the evening of April 21, 2011, Donald and Linda Pratt, a married 2

couple, were watching their television at their home in Blaine, Washington, with a 3

friend. 4

2.2 All three individuals are deaf. 5

2.3 There was a knock at the door. They were aware of this because the 6

dog began barking, and the light on their lamp is hooked to the doorbell, so that it 7

flickers when the bell is pushed. 8

2.4 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT went to the door to find a WCSO Deputy, one 9

of the named Defendants, standing there. 10

2.5 The Deputy entered the Pratt’s home, and walked past Plaintiff DONALD 11

PRATT. 12

2.6 DONALD PRATT turned to face the Deputy, so that his back was to the 13

doorway. 14

2.7 The Deputy then wrote on a piece of paper, “Are you Donald?” 15

2.8 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT nodded “yes.” 16

2.9 A second Deputy, also one of the named Defendants, standing behind 17

DONALD PRATT immediately handcuffed him. 18

2.10 The second officer handcuffed Plaintiff PRATT so roughly that he left 19

bruises on Plaintiff’s wrists/arms that lasted for several days after this incident. 20



7

2.11 The handcuffs also left his palms and wrists in pain for several days 1

afterward. He had trouble signing, his primary means of communication, because of 2

this. 3

2.12 He was not given an opportunity to sign or communicate through writing 4

that he is deaf and only can communicate through sign language or through writing on 5

paper. 6

2.13. He kept trying to ask, as best he could, what this was about and why he 7

was being arrested. Because of his disability, and the Defendants’ actions to deprive 8

him of his ability to communicate, this mostly came out as grunts. The Deputies never 9

responded, never wrote anything else on a piece of paper, never tried to communicate 10

with Plaintiff DONALD PRATT in any way, as they would have with someone who did 11

not have a disability. 12

2.14 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was taken to a WCSO marked car that was at 13

the back of a line of several police cars, all parked on his street, with lights flashing. 14

2.15. He was left in that police car for an extremely long time, at least two 15

hours, and he believes longer. 16

2.16. The entire time, he was handcuffed. 17

2.16 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was seated on a hard plastic seat and in a 18

cramped, confined area, in such a way that his body was leaning against his hands 19

and handcuffs, so that it put further pressure on his wrists, arms, shoulders and back. 20



8

2.17 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT is an older man, 76, and this position, which 1

the seat configuration required and the deputies left him in for at least two hours, and 2

probably longer, caused him pain in his back, wrists, arms and shoulders. In addition, 3

Plaintiff DONALD PRATT is diabetic. 4

2.18 After approximately an hour or more, Plaintiff PRATT began to indicate 5

to the officers that he needed a bathroom. 6

2.19 This need became so urgent that he finally did urinate on himself, 7

causing him great humiliation and emotional pain, as well as physical discomfort. 8

2.20 When he was finally walked back into his house, he walked in with 9

stained pants, a further humiliation. 10

2.21 Plaintiff PRATT has been a law-abiding citizen his entire life. He has 11

never been arrested before or since. 12

2.22 Being arrested in such a public manner, with several police cars, lights 13

flashing, parked in front of his home, was extremely humiliating. 14

2.23 He has had neighbors ask him what was happening, and why he was 15

arrested. 16

2.24 During his arrest, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT attempted to ask why he had 17

been arrested, what the charges were, and to demand an interpreter. The lack of 18

response and silence left him frightened and dehumanized, and further humiliated him. 19



9

2.25 Because of the handcuffs, he was not allowed to communicate (through 1

paper or sign language) any questions or request for a bathroom, and he was not 2

informed about what was going on. 3

2.26 After an extremely long time of increasing discomfort and humiliation, the 4

deputies finally brought a female interpreter to Plaintiff DONALD PRATT. 5

2.27 As the interpreter was signing to him, a WCSO Deputy shone a light in 6

Plaintiff DONALD PRATT’S face, directly in his eyes, so he could not see what she 7

was signing, and otherwise acted to worsen the incident for him. 8

2.28 Again, he was not released from the handcuffs, preventing him from 9

communicating, either through sign language or by writing. 10

2.29 He could not ask any questions of the interpreter, could not see what she 11

was signing, and could not respond to her. 12

2.30 He felt publicly humiliated by the fact that he had soiled his clothing, and 13

that he had been arrested (especially so publicly) when he has not been arrested in 14

decades, and then only for a minor adolescent incident involving stolen hub caps, and 15

has been careful his entire adult life to always obey the law. 16

2.31 The deputies then put him back into the police car, where he waited for 17

what felt like another very long time. 18

2.32 The deputies eventually and took him out of the car. 19



10

2.33 When they finally released him from the handcuffs, he had bright red 1

marks on his palms and around his wrists. It was painful to move his hands and 2

painful to sign, thus further depriving him of his ability to communicate. 3

2.34 When the deputies brought him back to his house, they demanded to 4

know where his guns were. 5

2.35 He showed them the guns, unlocked the cabinets, and took them out. 6

The deputies handled each one and documented it, and then took all of his guns. 7

2.36 They never told him why they were taking the guns or explained why he 8

had been arrested. 9

2.37 The deputies had told his wife that he had threated to kill his son. 10

2.38 He has never threatened to kill his son. 11

2.39 The deputies also asked Plaintiff LINDA PRATT several questions that 12

indicated they thought she was a victim of domestic violence. They also gave her a 13

sheet of paper referring to domestic violence and the services available in the county. 14

2.40 Before Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was brought back to the house, she 15

informed them that she had never been a victim of domestic violence and that her 16

husband had never hurt her. 17

2.41 Despite this, the deputies continued to treat Plaintiff DONALD PRATT in 18

a humiliating manner. 19

2.42 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT later found out that the incident was triggered 20

by a complaint against him from his son, Tom Pratt. His son was angry because the 21



11

Plaintiffs had kicked him out of their home several months earlier and then would not 1

loan him a motorhome he requested. 2

2.43 DONALD PRATT’S son is an ex-convict. He has a lengthy record in 3

California, with some charges here in Washington. 4

2.44 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT was never cited or taken to jail. 5

2.45 And yet, he was not allowed to hear the claims against him, was not 6

allowed to give his side, and was treated as if he were a criminal. 7

2.46 During the incident, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT remained calm, and did 8

not interfere with the officers. As the deputies left, one of them thanked him for his 9

“patience and good behavior.” 10

2.47 Plaintiff DONALD PRATT has continued to suffer from trauma, 11

humiliation, and fear from this incident. He has frequent nightmares about it, and 12

wakes up in the middle of the night due to panic attacks as a result of the incident. He 13

no longer trusts the police, which, prior to the incident, he always had, making him now 14

feel vulnerable. 15

2.48 Plaintiff LINDA PRATT also suffered from trauma, humiliation, and fear 16

during this incident. 17

2.49 She watched helplessly as the officers arrested her husband without 18

asking him any questions or telling him anything. 19



12

2.50 She saw the expression of pain on his face as the officer yanked his 1

arms behind his back, and she could tell that he was being handled in a manner that 2

hurt him. 3

2.51 When the interpreter arrived, the officers implied that Plaintiff DONALD 4

PRATT had hurt her and that she was a victim of domestic violence. She kept telling 5

them that this was not true, and that DONALD PRATT has not harmed her in nine 6

years of marriage. 7

2.52 She told them that he has never abused her, has never threatened her in 8

any way, and has never threatened her with a gun. It was clear that the officers did 9

not believe her, which was humiliating and frightening to her. 10

2.53 When her husband came back to the house, it was clear he had soiled 11

his clothing from being in the police car for so long. 12

2.54 Eventually, they released him and did not charge him with anything. 13

2.55 However, they took his property with them, and never explained to either 14

Plaintiff LINDA PRATT, nor to her husband, why they were taking the property. 15

2.56 LINDA PRATT is now nervous around the police, when she has always 16

trusted them before. She also has had to watch her husband suffer from nightmares 17

and panic attacks about the incident. 18

2.57 Defendant COUNTY of WHACOM receives Federal Funding through the 19

Department of Homeland Security and the Us Department of Justice for various 20

programs run and administered by the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office 21



13

1

III. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES 2

3

3.1 As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent 4

acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained deprivation of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, 5

Eighth, and 14th Amendment Rights; the Right to be treated Equally by a Public 6

Agency pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of 7

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of Property without 8

just cause, ongoing pain and suffering-physical and emotional, and ongoing injury-9

physical and emotional, in amounts that will be established at trial. 10

3.2 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or 11

negligent acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have to retain legal counsel to vindicate their 12

rights in court at an amount to be established at trial and for which they are entitled to 13

be reimbursed. 14

3.3 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and 15

negligent acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff DONALD PRATT has incurred medical 16

expenses for treatment in an amount to be established at trial and for which he is 17

entitled to be reimbursed. 18

3.4 Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the Constitutional and 19

personal harms Defendants inflicted on them, their loss of enjoyment in life and 20

curtailment of the activities that gave their lives meaning and pleasure. 21



14

1

IV. CAUSE OF ACTIONS: 2

3

COUNT ONE 4

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 5

(TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983) 6

(As To All Individual Defendants and DOES 1-100) 7

8

4.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set 9

forth in Paragraphs 1 through 3.4 of this complaint. 10

4.2. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under 11

color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs as alleged herein, of certain Constitutionally 12

protected rights including, but not limited to: 13

(a) The right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law; 14

(b) The right to be free from invasion or interference with Plaintiff’ zone of 15

privacy; 16

(c) The right to equal protection of the law; 17

(d) The right to be free from unreasonable seizure; 18

(e) The right to be free from police use of unreasonable and excessive force; 19

(f) The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 20

(g) The right to be free from False Arrest and False Imprisonment, seizure of 21

lawfully owned and maintained guns without due process all in violation of their 22

Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment Rights. 23



15

(h) The Right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement based on 1

disability, in violation of their rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 3

4.3 In violating Plaintiff’s rights as delineated above, and other rights according 4

to proof, Defendants acted by verbal threat and intimidation, reckless, unreasonable, 5

unprovoked, and excessive use of force, discriminatory law enforcement based on 6

disability, unjustified arrest and detention, false imprisonment, or by ratifying 7

personally the above listed conducts, and/or cruel and unusual punishment without 8

Plaintiffs having committed any crime or violation, Defendants acted to violate 9

Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the 10

U.S. Constitution, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of 11

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 12

4.4 DOES 2-250 are the other officers involved directly in the incident in 13

question. 14

4.5 Defendants had and knew they had a sign language interpreter at the 15

station and available to them, and chose not to bring her to the scene for a deliberately 16

extensive period of time, and then prevented Plaintiffs from communicating with and 17

through her and treated Plaintiffs in a degrading, humiliating, frightening, and 18

discriminatory manner that they would not have done had they not been deaf. 19



16

4.6 As a direct and proximate result of the violations of their Constitutional 1

rights by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered general and special 2

damages as alleged in this complaint. 3

4.7 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or 4

reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an 5

amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. 6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. 7

8

COUNT TWO 9

Violation of Civil Rights 10

(Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983) 11

(As To DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF WHATCOM, and Does 1-250) 12

13

4.8 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set 14


4.8 At all times herein mentioned, Defendant COUNTY OF WHATCOM 16

employed Defendants RATHBUN, HEINRICH, WINTON, and the other at least three r 17

law enforcement officers who reported to the scene and were involved in the 18

Constitutionally violative, statutorily violative, and tortious conduct against Plaintiffs. 19

The WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE failed to properly train, supervise, and 20

discipline Defendants RATHBUN, HEINRICH, WINTON and the other WCSO 21

personnel involved in this incident, including failing to train them as to how to respond 22

and treat hearing impaired individuals and others needing an interpreter to 23

communicate with law enforcement officers, resulting in the harm to Plaintiffs. 24



17

4.10 These acts and omissions deprived Plaintiffs of their rights secured by the 1

Constitution of the United States, including, but not limited to their rights under the 2

Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 3

Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 4

504,and their rights under the Washington State Constitution. 5

4.11. The Doe supervisors of named Defendants acted deliberately to ratify 6

the above-described policy and actions, and fail to ensure that their deputies were 7

properly trained in accordance with Federal Law, and failed to properly train, 8

supervise, and discipline named Defendants and other involved officers, 9

4.12 In committing the acts complained of herein and in their official and 10

individual capacity, Doe Defendants acted with a design and intention to deprive 11

Plaintiff of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, and its 12

associated laws, and acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s rights. 13

4.13 As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, 14

Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint. 15





20

21

22

23

24



18

COUNT THREE 1

VIOLATION OF TITLE II, ADA 2

(As to Defendant COUNTY OF WHATCOM) 3

4



4.16. By deliberately delaying (for more than an hour) the arrival of an ASL 7

interpreter onto the scene, and instead, forcibly arresting and imprisoning Plaintiff 8

Donald Pratt in a police car, for a drastically long period of time, unable to 9

communicate and without explaining what was going on or why, to the point that he 10

urinated on himself, in a manner that they would never have treated a non-disabled 11

person., DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM, a local government entity receiving 12

Federal Funding for the Sheriff’s Office’s law enforcement programs through grants 13

and funding from US DHS and US DOJ, and its Defendant officers and employees 14

unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff Donald Pratt based on and because of his 15

disability 16

4.17 Similarly, DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM, a local government 17

entity receiving Federal Funding for the Sheriff’s Office’s law enforcement programs 18

through grants and funding from US DHS and US DOJ, and its Defendant officers and 19

employees deliberately failed to offer any explanation or communication to Linda Pratt 20

as to why she could not leave and why her husband was being arrested for 21

supposedly threatening her, in a manner that they would never have treated a non-22

disabled person. 23



19

4.18 In then deliberately preventing Plaintiff Donald Pratt from communicating 1

with the interpreter that they finally provided, and disrupting said communications that 2

they were supposedly waiting for to determine how to treat Plaintiff Donald Pratt, 3

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF WHATCOM, a local government entity receiving Federal 4

Funding for the Sheriff’s Office’s law enforcement programs through grants and 5

funding from US DHS and US DOJ, and its Defendant officers and employees further 6

deliberately discriminated against him. 7

4.19 All of the above alleged discriminatory conduct, violated Plaintiffs’ clear 8

and well established rights to be treated equally by law enforcement without 9

discrimination based on their disability pursuant to Title II of the Americans’ with 10

Disabilities Act. 11

4.20 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that they were 12

inflicting this discrimination and the County failed to ensure that they were trained, 13

supervised, and disciplined to not commit such discrimination. 14

4.21 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their rights by 15

Defendants, and of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs 16

suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 17

4.22 The excessive and discriminatory conduct and the resulting abuse of 18

Plaintiffs was directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ training, supervision and 19

failure to discipline, and the above ratification. 20



20

4.23 Defendant County of Whatcom and its named and doe officers and 1

employees also violated Plaintiffs Rights under the ADA by failing, in their policies and 2

actions to make reasonable adaptations of programs to make them accessible to 3

persons who are deaf, thereby directly resulting in the harm inflicted on Plaintiffs. 4


6

COUNT FOUR 7

VIOLATION OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 §504 8

(As to ALL DEFENDANTS ) 9

10



4.25 By deliberately delaying (for more than an hour) the arrival of an ASL 13

interpreter onto the scene, and instead, forcibly arresting and imprisoning Plaintiff 14

Donald Pratt in a police car, for a drastically long period of time, unable to 15

communicate and without explaining what was going on or why, to the point that he 16

urinated on himself, in a manner that they would never have treated a non-disabled 17

person Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Donald Pratt based on his disability 18

. 4.26 Similarly, Defendants deliberately failed to offer any explanation or 19

communication to Linda Pratt as to why she could not leave and why her husband was 20

being arrested for supposedly threatening her, in a manner that they would never have 21

treated a non-disabled person. 22

4.27 In then deliberately preventing Plaintiff Donald Pratt from communicating 23

with the interpreter that they finally provided, and disrupting said communications that 24



21

they were supposedly waiting for to determine how to treat Plaintiff Donald Pratt, 1

Defendant officers and employees further deliberately discriminated against him. 2

4.28 All of the above alleged discriminatory conduct, violated Plaintiffs’ clear 3

and well established rights to be treated equally by law enforcement without 4

discrimination based on their disability pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 5

Act of 1973. 6

4.29 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that they were 7

inflicting this discrimination. 8

4.30 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their rights by 9

Defendants, and of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs 10

suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 11

4.31 The excessive and discriminatory conduct and the resulting abuse of 12

Plaintiffs was directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ training, supervision and 13

failure to discipline, and the above ratification. 14

4.32 Defendant County of Whatcom and its named and doe officers and 15

employees also violated Plaintiffs Rights under the REHAB ACT by failing, in their 16

policies and actions to make reasonable adaptations of programs to make them 17

accessible to persons who are deaf, thereby directly resulting in the harm inflicted on 18

Plaintiffs. 19


21

22



22

COUNT FIVE 1

ASSAULT AND BATTERY 2

AS TO PLAINTIFF DONALD PRATT 3

(As to All Defendants) 4

5

4.33 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations 6

set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.32 of this complaint. 7

4.34 Without provocation, warning, explanation, or proper inquiry or 8

investigation, and in direct contradiction to the actual scene when they entered the 9

house, Defendants present on the scene forcibly seized and arrested Plaintiff Donald 10

Pratt and physically removed him, imprisoning him in the back of a patrol car for a 11

lengthy period of more than an hour before physically taking him back to the house, 12

finally making inquiries and releasing him. 13

4.35 This caused great physical pain, fear, and emotional pain to both Plaintiffs 14

without justification or necessity. 15

4.36 This inexplicable, unexplained, and unjustified action and other tortious 16

conduct by Defendants caused Plaintiff Donald Pratt to reasonably and foreseeably 17

fear further battery and other imminent harm to his health and safety, and he did so 18

fear. This fear constitutes common law assault. 19

4.37 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that they were and 20

would inflict this reasonable fear on Plaintiffs. 21

4.38 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his rights by 22

Defendants, and of Defendants’ tortious conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiff suffered 23

general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 24



23

4.39 The excessive and unreasonable uses of force, detention, functional 1

arrest and the resulting abuse of Plaintiff Donald Pratt was directly and proximately 2

caused by Defendants training, supervision and failure to discipline, and the above 3

ratification. 4





9

10

11

12

COUNT SIX 13

FALSE ARREST AND DETENTION 14

(As to All Defendants)(As to Plaintiff DONALD PRATT) 15

16



4.42 Defendants should not as a matter of law and had insufficient basis for 19

basis for arresting Plaintiff Donald Pratt, absent investigation, and imprisoning him for 20

well over an hour in the back of a patrol car with no ability to communicate and no 21

explanation given the state of the scene. 22

4.43 Defendants’ detention, seizure and arrest of Plaintiff Donald Pratt without 23

probable cause or a warrant violated Plaintiff’s rights under Article 1 of the Washington 24

State Constitution, Section 7.4.4. 25



24

4.44 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or 1


amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged. 3

4.45 As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiff 4

Donald Pratt has suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint. 5

6


8

9

10

11

COUNT SEVEN 12

FALSE IMPRISONMENT 13

(AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS) 14

(As to all Defendants) 15



4.47 As discussed above, there was no basis for the extended imprisonment of 18

Plaintiff Donald Pratt and it was part and parcel of the discriminatory conduct 19

described above throughout, not legitimate law enforcement activities. 20

4.48. Plaintiffs Donald Pratt, in the vehicle, and Linda Pratt in the house were 21

unjustly deprived of liberty for that period and subjected to abuses therein. 22

4.49 Defendants knew or should have known that there was no basis for 23

arresting, imprisoning and indeed detaining Plaintiffs. 24



25

4.50. As a further direct and proximate result of the false arrest and 1

imprisonment of Plaintiff(s), they suffered damages and injuries as heretofore alleged 2

in this complaint. 3

4.51 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or 4


amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged. 6


8

9

10

COUNT EIGHT 11

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (OUTRAGE) 12


14



4.53 In carrying out the false arrest, false imprisonments, discriminatory law 17

enforcement, battery and assault, verbal and physical abuse of Plaintiffs, Defendants, 18

and each, of them sought to cause emotional distress and trauma to Plaintiffs, and 19

Plaintiffs did suffer such emotional distress with accompanying physical symptoms. 20

4.54 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional and 21

Statutory rights by Defendants and Defendants other tortious conduct against 22

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 23



26

4.55 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, extreme 1

and outrageous, and reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should 2

be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. 3


5

6

COUNT NINE 7

NEGLIGENCE 8


10



4.57 Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care at 13

or about the times of the aforementioned incidents. 14

4.58 In committing the aforementioned acts and/or omissions, Defendants, 15

and each of them, negligently breached said duty to use due care, directly and 16

proximately resulting in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein. 17


COUNT TEN 19

VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60.030 20

(As to Both Plaintiffs 21


23





27

4.60 For all of the discriminatory conduct detailed under counts 3 and 4 above 1

and in the fact section of this complaint, Defendants are liable under RCW 49.60.030 2

for deliberately discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their disability and for 3

violating Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement and 4

discrimination based on their disability under Washington Law. 5

4.61 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional 6

and Statutory rights by Defendants and Defendants other tortious conduct against 7

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this complaint. 8

4.62 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, extreme 9

and outrageous, and reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should 10

be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. 11


. 13

V. JURY TRIAL DEMAND 14

5.0 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this matter. 15

16

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as follows: 18

1. For general damages including pain and suffering together with special 19

damages for Plaintiffs’ reasonable and necessary legal expenses, and medical 20



28

expenses both past and future, the exact amount of which will be established at the 1

time of trial; 2

2. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant to Federal 3

and State law; 4

3. For actual attorney’s fees and litigation costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5

1988, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 6

4. For statutory attorney’s fees and costs; and 7

5. For court supervised training and regulations requiring that the involved 8

agencies and officers properly train their officers on proper procedures for treating 9

disabled people, particularly deaf person, in conformity with the Justice Department 10

Office of Civil Rights’ model guidelines for doing so, and institute proper investigative, 11

and disciplinary procedures. 12

6. For an injunction, to be directly supervised by the court that the Department 13

be required to train and implement standards of conduct for addressing the special 14

needs of persons with disabilities. 15

7. For an injunction, to be supervised by the court requiring the Department to 16

bring an appropriate court certified interpreter with them to any call that they know 17

involves a deaf person, or person they otherwise cannot communicate with, and to 18

have a court certified ASL interpreter or interpreter in whatever language the deaf 19

person communicates in, on call for situations that they discover in progress involve a 20

deaf person, and that personnel of the Department will take no more action than is 21



29

absolutely necessary for safety against or involving a deaf person or person they 1

otherwise cannot communicate with until an appropriate interpreter arrives on the 2

scene 3

8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 4

DATED: January 23, 2013 5

________/s/ LAWRENCE A. HILDES___________ 6

LAWRENCE A. HILDES, WSBA # 35305 7

P.O. Box 5405, Bellingham, WA 98227 8

(360) 715-9788 9

[email protected] 10

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11

DONALD and LINDA PRATT 12

Documents

Pratt Civil Complaint