#1 Filed Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00467 Document 1 Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 31
1 TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Law Office of Terri Keyser-Cooper
2 Nevada Bar No. 3984
3590 Barrymore Dr.
3
Reno, NV 89512
4 (775) 337-0323
keysercooper@lawyer.com
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8 SEAN LAUGHLIN, Case No.
9 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
10 v. JURY DEMAND
11 LYON COUNTY, NYE COUNTY and
DOES 1-10,
12
Defendants.
13
___________________________________/
14
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
15
“The Trial,” a novel written by Franz Kafka tells the story of Josef K., an ordinary bank
16
17 clerk, who is unexpectedly arrested by two unidentified agents from an unspecified agency for an
18 unspecified crime. Josef K. does not understand what has happened or why. “The Metamorphosis,”
19 also written by Franz Kafka, tells the story of traveling salesman Gregor Samsa who awakes one
20 morning to find himself inexplicably transformed into a huge insect, struggling to adjust to his new
21
condition. Both concern horrific frightening events suddenly occurring to ordinary people. We read
22
with fascination and wonder: “How could this possibly happen?” Sean Laughlin’s case parallels
23
these Kafka stories.
24
25 One day Sean Laughlin (“Laughlin”), a professional cruise ship comedian, was driving in
26 Carson City, Nevada when he was stopped for a very minor traffic offense. A routine warrant check
27 revealed he was wanted for the crime of “failure to appear” on a burglary charge out of Pahrump,
28
1
1 Nevada, a small town he has not heard of or been to. Bail is set at $675,000.00.1 Laughlin learns he
2 is accused to stealing used women’s clothing, CDs and an electric screwdriver. Laughlin strongly
3
protests: the arrest is a mistake, he has not committed a burglary, he has never been to Pahrump, and
4
he knows no-one in Pahrump. The officer checks and the warrant matches. There is one obvious
5
discrepancy, the warrant lists Laughlin’s address as 621 W. Jarvis Rd. in Pahrump not his home at
6
7 350 Main Street, in Silver City. Laughlin has never been to Pahrump much less lived there.
8 Laughlin knows nothing about the Jarvis Rd. address.
9 For the next 18 days, Laughlin endures pure Hell. He protests repeatedly, to officers, to
10 deputies, to anyone who might listen, virtually every day. Laughlin proclaims he is innocent, he has
11
been misidentified, it is not him, he did not steal used women’s clothing or anything else in
12
Pahrump. No one listens. No one cares. No one will check on the obvious address discrepancy.
13
Laughlin has no idea how this has happened. He has no idea why bail is set at $675,000.00. He
14
15 cannot get before a judge. He cannot find a lawyer. He has a plane to catch for Australia. He has a
16 performance scheduled on the Royal Caribbean “Voyager” leaving Australia in days cruising from
17 Brisbane to Sydney. He cannot notify his agent he is being held in Pahrump for a crime he knows
18 nothing about. It is a story straight from Hell and right out of Kafka.
19
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20
1. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”), 28 U.S.
21
Sections 1983 and 1988. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by Title 28 of the United States
22
Code, Sections 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. Section 12188(a).
23
2. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
24
1391(b) because the unlawful acts and practices alleged herein occurred in Northern Nevada, which
25
is within this judicial district.
26
PARTIES
27
28
1
Bail was set in the bench warrant at $225,000.00 cash or $450,000.00 bond. It was
mysteriously raised to $675,000.00 at the time Laughlin was booked.
2
1 3. Sean Laughlin (“Laughlin”), 56, is an actor, comedian, and juggler. Laughlin began
2 in 1983 as a street performer in San Francisco. By 1988 Laughlin was working as a headline
3 performer in Las Vegas, working at the Marina Las Vegas, the Riviera, the Aladdin, the Dunes, the
4 Sands, Bally’s and other venues. In approximately 1991, Laughlin also began working extensively
5 as a headliner in comedy clubs in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago and across the country.
6 Also, in 1991, while working in comedy clubs and headlining in Las Vegas, Laughlin became a
7 guest entertainer on a cruise ships, primarily the Royal Caribbean, but also on the Princess,
8 Carnival, Holland America, Oceania, Celebrity, and Norwegian cruise lines. Laughlin is engaged to
9 Sandra Bowing, who performs with him on cruise ships and who is a citizen of Australia.
10 4. Defendant Lyon County is a municipal government entity duly incorporated under
11 the laws of the State of Nevada. Under its authority, Defendant Lyon County operates and manages
12 the Lyon County Jail (“LCJ”), and is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, responsible
13 for the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures and practices/customs of the LCJ, and
14 its respective employees and/or agents.
15 5. Defendant Nye County is a municipal government entity duly incorporated under the
16 laws of the State of Nevada. Under its authority, Defendant Nye County operates and manages the
17 Nye County Jail (“NCJ”),2 and is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, responsible for
18 the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures and practices/customs of the NCJ, and its
19 respective employees and/or agents.
20 6. Plaintiff is, at the time of the filing of this Complaint, ignorant of the true names and
21 capacities of Defendants Does 1-10, employees of the Lyon County and Nye County Sheriffs’
22 Departments, and, therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed
23 and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Does 1-10 were employed by Lyon County and
24 Nye County at the time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Does 1-10
25 violated Laughlin’s liberty interests secured under the due process clause of the Fourteenth
26 Amendment to the United States Constitution. At all times relevant, Laughlin had a constitutional
27
28
2
When referring to the Nye County Jail, Laughlin refers to the jail facility in Pahrump, NV.
3
1 right to be free from continued detention after it was or should have been known that Laughlin was
2 entitled to release. At all times relevant, Laughlin had a liberty interest in being free from
3 incarceration absent probable cause for his arrest. At all times relevant, Laughlin had a right to a
4 prompt appearance before a judicial officer to ascertain probable cause and reasonable bail and to
5 be arraigned.3 Plaintiff will seek leave to amend his complaint to state the names and capacities of
6 Defendants Does 1-10, when they are identified and ascertained. Does 1-10, at all relevant times
7 hereto, were acting under color of state law, and are sued in their individual capacity.
8 7. Each of the Defendants caused, and is responsible for, the unlawful conduct directed
9 towards Plaintiff Laughlin. Each of the Defendants, by participating in the unlawful conduct, or
10 acting jointly and in concert with others who did, authorized, acquiesced, condoned, and approved
11 the unconstitutional conduct by failing to take action to prevent the unconstitutional conduct—
12 which resulted in the continued incarceration of Laughlin for 18 days. The ultimate result of the
13 incarceration was the destruction of his carefully nurtured and successful career.
14 8. Wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by Defendants, it is alleged
15 that each Defendant was the agent of the others, each Defendant was acting within the course and
16 scope of this agency, and all acts alleged to have been committed by any one of them shall also be
17 deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant individually, jointly or severally.
18 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19 9. On Friday, March 18, 2016, Officer Murphy (“Murphy”) of the Nye County
20 Sheriff’s Office (NCSO) went to the home of Rea Krenzer (“Krenzer”) in Pahrump, Nevada
21 regarding a burglary. Krenzer complained she had been away from her Pahrump home from March
22 4, 2016 until March 14, 2016, and on her return noticed items missing. These items included an
23 old camper/trailer ($80.00), jewelry ($2000.00), dishes ($200.00), clothing ($300.00), CDs
24 ($200.00), DVDs ($1000.00), tote bags ($10.00) and an electric screwdriver ($50.00). Krenzer
25
3
If Laughlin had been permitted to appear before a judicial officer in either Lyon or Nye
26 Counties, he could have explained he was in Australia when the crimes occurred, he was
27 misidentified, he had not received a Summons and did not reside at the location where the
Summons was served. This information would likely have prompted an inquiry to ascertain whether
28 the correct person was arrested. As a result of the inquiry, Laughlin would likely have been
promptly released.
4
1 estimated value of the items at approximately $3,800.00.

2 10. Krenzer told Murphy she had purchased the camper/trailer from “Sean Laughlin,”
3 for approximately $80.00 six months earlier but did not have a bill of sale.4 Krenzer identified
4 Robert Vaughn and Ashlee Kelly as the likely wrongdoers. Krenzer also gave Murphy the names of
5 other Pahrump residents she suspected.
6 11. On March 25, 2016, Murphy returned to Krenzer’s home to inform her the
7 camper/trailer had been located. Krenzer told Murphy she had learned “Sean Laughlin” had sold the
8 camper for $50.00 and the purchasers were willing to return it. The majority of the missing items
9 were recovered at Ashlee Kelley’s residence. The missing screwdriver, pawned by Robert Vaughn,
10 to a local pawn shop was also recovered. Krenzer also told Murphy she had talked to her friend,
11 Brandi Ronces, who said she “saw” Ashlee Kelley, Robert Vaughn and “Sean Laughlin” stealing
12 her property.5
13 12. On or about April 2016, Murphy wrote a “Deputy Report” on the Krenzer burglary.
14 Murphy listed the suspects as: Ashlee Kelley of 1840 S Meir Dr., Pahrump: Robert Vaughn, address
15 unknown; and “Sean Laughlin” at 621 W. Jarvis Rd., Pahrump.
16 13. Laughlin has no knowledge as to how Murphy obtained his name or used it in his
17 “Deputy Report.’ Murphy correctly described Laughlin’s height, weight, and social security, but
18
incorrectly listed his address as 621 W. Jarvis Rd. in Pahrump.6 Laughlin has never lived at 621 W.
19
20
4
Plaintiff Laughlin has never owned a camper/trailer, never met Krenzer, never been to
21 Krenzer’s home, and never sold her a camper/trailer.
22 5
There are no documents, declarations, interview reports, or statements from “Brandi
23 Ronces” asserting she saw “Sean Laughlin” stealing anything. The only evidence that ties “Sean
Laughlin” to the crimes is the purported word of Krenzer asserting “Brandi Ronces” told her that
24 “Sean Laughlin” was involved. There were no additional details as to “Sean Laughlin’s”
involvement or identity other than a hearsay statement from Krenzer as to what she was “told.”
25 Brandi Ronces statement to officers merely asserts: “Kenny invited me over because that’s where
he was staying so I went over and Ashlee and bobby, her boyfriend along with Sean and his
26 boyfriend and I told Kenny they all need to leave…” Sean Laughlin does not have a “boyfriend” nor
27 did he ever have a “boyfriend.”
28 6
Plaintiff Laughlin does not know Krenzer, has never met Krenzer, and has never sold
Krenzer a camper. Laughlin does not know and has never met Robert Vaughn, Ashlee Lynn Kelly,
Brandi Ronces, or any of the individuals listed in Murphy’s report.
5
1 Jarvis Rd. in Pahrump and does not own that property. Laughlin has never rented or owned any
2 property in Pahrump and does not recall ever visiting Pahrump.7
3
14. Laughlin did not steal the property of Krenzer. Laughlin does not know Krenzer or
4
Brandi Ronces, Ashlee Kelly or Robert Vaughn. Krenzer alleged the thefts occurred between March
5
4-14, 2016. On those dates, Laughlin was in Australia. Documents establish Laughlin arrived in
6
Australia on or about March 3, 2016, slightly before his contractual obligation to perform on the
7
Royal Caribbean “Voyager” from March 7-13, 2016. The cruise commenced in Brisbane and ended
8
in Sydney. There was no opportunity for Laughlin leave the ship to fly to America to steal used
9
clothing, DVDs and CDs from Krenzer or anyone else in Pahrump, NV. After the cruise, Laughlin
10
remained in Australia to await his next contractual obligation with Royal Caribbean.
11
15. On or about March 21-25th, 2016, Laughlin performed on the Royal Caribbean
12
“Explorer.” The cruise commenced in Sydney and ended in Noumea. When the cruise terminated,
13
documents show Laughlin remained in Australia. On April 2, 2016 Laughlin again performed on
14
the Royal Caribbean “Explorer” sailing from Noumea to in Auckland on April 7, 2016.
15
16. Passport documents, credit card receipts, airline itineraries, and a host of witness
16
statements conclusively establish Laughlin was in Australia at the time of the Krenzer burglary.
17
17. Unbeknownst to Laughlin, on or about August 25, 2016, a criminal complaint was
18
filed in the Justice Court of Pahrump Township, County of Nye, State of Nevada, for Robert Lynn
19
Vaughn, Ashlee Lynn Kelly, and “Sean Laughlin.” The complaint charged the three with burglary,
20
theft, and obtaining money under false pretenses.8
21
18. The Pahrump Justice Court sent a “Summons” to Sean Laughlin at 621 W. Jarvis
22
Rd., in Pahrump to appear on December 6, 2016, in the Justice Court of Pahrump Township. The
23
Summons was sent via ordinary mail to the Jarvis Rd. address. In the past, the custom was to send
24
25
26 7
Laughlin owns multiple properties in Silver City, NV and in Felton, CA. Laughlin owns
27 nothing in Pahrump and has never owned or rented any property in Pahrump, nor has he ever stayed
in anyone else’s property in Pahrump.
28
8
The obtaining of money by false pretenses was the pawning of the electric screwdriver by
Robert Vaughn. A pawn ticket established he stole Krenzer’s screwdriver and pawned it.
6
1 Summons’ via certified mail. That custom was abandoned in favor of a new policy of sending
2 Summons’ via ordinary mail.9
3 19. Court documents confirm the Summons to Laughlin was returned, stating there is
4 “no mail receptacle” and “unable to forward.”
5 20. Court documents confirm the envelope containing the Summons sent to Laughlin
6 was returned to the Pahrump Justice Court and placed in the court file.
7 21. Court documents confirm Laughlin did not receive the Summons because it was
8 returned to the Pahrump Justice Court and the original envelope containing the Summons was put in
9 the Court’s file.
10 22. Laughlin did not receive the “Summons” to appear on December 6, 2016 sent to 621
11 W. Jarvis Rd in Pahrump because he did not reside and never has resided at 621 W. Jarvis Rd.
12 23. The Court had notice that Laughlin had not received the Summons to appear on
13 December 6, 2016 because the Summons was returned. The Pahrump Justice Court file contains the
14 envelope with the original Summons. The envelope states: “Return to sender no mail receptacle
15 unable to forward.”
16 24. NCSO deputies did not physically go to 621 W. Jarvis Rd. to arrest “Sean Laughlin”
17 even though it would have been easy for them to do so. The distance between 621 W. Jarvis Rd. and
18 the NCSO in Pahrump is only 5.5 miles. If deputies had physically gone to the Jarvis address, they
19 would have learned that there was no “Sean Laughlin” residing there. If deputies had physically
20 gone to the Jarvis address, they would not have sent a “Summons” to that address for “Sean
21 Laughlin” because they would have known he did not reside there. If NCSO deputies believed the
22 person residing at 621 W. Jarvis Rd. was responsible for the Krenzer burglary, they could have
23 arrested and booked that person, taken his fingerprints and photograph.
24 25. NCSO deputies could have shown the photograph to Brandi Ronces and she could
25 have easily identified the person. The photograph of whoever resided at 621 W. Jarvis Road would
26 not be the photograph of Plaintiff Laughlin
27
28
9
Pahrump Clerk Kathy Ivey confirmed that the policy in the past was to send Summons’ via
certified mail. Ms. Ivy also confirmed the policy is now to send Summons’ via ordinary mail.
7
1 26. On December 6, 2016, Laughlin, not having received the “Summons” did not appear
2 at the Justice Court of Pahrump Township.
3 27. On December 7, 2016, a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of “Sean Laughlin”
4 for failure to appear on December 6, 2016. The bench warrant correctly described Laughlin but
5 incorrectly stated his address as 621 W. Jarvis Rd., in Pahrump. The bench warrant indicated the
6 “Summons” had been sent to 621 W. Jarvis Rd. No person in the Pahrump Justice Court or the
7 Pahrump Clerk’s Office informed the Judge that Laughlin’s Summons had been returned and
8 Laughlin had never been served. No one in the Pahrump Justice Court informed the Judge that the
9 original Summons sent to Laughlin had been returned and was in his file. Since no one at the
10 Pahrump Justice Court of the Pahrump Clerk’s Office informed the Judge Laughlin had not been
11 served with a Summons as required, Laughlin’s bench warrant for failure to appear was inevitable
12 and foreseeable. Obviously, Laughlin could not “fail to appear” for hearing for which he had never
13 been served. Proof that Laughlin had never been served was in the Court file.
14 28. On December 12, 2016, Laughlin, unaware of a bench warrant, a burglary, or a
15 Summons, was driving to “Jiffy Lube” in Carson City on an ordinary day to check his vehicle
16 fluids. Out of the blue he was signaled to stop by Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper J. Banfield
17 (“Banfield”) for a minor traffic offense. Laughlin gave Banfield his license, proof of insurance, and
18 registration. The address on Laughlin’s driver’s license was correctly listed as his home at 350 Main
19 Street, in Silver City, NV 89428. Silver City is 12 miles from Carson City. Silver City is 388 miles
20 from Pahrump. Banfield told Laughlin he would likely issue a warning for the traffic offense but
21 wanted to run his license.
22 29. Banfield’s warrant check revealed the December 7th bench warrant from the
23 Pahrump Justice Court. Laughlin was shocked to hear Banfield directing him to step outside and
24 drop to his knees. Laughlin was stunned to see Banfield pointing a gun at him.
25 30. Banfield handcuffed Laughlin, searching him for weapons and drugs. Banfield
26 removed Laughlin’s cell phone, wallet, and pocket knife. More officers arrived. More guns were
27 pointed at Laughlin. Laughlin’s vehicle was searched, no drugs, weapons, or contraband were
28
8
1 found. Banfield issued Laughlin a warning for the traffic violation.

2 31. Laughlin was dazed to learned he was arrested for failure to appear in Pahrump on a
3 burglary charge. Laughlin was flabbergasted to hear his bail was $450,000.00. Laughlin
4 immediately said: “This is a mistake, you have the wrong guy. I did not commit any burglaries and
5 was never notified of a ‘failure to appear.’” Banfield, checking to ensure Laughlin’s physical
6 description matched the physical description in the bench warrant, ignored that Laughlin’s driver’s
7 license address did not match the address on the bench warrant.
8 32. Laughlin, now very alarmed, asked that his information be run again. The officer did
9 so, checking his height, weight, and eye color as well as the mole on his left cheek. Laughlin was
10 not aware that the address for the man Banfield sought was 621 W. Jarvis Rd. in Pahrump. While
11 Laughlin protested that Banfield had the wrong person, it was a mistake, and he had never
12 committed any burglaries and had never been to Pahrump, Laughlin did not yet know that the
13 address on the bench warrant for the person sought was listed as Pahrump. Laughlin did not yet
14 know that the Court, in issuing the bench warrant, was aware the Summons had not been served—
15 and he could not have failed to appear as he had never had notice his appearance was required.
16 33. Laughlin was booked at the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office in Yerington on the failure
17 to appear warrant with a bail now set on his Lyon County Sheriff’s Office booking sheet at
18 $675,000.00. Laughlin insisted to the booking officer this was a mistake; he was not the person they
19 wanted. Laughlin told the booking officer it was not possible for him to be wanted for a crime in
20 Pahrump as he had never been to Pahrump. Laughlin’s bail would have required almost
21 $100,000.00 in cash for the bond and other related costs.
22 34. Had Laughlin been able to go before a Lyon County judge, explain the
23 misidentification and the erroneous address, it is highly likely his bail would have been significantly
24 reduced and prosecutors would have been put on notice of the misidentification. If Laughlin had
25 been able to go before a judge, the judge would likely have seen Laughlin had never been served
26 and could not be guilty of failure to appear. It is axiomatic, Laughlin could not be guilty of failure to
27 appear when he had never been served with a Summons to appear. Any reasonable judge, on
28
9
1 reviewing the file, would have seen the original envelope containing the Summons was still in the
2 file—returned as undeliverable.
3 35. On information and belief, Lyon County officials communicated with Nye County
4 officials regarding Laughlin’s arrest pursuant to the Nye County bench warrant. At all times
5 relevant, from the day Laughlin was arrested, Lyon County was aware of his arrest.
6 36. On information and belief, Lyon County officials informed Nye County officials that
7 Laughlin protested the arrest, insisted he knew nothing about a Summons, and had never been to
8 Pahrump. It would have been easy for Nye County officials to determine Laughlin had never been
9 served with a Summons. A quick review of the Pahrump Justice Court docket would reveal the
10 original Summons had been returned and not delivered.10 Both Nye County and Lyon County
11 ignored Laughlin’s protestations of innocence and refused to examine their flawed policies or
12 reasonable take steps to verify a “Sean Laughlin” actually resided at 621 W. Jarvis Rd. and had
13 been served with a Summons.
14 37. Nye County officials did not instruct Lyon County officials to have Laughlin
15 promptly appear before a Lyon County judicial officer for the matter to be sorted out.
16 38. Once in the Yerington Jail, Laughlin requested to make a phone call but the phone
17 operated on a system that permitted only collect calls. Laughlin, devastated, going from disbelief to
18 incredulity, could not make any calls because all his numbers were stored in his now confiscated
19 cell phone. When Laughlin requested to look at his phone, so he could locate numbers and make a
20 calls for assistance and to find a lawyer, a Lyon County deputy told him to: “Shut up.”
21 39. On that first night, Laughlin, increasingly agitated, told each and every deputy
22 interacting with him that he was innocent, his arrest was a mistake and he knew nothing about a
23 “Summons” or a burglary in Pahrump. Laughlin told the deputies he had never been to Pahrump
24 much less received a “Summons” in Pahrump. The deputies told Laughlin to “Shut up.”
25
26 10
It would also have been easy to correct this erroneous arrest, if Nye County officials had
27 physically gone to the 621 W. Jarvis Rd. address, to arrest, book, fingerprint, and photograph the
person sought at that address to compare the fingerprints and photograph of that person with
28 Laughlin. It would be obvious Laughlin was not the correct person. It would be obvious there was
no Sean Laughlin at the Jarvis Rd. address.
10
1 40. Laughlin was assigned a cell. His cellmate warned him about how “badly” the
2 deputies treated inmates. Laughlin did not sleep, he was restless, disturbed, and frantic. Laughlin
3 read over documents about the burglary. He understood the crime he was charged with stealing used
4 women clothing, dishes, CD’s, DVDs and an electric screw driver. To Laughlin it was
5 unbelievable. The crimes took place in Pahrump, a place Laughlin knew nothing about. Laughlin
6 concluded it was implausible, incredible, and farfetched, but could be cleared up.
7 41. Contributing to Laughlin’s distress was his need to soon catch a plane to Australia.
8 He was booked to perform on the Norwegian “Star” on December 22, 2016 through January 1,
9 2017. Laughlin also had another booking on the Royal Caribbean “Voyager” from January 2 to
10 January 10, 2017. Laughlin’s airline tickets were paid for and the contracts were signed.
11 42. On December 13, 2016, Laughlin was shaken to find deputies screaming at him to
12 line up against a wall and to “shut up.” The entire experience was bizarre. Laughlin asked a young
13 deputy during the dinner time lineup: “When will I be arraigned?” Laughlin was desperate to get
14 before a judge to explain it was a misidentification, Laughlin believed if he could explain this
15 grotesque, surreal situation to a judge, the matter could be remedied. The deputies ignored him.
16 43. On December 14, 2016, after another sleepless night, Laughlin was visited by one of
17 his tenants, Christina Epley, who had been searching for him. Laughlin instructed Ms. Epley to have
18 his property manager, Sheree Rose, retain an attorney. Laughlin also able talk to his fiancée in
19 Australia to inform her that his flight to Australia on December 18th was at risk. To anyone and
20 everyone who would listen, Laughlin continued to protest his innocence, assert a misidentification,
21 and demand to be arraigned.
22 44. On December 15, 2016, Laughlin tried to adjust to life in jail. His family had been
23 contacted, but it was difficult to find a lawyer. His medication for allergies and breathing issues
24 were prescribed in Australia; the jail refused to honor the medications. The guards refused to
25 provide any information on an arraignment and disbelieved his protestations of innocence, telling
26 him repeatedly to “shut up.”
27 45. On December 16, 2016, still without a scheduled appearance before a judge,
28
11
1 Laughlin continued to request to see a judge. His bail was set at the impossibly high amount of
2 $675,000.00. Laughlin wanted to appear before a judge and explain the misidentification, request
3 reasonable bail, and ask for an inquiry into who had received the mysterious “Summons” the core
4 problem of his incarceration. Laughlin felt that once released, he would have access to his passport
5 and credit card statements, making it easy to prove he was not in Pahrump at the time of the crime
6 and would be able to locate friends and relatives to assist in finding a lawyer.
7 46. On December 17, 2016, Laughlin’s friends found an attorney, but arrangements had
8 to be made to retain him. Laughlin hoped the attorney could immediately get him out of jail as his
9 flight to Australia left on December 18th for his next Royal Caribbean booking. Laughlin worried he
10 would be unable to make his flight and unable to perform as contracted. Laughlin suspected the
11 cruise line would be unable to find a last-minute replacement and would be furious. Laughlin
12 worried he could lose his job.11

13 47. On December 18, 2018, Laughlin knew his plane had departed for Australia and his
14 inability to make the flight and perform would cause enormous problems. Laughlin was depressed
15 and low. To make matters worse, Laughlin’s right leg was in constant pain from jumping down
16 from the top bunk. Laughlin explained repeatedly to all deputies he was not the person sought and
17 continued to ask to see a judge.
18 48. On December 19, 2016, Laughlin was very discouraged. He hoped the newly
19 retained attorney would be able to gain access to his identification, his passport, credit card receipts
20 and other records. These items would prove he was in Australia during the time of the crime and
21 quickly establish he was the victim of misidentification and a gross miscarriage of justice.
22 49. On December 20, 2016, Laughlin felt sick and weak. Laughlin asked again to get
23 before a judge. He could not understand the delay. Laughlin believed if he could get before a judge
24 he could establish he had never received a “Summons,” he could obtain reasonable bail, and set
25
26 11
Also, on December 17th, another inmate entered Laughlin’s cell, covered in tattoos
27 ranging from Nazi white supremacist to rock and roll figures, skulls etc. covering his face. The new
cellmate said, “You get high!?” pointing towards his buttocks saying, “I got it here!” The inmate
28 then pulled down his jail issue pants and proceeded to dig into his rectum using his finger and
thumb to eventually withdraw a small rolled up baggy from which he unrolled a significant amount
of drugs—which he proceeded to snort on the jail table.
12
1 about proving the misidentification. The deputies stopped listening to him. The deputies
2 continually told him to “Shut up.” It was obvious to Laughlin no one had any intention of getting
3 him before a judge.12
4 50. On December 21, 2016, Laughlin spoke to his new attorney. Laughlin told him about
5 the misidentification and his need to immediately get out of jail. The attorney began a dialogue with
6 Nye County Deputy District Attorney Christi Kindel. Laughlin’s attorney made clear Laughlin did
7 not receive a “Summons,” did not fail to appear, and did not commit a burglary in Pahrump because
8 he was in Australia at the time of the crime. The attorney explained Laughlin’s need for reasonable
9 bail. Ms. Kindel was not sympathetic. Ms. Kindel did not agree to investigate, inquire, or reduce the
10 bail.
11 51. On December 22, 2016, Laughlin, still with no sign of a pending arraignment, grew
12 even more pessimistic, cynical and gloomy. Laughlin’s attorney informed him that it was doubtful
13 anything would be done soon as most county officials would be on Christmas vacation. The
14 attorney expressed it was “doubtful” anything could be done before the new year.
15 52. On December 23, 2016, Laughlin accepted he would not spend Christmas or New
16 Years with his fiancée and would miss his contractual obligation. With the upcoming holidays, the
17 tone in the jail shifted, the inmates continually argued and fought. Laughlin feared for his safety.
18 53. On December 24, 2016, Christmas Eve, Laughlin had just washed his shirt, socks
19 and underwear in the sink with the jail issue soap when he heard, “Sean Laughlin roll up!”
20 Laughlin’s first thought was he had been found innocent and would be released. Laughlin soon
21 understood he would be transferred from Yerington to Pahrump. Laughlin was put in chains,
22 secured at the wrists and ankles, and escorted to a Nye County cruiser.13 During the ride Laughlin
23
24
12
Laughlin was unaware that Lyon County had an obligation under NRS 171.178(3) to get
25 him before a magistrate within 72 hours of his incarceration.
26 13
The windows on the vehicle taking Laughlin to Nye County were open. When Laughlin
27 asked how cold it was, the deputy said it was “cold as hell and the windows won’t roll up.” The
deputy said he had a strong heater but the divider between the front and back seat would prevent the
28 heat from reaching Laughlin. About half way into the drive, the deputy tried, unsuccessfully, to fix
the windows. Laughlin, without even a warm jacket, sat for many hours in the freezing temperature
and wind. By the time they arrived in Tonopah, Laughlin’s wrists and ankles lost feeling. At
13
1 talked for hours to the Nye County deputy driving him. Laughlin told the deputy he was
2 misidentified, he was innocent, and he was in Australia at the time of the crime. Laughlin explained
3 he had not been taken before a judge, had a $675,000.00 bail, and had no understanding as to how
4 such a wacky bizarre event had taken place. The deputy listened. Once at the Pahrump jail,
5 Laughlin learned the inmates were a tougher group in Pahrump than in Yerington. In Yerington,
6 Laughlin feared the guards; in Pahrump, Laughlin feared the inmates.
7 54. On December 25, 2016, Laughlin was able to telephone his fiancée in Australia and
8 arrange for his agent to send an extensive email of Laughlin’s flights to Australia including his
9 complete travel itinerary with dates, hotels, and ships booked for performances. Laughlin continued
10 to ask every deputy at the Pahrump jail to get him before a judicial officer so he could establish his
11 innocence. Laughlin was told he might have to remain incarcerated until a trial could be held in
12 April 2017. Laughlin continued to reasonably believe if he could get before a magistrate, the entire
13 matter could be sorted out.
14 55. On December 26, 2016, Laughlin was depressed, despondent and paranoid. Laughlin
15 felt this nightmare would continue indefinitely and he would remain in jail forever.
16 56. On December 27, 2017, Laughlin shifted from depression to outrage. No matter who
17 he has talked to, who he has told of his misidentification and his innocence—no one has cared. Not
18 one deputy or Nye County official sought to follow up on what he has said. No one has cared to
19 inquire as to whether he received a “Summons,” whether he was the person wanted for the crime, or
20 whether he got before a magistrate. The indifference to Laughlin’s protestations of misidentification
21 was palpable. Laughlin hovered between a constant state of rage, tension, and suicide.
22 57. On December 28, 2017, Laughlin felt like he dropped off the face of the Earth. No
23 one would listen to his demand to be taken before a judge. He could not obtain an arraignment, a
24 bail hearing, a probable cause hearing or even a minimal inquiry into the misidentification. In
25 addition, there was never a moment of peace in the jail. The inmates yelled and fought and the
26 deputies yelled and screamed.
27
28
Tonopah, the deputy was able to obtain another vehicle with working windows and a good heater
for the drive to Pahrump.
14
1 58. On December 29, 2017, Laughlin woke up to more profound depression. He had lost
2 15 pounds, his leg was in constant pain, and his anxiety level was off the charts. The inmates were
3 tired of listening to his story of mistaken identity, and the deputies did not pretend to care. Then, to
4 Laughlin’s amazement, without warning, without explanation, Laughlin was ordered released.
5 59. In Laughlin’s eighteen days of incarceration, thirteen in Yerington and five in
6 Pahrump, he never got before a judge.
7 60. On December 29, 2016, the Nye County Justice of the Peace entered an order
8 dismissing the charges against Laughlin without prejudice.
9 61. On December 29, 2016, the Nye County Justice of the Peace entered an order
10 dismissing the charges against Laughlin with prejudice.
11 62. On January 4, 2017, the Nye County Justice of the Peace entered an amended order
12 dismissing the charges against Laughlin with prejudice.

13 63. Laughlin lost his job. Laughlin’s agent informed him that after missing two
14 contracted scheduled performances, cruise ships found him “unreliable” and no longer employable.
15 Laughlin also lost his agent. For the majority of 2017 Laughlin was unemployed, severely
16 depressed, and worried this crazy scenario could happen again. In 2018, Laughlin took a job as a
17 basic laborer.
18 64. On information and belief, no deputies or employees of Lyon County or Nye County
19 were investigated or disciplined regarding the failure to get Laughlin immediately before a
20 magistrate.
21 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Monell Claim as to Lyon County)
22 42 U.S.C. Section 1983—Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause—
Failure to Promptly Take Laughlin Before A Judicial Officer and Failure to Train
23
24 65. Plaintiff realleges all prior paragraphs of this complaint and incorporates the same
25 herein by this reference.
26 66. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee.
27 67. Nevada has created a protected liberty interest by placing substantial limitations on
28
15
1 official discretion to hold a detainee without a prompt appearance before a judicial officer. When a
2 state creates a liberty interest it must follow minimum due process appropriate to the circumstances
3 to ensure that liberty is not arbitrarily abrogated. Freedom from incarceration is a vital liberty
4 interest guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution for those
5 who have been wrongfully arrested.
6 68. NRS 171.178 (1) states: “…a peace officer making an arrest under a warrant issued
7 upon a complaint or without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay
8 before the magistrate who issued the warrant or the nearest available magistrate employer to
9 commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the State of Nevada.” The law does not
10 specify that officers may only take the arrested person before a judicial officer in the county issuing
11 the warrant.
12 69. NRS 171.178 (3) specifically designates 72 hours after arrest as the outer required
13 time limit.
14 70. The reason for the necessity of prompt appearance before a judicial officer is that
15 prolonged detention based on incorrect or unfounded suspicion unjustly imperils a suspect’s job,
16 interrupts his source of income, and disrupts his family and professional relationships. One of the
17 primary reasons for a prompt appearance before a judicial officer is to allow for a discussion of
18 reasonable bail and an opportunity for the detainee to bring important issues before the court which
19 impact bail and cause investigation into the case.
20 71. Laughlin, as a pretrial detainee, had a strong interest in freedom from incarceration
21 and the protection of procedural speedy pretrial procedures. If brought before a judicial officer, as
22 required by law, Laughlin could have immediately informed the court he was the victim of a
23 misidentification, he was out of the country during the alleged time of the crime, he could prove he
24 was out of the country during the alleged time of the crime, he never received a summons to appear,
25 never resided at the 621 W. Jarvis Lane address in Pahrump, and could not possibly be guilty of
26 failure to appear when he had never received a summons to appear. The judge would have
27 immediately known that bail in the amount of $675,000.0014 was unreasonable and absurd. The
28
14
Laughlin’s bail at $675,000.00 was so crazily exorbitant it by itself compelled the
16
1 judge would have immediately requested an investigation into whether this was a case of mistaken
2 identity. The judge would have noticed the original summons was in the file, still in its original
3 envelope—as proof positive Laughlin had never been served with a summons to appear. The judge
4 would likely have set a reasonable bail and dismissed the failure to appear charge.
5 72. Laughlin’s incarceration pursuant to a seemingly facially valid warrant but in the
6 face of repeated protests of innocent and misidentification gives rise to a due process claim after the
7 lapse of a prolonged period.
8 73. While Laughlin had a substantial interest of deprivation to his liberty interest by
9 Lyon County’s failure to implement procedures to ascertain prompt appearance before a judicial
10 officer, Lyon County had no interest in maintaining procedures that would delay or postpone
11 Laughlin’s prompt appearance before a judicial officer. The cost to Lyon County of a manual
12 review of jail records to ensure detainees promptly appear before a judicial officer as mandated by
13 statute would is not prohibitive.
14 74. While Laughlin had a substantial interest of deprivation to his liberty interest by
15 Lyon County’s failure to implement procedures to ascertain prompt appearance before a judicial
16 officer, Lyon County had no interest in failure to follow NRS 171.178 (3). Lyon County is required
17 to follow state law and has a strong interest in following state law and avoiding constitutional
18 violations towards pretrial detainee.
19 75. Lyon County could have put any number of common sense low-cost procedures in
20 place to track detainees like Laughlin to ensure their prompt appearance before a judicial officer as
21 required by state law. Laughlin’s liberty interest and the significant risk of deprivation of that
22 interest by Lyon County policies, far outweighs the minimum burden to Lyon County of following
23 state law and ensuring detainees appear promptly before judicial officers as required.
24 76. Lyon County made a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from
25 among various alternatives by official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with
26 respect to the appearance of detainees promptly before judicial officers. Lyon County’s failure to
27
28
immediate need for an appearance before a judicial officer.
17
1 provide Laughlin with a prompt appearance before a judicial officer was the result of a deliberate
2 policy and its failure to properly train its employees in the requirements of state law was also the
3 result of a deliberate policy. Laughlin put Lyon County deputies on notice, on a near daily basis of
4 his need to get before a judicial officer, and was repeatedly told to “Shut up.” These same deputies
5 and employees of Lyon County flagrantly flouted, ignored, and disregarded state law requirements.
6 77. The need follow state law and get Laughlin before a judicial officer within 72 hours
7 was obvious. Failure to do so could likely result in a deprivation of rights and a prolonged and
8 unnecessary incarceration. Lyon County deputies, and the Sheriff of Lyon County, should have
9 known that bail set in the amount of $675,000.00 for an alleged burglary involving a few thousand
10 dollars in property was obviously unreasonable. Lyon County officials and employees made the
11 deliberate choice to disregard the obvious risk of harm to Laughlin and follow their own policy of
12 ignoring NRS 171.178 (3).15

13 78. Lyon County had a policy of deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s constitution right
14 to freedom from deprivation of liberty. The need for more or different training to avoid violations of
15 NRS 171.178(3) is obvious. The harm that violations of NRS 171.178 (3) can cause is obvious. The
16 inadequacy of Lyon County’s current policy, ignoring NRS 171.178 (3), is so likely to result in the
17 violation of constitutional rights that policymakers for Lyon County can reasonably be said to be
18 deliberately indifferent to those constitutional rights.
19 79. Lyon County’s failure to train its employees of the need to get pretrial detainees
20 promptly before a magistrate when the need to do so is obvious causes Lyon County to violate
21 citizens’ constitutional rights. The violation of Laughlin’s protected rights under the Fourteenth
22 Amendment was a highly predictable consequence of the decision not to train Lyon County
23 deputies and employees on the need to follow NRS 171.178 (3).
24 80. Lyon County’s failure to investigate and discipline employees in the face of
25 widespread constitutional violations of the need to get pretrial detainees promptly before a
26 magistrate when the need to do so is obvious is evidence of deliberate indifference.
27
28
15
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a particular showing of obviousness
can substitute for the pattern of violations ordinary necessary to establish municipal culpability.
18
1 81. Lyon County’s need to get Laughlin promptly before a magistrate was patently
2 obvious. The harm likely to occur by the failure to do so was patently obvious.
3 82. The sheriff of Lyon County is a policymaker for detainees incarcerated at the Lyon
4 County Jail. The sheriff of Lyon County, pursuant to NRS 211.140(1), has charge and control over
5 all prisoners committed to his care. The Lyon County sheriff’s policy of ignoring and failing to
6 follow NRS 171.178 (3), is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights that
7 policymakers for Lyon County can reasonably be said to be deliberately indifferent to those
8 constitutional rights. The inadequacy of Lyon County’s current policy, ignoring NRS 171.178 (3), is
9 so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights that policymakers for Lyon County can
10 reasonably be said to be deliberately indifferent to rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth
11 Amendment.
12 83. Lyon County’s policy of ignoring and failing to follow NRS 171.178 (3) and failing
13 to train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) and the need to
14 safeguard the constitutional rights of detainees was the moving force behind the violation of
15 Laughlin’s constitutional rights.
17 to train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) evinces obvious
18 deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s constitutional rights. The failure to investigate and discipline
19 employees in the face of widespread constitutional violations establishes deliberate indifference.
21 to train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) is closely related
22 to Laughlin’s ultimate injury.
24 to train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) was the direct
25 and proximate cause of Laughlin damages. Laughlin suffered damages including the loss of his
26 employment, lost backpay, lost front pay, lost benefits, emotional distress, outrage, severe anxiety
27 about his future, damage to his reputation, disruption of his personal life, and loss of enjoyment of the
28
19
1 ordinary pleasures of everyday life. Plaintiff requests all applicable damages as well as attorneys’
2 fees and costs.
3 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. Section 1983—Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause—
4 Failure to Promptly Take Laughlin Before A Judicial Officer As Against Lyon County Does
1-5
5
6
87. Plaintiff realleges all prior paragraphs of this complaint and incorporates the same
7
herein by this reference.
8
88. Does 1-5 violated Laughlin’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be promptly taken to
9
appear before a judicial officer.
10
89. Does 1-5 are officers, deputies and/or employees of Lyon County.
11
90. Does 1-5 were aware that Laughlin protested his innocence, aware that Laughlin
12
claimed he was in Australia at the time of the crime, aware that Laughlin had no criminal record,
13
and aware that Laughlin repeatedly requested a prompt appearance before a judicial officer.
14
91. Does 1-5 were aware that Laughlin had a clearly established right under the due
15
process clause Fourteenth Amendment to be free from deliberate indifference to his liberty rights.
16
The contents of the right required the individual defendants to take reasonable measures to mitigate
17
harm to Laughlin by arranging a prompt appearance before a judicial officer.
18
92. Does 1-5 were deliberately indifferent to Laughlin’s due process rights and their
19
deliberate indifference was the moving force behind Laughlin’s injury.
20
93. Does 1-5 acted under the direction and supervision of Lyon County officials and/or
21
the sheriff of Lyon County, a policymaker for the county, who set forth the standards, policies and
22
procedures on tracking detainee appearances before a judicial officer.
23
94. Does 1-5 made an intentional decision with respect to getting Laughlin before a
24
judicial officer—the decision was to disregard his right to appear before a judicial officer.
25
95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Laughlin experienced
26
physical pain, severe emotional distress, and job loss.
27
96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and disregard for Laughlin’s
28
20
1 liberty interest in promptly appearing before a judicial officer, Laughlin has suffered damages
2 including the loss of his employment, lost backpay, lost front pay, lost benefits, emotional distress,
3 outrage, severe anxiety about his future, damage to his reputation, disruption of his personal life, and
4 loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life. Plaintiff requests all applicable damages
5 including punitive damages as provided under the law, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
6 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Monell Claim as to Nye County)
Failure to Institute Policies to Prevent Arrests of Mistaken Identity and Failure to Train
8
11 98. A mistaken incarceration can violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth
12 Amendment. Detention pursuant to a valid warrant, but in the face of repeated protests of
13 innocence, will after the passage of a certain period of time, deprive the accused of liberty without
14 due process of law.
15 99. Nye County Deputy Murphy investigated the alleged crime against Rea Krenzer.
16 Murphy inserted an address for Sean Laughlin of 621 W. Jarvis Rd., in Pahrump without
17 confirming that a Sean Laughlin resided at that address.
18 100. Nye County officials transferred Laughlin from the Lyon County Jail in Yerington
19 to the Nye County Jail in Pahrump after Laughlin had already spent 13 days in the Lyon County
20 Jail. Due process imposes a requirement to take steps to verify a detainee’s identity before
21 transferring the detainee.
22 101. Nye County officials knew or should have known from discussions with Lyon
23 County officials (because Laughlin was arrested for a crime allegedly occurring in Nye County) that
24 Laughlin protested his arrest, claiming a misidentification. Nye County officials knew or should
25 have known there was an obvious error on Laughlin’s bench warrant—the address on Jarvis Rd. in
26 Pahrump—because Laughlin had no ties to Pahrump and possessed a driver’s license and other
27 documents showing an address in Silver City, NV some 388 miles north of Pahrump. Instead of
28
21
1 taking reasonable measures to verify Laughlin was the actual suspect, Nye County officials
2 prolonged Laughlin’s incarceration by showing deliberate indifferent to the need to verify
3 Laughlin’s identity.
4 102. Laughlin had a strong liberty interest in being free from incarceration based on
5 mistaken identity There were no common-sense procedural safeguards in place by Nye County to
6 verify the Laughlin’s warrant was not the result of mistaken identity. The need for these common-
7 sense procedural safeguards is obvious.
8 103. On information and belief, misidentification and arrests based on faulty erroneous
9 warrants occur regularly in Nye County. Nye County learned nothing from the disaster occurring to
10 Sean Laughlin. On January 22, 2018, Brittany White was pulled over by a Nevada Highway Patrol
11 Officer in Reno, NV on a minor traffic offense. While doing a routine warrant check, the trooper
12 learned Ms. White, like Laughlin, had a warrant out of Nye County from 2011 for her arrest. The
13 warrant matched Ms. White completely with the same physical description and particulars. Ms.
14 White, works two jobs, goes to school in Reno for her second degree, and has no criminal record.
15 Ms. White had never been to Pahrump and knew nothing about this wholly specious felony charge.
16 Ms. White was arrested and spent almost ten hours in jail until her angry boyfriend was able to
17 protest her innocence and secure an investigation that revealed the charges were for a different
18 Brittany White.
19 104. Nye County failed to institute reasonable quality control procedures for maintaining
20 and verifying warrant information to reduce the risk of innocent persons with the same or similar
21 names or innocent persons whose identities falsely registered in a recording system or data base or
22 conflicted with that of the wanted person. This is evident from the wrongful arrest of Brittany White
23 and perhaps others.
24 105. Nye County’s failure to take corrective action, or to train its officers and employees,
25 or to institute reasonable quality control procedures for maintaining and verifying warrant
26 information is obvious. This failure to train municipal employees adequately in how to verify an
27 identity and how to enact or execute policies and procedures for decreasing the risk of erroneous
28
22
1 arrests is the moving force behind the violation Laughlin’s constitutional violation. This same
2 policy led to the wrongful arrest of Brittany White.
3 106. Simple readily available steps to verify the identity of the suspect sought does not
4 require officers to inquire into the validity of a warrant or its issuance. Once on notice of repeated
5 assertions of misidentification, Nye County had an obligation to make a reasonable inquiry into
6 whether Plaintiff was the person wanted in the alleged crimes. The procedures utilized by Nye
7 County were not reasonably calculated to determine whether the suspect wanted in the Krenzer
8 burglary was Sean Laughlin.
9 107. Nye County acted with deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s due process rights when
10 it caused him to be arrested, extradited on a failure to appear warrant, and detained for eighteen
11 days without taking necessary steps to verify his identity. Nye County officials were on notice that
12 Laughlin protested and claimed a misidentification from the moment of his arrest and after a short
13 time had a constitutional obligation to make an inquiry into whether Plaintiff was the correct
14 suspect.
15 108. Nye County’s above described policy was closely related to Laughlin’s ultimate
16 injury. If Nye County had taken appropriate procedures to verify that Laughlin was the criminal
17 sought, to verify if he lived at the Jarvis Rd. address, to verify if he was in the country at the time of
18 the crime, and to verify if he had received a summons to appear, Laughlin would have been
19 promptly and summarily released.
20 109. Nye County’s above described policy was closely related to Laughlin’s ultimate
21 injury. If Nye County had taken appropriate procedures to train its officers and employees to
22 conduct a reasonable investigation into whether Laughlin was the criminal sought, to verify if he
23 lived at the Jarvis Rd. address, to verify if he was in the country at the time of the crime, and to
24 verify if he had received a summons to appear, Laughlin would have been promptly and summarily
25 released.
26 110. Nye County made a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from among
27 various alternatives by official or officials responsible for establish final policy with respect to
28
23
1 investigating claims of mistaken identity. Nye County officials and employees made the deliberate
2 choice to disregard the obvious risk of harm to Laughlin, disregard the obvious risk of harm in
3 failing to institute training to prevent misidentification, and ignore Laughlin’s claims of
4 misidentification. These actions demonstrate deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s constitutionally
5 protected rights.
6 111. Nye County official’s policy of deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s constitutional
7 right to freedom from deprivation of liberty was a highly predictable consequence of the decision
8 not to train Nye County deputies and employees on the need to check for possible misidentification
9 of detainees.
10 112. The sheriff of Nye County is a policymaker for detainees incarcerated at the Nye
11 County Jail. The sheriff of Nye County, pursuant to NRS 211.140(1), has charge and control over
12 all prisoners committed to his care. The Nye County sheriff’s policy of ignoring prolonged claims
13 of misidentification of inmates and failing to train on potential misidentification is so likely to result
14 in the violation of constitutional rights that policymakers for Nye County can reasonably be said to
15 be deliberately indifferent to those constitutional rights. The inadequacy of Nye County’s current
16 policy is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights that policymakers for Nye County
17 can reasonably be said to be deliberately indifferent to rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth
18 Amendment.
19 113. Nye County’s policies above described is closely related to Laughlin’s ultimate
20 injury.
21 114. Nye County’s policies above described was the direct and proximate cause of
22 Laughlin damages. Laughlin suffered damages including the loss of his employment, lost backpay, lost
23 front pay, lost benefits, emotional distress, outrage, severe anxiety about his future, damage to his
24 reputation, disruption of his personal life, and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of everyday
25 life. Plaintiff requests all applicable damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
26 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Monell Claim as to Nye County)
Failure to Promptly Take Laughlin Before A Judicial Officer
28
24
1
2
herein by this reference.
3
116. Laughlin was arrested pursuant to a Nye County bench warrant for failure to appear.
4
117. NRS 171. 178 mandates that officers making an arrest under a warrant or without a
5
warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before a magistrate. The law does
6
not specify that officers may only take the arrested person before a judicial officer in the county
7
issuing the warrant.
8
118. Nye County was aware of Laughlin’s arrest because the warrant stemmed from Nye
9
County and it is unreasonable that Nye County would not be informed of the arrest.
10
119. Nye County was responsible for ensuring that Laughlin, arrested pursuant to a Nye
11
County warrant, had a prompt appearance before a judicial officer whether in Lyon County or Nye
12
County.
13
120. Nye County could have put any number of common-sense procedures in place to
14
track detainees like Laughlin to ensure a prompt appearance before a judicial officer—whether held
15
in Lyon County or in Nye County.
16
121. Nye County could have put any number of procedures in place to track detainees like
17
Laughlin to ensure a prompt appearance before a judicial officer whether in Lyon County or in Nye
18
County.
19
122. Laughlin, as a pretrial detainee, had a strong interest in freedom from incarceration
20
and the protection of procedural speedy pretrial procedures. If brought before a judicial officer, as
21
required by law, Laughlin could have immediately informed the court he was the victim of a
22
misidentification, he was out of the country during the alleged time of the crime, he could prove he
23
was out of the country during the alleged time of the crime, he never received a summons to appear,
24
never resided at the 621 W. Jarvis Lane address in Pahrump, and could not possibly be guilty of
25
failure to appear when he had never received a summons to appear. The judge would have
26
immediately known that bail in the amount of $675,000.0016 was unreasonable and absurd. The
27
28
16
Laughlin’s bail at $675,000.00 was so crazily exorbitant it by itself compelled the
25
1 judge would have immediately requested an investigation into whether this was a case of mistaken
2 identity. The judge would have noticed the original summons was in the file, still in its original
3 envelope—as proof positive Laughlin had never been served with a summons to appear. The judge
4 would likely have set a reasonable bail and dismissed the failure to appear charge.
5 123. While Laughlin had a substantial interest of deprivation to his liberty interest by Nye
6 County’s failure to implement procedures to ascertain prompt appearance before a judicial officer,
7 Nye County had no interest in maintaining procedures that would delay or postpone Laughlin’s
8 prompt appearance before a judicial officer. The cost to Nye County of a manual review of jail
9 records to ensure detainees promptly appear before a judicial officer as mandated by statute would
10 is not prohibitive.
11 124. While Laughlin had a substantial interest of deprivation to his liberty interest by Nye
12 County’s failure to implement procedures to ascertain prompt appearance before a judicial officer,
13 Nye County had no interest in failure to follow NRS 171.178 (3). Nye County is required to follow
14 law and has a strong interest in following state law and avoiding constitutional violations towards
15 pretrial detainee.
16 125. Nye County could have put any number of common sense low-cost procedures in
17 place to track detainees like Laughlin to ensure their prompt appearance before a judicial officer as
18 required by state law. Laughlin’s liberty interest and the significant risk of deprivation of that
19 interest by Nye County policies, far outweighs the minimum burden to Nye County of following
20 state law and ensuring detainees appear promptly before judicial officers as required.
21 126. Nye County made a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from among
22 various alternatives by official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to
23 the appearance of detainees promptly before judicial officers. Nye County’s failure to provide
24 Laughlin with a prompt appearance before a judicial officer was the result of a deliberate policy and
25 its failure to properly train its employees in the requirements of state law was also the result of a
26 deliberate policy. Laughlin put Nye County deputies on notice, on a near daily basis of his need to
27
28
immediate need for an appearance before a judicial officer.
26
1 get before a judicial officer.

2 127. The need follow state law and get Laughlin before a judicial officer within 72 hours
3 was obvious. Failure to do so could likely result in a deprivation of rights and a prolonged and
4 unnecessary incarceration. Nye County deputies, and the Sheriff of Nye County, should have
5 known that bail set in the amount of $675,000.00 for an alleged burglary involving a few thousand
6 dollars in property was obviously unreasonable. Nye County officials and employees made the
7 deliberate choice to disregard the obvious risk of harm to Laughlin and follow their own policy of
8 ignoring NRS 171.178 (3).
9 128. Nye County had a policy of deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s constitution right to
10 freedom from deprivation of liberty. The need for more or different training to avoid violations of
11 NRS 171.178(3) is obvious. The harm that violations of NRS 171.178 (3) can cause is obvious. The
12 inadequacy of Nye County’s current policy, ignoring NRS 171.178 (3), is so likely to result in the
13 violation of constitutional rights that policymakers for Nye County can reasonably be said to be
14 deliberately indifferent to those constitutional rights.
15 129. Nye County’s failure to train its employees of the need to get pretrial detainees
16 promptly before a magistrate when the need to do so is obvious causes Nye County to violate
17 citizens’ constitutional rights. The violation of Laughlin’s protected rights under the Fourteenth
18 Amendment was a highly predictable consequence of the decision not to train Nye County deputies
19 and employees on the need to follow NRS 171.178 (3).
20 130. Nye County’s failure to investigate and discipline employees in the face of
21 widespread constitutional violations of the need to get pretrial detainees promptly before a
22 magistrate when the need to do so is obvious is evidence of deliberate indifference.
23 131. Nye County’s need to get Laughlin promptly before a magistrate was patently
24 obvious. The harm likely to occur by the failure to do so was patently obvious.
25 132. The sheriff of Nye County is a policymaker for detainees incarcerated at the Nye
26 County Jail. The sheriff of Nye County, pursuant to NRS 211.140(1), has charge and control over
27 all prisoners committed to his care. The Nye County sheriff’s policy of ignoring and failing to
28
27
1 follow NRS 171.178 (3), is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights that
2 policymakers for Nye County can reasonably be said to be deliberately indifferent to those
3 constitutional rights. The inadequacy of Nye County’s current policy, ignoring NRS 171.178 (3), is
4 so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights that policymakers for Nye County can
5 reasonably be said to be deliberately indifferent to rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth
6 Amendment.
7 133. Nye County’s policy of ignoring and failing to follow NRS 171.178 (3) and failing to
8 train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) and the need to
9 safeguard the constitutional rights of detainees was the moving force behind the violation of
10 Laughlin’s constitutional rights.
12 train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) evinces obvious
13 deliberate indifference to Laughlin’s constitutional rights. The failure to investigate and discipline
14 employees in the face of widespread constitutional violations establishes deliberate indifference.
16 train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) is closely related to
17 Laughlin’s ultimate injury.
19 train sheriff’s office deputies and employees in the mandate of NRS 171.178(3) was the direct and
20 proximate cause of Laughlin damages. Laughlin suffered damages including the loss of his
21 employment, lost backpay, lost front pay, lost benefits, emotional distress, outrage, severe anxiety
22 about his future, damage to his reputation, disruption of his personal life, and loss of enjoyment of the
23 ordinary pleasures of everyday life. Plaintiff requests all applicable damages as well as attorneys’
24 fees and costs.
25 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Failure to Promptly Take Laughlin To A Judicial Officer As Against Nye County Does 6-10
27
28
28
3
138. Does 6-10 violated Laughlin’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be promptly taken to
4
appear before a judicial officer.
5
139. Does 6-10 are officers, deputies and employees at the Nye County jail.
6
7 140. Does 6-10 were aware that Laughlin protested his innocence, aware that Laughlin
8 claimed he was in Australia at the time of the crime, aware that Laughlin had no criminal record,
9 and aware that Laughlin repeatedly requested a prompt appearance before a judicial officer.
10 141. Does 6-10 were aware that Laughlin had a clearly established right under the due
11 process clause Fourteenth Amendment to be free from deliberate indifference to his liberty rights.
12 The contents of the right required the individual defendants to take reasonable measures to mitigate
13 harm to Laughlin by arranging a prompt appearance before a judicial officer.
14 142. Does 6-10 were deliberately indifferent to Laughlin’s due process rights and their
15 deliberate indifference was the moving force behind Laughlin’s injury.
16 143. Does 6-10 acted under the direction and supervision of Lyon County officials and/or
17 the sheriff of Lyon County, a policymaker for the county, who set forth the standards, policies and
18 procedures on tracking detainee appearances before a judicial officer.
19 144. Does 6-10 made an intentional decision with respect to getting Laughlin before a
20 judicial officer—the decision was to disregard his right to appear before a judicial officer.
21 145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Laughlin experienced
22 physical pain, severe emotional distress, and job loss.
23 146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and disregard for Laughlin’s
25 including lost pay, lost benefits, and great humiliation which is and was manifest in emotional distress,
28
29
1 including back pay, front pay, as well as compensatory and punitive damages as provided under the
2 law, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
3 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Imprisonment As Against All Defendants)
4
5
7 148. NRS 200.460 defines false imprisonment in Nevada as an unlawful violation of the
8 personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal
9
authority.
10
149. The detention was willful
11
150. The detention was without Plaintiff’s consent
12
13 151. The detention was unlawful.
14 152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Laughlin experienced
15 physical pain, severe emotional distress, and job loss.
16 153. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and disregard for Laughlin’s
18 including lost pay, lost benefits, and great humiliation which is and was manifest in emotional distress,
21 including back pay, front pay, as well as compensatory and punitive damages as against the
22 individual DOE defendants as provided under the law, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
25
26 1. Issue a judgment declaring that the actions of Defendants described herein are
27 unlawful and violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the constitution and laws of the United States;
28
30
1 2. For general damages in a sum according to proof;

2 3. For special damages in a sum according to proof;
3
4. For punitive damages in a sum according to proof;
4
5. For leave to amend or supplement the Complaint when the identity of the Doe
5
Defendants is discovered and new evidence is uncovered;
6
7 6. For declaratory relief;
8 7. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;
9 8. For cost of suit herein incurred; and,

10 9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
11
DATED: This 2nd day of October 2018
12
/s/ Terri Keyser-Cooper
13 TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Attorney for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31

#1 Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

#1 Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:18-cv-00467 Document 1 Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 31

8 Laughlin knows nothing about the Jarvis Rd. address.

1 estimated value of the items at approximately $3,800.00.

1 found. Banfield issued Laughlin a warning for the traffic violation.

12 worried he could lose his job.11

12 dismissing the charges against Laughlin with prejudice.

25 herein by this reference.

26 66. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee.

12 ignoring NRS 171.178 (3).15

10 herein by this reference.

14 due process of law.

17 confirming that a Sean Laughlin resided at that address.

21 transferring the detainee.

1 get before a judicial officer.

13 harm to Laughlin by arranging a prompt appearance before a judicial officer.

15 deliberate indifference was the moving force behind Laughlin’s injury.

18 procedures on tracking detainee appearances before a judicial officer.

21 145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Laughlin experienced

22 physical pain, severe emotional distress, and job loss.

14 152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Laughlin experienced

15 physical pain, severe emotional distress, and job loss.

1 2. For general damages in a sum according to proof;

8 7. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;

9 8. For cost of suit herein incurred; and,

You might also like