Estate of Marcus Hartsfield V Oakridge Et Al

Case 6:22-cv-01445-MK Document 1 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 17
Jennie L. Clark, OSB No. 000319

E-mail: jennie@clarklawportland.com
Barry Fifth-Lince, OSB No. 182935
E-mail: ban-y@clarklawportland.com
6501 SW Macadam Ave. Suite E
PortlanJ, OR 97239
(503) 238-1010
(503) 238-1212 (fax)
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISRTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF MARCUS HARTSFIELD

Civil No.:
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
v.
CITY OF OAKRIDGE, STATE OF Action for Violation of Civil Rights (42
OREGON; LANE COUNRTY,A political USC section 1983); failure to train; final
subdivision of the State of Oregon; STEVE policy maker; negligence; wrongful arrest;
DAVIDSON, Individually, and PATRICIA battery; wrongful death; negligent
PERLOW, Individually, and in her capacity infliction of emotional distress.
as District Attorney of Lane Count, Oregon
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
•
Plaintiff is THE EST ATE OF MARCUS HARTSFIELD (hereafter "the estate") acting through
RHONDA GILBREATH as personal representative, and complains of Defendants, CITY OF
OAKRIDGE, OREGON ( hereafter "the city''), LANE COUNTY, OREGON (hereafter "the
county"), STEVE DAVIDSON, INDIVIDUALLY (hereafter "officer Davidson"), AND
PATRICIA PERLOW, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HER CAPACITYAS DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR LANE COUNTY, OREGON (hereafter "the district attorney"), and shows as
follows:
Page I- COMPLAINT Clark La\\' & Associates. LLC

• Portland. OR 97239
(�03) 238-1010
,.:::tn, ')10 l"lt"") 11',.,.,.;,.... ;1.,,
VENUE
1.
Venue is proper within the district of Oregon because the events giving rise to this claim
occurred in this judicial district, and all defendants reside in this district, 28 USC sec. 1391
(b )(2). The acts and conduct complained of herein occurred in Lane County, Oregon. Thi s court
has jurisdiction over the subject matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.. The court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the state tort claims because they arise out of the same case or controversy
pursuant to 28 USC section 1367(a).
PARTIES & PRELIMINARY FACTS
2.
RHONDA GILBREATH is a resident of Lane County, Oregon and is the personal representative
of the Estate of Marcus Hartsfield, Cause No. 22PB01033 , presently pending in the circuit court
of Lane County, Oregon.
3.
Defendant City is a duly organized municipal corporation under Oregon law. City may be served
with process by serving its mayor, Christina A Hollett, 48370 7th Street, Oakridge, OR 97463.
Public bodies are liable for the tortious conduct of their agents and employees pursuant to ORS
30.260(4) and 30.265(1).
4.
Defendant County is a political subdivision of the State of Oregon. County may be served with
process through the Lane County District Attorney, Patricia Perlow, 125 E 8th Ave #400,
Eugene, OR 97401.
Page 2- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Assoc iates. LLC

650 1 SW Macadam Ave. Suite E
Portland, O R 97239
(503) 238-1 0 I 0
( .:'. (\'}\ ")'}0 I '1 1 ') /.f"..,.,,., ,.. ; ..... ;1 ,,.,\
5.
Defendant Steve Davidson was an Officer of the Oakridge, Oregon Police Department during the
incident giving rise to this complaint, and was at all material times herein an agent, servant,
and/or employee of the city of Oakridge. Officer Davidson may be served with process at his
place of employment, Oak Ride Police Department, 76435 Ash Street, Oakridge, OR 97463.
6.
Defendant Patricia Perlow was the District Attorney for Lane County, Oregon, during the events
giving rise to this complaint. Defendant Perlow may be served with process at her place of
employment, Lane County District Attorney, 125 E 8th Ave., #400, Eugene, OR 97401.
7.
All events referred to herein occurred on or about October 16,.2019.
8.
The incident occurred at 76360 Rainbow St. Oakridge, Lane County, Oregon.
FACTS
9.
On or about October 16, 2019, Mr. Marcus Hartsfield (hereafter "Mr. Hartsfield" or "decedent")
had a mental episode and cut himself with a razor blade on his arms, stomach, and neck at the
incident location of 76360 Rainbow St., Oakridge, Oregon.
10.
Family members, including without limitation, Dylan Gardiner, "Amanda," and "David", called
"911 ", and told the call taker that Mr. Hartsfield was suicidal, and requested immediate medical
assistance.
Page 3- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Associates. LLC

Portland, OR 97239
(503) 238-1010
1 .::::tYl\ -,')Q l'"l I '"I / f',.., ,..,,..;,.,.,,,;1 ,...\
11.
Although the family had requested medical assistance, Oakridge Police Officer Steve Davidson
was the first public official arriving on the scene.
12.
Officer Davidson did not announce himself when he entered the scene.
13.
Officer Davidson did not have an arrest warrant for decedent. Officer Davidson did not state that
decedent was under arrest and did not take steps to put him in custody.
14.
Officer Davidson did not attempt communication with the bystanders on scene.
15.
There was no crime in progress when officer Davidson entered the scene.
16.
Shortly after his arrival, Officer Davidson, without warning, shot Mr. Hartsfield three times with
his gun, twice in the chest and once on the chin, ultimately causing his death.
17.
One of the shots was fired after Mr. Hartsfield had collapsed on the ground.
18.
There were several bystanders standing behind Mr. Hartsfield in the line of fire when the shots
were fired .
19.
Decedent' s father, Ronald Hartsfield, a former combat medic, and an ambulance, arrived on
scene after the shooting.
Page 4- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Assoc iates. LLC

650 1 SW Macadam Ave. Sui te E
Portl and, OR 97239
(503) 238-1 0 10
/ C f\')\ '1'}0 I '11 '1 /(',...,,...,..;, ..,,; 1,...\
20.
Officer Davidson prevented the father and ambulance crew from rendering aid to decedent for a
period of 15 to 20 minutes, which conduct is believed to have contributed to decedent's death.
21.
Witnesses saw a body camera on officer Davidson at the time of the incident.
22.
As of this date, no body camera footage has been provided to Plaintiffs.
23.
After the death of Mr. Hartsfield, and on or about November 1, 2019, Defendant Patricia Perlow,
the District Attorney for Lane County, Oregon, issued a press release directed to the "Lane
County media", which stated in part that:" ... Preliminary toxicology confirmed the presence of
metharnphetarnine. In Mr. Hartsfield' s system .... " .
24.
Contrary to the statement in paragraph 23 above, neither the autopsy, toxicology report, or
alcohol/volatiles analysis identified the presence of any controlled substance, metharnphetarnine,
narcotic, or even alcohol, in the decedent' s system at the time of death. Plaintiff is unaware of
any other reports or investigations, of any type or nature, confirming the presence of any narcotic
or controlled substance in decedent's system at the time of his death.
25. TORT CLAIM NOTICE
Timely Tort Claim Notice under ORS 30.275 was sent to the City of Oakridge and to Lane
County on September 30, 2020, and receipt was acknowledged.
Page 5- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Assoc iates, LLC

65 01 S W Macadam Ave. Suite E
Portl and , OR 97239
(503) 238-1 0 I 0
/ C f\'J\ "l'JO I '"'I I ") ff,...,.. ,.. ; .~~:1 ,... \
FAILURE TO TRAIN OR DISCIPLINE-MONELL DOCTRINE (MONELL V.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 436 U.S. 658) and 42 U.S. CODE§ 1983
City of Oakridge
26.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1--24.
27.
There is an obvious need to train police officers to deal with persons attempting suicide, which is
a universally common situation, to be reasonably anticipated by police departments. Therefore,
the city of Oakridge had a legal duty to train its police officers in dealing with suicidal situations.
28.
The egregious conduct of officer Davidson in responding to this suicide attempt by shooting and
killing the victim under the circumstances described in paragraphs 9-14 above, displays such an
obvious lack of training and professionalism as to demonstrate a deliberate indifference by the
city to the training of its police officers, such as to constitute a deliberate policy choice. The lack
of training was further shown by the officer's lack of professional assessment of the incident
scene and failure to consult the on-site witnesses prior to discharging his gun.
29.
The failure by the city to provide adequate training was closely related to the wrongful death of
decedent, for which it is legally liable for damages under the Monell doctrine and 42 USC
section 1983.
Page 6- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Associates, LLC

Portland. OR 97239
(503) 238-1010
1.::::rv:n '"l".!O 1""111 1-f·,.,. ,...,.. ;, ...... ;1. . . \
1st CAUSE OF ACTION-EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE UNDER THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S. CODE, SECTION 1983
Officer Davidson and the City of Oakridge
30.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-24.
31.
Officer Davidson intended to and did cause harm to decedent, by using deadly force without
objectively reasonable justification, which ultimately resulted in Marcus Hartsfield's death.
Officer Davidson's use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable because, without
limitation: 1. No crime was in progress, 2. Decedent posed no immediate threat to the officer, 3.
Decedent was not resisting arrest, 4 .. The officer had adequate time to properly evaluate the
situation and determine the appropriate amount of force, 5. The use of any force, much less
deadly force, was not appropriate under the circumstances, 6. Numerous alternatives were
available for detaining decedent in custody, if that were necessary, 7. The officer placed other
lives at risk by using deadly force, 8. The officer gave no warning prior to using deadly force, 9.
The officer was on notice that decedent was mentally ill, 10. A reasonable officer should have
perceived that decedent posed no imminent threat, 11. The officer had no probable cause to
believe decedent had committed a crime involving the infliction, or threatened infliction, of
serious physical harm, and 12 .. The cumulative facts and circumstances of the incident did not
justify the use of deadly force.
32.
Based on the acts, conduct and omissions described in paragraph 23 above, officer Davidson and
the city are jointly and severally liable for damages for the wrongful death of Mr. Hartsfield
Page 7- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Associates, LLC

Portland, OR 97239
(503) 238-10 I 0
/ .:;:(\ ')\ ") '1 0 l""I J') d -",....--. ,-. ;.,,... ;J ,...\
caused hy the use of excessive force, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and under 42 USC section 1983 .
2 nd CAUSE OF ACTION-UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF PERSON UNDER THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S. CODE,
SECTION 1983
33.
34.
Officer Davidson intentionally and unreasonably restrained decedent by shooting and killing
him, and by refusing to allow medical intervention. This restraint and seizure were umeasonable
because under the facts known to officer Davidson, probable cause did not exist since
an objectively reasonable police officer would not have concluded that there was a fair
probability that the decedent had committed, or was committing, a crime.
35.
Based on the acts, conduct and omissions described in paragraph 26 above, officer Davidson and
the city are jointly and severally liable for damages for the wrongful seizure and detention of Mr.
Hartsfield caused by their violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42
USC section 1983.

Portland, OR 97239
(503) 238 -1 0 I 0
1 .:::: A'l\ ")'JO I ") J ") /f',... ,, ,.., ; ... ,,.:( ,... \
3 rd CAUSE OF ACTION-VIOLATION OF DECEDENT'S RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION and 42 U.S. CODE§ 1983
36.
37.
Officer Davidson ' s actions, as described in the above paragraphs 1-14 were so egregious and
outrageous as to shock the contemporary conscience. by 1. Failing to make adequate effort to
evaluate the incident scene before using deadly force, 2. Failing to announce his presence as a
police officer, 3. Failing to consider use of possible alternatives to deadly force, 4. Failing to
warn before using deadly force, 5. Using any force, much less deadly force, when force was not
reasonably necessary, 6. Shooting decedent with knowledge he was mentally ill, 7. Shooting
decedent when he was not resisting and did not pose an imminent threat, 8. Shooting the
decedent when he was incapacitated on the ground, 9. Shooting decedent without probable cause
to believe decedent had committed a crime involving the infliction, or threatened infliction, of
serious physical harm and 10. Endangering innocent bystanders with the shooting of his gun .. As
indicated, these outrageous actions directly caused Mr. Hartsfield' s death, for which officer
Davidson is liable for damages under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and
under 42 USC section 1983 .
38.
The city ' s lack of training in de-escalation and proper detention was so egregiously and
outrageously inept that it ultimately led to the incompetent actions of its agent as described in the
Page 9- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Associates. LLC

Portl and, OR 97239
(503) 238-1 0 10
/ ~ (\'l \ T 10 I "'l 1 "'l (f',,,,..,.. ;,.,,.. ; J,..,\
above paragraph 29, and the ensuing death of Mr. Hartsfield, for which it is legally culpable
along with is agent, officer Davidson, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and under 42 USC section 1983.
4 th CAUSE OF ACTION- NEGLIGENCE (ORS § 30.265 and COMMON LAW)
39.
40.
Officer Davidson's actions, conduct and omissions as described in the above paragraphs, caused
a foreseeable risk of harm to decedent's life, health, and welfare, and to the welfare of the
bystanders, by 1. Failing to make adequate effort to evaluate the incident scene before using
deadly force, 2. Failing to announce his presence as a police officer, 3. Failing to consider use of
possible alternatives to deadly force, 4. Failing to warn before using deadly force, 5. Using any
force, much less deadly force, when force was not reasonably necessary, 6. Shooting decedent
with knowledge he was mentally ill, 7. Shooting decedent when he was not resisting and did not
pose an imminent threat, 8. Shooting the decedent when he was incapacitated on the ground, 9.
Shooting decedent without probable cause to believe decedent had committed a crime involving
the infliction, or threatened infliction, of serious physical harm and l 0. Endangering innocent
bystanders with the shooting of his gun. As indicated, these actions and omissions were
unreasonable in light of the risk, and caused the death of Marcus Hartsfield, and endangered the
bystanders, for which the city and officer Davidson are jointly and severally responsible for
damages under ORS § 30.265, since officer Davidson was acting within the scope of his
employment or duties with the city at the time of the incident.
Page 10- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Assoc iates. LLC

Portland, OR 97239
(503) 238-10 I 0
f l;.{"\']\ ')']0 1'11 ') , , .......... : ...... :, ,..,
5th CAUSE OF ACTION - (ORS§ 30.265 and FALSE IMPRISONMENT/WRONGFUL
ARREST UNDER OREGON STA TE LAW)
41.
42.
Officer Davidson's actions in shooting and killing decedent, and then denying him medical
attention that could possibly have saved his life, constitute a false imprisonment and unlawful
arrest under Oregon law because: 1. Decedent was "confined" by the officer's actions, 2. The
officer's actions were intentional, 3. Decedent was aware of his confinement, and 4. The
confinement was unlawful. The confinement was unlawful because: I. There was no arrest
warrant, and 2. Officer Davidson had no probable cause, because there was no substantially
objective basis for believing that, more likely than not, an offense had been committed, and that
Mr. Hartsfield had committed it, see. ORS section 131.005(11 ). The city and officer Davidson
are therefore jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by the false imprisonment and
unlawful arrest since officer Davidson was acting within the scope of his employment or duties
with the city at the time of the incident.
6 th CAUSE OF ACTION - (ORS§ 30.265 and BATTERY UNDER OREGON STATE
LAW)
Officer Davidson and The City of Oakridge
43.
Page 11- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Associates, LLC

Portland , OR 97239
(503) 238-1010
,,(\'}\ '')'10 1, I "'I (f'..,,,..,,__;, ... ,.;1,.. \
44.
Officer Davidson's actions in shooting decedent were obviously an intentional harmful contact
causing severe injury and death and are actionable as a legal battery under Oregon law. Officer
Davidson was not justified in using deadly force because: 1. There was no legal basis for an
arrest, see paragraph 34 above, 2. Decedent was not committing any crime at the time of the
battery, 3. There was no threat of imminent deadly force from decedent toward officer Davidson
or any third party, and 4 there was no need for self-defense or to defend a third person from what
the peace officer reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of physical force while
making or attempting to make an arrest, or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape." ,
see ORS section 161.239. The city and officer Davidson are therefore jointly and severally
liable for the damages caused by the battery since officer Davidson was within the scope of his
employment or duties with the city at the time of the incident.
7th CAUSE OF ACTION -WRONGFUL DEATH UNDER ORS 30.020
45.
46.
Based on the acts, conduct and omissions of officer Davidson as described in detail in this
complaint, Plaintiff Rhonda Gilbreath, as representative of the estate of her deceased son, may
sue for damages for the wrongful death of her son, including medical and funeral services; the
pecuniary loss to the estate as a result of the death; lost society, companionship and services of
her son, and any other fair, just, and reasonable pecuniary compensation to the estate, pursuant to
ORS section 30.020. The officer and the city are jointly and severally liable since officer
Page 12- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Associ ates, LLC

Po rtl and , OR 97239
(503) 238-1 0 10
/ ~(\'}\ ""1'10 I ""II") /f'.",-, ,..,-. ; .,,..._ ; 1,..\
Davidson was acting within the scope of his employment or duties with the city at the time of the
incident.
8 th CAUSE OF ACTION -VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AND VIOLATION
OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT OFF AMIL Y INTEGRITY UNDER THE
14 th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND 42 USC SECTION 1983
District Attorney Perlow
47.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 23-24
48
Plaintiff believes the D.A. had no reasonable basis supporting her statement, and that it was at
best negligent, and at worst, intentionally defamatory. Plaintiff alleges that the statement had at
least the potential to impugn Mr. Hartsfield in the public eye, and therefore to adversely affect
the Plaintiff's constitutional right to a fair trial under the federal and Oregon state constitutions.
49.
Plaintiff alleges the statement also violated the constitutional right to be free from state
interference with the peaceful remembrance of a decedent and violated constitutional privacy
rights by disclosing unflattering information to the public, which need not have been disclosed,
and damaged the integrity of the family unit.
50.
Plaintiff seeks its reasonable damages flowing from these violations of constitutional rights in an
amount not exceeding $20,000.00, pursuant to 42 USC section 1983, against the defendant
Perlow individually.

6501 S W Macadam Ave. Suite E
Portland, O R 97239
(503) 238-10 I 0
/ l:(\ 'l\ "l'J Q 1 "1 . , , ,,.., ,....,.. ;,,,,,,,; 1,.... \
9 th CAUSE OF ACTION- (ORS sec. 30.265 and DEEF AMATI ON)
Lane County
51.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 23-24
52.
Ms. Perlow's statement was defamatory by subjecting decedent to hatred, contempt, and ridicule,
and by tending to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill, or confidence in which the decedent
was held, or by exciting adverse, derogatory, or unpleasant feelings or opinions against the
decedent.
53.
As stated above, the statement was widely disseminated to the public in Lane County.
54.
As a result of the publication of the defamatory statement, plaintiff seeks its reasonable general
damages naturally flowing therefrom in the amount of $20,000.00, against the defendant county.
10 th CAUSE OF ACTION - (ORS § 30.265 and INTENTIONAL /NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRES)
Lane County
55.
56.
By disparaging the decedent, Ms. Perlow either intentionally or negligently violated the
constitutionally protected interest of the estate to receive a fair trial for the wrongful actions of
the Oakridge police. Her statement also intentionally or negligently invaded the Hartsfield
Page 14- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Assoc iates. LLC

Portland. OR 97239
(503) 238-1010
r .:::fY'2\ '"1'20 1, 1 '1 / f',..,., ,..;, .... ;J ,...\
family's privacy rights to be free of interference with peaceful remembrance of the decedent, by
publicly disclosing unsavory information which should have remained confidential.
57.
As the certain, or substantially certain, and foreseeable consequence of Ms. Perlow's conduct,
the Hartsfield family suffered, and continues to suffer, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment,
and anger, causing emotional distress and mental anguish in the amount of $20,000.00, for which
it seeks recovery against the defendant county.
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND
58.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to adjust each claim for damages and to add
claims and additional Defendants, including claims for punitive damages
ECONOMIC DAMAGES
59.
City of Oakridge and Officer Steve Davidson, Individually
As a result of the actions described herein. Plaintiff incurred economic damages, which include
the decedent's social security benefits of $786.00 per month, for the 46 years of his remaining
life expectancy, totaling $433,872.00. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks $433,872.00 in economic
damages from Defendants, City of Oakridge, and Officer Steve Davidson, jointly and severally.
NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES
City of Oakridge and Officer Steve Davidson, Individually
60.
Based on the Causes of Action numbers 1 through 7 above, Plaintiff and the Hartsfield family
endured pain and suffering, and the loss of the life and companionship of Marcus Hartsfield. for
Page 15- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Associates, LLC

Portland, OR 97239
(503) 238- IO I 0
/0:::f"\'l\ '1'10 I') 1 '1 1{.",., ,.,,.. ;,.. ,,;1 ,...\
which it seeks the sum of $9,000,000.00 in non-economic damages from Defendants, City of
Oakridge, and Officer Steve Davidson, jointly and severally.
District Attorney Perlow
61.
Based on the Cause of Action number 8 above, Plaintiff and the Hartsfield family endured pain
and suffering, and mental distress for which it seeks the sum of $20,000.00 in non-economic
damages from Defendant District Attorney Perlow.
Lane County
62.
Based on the Causes of Action number 9 and 10 above, Plaintiff and the Hartsfield family have
suffered general damages from the libelous statements and endured pain and suffering, and
mental distress for which they seek the sum of $20,000.00 in non-economic damages from
Defendant Lane County.
ATTORNEY FEES-42 USC SECTION 1988(b)
63.
Pursuant to 42 USC 1988, Plaintiffs is entitled to recover reasonable attorney ' s fees and
litigation costs incurred herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
64.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, City of Oakridge, and Officer
Steve Davidson, jointly and severally, for Plaintiff's economic damages of $433, 872.00, and

650 1 SW Macadam Ave . Suite E
Portl and, OR 97239
(5 03) 238 -1 0 10
, , A1, '1 10 1 "'l 1 , , r... ,...,... ;....,.; 1,.. ,
non-economic damages in the amount of $9,000,000.00 for a total prayer amount of $9,
433,872.00.
65.
Plaintiff prays for judgment on its 8th cause of action against Defendant Patricia Perlow, for
Plaintiff's non-economic damages in the prayer amount of 20,000.00.
66.
Plaintiff prays for judgment on its 9 th a nd 10th causes of action against Defendant Lane County for
Plaintiff's non-economic damages in the prayer amount of 20,000.00.
67.
Plaintiff prays for judgment for its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC section 1988(b ).
68.
Plaintiff also seeks costs, disbursements and for any other relief that the Court deems just and
equitable.
Signed and dated this 26 th day of September 2022.
Respectfully submitted
Barry E fth-Lince, OSB No. 182935

Clark Law and Associates, LLC
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
Portland, OR 97239
Page 17- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Associ ates, LLC

65 01 SW Macadam Ave. Sui te E
Po rtland , OR 97239
( 503) 238 -1 0 10
/ ~ (\'}\ ') '}Q 1 ') J ') ,,--,.., ,..,. ;, .... ;1 ,..\
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL
Case 6:22-cv-01445-MK COVER1-1
Document SHEET
Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
CITY OF OAKRIDGE, STATE OF
THE ESTATE OF MARCUS HARTSFIELD OREGON; LANE COUNRTY,A political
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Lane County subdivision of the
County of Residence State
of First of Defendant
Listed Oregon; STEVE
Lane County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) DAVIDSON, Individually, and PA
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF TRICIA
CASES ONLY)
PERLOW,
NOTE: IN LAND Individually,
CONDEMNATION and
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
in her
CASES, USEcapacity
THE LOCATION OF
as District Attorney of Lane Count, Oregon

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Jennie L. Clark & Barry Fifth-Lince
Clark Law & Associates.
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
Portland, OR 97239 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation ✖ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC $1984
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Civil Rights violation leading to death by Stae Actors
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 9,433,872.00 JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Sep 26, 2022 /s/ Barry Fifth-Lince
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21) Case 6:22-cv-01445-MK Document 1-1 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Estate of Marcus Hartsfield V Oakridge Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Estate of Marcus Hartsfield V Oakridge Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Estate of Marcus Hartsfield V Oakridge Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 6:22-cv-01445-MK Document 1 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 17

Jennie L. Clark, OSB No. 000319

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

THE ESTATE OF MARCUS HARTSFIELD

RHONDA GILBREATH as personal representative, and complains of Defendants, CITY OF

county"), STEVE DAVIDSON, INDIVIDUALLY (hereafter "officer Davidson"), AND

PATRICIA PERLOW, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HER CAPACITYAS DISTRICT

Page I- COMPLAINT Clark La\\' & Associates. LLC

pursuant to 28 USC section 1367(a).

PARTIES & PRELIMINARY FACTS

of Lane County, Oregon.

30.260(4) and 30.265(1).

Page 2- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Assoc iates. LLC

All events referred to herein occurred on or about October 16,.2019.

incident location of 76360 Rainbow St., Oakridge, Oregon.

Page 3- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Associates. LLC

was the first public official arriving on the scene.

scene after the shooting.

Page 4- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Assoc iates. LLC

period of 15 to 20 minutes, which conduct is believed to have contributed to decedent's death.

As of this date, no body camera footage has been provided to Plaintiffs.

metharnphetarnine. In Mr. Hartsfield' s system .... " .

alcohol/volatiles analysis identified the presence of any controlled substance, metharnphetarnine,

or controlled substance in decedent's system at the time of his death.

25. TORT CLAIM NOTICE

County on September 30, 2020, and receipt was acknowledged.

Page 5- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Assoc iates, LLC

FAILURE TO TRAIN OR DISCIPLINE-MONELL DOCTRINE (MONELL V.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1--24.

a universally common situation, to be reasonably anticipated by police departments. Therefore,

obvious lack of training and professionalism as to demonstrate a deliberate indifference by the

Page 6- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Associates, LLC

1st CAUSE OF ACTION-EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE UNDER THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S. CODE, SECTION 1983

Officer Davidson and the City of Oakridge

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-24.

objectively reasonable justification, which ultimately resulted in Marcus Hartsfield's death.

justify the use of deadly force.

Page 7- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Associates, LLC

and under 42 USC section 1983 .

2 nd CAUSE OF ACTION-UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF PERSON UNDER THE

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S. CODE,

Officer Davidson and the City of Oakridge

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-24.

probability that the decedent had committed, or was committing, a crime.

USC section 1983.

Page 8- COMPLAINT C lark Law & Assoc iates, LLC

3 rd CAUSE OF ACTION-VIOLATION OF DECEDENT'S RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE

DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION and 42 U.S. CODE§ 1983

Officer Davidson and the City of Oakridge

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1--24.

outrageous as to shock the contemporary conscience. by 1. Failing to make adequate effort to

under 42 USC section 1983 .

Page 9- COMPLAINT Clark Law & Associates. LLC

and under 42 USC section 1983.

4 th CAUSE OF ACTION- NEGLIGENCE (ORS § 30.265 and COMMON LAW)