UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
OF WASHINGTON
NASEEM STANIKZY,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
WHITMAN COUNTY
WHITMAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
GARY E. LIBELY
TESSA SCHOLL,
Defendant(s)
Case No.0101010101
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
On September 21, 2021, the plaintiff, Naseem Stanikzy, entered a plea of nolo
contendere or no contest for one count of a gross misdemeanor charge in regard to an alleged
threat to kill. The plaintiff maintains his innocence, invoking the principle established in Alford
v. State of North Carolina, 405 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1968), which allows for a defendant to neither
accepts nor denies responsibility for a charge.
I. STATEMNET OF CLAIM
1) Following a research and development venture at Siphon Technologies LLC, the
plaintiff, Naseem Stanikzy, began attending virtual classes from Washington State
University in Pullman Washington during the fall semester of 2020.
2) The plaintiff, who was a self-funded and independent student pursuing a degree in
Computer Science and Data Analytics, relocated to 1500 NE Upper Dr. in Pullman in
October of 2020 amid the Covid-19 Pandemic.
PLEADING TITLE – 2
3) During the course of his stay in Pullman, WA, in January of 2021, the plaintiff moved to
student housing at 1624 NE Cougar Way, Perham Hall, 609, Pullman, WA 99163 to
attend classes virtually.
4) The plaintiff alleges that during his stay in Pullman, he rekindled ties with relatives and
family members who were in Pullman, WA, including Rohullah Salamjohn, Balquees
Salamjohn, and Basseth Salamjohn.
5) The plaintiff alleges that he visited the family, conversed with them, and was welcomed
to the small town by the family and his cousin, Basseth Salamjohn.
6) The plaintiff states that he and Basseth Salamjohn also connected financially, with the
plaintiff extending a United States Tender loan in the amount of $1500 to Basseth
Salamjohn.
7) According to the Plaintiff, the loan was verbally acknowledged and received alongside
firmly expressed intentions to repay it within a short duration and period of time.
8) During and around February 2021, the plaintiff states that he had begun to make latent
asks and attempts to recover the finances, although to no avail or success.
9) The plaintiff alleges that as time went on, he gradually began to realize that the recovery
of funds and pledges made by Basseth Salamjohn presented challenges, with potential
solutions becoming increasingly suborn, inflexible, and difficult to work with.
10) In finding himself in an unyielding, and a good faith measure, the plaintiff alleges that,
during or around this time, he also began to seek assistance in regard to the matter from
his father, Azim Stanikzy, and to see if he could take in working with Basseth Salamjohn
and his family.
PLEADING TITLE – 3
11) According to the plaintiff, the conversations shared between the two became increasingly
long and frustrating. The plaintiff asserts that during these conversations, he maintained a
reasonable expectation of privacy, with no explicit or implicit indication being made that
their private conversations were subject to being recorded, abridged, or altered in any
way.
12) In Katz v United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice John Harlan established a two-
prong test for determining a reasonable expectation of privacy. The test, as propounded
by the Court in Katz v United States, examines the expectation upon which one may
“justifiably” rely. (Case Law Here)
13) In Katz v United States, the Court sought to preserve as private, even in an area
accessible to the public, what may be protected by the Constitution and the Fourth
Amendment. That is, the “capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends
not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether there was a reasonable
expectation of freedom from government intrusion.” (Case Law Here)
14) A two-part test suggested by Justice John Harlan in Katz often provides the starting point
for analysis. The first element is the “subjective expectation” of privacy, which largely
depends on a viable standard, as Justice Harlan has also noted. (Case Law Here)
15) The second element is whether one has a “legitimate” expectation of privacy that society
finds “reasonable” to recognize. (Case Law Here)
16) The plaintiff asserts that during these parent and child communications, he maintained
expectation of privacy, and alleges that Azim Stanikzy implied that that expectation of
privacy was in no way being amended.
17) On March 8th, 2021, Officer Isobel Luengas with Washington State University Police
Department states that "at approximately 2219 hours plaintiff received a text message
PLEADING TITLE – 4
from Azim Stanikzy" which contained recordings between parent and child. (Exibit A
Here)
18) Officer Isobel Luengas goes on to mention that the plaintiff had stated “that is going to
end up in blood I guarantee you – somebody is going to die.” (exhibit here)
19) Officer Isobel Luengas reports that “When I asked if he believed he was capable of
carrying out the threats to refused to give a clear answer.” (exhibit here)
20) Officer Isobel Luengas notes that the plaintiff “was transported to Pullman Regional
Hospital and Ofc. Hernandez remained with him until cleared by a MHP.” (exhibit here)
21) During the meantime, Officer Isobel Luengas reports that “Sgt. Steward and I went to
contact Naseem’s uncle, Rouhullah Salamjohn, at 1200 NW Orion Drive.” And that “his
wife, Balquees Salamjohn, answered the door and did not want to wake him up because
he had to work early in the morning.” (exhibit here)
22) She goes on to say, “I played the audio of Naseem making the threats for her and her
son, Basseth Salamjohn.” (exhibit here)
23) Officer Isobel Luengas reports that they were “adamant” that nobody owes him money,
and that “Basseth stated, ‘He (Naseem) will come after any and every one.” (exhibit here)
24) Prior to March 8 th , 2021, the plaintiff had never been charged with a Domestic Violence,
any form of Harassment or threat to kill, no record of any protection orders, no record of
any no contact orders, or any similar charges.
25) Officer Isobel Luengas reports “I Placed Naseem in Custody for felony harassment
(threats to kill) and transported him to Whitman County Jail for booking.” (exhibit here)
PLEADING TITLE – 5
26) The plaintiff alleges that after being detained, was transferred to WSU Police department
cell, and alleges that during the entire time, he was not being informed of a charge. The
plaintiff states that he was then taken from the cell and transferred from WSU Police
department to Whitman County Jail.
27) A Whitman County Sheriff’s Department Correctional Facility Booking Sheet reports
“R.C.W numbers” as “9A.46.020.2 (b) (ii)” for this incident. (exhibit here)
28) In the Reserved Code of Washington (RCW), under Title 9A (Washington Criminal
Code), under Chapter 46 (Harassment), Section 020 (Definition – Penalties.) it is written
that:
“(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person
threatened or to any other person.”
———————————–(Case Law Here)——————————————-
—————————————————————————————————————-
—————————-
29) The Reserved Code of Washington (RCW), Title 9A (Washington Criminal Code),
Chapter 46 (Harassment), Section 020 (Definition – Penalties.) includes the following:
PLEADING TITLE – 6
I) “(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
II) “(2) (b) A person who harasses another is guilty of a class C felony in any of the
following apply: (i) The person has previously been convicted in this or any other
state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same
victim or members of the victim’s family or household or any person specifically
named in a no-contact or no-harassment order; (ii)The person harasses another
person under subsection (1) (a) (i) of this subsection by threatening to kill the
person threatened or any other person.”
———————————–(Case Law Here)——————————————-
————————————————————————————————————
——————————–
30) On March 9 th , 2021, while the plaintiff was being held at Whitman County Jail, a “Pre-
Charge Domestic Violence No Contact Order” was filed by Rohullah Salamjohn, the
plaintiff’s uncle.
31) On March 11 th , 2021, according to the Whitman County Court house schedule and hours
of operations, the clerk’s office is said to have opened at 8:00 am, after a total of 76 hours
after the plaintiff had been booked into custody.
32) In Washington State Court Rules, regarding Superior Court Criminal Rules:
CrR Rule 3.2.1 (f)(1) states that:
“Unless an information or indictment is filed or the affected person consents in writing or
on the record in open court, an accused, shall not be detained in jail or subjected to
conditions of release for more than 72 hours after the defendant’s detention in jail or
PLEADING TITLE – 7
release on conditions, whichever occurs first. Computation of the 72 hour period shall not
include any part of Saturdays, Sundays or holidays.”
———————————–(Case Law Here)——————————————-
————————————————————————————————————
——————————–
33) On March 12 th , 2021, the plaintiff attended court via a virtual meeting provided through
Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
34) On March 12 th , 2021, the plaintiff alleges that while attending court, he referred to
counsel in the matter that was being presented in court, with events in court including
arraignment for the plaintiff being scheduled for March 19 th , 2021.
35) March 19 th 2021, the plaintiff states during court, counsel ignored the plaintiffs request to
enter into a plea of not guilty, and that instead an “Order for Competency Evaluation
under RCW 10.77.060 (ORCE)” was filed with the court. (exhibit here)
36) The plaintiff alleges that, on March 25 th , 2021, Christina L. Zampich, PsyD, Licensed
Psychologist with Eastern State Hospital, “opined” that the plaintiff was not competent to
stand trial. (exhibit here)
37) April 2 nd , 2021, after being in custody under month, the court ordered the plaintiff to
complete a competency restoration treatment commonly referred to as a “CRORIP” or
“CROROP”. (exhibit here)
38) April 27 th , 2021, the plaintiff remained in custody at Whitman County Jail and had been
held there for over 48 days without being transferred to Eastern State Hospital.
PLEADING TITLE – 8
39) ———————————–(Case Law Here)—————————————————-
————————————————————————————————————
———————
40) On a report dated April 29 th , 2021, records reported by Paul Morison, PsyD, Licensed
Psychologist from Eastern State Hospital state the following:
(i) “Naseem Stanikzy is a young adult male who appears his stated age.”
(ii) “He was not latent or pressured in his speech.”
(iii) “He wore his hair long and frequently pushed his hair back from covering his
face.”
(iv) “He interpreted the “water under the bridge’ proverb as, ‘Bruce Lee said to be like
water.’”
(v) “When asked if he had a mental illness, he stated, ‘We all live in a mad world.’”
(vi) “He signed with his right hand.”
———————————————————————————–(exhibit here)
41) On a report dated April 29 th , 2021, records reported by Maureen Nickerson, PsyD,
Licensed Psychologist from Eastern State Hospital state the following:
(i) “He was mostly cooperative with his admission interview; he at times apprehensive
about signing documentation without having a copy.”
(ii) “He denied hearing voices in a roundabout way, also asking staff ‘do you have
thoughts?’”
(iii) “Mr. Stanikzy was oriented to his geographic location and current date.”
(iv) “When asked to interpret ‘two heads are better than one’ he stated ‘there’s always one
head, so two is better.’”
(v) He also informed staff “it’s a limiting belief to be informed that one struggles with a
mental disorder.”
———————————————————————(exhibit here)
PLEADING TITLE – 9
42) On a report dated May 7 th , 2021, records reported by Staff at Eastern State Hospital state
the following:
(i) “When asked to describe his mood, he stated after a long pause ‘Like a rose
growing from rock’; his affect was polite and he attempted to joke appropriately.”
(ii) “He denied intent to harm himself, referring to a saying from his religious prophet
‘died before you die’; he also added he will need ‘to sleep on that.’”
(iii) “Mr. Stanikzy admitted to getting enough sleep with no concerns.”
(iv) “Mr. Stanikzy will need to be opined competent for his return to Whitman County
Jail to adjudicate his charge; jail staff to transport."
———————————————————————(exhibit here)
43) On a report dated May 7 th , 2021, records reported by Staff at Eastern State Hospital state
the following:
(i) “He made some comments that appeared grandiose in nature.”
(ii) “During the interview for this IPA, he was observed to have flight of
ideas, tangential thought, loose associations and made some grandiose
comments. For example, on three separate occasions when asked about
mood symptoms, pt. provided the same response of: ‘I feel like it’s always
sunny in Seattle.’”
———————————————————————(exhibit here)
44) June 10 th , 2021, Dr. Randall Strandquist, PsyD form Eastern State Hospital opined that
the plaintiff “does not have any mental disease or defect”. (exhibit here)
45) On June 18 th of 2021 the plaintiff pled not guilty to all charges that had been brought
against him by the court.
PLEADING TITLE – 10
46) On August 27 th of 2021 a “Motion & Order For Remand To District Court” was filed with
the court, and the matter was remanded to Whitman County District Court for final
deposition.
47) On September the 21 st of 2021, the plaintiff, Naseem Stanikzy, entered a no contest (nolo
contendere) plea for one count of a gross misdemeanor charge of harassment “threat to
kill.”
48) nolo contendere plea cannot be used against the plaintiff (Federal Rules of Evidence Case
Law).
Claims
1) Plaintiff moves for judgment that the defendants have a custom or policy that violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
2) Where a plaintiff in a civil rights case appears in propria persona, the court must
construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim
Panaki v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1998).
3) Under the Fourth Amendment, an arrest is definitively considered to be a seizure. Id.;
United States v. Ilazi, 730 F.2d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 1984).
4) Plaintiff was arrested and subsequently incarcerated for approximately 3 months, it is
clear that there was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
5) Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his “right to be free from unreasonable seizures
as provided by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” An unlawful
seizure or false arrest claim relies on the substantive Fourth Amendment right to be free
PLEADING TITLE – 11
from unreasonable searches and seizures. Hannah v. City of Overland, Mo., 795 F.2d
1385, 1389 (8th Cir. 1986).
6) An officer is entitled to rely on his or her training and experience in considering the
circumstances, and should proceed in the manner of a reasonably cautious officer.
Hannah, 795 F.2d at 1389.
7) The plaintiff claims that it is clear that defendants did not have probable cause to bring
charges against plaintiff . The Plaintiff states that a prudent person, considering the
totality of the circumstances, could easily come to the conclusion that plaintiff was not
guilty of the case presented in court.
8) The plaintiff argue that a trial court‘s conclusion, when examined under light of all events
and happenings, should establish that the defendants were objectively specious, standing
alone, negated the effect of adverse judgment decisions and that the underlying findings
supporting such a conclusion demonstrate that probable cause was lacking.
9) Alternatively, he the plaintiff argues that, at the very least, there is a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether there was probable cause to bring a felony case against him or
his person.
10) Dietrich Industries, Inc. v. Abrams, 455 A.2d 119, 124 (Pa. Super. Ct.
1982)(stating,“[w]hat constitutes probable cause and whether it exists under an admitted
or clearly established set of facts are questions of law for the court to determine.”).
11) The plaintiff claims he did not just voluntarily agree to stay with the defendants. Clarke
v. K-Mart Corp, 495 N.W.2d 820 (1992). “Michigan courts have held that false arrest is
one type of false imprisonment; when a person is falsely arrested, he or she is always
PLEADING TITLE – 12
falsely imprisoned.” Romanski I, 265 F. Supp. 2d at 846. “The elements of false arrest are
(1) an arrest; (2) of a person; (3) who is innocent of the charge on which he is arrested;
(4) by the defendant or at his instigation; (5) without legal justification.” Id. Claims of
false arrest and false imprisonment require the plaintiff to prove that the arrest lacked
probable cause. Burns v. Olde Discount Corp, 212 Mich. App. 576, 581 (1995).
12) The plaintiff also maintains that a municipality may be liable under § 1983 where “action
pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.” Monell
v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. 23 Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).
13) Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to adequately train regarding the laws …” and the “lack
of adequate training was part of a policy and custom of inadequate training … and was a
proximate cause of the violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and other damages to
Plaintiff.”
14) Since Plaintiff entered Alford pleas to in this matter, the factual basis for his convictions
has never been formally adjudicated.
15) Accordingly, the Court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff to
determine whether the claim is barred. See Smithart, 79 F.3d at 952(construing
allegations in light most favorable to § 1983 excessive force plaintiff who had previously
entered Alford plea to assault with a deadly weapon).
16) In sum, Plaintiff has presented evidence from which a rational jury could find that
Defendants used force in excess of what would have been objectively reasonable under
the circumstances. Whether this evidence is worthy of credence is for the jury to decide.
PLEADING TITLE – 13
17) In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., the Supreme Court explained that trial courts
must perform a “gatekeeping” function to ensure that expert testimony conforms to Rule
702’s relevance and reliability requirements. 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993).
18) The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein. The Plaintiff brings a
cause of action for false imprisonment and/or false arrest under Washington state law and
federal law.
19) Under Washington state law, false imprisonment is defined as the unlawful restraint of an
individual’s freedom of movement, without that person’s consent, by another person
acting without legal authority (RCW 9A.40.040). False arrest is defined as the unlawful
restraint of an individual’s freedom of movement by an arrest that is made without
probable cause (RCW 9A.04.110).
20) Under federal law, false arrest is a form of false imprisonment and is actionable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 as a violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable seizures.
21) The Plaintiff alleges that they were involuntarily transported and detained at a hospital
without their consent and without legal authority, constituting false imprisonment and/or
false arrest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Naseem Stanikzy, prays for relief as follows:
a. For a judgment declaring that the Defendant(s) falsely imprisoned and/or falsely arrested
the Plaintiff and ordering the Defendant(s) to pay damages in an amount sufficient to
PLEADING TITLE – 14
compensate the Plaintiff for any harm caused