22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958) Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441) Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612) Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343) Lori K. Wagner (VA Bar #39446) Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) Jessica C. Crockett (NY Bar #4694972) Anika Gzifa (DC Bar #495394) Matthew J. Donnelly (Ill Bar #6281308) United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Northwestern Building, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (202) 305-3107 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil No. v. ) ) Town of Colorado City, Arizona; ) COMPLAINT City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; ) and Twin City Water Authority, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) INTRODUCTION 1. This action is brought to enforce the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq; Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b; and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 19

Colorado City Suit

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958) Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441) Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612) Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343) Lori K. Wagner (VA Bar #39446) Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) Jessica C. Crockett (NY Bar #4694972) Anika Gzifa (DC Bar #495394) Matthew J. Donnelly (Ill Bar #6281308) United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Northwestern Building, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (202) 305-3107

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil No. v. ) ) Town of Colorado City, Arizona; ) COMPLAINT City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; ) and Twin City Water Authority, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought to enforce the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 3601 et seq; Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b; and

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 19

Page 2: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. The Town of Colorado City, Arizona (“Colorado City”), and the City of Hildale, Utah

(“Hildale”) (collectively, “Cities”), and two utility agencies under the Cities’ control

(collectively, “Defendants”) have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or

practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and the laws of the United States.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345

and 42 U.S.C. § 3614. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Arizona.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination against

individuals who are not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints (“FLDS”). The Cities’ public officials, the Colorado City/Hildale

Marshal’s Office (“the Marshal’s Office”),

NATURE OF ACTION

1 and utility entities have acted in concert

with FLDS leadership to deny non-FLDS2

1 The Marshal’s Office is a subdivision of the municipal governments of both Defendant Colorado City and Defendant Hildale.

individuals housing, police protection, and

access to public space and services. Furthermore, the Defendants have denied non-

2 Throughout this Complaint, the term “non-FLDS” includes: 1. individuals who were never members of the FLDS; 2. individuals who were members of the FLDS but left the Church; and 3. individuals who were told that they “lost priesthood,” were told to “repent from a distance,” or were otherwise excommunicated by Warren Jeffs and/or his followers.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 19

Page 3: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

FLDS members access to housing in the Cities, and they have coerced, intimidated,

threatened, and interfered with the housing rights of non-FLDS members. The

Marshal’s Office has inappropriately used its state-granted law enforcement authority

to enforce the edicts of the FLDS, to the detriment of non-FLDS members. In addition,

the Cities’ officials have misdirected and misused public resources in the service of the

FLDS.

5. For at least 20 years, the Cities have operated as an arm of the FLDS, in violation of

the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Cities’ governments, including the Marshal’s Office, have been deployed to carry

out the will and dictates of FLDS leaders, particularly Warren Jeffs3 and the officials to

whom he delegates authority. For decades, officials of the Cities have, by operating at

the direction and for the benefit of the FLDS, abdicated their official duties to protect

the rights of all citizens equally and to administer governmental functions consistently

with the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

6. Defendant Colorado City is a local unit of government organized under the laws of the

State of Arizona.

DEFENDANTS

7. Defendant Hildale is a local unit of government organized under the laws of the State

of Utah.

3 On August 4, 2011, Jeffs was convicted of two counts of child sexual assault against a twelve year-old girl and a fifteen year-old girl in San Angelo, Texas. He is now serving a life plus twenty-year prison sentence. Jeffs remains the head of the FLDS while in prison.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 19

Page 4: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

8. Defendant Twin City Water Authority, Inc. (“TCWA”) is a non-profit corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Utah. It is responsible for the provision of

water services in Colorado City and Hildale. It operates under the actual or apparent

authority of Defendant Colorado City and Defendant Hildale.

9. Defendant Twin City Power is or was an intergovernmental entity of Defendant

Colorado City and Defendant Hildale. At all times relevant to this action until July

2009, it was responsible for the provision of electric power in Colorado City and

Hildale. It operated under the actual or apparent authority of Defendant Colorado City

and Defendant Hildale.

10. The adjoining communities of Colorado City and Hildale are populated primarily by

members of the FLDS who are followers of the self-proclaimed prophet Warren Jeffs.

Non-FLDS residents also live in the Cities, but they are a distinct minority.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11. Members of the FLDS traditionally contribute a significant portion of their money,

property, and time to a trust called the United Effort Plan Trust (“UEP Trust” or

“Trust”). The UEP Trust is a registered charitable trust in the State of Utah. Until

2005, the Trust was controlled by the FLDS Church.

12. Much of the land, and many of the improvements thereto, in Colorado City and

Hildale, including most of the Cities’ residences, belong to the UEP Trust. Residents

who live in Trust-owned homes typically have signed occupancy agreements with the

Trust.

13. In 2005, a Utah court determined that the UEP Trustees had violated their legal duties

in administering the Trust, including duties relating to former members of the FLDS

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 4 of 19

Page 5: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Church who are beneficiaries of the Trust. The court appointed Bruce Wisan, who is

not affiliated with the FLDS Church, as Special Fiduciary of the UEP Trust (“Special

Fiduciary”) to administer the Trust’s assets and operations.

14. In 2006, the court reformed the UEP Trust. Bruce Wisan continues to serve as the

court-appointed Special Fiduciary. The stated purpose of the Trust is “providing for

the just wants and needs of the beneficiaries which purpose is beneficial to the

community.”

15. Defendants have allowed the FLDS Church or its agents to direct or unlawfully

influence their actions regarding policing services, housing, and access to public

facilities, in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Fair

Housing Act, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

ALLEGATIONS

Unconstitutional Policing

16. The Marshal’s Office has failed to provide policing services to non-FLDS individuals

on the basis of religion. The Marshal’s Office fails to protect non-FLDS individuals

from victimization by FLDS members, fails to investigate crimes against non-FLDS

individuals and their property, and refuses to arrest FLDS individuals who have

committed crimes against non-FLDS individuals. These crimes and actions include

destroying crops on a non-FLDS-operated farm, vandalizing property in the control of

the UEP Trust, returning at least one underage bride to a home from which she had

fled, and trespassing on property occupied by non-FLDS individuals.

17. The Marshal’s Office selectively enforces laws and regulations against non-FLDS

individuals on the basis of religion. Instances of selective enforcement include

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 5 of 19

Page 6: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

arresting non-FLDS individuals for trespass but not arresting similarly situated FLDS

individuals, and citing non-FLDS individuals for traffic violations but not citing FLDS

individuals for similar infractions.

18. Non-FLDS individuals experience the hardship and mental and physical stress

resulting from the knowledge that the Marshal’s Office will not come to their aid in

time of need. For example, in January 2012, a woman who was, in effect,

excommunicated by the FLDS, fled her home in the Cities with her six young

daughters after learning that FLDS leaders demanded that she sever all contact with

five of her six children. This woman believed, based on its policies and previous

actions, that the Marshal’s Office would not come to her assistance to protect her

parental rights if she complained about the FLDS edict separating mothers from their

children. She decided, as many other non-FLDS members have done, to flee with her

children under cover of darkness to safety outside of the Cities. The failure and refusal

of the Marshal’s Office to protect all citizens without regard to religion has given rise

to an “underground railroad,” composed of non-FLDS members who provide safe

havens and a means of egress for individuals abandoned by law enforcement.

19. The Marshal’s Office effectively serves as the enforcement arm of the FLDS Church.

Since at least 1990, the Marshal’s Office has assisted the FLDS Church in its

surveillance and investigation of non-FLDS members because of religion. This

activity includes providing training and resources to FLDS members to aid their

surveillance of non-FLDS members. The Marshal’s Office provides law-enforcement

information, including but not limited to, information about emergency calls to the

Marshal’s Office for assistance, directly to FLDS security personnel. In addition, the

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 6 of 19

Page 7: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Cities obtain information from FLDS Church security-service members about vehicles

traveling in the Cities, run license-plate checks to determine whether such vehicles are

owned and/or operated by non-FLDS members in the Cities, and convey the results of

the license-plate checks to the FLDS Church.

20. The Marshal’s Office has conducted traffic stops on multiple occasions in response to

FLDS church members’ requests that they find out the identity of the occupants of a

vehicle.

21. The Marshal’s Office deploys its resources to enforce FLDS religious edicts. Such

conduct includes dispatching Marshal’s Deputies in official vehicles to confront

persons about their alleged disobedience to FLDS rules and instructing such persons to

report to FLDS leadership.

22. In one instance, in 2000, Jeffs issued an order for a then-FLDS member to return an

underage bride, who had fled her new husband’s home, to FLDS leaders. Unaware that

the then-FLDS member had already complied, three Marshal’s Deputies confronted

him demanding that he return her to FLDS leaders. The Deputies drove official

Marshal’s Office vehicles when they aggressively confronted the then-FLDS member.

One of the Marshal’s Deputies involved in this incident remains employed by the

Marshal’s Office, and another was the Marshal who resigned in or around April 2012.

23. In 2001, Jeffs issued an edict that all domestic dogs would be banned from the Cities.

Less than one month later, in compliance with Jeffs’s edict, Marshal’s Deputies went to

each household in the Cities and asked residents to turn over any dogs that they had in

the home to the Officers. The Marshal’s Deputies then shot and killed the dogs in a

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 7 of 19

Page 8: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

slaughter pit a short distance from the Cities. Two of the Marshal’s Deputies involved

in this incident remain employed by the Marshal’s Office.

24. The Marshal’s Office fails to cooperate with other law enforcement offices in

investigating crimes against non-FLDS individuals or crimes committed by FLDS

individuals. Since 2003, Arizona has decertified six officers employed by the

Marshal’s Office, and a seventh officer resigned after having been decertified by Utah

officials. Three were decertified for failure to comply with state law-enforcement

efforts, including refusing to testify at a grand jury proceeding.

25. In October 2005, Fred J. Barlow, during the time he served as Marshal, wrote a letter to

then-fugitive Jeffs, stating in relevant part,

I rejoice in the peace that comes over me when I follow the

directives that you have sent to me through [FLDS member] Uncle

William [Jessop]. I have felt a unity between the peace officers.

They have all stated to me their desire to follow the directives that

are placed before us. . . . I want to fill the position that you would

have me fill and do the job the way that you would like it done. . . .

We will continue with that directive unless you would like us to do

something different.

Three out of the current six Marshal’s Deputies were either employed by the Marshal’s

Office or finishing the required police training for the Marshal’s Office at the time

Marshal Barlow wrote this letter to Jeffs.

26. Marshal Barlow was later decertified as a peace officer by the Arizona Peace Officers

Standards and Training Board (“AZPOST”) for failing to comply with an Arizona

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 8 of 19

Page 9: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Attorney General investigation. On August 7, 2007, an administrative law judge, in

reviewing AZPOST’s decertification decision, determined that Barlow “displayed bias

in favor of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS, in derogation of his oath to neutrally enforce

the law.”

27. On at least one occasion, in July 2011, the then-Marshal and Marshal’s Deputies

participated in the building of fences on UEP Trust property that the FLDS had

illegally occupied without permission of the UEP Trust.

28. Since the UEP trust was reformed in 2006, the Marshal’s Office has consistently

disregarded the validity of Trust-signed occupancy agreements and of legal rulings that

guarantee the rights of non-FLDS Trust beneficiaries. For example, in December

2011, Marshal’s Deputies refused to enforce the occupancy agreement held by a non-

FLDS individual for a property known as the Holm School Building, located at 1055

Carling Street, Hildale, Utah. Several FLDS members entered the building and locked

out the rightful non-FLDS occupants of the building. The FLDS members occupying

the building refused to allow the rightful non-FLDS occupants to retain possession of

the Holm School Building. Those non-FLDS individuals contacted county law

enforcement to remove the FLDS trespassers on or about December 20, 2011. At the

request of County officials, Marshal’s Deputies also arrived at the Holm School later

that day. The Marshal’s Deputies refused to remove the FLDS trespassers, and the

County Sheriff’s Deputies were forced to ensure the removal of the trespassers in light

of the Marshal’s Officers’ failure to take any affirmative steps. One of the Marshal’s

Deputies not only refused to assist the Sheriff’s deputies, but left the scene. On another

occasion, in August 2008, then-Marshal Jonathan Roundy, responded to a property

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 9 of 19

Page 10: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

dispute between an FLDS member and a non-FLDS individual. The Special Fiduciary

and his agent informed Marshal Roundy that the non-FLDS member had permission,

and therefore a right, to occupy the property. Nonetheless, Marshal Roundy sided with

the FLDS member based on religious affiliation. In announcing his decision, Marshal

Roundy stated, “[the FLDS member] says this is his property, and we are going to

honor him because he is a member of the Church, and he has asked [the non-FLDS] to

leave, and that is where I am going to stand as Chief of the Police.”

29. Additionally, on February 8, 2012, the Marshal’s Office responded to a report that

FLDS members were building an illegal fence that encroached onto property validly

occupied by a non-FLDS individual. A representative of the Special Fiduciary

informed a Marshal’s Officer that the fence was being built without permission and

should be stopped immediately. The Marshal’s Officer failed to act to stop the FLDS

members from putting up the fence.

30. The Marshal’s Office uses its authority to aid the FLDS Church by facilitating the

unlawful evictions of non-FLDS residents and refusing to permit non-FLDS

individuals to move into properties for which they have occupancy agreements.

31. The Marshal’s Office arrests non-FLDS individuals without probable cause on the

basis of religion. Specific incidents include arresting non-FLDS individuals for

trespass on properties that they had the right to enter, arresting non-FLDS individuals

without probable cause for theft of services, and holding an adult non-FLDS woman in

jail overnight without probable cause on the alleged ground of being a minor in

possession of alcohol.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 10 of 19

Page 11: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

32. The Marshal’s Office has seized the property of non-FLDS individuals without due

process of law. For example, in April or May 2010, the Marshal’s Office departed

from its normal procedures in handling a stud horse who escaped from its non-FLDS

owner. The Marshal’s Office caused the horse to be euthanized without contacting the

owner. Members of the Marshal’s Office knew or should have known the stud horse,

which had distinct markings, and they knew or should have known the identity of the

horse’s owner. This action was taken on the basis of the owner’s religious affiliation.

33. The actions and omissions of the Marshal’s Office constitute an impermissible

delegation of decision-making and authority to the FLDS, an entanglement of religious

and civil functions, a fusion of government power and religious authority, and have the

purpose and effect of the Cities impermissibly advancing religion. Because of these

actions and omissions, there is no effective means of guaranteeing that the Cities’

governmental power is neutrally employed.

34. The states of Utah and Arizona have taken steps to address the unlawful policing

practices in the Towns, including in early 2012, when the state legislatures of Arizona

and Utah each introduced bills that would have had the effect of disbanding the

Marshal’s Office. Both bills failed to pass.

35. The actions and omissions of the Marshal’s Office constitute a pattern or practice of

discriminatory policing against non-FLDS individuals on the basis of religion, an

impermissible preference for the FLDS church in the implementation of its law-

enforcement responsibilities, and treatment of those who are not members of the FLDS

as outside of the full and equal status as citizens.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 11 of 19

Page 12: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

Housing Discrimination

36. Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, TCWA, and Twin City Power have treated non-

FLDS individuals differently than FLDS residents because of religion by making

housing unavailable to non-FLDS residents. In addition to the conduct described

above, which resulted in violations of federally protected housing rights of non-FLDS,

Defendants have, since approximately 2008, denied or unreasonably delayed water and

electric service to non-FLDS individuals, refused to issue them building permits, and

otherwise prevented non-FLDS individuals and the Trust from constructing new

housing or occupying existing housing, all on the ground of religion.

37. When non-FLDS residents have requested water service at new properties, TCWA has

denied their requests. The Cities and TCWA claim that they cannot provide water

service to new properties because of a water shortage, while at the same time FLDS

residents have received such services. In fact, there is no water shortage in the Cities

that would justify these denials.

38. The Cities and TCWA have refused to permit non-FLDS individuals or the Trust to

build new housing or improve existing housing on Trust-owned land. In some

circumstances, the Cities and TCWA cite a water shortage as the reason for their

refusals. In other circumstances, they claim that the Trust or non-FLDS individuals

have no right to occupy or control the land.

39. During the same period in which Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, and TCWA

denied non-FLDS residents water service, they have provided water service to new

properties occupied or managed by FLDS residents. In some instances they have

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 12 of 19

Page 13: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

installed such connections at night; at other times they have installed the connections in

putative exchange for water rights of far lesser value.

40. The Cities have refused requests from the Trust to subdivide Trust property into

smaller lots. The Cities’ refusal to permit subdivision has prevented the Trust from

transferring the deeds of those smaller lots to non-FLDS Trust beneficiaries.

41. Prior to July 2009, Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, and Twin City Power delayed

providing electric connections to non-FLDS individuals or refused to provide such

connections at all. During the same period, they provided electric connections to

similarly situated FLDS individuals and entities. Since July 2009, the Cities have

delayed providing necessary information regarding non-FLDS-occupied properties to

Garkane Energy, the Cities’ current electricity provider, resulting in a delay before

non-FLDS residents and entities receive electricity at their properties.

Denial of Access to Public Facilities

42. Beginning in approximately 2008, the Cities have denied non-FLDS individuals equal

utilization of public facilities on the basis of religion.

43. Cottonwood Park (“the Park”) and Cottonwood Zoo (“the Zoo”) are owned, operated,

or managed by or on behalf of the Cities.

44. The United States has received signed written complaints of discrimination against

non-FLDS individuals at the Zoo and the Park by the Cities.

45. On or about May 18, 2010, a group of non-FLDS children attempted to play at the

Park. A Marshal’s Deputy told the children that they could not play at the Park and

threatened them with arrest if they continued to play.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 13 of 19

Page 14: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

46. In addition, beginning in approximately 2008, members of the Marshal’s Office and

other officials of the Cities have told other non-FLDS individuals that they may not

play at the Park.

47. The Marshal’s Office allows FLDS individuals to play at the Park.

48. Beginning in approximately 2008, members of the Marshal’s Office have harassed

non-FLDS individuals who were lawfully on the Zoo premises.

49. Beginning in approximately 2008, the Marshal’s Office withdrew police protection

from the Zoo when its occupancy agreement was taken over by a non-FLDS

individual. When non-FLDS individuals presented the Marshal’s Office with evidence

that FLDS individuals had been vandalizing the Zoo, the Marshal’s Office refused to

act on those allegations.

50. The Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States

Department of Justice, on delegation from the Attorney General, has certified that all

requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000b have been met. The Certificate of the

Assistant Attorney General is appended to this Complaint and is incorporated herein.

51. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

52. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through

the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, in pertinent part, that: “Congress shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. . . .”

53. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 14 of 19

Page 15: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the

place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

54. Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to

the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the

State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

55. By the actions set forth above, Defendants Colorado City and Hildale have engaged in

and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of

rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the First, Fourth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United

States. These actions constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

56. Persons who are subject to Defendants’ conduct are suffering, and will continue to

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 15 of 19

Page 16: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

58. By the actions set forth above, Defendants have:

a. Refused to negotiate for the sale of housing, denied housing, or otherwise made

housing unavailable because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

b. Discriminated in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling

because of religion, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b);

and

c. Coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with a person in the exercise or

enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of

his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of,

a right granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of the Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

59. Defendants’ actions described above constitute:

a. A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619; or

b. A denial to a group of persons rights granted by the Fair Housing Act,

which raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of the Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

60. There are persons who have been injured by Defendants’ discriminatory actions and

practices who are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). These persons

have suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions and practices

described above.

61. Defendants’ conduct described above was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard

for the rights guaranteed under the Fair Housing Act.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 16 of 19

Page 17: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

62. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

63. By the actions set forth above, Defendants Colorado City and Hildale have deprived

individuals of, or threatened individuals with the loss of, the right to the equal

protection of the laws on account of religion by denial of equal utilization of a public

facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of Defendants Colorado

City and Hildale, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000b.

WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

a. Enter a judgment declaring that the Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein,

violates the Fair Housing Act, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First,

Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and

42 U.S.C. § 14141;

b. Enter an order enjoining the Defendants from:

i. Refusing to negotiate for the sale of housing, denying housing, or

otherwise making housing unavailable because of religion, in violation of

42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

ii. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a

dwelling because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and

iii. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person in the

exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or

enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 17 of 19

Page 18: Colorado City Suit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

in the exercise or enjoyment of, a right granted or protected by Section

804 of the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617;

c. Enter an order enjoining Defendants Colorado City and Hildale, including but

not limited to their law enforcement officers, from violating the rights of

individuals on the ground of religion in violation of the First, Fourth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the

United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 14141;

d. Enter an order enjoining Defendants Colorado City and Hildale from depriving

individuals of or threatening individuals with the loss of the right to the equal

protection of the laws on account of religion by denial of equal utilization of a

public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of

Defendants Colorado City and Hildale, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000b;

e. Enter an order enjoining Defendants from failing or refusing to take such

affirmative steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of any

discriminatory or otherwise unlawful conduct in the future and to eliminate, to

the extent practicable, the effects of Defendants’ discriminatory or otherwise

unlawful conduct;

f. Award compensatory and punitive damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 3614(d)(1)(B) to all persons harmed by the Defendants’ discriminatory

practices;

g. Assess a civil penalty against each defendant in an amount authorized by

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 18 of 19

Page 19: Colorado City Suit

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 19 of 19

Page 20: Colorado City Suit

JS 44 (Rev. 09/11) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe 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 providedby 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 initiatingthe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (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 DEFPlaintiff (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 ’ 5Defendant (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)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 ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 ’ 410 Antitrust’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 450 Commerce

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 460 Deportation’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 480 Consumer Credit (Excl. Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 891 Agricultural Acts’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 893 Environmental Matters’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. Malpractice ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. ’ 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ ’ 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 462 Naturalization Application

Employment ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 463 Habeas Corpus -’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee

Other ’ 560 Civil Detainee - (Prisoner Petition)’ 448 Education Conditions of ’ 465 Other Immigration

Confinement Actions

V. ORIGINTransferred fromanother district(specify)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)’ 1 Original

Proceeding’ 2 Removed from

State Court’ 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court’ 4 Reinstated or

Reopened’ 5 ’ 6 Multidistrict

Litigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1-1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 3

Page 21: Colorado City Suit

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/11)

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 pl eading or other papers as requiredby 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 theuse 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 civilcomplaint 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 de fendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a governm ent agency, use onlythe full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or de fendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, givingboth 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 thetime of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of th e county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnationcases, 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, notingin this section “(see attachment)”.

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C .P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in oneof 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 jurisdicti on arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to theConstitution, 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 box1 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 ofthe different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; 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 divers ity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this sectionfor each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, issufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature ofsuit, select the most definitive.

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 cour ts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petitionfor removal is granted, check this box.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 multidistrictlitigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When thisbox is checked, do not check (5) above.Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.

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 statutesunless 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 dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) 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 numbersand the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1-1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 3

Page 22: Colorado City Suit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ) ARIZONA; CITY OF HILDALE, UTAH; ) TWIN CITY POWER; and TWIN ) CITY WATER AUTHORITY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet

I (c). Attorneys For Plaintiff United States of America: Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Steven H. Rosenbaum Jonathan M. Smith R. Tamar Hagler Christy E. Lopez Eric W. Treene Lori K. Wagner Sean Keveney Jessica C. Crockett Anika Gzifa Matthew Donnelly Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Northwestern Building, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 305-3107 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116 E-mail: [email protected] Virginia State Bar No. 39446

For Defendants: Defendant Town of Colorado City, AZ Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: (602) 462-9999 Facsimile: (602) 926-8075 E-mail: [email protected] Defendants City of Hildale, UT, Twin City Power and Twin City Water R. Blake Hamilton Stirba and Associates 215 South State Street, Suite 750 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Phone: (801) 364-8300 Facsimile: (801) 364-8355 E-mail: [email protected]

Case 3:12-cv-08123-MHB Document 1-1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 3