UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

------------------------------Teen Reach Inc, andRev. Bobby Torres, and Emma Grillo, andBrandon Murray, andEllen Crill, andRyan Finn, and Matthew Worl, and Jasmin Soto, andDanette DavisCynthia Martinez CIVIL ACTION NO. ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION ) OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C . § Sec 1983/1985 The Arizona Department Of Economic Security, andChild Protective Services, andAimee Amato, andChristopher Deere, and Wendy Rosenberg, andLeslie Wingate, andEnola Thompson, and JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDJulie Callagher, andSusan Morris, andGretel Hoesch, andDaniel Moe, andRhonda Cash, andJacob Schmitt, andBruce Nittle, andBrian Baum, andShelia Davis, andTracey Everett, andand Janet Sabol Defendants. ) ------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

1

Now come Plaintiff’s, as and for their complaint, alleges and asserts the following claims

against the Defendants in the above entitled action:

Jurisdiction

1. This action arises under:

a. The Constitution of the United States, and specifically the First Amendment (right to

petition government, freedom of religion); Fifth Amendment (right to due process and

equal protection of the law); Article IV, § 1 (privileges and immunity clause); and under:

b. Title 28 United States Code  § 1331, which provides that anyone stating facts raising a

federal cause of action has the right to file in the district courts a civil action stating claims

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

c. Title 28 United States Code § 1343, which provides a federal court forum in which

citizens may seek redress from the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities under

color of state law.

d. Civil Rights Act, Title 42 United States Code §§ 1983-1986, that provides a federal

remedy to anyone suffering from violations of his civil rights perpetrated under color of

state law including: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; Deprivation Of Rights; :

illegal detention and confinement , refusing or neglecting to prevent; religious freedom; ;

(6) violation of 1st amendment religious freedom; Freedom Of Speech.

e. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, based upon the

conspiracy by the defendants that repeatedly violated plaintiff's civil rights.

f. Title 42 United States Code § 1986, which provides for damages from those defendants

who had knowledge of the violations of plaintiff's civil rights, who had the duty and the

ability to prevent or aid in the prevention of them, and who failed to perform that duty.

g. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

2

(1971). The Bivens claim is based upon the violations of plaintiff's civil rights under color

of federal law, which occurred continuously and inter-related from 1983 to the present

date.

h. Title 18 United States Code §§ 1961-1964. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations act (hereafter "RICO") claim arises from the pattern of multiple predicate

acts perpetrated by defendants over a 3-year span. The predicate acts of racketeering by

multiple defendants affected the civil rights of defendants.

i. Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 United States Code §§ 2201 and 2202, which

provides for district courts to declare rights and legal relations that are in controversy, and

provide whatever remedies are appropriate. (Also FRCivP 57)

j. Title 18 United States Code § 4. This federal crime reporting statute requires any person

who knows of a federal crime to promptly "report it to a federal judge" or other officer.

k. violation of 1st amendment religious freedom.

l. right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

m. malicious abuse of process.

n false arrest and imprisonment

o. negligence

p. assault

q. battery

r. intentional infliction of emotional distress

s.  The matters in controversy exceed ten million dollars.

Venue

2. Venue is based upon the following:

a. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331 as it involves

claims under TITLE 42 UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS

b.Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391 (1)(2)(3) as the

3

Plaintiff’s and Defendants reside in this district, and the violations of law complained of

herein occurred in this district.

c. A number of the wrongful acts and federal causes of action occurred while plaintiff was

a resident of the Northern District of Nevada.

d. A number of the wrongful acts and federal causes of action occurred while plaintiff was

a resident of the District of Arizona.

e. Plaintiff’ resides in Arizone and consider Arizona their domicile.

f. Plaintiff's non-profit 501 (C) (3) corporation was and is incorporated in Arizona Nevada

and has its principal place of business and operation in the District Of Arizona.

g. Property that was wrongfully taken from Plaintiff’ included property located in the

District of Arizona.

h. All defendants participated in wrongful conduct that affected District of Arizona

interests, including property and plaintiffs residences and domicile.

i. Venue exists in any location for reporting criminal activities to a federal judge, as

required by federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.

j. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a), (b), (e); 1392(b); 1402(b).

k. CPS Workers and The Arizona Department Of Economic Security in Arizona have

feloniously retaliated against plaintiff for seeking to report these crimes. These retaliatory

acts were felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513(b). They are also

felonies by obstructing justice under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and

PLAINTIFF PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Teen Reach (herein known as Teen Reach) , address

4

5. Plaintiff name Address

6. Plaintuiff Name address, occupation and position

7.

8. pl

9.

10. pl

11.

12. pl

13. pl

14.

DEFENDANT PARTIES

15. The Arizona Department Of Economic Security who are they, describe ,.address,

16.

17. Child Protection Services

18. police

19. Aimee Amato, resides at address, her occupation and position

20. name if you do not know the addy, then place currently unkown

21. name

22. n

23.

24. n

25. n

26. n

27. n

28. n

29. n

30. n

31. n

32. Unkown Parties

Preliminary Statement

5

33. This action raises multiple federal causes of actions for which federal judges have a

mandatory responsibility to provide a federal court forum and relief. Plaintiffs, both

individually and as a class, a Religious Organization and Church and it’s Members,

have been deprived of personal and property rights, and civil rights in direct and

repeated violations of due process of law. Although all allegations must be accepted

as true at this stage of the pleading, most of the allegations are stated in attached

Affidavits, and plaintiffs request that judicial notice be taken of these Affidavits.

Further, during discovery, this evidence will be entered into these proceedings.

34. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraph 1 through 33 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth.

Statement Of Facts

35. Evidence strongly indicates that the reasons for the record setting numbers of

violations inflicted upon plaintiff by Arizona, Phoenix and Scottsdale organizations,

officials and their employees arose from a convoluted scheme concocted somewhere

high in the Arizona Department Of Economic Security, and Child Protective Services to

destroy and strip plaintiff ‘ of assets they hold and strip them of rights they are

entitled to under the Constitution Of The United States. This alleged pre-planned

scheme would:

a) Create a situation of harassment against a church and ministry to force said

Church to apply for a License for its religious faith based programs that assists

members children and young adults even though it was not required;

b) Then use said License to force said Church and Ministry to remove biblically

instituted ways, speech, reason and prayer from its well known and successful

programs, ministries and the Church itself.

c) And when the Church and Church Ministries continued to practice their faith and

6

use it in their programs, to use a false charge of child Abuse to remove Civil Rights

and to attack and cause financial, physical and mental injury to the Church, Church

ministries and Members, associates, families and staff.

d) And then to raid the Church and remove Adult members who were involved in a

Bible study without cause, warrant or right; to hold said adult members for 4 hours

with armed police officers at hand; to deny them their right to council or phone call;

and to continue to harass and defame said Church, Ministries of said Church, it’s

members, its council and its staff in an attempt to justify the illegal actions it

performed under the color of Arizona Law and Statute.

36. To begin, Teen Reach is a 501c3 non-profit religious Church that holds its primary

Church services in Scottsdale, Arizona, and performs Ministry works Nation Wide. The

Sr. Pastor of record is the Rev. Bobby Torres. ( Exhibit # 1 )

37. Teen Reach is listed as a district affiliated Church of the Assemblies of God since 1993

(exhibit # 2 ).

38. Teen Reach’s Primary Christian Worldview relates to “care” for those less fortunate and

believes that spiritual treatment through prayer, preaching and scripture can provide a

better world and add greatly to the emotional, physical and psychological well being of

children and young adults alike (exhibit # 3 ).

39. Teen Reach provides a Christian School and a Temporary Live In Christian Program for

Children and young adults of its members who have had the standard problems facing

many families today with their children: Drugs, Sex and Violence (exhibit # 4 ).

40. Teen Reach maintains accountability with: 

a) Planning and Zoning for group home clearance. 

b) Fire Department for safety clearance. 

c) Department of Justice for criminal clearance. 

d) CPR and First Aid certification. 

7

e) De-escalation and Assault Response Training Agencies. 

f) Association for Christian Teachers and Schools.

g) Health and Safety clearance parents who place their children in the homes.

41. In the years 2001/2, a general harassment by The Arizona Department Of

Economic Security and Child Protective Services (known herein after as “CPS”) began to

occur. They wanted Teen reach to apply for a State License for their group homes. Police

Officers and Zoning Department would routinely show up at various services and Homes

and Offices. Cars were towed from the Church. And other minor events unfolded (exhibit

# 5 ).

42. And then, on or around the beginning of April of 2002, a neighbor of one of the group

homes complained to the zoning board of Scottsdale Arizona that Teen reach was running

a business out of a residential home. One thing led to another and soon the CPS got

involved and a hearing was held in the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 11,

2002 on the issue alleging that Teen Reach was operating unlicensed group homes

(exhibit # 6 ).

43. Though Teen Reach operated under the protection of the Constitutional Right of

Separation of Church and State. And demonstrated that the children in their care were

placed with parental consent, Teen reach decided to apply for a License in order to stop

what had become all out harassment by The Arizona Department Of Economic Security,

and CPS and avoid costly litigation.

44. One of the criteria for the license was that the Church policy of corporal punishment by

paddling would not be allowed by CPS. Even though said policy was one of a supervised,

biblically scriptured event, metered out only in special circumstances, with care and non-

abuse, Teen Reach agreed not to paddle or spank children, but did not give up the right for

a parent to do so and provided a document to CPS stating so (exhibit # 7 ) And the

License was issued (Exhibit # 8 ) and renewed with the understanding of that

8

requirement of Teen Reach ( Exhibit # 9 ).

45. One of the causes of the State License, was that CPS could take action in many forms

without the permission of Teen Reach or the need for a Court Order.

46. All was well until DATE when a parent spanked a child and CPS revoked the Teen Reach

Child Welfare Agency License on DATE ( exhibit # 10 ).

47. With the License revoked, CPS had given up any right to enforce its rules, regulations and

make surprise visits and enforcements.

48. Then, on DATE , CPS sent a letter by registered mail to Teen Reach. It was a letter

explaining that the Teen Reach License was SUSPENDED (exhibit # 11 ). Plaintiff Rev

Torres was confused. In one hand he had the REVOCATION, in the other the

SUSPENSION, it did not make sense to him.

49. Then on DATE, at LOCATION, the Defendant’ Aimee Amato, Christopher Deere,

Wendy Rosenberg, Leslie Wingate, Enola Thompson, Julie Callagher, Susan

Morris, Gretel Hoesch, Daniel Moe, Rhonda Cash, Jacob Schmitt, Bruce Nittle,

Brian Baum, Shelia Davis, Tracey Everett, Janet Sabol, all employees of CPS, Acting

under the color of law, and three UNIDENTIFIED armed police officers, acting

under the color of law, and several other UNIDENTIFIED individuals, appeared at

LOCATION during a bible study where the Plaintiff’ Emma Grillo, Brandon

Murray, Ellen Crill, Ryan Finn, Matthew Worl, Jasmin Soto, Danette Davis and

Cynthia Martinez, all legal adults, aged 18 to 22, were performing bible study,

showed up at the Teen Reach Church, which is not a group home, and, without

cause, without warrant, without court order or right, while threatening and using

bodily force, proceeded to drag out the Plaintiffs above , where they were then

forced into a Automobiles and taken incommunicado to a CPS office.

50. Once at the CPS office, they were sequestered for 4 hours with no food, no phone

calls, and, while their pleas for Attorneys went disregarded, with armed police

intimidation, were physically and mentally abused during an unconstitutional

9

interrogation.

51. The PLANTIFF’, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP

THIS COMPLAINT AS LIMITED AS THEY CAN, AND ADVISING THIS

HONORABLE Court that discovery will be required to sort out who did what to

who, HAVE PROVIDED Affidavits detailing specific infractions and violations of

rights by the Defendants, including Religious slurs and debasing of the plaintiffs for

their religious beliefs during the incarceration; such as ridiculing Plaintiff’ when

they prayed for relief from what amounted to an allegation of torture by the

Defendants. (Exhibit Affidavits #12 ).

52. It is the Plaintiff’ allegation that Defendant Arizona Department Of Economic Security,

parent of Defendant CPS, Defendant CPS and the Defendants listed herein this complaint

and other yet to be identified individuals, whom invaded the Church as stated above, were

under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations and custom of Arizona when they realized

that the REVOCATION of the license meant they had to get a Court order or Warrant to

enter any of the premises of Teen Reach; when they decided to send another letter, this

one stating that the License was Suspended; when they used a pretext yet unidentified to

enable Armed Police Officers to assist in the raid and detention of Adult Plaintiffs; and

when they went to the Church and committed the acts as stated above that Violated the

Plaintiff’ Rights.

53. It is Plaintiff’ allegation that there are yet unidentified individuals such as the Police

Officers and several unidentified individuals, who, under color of law, assisted in the

cause and actions of the events as described herein above. And believe that only

Discovery will allow these individuals to be identified.

54. Plaintiff Rev Torres and Teen Reach, though not “arrested”, where harmed and had

their rights to Due Process, Protection Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure,

Freedom to Assemble, Freedom Of Religon and the Right To Assemble To practice the

same and their Right to Free Speech violated by the actions and events of the Defendants,

specifically their entering the Church and performing search and seizures without warrant,

and creating terror and fear and inflicting great distress and emotional harm.

10

55. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all the Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C.

secs. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.

56. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Plaintiffs rights, privileges

or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law, to wit, 

Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1061 (1st Cir. 1997); McNamara v.

Honeyman, 406 Mass. 43, 52 (1989). 

(a) by depriving Defendants of their liberty without due process of law, by taking

them into custody and holding him there against his will,

County of Sacramento v. Lewis. 523 U.S. 833 (1998); Youngberg v. Romeo,  457

U.S. 307, 315 (1982

(b) by making an unreasonable search and seizure of their property without due

process of law, 

(c) by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of

justice, with intent to deny Defendants equal protection of laws,

(d) by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff,

thereby depriving plaintiff of their rights, privileges, and immunities as

guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution

of the United States.

57. Plaintiffs incorporates the attached Exhibits and Affidavits # 1 through 8 into this

Complaint by reference as if set forth herein.

58. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

11

59. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraph 1 through 53 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth.

60. COUNT ONE: CONSPIRACY TO DENY PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS

Defendants' above-described, acting in collusion, with predetermination, conduct under

color of law, and with particularly the acts, commissions and omissions of the

conspirators in preparing and mailing fraudulent documents in order to carry out the mass

raid on a Church and Teen Reach, and the subsequent detention by Police and CPS

Workers, combined with the custodial maltreatment of the plaintiffs, violated the

plaintiffs' rights to religious freedom, freedom of speech, assembly and association, be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection of the laws and to due

process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

61. COUNT TWO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

Defendants' above-described, acting in collusion, with predetermination, conduct, and

particularly the acts, commissions and omissions of the conspirators, and of the command,

supervisory and rank-and-file defendants in ordaining, directing and carrying out the mass

raid on a Church and Teen Reach and subsequent custodial maltreatment of the plaintiffs,

violated the plaintiffs' rights to religious freedom, freedom of speech, assembly and

association, be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection of the

laws and to due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

62. COUNT THREE: VIOLATION OF FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. §1983

Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the acts and omissions of those

defendants involved in the groundless mass raid, arrest, detention and custodial

maltreatment of the plaintiffs, and those involved in individual acts of brutality against

Plaintiff’ as outlined in their Affidavits, violated plaintiffs' rights to be free from

unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution U.S.C. §1983

35. COUNT FOUR: VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE

12

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. §1983

Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the custodial maltreatment of

plaintiffs, including but not limited to the conduct described, violated plaintiffs' rights to

equal protection of the laws and to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.

63. COUNT FIVE: ASSAULT AND BATTERY

The above described conduct of defendants, and particular those named herein the

attached Affidavits, constituted assault and battery on plaintiffs. Defendants caused

physical contact to be inflicted on plaintiffs without plaintiffs' consent. As a direct and

proximate result of said assault and battery, plaintiffs suffered general and special

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

64. COUNT SIX: FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Defendants' above-described conduct constitutes false arrest and/or false imprisonment of

plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of said false arrest and/or false imprisonment,

plaintiffs suffered general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

65. COUNT SEVEN: 1 st AMENDMANT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR

FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Defendants' afore described conduct, and all of it, denied plaintiffs their rights to be free

from violence and intimidation by threat of violence because of their religious and

political affiliation or viewpoint in violation of their 1 st Amendment Constitutional right

of religious freedom.

66. COUNT EIGHT: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Defendants' above-described conduct was extreme, unreasonable and outrageous. By

engaging in such conduct, defendants intentionally ignored or recklessly disregarded the

foreseeable risk that plaintiffs would suffer extreme emotional distress as a result of

defendants' conduct. As a proximate result of said conduct, plaintiffs suffered severe

emotional distress, pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort and

humiliation, all to their general damage in an amount to be proven, and incurred special

13

damages in an amount to be proven.

67. COUNT NINE: NEGLIGENCE

Defendants had a duty to properly hire, train, oversee, supervise and discipline their

agents, employees and social workers so as to prevent violations of plaintiffs'

constitutional, statutory, and common law rights and to prevent physical injury to

plaintiffs, and a duty to use their powers and equipment properly to avoid harm to

plaintiffs. By the conduct described above, defendants breached the duty of care owed to

plaintiffs and proximately caused them general and special damages in an amount to be

proven.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

A. An award of compensatory and general damages against defendants and each of them, in an

amount to be determined according to proof;

B. An award of exemplary and punitive damages against all defendants sued in their individual

capacities in an amount to be proven at trial;

C. An award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to 42 U.S.C Sec1985 and 42 U.S.C

Sec. 1983;

D. An award of plaintiffs' costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1988;

E. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from harassing or again

making any baseless raid as a pretext for suppressing legitimate First Amendment activities by

plaintiffs and their associates; and from using the tactics and measures such as holding citizens

against their will or using intimidation and summary punishment without COURT ORDER or

WARRANT;

14

F. Trial By Jury; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that we are the Plaintiffs herein, and have

read the foregoing pleading filed on our behalf, and the facts stated therein are true.

Day month year                                     _____________________________

 

(All the PLAINTIFFS MUST SIGN )

Name

address

phone number

Prose Attorney for the

DATED: month day , year

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ___th day of May 2001. 

 

                                                         ______________________________

                                                         Notary Public 

15

Exhibit List

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

11.

12.

16

Certificate Of Service

17