Brenda K. Gordon, Pro Se 

13500 SW Pacific Hwy., # 240 

Tigard, OR 97224 

FILED18 RPR '1612:c&DC-ORP 

Phone: (503) 867-9944 

Email: bkgord88@icloud.com/gordbk l l 88@gmail.com 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BRENDAK. GORDON, an individual, ~CaseNo.: 3»/6-Ct/- &66,, p~ natural citizen, and Pro se "class of one" ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

vs. ) 

CIVIL COMPLAINT 

42 u.s.c. § 1983; 42 u.s.c. § 1985 

ERIC VAN HAGEN, in his individual capacity~ 42 u.s.c. § 1986; 42 u.s.c. § 1988 

as deputy counsel for TriMet, a municipal ) Violations of Amendment XIV, Section 1 

corporation of the State of Oregon; a public ) of the U.S. Constitution 

body; ) 

) Civil Conspiracy/Fraud upon the Court 

STEPHEN K. BUSHONG, in his individual ) N 1

. t/I t t' 1 I n· t' f E t' 1 . . . ) eg Igen n en Iona n IC ion o mo Iona 

capacity as a Circmt ~ou~ Judge for . . Distress (NIED)(IIED) 

Multnomah County Circmt Court, a mumc1pal ) 

corporation of the State of Oregon; a public ) DECLARATIVE RELIEF 

body; ~ Constitutionality Challenges ORCP 60 ? 

) 

JEAN K. MAURER, in her individual ) CLAIMS FOR RELIEF $1.500.000.00 

JURY DEMAND capacity as a Circuit Court Judge for ) 

Multnomah County Circuit Court, a municipal ) 

corporation ) 

CLAIM NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY 

ARBITRATION UTCR 13.060 (3) 

of the State of Oregon; a public body; ) 

MULTNOMAH COUNTY and 

MULTNOMAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

Defendants. 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

1. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 7(a)(l ), Plaintiff Brenda 

K. Gordon in Pro Se, brings this Civil Complaint in the District Court to petition the judicial branch of 

government for redress of grievances against the three (3) Oregon State and Local Governmental 

employees as Officers of the Court in their official and individual capacities and the three (3) 

Municipal Public Bodies, as named in the above caption, for alleged violations of Amendment XIV, 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 1 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 33
Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. 

2. Plaintiff contends such alleged violations adversely affected her substantive and 

procedural rights in the civil proceedings referenced herein, as well as deprived her of the right to an 

impartial forum necessary to secure a fair "Trial by jury in (a) civil case(s)" as guaranteed under 

Amendment VII, pursuant to Goldberg v. Kelly, wherein the court stated: 

An impartial decision maker is an essential right in civil proceedings. 397 U.S. 254, 271 

(1970). See Great W Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 167 

(3rd Cir. 2010) [F]ederal plaintiff did not allege merely that state court decisions were 

erroneous or unconstitutional, but that plaintiff was denied independent right to an 

impartial forum. 1 

3. The Circuit Court records show, as fully described below, the three officer defendants' 

wholly disregarded controlling State precedents on the merits of the case and construed alternative 

rules, implemented by the named municipalities, contrary to clearly established mandated procedural 

laws and constitutional guarantees, which also served to cause unjustified delays. 

See Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep 't of Children & Family Servs., 606 F .3d 301, 310 

(6th Cir. 2010) (plaintiffs' federal court claims not barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

because they did not seek review or reversal of state court decisions, and focused on 

conduct of public officials leading up to that decision, cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 804 (2010) 

(Emphasis added) 

4. Plaintiff alleges such acts and failures to act denied her a property and liberty interest 

without adequate due process and equal protection of the laws, for which the Circuit and Appellate 

courts failed, and subsequently refused to provide a suitable post-deprivation remedy upon repeated 

notice of the errors, whereby Plaintiff relies, in part, on the following Supreme Court statements on the 

merits of this action, wherein the Court confirmed: 

See Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980) "The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee 

life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the 

facts or the law .... At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness ... by 

ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he 

may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him." 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 2 

l 

t 

¥ 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 33
The deprivation of a liberty or property interest is fundamental to both substantive and 

procedural due process claims. Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S.564, 570-71 (1972); A 

choice among alternatives by a municipal official with final decision-making authority 

may also serve as the basis of municipal liability. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 

U.S. 469 482-83 (1986); See also "*** For intentional. as for negligent deprivations of 

property by state employees, the state's action is not complete until and unless it provides 

or refuses to provide a suitable post deprivation remedy."). Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 

517, 533 (1984) (Emphasis added) 

II FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION 

5. Thereby, Plaintiff brings this grievance for federal constitutional infringements by the 

governmental defendants named herein, pursuant to the right granted under "the Petition Clause" in 

Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. See Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB.2 

6. Additionally, Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts can hear "all 

cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States ... " U.S. 

Const., Art III, Sec 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause broadly, finding that it allows 

federal courts to hear any case in which there is a federal ingredient. Osborn v. Bank of the United 

States, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 738 (1824)(guoted in Harlow v. Fitzgerald. 457 U.S. 800 (1982)) 

(Emphasis added) 

7. Accordingly, this case arises as a federal cause of action.under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil 

action for deprivation ofrights, commonly referred to as "section 1983;"3 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy 

2 [The Supreme Court's] precedents confirm that the Petition Clause protects the right of individuals 

to appeal to courts and other forums established by the government for resolution of legal disputes. 

"[T]he right of access to courts for redress of wrongs is an aspect of the First Amendment right to 

petition the government." Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 896-897, 104 S.Ct. 2803, 81 

L.Ed.2d 732 (1984)(quoted in Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al., v. Charles J Guarnieri, 131 

S.Ct. 2488 (2011)). 

3 See American Well Works v. Layne, The Supreme Court has found that a "suit arises under the law 

that creates the cause of action," 241 US 257 (1916); and therefore, only suits based on federal 

law,***, create federal questionjurisdiction. See also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 

U.S. 149 (1908). 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 3 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 33
to interfere with civil rights; 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Action for Neglect to Prevent Interference with Civil 

Rights; and 42 U.S.C. § l 988(a) Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights for alleged constitutional 

violations incurred by Plaintiff from the defendant officers during the Multnomah Circuit Court Civil 

proceedings, Case No.1111-15253, commenced on November 20, 2011, through and including 

Plaintiffs ORCP 71 C Motion to Set Aside the April 9, 2013 General Judgment, submitted on or 

around April 14, 2014. [TCF 

III. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 

8. Plaintiffs § 1983 claims are timely before this court under Oregon tort laws of two 

years. However, Fraud upon the Court does not carry a statute of limitations. 

9. Plaintiff complains and alleges as follows: 

IV. THE PARTIES 

10. Plaintiff is a natural U.S. Citizen and resident of the State of Oregon who sought relief 

in the Multnomah Circuit Court for established claims invoked under State Statutes for liability of 

Negligence, Breach of the Duty of Care, and Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

brought against the Circuit Court Defendants, "TriMet" a local municipal public transit system, as such 

claims are authorized under the Ore~on Torts Claims Act ("OTCA"). 

11. Plaintiff was entitled to a property interest "remedy by due course of law" and a liberty 

interest in a speedy proceeding "completely and without delay" for a personal bodily injury in the 

administration of justice, as guaranteed under Article I, Sect. 10 of the Oregon Constitution. 4 

12. The Circuit Court record shows Plaintiff sustained the loss of the property interest 

4 .Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 4 70 U.S. 531, 541 ( 1985)(Due process property 

interests are created by "existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such 

as state law--rules or understanding that secure certain benefits and that support claims of 

entitlement to those benefits); Id@ 577, 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 4 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 4 of 33
remedy for the relief sought for the three claims alleged without any legal authority cited or sufficient 

evidence entered on the record to support the adverse "No Fault" Jury Verdict [TCF ] and the 

General Judgment issued concurring with the verdict [TCF ] 

13. Defendant Eric Van Hagen is a duly licensed lawyer by the Oregon State Bar. OSB 

____ and an officer of the court, pursuant to ORS Defendant Van Hagen appeared in the 

Circuit Court proceedings in question as an employee and Deputy Counsel for the defendants TriCounty Metropolitan, a local public body municipality, pursuant to ORS 

14. Defendant Stephen A. Bushong is the duly elected and/or appointed Judicial Officer 

employed by the Oregon Judicial Department pursuant to [ORS ]. Defendant Bushong appeared as 

the Presiding pre-trial Motions Judge for the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the proceedings in 

question. 

15. Defendant Maurer is the duly elected and/or appointed Judicial Officer employed by the 

Oregon Judicial Department pursuant to [ORS ]. Defendant Judge Maurer appeared as the trial 

judge for the Multnomah County Circuit Court. in the proceedings in question. 

16. Defendant the Multnomah County Circuit Court is a "public body" pursuant to ORS 

174.109, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon as a division of the Oregon 

Judicial Department [ORS 174.113], and the 3rd branch of Oregon State government [ORS 174.111] 

by Art. III, section 1, pursuant to ORS 3.012. 

17. Defendant Multnomah County (the "County") is a "local government" organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, pursuant to ORS 174.116, and defined as a "public 

body" pursuant to ORS 174, 109. 

V. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

18. The District Court has ORIGINAL jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1331. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 5 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 5 of 33
19. The District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and§ 2202 for Declaratory 

Relief, whereby an actual controversy exists with respect to (1) the implementation of mandated due 

process safeguards by the public body entities;5 (2) the public officers non-compliance to mandated 

safeguards [ORCP 1 B; ORS 1.725]; (3) the implementation of alternative provisions contrary to said 

safeguards, and (4) the officers application of the alternative provisions inconsistent with said 

safeguards construed in violation of their professional statutory legal duties and Oaths under the 

Supremacy Clause. 

20. The District Court has Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1367 

21. Venue and Subject-matter are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events 

giving rise to Plaintiffs constitutional claims occurred in this judicial district. Plaintiff is a resident and 

citizen of this District. Defendants are State and local public bodies, and officers and employees of 

said public bodies in this District. 

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 

22. Plaintiff contends that the circuit court case proceeded to a jury trial irrespective of 

opposing counsels repeated motions to dismiss the case. Neverthelss, the pre-trial Motions Judge 

failed to address the motions to dismiss on record. The failure to do so was not harmless. 

1. Property Interest Established 

23. Thus, the Motions Judge demonstrated knowledge the complaint successfully 

established a personal injury claim with merit, whereby the judicial officer knew, or should have 

known, the Oregon Constitution guaranteed Plaintiff a property interest remedy, pursuant to the 

Oregon Supreme Court in Smothers: 

5 The procedural safeguards that must accompany a state's deprivation of a constitutionally protected 

interest is a matter of federal law. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980) 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 6 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 6 of 33
This court concluded that, * * * Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution 

guarantees a remedy for an "injury" to absolute common-law rights respecting 

person, property, or reputation.@ 135-36. Smothers v. Gresham Transfers, Inc. 

332 Or 83, 23 P3d, 333 (2001). (emphasis added) 

2. The Circuit Court record 

24. The Circuit Court record shows in pre-trial, Opposing Counsel, Defendant Van 

Hagen attempted to mislead Plaintiff as a pro se to amend the complaint to dispose of material 

facts in a letter dated January 19, 2012, willfully and knowingly made a late appearance 45 days 

later to cause the case to be dismissed for lack of prosecution, repeatedly presented false 

certifications in motions to the court which misrepresented the facts and laws [See TCF 

, construed alternative rules contrary to mandated rules to postpone the proceedings without any 

justification for doing so [See TCF ], repeatedly requested discovery of documents already in 

his possession, refused to submit relevant public records for admission as evidence, subjected 

Plaintiff to an unwarranted and onerous deposition for no other purpose than to harass and 

humiliate her, and only halted the assault when he brought her to hysterical tears from frustration 

and exhaustion. 

25. The Circuit Court record shows the Motions Judge, Defendant Bushong issued an 

April 9, 2012 Order granting opposing counsel's contrary Motion to Strike the Majority of the 

Complaint disposing of material facts and laws without any legal authority stated on the record for 

doing so. Exhibit TCF ; permitted the court to grant counsel's three unjustified motions to 

postpone in contravention to mandated rules; permitted the onerous deposition upon Plaintiffs 

repeated objections; denied all of Plaintiffs Motions and Objections throughout pre-trial without 

stating any reasons or legal authority for doing so; and issued an Order Denying opposing 

counsel's Motion to Dismiss the State Statutes invoking the defendant's duty without making any 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 7 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 7 of 33
determination to the relevancy of the statutes or stating any legal authority on the record for the 

denial. TCF 

26. The Circuit Court record shows Plaintiff repeatedly objected to opposing counsels' 

motions noticing the court of the misrepresentations, to no avail, noticed the court, including the 

Appellate and Supreme Courts of the irreparable damage the April 9th interlocutory Order would 

create by disposing of material facts, laws and evidence necessary for a jury trial, to no avail; 

repeatedly noticed the court of her failing health due to a pre-existing disability and the shock of 

the two officers' brazen disregard of the laws presented, including the affect of the April 9th Order 

which caused a minor stroke and admission to a hospital on April 28, 2012, to no response; 

repeatedly objected to the postponements and prohibitions under mandated laws, to no response 

or acknowledgement. TCF 

27. The Circuit Court record shows at trial, the trial judge, Defendant Maurer admitted 

Plaintiffs evidence of an injury and evidence showing the injury occurred inboard the defendant's 

train, but granted opposing counsel's directed verdict to dispose of the state statutes and public 

records as relevant evidence, including the damages claims without stating any legal authority on 

the record for doing so; failed to instruct the jury on all the issues, facts and laws necessary to 

make a determination; failed to strike Defendant's accusatory outburst directed to Plaintiff in front 

of the jury, wherein he pointed and stated: "You filed a lawsuit against the Department of 

Education!" - wherein Plaintiff responded "They permitted their collection agents to seize $6000 

from my SSDI without notice and hearing" and without response, continued with his closing that 

Plaintiff "failed to show there was an injury." TCF 

28. The Circuit Court record shows Defendant Maurer issued a General Judgment 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 8 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 8 of 33
conferring with the Jury's No Fault Verdict for defendants without stating any legal authorities for 

doing so. TCF Verdict; TCF General Judgment 

29. Ultimately, the Circuit Court record shows the trial judge and the court failed to 

respond on the record to Plaintiffs notice of errors at trial in three Motions for a New Trial and 

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or provide a hearing to Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside the 

Verdict. TCF 

B. Plaintiffs Reliance 

30. As such, Plaintiff had a justified reliance on the judicial officers' duty as officer of 

the court to comply with mandated procedural rules to ensure the property interest remedy, 

pursuant to Board of Regents v. Roth, wherein the U. S.Supreme Court stated: 

Where a person has reasonable expectation of continued receipt of a benefit is a 

property interest (explaining that "it is a purpose of the ancient institution of 

property to protect those claims upon which people rely on in their daily lives, 

reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined.) 408 U.S. 564, 569 -70 ( 1972) 

C. Defendants' Knowledge, Legal Duty, and Foreseeability 

31. Plaintiff further contends that all three defendants, as judicial officers and lawyers, had 

ample notice of the rules of court, and a professional obligation to correct and ensure necessary 

safeguards within the language of the rules when promulgated by the legislative appointed judges and 

lawyers who make up the Council on Court Procedures ("CCP"),6 in its intent to protect substantive 

and procedural rights,7 and prevent the deprivations alleged herein, pursuant to ORS 1.735 

6 ORS 1.735 (2) A promulgation, amendment or repeal of a rule by the council is invalid and does not become 

effective unless the exact language of the proposed promulgation, amendment or repeal is published or distributed 

to all members of the bar at least 30 days before the meeting at which the council plans to take final action on the 

promulgation, amendment or repeal.***. 

7 ORS 1.725 Legislative findings. The Legislative Assembly finds that: (I) Oregon laws relating to civil procedure 

designed for the benefit of litigants which meet the needs of the court system and the bar are necessary to assure 

prompt and efficient administration of justice in the courts of the state. (emphasis added) See ORS 1.745 Laws on 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 9 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 9 of 33
32. The U.S. Supreme Court opined that "the right the official is alleged to have violated 

must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The 

contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he 

is doing violates that right." Anderson 483 U.S. at 640. 

The "salient question" is whether the officer had "fair warning" or "fair notice" that his or 

her actions would violate the law. Hope v. Peltzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739-41 (2002). 

33. Pursuant to the clear language under ORCP 1,8 the defendants had "fair notice" of the 

procedural rules' full purpose, scope and construction; and "fair warning" that the provisions therein, 

when precisely mandated were established to prevent adversely affecting any litigants substantive 

rights pursuant to the mandates under ORS 1.735 as presented above. 

34. Accordingly, the defendant officers had reason to know "[d]eviation from a legal rule is 

error" Olano,9 pursuant to ORCP 10 See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485, U.S. 112, 127 (1988) 

(emphasizing that critical inquiry is whether official has final decision-making authority) 

D. Cleary Established Law and Constitutional Rights 

35. Thereby, a factfinder could find the three (3) defendant officers had a legal duty, by 

virtue of their professional obligations under state law and Oaths under the Supremacy Clause, 10 to 

ensure and enforce mandated procedural laws in accordance with Oregon legislative intent and 

civil pleading, practice and procedure deemed rules of court until changed. 

8 ORCP 1 A Scope. These rules govern procedure and practice in all circuit courts of this state,***, 

for all civil actions and special proceedings whether cognizable as cases at law, in equity, *** B. 

Construction. These rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action. (emphasis added) 

9 "Indeed, there are good reasons to suppose that the [FRCP] is the product of a judgment that our 

jury systems should be given a stable and constant structure, one that cannot be varied by a court 

with or without the consent of the parties." United States v. Olano et al., U.S. 715, 732 (1993). 

Justice Kennedy, concurring. (Emphasis added) 

IO See the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC); ORS§ 1 .212 Oregon Code of Professional 

Conduct; the Canons of Judicial Ethics (now the Code of Judicial Conduct); Article VI of the U.S. 

Constitution 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 10 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 10 of 33
controlling decisional laws, in compliance with the proscriptions to the State under Amendment XIV 

of the U.S. Constitution, to protect Plaintiffs constitutional guarantees within its jurisdiction, as 

follows: 

"Citizenship; privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection. 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 oflaw; nor 

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

36. Whereby, Plaintiff alleges the defendants knew, or should have known, the acts and 

failures to act in contravention to mandated laws and Amendment XIV guarantees 11 were foreseeable 

to deprive Plaintiff of procedural and substantive rights, and adversely affect the outcome of the 

Circuit Court case. 

VI. LEGAL AUTHORITIES FOR§ 1983 CLAIM 

37. In Ensley v. Soper, the 11th Circuit stated: 

[T]he plaintiff must point to case law which predates the official's alleged improper 

conduct, involves materially similar facts, and truly compels the conclusion that the plaintiff 

had a right under federal law.142 F.3d 1402, 1406 (11th Cir. 1998). (emphasis added) 

38. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in Hope v. Pelzer: [t]hefacts of the existing 

precedent need not be "materially similar" to those of the instant case.536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002). 

39. Accordingly, Plaintiffs reliance rests securely in the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning 

in its' decision in Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990), wherein the "respondent claimed he 

was entitled to receive the procedural safeguards provided by [the state]; the petitioners deprived 

11 Our system of jurisprudence rests on the assumption that all individuals, whatever their position in 

government, are subject to federal law:"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. 

No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, 

from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it." United States v. 

Lee, 106 U.S., at 220. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 11 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 11 of 33
him of his liberty without due process of law [and] should have afforded him procedural safeguards 

required by the Constitution, and the failure to do so violated his due process rights." Whereby, the 

court:"retum[ed] to the interpretation of§ 1983 articulated in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 

(1961) 

40. The Zinermon court added: (a hearing is generally required before final deprivation of 

property interests, and "a person's liberty is equally protected").Jd. 

We conclude that petitioners cannot escape § 1983 liability by characterizing their conduct 

as a "random, unauthorized" violation of [state] law which the State was not in a position 

to predict or avert, Page 494 U.S. 139 ***Such a deprivation is foreseeable, ***,we hold 

***that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim under§ 1983 for violation of his 

procedural due process rights. Id (emphasis added) 

41. Plaintiff further relies on the following: 

A. DUE PROCESS AUTHORITIES 

"Due process property interests are created by "existing rules or understandings that stem 

from an independent source such as state law--rules or understanding that secure certain 

benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits."@ 577. Cleveland Board 

of Education v. Loudermill 470 U.S. 531, 541 (1985). See also Logan v. Zimmerman 

Brush Co. 12 

Decisions on the Record are applicable generally. "[T]he decisionmaker's conclusion .. 

must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing .... To demonstrate 

compliance with this elementary requirement, the decisionmaker should state the reasons 

for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on." Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 

254, 271 (1970). 

[T]he court made clear that due process included the right to "an unbiased tribunal" and 

the "right to know opposing evidence." See Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 

( 1884) "Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be 

12 In a liberty interest case and then in a property interest case, the Court has squarely held that 

because "'minimum [procedural] requirements [are] a matter of federal law, they are not diminished 

by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for 

determining the preconditions to adverse action.' *** Substantive entitlements, therefore, may owe 

their existence to positive enactment, but the procedural protections are found in the judiciary 

reading of the due process clause. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 432 (1982) 

(quoting Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980). 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 12 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 12 of 33
evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government 

power. Id. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law. (emphasis added) 

B. EQUAL PROTECTION AUTHORITIES 

"'The purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure 

every person within the state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary 

discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper 

execution through duly constituted agents.'" Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 

U.S. 441, 445 (1923) (quoting Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Twp., 247 U.S. 350 352 

(1918)). (Emphasis added) 

VIII ST AND ARDS OF REVIEW 

Once a protected due process property or liberty interest has been identified, a court must 

examine the process that accompanies the deprivation of that protected interest and decide 

whether the available procedural safeguards are constitutionally adequate. The procedural 

safeguards that must accompany a state's deprivation of a constitutionally protected 

interest is a matter of federal law. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980); A state court 

may not deny a federal right...'' @496 U.S. 370 Howlett V Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) 

(quoting Douglas v.New York, NH & HR. Co., 279 U.S. 377, 279 U.S. 387-388 (1929) 

(Holmes, J.). 

A court must first consider whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting 

employee. *** [T]he discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal 

statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to 

follow. In this event, the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive. 

Berkovitz v. United States. Pp. 535-539., 486 U.S. 531 (1988) The agency has no 

discretion to deviate from this mandated procedure. Id. The question in this case is 

whether the governmental activities challenged*** are of this discretionary nature. Id. 

A person deprives another of a constitutional right, "within the meaning of§ 1983, 'if he 

does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act, or omits to perform an act 

which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is 

made.'" Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trustees., 479 f.3d 1175 1183 9th Cir 

2007 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 f.2d 740, 743 (9th cir 1978). See also "[I]n light of 

pre-existing law, the unlawfulness must be apparent. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 

640 (1987). To be clearly established, the Court reminded, "a right must be sufficiently 

clear 'that every reasonable official would [have understood] that what he was doing 

violates that right."' Id. at_, citing Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. _, _, (2011) 

(quoting Anderson v.Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); 

§ 1983 liability obtains *** "when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether 

made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent 

official policy, inflicts the injury[.]" 436 U.S. At 694. Monell v. New York City of Dept. of 

Social Service, supra, 

An essential ingredient of a § 1983 claim is that the defendant acted under color of state 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 13 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 13 of 33
law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978) Even if the deprivation represents an 

abuse of authority or lies outside the authority of the official, if the official is acting within 

the scope of his or her employment, the person is still acting under color of state law. See 

Anderson, 451 F .3d at 1068-69; McDade, 223 F .3d at 1140~ Shah v. County of Los Angeles, 

797 F.2d 743, 746 (9th Cir. 1986). (emphasis added) 

When a judge exceeds his jurisdiction and grants or denies that beyond his lawful authority 

to grant or deny, he has perpetrated a "non-judicial" action Yates v. Hoffman Estates (1962 

de iii 209 f sup 757) Trespasser of the law loses subject matter jurisdiction and orders are 

void and of no legal force or affect. 

Under Supreme Court decisional law, municipal liability may be based on the decision 

of a person with "final policymaking authority." Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 123. City of St. 

Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988) 

IX. "SUBSTANTIVE ST AND ARD" for LIABILITY UNDER § 1983 

It is well established that judges may be enjoyed from interfering with citizens' rights. 

Bramlett v. Peterson 1967 386 us 547. See Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 

U.S. 246 (2009) Fitzgerald made clear that the Court will "not lightly conclude that 

Congress intended to preclude reliance on § 1983 as a remedy for a substantial equal 

protection claim," Id. at 256 (quoting Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1012 (1984)), for 

that matter, as a remedy for any constitutional claim. Id 

42. Accordingly, Plaintiff points to the "substantive standard" for liability established in 

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, where JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL and 

JUSTICE BLACKMUN joined, concurred: 

I agree with the substantive standard announced by the Court today, imposing liability 

when a public-official defendant "knew or should have known" of the constitutionally 

violative effect of his actions. Ante, at 815, 819. This standard would not allow the official 

who actually knows that he was violating the law to escape liability for his actions, even if 

he could not "reasonably have been expected" to know what he actually did know. Ante, 

at 819, n. 33. Thus the clever and unusually well-informed violator of constitutional rights 

will not evade just punishment for his crimes. I also agree that this standard applies 

"across the board," to all "government officials performing discretionary functions." Ante, 

at 818. 457 U.S. 800 ( 1982); 457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 

X. MATERIAL ISSUES OF LAW 

A. In Oregon. a speedy trial is a guaranteed liberty interest 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 14 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 14 of 33
43. For the express sake of speedy trial rights, such right is a liberty interest made clear 

under the "without delay" Clause in Art. I. Sect. 10 13 See The Speedy Trial Act of 1979. 18 

U.S.C. 3161 (c)(1)(2). See also ORCP 1 as a procedural safeguard 

44. Thereby, in addition to the factual allegations affecting constitutional rights presented 

for adjudication, Plaintiff asserts the urgency of promptly_resolving material issues of law for a jury as 

trier of fact regarding: (1) federal complaint standards; (2) the Ripeness Doctrine and (3) immunity, 14 

for proper review and timely determinations by this court; not so to affect the substantial rights of the 

defendants to bring those defenses, but for the sole purpose of relying on the courts' duty to allay 

unwarranted delays. 

45. Plaintiff fully addresses below the aforementioned material issues, as follows: 

(1) Federal Complaint Standards 

First, FRCP 8 General Rules of Pleading mandates in part: 

(a)*** A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,*** (2) a*** statement*** showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may 

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. 

46. Precisely, Rule 8(a) provides no mandatory language as to how "short" a pleadings' 

claim for relief must be, e.g. page and/or word count. Plaintiff relies on the unambigous provisions 

for presenting pleadings under 8( d) and ( e) in part. 

13 Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution "declares that justice shall be administered without 

delay," which is substantially the same as guaranteeing a speedy trial to a defendant in a criminal 

action." State v. Breaw, 78 P. 896, 896 (Or. 1904). [A]rticle I, section 10, states ***a mandatory 

directive not within the disposal of the parties, a difference that can bear on the enforcement of the 

constitutional command. State ex rel. Oregonian Pub. Co. v. Deiz, 289 Or. 277, 613 P.2d 23 (1980). 

(emphasis added) 

14 See, e.g., Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991) (per curiam) ("Immunity ordinarily should be 

decided by the court long before trial."); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 646, n. 6 (1987) 

("[I] mm unity questions should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation."). 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 15 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 15 of 33
(2) The Ripeness Doctrine 

47. Pursuant to the Ripeness Doctrine, 15 Plaintiffs' claims are ripe because (1) the injuries 

sustained are ongoing without relief from this court; (2) presented within the statutes of limitations; 

and (3) as it relates to the authority under§ 1983 to bring state law in alignment with federal law, (See 

Id Zinermon) as such alleged unconstitutional laws are described below, to bring attention to the 

federal court of such discrepancies as prescribed by ORS 14.175. 16 See Attachment A 

3. Immunity 

48. "Immunity-related issues should be decided at the earliest opportunity." Osborn v. 

Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007)' Pp. 22-24. 549 U.S. __ (2007) Justice Ginsburg. 

"[U]nder section 1983, individual employees of the state, See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 25 

(1991); and local governments, See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985), 

may be sued in their individual capacities for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief. 

"Local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional 

violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability. Owen v. City 

of Independence, MO, 445 U.S. 621 (1980); See Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York, 

436 U.S. 658, 699-700 (1978). 

49. Pursuant to ORS§ 30.265 (1), 17 Oregon has waived the governmental immunity. 

Nevertheless, the existence of concurrent state remedies is not a bar to a section 1983 action. Id 

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 124 (1990). 

B Amendment VII Rights control FRCP 8(c) (!)Affirmative Defenses 

15 The Ripeness Doctrine holds that a case is justiciable if "the harm asserted has matured sufficiently 

to warrantjudicial intervention." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 

(1975) 

16 MOOTNESS ORS 14.175 Acts, policies or practices of public body capable of repetition and likely to evade 

judicial review. 

17 ORS § 30.265 Scope ofliability of public body [ ] employees (I) Subject to the limitations of ORS 

§ 30.260 to 30.300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, 

employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a 

governmental or proprietary function***. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 16 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 16 of 33
A jury trial in a civil proceeding is inviolate. [Amendment VII; FRCP 38(a)] 

Plaintiff relies on FRCP 39(a) and does not waive her rights on any of the factual "triable 

of right" issues presented herein to be tried exclusively by a jury of her peers, 

XI. PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO RELIEF UNDER 42U.S.C.§1983 

50. In accordance with FRCP 8(a)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

pursuant to Congress' express language under the Statute, 18which mandates: 

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any 

State***, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other 

person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action 

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial 

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or 

declaratory relief was unavailable. * * *. (Emphasis added) 

A. Irreparable Injury 

51. Plaintiff contends that a trier of fact could find that her civil rights were irreparably 

infringed upon by the defendants' misconduct, 19 and subjected her to a hostile, and most likely, 

"advisory" jury resulting in emotional and physical injury. 

"Actual damages caused by a denial of procedural due process may be based on either the 

emotional distress caused by the denial of fair process, or by an unjustifiable deprivation of 

liberty or property attributable to lack of fair process."@ 263-64 (mental and emotional 

distress actually caused by denial of procedural due process is compensable under § 1983). 

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (procedural due process claim). See also 71h Cir. 

52. Plaintiff will continue to sustain such ongoing loss, injury, pain and suffering without a 

favorable ruling by the District Court. 

18 See United States v. Olano et al "The language [of the rule] may be noticed." 507 U.S. 715, 732 

(1993). 

19 A § 1983 defendant "may be held liable for 'those consequences attributable to reasonably 

foreseeable intervening forces, including acts of third parties. '"817 Warner v. Orange Cnty. Dep 't 

of Prob., 115 F.3d 1068, 1071 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 

553, 561 (1st Cir. 1989)). 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 17 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 17 of 33
1. Violation and Denial of Equal Protection of ORS§ 18.005 (16) 

53. Precisely, pursuant Bennett v. Spear, 20 a jury, as trier-of-fact, could find the 

evidentiary facts on record show the above-named governmental actors' failed to comply with the 

procedural requirements for relief prescribed under ORS§ 18.005 (16) whereby: (1) no 

determination of Plaintiffs rights and claims of defendant's liability were ever made on the record 

as invoked under legal state statutes for safety and security standards as required under decisional 

law.. RE CONDUCT OF GUSTAFSON regarding willful acts .. 21 Accordingly, the named 

public bodies implementation of policies contrary to constitutional guarantees and construed in the 

proceedings were the "moving force" behind the deprivations. 

In Monell v. New York City of Dept. of Social Service, supra, [the court] held that official 

policy must be "the moving force of the constitutional violation" in order to establish the 

liability of a government body under § 1983. Id., at 694. 

XIII. FRAUD UPON THE COURT 

54. Plaintiff contends this court could find that opposing counsel's influence upon the court 

to render its favorable decisions without any sufficient evidence or stating any legal authorities for 

doing so and in contravention to the mandated rules presented below constituted a conspiracy to 

commit Fraud upon the Court by the three governmental officers to interfere with Plaintiffs civil rights 

[§ 1985] and a Neglect to Prevent [such] Interference [§ 1986]. 

20 Article III has three standing requirements: [T]he plaintiff must show that she has "suffered 'injury 

in fact,' that the injury is 'fairly traceable' to the actions of the defendant, and that the injury will 

"'likely' as opposed to merely 'speculative' be redressed by a favorable decision on the merits." 

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162 (1997)(quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 

560-61 (1992) Pp. 4-6 

21 The Plaintiff must find clear and convincing evidence of a willful violation .. IN RE CONDUCT OF 

GUSTAFSON 305 Or. 655 756 P.2d 21 (l 988)(applying that standard) Gustafson acted contrary to 

law without determining whether he had the authority to do so. Id. at 664-69. In re Complaint As to 

the CONDUCT OF the Honorable Bert GUSTAFSON, Accused. Supreme Court of Oregon, In 

Banc. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 18 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 18 of 33
XIV. DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE 

55. When the executive official had time to deliberate, but the official was nevertheless 

deliberately indifferent, the deliberate indifference "shocks the conscience" and thus violates 

substantive due process. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, @ 325, 328, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). 

56. This court could find the General Judgment conferring with the ill-conceived 

Verdict disposed of all material issues without stating any legal authority for doing so. See "To 

sustain judgment based upon trial court findings, it must appear that findings support judgment on 

all material issues." See Anderson v. Waco Scaffold & Equip., CIT. (27) 

57. Accordingly, pursuant to FRCP 8(a)(3), Plaintiff brings allegations for claims of 

damages, including punitive damages, under Section 1983 against the three (3) individually named 

Defendants in the above caption in both their individual personal and official-capacities, jointly and 

severally for willful violations of the "Due Process" Clause and the "Equal Protection of the Laws" 

Clause taken under color of State law, whereby relief is appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

damages, including punitive damages.22 

XVI. UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW 

In United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 326 (1941), th[e] Court held that a person acts 

under color of state law only when exercising power "possessed by virtue of state law and 

made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the 318*318 authority of state 

law." An essential ingredient of a§ 1983 claim is that the defendant acted under color of 

22 Punitive damages, however, may be awarded under § 1983 against a state or municipal official in her individual 

capacity. See infra Chapter 21. See also Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) Punitive damages are available in a 

proper case under § 1983. ***the availability of punitive damages was accepted as settled law by nearly all state 

and federal courts at the time of enactment. Moreover, this Court has rested decisions on related issues on the 

premise that punitive damages are available under§ 1983. Id. Pp.461 U.S. 34-38. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 19 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 19 of 33
state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978) 

59. The record shows that although the three named defendants' were acting in their official 

capacities as officers of the court and employees of the State and a local municipality respectively, the 

alleged constitutional violations presented herein were outside the scope of their employment, pursuant 

to ORS 1.025. 

"[A] court's issuance ofajudgment is clearly state action. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 

14-20 (1948). "Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has 

the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. This was the proposition upon which 

42 U.S.C. 1983 was enacted." "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations 

of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. Section 242. Imbler v Pachtman US 

47 Led 2nd 128 96 s.ct) 

XVII. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

"Where multiple 'forces are actively operating,' ... plaintiffs may demonstrate that each 

defendant is a concurrent cause ***multiple tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable." 

Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Northington v. Marin, 102 

F.3d 1564, 1568-69 (10th Cir. 1996)). 

60. A trier of fact could find the alleged misconduct implicated an "agreement to reach a 

predetermined outcome" 23 

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint for the sake of justice. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Amendment XIV, Section 1) 

Violation of the Due Process Clause 

23 "The alleged agreement to reach a predetermined outcome in a case would itself violate*** 

constitutional rights, independently of the subsequent state court decisions." at 172 Great W Mining 

& Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 167 (3d Cir. 2010) .. "state court losses were 

the result of a "corrupt conspiracy" between the defending attorney and certain state court judges to 

exchange favorable rulings***." 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 20 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 20 of 33
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights 

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, for the relief sought under ORS § 18.005 ( 16) . 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, were 

under a legal duty to ensure and enforce the Rules of Court and decisional laws in the case in question. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers failure to ensure and enforce over 10 

counts of mandated Rules of Court, and specifically ORS§ 18.005 (16) .deprived Plaintiff of due 

process as guaranteed under Amendment XIV, Section 1 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to ensure and enforce the procedural laws, the 

defendant governmental officers, jointly and severally, violated the proscriptions to the State under 

Amendment XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions was 

the direct cause of irreparable injury to plaintiff by depriving her of the property interest remedy 

sought. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severally for depriving her of an impartial forum which denied the Demand for 

Relief sought in the Circuit Court case 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severaly, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of$1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Amendment XIV, Section 1) 

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation ofrights 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 21 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 21 of 33
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS§ 18.005 (16). 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, were 

under a legal duty to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional right to Equal Protection of the Rules 

of Court and decisional laws in the case in question. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers failure to ensure and enforce over 10 

counts of mandated Rules of Court and specifically ORS § 18.005 ( 16) deprived Plaintiff of Equal 

Protection of the laws within its jurisdiction, as guaranteed under Amendment XIV, Section 1 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional right to 

Equal Protection, the defendant governmental officers, jointly and severally, violated the proscriptions 

to the State under Amendment XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the direct cause of irreparable injury to plaintiff by depriving her of the property interest remedy 

sought. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severally for depriving Plaintiff of an impartial forum which denied the Demand 

for Relief sought in the Circuit Court case in violation of her U.S. Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of $1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 22 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 22 of 33
The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS § 18.005 ( 16) . 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, were 

under a legal duty to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional right to Due Process and Equal 

Protection of the Rules of Court and decisional laws in the case in question. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers failure to ensure and enforce over 10 

counts of mandated Rules of Court and specifically ORS § 18.005 (16) deprived Plaintiff of Due 

Process and Equal Protection of the laws within its jurisdiction guaranteed under Amendment XIV, 

Section 1 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendants in tandem affirmative acts and omissions demonstrated a 

conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiffs civil rights under an improper motive to obtain and secure 

favorable rulings for a public body public transportation corporation, in violation of proscriptions to 

the State under Amendment XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the direct cause of irreparable injury to plaintiff by depriving her of the property interest remedy 

sought. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severally for depriving Plaintiff of an impartial forum in a civil proceeding 

which denied the Demand for Relief sought in the Circuit Court case in violation of her U.S. 

Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of$1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 

Action for Neglect to Prevent Interference with Civil Rights 

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 23 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 23 of 33
above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS § 18.005 ( 16) . 

At all times relevant hereto, the three defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, 

were under a legal duty to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal 

Protection of the Laws within its jurisdiction 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers failure to ensure and enforce 

Plaintiffs constitutional rights demonstrated a neglect to prevent such interference jointly and 

severally. 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional rights 

jointly and severally, violated the proscriptions to the State under Amendment XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the direct cause of irreparable injury to plaintiff by depriving her of the property interest remedy 

sought. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severally for depriving Plaintiff of the Demand for Relief sought in the Circuit 

Court case in violation of her U.S. Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of$1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights 

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 24 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 24 of 33
above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS§ 18.005 (16). 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, were 

under a legal duty to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional right to Equal Protection of the Rules 

of Court and decisional laws in the case in question. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers willful and knowing failure to ensure 

and enforce over 10 counts of mandated Rules of Court and specifically ORS§ 18.005 (16) deprived 

Plaintiff of Equal Protection of the laws within its jurisdiction, as guaranteed under Amendment XIV, 

Section 1 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional rights, 

governmental officers, jointly and severally, violated the proscriptions to the State under Amendment 

XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the direct cause of irreparable injury to plaintiff by depriving her of the property interest remedy 

sought. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severaly for depriving Plaintiff of the Demand for Relief sought in the Circuit 

Court case in violation of her U.S. Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

I. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of$1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 25 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 25 of 33
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS§ 18.005 (16). 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, were 

under a legal duty to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional right to Equal Protection of the Rules 

of Court and decisional laws in the case in question. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers negligent failure to ensure and 

enforce over 10 counts of mandated Rules of Court and specifically ORS § 18.005 (16) deprived 

Plaintiff of Equal Protection of the laws within its jurisdiction, as guaranteed under Amendment XIV, 

Section 1 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional rights, 

governmental officers, jointly and severally, violated the proscriptions to the State under Amendment 

XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the direct cause of irreparable injury to plaintiff which resulted in mental, emotional, and physical 

distress through their vexations, capricious delays, harassment, humiliation, and disregard of the 

injuries clearly sustained by a public injury. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severally for depriving Plaintiff of the Demand for Relief sought in the Circuit 

Court case in violation of her U.S. Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of $1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 26 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 26 of 33
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS§ 18.005 (16). 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers named in the above caption, were 

under a legal duty to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional right to Equal Protection of the Rules 

of Court and decisional laws in the case in question. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers willful and knowing failure to ensure 

and enforce over 10 counts of mandated Rules of Court and specifically ORS§ 18.005 (16) deprived 

Plaintiff of Equal Protection of the laws within its jurisdiction, as guaranteed under Amendment XIV, 

Section, 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to ensure and enforce Plaintiffs constitutional rights, 

governmental officers, jointly and severally, violated the proscriptions to the State under Amendment 

XIV, Section 1. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the direct cause of irreparable injury which resulted in mental, emotional, and physical distress through 

their vexations, capricious delays, harassment, humiliation, and disregard of the injuries clearly 

sustained by a public body. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental 

defendants jointly and severally for depriving Plaintiff of the Demand for Relief sought in the Circuit 

Court case in violation of her U.S. Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Punitive Damages for Treble the Demand Denied in the amount of $1,500,000.00 U.S. Dollars; 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Amendment XIV, Section 1) 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 27 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 27 of 33
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation ofrights 

Implementing Unconstitutional Laws 

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference hereto the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 

above as if more fully set forth herein at length. 

The factual allegations common to all claims as presented to the court in Section VI, Paragraphs 

22 through Paragraph 29, pp. 7-9 are summary statements of the events that transpired in the case in 

question as recorded in the Multnomah Circuit Court dockets. 

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was entitled to a property interest remedy guaranteed under 

Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution for the relief sought under ORS § 18.005 (16) . 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental entities named herein, jointly and severally 

were under a legal obligation to establish procedural laws in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and 

federal laws. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental entities named herein, implementation of 

rules of court contrary to constitutional guarantees were knowing and willful acts which allowed the 

governmental individuals named herein to violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights. 

At all times relevant hereto, as a result of failing to establish laws in compliance with the U.S. 

Constitution and federal laws, the entities demonstrated deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs 

constitutional rights and to the Citizens of Oregon. 

At all times relevant hereto, the defendant governmental officers affirmative acts and omissions were 

the proximate cause of irreparable injury to Plaintiff resulting in emotional, and physical distress. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prays for an Award Judgment against the three governmental entities 

jointly and severally for depriving Plaintiff of adequate procedural safeguards and subjected her to 

alternative provisions which resulted in the loss of a property interest remedy without due process, 

which was the proximate cause of the deprivation of the Demand for Relief sought in the Circuit 

Court case in violation of her U.S. Constitutional Rights, as follows: 

1. Compensatory Damages against the three governmental defendants jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $500,000.00 U.S. Dollars, the amount Demanded and Denied. 

2. Declarative Relief 

3. Costs for this action; and such other relief as the court deems proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 28 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 28 of 33
Plaintiff exercises her right under Amendment VII of the U.S. Constitution and 

respectfully demands a trial by jury, pursuant to FRCP 38(a) and (b) on all of the issues presented 

herein. 

DECLARATORY STATEMENT 

"I, Brenda K. Gordon, Plaintiff in Pro Se, hereby declare that the above 

statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for 

use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty for perjury." 

Respectfully Submitted this 14th day of April 14, 201~JI. /, 4 £/..-

~a K. GOi'<lon, in Pro Se 

Mailing Address: 

Tigard, Oregon 97223 

Phone:(503) 867-9944 

Email: bkgord88@icloud.com/ 

gordbkl 188@gmail.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 29 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 29 of 33
• 

;lo/~ 

I, Brenda K. Gordon, hereby certify that on April 14, 20!4: I caused to be served a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing: CIVIL COMPLAINT on the following 

person(s) in the manner indicated below at the following address( es): 

BY: REGISTERED CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT/USPS 

FIRST CLASS USPO/HAND DELIVERY 

TO: TRIAL COURT COORDINATOR 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

1003 SW 3d Avenue #740 

Portland, OR 97204-1123 

BY: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FIRST CLASS MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

TO: Erik Van Hagen, Deputy Counsel, 

TriMet 

4012 SE 17th Ave. 

Portland, OR 97202 

BY: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FIRST CLASS MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

TO: JUDGE STEPHEN K. BUSHONG 

Multnomah County Courthouse 

1021 SW Fourth Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-1123 

BY: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FIRST CLASS MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

TO: JUDGE JEAN KERR MAURER 

Multnomah County Courthouse 

1021 SW Fourth Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-1123 W;t Jb£?-- /~nda K. Gord6n, in Pro Se 

' Mailing Address: 

Tigard, Oregon 97223 

Phone:(503) 867-9944 

Email: bkgord88@icloud.com/ 

gordbk 1188@gmail.com 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., PAGE 30 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 30 of 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

II. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION 

III. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 

IV.. THE PARTIES 

V. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 

A. Summary of Affirmative Acts and Omissions 

1. Property Interest Established 

2. The Circuit Court record 

B. Plaintiffs Reliance 

C. Defendants' Knowledge, Legal Duty, and Foreseeability 

D. Cleary Established Law and Constitutional Rights 

VII LEGAL AUTHORITIES FOR§ 1983 CLAIM 

A. Due Process Authorities 

B. Equal Protection Authorities 

VIII STANDARDS OF REVIEW 

IX. "SUBSTANTIVE STANDARD" for LIABILITY UNDER § 1983 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., Table of Contents PAGE 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 31 of 33
J 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

X. MATERIAL ISSUES OF LAW 

A. In Oregon, a speedy trial is a guaranteed liberty interest 

1. Federal Complaint Standards 

2. The Ripeness Doctrine 

3. Immunity 

B Amendment VII Rights control FRCP 8( c) ( 1 )Affirmative Defenses 

C. FRCP 38(a)(b) Bars Affirmative Defenses to Dispose under Amendments VII/XIV 

XI. PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO RELIEF UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 

A. Irreparable Injury 

XII. THE LEGAL DISPUTE/STANDING 

A. Enforceable Federal Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

B. Fact v. Legal Conclusion 

1. Violation and Denial of Equal Protection of ORS § 18.005 ( 16) 

2. Amendment VII Right to Have a Jury Decide the Facts on all Material Issues 

3. "Moving Force" 

4. Improper motive/subjective intent 

to Discriminate and Oppress "Class of One" 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., Table of Contents PAGE u 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 32 of 33
' 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

XIII. FRAUD UPON THE COURT 

XIV. DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE 

XV. DAMAGES, INCLUDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

XVI. UNDER COLOR OF STA TE LAW 

XVII. UNDER COLOR OF ST A TE LAW 

XVII. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

A. The Judicial Officers Acted without Authority and Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

B. A Trier of Fact could find a deprivation of an impartial forum: 

No Evidence to Support Verdict or General Judgment 

XVIII. COUNTY AND/OR MULTNOMAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT LIABILITY 

CIVIL COMPLAINT GORDON v. VAN HAGEN, et al., Table of Contents PAGE m 

Case 3:16-cv-00666-PK Document 1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 33 of 33