1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

1204 E. Baseline Rd., Ste 102

Tempe, AZ 85283

P: 866-881-2133

F: 866-401-1457

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MUSSALINA MUHAYMIN as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUHAYMIN 

JR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PHOENIX, an Arizona 

Municipal Corporation; ANTONIO 

TARANGO; Officer OSWALD 

GRENIER; Officer KEVIN McGOWAN; 

Officer JASON HOBE; Officer 

RONALDO CANILAO; Officer DAVID 

HEAD; Officer SUSAN HEIMBINGER; 

Officer JAMES CLARK; Officer DENNIS 

LEROUS; Officer RYAN NIELSON; 

Officer STEVEN WONG; and DOE 

Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No. CV-17-04565-PHX-SPL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MUSSALINA MUHAYMIN as Personal Representative of the Estate of 

MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUHAYMIN JR., brings this wrongful death and survival action 

(A.R.S. §§ 12-611, et seq. and 14-3110) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988, 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as various state law 

claims, against Defendants, CITY OF PHOENIX, an Arizona Municipal Corporation; 

ANTONIO TARANGO; Officer OSWALD GRENIER; Officer KEVIN McGOWAN; 

Officer JASON HOBE; Officer RONALDO CANILAO; Officer DAVID HEAD; Officer 

SUSAN HEIMBINGER; Officer JAMES CLARK; Officer DENNIS LEROUS; Officer 

RYAN NIELSON; Officer STEVEN WONG; and DOE Supervisors 1-5, as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and the laws of the 

United States and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988, and Title II 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

2. Plaintiff further invokes this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367, over any and all state law claims and as against all parties that are so 

related to claims in this action within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form 

part of the same case or controversy. 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) in that the parties 

reside, or at the time the events took place, resided in this judicial district and the events 

giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district. 

PARTIES

4. The decedent, MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUHAYMIN JR. (hereinafter 

“MUHAYMIN” or “decedent”), at all relevant times, was a resident of Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

5. The death of MUHAYMIN, at the hands of Defendants Officers, occurred in 

Maricopa County, Arizona.

6. Plaintiff, MUSSALINA MUHAYMIN, was appointed as the Personal 

Representative of the Estate of the decedent, by the Probate Division of the Maricopa 

County Superior Court of Arizona on October 26, 2017.

7. Plaintiff, MUSSALINA MUHAYMIN, is a resident of Maricopa County, 
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Arizona and the sister of the decedent. 

8. In her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of MUHAYMIN, 

Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to the Arizona wrongful death and survival statutes, 

codified in A.R.S. §§ 12-611, et seq., and 14-3110 for each and every claim listed herein, 

on behalf of the Estate of MUHAYMIN and on behalf of his surviving next of kin. Plaintiff 

further seeks damages recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1988, and Title II 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for any and all Constitutional and Federal 

claims. 

9. Defendant Officers, at all relevant times, were duly appointed officers 

employed by the CITY OF PHOENIX Police Department, acting within the scope of their 

employment with the CITY OF PHOENIX and under the color of State Law. The 

individual officers are being sued in their individual and official capacities: OSWALD 

GRENIER, KEVIN McGOWAN, JASON HOBE, RONALDO CANILAO, DAVID 

HEAD, SUSAN HEIMBINGER, JAMES CLARK, DENNIS LEROUS, RYAN 

NIELSON, and STEVEN WONG (hereinafter “Defendant Officers”).

10. Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 are being sued in their individual and 

official capacities for failing to properly train, supervise, and hold accountable the 

individual defendants. DOES SUPERVISORS 1-5 are persons whose names are presently 

unknown to Plaintiff. When the true names of DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 become known, 

Plaintiff will move to amend this Complaint. 

11. Defendant, ANTONIO TARANGO (hereinafter “TARANGO”), at all 

relevant times, was an employee of the CITY OF PHOENIX Parks Department, acting 

within the scope of his employment with the CITY OF PHOENIX. This individual 

defendant is being sued in his individual and official capacity. 

12. Defendant, CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipality duly incorporated under the 

laws of the State of Arizona, is the employer and principal of the individual Defendant 

Officers, DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, and Defendant TARANGO (the “individual 

defendants”). At all times relevant hereto, the CITY OF PHOENIX employed the 
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

individual defendants. The CITY OF PHOENIX is responsible for the policies, practices, 

and customs of its Police Department and Parks Department. 

NOTICE OF CLAIM

13. Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01, 

setting forth the facts underlying Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants named herein.

14. More than sixty days has passed since the filing of the Notice of Claim, no 

answer has been received by Plaintiff, and no compensation has been offered by 

Defendants in response to this claim.

15. This action has been commenced within one year of the date of the 

occurrence giving rise to this Complaint. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

The Decedent & His Service Dog

1. At the time of his death, MUHAYMIN was a 43-year-old man suffering from 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Acute Claustrophobia, and Schizophrenia.

2. In order to alleviate the symptoms of his mental disabilities, he carried a 

service dog named “Chiquita” with him.

The Community Center Incident

3. On January 4, 2017, MUHAYMIN was at the Maryvale Community Center 

with his service dog, “Chiquita.”

4. MUHAYMIN attempted to enter the public men’s restroom facilities. 

5. Defendant TARANGO denied access to MUHAYMIN because he was 

carrying his service dog with him.

6. TARANGO, in an effort to deny MUHAYMIN access to the bathroom, 

intentionally and forcibly stepped in MUHAYMIN’s path and bumped him away from the 

entrance. 

The False Report to Police

7. After the assault by TARANGO on MUHAYMIN, the Phoenix Police 

received a call regarding an “assault.” 
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. The call to the Phoenix Police falsely alleged that MUHAYMIN had entered 

the Community Center and assaulted an employee. 

9. The Defendant Officers responded to the call and arrived at the scene shortly 

thereafter.

10. Upon information and belief, the initial responding officer, Defendant 

Officer OSWALD GRENIER (“Officer GRENIER”), asked TARANGO if MUHAYMIN 

had been removed from the premises.

11. Upon learning that MUHAYMIN was still at the Community Center, Officer 

GRENIER approached MUHAYMIN.

12. Without regard for the federal or state laws specifically prohibiting 

discrimination or other proof that an animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a 

service animal, Officer GRENIER asked MUHAYMIN to see his dog’s documentation.

13. MUHAYMIN pleaded with GRENIER to allow him to use the restroom.

14. GRENIER refused to allow MUHAYMIN to enter the restroom until 

MUHAYMIN provided his personal information. 

15. A second officer then approached MUHAYMIN, in a threatening and 

aggressive matter escalating tensions as he shouted at MUHAYMIN.

16. After several conversations discussing what had transpired between 

TARANGO and MUHYAMIN before the police arrived on scene, TARANGO admitted 

that MUHAYMIN had not in fact assaulted him.

17. Defendant Officers eventually allowed MUHAYMIN to use the restroom 

after he gave them his identification information.

18. TARANGO, in the presence of Defendant Officers acknowledged that 

MUHAYMIN’S service dog “Chiquita” was well-behaved. 

19. While MUHAYMIN used the restroom, Defendant Officers and TARANGO 

began forming a plan to ban MUHAYMIN from the community center without cause.

20. The Defendants discussed arresting MUHAYMIN if he returned to the 

community center. 
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Arrest & Death of the Decedent

21. Upon information and belief, while MUHAYMIN was using the restroom, 

Defendant Officers ran a check on MUHAYMIN in their database. 

22. Defendant Officers then escorted MUHAYMIN and “Chiquita” out of the 

building, and, as soon as they stepped outside, ordered MUHAYMIN to “Stop.”

23. Defendant Officers explained to MUHAYMIN that he had an outstanding 

warrant and was being arrested. 

24. MUHAYMIN asked several times what the warrant was for. 

25. Defendant Officers ignored his requests for information regarding the 

outstanding warrant.

26. Defendant Officers then told MUHAYMIN to put his dog down.

27. MUHAYMIN explained that he did not have anyone to watch her.

28. MUHAYMIN then asked Defendant Officers to call his sister, who was his 

legal guardian. 

29. Defendant Officers told MUHAYMIN they would not call his sister and that 

he should just let the dog go.

30. Defendant Officers warned MUHAYMIN that the dog would get hurt if he 

didn’t let her go.

31. Defendant Officers refused to listen to MUHAYMIN’s requests, knocked his 

service dog out of his arms and forced him to the ground. 

32. Throughout the altercation, MUHAYMIN can be heard yelling, “Okay!” 

and “I can’t breathe” as multiple Defendant Officers placed the weight of their bodies on 

his head, back, arms, and legs.

33. After wrestling MUHAYMIN to the ground, one of the Defendant Officers 

placed his knee on MUHAYMIN’s head while another Defendant Officer placed him in 

handcuffs. 

34. After placing MUHAYMIN in handcuffs, Defendant Officers took 

MUHAYMIN out to the parking lot towards one of the police SUVs.
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35. At the vehicle, Defendant Officers again wrestle MUHAYMIN, who had 

already been restrained, back down to the ground. 

36. Several Defendant Officers placed their weight on top of MUHAYMIN, 

while one Defendant Officer requested “hobbles” in order to restrict MUHAYMIN’s 

ability to walk. 

37. Upon information and belief, due to the excessive force used by Defendant 

Officers, MUHAYMIN went into cardiac arrest and began vomiting. 

38. Thereafter, Defendant Officers were unable to find MUHAYMIN’s pulse.

39. After MUHAYMIN was deceased, one of the Defendant Officers began 

CPR.

FEDERAL CLAIMS

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

EXCESSIVE FORCE

40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

41. At all relevant times, MUHAYMIN enjoyed and possessed a right under the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from 

unreasonable seizure and the use of excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified force. 

42. At all relevant times, the individual Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as Phoenix 

police officers, and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official 

duties or employment.

43. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 applied unreasonable,

excessive, and conscious-shocking physical force to the person of MUHAYMIN, causing 

his death, as set forth above, without legal justification or excuse. 

44. Defendants’ actions and use of deadly force were objectively unreasonable 

in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the time and violated the 

Constitutional rights of MUHAYMIN. 
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45. Defendants engaged in the conduct described in this Complaint willfully, 

maliciously, in bad faith, in reckless disregard of MUHAYMIN’s federally protected 

rights. 

46. As a result of Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s

unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

FAILURE TO PROTECT/INTERVENE

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

48. At all relevant times, MUHAYMIN enjoyed and possessed a right under the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from 

unreasonable seizure and the use of excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified force. 

49. At all relevant times, the individual Defendant Officers were acting under 

the color of state law in their capacity as Phoenix police officers, and their acts or omissions 

were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.

50. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 applied unreasonable, 

excessive, and conscious-shocking physical force to the person of MUHAYMIN, causing 

his death, as set forth above, without legal justification or excuse. 

51. Defendants’ actions and use of deadly force were objectively unreasonable 

in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the time and violated the 

Constitutional rights of MUHAYMIN. 

52. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, and all of them, knew 

or should have known that they had a duty to protect MUHAYMIN from the application 

of unreasonable force to his person which was likely to cause substantial harm, and did, in 

fact, result in substantial harm, including his death. 

53. None of the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 took 

reasonable steps to protect MUHAYMIN from the objectively unreasonable and 
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conscience shocking excessive force of other Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 or from the excessive force of later responding officers despite being 

in a position to do so. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting 

from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each other Defendant 

Officer and/or DOE SUPERVISOR. 

54. Defendants engaged in the conduct described in this Complaint willfully, 

maliciously, in bad faith, in reckless disregard of MUHAYMIN’s federally protected 

rights. 

55. As a result of Defendants’ failure to protect MUHAYMIN from the 

application of unreasonable force and/or failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the 

harm from occurring, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his statutory beneficiaries suffered 

harm.

COUNT III – Title II ADA

DISCRIMINATION

56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

57. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.

(“ADA”), prohibits a public entity from discriminating against disabled persons in the 

provision of the entity’s services, programs, and activities. 

58. The Maryvale Community Center is a public entity within the meaning of 

the ADA.

59. At all relevant times, MUHAYMIN was disabled within the meaning of the

ADA.

60. To alleviate the symptoms of his mental impairment, MUHAYMIN carried 

a service dog named “Chiquita.”

61. At all relevant times, Defendant TARANGO was acting under color of state 

law as an employee of Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, specifically, the Maryvale 

Community Center, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his 
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

official duties or employment.

62. At all relevant times, the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 

1-5 were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as Phoenix police officers, 

and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or 

employment.

63. Under Title II of the ADA, Defendant TARANGO, the Defendant Officers, 

and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, were prohibited from discriminating against 

MUHAYMIN on the basis of his disability and were required to allow MUHAYMIN to 

enter and use the community center with his service dog without requiring proof that his 

dig was a certified or otherwise licensed service animal. 

64. Defendant TARANGO, the Defendant Officers, and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 knew or should have known that they had a duty to accommodate 

MUHAYMIN under the ADA after they were made aware that “Chiquita” was a service 

dog used by MUHAYMIN to alleviate his mental disabilities.

65. Nonetheless, Defendant TARANGO discriminated against MUHAYMIN 

when Defendant TARANGO attempted to force MUHAYMIN to leave the Maryvale 

Community Center because of his dog and falsely reported to the police that MUHAYMIN 

had assaulted him in an attempt to force MUHAYMIN to leave the Community Center. 

66. Nonetheless, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 

discriminated against MUHAYMIN when they required proof that MUHAYMIN’s dog 

was a certified or licensed service animal in violation of ADA § 32.206(c)(6), and forced

MUHAYMIN to leave the Maryvale Community Center because of his dog.

67. Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX breached its obligations under the ADA by, 

among other things, failing to train its employees and police officers to deal with 

individuals with disabilities and the use of service dogs, and/or failing to implement 

policies with respect to dealing with individuals with mental disabilities and the use of 

service dogs. 

68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TARANGO, the Defendant 
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Officers, Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, and Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX’s

breach of MUHAYMIN’s statutory rights as described herein, MUHAYMIN was killed. 

Both MUHAYMIN’s estate, and the statutory beneficiaries and family of MUHAYMIN, 

have sustained economic and psychological injuries and loss. 

69. In addition to the monetary damages sought herein, Plaintiff also seeks

injunctive relief compelling Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX to provide the training 

required by law so that the individual defendants are better equipped to deal with mentally 

disabled individuals and the use of service dogs in the future. 

COUNT IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

SUPERVISOR LIABILITY

70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

71. At all relevant times, the Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 were acting 

under the color of state law, and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope 

of their official duties or employment.

72. The acts and omissions of the individual defendants, as set forth above, 

deprived MUHAYMIN of his Constitutional and federally protected rights and ultimately 

caused his death. 

73. Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 failed to prevent the individual 

defendants from – and/or otherwise directed them to – use unreasonable, excessive and/or 

deadly force where not objectively reasonable or necessary, refuse to protect MUHAYMIN 

from the application of unreasonable, excessive and/or deadly force at the hands of their 

fellow officers, and disregard the federally mandated requirement not to discriminate 

against individuals with disabilities and/or require proof that an animal is a certified or 

licensed service animal.

74. Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s failure to prevent the individual 

defendants from depriving MUHAYMIN of his Constitutional and federally protected 

rights was so closely related to the deprivation of MUHAYMIN’s rights as to be the 
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

moving force that caused his death.

75. As a result of Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s conduct, 

MUHAYMIN’s estate and his statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT V – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

[FAILURE TO TRAIN]

76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein.

77. At all relevant times, the individual defendants, including Defendant 

TARANGO, the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, were acting under 

the color of state law in their capacity as Phoenix police officers and/or City employees, 

and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or 

employment.

78. The acts or omissions of the individual defendants, including Defendant 

TARANGO, the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, as described above, 

deprived MUHAYMIN of his federally protected rights and ultimately caused his death. 

79. Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX has the authority and responsibility to 

establish policy for the City’s Police and its Community Center employees, to train and 

oversee operations of the Police and its Community Center employees and the services 

provided by them, and to evaluate, certify, and maintain the Police Department and the 

Community Center’s compliance with applicable standards.

80. The training policies of Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, including the 

Phoenix Police Department and the Community Center, were not adequate to prevent the 

gross violation of MUHAYMIN’s federally protected rights, which led to his death.

81. Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, including the Phoenix Police Department

and the Community Center, were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk that its 

policies were inadequate to prevent violations by its employees and/or were otherwise 

deliberately indifferent to the known or obvious consequences of its failure to train its 
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

police officers and employees adequately. 

82. The failure of Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, including the Phoenix Police 

Department and the Community Center, to prevent violations of law by its employees 

and/or to provide adequate training, caused the deprivation of MUHAYMIN’s rights and 

ultimately his death; that is, Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX’s failure to prevent violations 

of law by its employee and/or to train those employees is so closely related to the 

deprivation of MUHAYMIN’s rights as to be the moving force that caused his death.

COUNT VI – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

[UNLAWFUL POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND/OR CUSTOMS]

83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

84. At all relevant times, the individual defendants, including Defendant 

TARANGO, the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, were acting under 

the color of state law in their capacity as Phoenix police officers and/or City employees, 

and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or 

employment.

85. The acts or omissions of the individual defendants, including Defendant 

TARANGO, the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, as described above, 

deprived MUHAYMIN of his federally protected rights and ultimately caused his death. 

86. Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX has the authority and responsibility to 

establish policy for the City’s Police and its Community Center employees, to train and 

oversee operations of the Police and its Community Center employees and the services 

provided by them, and to evaluate, certify, and maintain the Police Department and the 

Community Center’s compliance with applicable standards.

87. Upon information and belief, at the time of MUHAYMIN’s death, the CITY 

OF PHOENIX had a policy, practice and/or custom of ignoring misconduct by officers 

despite knowledge of the violations by policy-making officials who knew or had reason to 
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

know of the violations. 

88. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX’s widespread 

policy, practice and/or custom caused the deprivation of MUHAYMIN’s rights by the 

individual Defendants; that is, Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX’s widespread policy, 

practice and/or custom is so closely related to the deprivation of MUHAYMIN’s rights as 

to be the moving force that caused MUHAYMIN’s death.

STATE LAW CLAIMS

COUNT VII – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

EXCESSIVE FORCE (A.R.S. § 13-410)

89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

90. As described herein, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 

intentionally pinned MUHAYMIN down, putting unreasonable pressure on 

MUHAYMIN’s head, back, arms and legs, after he was already restrained, causing his 

death. 

91. Under ARS § 13-410, the use of deadly force by a peace officer against 

another is justified only when the peace officer reasonably believes that it is necessary (1) 

to defend himself or a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be 

the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; (2) to effect an arrest or prevent the 

escape from custody of a person whom the peace officer reasonably believes (a) has 

committed, attempted to commit, is committing or is attempting to commit a felony 

involving the use or a threatened use of a deadly weapon, (b) is attempting to escape by 

use of a deadly weapon, (c) through past or present conduct of the person which is known 

by the peace officer that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily 

injury to another unless apprehended without delay, or (d) is necessary to lawfully suppress 

a riot if the person or another person participating in the riot is armed with a deadly weapon. 

92. None of the above situations applied, which would justify the use of deadly 
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

force.

93. Nonetheless, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 applied 

unreasonable excessive force to the person of MUHAYMIN, causing his death, as set forth 

above, without legal justification or excuse.

94. Defendants’ actions and use of deadly force, as described herein, were 

objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the 

time.

95. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT VIII – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

BATTERY

96. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

97. As described herein, Defendant TARANGO intentionally denied 

MUHAYMIN access to the Community Center bathroom because of his service dog, by 

stepping in his path and bumping him away from the entrance, causing a harmful or 

offensive contact with MUHAYMIN. 

98. As described herein, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 

intentionally pinned MUHAYMIN down, putting unreasonable pressure on 

MUHAYMIN’s head, back, arms and legs, after he was already restrained, causing a 

harmful or offensive contact with MUHAYMIN. As a direct and proximate result of this 

harmful or offensive contact, MUYAMIN died. 

99. Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-

5’s acts constituted a battery upon MUHAYMIN in that the above described bodily contact 

was intentional, unauthorized, or grossly offensive in nature.

100. The actions of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 were intentional, reckless, and unwarranted, and without any just 
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cause or provocation.

101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant 

Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s conduct, MUHAYMIN was subjected to great 

physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of his liberty, and was 

ultimately killed. 

102. The conduct described in this Complaint was undertaken by Defendant 

TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 within the scope of their 

employment and under color of law such that their employer, Defendant CITY OF 

PHOENIX, is vicariously liable for their actions.

103. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT IX – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

104. Plaintiff incorporate by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

105. Defendant TARANGO’s conduct, in denying MUHAYMIN access to the 

Community Center bathroom because of his service dog, stepping in his path and bumping

him away from the entrance, and making a false report to the police that MUHAYMIN had 

assaulted him in order to force MUHAYMIN to leave the Community Center, without 

provocation or justification, was extreme, outrageous and utterly intolerable in a civilized 

society; conduct which excessed all reasonable bounds of decency. 

106. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s conduct, in 

disregarding MYUHAYMIN’s pleas to get someone to watch his dog before placing him 

under arrest, threatening MNUHAYMIN, telling him his dog would “get hurt” if he did let 

her go, and pinning MUHAYMIN down, putting unreasonable pressure on MUHAYMIN’s 

head, back, arms and legs, after he was already restrained, without provocation or 

justification, was extreme, outrageous and utterly intolerable in a civilized society; conduct 
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

which excessed all reasonable bounds of decency.

107. Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-

5’s conduct, as described above, was intended to and did cause severe emotional distress 

to MUHAYMIN.

108. The conduct of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 was the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to 

MUHAYMIN and violated MUHAYMIN’s statutory and common law rights as 

guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State of Arizona. 

109. As a result of the foregoing, MUHAYMIN was deprived of his liberty, was 

subjected to serious physical and emotional pain and suffering, and was ultimately killed.

110. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT X – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

111. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

112. Defendant TARANGO’s conduct, in denying MUHAYMIN access to the 

Community Center bathroom because of his service dog, stepping in his path and bumping 

him away from the entrance, and making a false report to the police that MUHAYMIN had 

assaulted him in order to force MUHAYMIN to leave the Community Center, without 

provocation or justification, was careless and negligent as to the emotional health of 

MUHAYMIN, and caused severe emotional distress to MUHAYMIN. 

113. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s conduct, in 

disregarding MYUHAYMIN’s pleas to get someone to watch his dog before placing him 

under arrest, threatening MNUHAYMIN, telling him his dog would “get hurt” if he did let 

her go, and pinning MUHAYMIN down, putting unreasonable pressure on MUHAYMIN’s 

head, back, arms and legs, after he was already restrained, without provocation or 
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

justification, was careless and negligent as to the emotional health of MUHAYMIN, and 

caused severe emotional distress to MUHAYMIN.

114. The conduct of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 was the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to 

MUHAYMIN and violated MUHAYMIN’s statutory and common law rights as 

guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State of Arizona. 

115. As a result of the foregoing, MUHAYMIN was deprived of his liberty, was 

subjected to serious physical and emotional pain and suffering, and was ultimately killed.

116. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT XI – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

NEGLIGENCE

117. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

118. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, while acting as agents 

and employees for Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, owed a duty to MUHAYMIN to 

perform their duties as officers of the law without the use of excessive force.

119. Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-

5, while acting as agents and employees for Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, owed a duty 

to MUHAYMIN not to discriminate against him in the provision of public services because 

of his service dog. 

120. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s use of force upon 

MUHAYMIN when they had no lawful authority to use excessive and/or deadly force 

against MUHAYMIN, constitutes negligence for which Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 are individually liable. 

121. Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-

5’s actions, in forcing MUHAYMIN to leave the Community Center because of his service 
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dog or provide proof that his service dog was otherwise licensed or certified, constitutes 

negligence for which Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5 are individually liable.

122. In taking the actions as described above, Defendant TARANGO, Defendant 

Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 breached their duty to refrain from such 

unreasonable and indifferent conduct.

123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant 

Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s conduct, MUHAYMIN was subjected to great 

physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of his liberty, and was 

ultimately killed. 

124. The conduct described in this Complaint was undertaken by Defendants 

within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, 

Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, is vicariously liable for their actions.

125. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT XII – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

126. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

127. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, while acting as agents 

and employees for Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, owed a duty to MUHAYMIN to 

perform their duties as officers of the law without the use of excessive force.

128. Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-

5, while acting as agents and employees for Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, owed a duty 

to MUHAYMIN not to discriminate against him in the provision of public services because 

of his service dog. 

129. Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s use of force upon 
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MUHAYMIN when they had no lawful authority to use excessive and/or deadly force 

against MUHAYMIN constitutes reckless and/or gross negligence for which Defendant 

Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 are individually liable.

130. Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-

5’s actions, in forcing MUHAYMIN to leave the Community Center because of his service 

dog or provide proof that his service dog was otherwise licensed or certified, constitutes 

reckless and/or gross negligence for which Defendant TARANGO and Defendant Officers 

are individual liable.

131. The actions of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant Officers and/or DOE 

SUPERVISORS 1-5, as described above, were taken with such reckless disregard for the 

life and safety of MUHAYMIN so as to be a conscious violation of MUHAYMIN’s rights 

to life and liberty. 

132. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TARANGO, Defendant 

Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5’s conduct, MUHAYMIN was subjected to great 

physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of his liberty, and was 

ultimately killed. 

133. The conduct described in this Complaint was undertaken by Defendants

within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, 

Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, is vicariously liable for their actions.

134. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

COUNT XIII – ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (“ACRA”)

DISCRIMINATION

135. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

136. The Arizona Civil Rights Act, (“ACRA”), A.R.S. §§ 41-1492, et seq., 

incorporates by reference the provisions of its analogous federal statute, the ADA.

137. The Maryvale Community Center is a public entity within the meaning of 
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the ACRA, as incorporated by the ADA.

138. At all relevant times, MUHAYMIN was disabled within the meaning of the 

ACRA, as incorporated by the ADA.

139. To alleviate the symptoms of his mental impairment, MUHAYMIN carried 

a service dog named “Chiquita.”

140. To alleviate the symptoms of his mental impairment, MUHAYMIN carried 

a service dog named “Chiquita.”

141. At all relevant times, Defendant TARANGO was acting under color of state 

law as an employee of Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX, specifically, the Maryvale 

Community Center, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his 

official duties or employment.

142. At all relevant times, the Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 

1-5 were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as Phoenix police officers, 

and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or 

employment.

143. Nonetheless, Defendant TARANGO discriminated against MUHAYMIN 

when Defendant TARANGO attempted to force MUHAYMIN to leave the Maryvale 

Community Center because of his dog and falsely reported to the police that MUHAYMIN 

had assaulted him in an attempt to force MUHAYMIN to leave the Community Center. 

144. Nonetheless, Defendant Officers and/or DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5 

discriminated against MUHAYMIN when they required proof that MUHAYMIN’s dog 

was a certified or licensed service animal in violation of the ACRA and forced 

MUHAYMIN to leave the Maryvale Community Center because of his dog.

145. Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX breached its obligations under the ACRA

by, among other things, failing to train its employees and police officers to deal with 

individuals with disabilities and the use of service dogs, and/or failing to implement 

policies with respect to dealing with individuals with mental disabilities and the use of 

service dogs. 
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TARANGO, the Defendant 

Officers, Defendant DOE SUPERVISORS 1-5, and Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX’s 

breach of MUHAYMIN’s statutory rights as described herein, MUHAYMIN was killed. 

Both MUHAYMIN’s estate, and the statutory beneficiaries and family of MUHAYMIN, 

have sustained economic and psychological injuries and loss. 

147. In addition to the monetary damages sought herein, Plaintiff also seeks

injunctive relief compelling Defendant CITY OF PHOENIX to provide the training 

required by law so that the individual defendants are better equipped to deal with mentally 

disabled individuals and the use of service dogs in the future. 

COUNT XIV – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, RETENTION, AND/OR TRAINING

148. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 

149. As described herein, CITY OF PHOENIX and/or DOE Supervisors 1-5 were 

negligent in their hiring, supervision, retention, and/or training of one or more Defendant 

Officers and Defendant TARANGO.

150. The acts and conduct of Defendant Officers and Defendant TARANGO as 

described in this Complaint were the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and 

damages to MUHAYMIN, and violated MUHAYMIN’s statutory and common law rights 

as guaranteed by the law and Constitution of the State of Arizona. 

151. As a result of the conduct described herein, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.

STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIM

COUNT XV

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

152. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as 

though fully alleged herein. 
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

153. As described herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, including 

Defendant TARANGO and at least two Defendant Officers, agreed and conspired to violate 

MUHAYMIN’s statutory, common law, and Constitutional rights, and did in fact succeed 

in violating those rights. 

154. Specifically, Defendant TARANGO and Defendant Officers can be heard 

and seen on video discussing their plan to have MUHAYMIN arrested and banned from 

the Community Center, despite having done nothing wrong. 

155. In fact, one of the Defendant Officers has previously banned MUHAYMIN 

from entering other buildings in the City and can be heard saying he dealt with 

MUHAYMIN at the Fry’s down the street. 

156. The Defendant Officers concocted this unlawful plan without input from 

Defendant TARANGO, who went along with and agreed to the plan, despite Defendant 

TARANGO’s admission to Defendant Officers that he had knowingly made a false report 

regarding MUHAYMIN’s alleged unlawful conduct in the Community Center, as 

described above, in direct violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2907.01. 

157. DEFENDANTS carried out said unlawful plan and conspiracy, by removing 

MUHAYMIN from the Community Center, forcefully arresting MUHAYMIN for an 

outstanding misdemeanor warrant (discovered only after the plan was fully realized), and 

using such excessive and unlawful force in arresting MUHAYMIN that he lost his life, 

effectively precluding him from entering the Community Center or any other establishment 

in the City in the future. 

158. The plan, agreement, acts, and conduct of Defendant TARANGO and 

Defendant Officers, as described in this Complaint, were the direct and proximate cause of 

the injuries and damages to MUHAYMIN, and violated MUHAYMIN’s rights as 

guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as well as the statutory and common law

rights as guaranteed by the law and Constitution of the State of Arizona.

159. As a result of the conduct described herein, MUHAYMIN’s estate and his 

statutory beneficiaries suffered harm.
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, and each 

of them, for the violations of MUHAYMIN’s Constitutional and statutory rights as 

follows:

1. For compensatory damages recoverable under A.R.S. §§ 12-611, et seq., and 14-

311 in an amount of not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) or such other 

amount as may be deemed fair and just by the trier of fact;

a. Special damages include, but are not limited to, loss of income and 

services, medical fees and expenses, and funeral and burial expenses, 

incurred on behalf of MUHAYMIN; 

b. General damages include, but are not limited to, loss of consortium, pain 

and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and wrongful death; 

2. For punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be 

determined by the trier of fact;

3. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

4. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January 2018.

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

/s/ David A. Chami

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

Attorney for Plaintiff
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury for all issues and claims raised in this 

Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January 2018.

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

/s/ David A. Chami

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

Attorney for Plaintiff