The URL can be used to link to this page

Suit by Lloyd Haywood vs Dubuque Police Department Copyrighted April 2, 2018 City of Dubuque Consent Items # 2. ITEM TITLE: Notice of Claims and Suits SUMMARY: Progressive Insurance Co. /Andy Bartolotta for vehicle damage, Jordan Roberson for vehicle damage, Lloyd Haywood 3rd vs. City of Dubuque Police et. al. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Refer to City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Progressi� Insurance Co./Bartolotta Claim Supporting Documentation Roberson Claim Supporting Documentation Haywood vs. Dubuque Police Suit Supporting Documentation � �7 � �A�. � � r--��,. � - .»� � fiLL��k � �� - = �,�n� �_::., �"r�.:�A ,. .� �� - ,;:.� 4 : -Mi� '� "�4 �.`� ! � 'f .� � �✓# FORM TO BE USED SY A PRISONER WH�N F'XLING A COMPLAINT��33NDEf�`� FORM A: �xE CZVII, RIGHTS ACT, 42 U<S.C. § 1983 � y '� IN THE UNITED STATES DTSTKTCT CODRT ' � NOftTHER1�I DISTRTCT OI' IOWA 9 i '?�i�ti� � p I (��`I L7 �"'�C��!Wc�i�� `�C�7�7��."`� . R��V �� . a . 1 (Enter above the full n�me af the �� pla?ntifz or plaintiffs in tY;is ��,�� '"�,,,"rj ; �I actzon. ) � vs. COMPLkII�TZ' j I �,,.,) j �)�� ,� �"it� ��Tt�'�.G��y�F`� , .,. {�441 f:V6 T� . . . . � I' � f § I—' . t.a�� 1-��rt�'"� `k��.�� 1�'+�staE�sr�:-, ��c�,:��,C�: � � � • �w�,� 1-�f r t rfr„vr }��t �rcc , !��t � x ,� � y t's� '`4 �-..f 1rs� �r� rlr��r�� 'i ��ik tri � Y 4�)7'. #. '^�,.r-.�' y� y'—i f"i.€{°.:,'�.f s �:tY+S t�,'s...� f��`f`.11 t�-l.. :.i"C(" t..=t � ,j (Entex above the`full r.•ame of Zhe � ' I . defpndant or de�endarits in tris ac��or, �i knawn.:} � � (NQTE: Ii there is more than one pl��n'tizf, a separa�e sreet should la� � � attach2d giv�ng tne ?nformat,ian �n parts I and ?X below for each ; � pl.air.ti�=f, by name.) � � I I. Previous� Lawsuits ' � � � A. Have you begun ofher lawsuit,s in sL-a�.e or f�deral cour.t £ dealing with Lhe same �acts in�rol.ved i.n ihis acLion or = otherwise relating Lo your imprisonment? YES ( ) NO ( ;,�) � [ Be �f your answer to A is YES, please ansa��r the questions below. � ; (If there is morc than one lawsuit, descr�be the addizional � lawsuits an anoth�r piece of paper, using thc same outl_ir.e. ) � � 1. ParLies L'o prev;ous lawsuit: � PlaintiL�s },� (l� ' l i Defendants _ a�r ��'-� � � . � � � 2. Court (Ii federal court, name the district; .if sta�.e [ court, nFm� tnc co�,�nty.} �,, ;R j 1 � � � d 3. Jocket IJumbe� p� � I'�, 9 . Name of jod9c Lo whom case aas assigne�d 1_� � �r �. �Jisyosition, if knoein (dor e:;cinpl=: 4;a� tnc- ccse d'zsmi�seti? Y:as iL =ppe�led? 's _C s�:ll Fzndieg?) G. Ap�rczimztc- daGc of filiny lzwsuiC � �1� 'J . P.ocroxim�Ce daLe o'F disposition _ '�'. 3I. Place o£ Pxesent Con£ineme�t �'��:�i � ._. .. ._ eT_=�r -�vr:::�� F' oceucrc in Cn; s F=_sy-E"��a? o�(�.i�'I LIU I ) _. Ditl yoe pr2=enL [I'�e fr,ccs tel=tSr:c Cp your ccmplainC in 'ti:c y-�'.r pa3�r.� gri.evarce procedure? YLS ( '• ) NO ( 1 -i / C. T_I` )'011t 2.^.54:2C -5 1'I:S� . 1 . R�'vet s[eps Sid you lake? � � - ��;I I�-r� - rr' � ! '__ �,� � n�. � 2. Fhat iaas the ..*sult? � - rt -- — _ T41i� '- - ' p, L: yaur ansn�e�r is fJO, er.plain e;ny noC I �, ZF Lhere is na prisone� grievancc pxocedure __ C!'e � ins[.iLuteon, d'_d y�ic complain Co oiisoc uu19��orice=? YG5 ( ) @0 ( ) �,_ i� i 7 F. If youz answer is Y6S, 1 . What steps did you take? �� 2. 47hat was the resulC? (v �Q III. Pazties In item A below, place youc name in the fics[ blank and place your present addzess in the second bla�k. Do the same for additional plaintiffs, if' any. A. Name ot Plaintiff LLr'ID 4-�'.qMnn^, �-��.ywoOD=.`.4l'_-I�C'�l aadress c�< e� c ¢e u� i �v -� �, eo- u �^u� + ci "•o�^�:��a � B. AddiCional Plaintiffs .UiW In itz�n C telow, olace the full name of Che de£endant in lhe first 61ank, his cfficial position in the second blank, and his plare of employmen[ in Che [hird blank. Use iLem D for the names, positions, and plares of employment of any addi[ionai defendants. C. �efendant S� NFF ;u��i�- I'qy( � 1- is employed as at �. Additional Defendant (s) is/aze employed as Sr - NF'Firr��+� P�i1 9e� f+F-+��• ^4ye w 1 at . xc 19-/'rian✓. Pac� �1 � - N. Svrisdiction This complaint is brought pursuant to 92 U.S.C. 4 1983, and juri.sdiction is based on 7.6 ❑.5.0. S 1393 (a) (3) . Plaintiff(s) allege (s) that the defendant (s) acted under color oi sta[e 1aw with zegard to the facts stated in Paze V o£ this complainC. 3 V. 5tatement o£ Claim (S[ate heie as briefly as possible the FACTS of your case. You MOST state exactly what each defendant personally did, or failed to do, which resulted in haxm to you. Include also the names of othez pexsons involved (for example, other inmates) a�d state ihe date end place oE all eve�ts. Attach zn extra sheet if necesszrv, and write the hezding PAAT V CONTINUED at the top of the sheet. Reep to [he £acts. Do not g.i.ve any legal argumen[s or cite a�y cases.) Sce i4fF;r.q� + �n�e�! (� � v a i<, ii �� i`�� —�—�--�'�� W('FI ��..,�I W-�l3r9 �Ff� mFni- f� W-R'F �i CnnHn�prl VI. Relie£ (Sta[e briefly ezactiv wha� vou want the murt to do for vou. Make no 1e9a1 arguments. Ci[e no cases or s[atules.) Se-r� �IFPfow ,i� Pa��_4y�U S �4R� Vi �,ryi:n rn �+'� W�Fr'Irx.�,�l WIIW}C�.wic��'} 9 VII. Statement Regatding Assistance in Preparing This Complaint A. �id any pecson othcr than a named plainCiff in this action assis[ you in pcenaring this complaint? YES ( ) NO ( H— B. If your answer is YES,� name [he person who assisted you. ti I �� C. Signatuce of person who helped prepare complaint. h/ �� /� � Y� (Date) �Signatuie) VIII. Signatute(s) of Plainti££(s) Signed this day of � 20_ (Signature) Signatuces of additional plaintiffs, if any: IV I � 5 Af1laN/Plaintiff, Civil Case Lloyd Raymond I-laywaod 3rtl Vs. Cause Rcs'pondents/Dcicndanls, I)Dubuque Police OFfcer Slan Rysn 2) Dubuque Police OfGccrjhonathan 6rokens 3) Dubuque �o�ice ofticer n�e. Scou AF'FIDAVIT 4) Dubuquc Police Ofliccr Kane 1-lolfman 5) Dubuque Police Officer Joel Cross 6) Dubuque Police O(ficer Kim hloover /�tt3C}1RleRt t0 �9S3 7) �ubuyue County Anumey Ryan Gallaghzr (CIVI� C�dIIII P3R Vl� 8) Statc af Iawa �mployze Public Defender Chris Wcich 9) Slale oClowa 8mployce, Attomcy Terry Kurt 1 U) Dubuque Clerk o(Court, name unknuvm, In case (State vs. Haywood PLCRI 16858j 1 I) Dubuque Clcrk ofCourt, name unknown thal issued an � RE�EI�E� artcst wairant for Aff ant on 6-U9-2016 AU� 0 2 2�17 12) Pranh Lange. At[omey for Dubuque Judicial Districi Comcs now is d-�e Alliant Prasc as the A(IianUPlaintif(, and mnving to the 8'" circuit Pederal Courl in the United Stales Northern Districl (or the Slxtu of luwa and movin� Pursuant to(Maxim Law), (Commercial Law) and iNatw�al Law) as�vell es pursue�nt to the (lowa Code 6.22.3�.86j nnd is in dcclara[io� ro bring Ihis (Civil Claim} (Civil Suil of action at Law) and (Dispute)lo Federal Court and in (he preserve ol Judge or Refcree and in the presence of a Jury that is elecfed as tlie constimtion commands this attiant is seeking to launch a fedzral investigation on the Individuals casc loads and upon the municipality for which �hey fall under. "fhis affidavit is true and correct and I Lloyd Haywood 3`^swear lo tell �he truth, [he whole Imth, and no[hing bul lhe truth so help me my God oFI-leaven, and I do accept lull lixbility under Ihe pnin >i�id penalty of perjury. 'This Aftiant is compeiem and is knowledgcable as to oll of die facis stared herein. This AffianUPlainuCf is dcmar�ding that criminal charges be filed against a�y defendant who is guilty of a crime herein. 7his AfiiandPlaintiCf requests that a polygraph test bz edminis�ered first upon myself for die purpo5e ot excluding the notion thal this A(fiandPlainliCC is ill willed�n filing this wmplaint or I that he may have fabricnted or exaggerated hercin. Also the same Icri should be given to every deFendani herein to detemiine trulh in �he maucr and !o determine u state of mind This ACfldavit is an at[achment io u 1933 § 42 Civil claim complainl drafted by my own hands and filed by a 1 o F '�y Federal derk. I Lloyd R. Haywood 3r°, thc AlfianVPlein�itirequasl that lhe Faderal Court appoint an allorney for Dur Uiligcnce lo aide thc A(fnnVPlainti(f in presenting this cl2im and �o represent this elaim in a Civil Lt�w suit of action. The ACCwnUPlaintittdeclares that the tedeeai court upon investig��ion review and scize Ihe 1040's and 104I's (or(Sfale vs. liaywood FECRI 16353)and for(State vs. Haywood S. ct It16-1769) and also tbr the year(2D12 thru 2018) for the entice counry Altomey's and Public defe�ider s office for Dubuqua, Iowa. Sincerely, (signe[ure) (print oame) cc: re[ained ceply requested 2 o F ?�� I Affiant/Plaintiff, a�uc�s� Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3''d Cause V s. Respondents/DeCendants Dubuque Police Officers AFFIDAVIT 8 State of lowa Employees At[achment to 1983 Civil claim (Part VI I hereby declare that every living perso� listed in this claim and inves[igation be held liable to answcr for them selves under oath. I declnre [hat this cleim be made known to the Public of Dubuque, Iowa. 1 declare [hat the that tl�e —([owa Civil Rights Commission), (the ]owa Ombudsman), (lhe Du6uque Police [ntemal Affairs) and the (D.C_P.R.0 = Dubuque Community rela[ions Committee) Tw�n in all Findings and conclusions over to the F.[3.I. from their Independen[ investigations, and that all material, videos, audios, dzpositions, ext,. be twned in as well to the Plaintiff and F.B1. regarding (State vs. Haywood PEC2116858) and that the lowa Supreme-c[. tum in al I briefs and material in (Sta[e vs. Haywood S. CT#16-1369) ro the F.B.I�I also declare the Public Rzcords from Dubuque lowa submit every Pro-se filling from (Lloyd 1-Iaywood 3'� from 10-23-2015-thru-2018) 1 also declare that the Dubuque N.A.A.C.P be called in as wimess for the Plaintiff, and as o[her witness the (ll.C.P.R.0 — Dubuque Police Relations Committee) Be called to [estify. I declam [o havc [he case load uf(FG,CRI 16555 Slate vs. Haywoodj and (Iowa vs. Haywood S. Ct-16-1369) be collec[ed by the F.B.l.�this affiant is respectfully asking the court to have tllis claim and its attachments 6aiTed from being stack do w the affiant's incapability at breaking down claims in componen[ parts that constitute violations of righLs, and state or Federal laws? 1 deelare a civil case # and causelt for this claim and that the (Federal Rules uf Civil Procedure be 15O) linplemen[ed herein as the eFfian�/Plaintiffdoes not fully know when or how to apply � it to the matter at 3 oF �,y hand. I also declare that the (Dubuque Police Deparlment), (Sheriff s Dept.) and the entire (Judicial District) Recuse themselves form any matter pert2ining [o this AfflandPlaintift and any of my immediate family. l�his claim serves as a Major confliM of interest. I also reques[ to be placed under Federal Pro[ective wstody and placed in witness protection upon any criminal findings, As I am in constant fear of retaliation and harassment. a �� y Affiant/PlaintifP, c��i case Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3rd ca�s� Vs. Respondents/Defendants Dubuyue Police Officers AFFIDAVIT & State of lowa Gmployees Attachment to Civil 1983 (Civil Claim Part VI) Continued Since my zddress I have been a victiin of harassment and levels of retaliation from every statz depanment in lowa. Therefm�e, [ demand to be removed &om this state to serve any remaining prison time Uy way of ajudge's order. 1 am also declaring that 1 be awarded $720,000 monetary U.S. currency for pain and suf[ering Damages, emotional distress and for the violation of every right my Lord has given me, and for every right tha[ was ratified by [he founding fathers for me to have. That have been violated. 5 o F �`\ Affiant/Plaintiff, Lloyd Rapmond Haywood 3`a ��S Civil Case CaUse Responden ts/Defenda nts, I)Du6uque Poliee Officer Stan Ryan �) Dubuque Police Officerjhonathan 6rokens 3) Dubuquc Police Olticer Alex ScoU �F,��j.J. 4) Uubuque Police Ofticer I<une Ho((man 5) Dubuyue Po�ice Officer Joel Cmss 6) Dubuque Police Ofticer ICim Hoover AttaChment to Civil 1983 7) Dubuquc County Altorncy Ryan Gallaghcr S) State of Iowa 6mploycc Public De(ender (Civil Claim Part�)— �/� Chris Welch Continued 9) State of lowa Emp�oyee, Attorney'I�erty Kurt 10) Dubuque Clerk oCCuurt, numz unknown, ln case (S[ate vs. Haywood PF,CRI 16fi58) I I) Uubuquz Clerk uf Courl, name imknown thaf issued an artcsl wan'aill lor Affian� un 6- 09-2016 12) I'rank Lange, Attorney lor Dubuyue Judicial Districi Dubuque Police Officers Did Commit -�Q„21_ 1) Perjury- Violated Plaintiff s Right to a fair trial & � protection of Law, malicious protection. 2) Negligence- Violated Ihe right to equal protection of the law. 3) Gxcessi��r force- Personal injury pain & suffering. . oF 4) Cus[odial Interroga[ion- Did viola[e the 5°i amendment's righ[� self- � incrimination Miranda. 5) Discrimination- Violate equal protection of Iaw, False arres[, due process componen[s of the 14'h. 6) Made a Legal Decisions without license to practice law, malicioas prosecution 7) Malicious Prosecution- The intent of all officers imolved ir� the claim and Ihe wiliness of their faults. s o F '�y I APr l Oc.vl} i c�,s, rt�ietin,�h+ F R a+- v c�.,�; �,�r� S) Violated- The righ[ to privacy under the 4ib amendment, and the Illegal search component. State af�lowa Employees. Did Comini[ 1) Dubuque County Attorney Ryan Gallagher a) Deprivation of Rights b) Breach of Contract c) Negligence d) Viola[e equal protection of laws e) Malicious Prosecution � Conspiracy State of lowa Employee Did Commit I) Teiry Kurt- Attoroey Ineffective assistance of counsel Provision oFthe 61h amendment See court ofAppeals (lowa vs. Haywood S. ct # 16-1369) Page proof brief 8c pro'se brief. State ot lowa Employee Did Comtnit � Dubuque Yublic Defender Chris Weldn A) Violation of the 6'�' amendmen[ right to effective counsel= see pretrial motion to dismiss on (State vs. (Haywood FECRI 16858), and Prdse brief(lowa vs. Haywoud S.ct #16-1369) � o� �y Civil Casc AffiandPlaintiff, ca�se Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3�`� Vs. Respondents/Defendants AFFIDAVIT Dubuque Police Officers gz Ateachment to Civil 1983 State of Iowa Emplo,vees (Civil Claim Part-�)-v� Continued S[ate of lowa Employee Did Commit Name of Clerk unknown A) A Dubuque clerk of Court Did commit negligence by issuing an arrest warrant on 6-09-2016 for this Affiant/Plaintiff that violated the right to Privacy and d�e Illegal search & seizure component of the 4°i amendmen[, clerk claimed that ihe warrant was a mistlke. The warrant was null & void. This happened in Dubuque, Iowa 6/09/2016- 6/10/2016. State o1 lowa Employee Name of Clerk Unknown A Dubuyue clerk of court in case PLCRI 16858 State vs. Haywood issued summons forjury selection in the � case. 7he summons excluded all blacks and other ethnic goups. This violates the 6°i amendmen[ ri�ht lo an Impar[ial jury and the 14°' equal protection of laws. Dubuque Clerk of court on 6-09-20 f G for this Affiant. The aftiant was an�ested on 6/08/2016 and released on 6/09/2016. The aCfiant was re-arresfed on 6/]0/2016 for I failure to appear on the 6/08/2016 charged. The actual cour[ date ro appear was for 6/28/2016. At the Dubuque counry courthouse. On 6/10/2016 Dubuque Police e ��: ��1 ConF; ��vC9 FK�,m P.�� r � 9 (�Af1 V showed up to 1638 Iowa with arres[ warrant for Lloyd liaywood 3`d. after Police entered the home, searohed d�is affiant, removed items from his person, handcuffed him and carried me out in Public humiliation to the Dubuque Law enforcement center. Lt. Scott Baxter checked the coinputer to find out the arrest warrant was issued by mis[ake. 1 was the� transported back to I633 Iowa St. by Of6cer Joel Cross. This happened in Dubuque lowa on 6/Q/2016 thru 6/10/2016. A Dubuque clerk in case �tFECRI 16858 issued a summo�s forjury selection in the case of State vs. Haywood. This selection zxcluded all black and odier ethnic groups. 7�his affiant had [o select all white jurors the name of this clerk is unknown. This happened in Dubuque County on 4/ZO/2016 through 4/24/201( aXXX\YXXXXX Dubuque Police Officer Stan Ryan Did commit Neglee[ by excluding a dispateh call that states a black male was yelling for help that a woinan was pulling a knife on him and also by not addin� fo the report the state�ment given to police on the incident date of 10-15-2015. Also by neglecting the fact that this aFfiandplain[iff was first the victim pursuant to [oeva law, also constitutional distrimination. Since he as a responding officer of law did not take the real perpe[rarors into cusrody after being made aware that d�ey were in violation of luwa law. 2) (Jfficer Stan Ryan did add a statement to his police report diat [he witnesses involved in this case denies ever making [o police. Also to note there is no recording of[his allegz; statement that he added to Ihe report. This added statement cons[iWted a charge against [his plaintiff in which he was acquitted on. 3) For clarity the plain[iff will further notity the court of the involvement of officer Stan Ryan since heewas part of the investigation. "T'he affianUplaintiff does not have any material or documen[s related [o this case or claim during Ihz drafling of[his claim and affidavit. Dubuque Police Ofticer Jhonathan Brokens Did conunit Excessive Foree by responding to a call of a dismrbance that involved a knife. The caller did not give description of the perpetrators, upon an�iving as a tirst responding officec This officer on site exited his vehide and placed this plaintiff face down on s �� ,�� h{ V �on}invCO � llur� ('4 E q}l�1�Uv�crl1" PViC� V W„�:nvc9 the pavement, then testified [o coveriog the plaintiff with (te[hal cover) without justification or reason to, and ihem in the same instant placed this plaintiff in cuffs and manhandlins this plaintiff into a squad car. This act caused the plaintiff[o hit his head on the doorjam of the squad car and also caused abrasions to the plaintiff s hands, arms, and knees. This incident was caught on [he in car camera. Brokens testffied that dispatch did nut tell him who was in possession of the knife. It was also staled by Jhonathan Brokens- that this plaintiff was in cumpliance with the arrest. Also ano[her unknown officer �ided in I3rokens arrest and committzd [he similar act in relation to the manhandling. This did cause post traumatic shock, pain & suffering. Police also did nnt strap a seat belt on the plaintiff and to my understandi�g the in car camera s-hows this plaintifPs head bump sometime during the execration. This happened on 10/I S/201� in Dubuque, lowa in case FECRI 1C85R State vs Haywood Dubuque Policer Kim Hoover Did Commit Ofticer Kim Hoover violated the Plaintiff s rights to equal pro[ection of laws by responding to a disturbance that involved a knife. Not arresting the armed perpetrator upon arriving. hi this case the Plaintiff was victimized by the armed perpetrator. Conspiracy 706.1 (a)(b) and 708 assault, and going armed wiTh intenC These are all in violation of Ihe Iowa Code. Kim Hoover also lied about the I:nife being on [he ground upon aiTival. In response to the disturbance call officer Jhonathan Brokens testified under oath that officer Rim Noover told him as in (Brokens) that she as in(Hoover) told Nicole Connc�lly to drop the knife. Brokens swore again that this is what ofticer Hoover rold him. Nicole Connolly also testified under oath in dbpositions thac the police tuld her to drop the knife and she droppzd it. The plaintiff seen Nicole talking [o police while still armed with an illegal size weapon. In viola[ion of Ihe lowa Code 7:4.4 (al(8). Itiim Hoover again testified at trail in State vs Haywaod FECR I 16858 on 4-21-2016 thru 4-23-2016 in Dubuque county courthouse that when she an ived the knife was already on the ground. This act of perju�y viola[ed the Plain[if�s right to a fair trial and violated fundamental due process, malicious prosecution and neglect. ln this case plaintiffwas assaulied by armed perps who admitted in dctail on the record to violating the above Iowa Codes. �o oc �,�1 (11t�}c��menF euna",��.efl FRor� Pnge � `l prti:f J This also gave the State bogus contidence in his theory and prejudice against this plaintiff. Dubuque Police Officer Kane I-loffman Did commit Falsified and a�ticulated witness testimony to constitute a burglary charge tha[ in which plain[iFt� 1n this case was acquitted ai both. Nicolc Connolly and Courtney Connolly testified under the penalty of perjury that neither of them ever made that statement to this officer that plaintiff Haywood gral�bed Gina Harkey by the arm while she was inside ofthe vehicle. However, an unrecorded sta[ement from officer Kane Hoffinan stated qiat the plaintiff in [his case committed A, B felony count of Burglary in the f rst degree. This statement made by Kane Hoffman was lhe crux of [he entire count constitutes tliis charge against the affianUplaintifE Officer Hoffmai� was not truthful in doing police business. This caused pain & sufYenng, and a violalion of equal protec[ion under [he law, and 6^' amendmcnt violation right to a fair trial. This happen as a deprivation of rights because no remedy and award — compensation has been given to this affianUplaintiff. Also to note Kane Hoffman admitted in trial State vs. Haywood FECR] 16858 he as in F(offinan question [his plaintiff while in cus[ody and did not him ol his rights. This happened in Dubuquz lowa date 10-I 5-2015 and trial date at Dubuque county courthouse on 4- 21-2016 thru 4-24-2016 By not taking action after being made aware via complaint proczdure that employees for the Statz committzd crimes and viola[ed on an individual's federally protec[ed rights and for not allowing thz plaio[iff in [his claim an opportuniry lo be heard in court before a Judge. Employees being under the color of Iaw did commit ((I) County Attorney Ryan Gallagher for Dubuque Judicial Disvict,) deprived this affanUplaintifl the right to a fair trial by introd�cing bad acts evidence to a juq� outside of a jud�z's order (see motion to limine (FECR I 16558 state vs. Haywood) and by Inflicting whimsical gamesmanship upon the affiandplaintiff. In a criminal tri�l the County Attorney made no argument as to breaching the contract agreement. This county attumey knew before filing a charge that his affiant was firsi die victim of a crime in case (PECR 1 I6858 Sta[e vs Haywood). "Chis county atlomey deprived this plaintiff a righ[ to a preliminary hearing by resisting aftzr he flled the trial inforniation. The scheduled time passing of the preliminary hearing. A state of fowa it oF ?.y t ao,-� \�9c 8 �NZt J Con1-�n�C� k}F,Fy'}U,r�c-��,1' }o W�E'„n.��j employee, Dubuqoe public defender Chris Welch challenged the denial of d�e preliminary hearing but filed the wrong motion under the wrong remedy. The District Court Judge granted ihe state's motion to resist due to defense's untimely and wrong remedial molion. This county attomey knew that he violated Q CRP 2.4). "Che clerk of court (Sta[e of lowa ernployee of Dubuque Judicial district- name unknown for case # FECRI 16858 Sta[c v I-laywood issued summons forjury selection in the instan[ case and excluded all persons from every ethnic group which result in this plain[itf having to select all whitejurors in a county known Yor racial hate. 1'his affianUplaintiff is of African descznt. Tlie Dubuque clerk of couri name unknown of case # �ECR I 16858 State v }-laywood improperly assessed this affiandplaintiff on court cost for charges that this affiandplain[iff was acquitted on totaling $16,000. A sta[e o(lowa employee attorney Terry Kurt in case FECR 1 I685R State v Haywood did commit Ineffec[ive assistance of counsel by allowing this affian[ [o plead guilty to a charge that lacked facial basis, and by not preserving error for appeal. By noy properly preserving error foc appeal in reference to the county attorney Ryan Gallagher's introductory of excluded evidence. Attomey Terry Kurt failed [o Impeach Dubuque Police officer Kim Hoover's lie about the material fact in case of FECRI 16858 State v Haywood. Attorney Terry Kurt also was ineffective for allowing this atfiant ro plead guilYy in FECRI 19795 State v Haywood. A case that lacked a facwal basis. On thz case of FECRI !6858 State v Haywood the i�cidents repor[ed herein commenced from 10-15-2015 thru 4-24-2016 in Dubuque coimty courthouse and for case #PECRI 19745 Sta[e v Haywood cominenced in G23-2016 thru 9-l5-2016. A State of low:� employee oF Dubuque clerk of court name unluiown issued a null and void arrest wan�ant for this affiant on 6-09-2016. This warrant led to this af6ant having Dubuque police ofticers coine to [hc address of 1638 lowa, Dubuque, la, enterzd in on permission of the wazrant, searched this affiant. Removin� items from his person and detain him and take him tojail. Upon entering lock up this affiant was har�dcuffed and L[. Scu[t Baxter of d�e Dubuque police force doubled checked the computer to find out that the warrant was issued by mistake. This occw�red on 6- 10-2016 in Dubuque lowa. An employee State of lowa attomey Frank Lange was appointed to represent this affiantlplaintilf in case # FECRI 19795 State v Haywood on 6-23-2016. This attomey was not qualitied to handle felony cases and knew oFthis before I, the affiant found out and made him withdraw. After 45 days of having him on Ihe case I iz ol� a`1 n��k ,� ConF�n�f!� Fc.-..� f M1�F �` V pr{��u4..�� IN-��'r}<h��rni- was also billed tor his service. This took place in Dubuque lowa on 6-23-2016 thru q-�2016 see post-eonviction tlPCCV 1069@ Sta[e ot lowa v Haywood. l om 40� State of lowa employees for Dubuque judicial district and the Dubuque Police Dept. has been committing conspiracy against righls of persons of color and [his aftiant lo In the case of FECRI 16858 Statz v Haywwd on �I 5-20 i 5 this plaintiff was an�ested on false charges in which most of them were acquitted in a jury triaL In this instant case the offices most of whom are named in this complaint excluded evidence Ihat would have DL-constituted the charges against this affianL Dubuque police added and perpetuated witness testimony. Dubuyue police officers lizd under oath�violated several other righ[s and policies, the case was then handed over to Uie coun[y attorney's office o(Dubuyue. The charge Iha[ was articulated was then amplified by the county attomey Ryan Gallagher to increase court cost and [o raise the amoun[ of tlie 1040. For [hat case this plaintiff was robbed of the right to a requested entitlement. The county a[torney later implemented several [actics of whimsical gamesmanship tlu�oughout the Irial. Court appointed attorney Terry Kurt represented tihe defendant altowed the county attorney and police to infringe on the rights of this affianUplaintiff. The Dubuque clerk of comt purposely excluded black from jury selection in FECR I 16858 State V Haywood. The complaints herein Ihis claim have been addressed as they arose by way of lowa courts gavz public record of Dubuque. The Iowa Supreme Discipline buard for atcomeys, The Dubuque NAACP, Du6uque Police Relations committee, Dubuque Police Intemal Affairs and The Suprzme court of lowa see page proof brief and Prdse brief S. C?#16-1369 lowa v Hay�vood. This affiant will discbse more on this claim in open coun. These incidc��ts occurzed lhru ]0-I S�015 thru this date 6-I 5-2017 a�d are still on going. p��,��—Dubuque Police Officers names and Specific roles in [he complaint unl:nown at this time. Due to the affi�nt not having any documentation in relation to the case of FCCR116858. Ofilcer Alex Scott along with every officer in case FECRI 16858 [ooh part in similar activity as to gathzring to conclude the exclusion of the dispatch call- that came that stated ifs a black male yelling tbr help [ha[ a woman pulling a knife and by excluding the statcment made by Trace Durham. An independent eye wi[ness for case tt PECR I I6S58 who stated that a black male was given pennission to e�ter the occupied structure. Doth cells and stateinents would show two things (1) that I was ia o F 'a�1 0.PF�o�.��a. �}kw�c.Hv-�e.�k P��S�I .i F.�.-, Pvy'- S viclimized and (2) Ihe sta[e didn't have enough for a burglary char�e. The s[aCemeni made by Trace Durham was not added to any police repor[ but was recorded and written down by Officer Joel Cross. On the night of the incident of 10-IS-2015(State v Haywood PECR I 16858) [hese breaches gave the state confidence in d�eory against ihis plaintiYf in a criminal proceeding it also prejudiced my lheory as a defendant. All acts by police of Dubuque in this claim caused to be prejudged by ajury, violated equal protection of laws, due process, Ihe right to a Fair trial, pain and suffering, emotional distress, exL.. This page of the affidavit, the affiant does choose to bring eivi! ac[ion against tl�e depar[ments of Sta[e and city officials. If i�vestigation shows that [hey either in municipal or ofticial capaciry be held liable. That �ot mzn[ioning [he entides in the classi�ed capacity shall eiclude them from being sued by the affiant/plain[iff as this pro'se affiant does not have the resources ro use to properly break down components for these claim. Masim Law Commercial Law Respondents/Defendants are given 60 days from the 51e date of this document, claims to rebut to affianYs affidavit for point by point under their own commercial, individual, and ofticial liabiliry to rebut via sworn aftid�vit for poin[ by point and diey be held under the penalty and pain of perjwy. Failure to rebut [o affian['s' at�fidavit places all parties in full agreement to the accusa[ions herein and in the demands and declarations of Ihe 1983 civil suit, cily grievances and in any other complaint that was brought to any agency by this affianUplaintiff. An unrebutted affidavit under Maxim Law stands as truth in the matter if not rebuttzd for point by poinL No penalry shall be imposed upon this affianUplaintiff for esercising this right I and is protected under law (�-�)�i�. zsy - �� -�3�� ia or a�� AflianUPlaintiff, c�.ncase Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3rd caus� V s. Respondents/Defendants Dubuque Police Officers AFFIDAVIT & State of lowa Employees At[achme❑t to Civii 1983 (Civil Claim Part VI) Continued Point by point Dubuque Police Officer Stan Ryan. • Why did you nu[ add to [he Pulice report that a woman called 91 l on [he dale of 10-I 5-201 S. (Stale v Haywood PGCR I 16858) and stated that a black man is yelling for help that a woman's pulling a knife on him? • Were you aware of that call? Just mentioned above. • Were you instructed to Ie�SS that call out of the repoit? [f su, by who? • Why did you not add the statement given by Trace Durham tha[ this affiant was given permission to enter an occupied stn�cture iu this case? • Were you instructed not to do so? If so by whom? • Why did�'t you record the statement made by Nicole Connolly in reference [o t.his affiant taking a swing at her on 10-I 5-2015? • Do you normally record sta[ements given by wimesses for quality assurance? •Are you aware thac Nicole Connolly told that she never made that statement to you? • Did you participa[e in physically arresting tliis affianUplaintiff? If so did he comply? • Are you aware of who was in possession of[he knives involved in [his encoun[er? • Why wasn't Courtney and Nicole arrested for participating in this incident? • Did they break down lo you how they planned a plan and anned themselves and went to 1-laywood's address? is oi= 7\ • Did Nicole or any wimesses from that night tell you Nicole swung the knife at this affant and chased him and he was yelling for help? • When Courtney and Nicole Connolly planned a plan at their address and directly designed ihe plan to sabotagz Haywood and then armed themselves with illegal sized weapons, proceeded to his house and wind up chasing him with a kniFe. Does that make him first the victim of conspiracy? 706.1(a)(b) and going anned with intent and assault 708 of[he lowa Code? • Did you ever question Mr. 1-laywood during this incident?" • If no, why not? • If yes was he in custody? And did you advise him of his rights? • Did you manhandic Mr. Haywood a� any time during his artest? • Do yuu feel that by Courtney and Nicole conspiring that mada Haywood a VICIIIl]� • Do you have a license to make legal decisions'? • Tlien why wasn't Courtney and Nicole not arres[ed and I was? • Were you aware [hat Cour[ney and Nicole Connolly were giving different version ot events in all police reports? • Name the officer that complied all of the repons into die minu[zs of testimony? Dubuque Police Officer Kim Hoover Point by point • Were you the first ofCicer on the scene at 10-I 5-2015 in the case of State v Haywood FECR1685S? • Did dispatch tell you [hat it was a call For a disturbance that involved a knife? • Did dispatch tell you who had the knife? • Where was the knife when you arrived?" • Do you know who told Connolly to drop the knife? • Are you aware [hat Connolly and yow� panner told different stories then you? • Did you teil officer 6rokens that you lald Nicole to drop the knife? • Ii'you did not tell the above question just asked to Brokens would you say he's not truthful? • Why didn't you place Nicole under arcest for lowa code viola[ion 734.4 (a�(h))? is or ay • Were you instructed not to arrest Nicole Connolly for carrying weapons? • You did interview Mr. Haywood while at the Dubuque law enForceinent center? • Was he in custody? • Did you advise him of his Miranda righ[s before ques[ioning? • Why would a trained experienced officer like Cirokens testify under oath that you told him Nia[ you rold Nicole to drop the knife and she dropped it immediately? • Wh}� would Lloyd, Gina Harkey, Nicole Connolly and Officer Qrokens say tha[ Nicole was ordered by police to drop the knile, but you say it was already on the ground upon arrival? • Does that question just asked make sense? • Why didn't you add to your police report that a call came through dispatch Ihat a black male is yelling for help [hat a wmnan pulled a knife on him? • Were you aware of[hat dispatch call tha[ men[ion? I n n c '�`\ Aftiant/PlaintifT, a.�i c„� Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3rd ca�5� V s. RespondentslDefendants Dubuque Police Officers AFFIDAV]T & State of lowa Employees Actachmen[ eo Civil 1983 (Civil Claim Part VI) Continued Cow�ty Attorney for Dubuque Iowa Ryan Gallagher Point by point • Were you aware that the witnesses against Ihe plaintiff's case of FECRI 16858 Sta[e v Haywood gave false statements ro Police on the day of 10-15-2015 and dunng the supplemzntal investigation abou[ material facts that constitu[es criminal chargzs against the plaintift? • Were you aware [ha[ by Courtney and Nicole Connolly planning a plan (as they testified to) that involved this affiant by name and live in address, and then annin� themselves with ille�.al canying weapons and proceeding from their home without being sununoned for,to the affiant's live address. To carry out a plan against the aftixnt withou[ his knowing thaL "Chis act by Cowtney and Nicole made this aff ant the victim first pursuant to Iowa law 706.1(A)(B)? • Did you cohurse Trace Durham into changing her testimony about [he affiant Itaving perinission to enter an occupied structw�e in this instant case? • Did Policzr officer Joel Cross testify under oath that Trace Durham identifies this aftiant as the one who was given permission to enter the occupied structure?" • Did officcr Joel Crws tes[ify [hat he wrote down and recorded the above inentioned statement given by Trace Din�ham? • Did Joel Cross testify that verba[im at a deposition that Trace Durham told him that they gave the man she identified as diis af6ant, was given permission to enter the occupied structure? 18 04 �-y • Why wasn't tliis statement added to the police repor[ until 4 months after the interview ofTrace Durham7 • Did you breach agreemen[ and Judges orders in PECRI 16858 State v Haywood? • Were you aware that all of the witnesses for this instant case Iied under oath about material facts in the case? • Since the affiant was first victimized by conspiracy should the case have been dismissed given the fact that the perpetra[ors committed an armed act against this affiant? • Pursuant [o lowa law was this affiant first Ihe victim in case FECR116£f58 State v Haywood? • Why did you hold on to the witness testimony of Trace Durham and not add it into the original police reporl given to the fact that she was interviewed the day of Ihe incident and was an independent eye wi[ness testifying about material faets in the case? • Are you aware that your office and its employees tiled charges that are on indicements, and that the indictment is attached to a trial intormation, and that the charge on the indictment is amplified to the highest degree outside of what the par[iculars in the police report charges Ihe aecused of? • Have you ever charred a pzrsun for a I" degree offense and in acWality the person fs accused of committing a lesser offense? • Are you aware that pulice officer Kim Hoover lied about seeing Nicole Connolly with a knife in her possession? • Did Nicole testify in FECR 1 16858 State v Haywood that police seen her armed wi[h the knife and they told her to drop it and she dropped it immediatzly? • Did policer officer Jhonrhan Brokens testify Ihat officer Kim Hoover told him [hat she as in Hoover told Nicole herself to drop the knife shortly after arriving on [he scene? • Did Kim }-loover testify lhal the knife was on [he ground already when she and officer Brokens arrived?" • Have you ever prosecuted a case and you know Uiat yo�r witness was not truthful? 1s �� `1 • Did you know that the mother of Trace Durham called to dispatch and said it's a black male running yelling for a woman to stop pulling the knife on him? • Are you aware that this call was not added to a�y police repoiYs? I • Why did you withhold Trace Durham's statement to the police for 4 months after the trial info had been filed? • If[he missing dispatch call and Trace Durham's statement to the police were added to thz initial police repoits would the charges against this plaintiff been de constitute and killed confidence in your theory? • Why weren't Ihey added [o a�y police reports? • Will the 1040's for the last 5 years show that yuu have not amplifled chargzs on indictments to increase payment to your own salary? • Is it a crime for any person to lie under oath'? • Did any of your witness in the instant case lie under oath? • If you were aware that illegal activity was going on in your depa�tment would you report it? 20 �4 �,�� AffianUPlaintiff, c��u cAs� Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3�d c��se Vs. Respo ndents/Defendants Dubuque Police Officers AFFIDAVIT & State of lowa Empioyees ntcachment co Cf��l i983 (Civil Claim Part VI) Continued Maxim Law Point by Point Dubuque Police Kane Hoffinan • Were you aware that Courtney and Nicole Connolly devised a plan at [heir li��e in address to sabotage this affiant? • Were you aware that they ��ot vaguely directly implemented [his affiant by name in their plan, and after panning they bo[h grabbed kitchen knives and proceeded to this affiant's address to carty out this plan? • Are you aware tha[ this affiant was attacked witli a knife by Nicole Cunnolly? • Did you hear of a dispatch call made by the mother of Trace Durham that a black male was yelling for help that a woman pulling a luiife o� him? • Why wasn't that call added to that reporr'?" • Are you aware tha[ Nicolz sta[ed that she never told you [hat this affiant grabbed Gina Harkey by [he arm inside the vehicle? • Why didn't you record Nicole's statement for quality assurance? • Pursuant to lowa Law was the affiant first Ihe vic[im of conspiracy based off what you were told by Nicole and Courtney Connolly? • Why wasn't Nicole and Cour[ney arrested? • Whose choice was it not to add the dispatch call [o the pofice repor[ and the statement made by Trace Durham that this affian[ was Cold to get back in [he car? • Did you question this affiant while in cos[ody? • Did you advise him of his rights? 2i os '�.�\ AFfiant/Plaintiff, c��ucayo Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3rd ca�se V s. Respondents/Defendants Dubuque Pofice Officers AFFIDAVIT 8. State of lowa EmplOye¢S Attachment to Civil 1983 (Civil Claim Part V[) Continued Maxim Law Point by Point Dubuque Police Joel Cross + On 10-I 5-2015 did Trace Durham tell you Ihat she heard a female ��e"�� k Pc i son _ identified as this affiant to get back in the cer in case F�CRI 16858 S[are v Haywood? • Why wasn't that statement added to [he initial police report? • Whose choice was it to exclude that testimony? • Why wasn't Courtney and Nicole arrested? • Did they victimize this aftian[ pursuan[ to lowa law? • Did you make a statemznt to Gina Harkey that was caught on your body recorder that she shouldn't mess with guys like this affiant because they only want to use you dry? • Wha[ did you mean by guys like him in that statement? • On 6-10-2016 did you transport this affiant back to 1638 lowa ST. after a null & void arrest warrant was issued by mis[ake of the clerk of court? zz �,r �°} Affiant/Plain[iff, c��ica,< Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3rtl Cause Vs. Rcspondents/Defendants Dubuque Police Officers AFFIDAVIT R S[ate of lowa Employees Attachment [o Civil 1983 (Civil Claim Part VI) Con[inued Maxim Law Point by Point Terry Kurt, Attorney • In case FECRI 1685E State v Haywood did you allow your clien[ to plea guilry to charges that lacked factual basis? • Were you aware that police officer Kim Hoover's story wnflicted her panner's Jhongthan I3rokens, in regard to Hoover tzlling Brokens that Hoover told Connolly to drop the Icnife us Hoover testifying that Ihe knifz was already on the ground upon arcival? • Why did you no[ impeach the police? • Did thz state and or police exclude the dispa[ch call made by the mother of Trace Durham? • Did the�l�ithholding the testimony of Trace Durham for months after the indictment was reached? • Why did you not bring this up in the trial record? • When you got appointed to represen[ this affiant in case FECR I I� State v Haywood why did at[omey Prank Langz wi[hdraw? • Were you aware [hat he wasn't qualified to do felony cases? • In case FECRI 168�8 State v Haywood did this affiant receive a fair trial? 23 uF ��\ Affiant/Plaintiff, a�u cas< Lloyd Raymond Haywood 3�� Cause V s. AFFIDAVIT Respondents/DefenJants Dubuque Police Officers ATTACI(MrNT AFFIDAVIT & ro 1983 Civil Claim State of [owa Employees �,,},\� on�. o� �>cc;o:., ,k +�. oz MAGNA CULP DOLUS= Gross neglec[ and fault is = to Fraud, Ballantine law 3`� using a notary un this document does not constitute any adhesion nor does it alter my status as affiant/plaintiff and is not entrance to any forcing jurisdiction. Having witnessed [he signing and sealing of ihe forgoing verified declaration draRzd by Lloyd R. Haywood 3`� I place my hand and seal as an authentic ac[ as a notary public. Subscribed and affirrned be th��n day for [he mon[h oL��in the year of[he Affiant's Lord and savior Jesus 2017 y/''_ / NOtBry C�C�t� �%�_ ��`� LORI JO BROCq�IpN ( C�w�iSS�ouMO BO1755 � NYCONMIS4py 'O�" JUNEB 20/ Affiant/Plai�tiff' � �/vt�s��ey X 1,C.rQ N�+�'� za ��F '�`1 IAND Vcrs'ion 6.I hlips://ec(.iand.circ3.dcn/cei_6in/Dispaech.pl?697X34801fr11081 Prisoner Complaint 1.17-cv-00091-LTS Havwood v. G211agher et_a_I 11.5. Distric� Com't Nor�hern Dis[ric� of lowa Notice of Electronic Filing "fhe (ollowing tiansaction�ves enlersd on 3,32/Z01 S at 12:d3 PM CDT nnd filed on 3/23/'_U 18 Case Neme: Haywood v. Gallagheret al Casc Number: 1:17-cv-0009LLf� �ilm�: Lloyd Raymond Hxywood Docnment Number: Id Ducl<e( Te�l: PRO SE COMPLAINT againstJonathan Brokens by Lloyd Raymond Haywood. Dismissal Deatlline 7/512018. (nef mailed to pro se plaintiff; copy w/nef mailed by certified mail to Jonathan Brokens and the Dubuque, lowa, County Attomey) (tles) 1:17-ev-00091-LTS Notice has been electronically malled to: 1:17-cv-00091-LTS Nofice has 6een dclieered by other meuns to: Lloyd Ruymond Haywood ti7I31(,9 lowe S[ate PeniteNiop� PO Bos 316 Fort Madison, IA 53627 The �ollowing document(s) are associaled with Ihis ii�nsactio¢ Documenl Aescriplion:Main Uocument Original filename:Na Glectronic documen� Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp ID—IOSA96836 [Dere=3/23/2013] [FileNmnber-1939540-0 ] [446162ffi9S96�OcIA493ct8�53fl8632i90121677018a82d34666f6735ec4cd10608 d9da644t2e6dfticSebde4dc118ct23a6d266e971b1936�acfD4671811062e]] I of I 03%232018 12:J5 PM IN THE UNITGD STA"PGS DIS1'R1C1' COURT I'OR THE NORTHGRN DISTRICC OF IOWA C�DAR RAPIDS DIVISION LLOYD RAYMOND IIAYWOOD, Plain[iff, Nu. C17-0091-LTS vs. ORDCR RYAN GALLAGHI:IZ, STAN RYAN, .IONATHAN 6R01<ENS. ALGX SCO'�T, KANE HOFPMAN, IOEL CROSS. I<1M HOOVBR, CHRIS WGLCH, TERRY KURT, DU6UQUG CLGRK OF COURT, DU6UQUG POI_]CE OFFICERS. FRANK LANGE, and THE SCATE OF lOWA, Detendants. This ma[ter is before me pwsunnt to plaintiFt Lloyd Haywood's pro se 4� U.S.C. C 7983 com�luin� (Doc. Nu. I-I), prn se motio� ro proeeed in fonna pauperis (Doe No. 1), pro se motion to appuint comisel (Doe. No. 2), pro sa motion for writ of mandamus (Doc_ No. 31 and pro se motion in compel (Duc. Na 6). Hayevoud has �Iso filed a number of pro ee supplements. See Doc. Nus. 4, 5. 7, 8, 9 and 10. l. APPLICATION TO PROCEF.D !N FORMA PA(IPERIS Plaintiff did not +ubmit thc siamrory filing fec See ?8 U.SC � 1914(a) (requiring tiliug Fee). In urdcr for a cum'[ [o authorize tlte commencemeut of an action wi[hou[ the prepayment uf the Filin� fee, a person mus[ submit an atfidavit th.0 includcs y statement of aIl thc asscts the person possessev. Sne 28 U.SC. ti 191 i(al(I). In n�dition, e prisoner mus� submit e cenificd copy ot the n'us� lund asuun� st�tement (or instimtional eyuivalenU tor the 6-month periud immedintely preceding the filing uf Lhe cumplaim, obeained fi�om �he appropriate ofticial of each prisu� �t which the prisoner was or is confined, See ZS U.SC. ti 19t5(a)(2). Pluintiff, an inmaie xt the lowa State Penitentiary in I=on M�disun, lowa, has suhmitted documents tl�at substantially comply with those requirements. See Doc. No. I . 6ecause il is clear d�a[ plaintiff tloes no[ have the assels oecess�ry [o pay tl�e filing fee, his applicti�iun is granted. However, even �hough the couri �eems ii nppropri�te to grant plaintiFf in forma ��auperis s�ams. plaintiff is reyuired to pay the full $350.00 filing tee by making payments on an instullment basis. 28 U.S.G ti 1915(b)(1); see olsn !n re Tj�ler, 110 P.3d 523, 529-30 (Sih Cir. I997) ("IT]hc �Prisuner Litigation Relb�Tn Act] makes prisoners responsible for their filing fees Che moment the prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal."). Thc full (iling lee will be collec[ed even if the coun dismisses the case because ii is frivobus ur innlicious, fdils tn state a daim on which relief may be gran[eil, or seeks money dsma�es against a defendant who is iinmu�e Ir�m such relieY. 28 U.S.0 $ 19I5(e)(Z). Here, plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee in ll�e amount uf twenry percent of the greater ut his nveia�e mon[hty nccount b�lnnce or average montlily deposics For the 5ix mo��[hs preceding the filing of lhe coinplaint. 28 U.SC. ti 1915(b)(1). Based un [he docwnen[s tha[ pinintiPt submitted, the cour[ Finds that the initial partial filing Cee is $.7>. (See Doc. No. I ut 4). PlximiFf shtill submit $JS by no later than thirty days from the date uf �his or�er. I[ the court does nut receive payment by this deadline. �he instant actfon shnll be dis'inissed pursitan[ to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4t(b) (pennit[ing disnissal wlien a plaintil'f either Fnils to prosecute or teils' to res'pond tu an order of d�e courq; Hntchins r. .A.G. Edirm-ds & Soiis, 1I6 P.3d L56, 1�9-60 (Stli Cir. 1997) (explaining court's i power to dismiss an �ction). If necessary, plaintiff may reyuest i� a written motiun an extension of tiine to pay the iniGal pariial tiling fce. In addition [o [he initial partiul filing lee, pl�indff musi "mnke monthly paymencs of 20 percent of the prece�ing inonth's inrome crediicd to the pri5oner's accoun�." 28 U.SC � 19U(b)(3). "fhe s[atute pl2ces [he burden on [he prisoner's institution �o collect the additional mo��dily payments and fo�w�rd [hem to tlre court. SpeciYically: �a�fter puyment uf the initiul pnrtinl Piling fse, the prisuner shall be required [o make monthly payments oY 20 percent of the preeeding month's income crediled �o the prisoner's taecouni. "Phe agency having cus[ody of the prisoner shull forward paymen�v Yrom [he prisoner's accoun[ m the clerk of the court etich �ime tlie amuum in tl�e accouni exceeds $10 until the filing Fces are paid. 28 U.S.C. � 1915(b)(2). Thcrefore, alter plaintilf puys in full the initial partial Filing fee, �he reinuining insu�IlmenLti shall be collec[ed by the ins[imtion having cus[ody of[he plaintiff. The elerk's ntfice shall sen� a oopy ul [his order and the notiee of colleetion of filing fee tu the xppropria�e ofliciat at the place where plaintiff is an inmate. 77. /;VIT/AL REVIEW STANDARD A pro se cumpluin[ muat be liberally comtrued. See Hughes r. Roive, 4�M19 U S. 5, 9 (1980); Naines ��. Kernei�, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiain); Sn1irL i�. S�. Bernar�ls Reg '! A4ed. Ctr. . 19 F.3d RSd, 1255 (Rth Cir. 1991); see n(so Stane v. Har��. 36d P3d 912, 91d (3[h Cic 2004) (explsining that, although pro se compiaints mu�t be liberally construed, they must allege sufl�icient facts lo suppor[ the clxims diat are advaoced). In adJition. unless the tac�.alleeed are clearly baseless, [hey must be weighed in 1'ttvor ol[hc plaintil'1. See Deriton r. Nernu��de�. 504 U.S. 2j, 32-33 (1992). A court, however, ct+n dismiss ai any time a complaint Yiled i� forma pauperis if[he complaint is fi-ivolous, malicious, f:�ils to siate a claim un which relief may be grnnted or seeks � mnnetxry relicf agai�st e defendant who iv immune I'ront such relief. See ZS U.S.C. � I915(c)Q): ?8 U.SC �,�' 191iA(b)(I). A claim iti "frivolous'� if i[ "lacks an arguable basis in la�a� or in fnet." Nei�zhe v. N�iLlirm�.ti', 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); nccord Cnkeder v. L'ndelL 27 F3d 331, 33? (8th Cir. 1994). An action feils to state a claim upon which relief can he o�nnmd if it does not plead "enough fac[s ro state a clnim to relief tliat is plausible on i�c fna�." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Tivonzbly, 550 US. �4d, 570 (2007). Accordingly, u u�ur� may review �he complaint nnd dismiss sua spunte those elaims tli�t t'ail "io raise a rfght �o rclief above tlie specolative level. , . .... Parkhur-st r. 7hbor, _569 1=3d 861, 865 (Sth Cir. 2009) (qunting 6ell Ail., >50 U.S. a[ 555), ur that are premised on meritless legnl �heories or dearly lack any facwal basis, see Neit;,ke, 490 U.S. �u 32i. See, e.g., Denton ��. HerrzanAez. 504 U S. at 27 (coacidering Yrivolousness); Mpers v. Vognl, 960 I�.2d 750, 751 (Sth Cir. 1992) (concluding tha[ a district cour[ maV dismiss an action if an atfirmative defense exists). IIL INIT/AL REVIEW ANALYS/S A. ,��' l9S3 Sta�admrl Tiile 42 U.SC. � I933 provides, in relevant par�: Every person wlio, under colnr of eny stawte, ordinance, regulalion, custnm, or usaee, of �ny State or Ten�i[ory . . . suV>jects, ur cauxes to he subjected, any citizen of the Unite�l Swtes nr odier person within [hc jurisdicnon thereof to the dcprivation nf any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by �he Coi�stiw[iun aud luws, sliall be liable to the party i�juretl in �n action at law, suit in eyuity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . 42 U.SC. j 1983 �i�as designed to provide a "broad remedy for violatio�s of federally protec[ed civil riehts." il9one11 r. Dep't of Soc. Seres„ 436 U.S. 658, 685 j 1978). However, d2 U.SC $ 19b3 provides no subs�anti��e righ[s. SeeAfbrrght r. O(ivrr, �10 U.S. 2GG. 27l (1994): Grnhnrii r. C�>nner, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989); Ginpmnn i�. 4 Housemi Welfizre 2ikh�s Org., 44l U.S. 600, 6t7 (1979). "One cannot go inro courl and claim a 'vinlu�ion ol �42 U.SC� § 1983' — (or 143 US.C.� $ 1983 by itself dues noi protect anynne agnins[ nny[hiug.` Cl+opnion, 4AI U.S. at 61Z Rather, 42 US.C. § 1983 provides u remedy for viulations of all '7ights, privilege.c, or immunities secw-ed bv Che Constitution and laws �ot the Uni[ed Stn[esJ." 42 U.SC. y 7983; see nlso rl(bi'ight, 510 U.S. nt 277 (42 U.S.C. y 1933 "merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights els'ewhere conferred."); Grah�on, 490 U.S. at 393-94 (same); Mnine v. Thibouto�, 448 U.S. 1, 4 (1980) ("Constimtiun and laws" means 42 U.SC. § 19&3 provides remedies Por violations of rigl�[s crcated by tederul stam�e, as �vell as those createJ by the C�ons�itution.). To s'tate a claim under 42 U.SC $ L9S3, a plaintiff must establisli: (L) the violation of a right securcd by the Constitutiun or laws of the United Sm[es and (21 �he alleged deprivation of thet right was committed by a ��erson acting under color of .ta[e law. See West r. A�kins, 487 U.S. 42. 48 (1985). B. Plninti%('s C/nims Hay�+�ood's filings contain a cunFusing jumble of alleoations', sta[ements ancl yues[ions. Lt is clear ihat Haywood is' up.se[ thu� he was arrested ancl convic[ed of a variety of charges in stare court.' Ho��ever, tlie inxjority of his mnnerous filings fail �u allege uclionable, pnnicularized, consti[utional claims. See, ef�� Doc. No. l-I at 33 (a Iist ot grievances against Haye�ood's public defender), nt 32 (a lis't of grievances regarding loel Guss. a police officer, for not pursuing diflerent charges ant] Mor n��nsponing Hnywood to jaip and at 28 (a list oi grieva�ces against Ryan Gallaeher, a � See Stme r. Hovwoorl, 2017 W L J570510, ai *t Qowe CL App. 2U17) fdiscussing Hay�cooiPs convietion nn seven coun�s, tive ulsii�@ out ot a domes[ic al[erca[fun with his tlien �ii9friend, smd bvu related lo hrandishin� a knife whilc being booked inlojaiU � state eourt prosecu�or, For his cunduc[ during Hxywood's [risp. Moreover, mos-t of Ilaywood's pro se filings are wriuen in [hc form of yuestions. See, e.g., Doc. No. 4 a� l, stetiug, "Terry Kw'i. Attorney. Were you aw.�re thut police off'ieer Kim Hoover's �es�imuny conflicted [with] her parmer's .lunathxn Brokens, in regard to Hoover tdling I3rokens thut Hoover told Nicole Connolly [u drop the knife vcrsus Hoover tes[itying tl�at the kniFe was already on ihe ground upon arrival?" (some modifications made fur the sakc of cl�riiv). Accordingly, ihose "claims" must be dismissed. Mureu��er, even iY I could find cognizeble claims in Haywood's jumble, they �ilmost all wuuld be burred by vurious immunities. 4laywood's daims against the lowu state courts �mJ s[ate coun employees are barred hy the doctrines uf judicial fmmuniry and quasi,judicial immunitv. SeetL7nrrin r. Hendren. IZ7 F3d 720. 721 (8th Cir. 1997), stxting: Absolute quasi-judicial immunity derives Grom absoluie ju�icial immuniry." Roltand r. Phillips. 19 F,3d 552, 5�5 (lld� Cir. 1994). Judges are ahsolu[ely immune frum suit for money damaees m�hen they nct in lheir judicinl capaciry, unless their aetions are "t�ken in �he eompletc absence of all jurisdiction." DGu��. 42 F3d a� 467_. A jud�e's absolute immunity extends to public oNlcials for "'ac[s they are specifcalty reyuired to do undercoun order or :u ajudge's directioa"' Robinsnn v. Free<,e. IS F3d 107, 109 Bth Cir. I994) (9uming Rogeia� ��. Br�imrrager, 841 F.2d 553, 856 (S�h Cir.1988}), Like other officials, bailiffs' enjoy absolute quasi judicial immuniry for uctions "specifically ordered by the vial judge end related to the judicial tunction." Id. Hay�aood',s claims �gainst st�ite prosecu[ors ere barred hy prosecutnrial iminuniry. See Vnn de Knnrp r. Golda'tein, 555 U.S. 33�. 340-4I (?009), stetiiig: Over e half ccntw�y ago Chief .lu�e�e Learned Hand explaincd that a prusecutor's �bsolute immunip� rrfleci's "a h�lanee" of "evils." Gregoire v. Bidd[e. I77 F_2d 579, 581 (CA1 1949). "�I�t has been thought in the end 6etter." he seid, `to lexve unrcdressed the wrongs done by dishones[ nf(ieers than to subject those u�ho try to do their dury to lhe constanG dread 6 uf retaliation." lDid. Ln In�b[er. supra, this Court considered prosecutorial actions tllat are� "intiinately associated wiffi thejudicial phase nf the criminal process." /td., ui 430, 96 S.Ct. 984. And, referring w ChieFJudge Hand's views, it held that prosecutors are �bsuW[ely immune frum liabiliry in § 1983 lawsui[s brough� under such eircumstances. ld., at 428, 96 S.Ct. 984. Haywood's ci�iins against statc ��ublic defenders are similady fuiile. See 3'ourrg v. /oi+�a, 2015 WL 4473229, a[ 'i (N.D. lowa 2075), stating: [A] f�deral sui� generally does not arise tbr actioas tl�at an attorney (privately retained, comt-appointeU or defender oi tl�e public) takes during ' the course oi represen[ing a crimival deFendant. See Pollc Cour�(y v. Dad�sori, 0.54 0.5. 312. 3?5 (l9Sl): Biln] r. Kapl�an. 90d F.2d 14, IS (8th Cir. 1990): Nlil[s r. Crimi��nl Dia��. Cour� No. .i. 837 F.2d 677. 679 (Sih Cir. 1983); Na[e>>, 751 F'.?d a[ 285. �loreuver. i� is clear Haywoud is, in part, challenging hfs convic[ion, �ot [he contliiions of his confiuement, and, therefure, he can only brin��, this action as � habeas corpus ncfioa See Wi[kinso�i r. Dounn, 544 U.S. 74. 81-82 (2005) (ststing tha[ a 42 U.SC � 1983 action is burred if[he plaintiYPs clnims necessarily impl�� the invalidiry of his confinement or its dura[ion); Heck r. Humphr�p, SIZ U.S. 477. 481 (1994) (stating tl�ak a wrii of� habeas co�pus "'is �he exciusivc remeily for a stare prisoner who challenges thc fact or durution of his confinement and seeks immediste or speedier release"); Preiser v. Rodr'i,ei�ez, 411 U.S. 475, i00 (1973) ltinding tha[ a wrii of hnbens corpus is the only federal remedy available if a plaintiFt is challenging the validiry of his eonviction or the dma[ion of hie incarceration and seeking e �etennination that he is entitled tu immediate or speedier relaasej; Deloria r. Z.ightenberg, 400 F. App'x 777, 118 (8th Cir. 2010) (same). Stnted diFFerentty. H�ywood's challenge cani�o[ be brought in an aciiun under 42 U.SC � 1983 hecausc hr �vuuld necessarily have to demonstrnte die invalidiry of his confinement �u successtully ubtain relieF. 7 1 also I�ck the eu�hurity to review tlecisions [ha� the Ioevx state coun made. The federal court is precludecl fi�nm intcrfering in tl�e in[crworkings nfu sta[c wurt in criminal matters. See Sprint CommrSis, Inc v. Jocobs, 571 U.S. 69, 134 S. Ct. 584. �91 (2013) (explaining diai Younger r. Horris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), precludes a cour� Crnm inn�uding into ongoing sw[e criminal prosecutions); 7�m�(erc r. Srmavorr, S73 F3d 591, �93-9� (S�h Cir. 2009) (determining tha� dis[rict cow't property abstainecl from hearing clsim because there was no showine uf brd f�i�h or nther exv�ordinup� circumstances); Nonvood v. Diekcv, 409 F.3d 901 , 903 (8th Cir. 2005) Qisting fac�ors to be considered). Hav��ond also reyuests munetary damages for civil rights violntions. To the ex�ent [hat hc requests dam�ges iu rela[io� m his confinement, such relief is unavailable because notliing in�ica�es th�t he is tercing an invnlid sentcnce. See lle��k, 513 U.S. a� dS6-87 (claritying that a cause of aetion for damaees does nol nrise until 'ihe eonvietion m� s'entence has becn rcversed on direc[ appeal, expunged by executi��e order. dedared invalid by tin authorized state trihunal .... or c�llell in�o yuestion by the issua��ce of a writ of habet�s corpus"1. For the abuvc s�a[ed roasons. xll ol Haywood's claims ngainst Ryan Gallagher, S�an Ryun, Alex Scott, Kane Hoffinxn, Joel Cross, Kim Huover, Chris Welch, Terry Kurt, Dubuque Clerk of Court, Frank Lnnge, Dubuque Police OfGcers and S[ate of Lowa Empluyees are tlismissed. The one exceptiun is Haywood's claim :igains[ .lonathxn I3rokens. in the middle of his complaint, I-laywood presents a someti�hat concis'e cl�im thai Rrokens, n Dubuyue police ofFicer, engage�d in "excessive Furce" by hitnng Hayevood's hend on a squad car, cxusing I-Inywond injuries and sutfering. See Doc. No. 1-1 �t 14-15 (9-10 by Haywoud's page numberin�). 6ecaus't a claim oP excessive foree by an arrestiog ol Ilcer is cognizable under 5 1983, Hay��ood's excessive lorce claim will be allowed to proceed past initial revie�v. See Chnmbers r, Pennvconk, 641 1=3d 398. 906 (8th Cir. 2U11) (diticussing � §1953 swn�ards whrn an arrestee cluims that oflicers used e�ece5sive force during an arresl). Pinally, Haywood repea�edly requests thut 1 "fiIe" criminal charges agains�various dekndan�s. A federal court does not have the authuriry to commenee criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Uni�ed Smtes r. A��msn'oi�g, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996j (makine clear tha4 it is ihe execu[ive branch that retains broad discretion to enfnrce criminal laws). It Haywno� believes a crime oecurred, he should consult law eniorcement officiuls, and, aFrer coinlueting an inves[igation, Uiose officials may cunsult with prosecu�ors m deter�nine �vhether charges �rc �van'anted. W hether tu prasecu�e and what eh�rges to file or 6rin�_ are decisions tlia[ rest in the provecutor's discretiun. See Unired Stotes v. Bntche[dei�, 442 U S. lld. 124 (1979); Bordenkir�'l+e�- v. Hrives. 43d U.S. 3�7. 364 (1975); Parkh�n�s� r. Tabor, i69 F3d 861, 867 (Sth Cic 2009). Accordingly, Haywood's request is denied. 14', hIOT/ON TO APPOlN7' COUNSEL Under 23 U.SC yti'1915(e)Qj "[[Jhe court may reyuest an attorney to repraseo� any persnn m�able to alFord couns'el." Ho�vever, "�a] pro sc litigant has no stam[o�y or constinitional right �o have cou�sel appuinted in a civil case." Stevens c. Rechviny, lA6 P3d �35, Sd6 (Sth Cir. 1998). "The �districiJ court h�s a good deal uf discretion [o de�emiine �vhe[her represen[ation is w�rrnn�ed giveo the nanire of the case ai�d �he li[igan�s. Phif[ips. 437 P.3d at 794." Chmn6e�:s r. Perun'rooA, 641 F.3d 898. 909 (8th Cir. 20l I). Whcn de[ermining �vliether ro appoint counsel for a� indigent civil li�igant, the dis'tric[ court considerc relevant lactors such as the cumplexiry of tlie case, the �bilip� of tlte indigem litigun[ [u investiaate the facts, [he eris[ence ot contlieting testimony, and the ability of[he indigen� to present his claim. See Jolursmr v. 1Ni!limris, 78S F2d 131 J. 1322-33 (8th Cir.19H6). q Redu•ing, 146 F.3d a[ 546. After considering those fac�ors, f ain pe�suaded that the a��pointmen[ oF counsel is noi warr.�nied. Aeeordingly, the motiou m appoint counsel (Doa No. 3) is denied. � V. OTHER DIOTIONS Haywood also tiled a inotion sryled "a petiiion for a wriC of mandamus." Doc. No. 3. In substance, it is a motion to compel, requesting thal �he court urder bodi I-laywood's past caunsel and another individuxl, Amanda 6rokus, �o provide him certain docwnems. Regarding the former, Huywood's past enunsel is being dismissed as x detendant Rom this case. Accordingly, d�a[ portion of the mo[ion is deniud. Regarding the latrer, dierc is no indication un the tace of any nf Hay�vood's pleudings as' to whom Amxncla Brokus is, much Ie,es why this court wnuld heve juri�diction to compel her w give documan[s to Hnywood. Accordingly, [hat motion is also denied. Finully, Naywoo� filed a correcUy-sryled mution to compel (Doc. No. 6). In tha� motiu�, Htiywood asks ihat tlie defendams be direc[ed to provide him "all material rolated to Llnyd I-IaywooJ... Hoevever, at the timc Haywuod Filed the motion, �he case had not been filed or served, su the inotion is not timely. Accurdingly, Haywood's motion (Doc. No. 6) is denie� widinut prejudfce. IF the remaining defendant fails to provide Haywood � discovery in the manner set forth in �he Fede�ral Rules of Civil R�icedure, he may refile , his mrniun m cuinpel. Vl. CONCL(ISION Fur the reasons set forth herein: I . I-laywood'e mo�ion ro proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. I) is granted. 10 2. "i�he clerk's office is direc�ed to file tlie complaim (Doc. No. I-i) as a new enu'y witliout the prepayment of the liling ler. 3. Haywood is' directed ro submit an iniiial par[ial Filine of $0.7i by no la[er than April 23, ?OIS. If necessxry, he may requesi in a written motion an c�:tension of time [o pay the initial par[ial filing fee. Addi[ionally, after he pays the initial partial I'iling fee, die institution hxvine cusmdy of hiin is dirac�ed to collect and remit moiidily payments in �lie manner set fortli in 2E U.S.0 y 1915(b)(2). Until the $3�0.00 filing fee is paid in full, Haywood is obligaled tu pay and the i��stitution having custody of him is obliga[ed to forward ZO percem of tlie preceding inonth's income credited to his account et�ch time the amount in the accoun[ exceeds $10.00. 4. i'he clerk's otfice is directed to send a copy of �his order and Che notice nf collec[ion o{ fiiling fee ta the appropriate ofYicial x� the �lace N•here Haywood is an iumate. �. Haywood's motion to appoin[ counsel (Doc. No. 2) is denied. 6. Hay�+�ood's motion for a writ ot'men�amus (Doc. No. 3) is denied. 7. liaywuod's mo�ion m compel (Duc. Na 6) is denied. � S. As set out xboae, all claims, other than Ore excessive force claim agains[ .lonathan Brokens, are dismissed. Accor�ingly, defenda�ts Ryan Gallaghcr, Stan Ryan, Alex Scott, Knne Hoffmnn, 7oel Cross, Kim Hoover, Chris Welch, T'eriy hurt, Frank Lxnge, Duhuque Clerk of Court, Dubuyue Police Officers xnd Stute of foe�a ara dismissed from this case. J. 'fhe clerk's oltice is direered to serve, vi� certiFled mail, the complaini, a copy oi this order and a �vaiver nf service uf summons form on bo[h Jnnathen l3rokens c/o the Dubuque, lowa, Police Departinent and the Dubuque, fowa, Ciry Attorney. II IT IS SO ORllERED. DA'Clill this 23rd day uf March, 20I8. � i � 'i�' ' �� Leonard T. S[ra��d, Chief Judge 12 TO: N'ARllEN/��DMINIS7'RATOR lowa St�te Penitentia�y, Fort Madismi, lowa NOTICE OF COLLECTION OF FILING FCE You are hereby glven noiice that Llnyd Haywoud, an inmate a� your facility, iiled the following lawsuit in the United States District Court for [he Northern District of Lowa: Hn�nvood v. Gnlloyher, et al., Case No. G7-0091-L"1'S. The inmate ��as gran[ed in tonua pauperis status pursunnt ro 28 U.S.0 ,��' 1915(b), which reyuires �artial paymc��ts of the $350.00 filing fee. [iaseU on the inmate's statements, [he court hns assessed an . initial partial filin�, fee of$.75, which the inm�te must pay now m tlie clerk of eoun. See ZS U.SC. § 19I5(b}(7). ARer pnyme�t of the initial partiaL filiug tce, the �imna[ef �hall be reyuired . �o make monthly papments of?0 percem ot the preccYling month's inconte crcdi�ed to �his� account. The agency having cusrody of the [inmate� shall — forward puyments from IhisJ account [u �he cltrk of die com��each [ime the .unount in the accoum exceeds SIO until O�e filing fees are paid. 23 U.S.C. � 1915(b)(3j. ThereYore, you must moui�or [he account nnd sen� payments eo the clerk of cow't aceording �o Ihe system provided in 28 O.S.C. § 19U(b)(2), that is, af�er plaintiff pnys the initial ��artial Ciling Y�z of$.75, you should begin making monthly payments oF20 percent of the preeeding month's income cradited to the imna�e's accounl. Please mshe the apprnpriate nrrangements lo hnve tl�ese fees deducted and sent to the court as instructed. ay : /s/ des, Depucy Clerk_ Rnben L. Phelps U.S. Disn-ic� Court Clerk Nor[hern District ot Iowa nchn'o�+i,rnc�trn�r oF eiacrivr or tiOTICE O� I,AN'5l�IT, and �YAI�9?R OF SERVICI? OF SO�Y(610N5 1;'kRnium tl�ia doanneni wiihin ihiriy days ailler 3123/2018 . m tl�e Unitet�S�atcs Clerk's Olfice in the envelopc provideJ.l I;� 'CHE UNITED STATES DIS'PRIC'P COUR'f FOR THC 1'ORTHERN DISTRICT OI' IOWA CEDAR 2APIDS DIVISIOtF LLOYD RAYNIOND HAYWOOD, PlniniifF, Nu. C17-009L-LTS VS RYAN GALLAGHER, et al.. Defen�ants. 1 acknowledge rcceipt ef lhu complainl and noiive ol'ihe la�vsuil in wliich I (or Ihe eNity un whosc behalf I am addressed) have Ucen uamed a delendanl. 1 h[we rereived anJ/or rcad the complafnt a¢nmpxnyinG Ihis dacumcnl. I a�ree �o suve the cus't ol strvlce ol a smmnons xnd an additionel copy ol'ihe eomplaint b}' ��ot reyuirine ilmi I (or ihu rnlily a� �vhose behall'I ¢m acling) bc served wiihjudicial prucess in thc manner provided 6p Rulc 1 ul thc Feda'�I Rules of Cicil Promdw'e. I hereby �vaive sen�iec ul sunununs. I (nr ihe enGiy on �vhose behull I am ucling) ��'ill retain all delenses ur ubjcaions �o [he lao�suit or In lhe jurisdlctiun or venueof ihe Courtczccpl Inru6jections hased on a defecl in lhe sen�ice of summons. I undersc�nd tlmt a juJgment mny be enlertd �gninsl me (oe the entiiy on whus'e ha6nlf I am acting) if an aus�vcr or motion undcr RWe I?of ihe Feder.il Rulus ol'Cieil Pmecdure ie noL served �villiin 60 days a�ter 3/23I2018 , l�he dote �blicc, Wi�ircr u�d correspoWing duwmenis �acre sen9. Daic Sienawrc Printrd nantc As ol (Tille) (Entily) Uate Sienamre Printed name As of (Titic) (Entiiy) 2 IAND Version 6.I hups,pecf iand.circ8.dcn/c�i-bfn/Dispnlch.pl?8020191064A0614 I Prisoner Other Orders 1:17-cv-00091-LTS Haywood v. Gallaqher et al U.ti, District Cuurl fVortl�crn Distrift of loa�a Notice of Electronic Filing Thc follo�eing traiunciion ��es enlered on 3/u"'2018 et I'89 PM CDT�nA tiled on 7/32019 C»se Name Hay�vood v. G;�Il,ighcret nl Case Numbcr: 1:17-cwUU091-Cf5 Filci: � � —�� Docwnent Nnmber: I i Docl<rt Te�C ORDER granting [1] Pro Se Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Clerk shall file the complaint as a new entry without the prepayinent of the fee. Prisoner Lloyd Raymond Haywood pay Initial Filing Fee of$.75 6y 412 312 0 1 8. [2] Pro Se Motion to appoint counsel is denied. [3] Pro Se Motion for a writ of mandamus is denied. [6] Pro Se Motion to Compel is denied. All claims, other than the excessive force Gaim against defendant Jonathan Brokens, are dismissed. Accordingly, defendants Ryan Gallagher, Stan Ryan, Alez Scott, Kane Hofhnan, Joel Cross, Kim Hoover, Chris Welch, Terry Kurt, Frank Lan�e, Dubuque Clerk of Court, �ubuque Police Officers and State of iowa are dismissed from . this case. Clerk of Court directed ro serve the complaint, a copy of this order and a waiver of service of summons fonn on both defendant Jonathan Brokens and the Dubuque, lowa, City Attorney via certified mail. Signed by Chief Jud9e Leonard T Strand on 3/23/2018. (copy w/nef mailed to pro se — plaintiff; copy wlnef, complaint and waiver of service of summons form mailed by certified mail to Jonathan Brokens and the �ubuque, lowa County Attorney; Notice of Collection mailed to Warden) (des) 1:17-cr-00091-LTS Nolice has bcen elcctrunically mailed lo: 1:17-n'-U0091-I.TS Noticc hus heen delivered bc other menns tu: I.lord Rt�ymond Heyo�ood 671�164 IowN Sta[e Penirentian� PO 6or 316 Pon Madlson, I� 5�627 The followine dncumenl(s)ere associaled �ritli this ttansaciion'. Document Acscrip[ian:Mzin Dacumen[ Originel Elenamcidn Clcctranic document Stmmp: [STA�dP dcec ISi:+in p_I D=102i896836�Dafc=il23/201 SJ [Pi leN umbei-1939534-0 ] [19c3113fb�abde656166ecbbe>6�977e7e9e336cd14416ei19ftt2ec7825ce913ePo aa4131b316d0:c109a28dOd8b911ab14d04e4e13617b6�e03a6�2edIcG71]] I of I 03,�3^_018 L99 PM