TONJA BROWN
2907 Lukens Lane
Carson City, NV 89706
775-882-2744
Plaintiff in Pro Se
UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
TONJA BROWN, as an Individual;
and
TONJA BROWN, administratrix of the Estate of Nolan Klein.
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF NEVADA ex rel.
The Department of Corrections, Director Greg Cox,
BOARD OF PRISON COMMISSIONERS
GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL,
ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHERINE CORTEZ-MASTO,
SECRETARY OF STATE ROSS MILLER,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM GEDDES,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL KARA KRAUSE
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________/
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Comes now, Plaintiff TONJA BROWN as an INDIVIDUAL, and on behalf of the Estate of NOLAN
KLEIN, , alleges as her compliant the following:
JURISDICTION
1.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 ,
in that the claims herein arise under the federal civil rights statues, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in
that federal questions exist. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over state law claims.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. The venue of this action is properly placed in the District of Nevada pursuant to
28 U.S.C. & 1391 because the incidents that gave rise to this claim occurred in Carson
City, Nevada
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
3 This is a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985. This is an action for
damages and cost brought by Tonja Brown, as an Individual Tonja Brown, who is the Administrator of
the Estate of Nolan Klein, is the Heir to the Estate of Nolan Klein.
Defendants Breached the Settlement Agreement that was made in case No. USDC
Case No. 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC on or about March 30, 2012.
Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement and violated Brown’s First Amendment to the
United States constitution when Plaintiff Brown appeared and spoke before the December 5, 2011
Board of Prison Commissioners.
Defendants Sandoval, Masto, Miller Geddes, Cox violated Plaintiff BROWN’S rights to free
speech to exonerate her name that was agreed upon by all parties in case USDC . 3:10-cv-00679- ECR(VPC) when Plaintiff Brown brought to the attention of the Board of Prison Commissioners the
misconduct and bad acts that had been perpetrated against inmates, including Nolan Klein, Brown’s
brother in case No. USDC KLEIN v HELLING 3:05-cv-0390-PMP-VPC.
As Brown was attempting to exonerate her name from the false and defamatory information
that defendants NDOC and Geddes had disseminated to state and federal agencies, Brown began to
publicly expose Deputy Attorney General William Geddes for withholding of exculpatory evidence, in
Nolan Klein’s case No. United States District Court KLEIN v HELLING 3:05-cv-0390-PMP-VPC resulting in
Brady Violations when NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE came forth out of the August 5, 2011 Discovery
in USDC . 3:10-cv-00679- ECR-VPC
Exhibit NDOC 3811. A letter dated December 2, 2005 written by the Attorney General’s Office
that had exonerated Ms. Brown and Mr. Klein that Defendant Geddes intentionally had withheld from
Klein and the Federal Court.
As Plaintiff Brown continued with her statement to the Commissioners she began to describe
what defendant Geddes had done in the KLEIN V HELLING 3:05-CV-0390-PMP (VPC) case and wherein,
DAG Geddes had made BRADY violations when Geddes had withheld evidence from IN CAMERA to the
Court. This document was crucial to Klein’s case and in the Court’s decision. This document had
exonerated Brown and Klein and would have supported Nolan Klein’s case against NDOC.
Brown described how this had now personally affected her health since the discovery of the
documents that slandered, defamed her name and reputation.
Plaintiff went on to state how Geddes misconduct, bad acts, had a profound negative impact on
KLEIN’s outcome in said case based on the Brady violation committed by Defendant Geddes.
Brown had submitted the Deposition of Don Helling, former Warden of the Northern Nevada
Correctional Center, whose deposition revealed that in 2007 when the computer software program was
installed at NNCC it flipped and put false felony charges in inmates file, including Nolan Klein’s. Klein’s
file was disseminated to the Parole Board and to the Pardons Board. Klein was denied.
Brown had submitted documents that were turned over in Discovery during the in USDC . 3:10cv-00679- ECR-VPC case that Plaintiff was the Plaintiff in. These documents were deemed public record
and not confidential and were needed in order to exonerate Brown’s name and reputation.
Brown submitted other documents as well that were not tuned over by defendant
Geddes, but, rather Plaintiff in Discovery that were needed to exonerate Brown’s name and reputation.
Plaintiff requested from the Board of Prison Commissioners for a letter of apology from NDOC
for what they had done to Brown and Klein regarding the Huston matter.
Brown asked to conduct an investigation into Geddes cases for possible Brady violations as he
had done in the Klein v Helling case and to file a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada for his
misconduct.
Brown exposed Deputy Attorney General Janet Traut for Constitutional Rights, Brady violations
against inmate’s in their federal court cases. The documents showed the NDOC discriminated against
certain Earth Based Religions, a Religion that Nolan Klein and Inmate Michael Spencer belonged too.
When Plaintiff Brown finished with her comments and provided the Board of Prison
Commissioners the documents that supported Defendant Geddes bad acts, and the Brady violations
committed by Geddes in Nolan Klein’s case, Geddes then stepped up to the Board of Prison
Commissioners and had everything Brown said Stricken and removed from the record and everything
that Brown had submitted to them in her effort to exonerate her name and reputation that was deemed
by the Settlement Agreement that she could do to be Stricken and removed the record claiming that
everything Brown had submitted to them was deemed Confidential by Settlement
Agreement made with Brown on or about November 29, 2011..
Defendant Geddes declared Brown’s testimony and documents as Confidential in order to chill
Brown’s free Speech from exposing his bad acts.
Defendants, Sandoval, Masto, Miller, Geddes, Krause Cox allowed and continue to this day to
have all of the December 5, 2011 documents and statements made by Brown stricken and removed
from the record, thereby, violating Brown’s first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the right to
exonerate her name and reputation that was agreed upon by all parties for her to do.
Taken from the Nevada Board of Prison Commissioners web site. December 5, 2011 minutes.
. “ Senior Deputy Attorney General Will Geddes on behalf of the Attorney General’s office and
the NDOC; stated for the record that the NDOC reserves the right to strike from the record any
confidential material read into the record by Ms. Tonja Brown and documents she has asked to be
received into the record by Ms. Tonja Brown specifically the letter stamped NDOC 03811.”
* “Due to a settlement agreement, several documents submitted for posting with these minutes
have been specified as confidential and therefore will not be posted. Additionally, information
on several other documents needs to be redacted before posting. The settlement agreement
affects documents listed as attachments 2 and 12. Once the documents in question have been
reviewed, the allowable documents will be placed in this record. “
The Board of Prison Commissioners, Governor Brian Sandoval, Secretary of State Ross Miller,
Nevada Attorney General Katherine Cortez-Masto, the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, and Director
Greg Cox Department of Corrections refused to take any action to correct the Breach of the Settlement
Agreement or hold GEDDES accountable for Brady violations in the KLEIN v HELLING case no 3:05-cv0390 PMP (VPC) or prevent him from violating my free speech.
That after the December 5, 2011 Board of Prison Commissioners meeting, but, prior to the May
17, 2012 Board of Prison Commissioners meeting, Brown submitted documents known as the
deposition of NDOC Dr. Karen Gedney to the Commissioners of the Advisory Commission on the
Administration of Justice.
Defendants Masto and Geddes intervened with Plaintiffs First Amendment when Geddes
approached the Legislative Staff in an attempt to have Brown’s documents not presented to the
Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice. Defendant Geddes informed staff that
Brown’s documents were confidential records.
Brown provided Staff with the Settlement Agreement and staff allowed these documents to
become a part of the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice public record.
Brown had testified before the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice and
informed the about NDOC Don Helling’s deposition in the wrongful death suit and how his testimony
revealed a 2007 computer glitch that put false felony charges in Inmates files, including, Nolan Klein’s.
Brown testified how these false charges were disseminated to the 2007 Parole Board and the 2008
Pardons Board where Mr. Klein had appeared before them. Mr. Klein had been denied his paroles and a
pardon. As a result of the information provided to the Advisory Commission on the Administration of
Justice it lead to an Audit to be conducted on the NDOC
On May 17, 2012 Brown appeared before the Board of Prison Commissioners and presented the
deposition of Dr. Karen Gedney. The same deposition that Defendants Masto and Geddes attempted to
intervene with Brown’s free speech. The public deposition of Dr. Karen Gedney detailed the medical
treatment of Inmates and how the treatment is given and to who decides treatment, and how NDOC did
not have a protocol established to treat contagious infectious diseases, MRSA . These documents were
submitted for the record to the Defendants on the Board of Prison Commissioners.
Brown had become aware of Advocate for the inmates who started to develop medical
problems in 2007 and has been in a downward spiral with her health after she contracted MRSA in 2007
while visiting her husband. Brown made this known regarding this Advocates ongoing health problems..
Brown went on to inform the Board of Prison Commissioners about the deposition of NDOC Don
Helling that revealed a 2007 computer glitch that put false felony charges in inmates file and how the
file was disseminated to the Parole Board and to the Pardons Board in the Nolan Klein case. Other
inmates had false additional charges in their files. The board became aware of that an inmate had been
physically injured by the computer glitch when he was taken down by NDOC staff because of an
attempted escape charge that was now in his file. .
The Defendants accepted the said documents from Brown and then refused to place them on
the May 17, 2012 public record claiming confidential documents as part of the Settlement Agreement.
Defendants Sandoval, Masto, Miller, Geddes, Krause, Cox violated Plaintiffs rights in order to
chill her speech, her advocacy for the inmates and Defendant Geddes actions to withhold exculpatory
evidence from in CAMERA in Case the Klein v Helling case No. 2005 3:05-cv-390-PMP-VPC
That on or about March 19, 2013 Defendants Sandoval, Masto, Miller, the Nevada Board of
Prison Commissioners then passed the Audits Recommendations that was requested of by the Advisory
Commission on the Administration of Justice signed by Defendant Greg Cox Director
of NDOC.
Defendants SANDOVAL, MASTO, MILLER, COX, GEDDES, KRAUSE continue to violate Plaintiff’s
free speech, her liberties and the pursuit of happiness by not allowing the December 5, 2011 public
records on the Board of Prison Commissioners web site, Minutes, or anywhere where inmates or
families of inmates, friends, or the public may access to these documents, more specifically, information
that had exonerated KLEIN and BROWN in USDC KLEIN v HELLING Case No. 3:05-CV-0390 PMP (VPC),
and a letter of apology from Defendants, NDOC, Geddes regarding the Klein v Helling case.
Defendants continue to violate the Open Meeting Law under the Board of Prison Commissioners
public meetings,
Defendants continue to Breached of the Settlement Agreement/Contract in the USDC . 3:10cv-00679- ECR-VPC that was entered in by all parties.
Defendants Sandoval, Masto, Miller, Geddes, Krause, Cox, NDOC have a practice and
has adopted a policy not to enforce Settlement Agreement and to chill Brown’s free speech.
It has been at least 18 months since the December 5, 2011 Board of Prison
Commissioners meeting and Defendants Masto, Sandoval, Miller, Geddes, Krause and Cox have
refused to have these public records that have been deemed public by the Federal Magistrate Judge
in case USDC . 3:10-cv-00679- ECR-VPC placed on the Board of Prison Commissioners public record
for all to see.
These documents Geddes referred to as confidential by the Settlement Agreement were
not deemed by the federal court magistrate judge as confidential has he claimed they were. .
It has been in excess of 13 months from the May 17, 2012 Board of Prison Commissioners
that Plaintiff Brown testified before and presented the same documents that supported the
innocence of Brown and Klein that was deemed public records by the federal court Magistrate Judge
that Brown had presented to the board of Prison Commissioners on December 5, 2011.
Defendants refusal to correct this has resulted in an adverse effect on Brown’s advocacy for
the inmates and their families . Brown, Inmates and their families have been punished by NDOC
Defendants.
Defendant Sandoval , who is sued herein individually and in his official capacity, is now and at all
time pertinent hereto has been the Governor of the State of Nevada. As Governor he must
over see that the State of Nevada and those who work in their capacity as employee of the state do not
violate inmates and private citizens constitutional rights.
Defendant Governor is statutory responsible for the management, administration, and supervision
within the Office of the Governor of the State of Nevada, and a member of the Board of Prison
Commissioners as such, he is the supervising authority over the Attorney General’s Office and is
responsible for the training and conduct of NDOC staff
Defendant Masto is responsible by law enforcing the regulation of the state of Nevada and the
United States.
Defendant Sandoval had actual knowledge of violations of Plaintiff’s Brown and Klein’s
constitutional rights and knew of the practices that led to their actions. Sandoval did not curb or stop
but rather condoned Defendants Geddes and Krause’s actions.
Defendant Sandoval created, maintained, and or implemented policies or customs allowing or
encouraging these unlawful acts.
Defendant Sandoval sets the Administrative Regulations for the NDOC . Sandoval knew as a
Commissioner on the Board of Prison Commissioners that members of her staff as the Attorney General
Office had violated the Constitutional Rights of at least two inmates, Nolan Klein and Michael Spencer
when Plaintiff Brown presented testimony and evidence to support Brown’s claims against the Attorney
General’s Office of illegal acts being committed by Defendants Geddes and DAG Janet Traut.
Defendant Sandoval condone the actions of DAG Geddes and DAG Traut when as a Commission
of the Board of Prison Commissioners and in the official capacity of the Attorney General , continue to
silence Plaintiff’s Brown free speech, and retaliated against Brown by refusing to have Brown’s
documents placed on the public record.
Defendant Masto , who is sued herein individually and in her official capacity, is now and at all
time
pertinent hereto has been the Attorney General of the State of Nevada. As Attorney General she must
over see that the State of Nevada and those who work in their capacity as employee of the state do not
violate inmates and private citizens constitutional rights.
Defendant Masto is statutory responsible for the management, administration, supervision within the
Attorney General’s Office, and a member of the Board of Prison Commissioners, as such, she is
responsible for the training and conduct of NDOC staff Defendant Masto is responsible by law enforcing
the regulation of the state of Nevada and the United States.
Defendant Masto had actual knowledge of violations of Plaintiff’s Brown and Klein’s
constitutional rights and knew of the practices that led to their actions. Masto did not curb or stop but
rather condoned Defendants Geddes and Krause’s actions.
Defendant Masto created, maintained, and or implemented policies or customs allowing or
encouraging these unlawful acts.
Defendant Masto sets the Administrative Regulations for the NDOC. Masto knew as a
Commissioner on the Board of Prison Commissioners that members of her staff as the
Attorney General Office had violated the Constitutional Rights of at least two inmates, Nolan Klein and
Michael Spencer when Plaintiff Brown presented testimony and evidence to support Brown’s claims
against the Attorney General’s Office of illegal acts being committed by Defendants Geddes and DAG
Janet Traut.
Defendant Masto condone the actions of DAG Geddes and DAG Traut when as a Commission of the
Board of Prison Commissioners and in the official capacity of the Attorney General , continue to silence
Plaintiff’s Brown free speech, and retaliated against Brown by refusing to have Brown’s documents
placed on the public record.
Defendant Miller, who is sued herein individually and in his official capacity, is now and at all time
pertinent hereto has been the Secretary of State. As Secretary of State he must oversee that the State
of Nevada and those who work in their capacity as employee of the state do not violate inmates and
private citizens constitutional rights.
Defendant Miller is statutory responsible for the management, administration, and supervision
within the Board of Prison Commissioners, as such, he is the supervising authority over the Department
of Corrections and was and is responsible for the training and conduct of the NDOC staff
Defendant Miller is responsible by law enforcing the regulation of the state of Nevada and the
United States.
Defendant Miller had actual knowledge of violations of Plaintiff’s Brown and Klein’s
constitutional rights and knew of the practices that led to their actions. Miller did not curb or stop but
rather condoned Defendants Geddes and Krause’s actions.
Defendant Miller created, maintained, and or implemented policies or customs allowing or
encouraging these unlawful acts.
Defendant Miller sets the Administrative Regulations for the NDOC Miller knew as a
Commissioner on the Board of Prison Commissioners that members of the Attorney General’s staff had
violated the Constitutional Rights of at least two inmates, Nolan Klein and Michael Spencer when
Plaintiff Brown presented testimony and evidence to support Brown’s claims against the Attorney
General’s Office of illegal acts being committed by Defendants Geddes and DAG Janet Traut.
Defendant Miller condone the actions of DAG Geddes and DAG Traut when as a Commission of the
Board of Prison Commissioners and in the official capacity of the Attorney General , continue to silence
Plaintiff’s Brown free speech, and retaliated against Brown by refusing to have Brown’s documents
placed on the public record.
`Defendant Geddes had actual knowledge of violations of Plaintiff’s Brown and Klein’s
constitutional rights and knew of the practices that led to his actions. Geddes did not curb or
stop his actions, but rather condoned his actions. He created, maintained, and or implemented policies
or customs allowing or encouraging these unlawful acts.
Defendant Sandoval, Masto and Miller condone Geddes actions to continue to misrepresent and
or mislead the Board of Prison Commissioners in order to have Plaintiff’s free speech chilled from
exposing him and a possible investigation into him and his cases that he had represented the State of
Nevada on; and his actions could possibly lead to disbarment and jail time. As the DAG of Nevada
Geddes and those who work in their capacity as employee of the state do not violate
Defendant Krause, who is sued herein individually and in her official capacity, is now and at all time
pertinent hereto as the Deputy Attorney General of the State of Nevada and is responsible by law
enforcing the regulation of the state of Nevada and the United States.
Defendant Krause had actual knowledge of violations of Plaintiff’s Brown and Klein’s constitutional
rights and knew of the practices that led to Defendants actions. Krause did not curb or stop her actions,
but rather condoned defendants actions. She created, maintained, and or implemented policies or
customs allowing or encouraging these unlawful acts.
Defendant Greg Cox, who is sued herein individually and in his official capacity, is now and at all
time pertinent hereto as the Director of the Department of Corrections he must oversee
those who work in their capacity as employee of the state do not violate inmates and private citizens
constitutional rights as afforded to one under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
Defendant Cox is statutory responsible for the management, administration, and supervision within
the Northern Nevada Correctional Center and represents the State of Nevada, as such, he is the
supervising authority over the Northern Nevada Correction Center and responsible for the training
and conduct of his staff
Defendant Cox had actual knowledge of violations of Plaintiff’s Brown and Klein’s
constitutional rights and knew of the practices that led to Defendants actions. Cox did not curb or
stop his actions, but rather condoned his actions. He created, maintained, and or implemented policies
or customs allowing or encouraging these unlawful acts.
Defendants intentionally, ignored Plaintiff’s right to exonerate her name and reputation and
continued to this day to chill Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights to seek justice.
This has a profound negative impact on Plaintiff’s future Constitutional Rights, because,
Defendants continue to allow these false statements that are detrimental to Plaintiff’s Brown’s, health,
advocacy for the inmates, their families, and to Plaintiff’s right to exonerate her name from Defendants,
NDOC, slanderous, libelous statements.
The acts committed against Ms. Brown:
a.
Violated the First, Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America.
b.
Were tortious under the laws of the State of Nevada and the common law.
Claims are stated for violation of the civil rights of Plaintiff Brown. Defendants
violated Plaintiffs rights as provided for and guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, when they took adverse action against Plaintiffs because of her
exercise of her First Amendment Rights, resulting in harm to Plaintiff through actions not
narrowly tailored to advance any legitimate correctional goal.
Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights for inflicting intentional cruel and unusual punishment
for wanting more to exercise her Freedom of Speech.
Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right for the infliction of intentional emotional and physical
distress harm to her. ..
PARTIES
4. Tonja Brown, as an Individual and Tonja Brown is the natural sister of Nolan Klein and the
Court appointed Administrator of the Estate of Nolan Klein and the Heir to the Estate of Nolan Klein.
5. The State of Nevada is the State Agency was charged with the incarceration of Nolan Klein
after his conviction in 1989.
6. The Department of Corrections in the State of Nevada is the State agency charged with the
incarceration of prisoners.
7. Governor Brian Sandoval, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and
Secretary of State Ross Miller are the Board of Prison Commissioners of the Department
of Corrections.
8. Deputy Attoreny General William Geddes, and Deputy Attorney General Krause are legal
counsel for the state of Nevada and are employees of the Attorney General’s Office
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Tonja Brown was born on November 5, 1960. She lives in Carson City, Nevada.
9. Nolan Klein was born on December 11, 1954. He entered the prison in 1989.
10. Nolan Klein attended paralegal training while he was incarcerated and filed
Approximately nine complaints against the correctional system, the City of Sparks
including appeals of his conviction and Writs of Habeas Corpus.
11. His other litigation included claims of interference with his legal mail causing him
to lose important legal mail, interference with his right to practice his religion, and
other litigation regarding the conditions of confinement.
12. Mr. Klein had been successful in some of his litigation and had at least two
Opinions published on his litigation in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
13. Mr. Klein’s litigation required certain changes and deference to the rights of
Prisoners not readily accepted by the Department of Corrections and causing
compliance by the Department of Corrections that was not appreciated by the
administration.
14. In addition to the litigation where Mr. Klein state that he had received
inadequate counsel from the Public Defender’s Office, Mr. Klein alleged that
exculpatory evidence had not been produced during the course of his trial, namely the
fact that a second suspect one Mr Rickey Zarsky had been considered by the police and who had the
same pattern of criminal behavior as had been exhibited in the crime for which Mr. Klein was convicted.
15. Mr. Klein further alleged that certain pieces of the evidence in his case had been
tampered with by the District Attorney’s office or the Judge in his trial, in that the
evidence was opened , contaminated, destroyed and no longer available to him for
testing, which denied him his rights in violation of the law.
16. Tonja Brown, Mr. Klein’s sister, staged protest about the loss of the
DNA evidence and the misstatements by the public defender from 1996 – 2008
Indicating both Ron Rachow, the District Attorney who represented the State in the
Criminal prosecution on Nolan Klein and Mills Lane the elected District Attorney during
The criminal prosecution of Nolan Klein.
17. Tonja Brown also protested publicly the failure of Dorothy Nash-Holmes,
District Attorney because she failed to prosecute Nolan Klein’s public defender for perjury and defended
the public defender in the slander suit filed by Nolan Klein against the public defender.
18. Tonja Brown has protested publicly against Richard Gammick the present
District Attorney for Washoe County for attempting to cover up the theft of the DNA
evidence, making misstatements about the loss of the DNA, making misstatements
about the testing of the DNA evidence and for his statements to the Pardons Board requesting that
Nolan Klein not be released during his lifetime from the prison. Tonja Brown also
made known to the media that Richard Gammick also made misstatements about the
integrity of the evidence room at the Washoe County Courthouse and, further, made
the completely incorrect and unsupported statement that Nolan Klein had confessed to
the crime, in an attempt to minimize the damage that the compromise of the DNA caused
for Mr. Klein.
19. Tonja Brown endeavored to have all the Justices of the Nevada Supreme Court removed
from office for malfeasance after the appeal Nolan Klein was dismissed.
20. In October 2011 Tonja Brown did some investigative work attempting to locate and speak
with the Sparks Police Department’s, prime suspect, one, Mr. Rickey Zarsky. Ms. Brown then hired a
Private Investigator located in Ogden, Utah. On or about November 4, 2011 Ms. Brown then drove to
Utah in order to listened what Mr. Zarsky had to say. Mr. Zarsky stated to he had knowledge of the
Payless Shoe Store Crime that Mr. Klein was convicted of. He stated that he knew the police also
suspected in the three other crimes the Sparks Police Department believed that Mr. Zarsky was
responsible for. Mr.Zarsky stated that he inquired with the Sparks Police Department into the Status of
the Payless Shoe store crime and was told that they got their man and put him away for a long time.
21. On or about May 9, 2011 Attorneys for Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Exoneration in Washoe
County District Court. The Petition for Exoneration was dismissed an went on appeal to the Nevada
Supreme Court. On November 28, 2011 the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for
Exoneration on the basis they lack jurisdiction because Nevada has no laws to deal with Petitions for
Exoneration and suggest legislation be created. Nevada Supreme Court case # 58789.
22.. In short, Tonja Brown has made public through protests, media interviews, blogging, web
sites, lobbying the legislature and any other means available to her, the grave and unfair injustice to her
brother and his wrongful incarceration and prosecution, including, but not limited to the tampering with
the DNA evidence and the failure to disclose the exculpatory evidence to Mr. Klein or his counsel.
23. Defendants Breach of Agreement/contract entered into by the parties in USDC Case No.
03 10-cv-00679-ECR-VPC:
24. On January 17, 2007 the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke issued her Order on
The Reports and Recommendation, In the Reports and Recommendations foot noots page 1
1 “In support of his motions, plaintiff submits Plaintiffs Exhibits to Motion (#43), Plaintiff’s
Supplemental Exhibits to Motion (#55) and various affidavits ( #s 39,40,41,42) In support of their
motions, defendants filed, under seal, an IN CAMERA, submission titled “confidential NDCO Inspector
General’s Report and Materials” ( 62) Defendants also filed under seal” Plaintiff’s NDOC Chrono Files’
Bearing Bates Range D MSJ 1-10,” a copy of which was served on Plaintiff (52).
25. Defendants, Sandoval, Masto, Miller, Cox, Geddes and Krause, had malice and disdain for
the protest Ms. Brown and intentionally, vindictively or with reckless disregard chose to violate
Plaintiff’s Brown
26. Plaintiff Brown alleges that the dissemination of false records pertaining to her has resulted
in an adverse effect on her advocacy for the inmates seeking her help in getting medical treatment,
questions needing answered by NDOC for the inmates and their families, case workers informing
inmates to keep away from Brown and resulting in the an adverse re action to an inmate and his family
who was permanently banned from having any visitation with their loved ones because of asking for
assistance from Brown.
27. Plaintiff Brown alleges as of this writing Geddes actions has continued to prevent Brown
from speaking, presenting evidence, of having his bad acts publicly revealed of what he had done in
the Klein v Helling case.
28. Plaintiff Brown alleges that Defendants violated the Open Meeting Law.
29. Defendant Geddes violated several NRS Statutes under NRS 199, 41, Code of Professional
Conduct, when he intentionally withheld the evidence that was clearly in violation of Brady and KLEIN’S
Due Process.
30.. Defendant Geddes, violated BRADY v MARYLAND and
KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights to receive a fair trial and when Brown brought this to Defendants
attention they retaliated against Brown by chilling her free speech and having her documents
deemed confidential so that she cannot exonerate her self.
31. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights to free speech when Plaintiff Brown
came to the public forum to discuss the Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in
violation of BRADY v MARYLAND KLEIN’S and Brown’s First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Statement of Damages
32. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Tonja Brown was deprived of various
constitutional and statutory rights, and was further hurt and injured to her health, strength, activity, and
freedom, sustaining injury to her person, all of which injuries caused Tonja Brown great mental, physical
and nervous pain and suffering and severe emotional distress
33. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendant, Tonja Brown has now been
subjected to uncontrollable High Blood Pressure as a result of this Discovery on August 6, 2006
documents that the defendants continue to chill Brown’s speech thereby, causing an adverse effect to
her health.
34. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Tonja Brown was deprived of
various constitutional and statutory rights, and was further hurt by the Defendants when they have and
continue to silence her voice to exonerate Plaintiffs name that was deemed by the Court as a part of the
Settlement Agreement.
35. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, the Defendants have retaliated and
discriminated against Tonja Brown and her Advocacy for the inmates and the Innocent.
36. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, perpetrated a fraud against
Brown in order to get Brown to agree to and sign a Settlement Agreement with
The State of Nevada.
37. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Tonja Brown, the Administrator to
the Estate of Nolan Klein and the Heir to the Estate of Nolan Klein, entered into an Agreement in Good
Faith with the Defendants and agreed and accepted the Defendants offer of Settling the case in
USDC 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC. At the time when Brown accepted Geddes offer in Good faith it was
unbeknownst to Brown that Defendant Geddes would mislead Plaintiff and the court and then turn
around and violate the condition of the Settlement Agreement.
38. Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiffs rights and breach the Settlement Agreement
made between Brown and Geddes in order to Chill Brown’s speech.
39. For all of the claims, Plaintiff was/is required to expend costs and will incur attorney’s fees
and these are costs and fees that should be compensated to her by the Defendants.
`
CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF NOLAN KLEIN
AND TONJA BROWN AS AN INDIVIDUAL
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELEIF
(Breach in Agreement/contract entered into by both parties in USDC case 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC
IN WHICH SUCH A BREACH IMPLICATES THE First Amendment of the constitution.)
40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re alleges each allegation made in all the
paragraphs of this complaint as if alleged in full in this claim.
41. On or about March 30, 2012 Plaintiff entered into an Agreement with Defendants in USDA
case 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC. Defendant Director Greg Cox signed on to the Agreement.
42. On information and belief on or about December 5, 2011, May 17, 2012, October 15,
2012, December 19, 2012, and March 19, 2013 Defendants Sandoval, Masto, Miller, Geddes, Krause,
Cox, breached section M and O of said Settlement Agreement by intentionally interfering, obstructing
Plaintiffs Rights to exonerate Plaintiffs name when Defendants disallowed documents that were
deemed Not Confidential by the all parties to be public records.
43. Brown went into detail regarding the newly discovered evidence NDOC 3811, the Klein v
Helling case where DAG Geddes had withheld the exculpatory evidence from the Klein v Helling
USDC 3:05-CV-0390-PMP-VPC that stated NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EXHISTED.
44. Defendant Geddes knew that Brown and Klein had been cleared in the investigation into
the Huston matter approximately fourteen months before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie
Cooke wrote her January 17, 2007 USDC 3:05-CV-0390-PMP-VPC Reports and Recommendations , and
before he deposed Nolan Klein in 2006.
45. Immediately following Brown’s comments to the Board of Prison Commissioners Geddes
then stepped up to speak and asked that everything Brown said and presented to be stricken from the
record claiming confidentiality.
46. During the next scheduled Board of Prison Commissioners meeting that was held on May
17, 2012 the Defendants passed the following December 5, 2011 minutes
“Senior Deputy Attorney General Will Geddes on behalf of the Attorney General’s office and the
NDOC; stated for the record that the NDOC reserves the right to strike from the record any confidential
material read into the record by Ms. Tonja Brown and documents she has asked to be received into the
record by Ms. Tonja Brown specifically the letter stamped NDOC 03811.”
“* Due to a settlement agreement, several documents submitted for posting with these minutes
have been specified as confidential and therefore will not be posted. Additionally, information on several
other documents needs to be redacted before posting. The settlement agreement affects documents
listed as attachments 2 and 12. Once the documents in question have been reviewed, the allowable
documents will be placed in this record.”
47. In committing the acts and omissions alleged herein Geddes committed Brady violations,
subornation of perjury, that resulted in an adverse effect to Nolan Klein an USDC 3:05-CV-0390-PMPVPC d , thereby the violation of Plaintiff Brown’s Rights under the First Amendment of the
Constitution.
48.. In committing the acts and omissions complained of herein were done pursuant to
customs and policies authorized, condoned, ratified and carried out by Defendants Sandoval, Masto,
Miller, Cox that subjected Tonja Brown to unnecessary and wonton infliction of pain and physical injury
resulting in her uncontrollable high blood pressure, anxiety and depression that was a direct result from
Defendants violating her rights under the First Amendment of the United State Constitution.
49. By failing to properly screen, train, supervise and or discipline its personnel, Defendant
State of Nevada, subjected Tonja Brown to unnecessary and wonton infliction of pain and
physical injury resulting in her uncontrollable high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression that was a
direct result from Defendants violating her rights under the First Amendment of the United State
Constitution.
50. By authorizing, ratifying and/or condoning the acts and omissions of their employees, the
State of Nevada subjected Tonja Brown to unnecessary retaliatory behavior, humiliation, ongoing
medical conditions by their employees for no other reason than to punish Plaintiffs for exercising her
freedom of speech, thereby, violating her rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
51. In committing the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants continued to violate the
condition of the Settlement Agreement and Tonja Brown’s free speech in order to protect the bad acts
of their employees and by doing so continued to cause Tonja Brown unnecessary and wanton infliction
of pain and physical injury to her resulting in the need to seek medical attention and is still under her
Doctor’s care.
52. In committing the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants continue to silence Tonja
Brown by having her public documents and testimony stricken from the record, in order to protect the
Attorney General’s Office who have a pattern and practice of withholding evidence in cases that was
revealed in Discovery in the USDC case No. 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC and in the Michael Spencer USDC
case, thereby, violating her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
53. In committing the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants continue to silence Tonja
Brown by having her public documents and testimony stricken regarding the safety and concern of those
who have entered the Northern Nevada Correctional Center that were exposed to the highly
contagious, infectious, deadly disease, from the public record, in order to protect the Department of
Corrections. Defendants had the public documents stricken and removed from the record showing that
NDOC does not have a Protocol in place to treat and warn the visitors, staff, employees, and the outside
community from the exposure of MRSA, a highly contagious, infectious deadly disease.
54. When Plaintiff exposed this 2007 outbreak to the Board of Prison Commissioners and an
Advocate who had contracted MRSA after visiting her husband at the NNCC . Defendants motioned to
have Tonja Brown’s documents deemed Confidential and thereby, hidden from the public, thereby,
violating her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
55. In committing the acts and omissions complained of herein Defendants actions resulted in
violating BROWN’S rights by retaliation against BROWN because of Plaintiffs’ efforts to exercise their
U.S. Constitution First Amendment Rights to seek redress through courts, grievances, public bodies, the
right to provide information, each Defendants individually, and/or all of them, collectively conspired to
chill the effect of Plaintiffs exercise of their First Amendment Constitutional Rights through actions that
do not advance any legitimate correctional goals.
56. As a result of the acts and/or omissions Defendants have caused irreparable harm to
Plaintiffs, Brown, and inmates and families who have contacted Brown for her help.
57. In committing the acts and omissions complained of herein Defendants chilled Brown
freedom and speech when she exposed by way of the Sworn Deposition of NDOC Don Helling to the
Board of Prison Commissioners that a 2007 computer glitch put false felony charges in inmates file,
including, Nolan Klein’s that made it appear that that he had been convicted of a new crime on June 5,
2007.
58. In committing the acts and omissions complained of herein Defendants Sandoval, Masto
Miller, Geddes, Krause, Cox refused to place on the record the Deposition of Don Helling
and Dr. Karen Gedney, the Reports and Recommendations from case USDC KLEIN v HELLING 3:05-cv0390-PMP-VPC, a letter of apology from NDOC and Geddes, and all of the documents that had been
submitted to the Board by Brown.
59. Defendants violated the Open Meeting Law in order to silence Tonja Brown’s free speech
thereby, violating her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF NOLAN KLEIN
AND TONJA BROWN AS AN INDIVIDUAL
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELEIF
42 U.S.C.. § 1985 CONSPIRACY
(Breach in Agreement/contract entered into by both parties in USDC case 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC
IN WHICH SUCH A BREACH IMPLICATES THE First Amendment of the constitution)
60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each allegation made in all the
paragraphs of this complaint as if alleged in full in this claim.
61. Defendant individually, and/or all of them, collectively conspired to chill the effect of
Plaintiff’s exercise of her First Amendment Constitutional Rights through actions that do not advance
any legitimate penological goals, nor are tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.
62. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as provided for and guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in the form
removing Plaintiff’s testimony she had given and the public documents she had submitted for the public
record during the December 5, 2011 Board of Prison Commissioners meeting.
63. Defendant individually, and/or all of them, collectively conspired to chill the effect of
Plaintiff’s exercise of her First Amendment Constitutional Rights when she disclosed to the Board of
Prison Commissioners the Constitutional violations that had been committed by Defendant Geddes in
the Klein v Helling case.
64 .Defendant individually, and/or all of them, collectively conspired to chill the effect of
Plaintiff’s exercise of her First Amendment Constitutional Rights when she disclosed to the Board of
Prison Commissioners the Constitutional violations that had been committed by Defendant Geddes, and
the Attorney General’s office who has a practice and policy of withholding evidence from Plaintiff’s in
federal cases. Plaintiff’s being Inmates.
65. Defendant Masto and Geddes conspired to violate Plaintiff’s rights when they contacted the
Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice staff to have the public documents that Plaintiff
had submitted not to be placed on the record claiming the records were confidential.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(violation of 42 U.S.C.. § 1983)
Customs and policy)
(Breach in Agreement/contract entered into by both parties in USDC case 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPC
IN WHICH SUCH A BREACH IMPLICATES THE First Amendment of the constitution)
.
66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each allegation made in all the
paragraphs of this complaint as if alleged in full in this claim.
67. Defendants Sandoval, Masto, Miller, Cox, Geddes, Krause had actual knowledge of the
Settlement Agreement made with Brown and knew that the Settlement Agreement outlined what was
and was not deemed Confidential and continue to chill Plaintiffs speech
68. Defendants created, maintained, and or implemented policies or customs allowing or
encouraging these unlawful acts.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF.
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
(Breach in Agreement/contract entered into by both parties in USDC case 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPCIN
WHICH SUCH A BREACH IMPLICATES THE First Amendment of the constitution.)
69. Plaintiff incorporates each and every paragraph of this complaint as I set out fully herein.
The Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer from this distress because of the grossly
negligent omissions and intentional acts of the agents of the Defendants.
70. The conduct of the Defendants was so outrageous and so extreme in degree as to go
beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
society.
71. The Plaintiff has suffered recurring anxiety, depression, desperation, panic attacks..
72. The conduct of the Defendants described in this complaint was calculated to cause or stood
in reckless disregard of the possibility of causing and did, in fact, cause Tonja Brown substantial mental
anguish, grief, humiliation and extreme mental and emotional distress.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF.
VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW)
(Breach in Agreement/contract entered into by both parties in USDC case 3:10-cv-00679- HDM-VPCIN
WHICH SUCH A BREACH IMPLICATES THE First Amendment of the constitution.)
73. Defendants violated the Open Meeting Law during the December 5, 2011 and May 17, 2012
Board of Prison Commissioners meeting.
74. Defendants refused to place Plaintiff’s public documents that had been deem public by the
Settlement Agreement on to the public record thereby Defendants had the violated the Open Meeting
Law.
75. Plaintiff will be required to retain counsel and expend costs to prosecute this claim.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter an order providing as follows:
1. For damages due and owing to Plaintiff for herself and for the Estate of Nolan Klein for the
Breach of Settlement Agreement;
2. For general damages in a sum to be determined at trial in excess of ONE MILLION DOLLARS;
3. That a declaratory judgment be issued that the rights of Tonja Brown were issued.
4. That Plaintiff has and recovers from the defendants, compensatory damages, liquidated, and
exemplary damages and such other monetary relief on her behalf and behalf of the Estate of
Nolan Klein as may be deemed appropriate in amounts to be determined at trial;
5. That Plaintiff has and recover from Defendants, pre judgment interests as may be
determined at statute and rule;
6. That Plaintiff recover from the Defendants her costs, including reasonable attorneys’
fees, together with such other remedies as may be provided by law.
7. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all
issues and fact in this action: and,
8. That a Court grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.
Dated this 25th day of June, 2013.
____________________________
TONJA BROWN, pro se
2907 Lukens Lane
Carson City, NV 89706
Tele: (775) 882-2744