Plaintiff Marcus Searls' civil rights lawsuit alleges that he opened a medical marijuana dispensary, but was repeatedly threatened to be "put in jail" Grays Harbor County, Washington sheriff's deputy Steve Larson unless plaintiff continued having non-consensual sex with the law enforcement officer.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff met defendant Larson when he placed a Craigslist ad "seeking sexual partners," and that after one consensual encounter, Larson allegedly extorted sex from Searls by demanding a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Searls would provide sex in exchange" for not being arrested and put in jail by the sheriff's department. The suit contends that Larson demanded sex from plaintiff while he was working for the county as a sheriff's deputy.
The lawsuit also alleges an ongoing pattern of threats and harassment by Larson.
Marcus R Searls |
Grays Harbor County, Oakville City of, Elma City of, Steve Larson and Richard Fletcher |
3:2011cv05673 |
August 29, 2011 |
US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
Tacoma Office |
Grays Harbor |
Ronald B. Leighton |
Other Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Judge Ronald B. Leighton added. (MKB) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-2538421), filed by Marcus R Searls. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rousso, Lee) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.