1 Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross

PO Box 6946
2 Reno NV 89513
(775) 626-0895
3 IN PRO SE
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9 Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross )
)
10 Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT
11 vs )
) NO.
12 )
Ernestine Montgomery )
13 )
Cornelius Montgomery )
14 Defendants. )
________________________)
15
16
INTRODUCTION
17
1) This action seeks monetary relief from the defendants for the tort of outrageous conduct
18
and the intentional infliction of emotional distress and the loss of consortium between the Plaintiff
19
father, and his children who were hidden away until past the age of majority by the defendants.
20
21
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22
2) The allegations in this complaint do not request the District Court to issue a divorce,
23
alimony, or child custody decree, the suit is appropriate for the exercise of 28 U.S.C. § 1332
24
jurisdiction given the existence of diverse citizenship between petitioner and respondents and the
25
pleading of the relevant amount in controversy. Ankenbrandt v. Richards 504 U. S. 689 112 S. Ct.
26
2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468, 60 U.S.L.W. The court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
27
U.S.C. 1367 to hear Plaintiffs state law claims because those claims are related to Plaintiff’s federal
28
 1 law claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related facts. Plaintiff’s state law claims are related
2 to Plaintiff’s federal law claims such that those claims form part of the same case of controversy
3 under Article III of the United States Constitution.
4
5 3) Venue is proper in that the claims alleged here arose due to the Plaintiffs residence within
6 the Northern District of Nevada
7
8 PARTIES
9 4) Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross is a black disabled American who resides in Reno, NV and
10 is a citizen of the United States.
11
12 5) Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross brings this action on behalf of himself pursuant to the Tort
13 of Outrageous Conduct and that loss of consortium by way of the Defendants actions of actively
14 concealing the Plaintiffs children in order to wantonly, recklessly and without regard to the mental
15 health of the children and of the Defendant concealed the children from the Plaintiff until past the
16 age of majority. Plaintiff had a right to reasonable visitation with the children.
17
18 6) Defendant Ernestine Montgomery is the Mother of the two children of Hiawatha Hoeft-
19 Ross: Shanina DOB 3-15-84 and Hiawatha James Ross DOB 9-27-79. Defendant Ernestine
20 Montgomery actively and with malice deliberately hid the children from the Plaintiff to frustrate
21 visitation.
22 6) Defendant Cornelius Montgomery is the new husband of Ernestine Montgomery and
23 exercises control over the children. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the defendant Cornelius
24 Montgomery aided and abetted in the concealment active of the children.
25
26
27
28 ///

-2-
 1 FACTS
2
3 Plaintiff and Defendant Ernestine Montgomery were married on April 22 1979 and were
4 separated February 27 1987. Defendant Ernestine Montgomery frustrated visitation right from the
5 beginning by not letting Plaintiff see his children. Plaintiff was inseparable from his two children
6 since the date of their birth. Although Ernestine Montgomery stated in her dissolution (which was
7 filed in ex-parte) that there should be reasonable visitation, she never allowed it.
8 After her bankruptcy and loss of the house in 1988, she went to Washington State without
9 motioning the court for a move-away sometime in Late 1989 and returned in the summer of 1990
10 when she deposited the children with the Plaintiff for three months. For a short time thereafter
11 visitation was reasonable, until Defendant Cornelius Montgomery was In the picture, visitation then
12 stopped altogether. During the time between the forfeiture of the family residence and 1990, Plaintiff
13 did not know where Defendant Ernestine Montgomery was residing After the reasonable visitation
14 had stopped, Plaintiff had to use a service to locate Ernestine Montgomery by and through her new
15 husband Cornelius Montgomery. This was done so that papers could be served on him to stop
16 interfering in visitation.
17 In 1993 several calls were place to the Montgomery residence and calls were either
18 intercepted by and answering machine, or were terminated by Defendant Ernestine Montgomery.
19 In October of 1993 special counsel for the children was ordered since visitation was not happening.
20 It was determined that the children wanted 40% visitation with their father, but Ms. Montgomery
21 objected for several reasons and went so far as to bribe the children with a trip to Hawaii in exchange
22 for saying that they did not want to see their father any more. There is an extensive outline of the
23 years of frustration of visitation by the defendants.
24 Sometime in 1994, Defendants left the Fremont area and Plaintiff has not seen his children
25 since. He tried to initiate telephone contact with the daughter in 1997, but was cut short by the
26 Defendant Ernestine Montgomery in that she would file another restraining order against Plaintiff
27 if he tried to contact his daughter again. Plaintiff has not seen or heard of children since.
28 ///

-3-
 1 INJURIES
2
3 7) By reason of defendants outrageous acts, and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury
4 the would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including
5 but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and
6 increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly
7 plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
8
9 First claim
10 SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
11 8) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-7 of the complaint herein.
12
13 9) By reason of defendants outrageous acts, and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury
14 that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish,
15 including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness
16 and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss.
17 Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
18
19 Second claim
20 INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS DISREGARD
21 10) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-9 of the complaint herein.
22
23 11) Defendants acted with the intent to inflict injury and with the realization that an injury
24 was substantially certain to result from their conduct. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that
25 would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including
26 but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and
27 increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly
28 plaintiff is entitled to special damages.

-4-
 1 Third Claim
2 OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
3 12) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-11 of the complaint herein.
4
5 13) By defendants concealing the children for almost 15 years the conduct is so outrageous
6 that it exceeds all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. Knowledge
7 of Plaintiffs closed head injury the would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical
8 injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss,
9 feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and
10 appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
11
12 Fourth claim
13 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
14 14) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-13 of the complaint herein.
15
16 15) Injuries were proximately caused by the Defendants by their negligent conduct and
17 willful violation of a statutory standard. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause
18 sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited
19 to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in
20 medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is
21 entitled to special damages.
22
23 Fifth Claim
24 ABUSE OF PROCESS
25 16) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-14 of the complaint herein.
26
27 17) Defendants, with malice, used the legal process to accomplish a purpose for which it was
28 not designated - that being keeping plaintiff apart from his children. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed

-5-
 1 head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental
2 anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of
3 worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite
4 loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
5
6 Sixth Claim
7 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
8 18) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-17 of the complaint herein.
9
10 19) Plaintiff is of the state of mind that concealment of his children is worse than the death
11 of the children, that he has suffered a loss of love, advice, comfort, companionship and society. Such
12 concealment was done with malice and reckless disregard of the statutory scheme and knowledge
13 of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical
14 injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss,
15 feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and
16 appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ///

-6-
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross prays for entry of judgement against the Defendants
3 that:
4 1) Compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000;
5 2) Special damages (punitive) in the amount of $100,000;
6 3) that all costs of suit herein be awarded;
7 4) such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
8
9
10
11 Respectfully submitted
12 This _____day of April 2002
13
14
15
16
17 ____________________________
18 Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross
19 IN PRO PER
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-