1
2
3
4
5
6

Krista R. Hemming, SBN 304213

THE HEMMING FIRM

419 Main Street, Suite 262
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Tel: (949) 903 - 7650
Fax: (949) 258 - 5963
E-mail: thehemmingfirm@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
FELIPE HERNANDEZ, and ELIJAH
HERNANDEZ

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

FELIPE HERNANDEZ, and ELIJAH
HERNANDEZ,

Case No.: 17-CV-1398

11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
BASED ON:

v.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; J.
HOLMES; I..JARAMILLO; JOHN DOE;
J. SMITH; KOREY OBERLIES; C.
CAMACHO; DOES 2-20, Individually,
and in their capacity as Probation Officers
for the County of San Bernardino,
California,

18
Defendants.
19
20

1) VIOLATION OF FOURTH
AMENDMENT – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Seizure)
2) VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT
– 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Free Speech)
3) BATTERY
4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
5) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS –
MONELL CLAIM
6) VIOLATION OF Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 –
BANE ACT

21
22
23

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

24
25
26

Now comes Plaintiffs FELIPE HERNANDEZ, and ELIJAH HERNANDEZ, by and

27

through Counsel, and moves the Court for entry of judgement in their favor against defendants

28

and in support of such Complaint states the following:
-1PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as the First, Fourth, and

3
4
5
6

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
2. The United States District Court for the Central District of California has jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to:

7
a. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil
THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9
10
11

action arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States;
b. 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which gives district court’s original jurisdiction over action to
secure civil rights extended by the United States government;

12
13
14

c. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which gives district court’s supplemental jurisdiction to
hear pendant State tort claims arising under State law.

15

3. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent by to this action pursuant to the

16

requirements of Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 910, 911.2, respective to all claims against the SAN

17
BERNARDINO COUNTY.
18
19

4. The incidents complained of in this action occurred in the County of San Bernardino,

20

State of California, within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore venue properly lies

21

in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

22
PARTIES

23
24

5. Plaintiff FELIPE HERNANDEZ (hereinafter “Mr. Hernandez” and/or “plaintiff”) is a

25

natural person, who, at all times complained of in this action, is a resident of San Bernardino

26

County, State of California.

27
28
-2PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

6. Plaintiff ELIJAH HERNANDEZ (hereinafter “Elijah” and/or “plaintiff”) is a natural

2

person, who, at all times complained of in this action, is a resident of San Bernardino County,

3

State of California.

4
5
6
7

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8

7. Defendant, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (hereinafter “COUNTY”), is a California
municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
8. Defendant Probation Officer J. HOLMES (hereinafter, “HOLMES”), is, and at all times
complained of herein, was a Probation Officer for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as an

9
10
11
12
13
14

individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the
course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY.
9. Defendant Probation Officer I. JARAMILLO (hereinafter, “JARAMILLO”), is, and at
all times complained of herein, was a Probation Officer for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as
an individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the

15
16

course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY.

17

10. Defendant Probation Officer JOHN DOE (hereinafter, “DOE”), is, and at all times

18

complained of herein, was a Probation Officer for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as an

19
20

individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the
course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY. DOE is sued

21
22
23
24
25
26

under a fictitious name and the identity of DOE shall be inserted into the complaint via
amendment as his true identity becomes known to the Plaintiffs.
11. Defendant Probation Officer J. SMITH (hereinafter, “SMITH”), is, and at all times
complained of herein, was a Probation Officer for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as an
individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the

27
28

course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY.

-3PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

12. Defendants DOES 2-10 are persons whose identities are unknown but who is, and at all

2

times complained of herein, was Probation Officers for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as an

3

individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the

4
course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY. DOES 2-10 are
5
6
7

sued under a fictitious name and the true identities of DOES 2-10 shall be inserted into the
complaint via amendment as their identities become known to Plaintiffs.

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9

13. Defendant Probation Officer KOREY OBERLIES (hereinafter, “OBERLIES”), is, and
at all times complained of herein, was a Probation Officer, and Division Director for the

10
Defendant COUNTY, acting as an individual person under the color of state law, in his
11
12
13

individual capacity and was acting in the course of and within the scope of his employment with
defendant COUNTY.

14
15

14. Defendant Probation Officer C. CAMACHO (hereinafter, “CAMACHO”), is, and at all
times complained of herein, was a Probation Officer for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as an

16
individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the
17
18

course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY.

19

15. Defendants DOES 11-20 are persons whose identities are unknown but who is, and at all

20

times complained of herein, was Probation Officers for the Defendant COUNTY, acting as an

21

individual person under the color of state law, in his individual capacity and was acting in the

22
course of and within the scope of his employment with defendant COUNTY. DOES 11-20 are
23
24

sued under a fictitious name and the true identities of DOES 11-20 shall be inserted into the

25

complaint via amendment as their identities become known to Plaintiffs.

26

///

27
28

///

-4PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
16. Plaintiff Felipe Hernandez is the biological and legal father of Elijah Hernandez.

3
4
5
6

17. At all times complained of herein Elijah Hernandez was 16 years old, and under
California law a minor.
18. Plaintiffs Mr. Hernandez and Elijah are citizen journalists. Plaintiffs along with other

7
members of their family run and generate content for a YouTube channel titled: High Desert
THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9

Community Watch News Network.

10

19. This channel contains videos taken by Mr. Hernandez and his family of the public

11

activities of police, and other government officials for the public’s viewing. The purpose of this

12

channel is to promote accountability among government officials and to expose misconduct and

13
unlawful behavior.
14
15
16

20. There is a clearly established First Amendment right to photograph, or make an audio or
video recording of public officials in public places, while performing their official duties.

17
21. Plaintiffs would regularly conduct First Amendment Audits where they would
18
19
20
21
22

photograph or video record public officials and or buildings, and then observe/document the
response by public employees.
22. California legislators have expressly exempted a person who is only taking photographs
or making an audio or video recording of a public/peace officer from being liable under PC 148.

23
See Cal. Penal Code § 148(g).
24
25
26
27

23. Videoing, photographing or otherwise recording public buildings is not of itself a crime.
24. On or about May 17, 2016, Plaintiffs conducted a First Amendment Audit at the San
Bernardino County Government Center, at 385 N. Arrowhead Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92415.

28
-5PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

25. Mr. Hernandez was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, while Elijah was dressed in pants and

2

a button-down shirt. Both were equipped with a camera that was recording, and a cell phone.

3

Elijah also wore a camera bag.

4
5
6

26. Plaintiffs were not violating any laws and were not acting in a suspicious manner.
27. Plaintiffs were not armed.

7
28. Plaintiffs were not interfering with any activities of the police or with traffic.
THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9
10
11

29. Plaintiffs were not threatening anyone, by neither word nor action, and was not
endangering anyone in any manner.
30. Plaintiffs began filming at 106 W. 5th Street. Plaintiff’s then walked west on 5th Street

12
13

and entered the Government Center from the north parking lot.

14

31. Plaintiffs filmed as they walked from the north parking lot to front of the government

15

center on N. Arrowhead Ave. They filmed the parking lot, probation officers in the parking lot,

16

and the walkway from the parking lot to the front of the building.

17
18
19
20
21

32. One of the probation officers Plaintiff’s filmed in the parking lot was Officer DOE.
33. Plaintiffs walked, and filmed from the north parking lot, through the walkway to the
front of the government center located at 385 N. Arrowhead Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92415.
Plaintiffs then filmed the front of the San Bernardino County building.

22
23
24
25

34. While filming the front of the building probation officers HOLMES, JARAMILLO,
DOE, and SMITH began to approach from the north.
35. Officer JARAMILLO, called out to plaintiffs saying “hey, come here.”

26
27
28

36. Plaintiffs said nothing and continued to travel south on the walkway that runs alongside
the building, they then turned right and went west towards the sidewalk on Arrowhead Ave.

-6PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

37. Officers HOLMES, JARAMILLO, DOE, and SMITH continued to pursue the plaintiffs.
38. Officer HOLMES speaks to Mr. Hernandez and asks “how are you doing sir, can you

3
4
5
6

hold up for a minute.
39. Plaintiffs say nothing and continue to walk away. At this time officer HOLMES grabs
Mr. Hernandez by his pants to prevent him for walking away.

7
40. Officer HOLMES and DOE detain Mr. Hernandez, while Officers JARAMILLO, and
THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9

SMITH question Elijah.

10

41. Officer HOLMES askes Mr. Hernandez for his ID. Mr. Hernandez replies that he

11

doesn’t have ID on him and that he isn’t committing a crime and doesn’t need one. HOLMES

12

replies that he is “in public”

13
14
15
16

42. Mr. Hernandez tells HOLMES that “he is not his property” and advised HOLMES “to
let go of me.” To which HOLMES merely replies, “you are in public”
43. Mr. Hernandez advises HOLMES again to let go and not to touch him. Again,

17
HOLMES merely states that Mr. Hernandez is in public and that he had asked him to stop.
18
19

44. Mr. Hernandez repeatedly asked HOLMES to let go of him, repeatedly told HOLMES

20

that he had not committed a crime, that they don’t suspect him of committing a crime, and that

21

he has no articulable suspicion of a crime.

22
23
24
25

45. HOLMES replies “I asked you to stop and you didn’t follow my direction”
46. Mr. Hernandez states that it was not a legal direction because he has no suspected crime.
47. Mr. Hernandez repeatedly asks that HOLMES let go of his person.

26
27
28

48. About two minutes after the detainment began, HOLMES finally advises Mr. Hernandez
that he is detained, however, HOLMES did not articulate a reason for the detainment.

-7PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

49. For five minutes HOLMES holds onto Mr. Hernandez pants. Mr. Hernandez repeatedly
asks to be let go, and repeatedly tells HOLMES that he has no reason to detain him.

3
4
5
6
7

50. Eventually HOLMES, performs a take down, slams Mr. Hernandez to the ground, and
uses his knee to subdue and handcuff him.
51. Immediately after the take down, Officer DOE picks up Mr. Hernandez’s camera, which
was still recording and removes it from the area so that it can no longer record the interaction

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9
10
11
12

52. Officers DOE and JARAMILLO then act to push Elijah out of the area where his father
is. Blocking him from recording, or even seeing what they were doing to his father.
53. At this time about 10-20 other probation officers had made their way to the area. DOES
2-10 formed a perimeter around Mr. Hernandez and used intimidation to push Elijah away from

13
the scene so that he was unable to film or record the interactions between his father and various
14
15
16
17

probation officers.
54. Mr. Hernandez was on the ground for over a minute before being helped off the ground
and onto a nearby bench.

18
19
20
21
22

55. DOES 2-10 were standing around observing, talking, laughing and joking at the expense
of Plaintiffs
56. Mr. Hernandez was kept in handcuffs and detained on the park bench for over twenty
minutes while various probation officers question him and “stand guard”

23
24

57. After about thirty minutes a San Bernardino City Police Officer arrives on scene. The

25

police officer speaks with the probation officer for a few minutes, then speaks to Mr.

26

Hernandez. After a brief conversation with Mr. Hernandez the San Bernardino Police Officer

27

orders a probation officer to remove the handcuffs.

28
-8PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

58. The total incident lasted over an hour and involved at least 20 probations officers.
59. For over thirty minutes the defendant officers effectively illegally detained Mr.

3
4
5

him, although Mr. Hernandez had never shown any sign of aggression, never shown signs of

6

criminal behavior or activity, was not on probation or parole, was not armed and in no way

7

threatened by word or action the probation officers.

8
THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

Hernandez by grabbing him at first, then violently slamming him to the ground and handcuffing

60. At all times relevant to the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants were acting under

9
10
11
12
13
14

the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of San Bernardino County
and the State of California and under the authority of their respective offices as probation
officers.
61. Prior to and after Mr. Hernandez was informed that he was detained, he had made no
threats, had taken no aggressive actions, had not verbally threatened harm or exhibited any

15
16

actions to cause anyone to believe that they were in any danger.

17

62. Mr. Hernandez had to suffer the humiliation of being handcuffed in public view for

18

everyone to see and was held in custody by multiple probation officers as if he were a common

19

criminal.

20
21
22
23
24

63. Mr. Hernandez suffered the loss of his freedom for an unreasonable amount of time in
light of the circumstances.
64. No actions of Mr. Hernandez or Elijah would have provided a reasonable officer with
reason to believe that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiff and probable cause

25
to arrest/detain Mr. Hernandez by placing him in handcuffs.
26
27
28

65. None of the Defendants had information in the form of objective articulable facts that
would have allowed a reasonable officer to initially detain Mr. Hernandez.
-9PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

66. None of the Defendants had a warrant to arrest Mr. Hernandez and no reasonable officer

2

in the position of defendants would have believed that he had probable cause to arrest/detain

3

Mr. Hernandez or Elijah.

4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

5

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
6

Violation Of Fourth Amendment Right – Unreasonable Seizure Of Person

7

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9

(Plaintiff Mr. Hernandez, as to ALL Defendants)
67. Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 64, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.

10
11
12
13
14
15

68. Mr. Hernandez has a well-established, constitutionally protected right to be free from
unreasonable seizures of the person.
69. Defendants acting under the color of law deprived Mr. Hernandez of his constitutionally
protected right when they unreasonable detained Mr. Hernandez for over 30 minutes and
demanded his ID.

16
17

70. The seizure of Mr. Hernandez was unreasonable in that, Defendants did not have a

18

warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to believe Mr. Hernandez or Elijah had

19

engaged in, was engaging in, or was about to engage in any criminal conduct.

20
71. Defendants did not observe the plaintiffs engage in any criminal conduct and Defendants
21
22
23
24
25

had no objective facts to form a basis for reasonable suspicion that plaintiffs had committed,
was committing, or was about to commit, any criminal conduct.
72. Defendants acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with reckless disregard for Mr.
Hernandez clearly established rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth

26
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
27
28
- 10 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

73. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Mr. Hernandez has suffered

2

grievously enduring: 1) the loss of his liberty and freedom, 2) mental and emotional injury,

3

distress, pain and suffering, 3) attorney’s fees, and 4) any other special and general damages and

4
expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

5
6

74. The actions by said defendants were committed maliciously, oppressively and in

7

reckless disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive /

8

exemplary damages against all defendants and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial.

9
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

10

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

11

Violation Of First Amendment Right – Free Speech

12

(Plaintiffs, as to ALL Defendants)

13
14
15

75. Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 74, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.
76. Observing and recording public official’s activities, including police officer, and public

16
17
18
19
20
21

buildings from public places, without interfering with the duties of the public official, is a
legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and is expressive conduct
under the protection of First Amendment.
77. This First Amendment right to gather information includes the right to record actions of
public officials, including the police, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

22
23

78. Mr. Hernandez and Elijah were exercising their First Amendment rights on May 17,

24

2016 when they conducted a First Amendment audit on the San Bernardino County Government

25

Center.

26
79. Mr. Hernandez was not engaged in any unlawful activity or interfering with the duties of
27
28

the police.

- 11 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

80. None of Mr. Hernandez’s activities were being conducted in an unreasonable time, place
or manner.

3
4
5
6
7

81. By stopping, detaining and harassing the Plaintiffs, the defendants sought to chill Mr.
Hernandez and Elijah’s free speech rights.
82. This act was also in retaliation against the Plaintiffs for freely exercising their first
amendment right by recording public officials including Defendant DOE.

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9

83. Defendants acting under the color of law deprived the Plaintiffs of certain

10

constitutionally protected right by preventing the Plaintiffs from freely exercising their First

11

Amendment right to record public officials while in public places.

12

84. Defendants acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with reckless disregard for

13
Plaintiff clearly established rights protected by the First Amendment, and Fourteenth
14
15

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

16

85. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Mr. Hernandez has suffered

17

grievously enduring: 1) the loss of his liberty and freedom, 2) mental and emotional injury,

18

distress, pain and suffering, 3) attorney’s fees, and 4) any other special and general damages and

19
expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
20
21

86. The actions by said defendants were committed maliciously, oppressively and in

22

reckless disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive /

23

exemplary damages against all defendants and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial.

24
25
26
27
28

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BATTERY
(Plaintiff Mr. Hernandez, as to Defendant HOLMES)
87. Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 86, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.
- 12 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

88. Through the actions described herein on or about May 17, 2016, Defendant HOLMES

2

intentionally and unlawfully touch Mr. Hernandez by grabbing his pants, and then subsequently

3

used unreasonable force to slam Mr. Hernandez to the ground and handcuff him to prevent his

4
escape and overcome any potential resistance.
5
6
7

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8

89. Defendant HOLMES had no lawful purpose for touching Mr. Hernandez, let alone
thrown him to the ground.
90. Mr. Hernandez did not consent to the touching or the use of force, and asked many times

9
10
11
12

to be let go.
91. Defendant’s use of unreasonable force, and unlawfully and unwanted touch was a
substantial factor in causing physical and emotional harm to Mr. Hernandez.

13
92. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Mr. Hernandez has suffered
14
15

grievously enduring: 1) the loss of his liberty and freedom, 2) mental and emotional injury,

16

distress, pain and suffering, 3) attorney’s fees, and 4) any other special and general damages and

17

expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.

18
19

93. The actions by said defendants were committed maliciously, oppressively and in
reckless disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive /

20
21

exemplary damages against all defendants and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial.

22

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

24

(Plaintiff Elijah as to Defendants DOES 2-10, OBERLIES, and CAMACHO)
94. Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in

25
26

paragraphs 1 through 93, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.

27

95. After Mr. Hernandez was violently thrown to the ground, but during the time he was

28

handcuffed and being detained, Defendant’s DOES 2-10, OBERLIES, and CAMACHO who
- 13 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

were also on scene; mocked, laughed at, and intimidated Elijah as he attempted to document the

2

detainment of his father, while still dealing with the trauma of watching him being illegally

3

detained and slammed to the ground.

4
5
6
7

96. Elijah was scared for his safety as well as the safety and well-being of his father.
97. When Elijah vocalized his fears, DOES 2-10 laughed at Elijah, and made jokes at his
expense.

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9
10
11
12

98. Defendant CAMACHO, attempted to intimidate, and mock Elijah by taking out his
personal cell phone and began to record Elijah.
99. Defendant OBERLIES attempted to intimate Elijah by approaching him, and then
mocking him when he states he is afraid.

13
14

100.

Through the action described herein on May 17. 2016, Defendants DOES 2-10,

15

OBERLIES, and CAMACHO engaged in, instigated, and directed a course of extreme and

16

outrageous conduct with the intention of causing Elijah emotional distress

17
101.

The conduct of Defendants DOES 2-10, OBERLIES, and CAMACHO was

18
19
20
21
22

extreme and outrageous especially in light of their official position as public employees, and
uniformed probation officers.
102.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Elijah suffered

grievously enduring severe or extreme emotional distress, and any other special and general

23
damages and expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
24
25

103.

The actions by said defendants were committed maliciously, oppressively and in

26

reckless disregard of plaintiff, sufficient for an award of punitive / exemplary damages against

27

all defendants and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial.

28
- 14 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS – MONELL CLAIM
(Plaintiffs as to Defendant COUNTY)

3
104.

Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth

4
5
6
7

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8

in paragraphs 1 through 103, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.
105.

Defendant COUNTY knowingly, deliberately, and with gross negligence, and in

deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of citizens, maintains and permits an official
policy and custom of permitting the unlawful violation for First and Fourth Amendment as

9
described hereinabove, and hereafter.
10
11

106.

These policies and customs include, but are not limited to, the deliberately

12

indifference to properly train law enforcement officers in recognizing First Amendment

13

protected activities, and how to appropriately respond to citizens exercising those protected

14

rights.

15
16

107.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the customs and

17

policies were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights. Based upon the

18

principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, Defendant COUNTY is

19

liable for all of the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth above.

20
21
22

108.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, the Plaintiffs have

suffered grievously enduring: 1) the loss of his liberty and freedom, 2) mental and emotional

23

injury, distress, pain and suffering, 3) attorney’s fees, and 4) any other special and general

24

damages and expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.

25

109.

The actions by said defendants were committed maliciously, oppressively and in

26
27
28

reckless disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive /
exemplary damages against all defendants and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial.

- 15 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

///

2

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

3

VIOLATION OF Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 – BANE ACT

4

(Plaintiff Mr. Hernandez, as to ALL Defendants)

5
6
7

110.

Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth

in paragraphs 1 through 109, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.
111.

Defendants, acting within the scope of their duties as San Bernardino County

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9
10
11
12
13

Probations Officers did unlawfully detain Mr. Hernandez in an attempt to interfere with the
exercise of his First Amendment free speech rights, and Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable seizure.
112.

Defendant COUNTY is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of their

employees, including the Officer Defendants herein, whose conduct was the cause of Mr.

14
15
16
17

Hernandez’s depravation of rights.
113.

Mr. Hernandez filed a timely claim pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 910, et seq. As

that claim has been rejected in the past six months, this action is timely.

18
114.

The conduct of the Defendants constituted interference by threats, intimidations,

19
20

or coercion, or attempted interference with the exercise or enjoyment by Mr. Hernandez to

21

rights that are secured by the Constitution and law of the United States, or by the Constitution

22

and laws of the State of California, including the right to be free from unreasonable seizure, and

23

the right to exercise free speech.

24
115.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, the Plaintiff’s rights

25
26
27

pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 were violated causing Mr. Hernandez to have suffered
grievously enduring: 1) the loss of his liberty and freedom, 2) mental and emotional injury,

28
- 16 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

distress, pain and suffering, 3) attorney’s fees, and 4) any other special and general damages and

2

expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.

3
4
5
6

116.

The actions by said defendants were committed maliciously, oppressively and in

reckless disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive /
exemplary damages against all defendants and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial.

7

JURY DEMAND

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9

117.

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues that are so triable.
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

10
11
118.

Plaintiffs hereby realleged and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth

12
13
14
15
16

in paragraphs 1 through 117, inclusive, above, as though set forth in full herein.
119.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs

suffered deprivations of their constitutional rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

17
18

120.

Plaintiff’s incurred damages for loss of reputation, shame, embarrassment,

19

humiliation, mental anguish, and such other compensatory and consequential damages as the

20

law entitles them to recover.

21

121.

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s seek nominal damages for the violations of their

22
23
24

Constitutional rights.
122.

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against the individual Defendant Officers for

25

their intentional, willful and wanton acts violating “clearly established statutory and

26

constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.”

27
28
- 17 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

123.

2

thereof.

Plaintiffs hereby sues for these damages, and prays for just and fair recovery

3
4
5

124.

Plaintiffs are an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), and

under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.

6
7

THE HEMMING FIRM
419 MAIN STREET, STE 262
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

8
9
10
11
12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgement against
Defendants as follows:
A. Issue a judgement declaring that the acts of the Defendants described herein Violated
Plaintiff Constitutional Rights;
B. For an award of compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff an amount to be shown at
trial, in excess of $500,000 against all defendants;

13
C. For an award of punitive / exemplary damages in an amount to be shown at trial against
14
all defendants, in an amount to be shown at trial, in excess of $500,000;
15
16
17
18
19

D. Cost of suit;
E. Reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), and under Cal. Civ. Code
§ 52.1;
F. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and appropriate.

20
21

THE HEMMING FIRM

22
23
24
25
26

DATED: July 12, 2017

By:
KRISTA R. HEMMING
Attorneys for
PLAINTIFFS

27
28
- 18 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES