Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PETER L. CARR, IV (SBN 256104) NA’SHAUN L. NEAL (SBN 284280) EEAN L. BOLES (SBN 315134) SIAS CARR, LLP 3756 SANTA ROSALIA DR., SUITE 326 LOS ANGELES, CA 90008 TELEPHONE: (310) 400-5890 FACSIMILE: (310) 400-5895 pcarr@siascarr.com nneal@siascarr.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DUNCANIE RAY HICKS, JR. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 12 13 DUNCANIE RAY HICKS, JR, an individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 14 15 Case No.: 5:17-cv-2219 Plaintiff, vs. 16 19 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY MICHAEL BRADBURY; DEPUTY TAYLOR LAMSON; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 20 Defendants. 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Violation of First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 2. Violation of First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 3. Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 4. Custom, Practice or Policy Causing Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 5. Violation of the Ralph Act 6. Violation of the Bane Act 7. Negligence 8. False Arrest / False Imprisonment 9. Battery 10. Assault -1PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2 1 Plaintiff DUNCANIE RAY HICKS, JR., complains of Defendants COUNTY 2 3 OF SAN BERNARDINO, a public entity, DEPUTY MICHAEL BRADBURY, 4 individually and in his official capacity, DEPUTY TAYLOR LAMSON, 5 individually and in his official capacity, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, as follows: JURISIDICTION AND VENUE SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 6 7 1. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff 8 asserts claims arising under the laws of the United States that include 42 U.S.C. § 9 1983 and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 10 Constitution. 11 2. 12 state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) because those claims are so related to the 13 federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under the Article 14 III of the United States Constitution. 15 3. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e). This court is proper because Defendants reside in this 17 district and the unlawful actions challenged occurred in this district. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under The venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 CLAIMS STATUTE REQUIREMENT 18 19 4. On or about April 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a timely Claim for Damages 20 (“Claim 1”) against the County of San Bernardino for an incident that took place on 21 January 20, 2017. On or about May 3, 2017, the County of San Bernardino denied 22 Claim 1. A true and correct copy of Claim 1 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 23 Additionally, on or about August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second Claim for 24 Damages (“Claim 2”) against the County of San Bernardino for an incident that 25 took place on July 14, 2017. On or about October 17, 2017, the County of San 26 Bernardino denied Claim 2. A true and correct copy of Claim 2 is attached hereto 27 as Exhibit “B”. 28 /// -2PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3 PARTIES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 1 2 5. At all relevant times herein, DUNCANIE RAY HICKS, JR. (hereinafter 3 referred to as “PLAINTIFF”) is an individual who, at all times complained of in this 4 action, resided in the State of California. 5 6. 6 entity located in the State of California and within the territorial jurisdiction of this 7 Court. At all times material herein, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department 8 (“SBSD”) was a public entity duly organized and existing under the laws of the 9 State of California. SBSD is also a department of the Defendant COUNTY, which Defendant COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (“COUNTY”) is a municipal 10 was responsible for the hiring, retention, training and supervision of the conduct, 11 policies and practices of its employees and agents of the SBSD and all of its 12 members, agents and employees. 13 7. 14 BRADBURY”) was a deputy of the SBSD and is directly responsible for 15 PLAINTIFF’s damages. DEPUTY BRADBURY is sued in his individual and 16 official capacity on all claims. 17 8. 18 LAMSON”) was a deputy of the SBSD and is directly responsible for 19 PLAINTIFF’s damages. DEPUTY LAMSON is sued in his individual and official 20 capacity on all claims. 21 9. 22 material herein, Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were each duly 23 appointed deputies employed as such by Defendant COUNTY in the SBSD, and at 24 the time of the acts hereinafter complained of, each said Defendant acted in the 25 course and scope of such employment and under color of law. They are sued in 26 their individual capacity. 27 10. 28 known to Plaintiff, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names; At all relevant times herein, DEPUTY MICHAEL BRADBURY (“DEPUTY At all relevant times herein, DEPUTY TAYLOR LAMSON (“DEPUTY PLAINTIFF is informed, believes and based thereon alleges, that at all times The true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are not now -3PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:4 1 upon ascertaining the true name of a DOE defendant, Plaintiff will amend this 2 complaint, or seek leave to do so, by substitution same for a said fictitious name. 3 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each DOE 4 defendant herein is in some manner responsible for the injuries and damages 5 complained of herein. 6 11. 7 representative and officer of every other Defendant herein, and acted within the 8 course and scope of such employment and agency. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 9 10 12. 11 13 as though set forth in full herein. SIAS CARR LLP PLAINTIFF repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1January 20, 2017 Incident 12 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 At all times material herein, each Defendant acted as an employee, agent, 13 13. On January 20, 2017, PLAINTIFF went to the SBSD Victorville Station (the 14 “Victorville Station”) located at 14200 Amargosa Road, Victorville, California, 15 92392. The purpose of his visit to Victorville Station was to report that the mother 16 of his child violated the San Bernardino County Superior Court custody orders by 17 depriving PLAINTIFF of his court ordered custody with his child. 18 14. 19 BRADBURY, who listened to and recorded PLAINTIFF’s complaint regarding the 20 violation of the Superior Court child custody order. 21 15. 22 Instead DEPUTY BRADBURY merely recorded the information in the form of a 23 Computer Assisted Dispatch (“CAD”) printout. 24 16. 25 his complaint, a woman working at the front counter of the station (“DOE 1”) gave 26 Plaintiff a CAD printout that did not include the factual allegations of the complaint 27 that PLAINTIFF made to DEPUTY BRADBURY. The CAD printout merely PLAINTIFF reported the violation of law to the officer on duty, DEPUTY However, DEPUTY BRADBURY did not create an official incident report. Thereafter, when PLAINTIFF requested a copy of the police report regarding 28 -4PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:5 1 showed the basic fact of the complaint itself and the barebones allegations 2 regarding the same. 3 17. 4 complaint to the SBSD but could not receive a report showing the details of what 5 was reported to DEPUTY BRADBURY. 6 18. 7 and informed her that the CAD printout he received was insufficient and asked if he 8 could receive an actual police report of his complaint. 9 19. PLAINTIFF left the Victorville Station dumbfounded that he made a PLAINTIFF returned to Victorville Station and spoke with the DOE 1 again DOE 1 told him that the CAD printout she handed him showed the case 10 number of the report, but did not show the report. 11 20. 12 DEPUTY BRADBURY and, requested for an incident report. 13 21. 14 counter and told PLAINTIFF that PLAINTIFF was about to go to jail. 15 22. 16 for and DEPUTY BRADBURY replied, “I’ll create something. Do you 17 understand? You’ll go to jail. Do you understand that.” 18 23. 19 DEPUTY BRADBURY told PLAINTIFF that it was a crime to video record 20 DEPUTY BRADBURY without his consent and that DEPUTY BRADBURY 21 would also arrest PLAINTIFF for recording DEPUTY BRADBURY on 22 PLAINTIFF’s cell phone. 23 24. 24 falsely arrest him. 25 25. 26 Victorville Station to complain of any future violations of court orders by the 27 mother of his child or otherwise complained at all to that station. 28 /// PLAINTIFF remarked that that the document did not show his complaint to Upon hearing this exchange, DEPUTY BRADBURY approached the front PLAINTIFF asked DEPUTY BRADBURY what he was going to be arrested When PLAINTIFF attempted to record the interaction with his cell phone, PLAINTIFF then left the station fearing that DEPUTY BRADBURY would PLAINTIFF believed that he would be arrested if he returned to the -5PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:6 July 14, 2017 Incident SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 1 2 26. On or about July 14, 2017, at approximately 1:30 am, DEPUTY LAMSON 3 arrived at the home of PLAINTIFF’s mother to conduct a missing person’s report 4 for PLAINTIFF’s younger brother pursuant to a call from PLAINTIFF’s mother to 5 the SBSD. The home of PLAINTIFF’s mother is located at 16214 Lago Vista 6 Lane, Apple Valley, CA 92307. 7 27. 8 room of the home, PLAINTIFF was holding his infant son on the couch in the 9 dining room, which was adjacent to the living room. PLAINTIFF’s sister was also As DEPUTY LAMSON was talking to PLAINTIFF’s mother in the living 10 in the house, but she was in the bedroom with her family. 11 28. 12 and she began being confrontational and talking loudly towards PLAINTIFF and 13 his sister by telling them what to do with their children and interfering with their 14 parenting. 15 29. 16 room to tell his mother that she was interfering with him and his sister as parents 17 and asked his mother to stop. PLAINTIFF also informed DEPUTY LAMSON that 18 his brother likely left the home because their mother was drinking alcohol and likes 19 to argue when doing so. 20 30. 21 PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF’S mother also informed DEPUTY LAMSON that 22 PLAINTIFF was in the news and was causing problems for the Victorville Police 23 Department. 24 31. 25 room so that DEPUTY LAMSON could finish conducting the missing person’s 26 report. DEPUTY LAMSON also told PLAINTIFF’s mother that he did not have to 27 take the report because she was intoxicated. PLAINTIFF’s mother was intoxicated because she had been drinking alcohol Then, PLAINTIFF, while still holding his infant son, went into the living At that point, PLAINTIFF’s mother began to curse and yell very loudly at In response, DEPUTY LAMSON directed PLAINTIFF to leave the living 28 -6PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:7 1 32. PLAINTIFF immediately complied with DEPUTY LAMSON’s orders and 2 went back to the adjacent dining room. 3 33. 4 LAMSON about the January 20 incident where DEPUTY BRADBURY threatened 5 to arrest and detain PLAINTIFF because DEPUTY BRADBURY was annoyed that 6 PLAINTIFF was attempting to file a complaint. 7 34. 8 PLAINTIFF intended to sue SBSD for lots of money. From the dining room, 9 PLAINTIFF told his mother to discussing PLAINTIFF’s complaints against the From the dining room, PLAINTIFF could hear his mother telling DEPUTY PLAINTIFF also heard his mother inform DEPUTY LAMSON that 10 police department to DEPUTY LAMSON. 11 35. 12 Sherriff’s Department, DEPUTY LAMPSON retaliated against PLAINTIFF by 13 falsely arresting him. DEPUTY LAMSON came into the dining room, where 14 PLAINTIFF was holding his baby son in PLAINTIFF’s arms, and placed 15 PLAINTIFF under arrest. PLAINTIFF gave his son to his sister, who was also 16 present. 17 36. 18 PLAINTIFF’s back. DEPUTY LAMSON handcuffed PLAINTIFF and took 19 PLAINTIFF outside of his home. Then, Deputy LAMSON placed PLAINTIFF in 20 the back seat. DEPUTY LAMSON told PLAINTIFF that DEPUTY LAMSON 21 would be back after finishing the report and then returned to the house as 22 PLAINTIFF remained in the car. 23 37. All of this occurred in front of PLAINTIFF’s family and young son. 24 38. PLAINTIFF remained in the back of the police car for about an hour. 25 39. DEPUTY LAMSON returned to the car and threatened PLAINTIFF by 26 saying that DEPUTY LAMSON could have taken PLAINTIFF to jail and had Child 27 Protective Services (CPS) take PLAINTIFF’s son away because PLAINTIFF 28 interfered with DEPUTY LAMSON’s report. After hearing about the PLAINTIFF’s complaint against the San Bernardino DEPUTY LAMSON grabbed PLAINTIFF’s arms and put them behind -7PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:8 1 40. At no time during the course of these events did PLAINTIFF pose any 2 reasonable threat of violence to the Defendant deputies, nor did he do anything to 3 justify the use of unreasonable, unlawful and unnecessary force against him, by the 4 Defendant deputies. 5 41. 6 knowingly, maliciously, and with reckless or callous disregard for the constitutional 7 rights of PLAINTIFF, justifying an award of punitive damages under federal and 8 California law against each individual defendant. In committing the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants acted MONELL ALLEGATIONS SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 9 10 42. Based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of 11 Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), COUNTY is liable for all injuries sustained 12 by PLAINTIFF set forth herein. COUNTY bears liability because its policies, 13 practices and/or customs were a cause of PLAINTIFF’s injuries. COUNTY and its 14 officials maintained or permitted one or more of the following official policies or 15 customs: 16 A. Failure to provide adequate training and supervision to sheriff deputies 17 with respect to constitutional limits on the use of force, detention and conducting 18 reports. 19 20 21 22 23 B. Failure to adequately investigate, take appropriate corrective action, discipline or retrain officers involved in misconduct; C. Selection, retention, and assignment of deputies with demonstrable propensities for excessive force, violence, dishonesty and other misconduct; D. Condonation and encouragement of deputies in the belief that they can 24 violate the rights of persons, such as PLAINTIFF, with impunity, and that such 25 conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for promotion and other 26 employment benefits. 27 28 -8PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:9 E. SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 1 Ratification by the highest levels of authority of the specific 2 unconstitutional acts alleged in this complaint and, in particular, the ratification of 3 conduct towards PLAINTIFF. 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech/Right to Petition 6 Government for Redress of Grievance (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 7 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants DEPUTY BRADBURY) 8 43. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 9 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 10 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 11 44. 12 police report or any future police reports on January 20, 2017 was DEPUTY 13 BRADBURY threatening to arrest PLAINTIFF without cause. Accordingly, 14 DEPUTY BRADBURY’S threats to fabricate a reason to arrest PLAINTIFF for 15 entering the police station to make a report was an unlawful restraint on 16 PLAINTIFF’S First Amendment rights to free expression and petition the 17 government. 18 45. 19 activity—attempting to file a violation of law complaint against the mother his child 20 for violating a court order—when DEPUTY BRADBURY threatened to make up 21 charges to arrest PLAINTIFF. 22 46. 23 the police station, and threatening to make up a reason to arrest Plaintiff—would 24 chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity 25 (Plaintiff exercising his right to freedom of speech/right to petition his government). 26 47. 27 BRADBURY’S conduct was PLAINTIFF exercising his right to petition his 28 government for redress. The main motivating factor for PLAINTIFF being denied access to file a On January 20, 2017, PLAINTIFF was engaged in constitutionally protected DEPUTY BRADBURY’s actions against PLAINTIFF—telling him to leave The substantial or motivating factor in DEFENDANT DEPUTY -9PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:10 1 48. But for PLAINTIFF’S exercise of his right to freedom of speech as described 2 above, said Defendant would not have taken the actions against Plaintiff as he did. 3 49. 4 PLAINTIFF was substantially physically, mentally and emotionally injured, and he 5 incurred medical and psychological costs/bills and expenses, attorney’s fees and 6 lost profits / wages and other special and general damages and expenses; all in an 7 amount to be proven at trial. 8 50. 9 disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, above-referenced, The actions by said defendants were done maliciously and in reckless 10 exemplary damages in an amount to be shown at trial. 11 51. 12 1988. PLAINTIFF also seeks attorney fees under this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech/Right to Petition 15 Government for Redress of Grievance (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 16 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants DEPUTY LAMSON and Does 1-10) 17 52. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 18 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 19 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 20 53. 21 was to retaliate against him for protesting DEPUTY BRADBURY’S and Deputy 22 Doe’s #1 conduct for failing to allow him to report a violation of law on January 20, 23 2017. Accordingly, DEPUTY LAMPSON’S false arrest and threats to take 24 Plaintiff’s child away was a malicious attempt to retaliate against Plaintiff’s filing 25 of complaint against the San Bernardino Sherriff’s Department. 26 54. 27 protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 28 55. The main motivating factor for PLAINTIFF’s false arrest on July 14, 2017 Plaintiff’s complaint against the Sherriff’s Department was speech that is A substantial or motivating factor in decision of Deputy Lampson to take said -10PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:11 1 action in the form of assault, battery, false arrest of Plaintiff, or otherwise 2 threatening to take his child away, was retaliate against Plaintiff exercising his right 3 to freedom of speech/right to petition his government. 4 56. 5 above, said Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON would not have taken the actions 6 against Plaintiff as he did. 7 57. 8 PLAINTIFF was substantially physically, mentally and emotionally injured, and he 9 incurred medical and psychological costs/bills and expenses, attorney’s fees and But for PLAINTIFF’S exercise of his right to freedom of speech as described As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, above-referenced, 10 lost profits / wages and other special and general damages and expenses; all in an 11 amount to be proven at trial. 12 58. 13 disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive 14 exemplary damages in an amount to be shown at trial. 15 59. 16 1988. The actions by said defendants were done maliciously and in reckless PLAINTIFF also seeks attorney fees under this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 19 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants DEPUTY LAMSON and Does 1-10) 20 60. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 21 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 22 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 23 61. 24 PLAINTIFF to be detained and arrested in violation of his right to be secure in his 25 person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to PLAINTIFF 26 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state 27 actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 28 62. Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON, individually and as a peace officer, caused As a result of the conduct of DEPUTY LAMSON, individually and as a -11PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:12 1 peace officer, DEPUTY LAMSON is liable for PLAINTIFF’s injuries because he 2 was an integral participant in the wrongful detention and arrest of PLAINTIFF and 3 DEPUTY LAMSON failed to intervene to prevent violations. 4 63. 5 committed a crime or was about to commit a crime and briefly placed under arrest 6 without probable cause. 7 64. 8 was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and 9 safety of PLAINTIFF and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and PLAINTIFF was detained without reasonable suspicion that PLAINTIFF had The conduct of DEPUTY LAMSON, individually and as a peace officers, 10 punitive damages as to Defendants. 11 65. 12 1988. PLAINTIFF also seeks attorney fees under this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 Custom, Practice or Policy Causing Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 15 (PLAINTIFF against all COUNTY and DOES 1-10) 16 66. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 17 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 18 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 19 67. 20 under the color of state law in his personal capacity deprived PLAINTIFF of the 21 rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First Amendment right against 22 unlawful restraint on free speech. 23 68. 24 the color of state law in his personal capacity deprived PLAINTIFF of the rights, 25 privileges, and immunities secured by the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment 26 right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the United Sates 27 Constitution. 28 69. On or about January 20, 2017, Defendant DEPUTY BRADBURY’s action On or about July 14, 2017, Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON’s action under Defendant COUNTY is liable by maintaining and enforcing a custom, policy, -12PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:13 1 or practice of negligently hiring, retaining, training, assigning and supervising 2 personnel who are predisposed to unlawfully detain and/or arrest PLAINTIFF, and 3 of permitting, condoning, and ratifying violations by its officers. 4 70. 5 thereto and since that time, Defendants have condoned, tolerated, and accepted: a. 6 SIAS CARR LLP the deliberate indifference in the use of excessive force to effect lawful 7 arrests and detention of citizens, the unlawful arrests and detention of 8 citizens, and treatment to detainees. b. 9 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 On or about January 20, 2017 and July 14, 2017 and for some time prior the deprivation of access to the courts by engaging in a cover-up of 10 violations of constitutional rights, to wit: allowing, tolerating, and/or 11 encouraging officers/agents to file false reports, make false statements, 12 obstruct and/or interfere with investigations of unconstitutional or 13 unlawful conduct, by withholding and/or concealing material 14 information and evidence, threating citizens who attempt to make 15 complaints and ignoring and/or failing to adequately investigate and 16 discipline unconstitutional or unlawful activity. 17 71. 18 the driving force behind the violation of constitutional rights and damages 19 20 complained of herein by PLAINTIFF. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1) 21 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Said acts and omissions, practices, customs, or policies by Defendants were 72. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 73. As alleged herein, Defendants interfered, and/or attempted to interfere with, by threats, intimidation, coercion and by the actual use of force, with the exercise or enjoyment by PLAINTIFF of his rights under state and federal laws and under the -13PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:14 1 state and federal Constitution including, without limitation, the right to be free from 2 unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to access the 3 courts and the right to bodily integrity, including his rights under California Civil 4 Code § 43, California Penal Code §§ 149, 240 and 242, and his rights under the 5 First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and his 6 rights under Article 1, Sections 1, 7 and/or 13 of the California Constitution. 7 74. 8 concerns regarding the custody of his child, interfered with PLAINTIFF’s 9 enjoyment of his rights under federal and California law, thus giving rise to claims Defendants, by engaging in deliberate indifference to PLAINTIFF’s serious 10 for damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1. 11 75. 12 either because they were integral participants in the misconduct, or because they 13 failed to intervene to prevent these violations. 14 76. 15 PLAINTIFF was injured, suffered damages, including, without limitation, loss of 16 time spent with his infant son, pain and suffering, emotional distress, attorneys' 17 fees, costs of suit, and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 18 77. 19 well as compensatory and punitive damages according to proof. As a result of their conduct, Defendants are liable for PLAINTIFF’s injuries, As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned Defendants’ acts, PLAINTIFF seeks statutory damages under California Civil Code §52, as 20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Violation of California Civil Code Section 51.7 (Ralph Act Violation) 22 (By Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 23 78. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is 24 incorporated herein reference with the same effect as if realleged herein. 25 79. 26 jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation 27 by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of 28 political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in As set forth in the California Civil Code §51.7(a) “all persons within the -14PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:15 1 subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because 2 another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics.” 3 Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, by and through the acts 4 detailed and described herein, interfered with the exercise or enjoyment by 5 Plaintiff’s rights secured to him by the Constitution or laws of this State, in 6 violation of Civil Code 51.7, by (1) the unreasonable use of excessive force 7 perpetrated on him in a racially motivated manner. DEFENDANTS deprived 8 PLAINTIFF of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of California, and 9 the conduct was executed with improper discriminatory motive and intent, and with 10 reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiff's rights. 11 80. 12 through 5, acting within the course and scope of their duties as peace officers of the 13 SBSD, deprived Plaintiff of his rights to access courts as delineated hereinabove, 14 and thereafter in violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights proceeded to falsify 15 evidence, submit false police reports, and offer perjurious testimony so as to cover- 16 up the unconstitutional denial of access to courts. 17 81. 18 acting within the course and scope of their duties as peace officers of the SBSD, 19 deprived Plaintiff of his rights to be free from unreasonable seizures and unlawful 20 arrests delineated hereinabove, and thereafter in violation of Plaintiff’s due process 21 rights proceeded to falsify evidence, submit false police reports, and offer 22 perjurious testimony so as to cover-up the excessive force used against Plaintiff. 23 82. 24 BRADBURY and LAMSON were the agents, employees, representatives, 25 successors and/or assignees of COUNTY. DEPUTIES BRADBURY and 26 LAMSON, in doing the acts, or in omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint, was 27 acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority or the alleged acts and 28 omission of each Defendant as agent subsequently were ratified and adopted by On the January 20, 2017, Defendant DEPUTY BRADBURY and DOES 1 On July 14, 2017, Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON and DOES 6 through 10, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEPUTIES -15PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:16 1 each other Defendant as principal. Plaintiff believes that each individual Defendant 2 was in some way responsible for the constitutional violations and torts alleged in 3 this complaint. 4 83. 5 attorneys fees permitted under civil right laws, including without limitation those 6 under Civil Code sections 51.7 et. Seq. 7 84. 8 as herein alleged, plaintiff has incurred special damages in excess of the 9 jurisdictional limit of this Court and subject to proof at trial. Plaintiff’s damages include all statutory damages, fines, and penalties, and As a further proximate result of the acts or omissions of aforesaid defendants 10 85. As a further proximate result of the conduct, acts, or omissions on the part of 11 the defendants, plaintiffs have sustained pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in 12 excess of the jurisdictional limit of the Court and subject to proof at trial. 13 86. 14 out in a deliberate, cold, callous, intentional and/or unreasonable manner, causing 15 injury and damage to plaintiff as set forth above, and done with a conscious 16 disregard of decedent’s rights and safety, plaintiff requests the assessment of 17 punitive damages against in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of 18 these Defendants. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against the County 19 because it is statutorily immune. Because the acts and omissions of defendants and each of them were carried 20 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Negligence 22 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive) 23 87. 24 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 25 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 26 88. 27 officers; were negligent and reckless, including but not limited to: 28 PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in The actions and inactions of the Defendants, individually and as peace a. The failure of DEPUTY BRADBURY and DOE 1 to properly create -16PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:17 1 and give PLAINTIFF a police report detailing PLAINTIFF’s 2 complaint regarding his custody situation; b. The negligent tactics of DEPUTY BRADBURY of threatening to 3 arrest PLAINTIFF on January 20, 2017; 4 c. The failure to properly assess the need to detain, arrest, and use force 5 against PLAINTIFF on July 14, 2017; 6 d. The negligent tactics and handling of the July 14, 2017 situation by 7 DEPUTY LAMSON towards PLAINTIFF; 8 e. The negligent detention, arrest, and use of force against PLAINTIFF; 9 f. The failure to properly train and supervise employees, both 10 professional and non-professional, including Defendants; and 11 g. The failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 12 13 appropriate education and training were available to meet the needs of 14 and protect the rights of PLAINTIFF. 15 89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, 16 and other undiscovered negligent conduct, PLAINTIFF was caused to suffer 17 emotional damages by fearing he would be retaliated against by SBSD, which 18 prevented him from reporting any violations, including additional violations of 19 court orders by the mother of his child, which interfered with the custody of and 20 time spent he with his son. Also as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ 21 conduct alleged above, PLAINTIFF feared being the subject of harassment, 22 beatings and false arrest by SBSD sheriffs, especially after the July 14 incident with 23 DEPUTY LAMSON. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct 24 alleged above, PLAINTIFF was deprived of his child’s solace, society, love and 25 comfort since he could not attain rightful custody of his child from the child’s 26 mother due to the actions of the SBSD. 27 90. 28 individually and as peace officers, pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California COUNTY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants, -17PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:18 1 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for injuries causes 2 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would 3 subject him or her to liability. 4 91. 5 PLAINTIFF is entitled to general and special damages all in an amount to be 6 proven at trial. SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 7 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct alleged above, EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 False Arrest/False Imprisonment 9 (PLAINTIFF against COUNTY, DEPUTY LAMSON and DOES 5-10, 10 inclusive) 11 92. 12 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 13 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 14 93. 15 deputies for COUNTY, and acting within the scope of their duties, intentionally 16 deprived PLAINTIFF of his freedom of movement by use of force, including 17 threats of force, menace, fraud, deceit and unreasonable duress. 18 94. 19 detained PLAINTIFF on July 14, 2017. Said detention was made without 20 reasonable suspicion or probable cause that PLAINTIFF had committed a crime or 21 was about to commit a crime. 22 95. 23 arrest, but did comply with DEPUTY LAMSON’s orders for fear of harm to 24 himself in the presence of his young infant son. 25 96. 26 with his hands restricted behind his back and placed in handcuffs. Although 27 DEPUTY LAMSON, left PLAINTIFF in the car, DEPUTY LAMSON told PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in Defendants, individually and as peace officers, while working as sheriff Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON, individually and as a peace officer, also PLAINTIFF did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to being placed under PLAINTIFF was then placed in the back of DEPUTY LAMSON’s police car 28 -18PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:19 1 PLAINTIFF to wait for DEPUTY LAMSON to come back. PLAINTIFF did not 2 attempt to escape because of the handcuffs and because he feared any persecution 3 by DEPUTY LAMSON. 4 97. 5 substantial factor in causing the harm to PLAINTIFF. 6 98. 7 individually and as peace officers; pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California 8 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for injuries caused 9 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would The conduct of Defendants, individually and as peace officers, was a COUNTY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants, 10 subject him or her to liability. 11 99. 12 pursuant to California Government Code §§ 815.2(a), 815.6, 820, 820.8 and 13 otherwise pursuant to common-law. 14 100. The conduct of Defendants, individually and as peace officers; was 15 malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the 16 rights of PLAINTIFF, which entitles PLAINTIFF to an award of exemplary and 17 punitive damages. 18 101. PLAINTIFF is financially responsible for himself and his family, which 19 includes his infant son. Defendants are liable to PLAINTIFF false arrest / false imprisonment 20 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Battery 22 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive except 23 DEPUTY BRADBURY) 24 102. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 25 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 26 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 27 103. Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON, individually and as a peace officer, while 28 working as a sheriff deputy for SBSD, and acting within the course and scope of his -19PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:20 1 duties, intentionally handcuffed PLAINTIFF and forced PLAINTIFF into the back 2 of police car. As a result of the actions by DEPUTY LAMSON, PLAINTIFF 3 suffered pain and suffering from his injuries for which the PLAINTIFF is entitled to 4 recover damages. DEPUTY LAMSON had no legal justification for using force 5 against PLAINTIFF, and DEPUTY LAMSON’s force was unreasonable, especially 6 since PLAINTIFF did not commit any crime and was holding his infant child when 7 DEPUTY LAMSON placed handcuffs on him. 8 104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON’s conduct 9 as alleged above, PLAINTIFF suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain 10 and has been injured in mind and body. 11 105. COUNTY and SBSD are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of DEPUTY 12 LAMSON, individually and as a peace officer, pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the 13 California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for 14 injuries causes by its employees within the scope of the employment if the 15 employee’s act would subject him or her to liability. 16 106. The conduct of DEPUTY LAMSON, individually and as a peace officer, was 17 malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the 18 rights of PLAINTIFF, which entitles PLAINTIFF to an award of exemplary and 19 punitive damages. 20 107. PLAINTIFF is financially responsible for himself and his family, which 21 includes his infant son. 22 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 Assault 24 (PLAINTIFF against all Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive) 25 108. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 26 the foregoing paragraphs, as well as any subsequent paragraphs contained in the 27 Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 28 -20PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:21 1 109. The above-referenced actions committed by Defendants DEPUTY 2 BRADBURY AND DEPUTY LAMSON constituted an assault of PLAINTIFF 3 under California state law because the Defendant deputies unlawfully placed 4 PLAINTIFF in reasonable fear of receiving an imminent violent injury. 5 110. DEPUTY BRADBURY’s actions on January 20, 2017, of threatening to 6 “create something” in order to arrest PLAINTIFF were intentionally made with the 7 intent to scare PLAINTIFF and make him aware of possible physical force and 8 injury if PLAINTIFF did not leave the station at that moment. This constituted an 9 assault under California state law. 10 111. DEPUTY LAMSON’s actions on July 14, 2017, of threatening to take 11 PLAINTIFF to jail and have CPS take PLAINTIFF’s son away were intentionally 12 made with the intent to scare PLAINTIFF and make him aware of possible physical 13 force and injury if PLAINTIFF did not do as DEPUTY LAMSON wanted him to at 14 that moment. This constituted an assault under California state law. 15 112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DEPUTY LAMSON’s conduct 16 as alleged above, PLAINTIFF suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain 17 and has been injured in mind and body. 18 113. Defendants are liable to PLAINTIFF for assault pursuant to California 19 Government Code §§ 815.2(a), 815.6, 820, 820.8 and otherwise pursuant to 20 common-law. PRAYER 21 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF requests entry of judgment in his favor and 22 23 against Defendants as follows: 24 1. 25 amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional requirement of this Court according 26 to proof; 27 2. For special damages according to proof; 28 3. For punitive damages as provided by federal and state law, in an amount to For compensatory (or general) damages, including pain and suffering, in an -21PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:17-cv-02219-JFW-GJS Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:22 1 be proved against each individual Defendant; 2 4. For prejudgment interest; 3 5. For attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & Civ. Code § 52.1(h); 4 6. For reasonable costs of this suit incurred herein; 5 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and 6 appropriate. 7 8 Dated: October 30, 2017 9 SIAS CARR LLP /s/ Peter L. Carr _________________________ Peter L. Carr, IV Attorney for Plaintiff 10 11 SIAS CARR LLP 3756 Santa Rosalia Drive, Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90008 12 13 14 15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues and claims. 16 17 18 Dated: October 30, 2017 SIAS CARR LLP 19 20 21 /s/ Peter L. Carr _________________________ Peter L. Carr, IV Attorney for Plaintiff 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -22PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES