Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 T. KENNEDY HELM, IV (State Bar No. 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 644 40th Street, Suite 305 Oakland, California 94609 Telephone: (510) 350-7517 Facsimile: (510) 350-7359 email: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Eddie Thomas, Jr. and Dejanae Malone McFarland 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 EDDIE THOMAS, JR. & DEJANAE MARSHAY MALONE-MCFARLAND, individually, vs. Plaintiffs, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a public entity; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE DEPUTIES MATTHEW A. BUCKLEY; THOMAS C. SHIELDS; and DOES 1–10, Jointly and Severally Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 20 1 2 Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney HELM LAW OFFICE, PC, for their complaint against Defendants, state as follows: JURISDICTION AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 3 4 1. This is a civil-rights action arising from Defendants’ unreasonable search and seizure, use of 5 excessive force, and retaliation for exercise of rights and protected speech against plaintiffs Eddie 6 Thomas, Jr., and Dejanae Marshal Malone-McFarland, on or about October 28, 2018, in Bay Point, 7 unincorporated Contra Costa County, California. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 8 1983 and 1988 and the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 9 the laws and Constitution of the State of California. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 10 and 1343(a)(3) and (4), and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. Plaintiffs 11 further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and 12 decide claims arising under state law. 13 2. 14 Point, in unincorporated Contra Costa County, California, and under Civil Local Rule 3-2(e), this 15 action is properly assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division. A substantial part of the events and/or omissions complained of herein occurred in Bay PARTIES AND PROCEDURE 16 17 3. Plaintiff Eddie Thomas, Jr. is a resident of the State of California. 18 4. Plaintiff Dejanae Marshay Malone-McFarland is a resident of the State of California. 19 5. Defendant Contra Costa County is a public entity established by the laws and Constitution 20 of the State of California, and owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Contra Costa 21 County Sheriff’s Office (CCCSO) which employs other defendants in this action. 22 6. 23 enforcement officer by Contra Costa County and was acting within the course and scope of that 24 employment. 25 7. 26 enforcement officer by Contra Costa County and was acting within the course and scope of that 27 employment. Defendant Deputy Matthew A. Buckley at all material times was employed as a law- Defendant Deputy Thomas C. Shields at all material times was employed as a law- 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 1 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 3 of 20 1 8. The true names and capacities of other defendants sued as Does 1–10 are unknown to 2 Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiffs will seek 3 leave to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same are 4 ascertained. Each Doe Defendant was an employee and/or agent of Contra Costa County, and at all 5 material times acted within the course and scope of that relationship. 6 9. 7 reports, and video/audio, including any 911 calls, in response to Plaintiffs’ lawful pre-suit requests 8 for complete records and information. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this complaint with 9 further facts and to substitute individuals for Doe Defendants after receiving Contra Costa County’s Defendant Contra Costa County has refused to produce, without a subpoena, records, 10 reports, records, and audio/video recordings in this matter. 11 10. 12 herein was negligently, wrongfully, and otherwise responsible in some manner for the events and 13 happenings as hereinafter described, and proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. 14 Further, one or more Doe Defendants was at all material times responsible for the hiring, training, 15 supervision, and discipline of other defendants, including Doe Defendants. 16 11. 17 material times an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-conspirator, and/or alter ego 18 of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course 19 and scope of that relationship. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege, that 20 each of the Defendants herein gave consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining 21 Defendants, and ratified and/or authorized the acts or omissions of each Defendant as alleged 22 herein, except as may be hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged. 23 12. 24 integral participant in the conduct described herein including the wrongful search, seizure, and use 25 of excessive force against Plaintiffs, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights 26 and other harm. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants sued Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the Defendants was at all At all material times, each Defendant was jointly engaged in tortious activity, and an 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 2 000:7qu Case Document 1 Flled 12/10/19 Page 4 of 20 13 A1 all marenal 11mes, each Defendant acled under color of the lavt s, statutes, ordinances, and regulanons of the Slate of Caltfomta 14 bring these clarms as Privale Attorneys General, to vindicale not only Ihetr ovm but others' rights ofgreal importance 15 T1115 complaint may he pled 1r1 lhe altemauve pursuant lo Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 8(dx2) GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 16 reallege each and every paragraph in complalnl as iffully set forth here 17 At about 12 30 on October 28 2018_ Ms MalonerMcFarland heard what sounded l1ke her ne1ghbor1n some k1nd fight and ea11ed 91 1 to repon 1t 12; Ms Ma1oneMeFar1ahd 11ved at l--Bay Pomt, CA 94565 vuth her boyfr1end_ Mr Thomas, and thetr fourteensmonthrold daughter 19 Ms Ma1oneMeFar1ahd told the 91 1 dlspateher her address, -ay Pomt, CA 943 65 20 The apanments at _are a sertes apanments factng a common concrete pauoparkmg lot area 21 Ms MalonerMeFarland also told the 91 dtspatcher that the d1sturbanee was occurrmg at a nelghbormg urut e1ther -- 22 The home shared by Ms MalonerMcFarland and Mr Thomas vtas clearly marked w1th an "121 23 Afier makmg the 91 1 call, Ms MalonesMcFarland and her daughter bathed 1n the shovter 24 M1nutes later, Mr Thomas arrwed home to 18 Sapone Lane afier some automotwe work 25 Mr Thomas vtent mm the bedroom, where he found Ms MalonerMcFarland and then daughter gemng dressed 26 Mr Thomas asked Ms MalonerMcFarland vthal they would do for the rest ot'the day, because 1tvtas Ms MalonesMcFarland's day on COMPLAINT AND JURV DEMAND 3 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 5 of 20 1 27. Then, Mr. Thomas and Ms. Malone-McFarland heard a pounding on the exterior door, 2 accompanied by someone yelling “Sheriff’s Office!” 3 28. 4 door. 5 29. 6 metal security door. 7 30. 8 security door shut. 9 31. Ms. Malone-McFarland asked Mr. Thomas to answer the door to see who, in fact, was at the The exterior door of 18 Sapone Lane consists of an inner wooden door, and an outer, grated- Mr. Thomas opened the wooden door—but Mr. Thomas did not open the grated-metal Through the grated-metal security door, Mr. Thomas could see defendants Deputy Buckley 10 and Deputy Shields. 11 32. 12 officer. 13 33. 14 something like they had received a domestic call to come there. 15 34. 16 what was going on; his girlfriend was getting dressed, and that he would go get her. 17 35. Mr. Thomas asked Deputies Buckley and Shields to wait. 18 36. Mr. Thomas did not give consent to either Deputy Buckley or Deputy Shields to enter his 19 home. 20 37. 21 walked back towards the bedroom. 22 38. 23 coming.” 24 39. 25 she had called 911 because of the neighbors’ fighting. 26 40. 27 door. On information and belief, Deputy Shields at the time was Deputy Buckley’s field training Through the closed grated-metal security door, either Deputy Buckley or Shields stated Mr. Thomas told Deputies Buckley and Shields something to the effect of: he did not know Mr. Thomas left the wooden door open, but the grated-metal security door closed, and he From the bedroom, Ms. Malone-McFarland was yelling something like “Hold on, I’m Mr. Thomas walked back to the bedroom, and Ms. Malone-McFarland explained to him that Meanwhile, Deputies Buckley and Shields had forced open the closed grated-metal security 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 4 5mm coccqu Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 6 of 20 4| Deputies Buckley and Shields had no warrant to enler or search the home of Mr Thomas and Ms Malone-McFarland at 42 Deputies Buckley and Shields had no arrest warrant for either Mr Thomas or Ms Malone McFarland 43 Deputies Buckley and Shields lacked probable cause Io believe that any crime was being committed at 44 While Mr Thomas walked from the bedroom into the kitchen, with Ms Malone-McFarland and their daughter tollowing behind, he encountered Deputies Buckley and Shields 45 Deputies Buckley and Shields pointed their handguns at Mr Thomas' mid-section, while yelling at him Io get on the ground 46 Mr Thomas was terrified and angry that Deputies Buckley and Shields were in his home pointing guns at him 47 Mr Thomas immediately put his hands in the air and dropped his cell phone and shouted something like "what did 1 do" [didn't do anything" 48 Working as a team, Deputies Buckley and Shields Ihen grabbed Mr Thomas and forced him prone onto his kitchen tloor 49 Meanwhile, Ms Malone-McFarland had picked up Mr Thomas' cell phone and began video recording Deputies Buckley and Shields 50 Deputies Buckley and Shields used various painful control holds, such as a 'WTist-lock," while they handcutTed Mr Thomas, despite Mr Thomas not doing anything to resist their handcuffng of him 51 AI one point, Deputy Shields put his placed his knee on Mr Thomas' neck while Deputy Buckley handcuffed Mr Thomas behind his back 52 During the handcumng, Mr Thomas did not threaten to harm Deputies Buckley and Shields, but, out ofangei and pain, he did call Ihem various names (such as "bitch" and "nigga") 53 AI no lime did Mr Thomas everihreaten io haim Depulies Buckley, Shields, or anyone else COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 5 5mm coccqu Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 7 of 20 54 Deputies Buckley and Shields then stood Mr Thomas up, having handcutfed him behind his back 55 Deputy Buckley held Mr Thomas with a twoahnnded grip, by his right shoulder and lefi aim, while escorting him out o-nd down a tlight ofsleps onto the common concrete pullorparkmg lot area 56 Mr Thomas continued to call Deputies Buckley and Shields various names, but Mr Thomas still did not threaten them with any harm, and Mr Thomas, handcuffed behind his back did not try to escape Deputy Buckley's twoahanded grasp of him 57 Then, wanting that he would use force, and while Mr Thomas continued to call Deputies Buckley and Shields various names, Deputy Buckley performed a "leg-sweep" takedown maneuver on Mr Thomas, forcing him prone onto the concrete patio.parking lot 58 Mr Thomas stnick the concrete chin-firslibecause he was handcuffed behind his back, he could not protect his lace or otherwise brace himself 59 Deputy Buckley's takedown of Mr Thomas caused one or more lacerations to his chin that began bleeding profusely, and which would later require emergency.room medical care 60 Deputy Buckley had gone to the ground as well, and he was lying on top of Mr Thomas while telling him things like are you going to calm down now" 61 Meanwhile, Ms MaloneaMcFurland, standing at a distance, continued to try to video record with the cellphone what Deputy Buckley was doing to Mr Thomas 62 Deputy Shields began commanding Ms MaloneaManrland to "please stand back," and he put hands on her and otherwise her View 63 Ms MaloneaManrland asked him to not touch her several times 64 Deputy Shields said want you to back up" and up the stairs" back into Lane 65 Deputy Shields also repeatedly asked her to "slop COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 6 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 8 of 20 1 66. Deputy Shields stood in front of Ms. Malone-McFarland, intentionally obstructing her view 2 with his body, preventing her from video recording Deputy Buckley’s actions while on the ground 3 on top of Mr. Thomas. 4 67. 5 McFarland from recording what Deputy Buckley was doing to Mr. Thomas. 6 68. 7 of 18 Sapone Lane. 8 69. Contra Costa County Sheriff Sergeant Dickerson arrived on the scene. 9 70. After some time, Deputy Buckley drove Mr. Thomas to the Contra Costa Deputy Shields even put his finger over the lens of the cell phone to prevent Ms. Malone At the same time, Deputy Shields was pushing Ms. Malone-McFarland back near the door 10 Regional Medical Center, where he received emergency medical care, including but not limited to, 11 sutures to his chin. 12 71. 13 allegedly having violated California Penal Code § 273A(b) (Willful harm or injury to child; 14 endangering person or health, a misdemeanor). 15 72. 16 form to the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services. 17 73. 18 misdemeanor, but the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office had not yet filed charges. 19 74. 20 not to file any charges against Mr. Thomas. 21 75. 22 Malone-McFarland’s and Mr. Thomas’ rights described herein, Deputies Buckley and Shields 23 unlawfully entered Plaintiffs’ home. 24 76. 25 wrongful seizure and arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 26 77. 27 including but not limited to: pointing handguns at him; taking him forcefully to the floor in his own Defendant Buckley then booked Mr. Thomas into the Martinez Detention Facility for Either Deputy Buckley, Shields, or a Doe Defendant sent a “Suspected Child Abuse Report” Mr. Thomas attended his court appearance on December 21, 2018 for the § 273(A) On or about January 16, 2019, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office decided Acting as integral participants, each with fundamental involvement in the violations of Ms. Deputies Buckley and Shields also subjected Ms. Malone-McFarland and Mr. Thomas to Defendants Buckley and Shields subjected Mr. Thomas to the use of excessive force, 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 7 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 9 of 20 1 kitchen; applying painful control holds, such as wrist-locks and a knee to the back of the neck, all 2 culminating in a leg-sweep takedown while handcuffed. 3 78. 4 Thomas in the absence of any unlawful resistance by him; in the absence of any immediate threat 5 posed by him; and in the absence of any objectively reasonable information that Mr. Thomas had 6 committed any crime. 7 79. There was no need to use any force against Mr. Thomas under these circumstances. 8 80. Further, on information and belief, Deputies Buckley and Shields subjected Mr. Thomas to 9 prolonged, painful, and unnecessary control holds, handcuffing, and a leg-sweep takedown in At all pertinent times, Deputies Buckley and Shields used excessive force against Mr. 10 retaliation for Mr. Thomas’ exercise of protected speech and exercise of his rights under the First 11 and Fourth Amendments. 12 81. 13 peacefully and lawfully. 14 82. 15 never engaged in any violence or threat of violence, nor committed any criminal or non-peaceful 16 actions. 17 83. Plaintiffs never resisted a lawful order and never attempted to escape. 18 84. Plaintiffs had committed no crime, were unarmed, did not pose any threat to Deputies 19 Buckley or Shields or others at any time, behaved peacefully and lawfully throughout this incident, 20 and obeyed Defendants’ orders. 21 85. 22 reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or other legal right, for an excessive amount of time. 23 86. 24 and objectively unreasonable, and such conduct created the situation in which Deputies Buckley 25 and Shields decided to unlawfully seize and use force against Mr. Thomas, thereby causing an 26 escalation of events leading to the unlawful seizure and use of force against, and injury to, Mr. 27 Thomas. At all times during Plaintiffs’ contact with Defendants Buckley and Shields, they behaved Plaintiffs never threatened anyone in any way, never possessed or displayed any weapon, At all material times, Deputies Buckley and Shields unreasonably seized Plaintiffs without Alternatively, or concurrently, the conduct of Deputies Buckley and Shields was excessive 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 8 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 10 of 20 1 87. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each Defendant were 2 intentional, wanton, and/or willful, conscience shocking, reckless, malicious, deliberately 3 indifferent to Plaintiffs’ rights, done with actual malice, grossly negligent, negligent, and 4 objectively unreasonable. 5 88. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set forth 6 above, Ms. Malone-McFarland and Mr. Thomas sustained the following injuries and damages, past 7 and future, among others: 8 a. Wrongful searches and seizures; 9 b. Wrongful seizure and imprisonment; 10 c. Unlawful invasion of home and privacy; 11 d. Violation of constitutional rights; 12 e. Pain and suffering and emotional distress; 13 f. Medical expenses; 14 g. Criminal-defense-related costs; 15 h. All damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees and penalties recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 16 1983, 1988, California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1, California Code of Civil 17 Procedure § 1021.5, and as otherwise allowed under California and United States 18 statutes, codes, and common law. 19 89. Plaintiffs timely and properly filed a tort claim pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 910 et seq., 20 and the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County served its rejected of the claim on June 11, 21 2019. This action is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitation. 22 23 24 25 26 COUNT ONE —42 U.S.C. § 1983— PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BUCKLEY AND SHIELDS 90. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 91. By the actions and omissions described above, Deputies Buckley and Shields deprived Ms. 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 9 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 11 of 20 1 Malone-McFarland and Mr. Thomas of the following clearly established and well-settled 2 constitutional right protected by the First and Fourth Amendments: 3 4 5 6 a. The right to be free from government entry of the home and real property without probable cause and a warrant; b. The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; 7 c. The right to be free from an unreasonable seizure; 8 d. The right to free exercise of the right to freedom from unreasonable entry of home 9 10 and to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. e. The right to free exercise of the rights to freedom of speech and expression, 11 including the right to verbally criticize and to video record law-enforcement officers 12 in public during the course of their duties, free from retaliation; 13 92. By the actions and omissions described above, Deputies Buckley and Shields deprived Mr. 14 Thomas of the following clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the 15 Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 16 a. The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force in the course of a seizure. 17 93. Defendants Buckley and Shields subjected Ms. Malone-McFarland and Mr. Thomas to their 18 wrongful conduct, depriving them of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with 19 conscious and reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiffs would be violated by 20 their acts and/or omissions. 21 22 23 24 25 26 94. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth herein were the moving force behind, and proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs, as set forth at ¶ 88. 95. Defendants’ conduct entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages and penalties against the individual defendants as allowable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. 96. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C.§ 1988 and applicable California codes and laws. 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 10 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 12 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNT TWO —42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell and Supervisory Liability— PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DOES 1–10 97. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 98. On information and belief, the unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Deputies Buckley and Shields, were pursuant to the following customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures of the CCCSO and/or the County of Contra Costa, which were directed, encouraged, allowed, and/or ratified by Doe Defendants 1–10 and other policy-making officers for the County of Contra Costa and the CCCSO: a. To unlawfully enter private property and homes without a warrant and without other legal basis, including training and permitting officers to do so based on non-existent “exceptions” to the Fourth Amendment; b. To tolerate the use of excessive and/or unjustified force; c. To permit or tolerate law-enforcement actions—including uses of force, seizures, searches, issuance of criminal citations or use of unnecessarily harsh and aggressive tactics—in retaliation for individuals’ exercise of protected rights; d. To cover-up violations of constitutional rights by any or all of the following: i. by failing to properly investigate and/or evaluate complaints or incidents of excessive and unreasonable force, and unlawful seizures; ii. by ignoring and/or failing to properly and adequately investigate and discipline unconstitutional law-enforcement activity; and iii. by allowing, creating, tolerating, and/or encouraging law-enforcement officers to: fail to file complete and accurate police reports; file false police reports; substantively copy other officers’ reports; make false statements; intimidate, bias, and/or “coach” witnesses to give false information and/or to attempt to bolster officers’ stories; and/or obstruct or interfere with 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 11 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 13 of 20 1 investigations of unconstitutional or unlawful police conduct, by withholding 2 and/or concealing material information; 3 e. to allow, tolerate, and/or encourage a “code of silence” among law-enforcement 4 officers and CCCSO’s personnel, whereby an officer or member of the department 5 does not provide adverse information against a fellow officer or member of the 6 department; 7 f. To fail to institute, require, and enforce necessary, appropriate, and lawful policies, 8 procedures, and training programs to prevent or correct the unconstitutional conduct, 9 customs, and practices and procedures described in this complaint and in sub- 10 paragraphs (a) through (e), with deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of 11 Plaintiffs, and the public, and in the face of an obvious need for such policies, 12 procedures, and training programs; and 13 g. To use or tolerate inadequate, deficient, and improper procedures for handling, 14 investigating, and reviewing complaints of officer misconduct made under California 15 Government Code § 910 et seq. 16 99. Defendants County of Contra Costa and Doe Defendants 1–10 failed to properly 17 hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and discipline Deputies Buckley and 18 Shields, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, which were thereby violated 19 as described above. 20 100. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants, as described above, 21 were approved, tolerated and/or ratified by Doe Defendants 1–10 and other policy-making officers 22 for the CCCSO. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the details of this 23 incident have been revealed to the authorized policy makers within the County of Contra Costa, and 24 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that such policymakers have direct 25 knowledge of the facts of this incident. Notwithstanding this knowledge, the authorized policy 26 makers within the County of Contra Costa have approved of the conduct of Defendants, and they 27 have made a deliberate choice to endorse the decisions of those Defendants and the basis for those 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 12 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 14 of 20 1 decisions. By doing so, the authorized policy makers of the County of Contra Costa have shown 2 affirmative agreement with each individual Defendant officer’s actions and have ratified the 3 unconstitutional acts of the individual Defendant officers. 4 101. The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures; the failures to 5 properly and adequately hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and 6 discipline; as well as the unconstitutional orders, approvals, ratification and toleration of wrongful 7 conduct of defendants County of Contra Costa and Doe Defendants 1-10 were a moving force 8 and/or a proximate cause of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ clearly established and well-settled 9 constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, as more fully set forth in ¶¶ 91–95, above, and 10 punitive damages against DOES 1–10 in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs do not seek punitive 11 damages against Contra Costa County. 12 COUNT THREE —VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE § 52.1— PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BUCKLEY AND SHIELDS 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 102. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 103. By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, Deputies Buckley and Shields, acting in concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under California Civil Code § 52.1, and the following clearly established rights under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution: a. The right to be free from government entry of home without probable cause and a warrant as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; b. The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; c. The right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 13 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 15 of 20 d. The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force in the course of a seizure as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 1 2 e. The right to be free from government retaliation for protected speech in exercise of Constitutional rights, as secured by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; 3 4 f. The right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquire, possess and protect property, and pursue and obtain safety, happiness and privacy, as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, § 1; 5 6 g. The right to protection from bodily restraint, harm, or personal insult, as secured by California Civil Code § 43. 7 8 9 10 104. interference with, and violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights by the following conduct constituting threats, intimidation, or coercion: 11 a. Interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to be free of government entry of their home without a warrant or other legal right, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, by forcibly opening the closed, grated-metal security door to 18 Sapone Lane; 12 13 b. Unlawfully entering Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant or legal right; 14 c. Pointing guns at Mr. Thomas, and forcing him onto his own kitchen floor; 15 d. Applying painful control holds, including wrist locks; placement of body-weight via a knee on the back of Mr. Thomas’ neck; and a leg-sweep takedown while he was already handcuffed, the latter a level of force sufficient to cause serious injuries, and which caused injuries, in the absence of any threat posed by Mr. Thomas, or other substantial governmental need for such force; 16 17 18 19 e. Continuing Mr. Thomas’ detention, arrest, and custody long after the lack of legal basis to do so was or should have been obvious to defendants, such that their conduct became intentionally coercive and wrongful; 20 21 f. Subjecting Mr. Thomas to retaliation, including a leg-sweep takedown while he was handcuffed, for his protected activity of criticizing the police; 22 g. Subjecting Ms. Malone-McFarland to retaliation, including forcibly moving her, grabbing the cell phone she was holding, and blocking her view, for attempting to video-record the incident, a protected activity; 23 24 25 h. Violating Mr. Thomas’ rights to be free from multiple unlawful searches and seizures, including by wrongful entry to his home, wrongful arrest, and excessive force. See Bender v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 217 Cal. App. 4th 968 (2013). 26 27 Separate from, and above and beyond, Defendants’ attempted interference, 105. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 14 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 16 of 20 1 §52.1 and of Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States and California Constitutions and law, 2 Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages, and against each and every Defendant are entitled to relief 3 as set forth above at ¶ 88, and punitive damages against Defendant law-enforcement officers in their 4 individual capacities, and all damages allowed by California Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1, and California 5 law, not limited to three times actual damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and civil penalties. 6 COUNT FOUR —NEGLIGENCE; PERSONAL INJURIES— PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 106. here. 107. 108. At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiffs the duty to act with reasonable care. 109. These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiffs by all Defendants include but are not limited to the following specific obligations: a. to refrain from using excessive and/or unreasonable force against Mr. Thomas; b. 17 d. 19 to refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law; e. to use generally accepted police procedures and tactics that are reasonable and 20 necessary under the circumstances; 21 f. to refrain from violating Plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by the United States and 22 California Constitutions, as set forth above, and as otherwise protected by law. 23 26 to refrain from causing Mr. Thomas to be wrongfully arrested and/or detained; c. to refrain from unlawfully entering and searching Plaintiffs’ home; 18 25 At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiffs the duty to act with due care in the execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation. 16 24 Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth 110. Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiffs by the County of Contra Costa and DOE Defendants 1–10 include, but are not limited to, the following specific obligations: 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 15 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 17 of 20 1 a. to properly and adequately hire, investigate, train, supervise, monitor, evaluate, and 2 discipline CCCSO employees, agents, and/or law-enforcement officers to ensure that 3 those employees/agents/officers act at all times in the public interest and in 4 conformance with law; 5 b. to make, enforce, and at all times act in conformance with policies and customs on 6 behalf of the CCCSO that are lawful and protective of individual rights, including 7 Plaintiffs’; 8 c. 9 10 11 12 to refrain from making, enforcing, and/or tolerating the wrongful policies and customs set forth at ¶ 98, above. 111. Defendants, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the aforementioned duties owed to plaintiffs. 112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs sustained 13 Injuries and damages, and against each and every Defendant are entitled to relief as set forth above 14 at ¶ 88, and punitive damages against all defendant law-enforcement officers under California law. 15 For this claim, the County of Contra Costa is vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees and 16 agents pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2. 17 19 COUNT FIVE —ASSAULT AND BATTERY— PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BUCKLEY AND SHIELDS, AND COUNTY 20 113. 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 114. Deputies Buckley and Shields offensively touched Mr. Thomas, including subjecting him to painful control holds, while he was behaving lawfully. 115. Deputy Shields offensively touched Ms. Malone-McFarland while she was lawfully trying to video record Deputy Buckley’s actions towards Mr. Thomas. 116. This conduct as described herein constitutes assault and battery. 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 16 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 18 of 20 1 117. The actions and omissions, customs, and policies of Defendants, as described above, 2 were intentional and reckless, harmful, threatening, and/or offensive, and a proximate cause of 3 Plaintiffs’ damages. 4 5 6 7 8 9 118. As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ assault and battery, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages and are entitled to relief as set forth above at ¶ 88, and punitive damages against Deputies Buckley, Shields, and Doe Defendants 1–10 under California law. For this claim, the County of Contra Costa is vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees and agents pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2. 11 COUNT SIX —FALSE ARREST OR IMPRISONMENT— PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BUCKLEY AND SHIELDS, AND COUNTY 12 119. 10 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 120. At no time during the events described above, or at all other pertinent times, did Defendants have a warrant for Mr. Thomas’ arrest, nor did Defendants have any facts or 17 information that constituted reasonable suspicion or probable cause that Mr. Thomas had committed 18 or was about to commit a crime. 19 20 21 22 23 24 121. At no time during the events described above, or at all other pertinent times, did Defendants have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain or to arrest Ms. MaloneMcFarland. 122. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully exercised force to restrain, detain, and confine Plaintiffs, putting restraint on Plaintiffs’ freedom of movement, and 25 compelled Plaintiffs to remain and/or move against their will. Defendants authorized, directed, and 26 assisted in procuring, without process, Ms. Malone-McFarland’s and Mr. Thomas’ false arrests. 27 123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 17 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 19 of 20 1 above, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages and are entitled to relief as set forth at ¶ 88, 2 including punitive damages against all individual defendant law-enforcement officers under 3 California law. 4 5 6 7 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief against each and every Defendant herein, jointly and severally: a. compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof and which is fair, just, and reasonable; b. punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law in an amount according to proof and which is fair, just, and reasonable (against all defendants except County of Contra Costa); c. All other damages, penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees as allowed by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, and 1988; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5; Cal. Civil Code § 52 et seq., 52.1, and as otherwise may be allowed by California and/or federal law; d. Injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following: 9 10 11 12 13 14 i. 15 16 17 ii. 18 19 20 21 22 23 e. An order prohibiting Defendant County of Contra Costa from engaging in the unconstitutional customs, policies, practices, procedures, training and supervision as may be determined and/or adjudged by this case; An order prohibiting Defendants and their lawenforcement officers from engaging in the “code of silence” as may be supported by the evidence in this case; Such other and further relief as presented by the evidence in this case and as this Court may deem appropriate. DATED: December 10, 2019 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 24 /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 25 T. KENNEDY HELM, IV Attorney for Plaintiffs 26 27 JURY DEMAND 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 18 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 20 of 20 1 2 Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury. DATED: December 10, 2019 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 3 4 /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 5 T. KENNEDY HELM, IV Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 19 Case 3:19-cv-08056-LB Document 1-1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 1 -6 &$1' 5HY &,9,/ &29(5 6+((7 7KH -6 &$1' FLYLO FRYHU VKHHW DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG KHUHLQ QHLWKHU UHSODFH QRU VXSSOHPHQW WKH ILOLQJ DQG VHUYLFH RI SOHDGLQJV RU RWKHU SDSHUV DV UHTXLUHG E\ ODZ H[FHSW DV SURYLGHG E\ ORFDO UXOHV RI FRXUW 7KLV IRUP DSSURYHG LQ LWV RULJLQDO IRUP E\ WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQ 6HSWHPEHU LV UHTXLUHG IRU WKH &OHUN RI &RXUW WR LQLWLDWH WKH FLYLO GRFNHW VKHHW (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) , D 3/$,17,))6 '()(1'$176 Contra Costa County, a public entity; Contra Costa County Sheriff's Deputies Matthew A. Buckley, Thomas C. Shields; and Does 1-10, Jointly and Severally Eddie Thomas and Dejanae Marshay Malone-McFarland E &RXQW\ RI 5HVLGHQFH RI )LUVW /LVWHG 3ODLQWLII (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) &RXQW\ RI 5HVLGHQFH RI )LUVW /LVWHG 'HIHQGDQW Contra Costa County (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) 127( ,1 /$1' &21'(01$7,21 &$6(6 86( 7+( /2&$7,21 2) 7+( 75$&7 2) /$1' ,192/9(' F $WWRUQH\V (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) T. Kennedy Helm, IV; Helm Law Office, PC; 644 40th Street; Suite 305; Oakland, CA 94609; (510) 350-7517 ,, %$6,6 2) -85,6',&7,21 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 8 6 *RYHUQPHQW 3ODLQWLII )HGHUDO 4XHVWLRQ (U.S. Government Not a Party) 8 6 *RYHUQPHQW 'HIHQGDQW 'LYHUVLW\ (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) $WWRUQH\V (If Known) ,,, &,7,=(16+,3 2) 35,1&,3$/ 3$57,(6 (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 37) '() 37) '() ,QFRUSRUDWHG or 3ULQFLSDO 3ODFH &LWL]HQ RI 7KLV 6WDWH RI %XVLQHVV ,Q 7KLV 6WDWH &LWL]HQ RI $QRWKHU 6WDWH ,QFRUSRUDWHG and 3ULQFLSDO 3ODFH RI %XVLQHVV ,Q $QRWKHU 6WDWH )RUHLJQ 1DWLRQ &LWL]HQ RU 6XEMHFW RI D )RUHLJQ &RXQWU\ ,9 1$785( 2) 68,7 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) &2175$&7 ,QVXUDQFH 0DULQH 0LOOHU $FW 1HJRWLDEOH ,QVWUXPHQW 5HFRYHU\ RI 2YHUSD\PHQW 2I 9HWHUDQ¶V %HQHILWV 0HGLFDUH $FW 5HFRYHU\ RI 'HIDXOWHG 6WXGHQW /RDQV ([FOXGHV 9HWHUDQV 5HFRYHU\ RI 2YHUSD\PHQW RI 9HWHUDQ¶V %HQHILWV 6WRFNKROGHUV¶ 6XLWV 2WKHU &RQWUDFW &RQWUDFW 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ )UDQFKLVH 5($/ 3523(57< /DQG &RQGHPQDWLRQ )RUHFORVXUH 5HQW /HDVH (MHFWPHQW 7RUWV WR /DQG 7RUW 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $OO 2WKHU 5HDO 3URSHUW\ 9 72576 3(5621$/ ,1-85< $LUSODQH $LUSODQH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $VVDXOW /LEHO 6ODQGHU )HGHUDO (PSOR\HUV¶ /LDELOLW\ 0DULQH 0DULQH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 0RWRU 9HKLFOH 0RWRU 9HKLFOH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 2WKHU 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 0HGLFDO 0DOSUDFWLFH 5HPRYHG IURP 6WDWH &RXUW 3(5621$/ 3523(57< 2WKHU )UDXG 7UXWK LQ /HQGLQJ 2WKHU 3HUVRQDO 3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH 3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 35,621(5 3(7,7,216 &,9,/ 5,*+76 2WKHU &LYLO 5LJKWV 9RWLQJ (PSOR\PHQW +RXVLQJ $FFRPPRGDWLRQV $PHU Z 'LVDELOLWLHV± (PSOR\PHQW $PHU Z 'LVDELOLWLHV±2WKHU (GXFDWLRQ 25,*,1 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 2ULJLQDO 3URFHHGLQJ 3(5621$/ ,1-85< 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ ± 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ +HDOWK &DUH 3KDUPDFHXWLFDO 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $VEHVWRV 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ +$%($6 &25386 $OLHQ 'HWDLQHH 0RWLRQV WR 9DFDWH 6HQWHQFH *HQHUDO 'HDWK 3HQDOW\ )25)(,785( 3(1$/7< 'UXJ 5HODWHG 6HL]XUH RI 3URSHUW\ 86& † 2WKHU /$%25 %$1.5837&< $SSHDO 86& † :LWKGUDZDO 86& † 3523(57< 5,*+76 )DLU /DERU 6WDQGDUGV $FW /DERU 0DQDJHPHQW 5HODWLRQV 5DLOZD\ /DERU $FW )DPLO\ DQG 0HGLFDO /HDYH $FW 2WKHU /DERU /LWLJDWLRQ (PSOR\HH 5HWLUHPHQW ,QFRPH 6HFXULW\ $FW ,00,*5$7,21 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ $SSOLFDWLRQ 2WKHU ,PPLJUDWLRQ $FWLRQV &RS\ULJKWV 3DWHQW 3DWHQWņ$EEUHYLDWHG 1HZ 'UXJ $SSOLFDWLRQ 7UDGHPDUN 62&,$/ 6(&85,7< +,$ II %ODFN /XQJ ',:& ',:: J 66,' 7LWOH ;9, 56, J )('(5$/ 7$; 68,76 7D[HV 8 6 3ODLQWLII RU 'HIHQGDQW ,56±7KLUG 3DUW\ 86& † 27+(5 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU &LYLO 5LJKWV 3ULVRQ &RQGLWLRQ &LYLO 'HWDLQHH± &RQGLWLRQV RI &RQILQHPHQW 5HPDQGHG IURP $SSHOODWH &RXUW 5HLQVWDWHG RU 5HRSHQHG 7UDQVIHUUHG IURP $QRWKHU 'LVWULFW (specify) 27+(5 67$787(6 )DOVH &ODLPV $FW 4XL 7DP 86& † D 6WDWH 5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW $QWLWUXVW %DQNV DQG %DQNLQJ &RPPHUFH 'HSRUWDWLRQ 5DFNHWHHU ,QIOXHQFHG &RUUXSW 2UJDQL]DWLRQV &RQVXPHU &UHGLW 7HOHSKRQH &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW &DEOH 6DW 79 6HFXULWLHV &RPPRGLWLHV ([FKDQJH 2WKHU 6WDWXWRU\ $FWLRQV $JULFXOWXUDO $FWV (QYLURQPHQWDO 0DWWHUV )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ $FW $UELWUDWLRQ $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 3URFHGXUH $FW 5HYLHZ RU $SSHDO RI $JHQF\ 'HFLVLRQ &RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\ RI 6WDWH 6WDWXWHV 0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ±7UDQVIHU 0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ±'LUHFW )LOH 9, &$86( 2) $&7,21 &LWH WKH 8 6 &LYLO 6WDWXWH XQGHU ZKLFK \RX DUH ILOLQJ (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988. %ULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI FDXVH Violation of First and Fourth Amendment Rights by unreasonable seizure after warrantless entry of home. 9,, 5(48(67(' ,1 &203/$,17 &+(&. ,) 7+,6 ,6 $ &/$66 $&7,21 81'(5 58/( )HG 5 &LY 3 9,,, 5(/$7(' &$6( 6 ,) $1< (See instructions): '(0$1' -8'*( &+(&. <(6 RQO\ LI GHPDQGHG LQ FRPSODLQW -85< '(0$1'