Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1366 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rachel Steinback, SBN 310700 LAW OFFICE OF RACHEL STEINBACK P.O. Box 291253 Los Angeles, CA 90029 (t) 213-537-5370 (f) 213-232-4003 (e) steinbacklaw@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs. [Additional Counsel on Following Page] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483 Monique A. Alarcon, SBN 311650 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (t) 310-393-3055 (e) carolsobel@aol.com (e) monique.alarcon8@gmail.com OMAR ARNOLDO RIVERA MARTINEZ; ISAAC ANTONIO LOPEZ CASTILLO; JOSUE VLADIMIR CORTEZ DIAZ; JOSUE MATEO LEMUS CAMPOS; MARVIN JOSUE GRANDE RODRIGUEZ; ALEXANDER ANTONIO BURGOS MEJIA; LUIS PEÑA GARCIA; JULIO CESAR BARAHONA CORNEJO, as individuals, PLAINTIFFS, v. THE GEO GROUP, Inc., a Florida corporation; the CITY OF ADELANTO, a municipal entity; GEO LIEUTENANT DIAZ, sued in her individual capacity; GEO SERGEANT CAMPOS, sued in his individual capacity; SARAH JONES, sued in her individual capacity; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA1; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, individuals; DEFENDANTS. Case No.: 5:18-cv-01125-SP SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First, Fourth, Fifth, & Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. §1985; Cal. Const., Article 1, §§ 2, 7; Cal. Civil Code §§ 52.1; Common Law Tort Claims. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. 26 27 28 The United States of America (“USA”) remains in the caption as a Defendant solely to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights on appeal. Plaintiffs’ claims against the USA were dismissed by the Court on May 1, 2019 (see Dkt. 70). 1 1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:1367 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Catherine Sweetser, SBN 271142 Kristina Harootun, SBN 308718 SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 11543 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 (t) 310-396-0731 (f) 310-399-7040 (e) csweetser@sshhlaw.com Colleen Flynn, SBN 2324281 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (t) 213-252-9444 (f) 213-252-0091 (e) cflynn@yahoo.com 12 13 14 15 16 Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (t) 323-696-2299 (e) matthew@matthewstrugar.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:1368 1 2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 3 U.S.C. § 1983 and based upon the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First, 4 Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 5 California law. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, and 1346, 6 based on 42 U.S.C. §1983 and questions of federal constitutional law. Jurisdiction 7 also exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202. 8 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant 9 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they arise from the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs’ 10 11 12 federal claims. 2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California in that the events and conduct complained of herein all occurred in the Central District. 13 14 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 3. In May 2017, after long and harrowing journeys through Central 15 America, Plaintiffs arrived at the southern border of the United States seeking 16 political asylum. 17 4. Plaintiffs, eight refugees from El Salvador and Honduras, were forced 18 to flee their home countries after becoming the targets of violent criminal 19 organizations – the same violent criminal organizations the United States has 20 recently condemned and denounced. By way of example: 21 a. Plaintiff Isaac Antonio Lopez Castillo was an investigative journalist in 22 El Salvador who exposed the connections between his local government, 23 the police, and the violent MS-13 gang. As a result of his work, he 24 immediately received death threats and was forced to flee El Salvador. 25 Mr. Lopez Castillo came to the United States, a vocal ally in the effort to 26 expose the crimes of MS-13, seeking safety and political asylum. 27 b. Plaintiff Omar Arnoldo Rivera Martinez fled El Salvador after gang 28 members attacked his teenage daughter and, while he and his family were 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:1369 1 forced to watch, killed his brother. Mr. Rivera Martinez and his family 2 came to the United States, a vocal ally in the fight against the gangs that 3 had overrun their hometown, seeking safety and political asylum. 4 c. Plaintiff Josue Vladimir Cortez Diaz, a young gay man, fled El Salvador 5 after being subjected to horrific abuse, including death threats, on 6 account of his homosexuality. Mr. Cortez Diaz came to the United 7 States, which by law protects individuals of all sexual orientations from 8 persecution, seeking safety and political asylum. 9 d. Plaintiff Luis Ernesto Peña Garcia fled El Salvador after gangs kidnapped 10 and killed his brother and two cousins and threatened to do the same to 11 him. Mr. Peña Garcia came to the United States, a vocal ally in the fight 12 against the gangs that murdered his family members, seeking safety and 13 political asylum. 14 e. The remaining Plaintiffs’ stories echo those of their brethren. Loved 15 ones were kidnapped and murdered in their home countries, and they 16 arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border having survived violence and threats 17 on their lives, seeking safety and political asylum. 18 19 20 5. Upon their admission to the United States, Plaintiffs were taken into custody and transported to Adelanto ICE Processing Center (“Adelanto”). 6. Although Adelanto is a government facility for political asylum 21 seekers and other immigrant detainees, and its inhabitants are overwhelmingly law- 22 abiding foreign nationals seeking safety and refuge, its conditions mirror those of 23 this country’s most abusive prisons. It has gained notoriety as the “deadliest 24 immigration detention center in the country” and it has been the subject of 25 Congressional, State and Federal inquiries. Human Rights Watch has documented 26 all manner of abuses there. In the first months of 2017 alone, several foreign 27 nationals detained at Adelanto died as a result of the deplorable conditions they 28 were subjected to at the facility. 4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:1370 1 7. Upon their arrival at Adelanto, Plaintiffs were forced to endure those 2 inhumane conditions. The underwear they were provided was dirty and unwashed, 3 having previously been worn by other detainees. They were given only foul, 4 nearly-inedible meals, and they did not have reliable access to clean, safe drinking 5 water. Their belongings were regularly thrown away. They were mistreated, 6 degraded, and humiliated by the staff. Their communications with their families 7 and their attorneys and advocates were severely limited. And they were given 8 impossibly high bond amounts – well beyond their meagre means. 9 8. In an attempt to remedy these inhumane and unlawful conditions at 10 Adelanto, Plaintiffs decided to undertake a peaceful hunger strike where they 11 would present a handwritten list of their concerns to ICE officials. 12 9. As detailed below, in response to this peaceful attempt to call 13 attention to the facility’s depraved and unlawful conditions, Defendants violently 14 attacked, pepper sprayed, and beat Plaintiffs. Defendants then placed Plaintiffs in 15 segregation for ten days – completely isolated from the outside world – as 16 punishment. 17 10. Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer, considerable damages as a 18 result of Defendants’ misconduct. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to get justice for 19 what happened to them, to expose the depraved conditions at Adelanto, and to 20 hopefully prevent any other detainee at Adelanto from being subjected to the 21 brutality they experienced. 22 PARTIES 23 PLAINTIFFS: 24 Omar Arnoldo Rivera Martinez 25 11. Plaintiff OMAR ARNOLDO RIVERA MARTINEZ is a Salvadoran 26 asylum seeker. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Rivera Martinez was 27 detained at Adelanto. 28 /// 5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:1371 1 12. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Rivera Martinez 2 and violated his rights under state and federal law. GEO guards slammed Mr. 3 Rivera Martinez’s face against a wall and knocked out his dental crown and tooth, 4 as well as a 14-tooth gold mouthpiece that lined his bottom row of teeth. The 5 guards also broke Mr. Rivera Martinez’s nose. After the attack he was left with a 6 missing tooth, 30 separate scratches on his body, ranging in length from one to 7 several inches, severe bruises, and a visibly fractured nose. Five months after the 8 attack, a doctor finally evaluated Mr. Rivera Martinez and concluded that he must 9 undergo surgery for his severely fractured nose. As of the filing of this complaint, 10 11 Mr. Rivera Martinez has not been provided this necessary surgery. 13. Defendants subjected Mr. Rivera Martinez to additional, unlawful 12 punishment: after spending ten days in segregation alongside the other Plaintiffs, 13 Defendants falsely labeled Mr. Rivera Martinez a leader that “incited a group 14 protest.” They placed him in a red, high-custody uniform and sent him to a high- 15 security ward that houses members of the very gangs that murdered his family 16 members and caused him to flee his home country. Mr. Rivera Martinez, fearing 17 for his safety, immediately began begging to be transferred out of the ward, 18 explaining that Defendants were placing him in physical danger. Defendants 19 ignored his pleas and left him there for one month before finally transferring him 20 into protective custody. 21 Isaac Antonio Lopez Castillo 22 14. Plaintiff ISAAC ANTONIO LOPEZ CASTILLO is a Salvadoran 23 asylum seeker. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Lopez Castillo was 24 detained at Adelanto. He is presently released on bond. 25 15. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Lopez Castillo 26 and violated his rights under state and federal law. After he was pepper sprayed in 27 the face, scalp, and groin at close range, Defendants slammed him against a wall, 28 injured his face, and caused his lip to bleed. Later, while still wearing pepper 6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:1372 1 spray-drenched clothing, Defendants forced Mr. Lopez Castillo to stand in a 2 scalding hot shower. He sustained burns from the pepper spray and scalding hot 3 water, as well as severe bruising around his body. He suffered severe pain in his 4 ribs and despite his requests, he never received medical attention, including x-rays. 5 Josue Vladimir Cortez Diaz 6 16. Plaintiff JOSUE VLADIMIR CORTEZ DIAZ is a Salvadoran asylee. 7 At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Cortez Diaz was detained at Adelanto. 8 Mr. Cortez Diaz was granted asylum and is currently residing in Fillmore, 9 California, where he works at a restaurant. 10 17. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Cortez Diaz and 11 violated his rights under state and federal law. After he was pepper sprayed in the 12 face, scalp, and groin at close range, Defendants threw Mr. Cortez Diaz on the 13 ground while handcuffed, injuring his right hip. Later, while still wearing pepper 14 spray-drenched clothing, Defendants forced Mr. Cortez Diaz to stand in a scalding 15 hot shower. Mr. Cortez Diaz sustained burns from the pepper spray and scalding 16 hot water, as well as severe bruising around his body. Despite his numerous 17 requests, Defendants never provided Mr. Cortez Diaz any medical attention. 18 Josue Mateo Lemus Campos 19 18. Plaintiff JOSUE MATEO LEMUS CAMPOS is a Salvadoran asylum 20 seeker. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Lemus Campos was detained at 21 Adelanto. He is presently released on bond. 22 19. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Lemus Campos 23 and violated his rights under state and federal law. After he was pepper sprayed in 24 the face, scalp, and groin at close range, Defendants handcuffed him and continued 25 to beat him about his body. Later, while still wearing pepper spray-drenched 26 clothing, Defendants forced Mr. Lemus Campos to stand in a scalding hot shower. 27 He sustained burns from the pepper spray and scalding hot water, as well as severe 28 bruising around his body. He also suffered severe shoulder pain. Despite his 7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:1373 1 numerous requests, Mr. Lemus Campos never received adequate medical attention 2 for his pain and injuries. 3 Marvin Josue Grande Rodriguez 4 20. Plaintiff MARVIN JOSUE GRANDE RODRIGUEZ is a Salvadoran 5 asylum seeker. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Grande Rodriguez was 6 detained at Adelanto. He is presently released on bond. 7 21. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Grande 8 Rodriguez and violated his rights under state and federal law. After dousing him in 9 pepper spray, Defendants slammed him against a wall and injured his head. When 10 Defendants forced him to shower in scalding hot water while handcuffed and in 11 pepper spray drenched clothing, he fainted in the shower and injured his head. He 12 sustained burns from the pepper spray and scalding hot water, as well as severe 13 bruising around his body. 14 Alexander Antonio Burgos Mejia 15 22. Plaintiff ALEXANDER ANTONIO BURGOS MEJIA is a Honduran 16 asylum seeker. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Burgos Mejia was 17 detained at Adelanto. He is presently released on bond. 18 23. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Burgos and 19 violated his rights under state and federal law. After dousing him in pepper spray, 20 Defendants slammed him against a wall and injured his head. He sustained burns 21 from the pepper spray, as well as severe bruising around his body. 22 Luis Peña Garcia 23 24. Plaintiff LUIS PEÑA GARCIA is a Salvadoran asylum seeker. At all 24 times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Peña Garcia was detained at Adelanto. He is 25 presently released on bond. 26 27 25. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Peña Garcia and violated his rights under state and federal law. After dousing him in pepper spray, 28 8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:1374 1 Defendants slammed him against a wall and injured his head. He sustained burns 2 from the pepper spray, as well as severe bruising around his body. 3 Julio Cesar Barahona Cornejo 4 26. Plaintiff JULIO CESAR BARAHONA CORNEJO is a Salvadoran 5 asylum seeker. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Barahona Cornejo was 6 detained at Adelanto. He is presently released on bond. 7 27. On June 12, 2017, Defendants brutally attacked Mr. Barahona 8 Cornejo and violated his rights under state and federal law. After dousing him in 9 pepper spray, Defendants handcuffed and threw him on the ground, injuring his 10 abdomen and knee on a nearby table. Later, while still wearing pepper spray- 11 drenched clothing, Defendants forced Mr. Barahona Cornejo to stand in a scalding 12 hot shower. He sustained burns from the pepper spray and scalding hot water, as 13 well as severe bruising around his body. 14 DEFENDANTS: 15 28. Defendant GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”) is a private company 16 headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida which contracts with government entities to 17 provide corrections officers and other detention-related services. GEO contracted 18 with the City of Adelanto to provide guards and security personnel at Adelanto 19 detention center. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at 20 all times relevant to this complaint under color of state law as an agent of the City 21 of Adelanto. The contract with the City of Adelanto explicitly acknowledged the 22 right of the City to inspect and monitor the work of the GEO Group and that the 23 detainees would have all rights created by the United States and California 24 Constitutions and under state law. 25 29. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant City of Adelanto 26 (“Adelanto”) was a municipality duly organized under the laws of the State of 27 California. Liability under California law for Defendant Adelanto is based in 28 whole or in part upon California Government Code §§ 815.2, 815.4 and 920; Penal 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:1375 1 Code §§ 149, 240, and/or 242; and/or Civil Code §§ 43, 51, 51.7, and/or 52.1. 2 Liability under federal law for all government-entity employees is based upon 42 3 U.S.C. § 1983. 4 30. At all relevant times, employees of the GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”) 5 were subcontractors with the City of Adelanto to provide security at Adelanto 6 detention center. The City of Adelanto was the “service provider” of detention 7 services for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 8 Enforcement (“ICE”) and was paid with federal funds to provide security and other 9 services at the detention center. The City of Adelanto contracted with GEO Group, 10 Inc. to be its agent at Adelanto detention center, while retaining the right of 11 inspection and control at the facility under its contract with GEO. 12 31. Defendant Diaz was at all times relevant to this complaint an 13 employee and agent of the GEO Group and is responsible for the acts and 14 omissions complained of herein. Defendant Diaz, a Lieutenant who held a 15 supervisory role at Adelanto detention center, is sued in her individual and 16 supervisory capacities. 17 32. Defendant Campos was at all times relevant to this complaint an 18 employee and agent of the GEO Group and is responsible for the acts and 19 omissions complained of herein. Defendant Campos, a Sergeant who held a 20 supervisory role at Adelanto detention center, is sued in his individual and 21 supervisory capacities. 22 33. Defendant CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC. (“CCS”) is a 23 Tennessee-based limited liability company that contracts with private-prison 24 companies, cities, states, and the federal government to provide medical and 25 mental health care inside correctional facilities across the country. At all times 26 relevant to this complaint, Defendant CCS contracted with Defendant GEO Group 27 to provide medical care to the detainees at Adelanto detention center, and its agents 28 and employees, including Defendant Jones and DOE 6, were health care 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:1376 1 professionals licensed by the State of California and acting under color of state law 2 as an agent of the City of Adelanto. 3 34. Defendant Jones was at all times relevant to this complaint an 4 employee and agent of Defendant CCS and/or the GEO Group and is responsible 5 for the acts and omissions complained of herein. Defendant Jones, a Licensed 6 Vocational Nurse at Adelanto detention center, is sued in her individual and 7 supervisory capacities. 8 9 35. Defendant United States of America is sued under 28 U.S.C. § 2674 for the tortious acts of its agents acting under color of law and authority as officers 10 with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 11 Enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are employees of the 12 United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2674.2 13 36. Defendant United States of America has waived sovereign immunity 14 as to all claims brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Defendant United 15 States of America is subject to answer for wrongs committed in this judicial 16 district. 17 37. The identities and capacities of Defendants DOE 1 through 6 are 18 presently unknown to plaintiffs, and on this basis, Plaintiffs sue these Defendants 19 by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to substitute the true 20 names and capacities of the DOE Defendants when ascertained. Plaintiffs are 21 informed, believe, and thereon allege that DOE 1 through 6 are, and were at all 22 times relevant herein, employees of the GEO Group and/or CCS, and are 23 responsible for the acts and omissions complained of herein. These employees 24 were staffing the Adelanto Detention Center pursuant to the contract between 25 Defendant City of Adelanto and GEO Group and were agents of Defendant City of 26 27 28 2 Again, Defendant USA remains named in this Complaint only for purposes of preserving Plaintiffs’ potential claims on appeal. See supra fn. 1. 11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:1377 1 Adelanto. The City of Adelanto is vicariously liable for their actions under 2 California Government Code §§ 815.2 and 815.4. 3 38. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that DOES 7 4 through 10 are, and were at all times relevant herein, employees and/or agents of 5 the federal government, specifically of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 6 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and are responsible for the acts and 7 omissions complained of herein. Defendants DOES 7 through 10 are sued in their 8 individual capacities. 9 10 11 12 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 39. On Monday, June 12, 2017, Plaintiffs began a peaceful hunger strike to call attention to the conditions of confinement at Adelanto. 40. At breakfast that morning, the eight men sat at two tables in the “East 13 Alpha” facility and presented a four-page, handwritten letter that detailed their 14 concerns regarding the treatment of detainees at Adelanto. 15 41. Their letter explained that the hunger strike would remain peaceful, 16 and it asked ICE to remedy several of the inhumane conditions they were being 17 subjected to. 18 42. As Plaintiffs are monolingual Spanish speakers, another detainee 19 translated for Plaintiffs and informed the GEO guards present that Plaintiffs 20 wanted to speak with an ICE agent who spoke Spanish. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. GEO guards did not inform ICE of the announced hunger strike. Instead, GEO guards ordered all detainees back to their beds for morning count. 44. Plaintiffs remained seated, calmly linked arms, and respectfully reiterated their request to speak with ICE officials. 45. GEO guards became increasingly upset and called for backup. Approximately ten additional GEO guards arrived. 46. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Diaz arrived wearing a white-shirt uniform, indicating that she was a supervisor. She began yelling at the detainees in 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:1378 1 English and displayed a large canister of pepper spray, slamming it on the table 2 repeatedly and continuing to yell incomprehensibly at Plaintiffs in English. 3 Defendant Diaz then emptied the entire canister of pepper spray on Plaintiffs, 4 spraying them at close range and directly in their faces, mouths, scalps, and groins. 5 47. While Plaintiffs screamed from the pain, the GEO supervisor sprayed 6 pepper spray directly into their noses, mouths, and eyes at close range. When 7 Plaintiffs lowered their heads onto the table, trying to shield their faces, she 8 sprayed their scalps. 9 48. After Plaintiffs were drenched in pepper spray, other GEO guards 10 (Does 1 through 5) began pulling Plaintiffs up from the tables. They hit Plaintiffs 11 in their rib cages, dug their nails behind Plaintiffs’ ears and down Plaintiffs’ arms, 12 shoved their knuckles into Plaintiffs’ necks and backs, and twisted Plaintiffs’ arms. 13 49. Soon after a second supervisor, Defendant Campos, arrived wearing a 14 white-shirt uniform, indicating that he was a supervisor. Similar to Defendant 15 Diaz, Defendant Campos began yelling in English while displaying a large canister 16 of pepper spray. Defendant Campos then emptied the entire canister of pepper 17 spray on the Plaintiffs, spraying them at close range and directly in their faces, 18 mouths, and scalps. 19 20 50. In total, Defendants Diaz and Campos, GEO supervisors, emptied two cannisters of pepper spray on Plaintiffs. 21 51. The guards then handcuffed Plaintiffs and continued to brutally 22 assault them, even though Plaintiffs were not in any way resisting. GEO guards 23 slammed Plaintiffs against concrete walls and onto the floors, ultimately dragging 24 them out of the East Alpha facility in handcuffs. 25 52. GEO guards slammed one Plaintiff’s face against a concrete wall and 26 knocked out his dental crown and tooth, as well as a 14-tooth gold mouthpiece that 27 lined his bottom row of teeth. In doing so, the guards also broke Plaintiff’s nose. 28 /// 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:1379 1 53. Plaintiffs, drenched in pepper spray and shackled, were taken out to 2 the yard, some carried by hands and feet, and thrown on the ground. So much 3 pepper spray was used that the fumes overwhelmed the building, requiring the 4 evacuation of the entire East Alpha unit. 5 54. Plaintiffs were left out in the yard for approximately 20-30 minutes 6 while drenched in pepper spray. They were then taken to a small holding cell in 7 the “West” building where the men were isolated for approximately one hour. The 8 pepper spray fumes emanated from their clothes and bodies and overwhelmed the 9 small space in which they were confined, suffocating Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cried out 10 11 in pain but were met only with laughter by the GEO guards. 55. While in this holding cell, nurses, Defendant Sarah Jones and Doe 6, 12 arrived. The pepper spray fumes were so intolerable that Defendant Jones 13 demanded that the room be ventilated before she approached Plaintiffs. Despite 14 Plaintiffs’ pleas for medical treatment and attention, the nurse only checked their 15 vitals before leaving the cell. 16 56. At the same time, an ICE agent (Doe 7) arrived and asked each person 17 how they were injured and what had occurred. The ICE agent saw that the 18 handcuffs on Plaintiffs were extremely tight and causing their wrists to swell. He 19 ordered that GEO guards loosen the handcuffs and left the room. 20 57. After approximately one and one-half hours passed, five Plaintiffs 21 were forced to shower in scalding hot water while still handcuffed and fully 22 clothed in their pepper-spray drenched clothing. The hot water exacerbated the 23 pepper spray burns and increased the fumes. Plaintiffs were screaming out and 24 twisting in pain, hands still cuffed behind their back. The three other Plaintiffs 25 heard their friends screaming in pain and refused to go into the shower. At least 26 one Plaintiff fainted in the shower as a result of the excruciating pain. 27 28 58. Plaintiffs were then taken back to the holding cell where they were not permitted to remove their pepper-sprayed clothing. The pain was so unbearable 14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:1380 1 that Plaintiffs rolled on the ground to mitigate the burning sensation and begged for 2 something to soothe the pain. Neither GEO nor ICE provided medical attention. 3 59. After nearly one hour, Plaintiffs were finally given dry uniforms. 4 Although Plaintiffs were originally in blue (low custody) uniforms, Plaintiffs were 5 required to wear orange (medium custody) uniforms, elevating them to a higher 6 security level as punishment for participating in the hunger strike. They were 7 immediately placed in segregation and separated into pairs. 8 9 10 60. Plaintiffs were told they would remain in segregation for 10 days as punishment for their participation in a hunger strike. 61. While in segregation, Plaintiffs were forced to spend 23 hours per day 11 in their cells. Their showers were limited, their phone calls were restricted, and 12 they were denied access to the law library or commissary. 13 62. Plaintiffs made numerous requests for medical care to treat their 14 injuries. For the entirety of their time in segregation, they repeatedly asked for 15 burn cream, to have their scratches and wounds cleaned, and for x-rays of their 16 more severe injuries. All of their requests were ignored. 17 18 19 63. While in segregation, Plaintiffs continued their peaceful hunger strike and maintained that they would not eat until they spoke with ICE officials. 64. On the second day of the hunger strike, GEO supervisor Lieutenant 20 Duran went to Plaintiffs’ segregation cells to interview them about what had taken 21 place. Defendant Duran told Plaintiffs that the GEO guards did not respond to the 22 announced hunger strike appropriately, but that Plaintiffs would nevertheless 23 remain holed up in segregation for their decision to wage a hunger strike. 24 65. Before Plaintiffs’ hunger strike reached the 72-hour mark, Plaintiffs 25 were placed in a room where they met with approximately five ICE agents (Does 26 8-10), some of whom spoke Spanish. These agents threatened Plaintiffs with 27 continued isolation in segregation and summary deportation if Plaintiffs did not 28 end their hunger strike. ICE agents also threatened to inform Plaintiffs’ 15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:1381 1 immigration judges of the hunger strike, with the intent to adversely affect their 2 immigration cases. 3 4 5 66. Plaintiffs agreed to end the hunger strike. The punishment, however, did not end. Defendants continued to unlawfully hold them in segregation. 67. On June 22, 2017, an immigration lawyer representing two of the 6 Plaintiffs lodged a complaint against GEO and ICE with the U.S. Department of 7 Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties compliance 8 branch. The lawyer recounted the incident of violence against the hunger strikers 9 and demanded that the matter be investigated and immediate action be taken to 10 protect her clients and the rest of the hunger strikers. The complaint was filed on 11 behalf of all of the hunger strikers. 12 68. On or about June 30, 2017, following the civil rights complaint, 13 officials from the Adelanto facility placed a block on telephone numbers that 14 Plaintiffs regularly contacted. This restricted Plaintiffs from communicating with 15 their immigration attorneys, as well as various other advocacy groups that were 16 helping raise bond money and gathering documentation to support Plaintiffs’ 17 asylum claims. On information and belief, approximately 20 different phone 18 numbers associated with Plaintiffs were blocked. 19 20 ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM UNDER FEDERAL TORT CLAIM ACT 69. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiffs presented an administrative claim for 21 money damages to the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) 22 concerning the incident that is the basis of this complaint. Six months have lapsed 23 and Plaintiffs have not received a denial of their administrative claim. Thus, by 24 operation of law, the claim is now deemed to have been denied. Having exhausted 25 all administrative remedies, Plaintiffs commence the instant action. 26 27 28 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINSTRATIVE REMEDIES 70. On November 16, 2017, Plaintiffs timely filed state tort claims with the Defendant City of Adelanto pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq. On 16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:1382 1 November 29, 2017, Defendant City of Adelanto denied these claims. 2 3 MONELL ALLEGATIONS 71. Based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City 4 Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), Defendant City of Adelanto is 5 liable for all injuries sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth herein. Adelanto bears 6 liability because its policies, practices and/or customs were a cause of Plaintiffs’ 7 injuries. Adelanto and its officials maintained or permitted one or more of the 8 following policies, customs or practices: 9 a. Failure to provide adequate training and supervision to guards and 10 security personnel with respect to constitutional limits on the use of 11 excessive and deadly force; 12 b. Failure to provide adequate training and supervision to guards and 13 security personnel with respect to constitutional limits on use of force, 14 search, and detention; particularly, but not exclusively when interacting 15 with individuals exercising their First Amendment rights; 16 c. Failure to adequately discipline or retrain officers involved in 17 misconduct; 18 d. Selection, retention, and assignation of officers with demonstrable 19 propensities for excessive force, violence, dishonesty, and other 20 misconduct; 21 e. Condonation and encouragement of officers in the belief that they can 22 violate the rights of persons, such as Plaintiffs, with impunity, and that 23 such conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for promotion 24 and other employment benefits. 25 72. The City of Adelanto was obligated under an Intergovernmental 26 Services Agreement with ICE to ensure that security posts and positions were 27 staffed with “qualified personnel” and to ensure that it was respecting the 28 constitutional rights of the detainees. 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #:1383 1 73. The City of Adelanto at the highest policy levels chose to subcontract 2 its activities to GEO Group and entered into a contract requiring GEO to abide by 3 the Intergovernmental Services Agreement. The contract itself was signed by the 4 City Manager/Executive Director. 5 74. The City of Adelanto maintained a right of inspection under the GEO 6 contract such that City inspectors could enter the facility to correct any 7 deficiencies. 8 10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Battery (Against All Defendants Except Defendants CCS, Jones and Doe 6) 11 75. 9 12 13 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 76. Without consent or legal privilege, GEO Group employees 14 intentionally assaulted and physically battered Plaintiffs with the intent to harm 15 Plaintiffs. Such conduct was extreme and outrageous and would be deemed highly 16 offensive to a reasonable person. 17 18 19 77. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs were physically and psychologically damaged. 78. Defendant GEO Group’s guards were at all times acting as employees 20 of GEO Group and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 21 Plaintiffs. Defendant GEO Group is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 22 employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat 23 superior. 24 79. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 25 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. 26 Defendant Adelanto is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its subcontractor 27 GEO Group’s employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the 28 doctrine of respondeat superior. 18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 19 of 31 Page ID #:1384 1 80. Defendant GEO Group’s guards acted with malice and oppression and 2 with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendant GEO, 3 Defendants Diaz and Campos, and Defendants DOE 1-5 liable for punitive 4 damages under California Civil Code § 3294. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Assault (Against All Defendants Except the United States, CCS, Jones and Doe 6) 6 7 8 9 81. preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 10 11 82. Without consent or legal privilege, GEO group employees created a reasonable apprehension in Plaintiffs of immediate harmful or offensive contact. 12 13 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the 83. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs were physically and psychologically damaged. 14 84. Defendant GEO Group’s guards were at all times acting as employees 15 of GEO Group and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 16 Plaintiffs. Defendant GEO Group is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 17 employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat 18 superior. 19 85. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 20 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. 21 Defendant Adelanto is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its subcontractor 22 GEO Group’s employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the 23 doctrine of respondeat superior. 24 86. Defendant GEO Group’s guards acted with malice and oppression and 25 with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendant GEO, 26 Defendants Diaz and Campos, and Defendants DOE 1-5 liable for punitive 27 damages under California Civil Code § 3294. 28 /// 19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #:1385 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision (Against Defendants GEO, Adelanto, & United States) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 87. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 88. Defendants GEO Group and United States negligently hired, retained, or supervised their guards and ICE officers at the Adelanto facility. 89. Defendants GEO Group’s guards and DOES 7-10 intended to cause, 8 and did cause, Plaintiffs to experience severe physical injury and emotional 9 distress and they each acted with reckless disregard of the probability that 10 11 12 13 Plaintiffs would suffer such injuries. 90. The conduct of Defendants GEO Group’s guards and DOES 7-10 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe distress. 91. Defendant GEO Group’s guards were at all times acting as employees 14 of GEO Group and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 15 Plaintiffs. Defendant GEO Group is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 16 employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat 17 superior. 18 92. Defendant DOES 7-10 were at all times acting as employees of the 19 United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 20 Enforcement and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 21 Plaintiffs. Defendant United States is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 22 employees under the Federal Torts Claim Act. Under the Federal Torts Claim Act, 23 the property party to be named an action is the United States as suits against 24 federal agencies (i.e. DHS and ICE) are barred. 25 93. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 26 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. 27 Defendant Adelanto is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its subcontractor 28 20 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 21 of 31 Page ID #:1386 1 GEO Group’s employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the 2 doctrine of respondeat superior. 3 94. Defendant GEO Group’s guards acted with malice and oppression and 4 with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendant GEO liable for 5 punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 96. Defendant GEO Group’s guards and DOES 7-10 engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that transcended the bounds of human decency. 97. Defendants GEO Group’s guards and DOES 7-10 intended to cause, 14 and did cause, Plaintiffs to experience severe physical injury and emotional 15 distress and they each acted with reckless disregard of the probability that 16 Plaintiffs would suffer such injuries. 17 18 19 98. Defendants GEO Group’s guards’ and DOES 7-10 conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ severe distress. 99. Defendant GEO Group’s guards were at all times acting as employees 20 of GEO Group and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 21 Plaintiffs. Defendant GEO Group is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 22 employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat 23 superior. 24 100. Defendant CCS’s employees, contractors and/or agents, including 25 Defendant Jones and Defendant DOE 6, were at all times acting as employees of 26 CCS and within the scope of their employment when they harmed Plaintiffs. 27 Defendant CCS is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its employees under the 28 law of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior 21 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #:1387 1 101. Defendant DOES 7-10 were at all times acting as employees of the 2 United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 3 Enforcement and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 4 Plaintiffs. Defendant United States is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 5 employees under the Federal Torts Claim Act. 6 7 8 9 102. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 103. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. 10 Defendant Adelanto is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its subcontractor 11 GEO Group’s employees under the law of vicarious liability, including the 12 doctrine of respondeat superior. 13 104. Defendant GEO Group’s guards and Defendant CCS’s employees 14 acted with malice and oppression and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ 15 rights, making Defendants GEO and CCS, Defendants Diaz, Campos, and Jones, 16 and Defendants DOES 1-6 liable for punitive damages under California Civil Code 17 § 3294. 18 19 20 21 22 23 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION First Amendment (42 U.S.C. §1983; Bivens Claim) Retaliation Against Protected Conduct; Ca. Const. Art. I § 2 (Against All Defendants Except the United States, CCS, Jones and Doe 6) 105. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 106. This cause of action is brought under the authority of Bivens v. Six 24 Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 25 and upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California 26 Constitution against Defendant DOES 7-10, in their individual capacities. 27 28 107. Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights to freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the United State Constitution 22 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:1388 1 by retaliating against them for exercising their constitutional right to petition for 2 redress of grievances. 3 108. In response to Plaintiffs filing grievances related to GEO guards’ 4 assault, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs by blocking or otherwise restricting 5 telephone numbers that Plaintiffs regularly contacted, restricting Plaintiffs from 6 communicating with their immigration attorneys, as well as various other advocacy 7 groups that help raise bond money and gather documentation to support Plaintiffs’ 8 asylum claims. 9 10 11 109. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress. 110. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 12 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. As set 13 forth above in paragraph 71, the GEO Group’s policies, customs and practices, 14 including its failure to discipline or retrain officers and in particular its failure to 15 train officers regarding detainees’ First Amendment rights, led to the constitutional 16 violations at issue. Moreover, the City of Adelanto’s policymakers chose to 17 subcontract the detention facility to GEO Group and failed to inspect the facility or 18 monitor the amount of training given to the GEO Group’s guards. 19 111. Defendant DOES 7-10 are employees and/or agents of the federal 20 government, specifically of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 21 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and were acting at all relevant times under 22 color of federal law as an agent of the federal government. 23 112. Defendants knew or should have known that retaliating against 24 Plaintiffs for filing grievances was a clearly established violation of the First 25 Amendment at the time of the retaliation. 26 27 113. Defendant GEO Group’s guards acted with malice and oppression and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendant GEO, 28 23 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:1389 1 Defendants Diaz, Campos, and Defendants DOE 1-5 liable for punitive damages 2 under California Civil Code § 3294. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Bivens Claims) Excessive Force (Against All Defendants Except the United States, CCS, Jones and Doe 6) 114. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 115. This cause of action is brought under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 10 and upon the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against 11 Defendant DOE 7-10, in their individual capacities. 12 116. Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from excessive or 13 arbitrary force, and segregated detention without reasonable or probable cause 14 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants 15 assaulted Plaintiffs and placed them in segregation without legal authority. 16 17 18 117. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and emotional distress. 118. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 19 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. As set 20 forth above in paragraph 71, the GEO Group’s policies, customs and practices, 21 including its failure to discipline or retrain officers led to the constitutional 22 violations at issue. Moreover, the City of Adelanto’s policymakers chose to 23 subcontract the detention facility to GEO Group and failed to inspect the facility or 24 monitor the amount of training given to the GEO Group’s guards. 25 119. DOES 7-10 are employees and/or agents of the federal government, 26 specifically of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and 27 Customs Enforcement, and were acting at all relevant times under color of federal 28 law as an agent of the federal government. 24 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #:1390 1 120. Defendants knew or should have known that using excessive force 2 against Plaintiffs and unlawfully placing them in segregation for filing grievances 3 was a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment at the time of the 4 incident. 5 121. Defendant GEO Group’s guards acted with malice and oppression and 6 with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendant GEO, 7 Defendants Diaz, Campos, and Defendants DOE 1-5 liable for punitive damages 8 under California Civil Code § 3294. 9 10 11 12 13 14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Bivens Claims) Right to Due Process of Law; Ca. Const. Art. I § 7 (Against All Defendants Except the United States) 122. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 123. This cause of action is brought under the authority of Bivens v. Six 15 Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 16 and upon the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California 17 Constitution against Defendant DOES 7-10, in their individual capacities. 18 124. Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of liberty without due process 19 of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 20 Constitution. Based on Plaintiffs’ grievances related to the conditions at the 21 Adelanto facility, Defendants assaulted Plaintiffs, placed them in segregation, 22 blocked or restricted their access to telephones, and failed to provide adequate 23 medical care all without legal authority. 24 25 26 125. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical injury and emotional distress. 126. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 27 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. As set 28 forth above in paragraph 71, the GEO Group’s policies, customs and practices, 25 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 26 of 31 Page ID #:1391 1 including its failure to discipline or retrain officers led to the constitutional 2 violations at issue. Moreover, the City of Adelanto’s policymakers chose to 3 subcontract the detention facility to GEO Group and failed to inspect the facility or 4 monitor the amount of training given to the GEO Group’s guards. 5 127. DOES 7-10 are employees and/or agents of the federal government, 6 specifically of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and 7 Customs Enforcement, and were acting at all relevant times under color of federal 8 law as an agent of the federal government. 9 128. Defendants knew or should have known that assaulting plaintiffs, 10 placing them in segregation, and blocking or restricting their access to telephones 11 in response to Plaintiffs’ grievances was a clearly established violation of the 12 Fourth Amendment at the time of the incident. 13 129. Defendant GEO Group’s guards and employees, and Defendant 14 CCS’s employees and agents, acted with malice and oppression and with a 15 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendants GEO and CCS, 16 Defendants Diaz, Campos, and Jones, and Defendants DOE 1-6 liable for punitive 17 damages under California Civil Code § 3294. 18 19 20 21 22 23 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Bane Act Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (Against All Defendants, Except CCS, Jones, and Doe 6) 130. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 24 131. Defendants, by their conduct, interfered by threats, intimidation, or 25 coercion, or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the 26 exercise or enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, 27 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or laws of the 28 United States. 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 27 of 31 Page ID #:1392 1 132. There was no lawful justification for Defendants to threaten, 2 intimidate, or coerce the Plaintiffs, or to attempt to use threats, intimidation, or 3 coercion to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights. 4 133. In particular, Defendant GEO Group’s guards reacted with violence 5 and force and threatened additional punishment through segregation and isolation, 6 in order to coerce Plaintiffs to stop their protected First Amendment activity. 7 134. Similarly, Doe Defendants from ICE instructed GEO Group guards to 8 hold Plaintiffs in segregation in order to coerce Plaintiffs to stop their protected 9 First Amendment activity. Doe Defendants also threatened Plaintiffs with 10 11 12 13 increased punishment, including deportation. 135. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical injury and emotional distress. 136. Defendant GEO Group’s guards and employees, and Defendant 14 CCS’s employees and agents, acted with malice and oppression and with a 15 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendants GEO, Defendants 16 Diaz, and Campos, and Defendants DOE 1-5 liable for punitive damages under 17 California Civil Code § 3294. 18 19 20 21 22 23 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Against All Defendants Except the United States, CCS, and Jones) 137. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 24 138. Defendants conspired and agreed to deprive Plaintiffs of the equal 25 protection of the laws and of equal privileges and immunities of the laws of the 26 United States because of Plaintiffs’ exercise of their Constitutional rights. 27 28 139. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe damages, including physical injury and emotional distress. 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:1393 1 140. Defendant GEO Group’s guards and employees acted with malice and 2 oppression and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendants 3 GEO, Defendants Diaz and Campos, and Defendants DOEs 1-5 liable for punitive 4 damages under California Civil Code § 3294. 5 141. The GEO Group and its officers and/or employees were acting at all 6 relevant times under color of state law as an agent of the City of Adelanto. As set 7 forth above in paragraph 71, the GEO Group’s policies, customs and practices, 8 including its failure to discipline or retrain officers led to the incident at issue. 9 Moreover, the City of Adelanto’s policymakers chose to subcontract the detention 10 facility to GEO Group and failed to inspect the facility or monitor the amount of 11 training given to the GEO Group’s guards. 12 14 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence and Failure to Provide Medical Care (Against All Defendants) 15 142. Defendants owed a duty of care toward Plaintiffs and were required to 13 16 use reasonable diligence to ensure Plaintiffs’ safety while in their custody and 17 control. Defendants’ actions and omissions were negligent and reckless, including 18 but not limited to: 19 a. The failure to properly assess the need to use force against Plaintiffs; and 20 b. The failure to provide timely medical assistance to Plaintiffs, despite the 21 Defendants’ knowledge that Plaintiffs needed immediate medical care, as specified 22 in Government Code § 845.6 and the 2011 ICE Operations Manual; as there is a 23 special relationship between Defendants GEO Group, City of Adelanto, CCS, and 24 the United States and the inmates within their custody and control. 25 26 27 28 143. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe damages, including physical injury and emotional distress. 144. Defendant DOES 7-10 were at all times acting as employees of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:1394 1 Enforcement and within the scope of their employment when they harmed 2 Plaintiffs. Defendant United States is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its 3 employees under the Federal Torts Claim Act. Under the Federal Torts Claim Act, 4 the property party to be named an action is the United States as suits against 5 federal agencies (i.e. DHS and ICE) are barred. 6 145. Defendant GEO Group’s guards and Defendant CCS’s employees 7 and/or agents acted with malice and oppression and with a conscious disregard of 8 Plaintiffs’ rights, making Defendants GEO and CCS, Defendants Diaz, Campos, 9 and Jones, and Defendants DOE 1-6 liable for punitive damages under California 10 Civil Code § 3294. 11 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 14 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows: 16 1. For a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies, practices and 17 conduct as alleged herein violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States 18 Constitution, the California Constitution, and the laws of California; 19 20 2. For general and compensatory damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined according to proof; 21 3. For an award of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants 22 GEO Group and CCS, Defendants Diaz, Campos, and Jones, and Defendants DOE 23 1-6 according to proof; 24 4. For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to 25 California Civil Code section 52.1(h) and California Code of Civil Procedure 26 section 1021.5; 27 5. 28 For costs of suit and attorney fees as provided by law; /// 29 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 30 of 31 Page ID #:1395 1 6. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: August 15, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF RACHEL STEINBACK LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN By: /s/ Rachel Steinback Rachel Steinback Attorney for Plaintiffs. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 95 Filed 08/15/19 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #:1396 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 3 4 Plaintiffs hereby respectfully demand that a trial by jury be conducted with respect to all issues and claims triable by a jury. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dated: August 15, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF RACHEL STEINBACK LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN By: /s/ Rachel Steinback Rachel Steinback Attorney for Plaintiffs. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT