Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 Lawrance A. Bohm (SBN: 208716) Daniel T. Newman (SBN: 314937) Scott C. Zienty (SBN: 324661) BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 210 Sacramento, California 95834 Telephone: 866.920.1292 Facsimile: 916.927.2046 6 7 8 9 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 11 12 Gregory R. Davenport (SBN: 154403) LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY R. DAVENPORT 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 205 Stockton, California 95219 Telephone: 209.955.1999 Facsimile: 209.475.4951 Attorneys for Plaintiff, THOMAS WILLIAMS 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 THOMAS WILLIAMS, 16 Plaintiff, 17 Case No.: PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: v. 1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure Excessive Force: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure Detention and Arrest: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 3. Assault and Battery; 4. False Arrest/False Imprisonment; 5. Negligence; 6. Violation of Bane Civil Rights Act: Civ. Code, § 52.1; 7. Intrusion into Private Affairs: Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a) & 820; 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 18 19 20 21 22 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA; NATHAN D. DANIEL; JOSEPH ZALEC; DEREK HUTCHINS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. 23 24 25 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 19 Plaintiff THOMAS WILLIAMS respectfully submits the instant Complaint for Damages 1 2 and Demand for Jury Trial, and alleges as follows: 3 OVERVIEW OF THE CASE BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 4 1. This is a case of police brutality. Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova violated 5 Dr. Thomas Williams’ Constitutional rights and California civil rights when they arrested two 6 African American brothers outside of their own home purportedly on suspicion of burglary. The 7 police officers arrived at the scene and immediately drew their guns, screamed profanities at the 8 brothers, placed one brother in a chokehold, and beat them both into unconsciousness. The 9 brothers attempted to convince the officers that they were residents, but the officers did not care. 10 Only after violently arresting the brothers did the officers check the brothers’ identification and 11 finally understood that the brothers indeed were residents. Having learned this, the police then 12 conducted an illegal search of the brothers’ house and property. In order to retroactively justify 13 their use of excessive force, the officers fabricated an excuse that the brothers resisted arrest. The 14 brothers remained in police custody for nearly twenty hours. The brothers needed, and continue 15 today, to need extensive medical treatment. 16 2. Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova failed to impose adequate 17 training, discipline, and fostered a culture of violence that allowed their police officers to use 18 excessive and unreasonable force against the public. 19 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 20 21 3. Venue is proper in this District because the underlying acts, omissions, injuries, and related facts and circumstances giving rise to the present action occurred in this District. 22 4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331. Plaintiff further invokes supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to 24 consider the accompanying state claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 25 PARTIES 26 5. Plaintiff Thomas Williams, Ph.D. (“Dr. Williams” or “Plaintiff”) was at all times 27 relevant to this action a citizen of California and resided in the County of Sacramento. 28 /// 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 19 1 Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (hereinafter “Sacramento County” or 2 “Defendant Sacramento County”) was at all times relevant to this action, public entity located in 3 the County of Sacramento. At all relevant times, Defendant Sacramento County was the employer 4 and/or joint employer of the below named individual Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, and 5 Hutchins, as well as Defendant DOES 1-50. 6 7. Defendant CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA (hereinafter “Rancho Cordova” or 7 “Defendant Rancho Cordova”) was at all times relevant to this action, public entity located in the 8 County of Sacramento and an employer and/or joint employer of the below named individual 9 Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, as well as Defendant DOES 1-50. 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 6. 8. Defendant NATHAN D. DANIEL (“Officer Daniel”) was at all relevant times an 11 employee and agent of defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova and was acting under 12 the color of law within the course and scope of his respective duties as law enforcement officer 13 and deputy and with complete authority and ratification of his principals defendants County of 14 Sacramento and Rancho Cordova Police Department. 15 9. Defendant JOSEPH ZALEC (“Officer Zalec”) was at all relevant times an 16 employee and agent of defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova and was acting under 17 the color of law within the course and scope of his respective duties as law enforcement officer 18 and deputy and with complete authority and ratification of his principals defendants County of 19 Sacramento and Rancho Cordova Police Department. 20 10. Defendant DEREK HUTCHINS (“Officer Hutchins”) was at all relevant times an 21 employee and agent of defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova and was acting under 22 the color of law within the course and scope of his respective duties as law enforcement officer 23 and deputy and with complete authority and ratification of his principals defendants County of 24 Sacramento and Rancho Cordova. 25 11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein 26 as DOES 1 through 50. Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are sued herein under fictitious names. 27 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each Defendant sued under such 28 fictitious names is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages as alleged herein. 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 19 1 Plaintiff does not at this time know the true names or capacities of said Defendants, but prays that 2 the same may be inserted herein when ascertained. 3 12. 4 each and every Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action stated herein, each 5 and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment, and 6 was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each remaining Defendant. All 7 actions of each Defendant are alleged herein were ratified and approved by each other Defendant 8 or their officers or managing agents. 9 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 At all times relevant, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or employee of STATEMENT OF FACTS 13. Plaintiff, Dr. Thomas Williams (“Dr. Williams”), is an educator and entrepreneur, 11 who, among other things, founded and ran the Sierra Foothills Academy, a school for students 12 with disabilities, located in Loomis, California. Dr. Williams holds a Master of Education, a 13 Master of Arts in Multicultural Education, a Doctorate in K-12 Educational Leadership, and a 14 Special Education and Teaching Credential. 15 14. On March 23, 2019, a Saturday, Dr. Williams and his twin brother, Mr. Carlos 16 Williams (“Carlos”), spent the evening working together on home improvement projects. Carlos 17 recently purchased his home in Rancho Cordova. Dr. Williams and Carlos were outside of Carlos’ 18 home when a white neighbor observed them outside and called 911 to report a possible burglary. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15. The 911 dispatcher sent out the call to Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies, including, among others, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, and Hutchins. 16. Defendants Sacramento County and RCPD dispatched Daniel in one squad car and Zalec and Hutchins together in a second car. 17. At some point prior to activating his squad car emergency lights and sirens, the dashboard camera in Daniel’s squad car became disabled, as did Daniel’s body microphone. 18. Daniel, Zalec, and Hutchins drove to the reported address, or Carlos’ home. 26 Approximately a mile out from Carlos’ home, Daniel and Zalec disabled their sirens and 27 emergency lights. Zalec and Hutchins discussed plans for how they would “take down” whoever 28 they might encounter at the dispatched address. 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 19 1 Daniel, Zalec, and Hutchins arrived and parked approximately twenty (20) yards 2 south of Carlos’ home and forty (40) yards south of where Dr. Williams and Carlos were standing 3 outside speaking with neighbors. The Williams brothers and the neighbors were unaware that the 4 police had arrived. 5 20. The officers exited their squad cars and advanced towards the Williams brothers. 6 The officers immediately drew their guns and yelled “Get your fucking hands up!” It took several 7 seconds for the Williams brothers to understand that the people yelling at them were police. 8 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 19. 21. Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, and Hutchins asked no investigatory questions 9 of the Williams brothers; did not request identification; conducted no threat analysis; conducted 10 no analysis as to probable cause; and arrested the Williams brothers. Officers screamed at Dr. 11 Williams and Carlos, “Shut the fuck up and turn around!” 12 22. Dr. Williams and Carlos Williams put their hands in the air. Defendant Officers 13 Daniel and Zalec moved to both of Dr. Williams’ sides, and Daniel immediately placed Dr. 14 Williams in a chokehold and dragged him to the ground. Daniel remained on top of Dr. Williams 15 and held the chokehold for over a minute, causing Dr. Williams to lose consciousness. While 16 holding Dr. Williams in a chokehold, Daniel repeatedly struck Dr. Williams in the face and head 17 using his elbow. Carlos repeatedly screamed, “Stop hitting him!” 18 23. At the same time, Hutchins grabbed Carlos, attempted to body slam him, and then 19 leg swept him onto the pavement. Hutchins climbed on top of Carlos, drove his knee into his 20 back, and pressed his head into the concrete. Carlos cried out to know the basis for the arrest and 21 pleaded with officers to stop the brutal attack on himself and the unconscious Dr. Williams. 22 Officers repeatedly shouted at Carlos to “Shut the fuck up!” and “Be quiet!” As Daniel and 23 Hutchins pinned the two brothers to the pavement, Zalec stood in between and alternated between 24 hitting, kicking, and striking Dr. Williams and Carlos each with his flashlight. 25 24. Officers then handcuffed Dr. Williams, who was in and out of consciousness and 26 could not stand on his own. Officers lifted Dr. Williams from the ground, let him collapse back 27 down, and then shouted for him to “get the fuck back up!” Unable to lift himself up, two officers 28 hoisted Dr. Williams to his feet and held him upright while the other officer handcuffed Carlos, 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 6 of 19 1 who was still on the ground. Carlos yelled at the officers, “What did he [Dr. Williams] do?” 2 Officers twisted Carlos’ already-handcuffed wrist to coerce him to be quiet and told him 3 repeatedly to be quiet. 4 25. 5 and Carlos’ persons, emptied their pockets, and went through their contents. At this time, officers 6 found Carlos’ driver’s license, which listed his current address and made it plainly obvious to the 7 arresting officers that Carlos was not burglarizing his own home. Carlos confirmed yet again to 8 officers he lived at the dispatched address. Further, a neighbor, Oracio Galvan, also confirmed to 9 officers that Carlos lived in the home. 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, officers searched Dr. Williams’ 26. While searching Carlos, police officers took his garage door opener out of his 11 pocket. Officers then used the garage door opener to open Carlos’ garage. Without probable cause, 12 officers searched inside Carlos’ garage, entered the threshold of Carlos’ home, searched inside 13 Carlos’ car, and searched inside of Dr. Williams’ car. Carlos’ wife and child were asleep upstairs. 14 15 27. Throughout the process of wrongfully arresting the Williams brothers, Defendant Officer Zalec periodically and repeatedly muted and unmuted his body microphone. 16 28. Despite learning that Dr. Williams and Carlos were not burglarizing Carlos’ home, 17 the officers proceeded to manipulate the scene of the arrest. This was done at the instruction and 18 under the supervision of unknown police sergeants. 19 29. The officers interviewed neighbors who had witnessed or might have audiovisual 20 recordings of the events. Officers determined no home security cameras visually captured the 21 events. The officers conceded to at least one witness that Dr. Williams and Carlos were arrested 22 after they “got verbal” with officers. The officers also falsely stated to witnesses that Dr. Williams 23 and Carlos were “aggressive” with officers, that they resisted arrest, and that Dr. Williams refused 24 to remove his hands from his pockets and fought the officers. 25 30. Meanwhile, Dr. Williams and Carlos sat in the back of separate squad cars, in pain 26 and drifting in and out of consciousness. At this time, Daniel advised Dr. Williams of his Miranda 27 Rights, and asked if he wanted to make a statement. Dr. Williams declined to make any statement. 28 /// 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 7 of 19 1 Officers loaded Dr. Williams and Carlos into a single squad car and transported 2 them to Sutter Hospital Emergency Room to be evaluated and treated for their injuries, before 3 proceeding to jail. 4 32. While in the hospital, Hutchins attempted to provoke Dr. Williams into making a 5 statement despite Dr. Williams’ previous express declination to do so. After the provocation 6 failed, Hutchins called another officer and complained that “S-1 isn’t saying anything.” 7 Simultaneously, Zalec engaged in a custodial interrogation of Carlos prior to informing him of 8 his fifth amendment rights. 9 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 31. 33. On or about March 24, 2019, officers booked Dr. Williams and Carlos in jail at 10 approximately 3:00 a.m., charging them, respectively, with simple assault of Officer Daniel and 11 resisting arrest. Neither were charged with any underlying crime. Officer Zalec finally advised 12 Carlos of his Miranda Rights at this time. Dr. Williams and Carlos remained in jail for at least 13 fourteen (14) hours prior to being released on bail. 14 34. On or about March 24, 2019, Officers Daniel, Zalec, and Hutchins completed 15 incident reports for the Rancho Cordova Police Department. All three officers indicated in their 16 reports that Dr. Williams’ and Carlos’ speech served as a motivating factor for officer conduct 17 throughout the stop, arrests, degree of force used, investigation, and searches performed. The 18 officers knowingly made numerous false statements in their incident reports, including, but not 19 limited to: claims that Dr. Williams and Carlos were non-compliant with officer orders, physically 20 aggressive, verbally abusive, shouted profanities, advanced rapidly on officers, and violently 21 resisted officers. The officers falsely accused Dr. Williams of puffing his chest and tensing his 22 arms at officers, kicking, thrashing, and pinning Daniel on the ground, grabbing for Daniel’s arms, 23 pushing Zalec, swatting Zalec’s hands, and attempting to break free from arrest. All three officers 24 also falsely stated in their reports that the garage door of Carlos’ home was open at the time they 25 arrived on scene. Dr. Williams is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the officers 26 coordinated these false statements, with guidance, supervision, direction, and approval of 27 supervisors in attempt to retroactively justify the stop, unlawful arrest, unreasonable force used, 28 and illegal searches. 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 8 of 19 1 On or about March 25, 2019, Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova 2 coordinated and made known false statements through spokesman Sheriff’s Deputy Rod 3 Grassmann about Dr. Williams and Carlos to TV reporter Yasmeen Hassan, CBS 13 local 4 television station, and the station’s and news programs’ audience. The false statements included 5 but were not limited to: the brothers “were not following directions,” were “combative,” and 6 became “resistant, both verbally and physically.” The statements also falsely implied that Dr. 7 Williams and Carlos instigated a physical altercation with, and ultimately injured, a law 8 enforcement officer. 9 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 35. 36. On or about May 7, 2019, the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office rejected the 10 criminal case against Dr. Williams for felony assault as well as the criminal case against Carlos 11 for resisting arrest. 12 37. Dr. Williams is informed and believes and thereon alleges that since the events of 13 March 23, 2019, officers, deputies and/or other employees of the Sacramento County’s Sheriff’s 14 Department and Rancho Cordova’s Police Department have engaged in a coordinated 15 intimidation campaign, involving unmarked cars repeatedly circling Carlos’ home, spotlights 16 shining brightly into Carlos’ home at night, and frequent flat tires to Carlos’ vehicle. Dr. Williams 17 is informed, believes, and thereon alleges these tactics are intended to interfere with his civil rights 18 and his efforts to enforce said rights. 19 38. On or about September 18, 2019, Dr. Williams filed Government Tort Claims with 20 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and the City of Rancho Cordova, regarding the 21 preceding events, pursuant to California Government Code sections 900 et. seq. 22 39. On or about October 3, 2019, the City of Rancho Cordova rejected Dr. Williams’ 23 claim. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department failed to respond to Dr. Williams’ claim, 24 effectively rejecting it. 25 40. On or about October 4, 2019, Carlos filed a civil lawsuit regarding the preceding 26 events against the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and Rancho Cordova Police 27 Department, in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Carlos’ case was 28 removed to U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of California. 8 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 9 of 19 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Excessive Force: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 3 4 The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 5 42. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 6 43. The unjustified use of excessive force by Defendants was both excessive and 7 unreasonable under the circumstances. Defendants’ unjustified use of excessive force on Plaintiff 8 deprived him of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as 9 guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied 10 11 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 41. to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 44. Defendants’ use of force was both excessive and unreasonable, especially because 12 Plaintiff posed no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time of the incident to 13 the deputies or others. 14 45. Defendants’ unlawful use of force caused Plaintiff to suffer damages, including, 15 without limitation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of enjoyment of property, loss of consortium 16 and companionship, pain and suffering, physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, and 17 medical expenses when he was injured by Defendants. DOES 1-50, inclusive, integrally 18 participated in or failed to intervene in the use of excessive force. 19 20 21 22 23 46. Defendants’ use of force violated Defendants’ policies, training, post requirements and California and Federal law. 47. As a direct and legal result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was deprived of his liberty without warrant or justification. 48. As a result of their conduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 24 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries either because they were integral participants in the 25 excessive use of force, or because they failed to intervene to prevent those violations. 26 49. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are also liable 27 under the theory of Municipal Liability set forth in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 28 U.S. 658 (1978), in that they maintained customs, policies, or practices that allowed and caused 9 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 10 of 19 1 the underlying constitutional violation. 2 50. 3 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 4 of life, pain and suffering, physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, 5 attorneys' fees, costs of suit, other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 6 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 7 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 8 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 9 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 52. Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees under this claim. 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 12 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Detention and Arrest: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 14 53. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 15 54. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 16 55. When Defendants unlawfully stopped and detained Plaintiff they violated his right 17 to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff 18 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the 19 Fourteenth Amendment. 20 21 56. Defendants detained Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion and arrested him without probable cause. 22 57. When Defendants grabbed Plaintiff and threw Plaintiff to the ground, and 23 forcefully pushed his face into the street pavement, and drove a knee into his back, among other 24 uses of excessive violent force, they violated Plaintiff’s right to be secure in his person against 25 unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the 26 United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 27 /// 28 /// 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 11 of 19 1 58. 2 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 3 wrongful detention and arrest, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations. 4 59. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are also liable 5 under the theory of Municipal Liability set forth in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 6 U.S. 658 (1978), in that they maintained customs, policies, or practices that allowed and caused 7 the underlying constitutional violation. 8 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 As a result of their misconduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 60. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 9 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 10 of life, pain and suffering, physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, 11 attorneys' fees, costs of suit, other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 12 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 13 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 14 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 15 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 16 62. Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees under this claim. 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Assault and Battery 19 20 63. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the above paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 21 64. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 22 65. Defendants, while working as officers of Sacramento County and Rancho 23 Cordova, and acting within the scope of their duties, intentionally used unreasonable force against 24 Plaintiff, including but not limited to, grabbing, yanking, and throwing Plaintiff onto the street, 25 causing Plaintiff’s head to hit the ground, driving a knee into Plaintiff’s back, and choking him. 26 Defendants had no legal justification for using excessive force against Plaintiff and this use of 27 force was unnecessary and unreasonable. 28 /// 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 12 of 19 1 66. 2 enjoyment of property, loss of consortium and companionship, physical injuries and sickness, 3 emotional distress, medical expenses, extreme pain and suffering, and pecuniary losses not yet 4 ascertained. 5 67. As a result of their conduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 6 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 7 assault and battery, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations, or under the 8 doctrine of respondeat superior. 9 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 Defendants’ assault and battery caused Plaintiff loss of enjoyment of life, loss of 68. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are generally 10 liable through the principles of respondeat superior/vicarious liability for injuries proximately 11 caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Gov. 12 Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820.) 13 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 14 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 15 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 16 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 False Arrest/False Imprisonment 19 20 70. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the above paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 21 71. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 22 72. Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and DOES 1-50, while working as 23 officers of Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova, and acting within the scope of their duties, 24 intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his freedom of movement by use of force, including threats of 25 force, menace, fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress. Defendants also detained Plaintiff. Said 26 detention was made without reasonable suspicion. Defendants also arrested Plaintiff. Said arrest 27 was made without probable cause. 28 /// 12 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 13 of 19 1 73. Plaintiff did not knowingly or voluntarily consent. 2 74. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing the harm of Plaintiff. 3 75. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 4 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 5 of life, loss of enjoyment of property, loss of consortium and companionship, pain and suffering, 6 physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, 7 and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 8 76. As a result of their conduct, individual named Defendants Daniel, Zalec, and 9 Hutchins are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 10 false arrest/false imprisonment, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations, or 11 under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 12 77. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are generally 13 liable through the principles of respondeat superior/vicarious liability for injuries proximately 14 caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Gov. 15 Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820.) 16 78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 17 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 18 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 19 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 20 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Negligence 22 23 79. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the above paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 24 80. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 25 81. Defendants owed a duty of care toward Plaintiff and were required to use 26 reasonable diligence to ensure that Plaintiff was not harmed by Defendants’ acts or omissions. 27 Actions and omissions of Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and DOES 1-50 while 28 working as officers of Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova, and acting within the scope of 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 14 of 19 1 their duties, were negligent and reckless, including but not limited to: 2 (a) 3 use force against Plaintiff; 4 (b) the negligent tactics and handling of the situation with Plaintiff; 5 (c) the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force, against Plaintiff; 6 (d) the failure to employ alternative methods and to exercise due care; 7 (e) the failure to properly train, supervise and discipline employees, including 8 the individual Defendants and; 9 (g) 10 11 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 the failure to properly assess and/or supervise the need to detain, arrest, or 12 13 the negligent hiring, retention and assignment of its employees, including the individual defendants. 82. In addition, at the aforementioned date, time and place, Defendants negligently, carelessly and without reasonable care, touched and battered Plaintiff. 83. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 14 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 15 of life, loss of enjoyment of property, loss of consortium and companionship, pain and suffering, 16 physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, 17 and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 18 84. As a result of their conduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 19 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 20 negligence, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations, or under the doctrine 21 of respondeat superior. 22 85. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are generally 23 liable through the principles of respondeat superior/vicarious liability for injuries proximately 24 caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Gov. 25 Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820.) 26 86. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 27 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 28 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 14 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 15 of 19 1 2 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 Violation of Bane Civil Rights Act: Civ. Code, § 52.1 4 5 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 87. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the above paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 6 88. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action against all Defendants. 7 89. As alleged herein, Defendants, while working as officers of Sacramento County 8 and Rancho Cordova, and acting within the scope of their duties, interfered by threats, 9 intimidation, or coercion with Plaintiff’s rights under State and Federal laws and under State and 10 Federal Constitution including, without limitation, the right to be free from excessive force, the 11 right to due process, and the right to bodily integrity, including his rights under Civil Code section 12 43, Penal Code sections 149, 240, and 242, and his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and 13 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and his rights under Article 1, sections 14 1, 7 and/or 13 of the California Constitution. 15 90. Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff extreme pain and suffering. 16 91. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 17 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 18 of life, loss of enjoyment of property, loss of consortium and companionship, pain and suffering, 19 physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, 20 and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 21 92. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 22 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 23 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 24 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 25 93. As a result of their conduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 26 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 27 violations, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations, or under the doctrine of 28 respondeat superior. 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 16 of 19 1 Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are generally 2 liable through the principles of respondeat superior/vicarious liability for injuries proximately 3 caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Gov. 4 Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820.) 5 95. Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees under this claim. 6 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Intrusion into Private Affairs: Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a) & 820 8 9 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 94. 96. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 10 97. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 11 98. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy at his brother’s home and in his 12 13 person, personal effects, and closed and locked vehicle. 99. Defendants, while working as officers of Sacramento County and Rancho 14 Cordova, and acting within the scope of their duties, intentionally intruded, without probable 15 cause and without consent, into Plaintiff’s brother’s home, Plaintiff’s person, Plaintiff’s personal 16 effects, and Plaintiff’s closed and locked vehicle. 17 100. Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 18 101. Plaintiff was harmed. 19 102. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 20 103. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 21 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 22 of life, loss of enjoyment of property, loss of consortium and companionship, pain and suffering, 23 physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, 24 and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 25 104. As a result of their conduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 26 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 27 intrusion, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations, or under the doctrine of 28 respondeat superior. 16 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 17 of 19 1 105. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are generally 2 liable through the principles of respondeat superior/vicarious liability for injuries proximately 3 caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Gov. 4 Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820.) 5 106. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 6 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 7 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 8 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 9 10 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 12 13 107. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference. 14 108. This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff against all Defendants. 15 109. The conduct of Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and DOES 1-50, 16 while working as officers of Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova, and acting within the 17 scope of their duties, was outrageous and in reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff 18 would suffer emotional distress. 19 110. Plaintiff did suffer emotional distress. 20 111. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered 21 damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment 22 of life, loss of enjoyment of property, loss of consortium and companionship, pain and suffering, 23 physical injuries and sickness, emotional distress, medical expenses, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, 24 and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained. 25 112. As a result of their conduct, Defendant Officers Daniel, Zalec, Hutchins, and 26 DOES 1-50 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the 27 intrusion, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations, or under the doctrine of 28 respondeat superior. 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 18 of 19 1 113. Municipal Defendants Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova are generally 2 liable through the principles of respondeat superior/vicarious liability for injuries proximately 3 caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Gov. 4 Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820.) 5 114. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of the Defendant 6 Officers were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless and/or were done in willful and 7 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding 8 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial. 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 12 1. 13 For general and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, medical expenses, and non-economic damages in the amount according to proof; 14 2. For damages for severe emotional distress, mental anguish, psychological injury, 15 physical pain, suffering, and injury, and other non-economic damages in an 16 amount according to proof; 17 3. 18 For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statues or legal principles; 19 4. For cost of suit incurred; 20 5. For punitive damages or other penalties recoverable by law; 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 19 of 19 1 6. 2 3 For prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed pursuant to Civil Code sections 3287 and/or 3288; and 7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 4 5 6 Date: March 18, 2020 By: 7 8 /s/ Scott C. Zienty, Esq. LAWRANCE A. BOHM, ESQ. DANIEL T. NEWMAN, ESQ. SCOTT C. ZIENTY, ESQ. GREGORY R. DAVENPORT, ESQ. 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, THOMAS WILLIAMS 10 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 11 12 13 14 15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury for this matter. 16 17 Date: March 18, 2020 By: 18 19 /s/ Scott C. Zienty, Esq. LAWRANCE A. BOHM, ESQ. DANIEL T. NEWMAN, ESQ. SCOTT C. ZIENTY, ESQ. GREGORY R. DAVENPORT, ESQ. 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff, THOMAS WILLIAMS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Williams v. County of Sacramento, et al. Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.; Daniel T. Newman, Esq. Case No.: Scott C. Zienty, Esq.; Gregory R. Davenport, Esq. JS 44 (Rev. 0 ) CIVIL COVER SHEET Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 2 The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA; NATHAN D. DANIEL; JOSEPH ZALEC; DEREK HUTCHINS; and DOES 1 through 50 SACRAMENTO COUNTY County of Residence of First Listed Defendant THOMAS WILLIAMS (b) SACRAMENTO COUNTY County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: (c) Attorneys (If Known) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Lawrance A. Bohm (SBN: 208716), Daniel T. Newman (SBN: 314937), Scott C. Zienty (SBN: 324661); BOHM LAW GROUP, INC., 4600 Northgate Blvd., Ste. 210, Sacramento, CA 95834; 866.920.1292 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 2 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 U.S. Government Defendant 4 (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189, Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No. 287165; Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494, John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State 5 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT DEF FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty Other: 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application 840 Trademark SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(a)) 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 485 Telephone Consumer Protection Act 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 Original Proceeding 2 Removed from State Court 3 Remanded from Appellate Court 4 Reinstated or Reopened 5 Transferred from Another District 6 Multidistrict Litigation Transfer Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): (specify) VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 8 Multidistrict Litigation Direct File 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Brief description of cause: Unlawful search and seizure, excessive force resulting in injury VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY DATE CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. (See instructions): DEMAND $ 2,500,000.00 JUDGE Hon. Troy L. Nunley CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: Yes No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER 2:19-CV-02345 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Scott C. Zienty, Esq. 03/18/2020 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 0 ) Case 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.