1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Gerald Singleton (SBN 208783)
Brody A. McBride (SBN 270852)
Trenton G. Lamere (SBN 272760)
SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC
450 A Street, 5th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
P: (619) 771-3473
F: (760) 697-1329
Gerald@SLFFirm.com
Brody@SLFFirm.com
Trenton@SLFFirm.com

12

Kevin F. Quinn (SBN 106224)
Brett J. Schreiber (SBN 239707)
J. Domenic Martini (SBN 324064)
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
San Diego, CA 92103
P: (619) 236-9363
F: (619) 236-9653
Kquinn@tbmlawyers.com
Schreiber@tbmlawyers.com
Martini@tbmlawyers.com

13

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11

14

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

15

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

16

ROSLYN CASSIDY,

17
18
19
20

No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM GORE
in his capacity as San Diego County Sheriff,
Defendants.

21
22

I.

23

INTRODUCTION

24

1.

This is a taxpayer action alleging that Defendants County of San Diego and William Gore,

25

in his capacity as San Diego County Sheriff, have used public tax dollars for an illegal and

26

unconstitutional purpose, namely, purchasing and indiscriminately using “less lethal” ammunition (e.g.,

27

bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets), chemical devices (e.g., OC/CN/CS grenades), and impact devices

28

(e.g., batons) on groups of peaceful demonstrators in public places, resulting in serious injuries to
COMPLAINT

1

 1

demonstrators, as well as violations of demonstrators’ rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

2

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 3, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution.

3

2.

Plaintiff Roslyn Cassidy, a County of San Diego resident who has been injured by illegal

4

and unconstitutional uses of force while participating in peaceful demonstrations within the County of

5

San Diego, and who is concerned about Defendants’ use of tax dollars for such reckless, illegal, and

6

unconstitutional purposes, seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ use of tax dollars in this manner

7

is illegal and unconstitutional, as well as permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from using

8

tax dollars in such an illegal and unconstitutional manner.

9

II.

10

PARTIES

11

3.

Plaintiff Roslyn Cassidy (“Plaintiff”) is a resident and citizen of the County of San Diego

12

who has, within one year of this lawsuit, paid sales, use, and other taxes imposed, received, and/or

13

collected by the County of San Diego, in her capacity as a taxpayer under Code of Civil Procedure section

14

526a. Plaintiff thus brings this action to secure public rights and enjoin the use of tax dollars for illegal

15

and unconstitutional purposes.

16

4.

Defendant County of San Diego (“County”) is a municipality that imposes, receives,

17

and/or collects taxes from residents, businesses, and shoppers in the County, including from Plaintiff.

18

The County’s primary law-enforcement agency, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

19

(“Department”), is responsible for the administration and use of tax dollars collected for law-enforcement

20

purposes in a manner that is not illegal and/or unconstitutional. The County and the Department are

21

required to avoid the use of tax dollars for illegal and unconstitutional purposes.

22

5.

Defendant William Gore (“Gore”), County Sheriff, is responsible for overseeing and

23

administering the use of tax dollars received and collected by the County for law-enforcement purposes

24

in a manner that is not illegal and/or unconstitutional. Gore is sued in his official capacity.

25

III.

26

STATEMENT OF FACTS

27
28

6.

This case seeks to enjoin the use of tax dollars in a manner that violates the constitutional

rights of peaceful demonstrators.
COMPLAINT

2

 1

7.

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police officers, a wide range

2

of voices have sought transformative social change with respect to policing and racial justice. In keeping

3

with American tradition and constitutional values, these voices have come in the form of mass protests

4

and marches in cities across the country.

5

8.

Defendants have a duty to protect and defend our fundamental rights especially in times

6

of turmoil and mass demands for justice and reform. The Department has fallen short of its constitutional

7

duties in several ways during the protest marches so far.

8

9.

The Department has used so-called “less-lethal” ammunition (e.g., bean-bag and rubber

9

bullets), chemical devices, and batons indiscriminately to disrupt and disperse peaceful (i.e., non-violent)

10

demonstrators, with many serious resulting injuries, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

11

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Sections 7 and 13 of the California

12

Constitution.

13

10.

The Department’s actions from the end of May 2020 through the beginning of June 2020

14

demonstrate repeated failures to respect the rights of demonstrators calling for justice and police reform.

15

Whether it is because of indifferent training requirements and policies, or an intention to undermine the

16

constitutional rights of demonstrators, The Department has established a pattern of violating

17

demonstrators’ constitutional rights.

18

11.

The ability to demonstrate, march and petition the government for redress of grievances

19

is, moreover, part of the constitutional DNA of this country. The images of Department law-enforcement

20

officers’ tactics on demonstrators, and the resulting injuries to demonstrators, unacceptably increase the

21

cost of public participation in these important exercises of rights under the First Amendment to the U.S.

22

Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution.

23

12.

Public demonstrations demanding justice and police reform are ongoing and likely to

24

continue.

25

unconstitutional manner that threatens the rights of people in our community who want to assemble and

26

use their collective voices to call for an end to racial injustice and police brutality across this country and

27

in the County of San Diego.

28

///

Unless restrained, the Department will continue to use public funds in an illegal and

COMPLAINT

3

 1

IV.

2

CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

3

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 526a – Violations of U.S. Const. First, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments;

4

Cal. Const., Art. 1, Sections 3, 7, 13

5

13.

All previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by this reference.

6

14.

Defendants’ uses of “less-lethal” ammunition, chemical devices, and impact devices on

7

peaceful demonstrators violates demonstrators’ constitutionally guaranteed rights, in that these uses of

8

force shock the conscience and are, therefore, a violation of the right to due process under the Fourteenth

9

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution; a

10

violation of the right to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive force under the Fourth

11

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution; and

12

a violation of the right to assemble and demonstrate against government action under the First

13

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution.

14
15
16
17

15.

Defendants depend on the use of public funds, including taxes received and collected by

the County, to purchase and deploy the devices used illegally on demonstrators.
16.

Defendants’ use of public funds in this manner is, therefore, an illegal expenditure and

waste of public funds within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.

18

V.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

17.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Court provide relief as follows:

21

a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Department’s use of “less-lethal” ammunition,

22

chemical devices, and impact devices on peaceful demonstrators is unconstitutional and,

23

therefore, accomplished through an illegal expenditure of public funds;

24

b. Issue a permanent injunction restraining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,

25

employees, representatives, all persons acting in concert with, at the direction of, in

26

combination with, or participating with them, and other persons subject to their authority

27

or control, from using public funds to purchase “less lethal” ammunition, chemical

28

devices, and impact devices that may be used on peaceful demonstrators in violation of
COMPLAINT

4

 1

their constitutional rights;

2

c. Grant costs of suit to Plaintiff;

3

d. Award reasonable attorney fees to the extent permitted by law, including pursuant to Code

4
5

of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
e. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

6
7

Dated: July 15, 2020

8

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC
By:

9

___________________________
Gerald Singleton

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT

5