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. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; DAVID NISLEIT in his capacity as Chief of San Diego Police Department, 21 Defendants. 22 23 I. 24 INTRODUCTION 25 1. This is a taxpayer action alleging that Defendants City of San Diego and David Nisleit, in 26 his capacity as Chief of the San Diego Police Department, have used public tax dollars for an illegal and 27 unconstitutional purpose, namely, purchasing and indiscriminately using “less lethal” ammunition (e.g., 28 bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets), chemical devices (e.g., OC/CN/CS grenades), and impact devices COMPLAINT 1 1 (e.g., batons) on groups of peaceful demonstrators in public places, resulting in serious injuries to 2 demonstrators, as well as violations of demonstrators’ rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth 3 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 3, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution. 4 2. Plaintiff Roslyn Cassidy, a San Diego resident who has been injured by illegal and 5 unconstitutional uses of force while participating in peaceful demonstrations in San Diego, and who is 6 concerned about Defendants’ use of tax dollars for such reckless, illegal, and unconstitutional purposes, 7 seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ use of tax dollars in this manner is illegal and 8 unconstitutional, as well as permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from using tax dollars in 9 such an illegal and unconstitutional manner. 10 II. 11 PARTIES 12 3. Plaintiff Roslyn Cassidy (“Plaintiff”) is a resident and citizen of the City of San Diego 13 who has, within one year of this lawsuit, paid sales, use, and other taxes imposed, received, and/or 14 collected by the City of San Diego, in her capacity as a taxpayer under Code of Civil Procedure section 15 526a. Plaintiff thus brings this action to secure public rights and enjoin the use of tax dollars for illegal 16 and unconstitutional purposes. 17 4. Defendant City of San Diego (“San Diego”) is a municipality that imposes, receives, 18 and/or collects taxes from residents, businesses, and shoppers in San Diego, including from Plaintiff. San 19 Diego’s primary law-enforcement agency, San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”), is responsible for 20 the administration and use of tax dollars collected for law-enforcement purposes in a manner that is not 21 illegal and/or unconstitutional. San Diego and SDPD are required to avoid the use of tax dollars for 22 illegal and unconstitutional purposes. 23 5. Defendant David Nisleit (“Nisleit”), Chief of SDPD, is responsible for overseeing and 24 administering the use of tax dollars received and collected by San Diego for law-enforcement purposes 25 in a manner that is not illegal and/or unconstitutional. Nisleit is sued in his official capacity. 26 III. 27 STATEMENT OF FACTS 28 6. COMPLAINT This case seeks to enjoin the use of tax dollars in a manner that violates the constitutional 2 1 rights of peaceful demonstrators. 2 7. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police officers, a wide range 3 of voices have sought transformative social change with respect to policing and racial justice. In keeping 4 with American tradition and constitutional values, these voices have come in the form of mass protests 5 and marches in cities across the country. 6 8. Defendants have a duty to protect and defend our fundamental rights especially in times 7 of turmoil and mass demands for justice and reform. SDPD has fallen short of its constitutional duties in 8 several ways during the protest marches so far. 9 9. SDPD has used so-called “less-lethal” ammunition (e.g., bean-bag and rubber bullets), 10 chemical devices, and batons indiscriminately to disrupt and disperse peaceful (i.e., non-violent) 11 demonstrators, with many serious resulting injuries, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Sections 7 and 13 of the California 13 Constitution. 14 10. SDPD’s actions from the end of May 2020 through the beginning of June 2020 15 demonstrate repeated failures to respect the rights of demonstrators calling for justice and police reform. 16 Whether it is because of indifferent training requirements and policies, or an intention to undermine the 17 constitutional rights of demonstrators, SDPD has established a pattern of violating demonstrators’ 18 constitutional rights. 19 11. The ability to demonstrate, march and petition the government for redress of grievances is, 20 moreover, part of the constitutional DNA of this country. The images of SDPD officers’ tactics on 21 demonstrators, and the resulting injuries to demonstrators, unacceptably increase the cost of public 22 participation in these important exercises of rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 23 as well as Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution. 24 12. Public demonstrations demanding justice and police reform are ongoing and likely to 25 continue. Unless restrained, SDPD will continue to use public funds in an illegal and unconstitutional 26 manner that threatens the rights of people in our community who want to assemble and use their collective 27 voices to call for an end to racial injustice and police brutality across this country and in San Diego. 28 /// 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 San Diego, 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 SDPD’s use of “less-lethal” ammunition, chemical 22 devices, and impact devices on peaceful demonstrators is unconstitutional and, therefore, 23 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