Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sarah E. Marinho, SBN 293690 Dmitry Stadlin, SBN 302361 STADLIN MARINHO LLP 111 N. Market St., Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95113 T: (408) 645-7801 F: (408) 645-7802 E: sm@stadlinmarinho.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Jose Division) 9 10 11 12 13 DERRICK SANDERLIN, CAYLA SANDERLIN, BREANNA CONTRERAS, PIETRO DI DONATO, SHANTE THOMAS, ADIRA SHARKEY, and JOSEPH STUKES, individually, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 18 19 Case No. 20-cv-04824 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, EDGARDO GARCIA, JASON DWYER, CHRISTOPHER SCIBA, JONATHAN BYERS, JARED YUEN, and DOES 1-100, in their individual and official capacities, Jointly and Severally, 20 Defendants. 21 22 NATURE OF THE ACTION 23 24 1. 25 was recorded on video reciting the all too familiar and tragic plea “I can’t breathe” while a 26 white police officer kneeled on his neck, Bay Area residents took to the streets of San Jose to 27 protest this injustice and grieve the police murders of other Black and Brown people, including 28 Beginning May 29, 2020, following the graphic police murder of George Floyd, who Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbury, and Tony McDade. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 1 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 2 of 24 1 2. 2 tactics against these peaceful demonstrators. Over the course of several days, SJPD deployed 3 constitutionally unlawful crowd control tactics including kettling, indiscriminately launching 4 tear gas and flashbangs into crowds and at individuals, and shooting projectiles at 5 demonstrators, including Plaintiffs. 6 3. 7 violent tactics. 8 4. 9 use of excessive force. Defendant City of San Jose’s Police Department (“SJPD”) used violent crowd control SJPD unjustifiably declared peaceful protests “unlawful assemblies” to excuse their SJPD knowingly placed these demonstrators in physical danger through indiscriminate 10 5. 11 break social distancing rules that are currently in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 12 6. 13 by the omission of needed SJPD policy and procedures. 14 7. 15 adequate crowd control techniques and reasonable use of force. 16 8. 17 was ratified by those in command including Police Chief Edgardo “Eddie” Garcia and Captain 18 Jason Dwyer, who are final decision makers with the SJPD. 19 9. 20 Dwyer, Sergeant Christopher Sciba, Sergeant Jonathan Byers, Officer Jared Yuen, and DOES 21 1-100, hereinafter Defendants, because on May 29, 2020 through June 2, 2020, Defendants, in 22 one way or another were actually and legally responsible for, whether singularly, or in 23 combination thereof, excessive use of force, failure to protect, failure to intervene, and 24 violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and protest. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 SJPD also knowingly created a danger to public health by forcing demonstrators to SJPD’s actions, moreover, were caused by SJPD policy and procedures and/or caused SJPD’s actions were further caused by failure to train officers on constitutionally The conduct of the officers, including excessive use of force on nonviolent protestors, Plaintiffs file this Complaint against the City of San Jose, Police Chief Garcia, Captain // ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 2 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 3 of 24 1 JURISDICTION 2 10. 3 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 4 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. 5 This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the First, Fourth, VENUE 6 11. 7 because the unlawful acts, practices and omissions giving rise to the claims brought by Plaintiff 8 occurred in the City of San Jose, which is within this judicial district. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3-2(e) authorize assignment to this division because all or a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the County of Santa Clara, which is served by this division. PARTIES 13. Each Plaintiff herein is a resident of the State of California. 14. Defendant CITY OF SAN JOSE (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”) is and at all times mentioned herein was a municipal corporation, duly authorized to operate under the laws of the State of California. Under its supervision, the CITY operates, manages, directs and controls the San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) which employs other defendants in this action. 15. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Edgardo “Eddie” Garcia was employed as the Chief of Police for defendant City, the highest position in the SJPD. As Chief, Defendant Garcia is and was responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of all SJPD officers and Does 1-25. Defendant Garcia also is and was responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the SJPD alleged herein were committed. Defendant Garcia is sued in his individual and official capacities. 16. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Jason Dwyer was employed as an SJPD Captain and assigned as the Special Operations Commander for defendant City. As Captain, Defendant Dwyer is and was responsible for the screening, training, supervision, discipline, ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 3 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 4 of 24 1 counseling, and control of all SJPD officers under his command. Defendant Dwyer also is and 2 was responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the 3 practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the SJPD alleged herein were committed. 4 Defendant Dwyer is sued in his individual and official capacities. 5 17. 6 Sergeant for Defendant City. Defendant Sciba is sued individually and as a police sergeant for 7 the City. By engaging in the conduct described below, Defendant Sciba acted under the color 8 of law and in the course and scope of his employment for Defendant City. By engaging in the 9 conduct described here, Defendant Sciba exceeded the authority vested in him as a law At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Christopher Sciba was employed as a police 10 enforcement officer under the United States Constitution and as an employee of the City. 11 18. 12 Sergeant for Defendant City. Defendant Byers is sued individually and as a police officer for 13 the City. By engaging in the conduct described below, Defendant Byers acted under the color 14 of law and in the course and scope of his employment for Defendant City. By engaging in the 15 conduct described here, Defendant Byers exceeded the authority vested in him as a law 16 enforcement officer under the United States Constitution and as an employee of the City. 17 19. 18 for Defendant City. Defendant Yuen is sued individually and as a police officer for the City. 19 By engaging in the conduct described below, Defendant Yuen acted under the color of law and 20 in the course and scope of his employment for Defendant City. By engaging in the conduct 21 described here, Defendant Yuen exceeded the authority vested in him as a law enforcement 22 officer under the United States Constitution and as an employee of the City. 23 20. 24 defendants”) are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious 25 names, and Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to show their true names and 26 capacities when the same are ascertained. At all material times, each Doe defendant was an 27 employee/agent of Defendant City of San Jose acting within the course and scope of that 28 At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Jonathan Byers was employed as a police At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Jared Yuen was employed as a police officer The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as Does 1-100 (“Doe relationship. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 4 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 5 of 24 1 21. 2 herein was negligently, wrongfully, and otherwise responsible in some manner for the events and 3 happenings as hereinafter described, and proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. 4 Further, one or more Doe defendants were at all material times responsible for the hiring, 5 training, supervision, and discipline of other defendants, and/or directly responsible for violation 6 of Plaintiffs’ rights. 7 22. 8 individual and official capacities. 9 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants sued Each individual defendant (meaning non-municipal defendants) is sued in his/her Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the defendants was at 10 all material times an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-conspirator, and/or alter 11 ego of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the 12 course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon 13 allege, that each of the defendants herein gave consent, aid, and assistance to each of the 14 remaining defendants, and ratified and/or authorized the acts or omissions of each defendant as 15 alleged herein, except as may be hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged. 16 24. 17 the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and other harm. 18 25. 19 and regulations of the State of California. 20 26. 21 Christopher Sciba, Sergeant Jonathan Byers, Officer Jared Yuen, and Does 1-100 acted pursuant 22 to the actual customs, policies, practices and procedures of the San Jose Police Department and 23 Defendant City of San Jose. 24 25 26 27 At all material times, each defendant was jointly engaged in tortious activity, resulting in At all material times, each defendant acted under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, At all material times, POLICE CHIEF Eddie Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, Sergeant STATEMENT OF FACTS 27. On Monday, May 25, 2020, a Minneapolis police officer brutally murdered George Floyd, an unarmed and non-resisting Black man, while other police stood by and watched. 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 5 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 6 of 24 1 28. 2 and systemic racism in the wake of the state sponsored and/or excused murders of George 3 Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Abrey, Tony McDade, and countless others. 4 29. 5 enforcement: Anthony Nunez, Jacob Dominguez, Jennifer Vasquez, Rudy Cardenas, Richard 6 Harpo Jacquez, Antonio Guzman Lopez, Richard Lua, Isai Lopez, Jesus Geney Montes, Walter 7 Roches, Daniel Pham, Aaron James Phillips, Steve Salinas, Diana Showman, Bich Cau Thi 8 Tran, Phillip Watkins, Oscar Grant III, Alan Blueford, Yuvette Henderson, Richard Perkins, Jr., 9 Dujuan Armstrong, Kayla Moore, Jody Mack Woodfox, Jessica Williams, Jesus Delgado Innumerable people held peaceful protests across the world condemning police brutality Throughout San Jose, protesters honored the men and women killed by local law 10 Duarte, Jehad Eid, Sahleem Tindle, and countless others. 11 30. 12 unprecedented public health crisis. Novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has killed over 136,000 13 Americans and continues to spread. The virus is commonly understood to be transmittable 14 through exposure to respiratory droplets. Public health officials advised people to wear masks if 15 they were outside and to stay six feet apart. In an effort to mitigate the number of people 16 infected, the County of Santa Clara enforced a shelter-in-place order and social distancing 17 protocols. 18 31. 19 this first day of the protest, Plaintiffs Derrick Sanderlin, Cayla Sanderlin, Breanna Contreras, 20 Pietro di Donato, and Adira Sharkey participated as peaceful demonstrators. On May 30, 2020 21 the protest continued as Plaintiff Shante Thomas watched from her third story window 22 overlooking E. Santa Clara Street as she video-recorded protestors and police; On June 2, 2020, 23 Plaintiff Joseph “JT” Stukes attended the protest as a peaceful demonstrator. 24 32. 25 concerning matters of great public concern in a public forum (except for Shante Thomas who 26 was inside her own home), including exercise of their rights to freedom of speech, assembly, 27 association, conscience, and press. These constitutionally protected and essential protests occurred and continue amid an On May 29, 2020 through June 2, 2020 a protest was held in downtown San Jose. On At all material times, each Plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 6 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 7 of 24 1 33. 2 threatened any person, and never resisted any lawful order by any police officer. 3 34. 4 participated in the following conduct: 5 35. 6 to stage a peaceful protest. The demographic of demonstrators included people of all different 7 heritages and ages. Upon information and belief, many of the demonstrators were high school 8 students. The demonstrators practiced social distancing by wearing masks. The protest was 9 peaceful. Police presence, however, increased around 4:00pm. A small army of police in riot At all material times, each Plaintiff herein acted peacefully and lawfully, never All Defendants herein planned, authorized, directed, ratified, and/or personally On May 29, 2020, demonstrators were assembled around 2:00pm in downtown San Jose 10 gear approached from the East on Santa Clara Street. There was another contingent of 11 uniformed law enforcement to the North on Sixth Street at the same time. At all relevant times, 12 no incident occurred justifying SJPD to categorize the protest as an unlawful assembly and to 13 use force against the demonstrators. 14 36. 15 protest on the local news as he sat in his home only blocks from the protest. He was inspired to 16 become one more voice in the crowd so around 3:00pm he put on his shoes, walked out his 17 front door and joined the protest as a peaceful demonstrator around S. 14th Street and E. Santa 18 Clara Street. He marched with the group of mostly young people to 4th Street to Highway 280, 19 then back down 4th Street to City Hall. They assembled in front of City Hall and chanted 20 “Black Lives Matter” and other progressive slogans. Peter did not participate in nor witness 21 any violence or destruction of property. 22 37. 23 and Captain Jason Dwyer authorized and/or ordered the use of “kettling” as a crowd control 24 tactic. Kettling, which derives from a German military term referring to an army surrounded by 25 a much larger force, is a police tactic whereby officers confine a large group of people to a 26 designated space by surrounding them on all sides so that there is no escape. By doing so, the 27 officers effectively control people’s movements. Seventy-five-year-old Plaintiff, Pietro “Peter” Di Donato, watched coverage of the Upon information and belief, SJPD command including Defendants Chief Eddie Garcia 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 7 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 8 of 24 1 38. 2 panic, elevates tensions, and chills speech. SJPD accomplished this by forming police lines and 3 by driving vehicles towards demonstrators. 4 39. 5 tear gassing and using “less-lethal” weapons to shoot rubber bullets and bean bag rounds at 6 them. 7 40. 8 disorient and incapacitate. 9 41. The bean bag rounds are fabric bags filled with small lead shot or silica. 10 42. When an officer uses “less-lethal” weapons on a person, injury should be expected. 11 Upon contact with a human body the object creates an impact shock wave and produces blunt 12 force trauma. The kinetic energy created by a thrown fastball pitch is 97 foot pounds, while a 13 40-gram bean bag round like the ones shot at San Jose protestors on May 29, 2020, creates 120 14 foot pounds of kinetic energy. 15 43. 16 compliance. 17 44. 18 than fifteen feet. 19 45. 20 force. 21 46. 22 training materials on the use of less lethal weapons and these materials were used to train SJPD 23 officers. He included a slide with a cartoon that mocks shots to the groin. The cartoon depicts 24 two cavemen who fell a giant mammoth with their tiny arrow by shooting it in the groin. This 25 slide immediately follows the slide which covers where the shooter should aim and which body 26 parts to avoid. Kettling leads to the unlawful seizure of people without a reasonable basis, creates On this occasion, SJPD kettled demonstrators before using dispersing tactics such as “Less-lethal” impact munitions, like rubber bullets and bean bag projectiles, are used to Rubber bullets, foam batons, and bean bag rounds are used as a form of pain Less-lethal projectiles can cause serious injury when deployed from distances of less Firing these “less-lethal” impact munitions at the groin, head, neck or chest is lethal Defendant Christopher Sciba, a Sergeant with the SJPD Training Unit, prepared SJPD 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 8 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 9 of 24 1 47. 2 the final slide synthesizes the SJPD message to trainees regarding use of “less-lethal” 3 weapons: “Do not hesitate. Always win.” 4 48. 5 authorized untrained officers to be equipped with these “less-lethal” riot guns and gave them 6 license to shoot protestors even though they had not been trained on how to safely deploy the 7 weapons. 8 49. 9 least the last five years. The entire 50 slide PowerPoint presentation includes no mention of de-escalation, and Defendants Police Chief Garcia, Captain Dwyer, Sergeant Sciba and Doe Defendants Defendant Jared Yuen and Does 1-100 did not have training on less lethal weapons in at 10 50. 11 two years. 12 51. 13 rounds. None of the Plaintiffs were warned that force would be used on them before they were 14 shot at. 15 52. 16 authorized, ordered, permitted, and ratified the SJPD response to this entire demonstration, 17 including but not limited to the following: 18 53. 19 announcement was inaudible and/or unclear. 20 54. 21 demonstrators who were walking west on E. Santa Clara Street toward City Hall, away from 22 the officers. Plaintiff Adira Sharkey lives nearby and decided to take her dog to the protest and 23 stroll to Highway 101. Not long after 4:00pm, Adira left her apartment and had only walked 24 one block to E. Santa Clara and 7th Street when SJPD started throwing tear gas at people. Adira 25 turned onto a side street and returned to her apartment to drop her dog off, then returned to the 26 protest with her roommates. 27 55. 28 The manufacturer of the weapon requires that certification in its use be renewed every Officers have a duty to warn, if at all possible, before using force, including less-lethal Defendants Police Chief Garcia, Captain Dwyer and Doe Defendants planned, SJPD wrongly declared the protest an unlawful assembly through a loudspeaker. The Around 4:00pm, the police officers formed a barricade near 8th Street behind the Shortly thereafter and without warning, SJPD officers threw teargas canisters and shot rubber bullets at the demonstrators. Plaintiffs observed innocent, nonviolent people getting ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 9 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 10 of 24 1 struck with the rubber bullets after being fired on at close range, which escalated tensions and 2 turned a peaceful protest into police-created chaos. 3 56. 4 Santa Clara, I stepped into a war zone,” and that “at 5pm on Friday, I made the call 5 immediately. It wasn’t that difficult.” On that Friday, May 29, SJPD fired thirty-one pepper 6 ball projectiles, thirty-two tear gas canisters and at least 400 foam batons and/or rubber bullets 7 into the crowds. Captain Dwyer later stated in a press conference on June 4 that he has no 8 regrets about his decision of May 29. 9 57. Captain Dwyer would later say that “when my boots hit the ground, at Seventh and Just after 5:00pm, twenty-one-year-old Breanna Contreras and her eighteen-year-old 10 sister were standing on the sidewalk near the intersection of E. Santa Clara Street and 7th Street 11 when she heard a commotion up ahead and could see a cloud of teargas cover the crowd, and 12 heard screaming and coughing. She could not see the source of the commotion due to the 13 crowd of people so she stood tall to peer over and suddenly felt a strong impact to her right 14 temple. The force of the impact pushed her back a few steps and she heard the repeated sound 15 of firing of a weapon and realized she had been hit with a projectile. She reached her hand up 16 and felt blood on her face. A man ran up to her and helped her stop the bleeding with her own 17 mask. He had been shot in the leg. A nearby woman was shot in the stomach. 18 58. 19 herself. She had heard no warnings from police and was completely blindsided by the use of 20 force. Her sister, who had been tending to someone else who had been tear-gassed, saw 21 Breanna’s injury and immediately walked her down the street to find a way out of the area. 22 Her sister saw an ambulance and waved down the EMTs, who cleaned Breanna’s injury and 23 gave her an icepack, telling her to go to the doctor. 24 59. 25 warning or reason as he tried to de-escalate police who were shooting the young people he had 26 been marching with for hours, and who he had seen were non-violent, peaceful and passionate 27 demonstrators. Breanna sat on the sidewalk stunned, her head throbbing in pain as she tried to gather Also around 5:00pm, seventy-five-year-old Plaintiff Peter di Donato was shot without 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 10 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 11 of 24 1 60. 2 including by Defendant Yuen, Peter approached an officer in the front of the line and said “you 3 should not be doing this. This is wrong!” The officer threatened Peter with his baton and told 4 him to back up. Peter complied and backed up a few feet and shortly thereafter the officers 5 fired rubber bullets, flash grenades, and tear gas on Peter and the other nonviolent protestors. 6 61. 7 failure to disperse. Peter at this point resolved not to back up any further in protest to this 8 conscious shocking excessive use of force and stood his ground. An officer shot Peter in his 9 lower left leg above his ankle. The pain was strong and immediate, so Peter retreated to the Concerned for the innocent protestors against whom excessive force was being used, The use of force was prolonged, unnecessary, and an egregious overreaction for any 10 side of the street and took cover behind a street lamp pole because he feared being shot in the 11 eyes. Within a minute he returned to the street despite the constant barrage from SJPD, so as to 12 not let them “win” with their abusive tactics. 13 62. 14 injury and alerted his friends and family as to what had happened. He also preserved video he 15 took at City Hall at 4:58pm and the photo of his wound at home at 6:09pm, both geo-located 16 and time-stamped. 17 63. 18 street near Pho Passion restaurant, where she somehow got stuck between two lines of SJPD 19 officers, with officers from each line each telling her to go in the opposite direction. Cayla was 20 unreasonably detained due to this kettling technique and the conflicting verbal commands of 21 officers. An elderly couple who appeared to be in their seventies were also trapped with Cayla. 22 Cayla was frightened when she saw an officer use the tip of his rifle to push the elderly 23 gentleman. 24 64. 25 into the crowd. Cayla saw a young man get shot in the ribcage which knocked the wind out of 26 him and his friends had to help him to safety. Around this time the police were also using flash 27 bang grenades. Cayla could not control her tears and shaking. She found Derrick in the crowd 28 Around 6:00pm Peter walked home to ice and rest his wound. He photographed his Around 6:00pm Cayla began to fear for her safety and she walked to the side of the Cayla saw officers push demonstrators with their batons and continue to fire projectiles of demonstrators and asked if they could go home because she could not handle any more of ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 11 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 12 of 24 1 the police brutality. Derrick suggested that she take a walk to calm herself because he needed 2 to stay in solidarity with his fellow demonstrators. Cayla agreed and walked west, turning 3 north on 6th Street. Once out of the chaos, Cayla was able to calm herself and received a phone 4 call from her friend Kenisha who was on her way downtown. Cayla and Kenisha met and 5 walked together to the corner of 6th and E. Santa Clara St behind the line of officers with the 6 intention of praying for the safety of everyone involved and to keep eyes on Derrick. 7 65. 8 lost sight of him in the crowd. He answered and said he had just been shot. 9 66. After fifteen minutes of observing and praying, Cayla called Derrick because she had Around 6:20pm near the First Methodist Church at E. Santa Clara Street and 5th Street 10 Derrick had put his hands in the air and implored police not to continue shooting protestors. 11 Derrick was not posing a threat or invading the personal space of officers, however they took 12 aim at him and shot him in the groin, rupturing his testicle. Media and civilian video footage 13 shows Derrick holding a carton of milk in one hand and his cardboard sign that read “We R 14 Worth of Life” in the other, at the time he was shot. 15 67. 16 crowd and shooting people at close range. Defendant Yuen is also captured on video around 17 this time saying, “shut up, bitch,” to a young woman who asked him why he was “on that side 18 of the line.” Then a protestor is heard saying “fuck you,” causing Yuen to rush forward and 19 shoot towards the protester out of anger, and not because the use of force was reasonable. 20 68. 21 behavior and excessive use of force, and therefore failed to protect Plaintiffs from his abusive 22 tactics. 23 69. 24 motioned toward Derrick Sanderlin. The colleague responded “copy” and motioned to another 25 officer who then rushes over and fires at Derrick. On information and belief, Officer Jared 26 Yuen shot at Derrick Sanderlin at least once, along with two other officers who deployed their 27 “less-lethal” weapons at him. One of these three shots is the shot that hit Derrick in the groin. Video of the incident shows officers, including Officer Jared Yuen, escalating the None of Yuen’s SJPD colleagues or superiors intervened nor reported his outrageous Video shows a nearby officer said to his colleague, “black guy… trash can” and 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 12 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 13 of 24 1 One officer also shot a metal cannister after shooting Derrick in the groin, which is not an 2 authorized use of the riot gun according to manufacturer guidelines. 3 70. 4 Defendants Yuen and Does 1-100. He was helped out of the area by bystanders and his wife 5 Cayla met him and found him lying alone near First United Methodist Church, unable to walk. 6 She ran to him while Kenisha went to get her car. The SJPD officers were deploying tear gas 7 which burned Derrick and Cayla’s eyes and throats, causing them to cough so Cayla helped 8 Derrick stand and walk away from the officers. They could barely open their eyes due to the 9 tear gas and walked very slowly and with limited sight. The cloud of tear gas completely Derrick fell to the ground, immobile, but no aid was rendered by officers, including 10 engulfed them, and they could not see more than a few feet in front as they walked. Once they 11 got to the corner of 5th and St. John, Derrick lay on the ground because it hurt to walk. Cayla 12 remembered that she had packed a bag of frozen okra to keep the milk they brought to the 13 protest cold, and she gave it to Derrick to ice his groin. 14 71. 15 rather than expose himself to Covid-19 at the hospital, but the pain was unbearable. The next 16 day he had an ultrasound of his scrotum to check for injury. The radiologist had said that the 17 results would come back in a couple of days, but the pain and swelling was getting worse so 18 Cayla drove Derrick to the emergency room and shortly thereafter he was admitted for 19 emergency surgery for a ruptured testicle. Due to Covid-19 restrictions, Cayla was not allowed 20 inside to support Derrick during this traumatic time, and she instead had to wait in the hospital 21 parking lot alone. Once he was discharged, he had a three-inch surgical scar on his scrotum as 22 well as scabs where the projectile had broken the skin on the shaft and tip of his penis. 23 72. 24 where people were regrouping. Police continued to fire tear gas at people in the park and it got 25 into her eyes, burning them. Other demonstrators helped her flush her eyes with water and 26 once she could see again, she recognized the teenagers who had helped her as recent graduates 27 from Del Mar High School where she works. Kenisha found Derrick and Cayla and drove them home. Derrick tried to rest at home Around 8:00pm on May 29, Plaintiff Adira Sharkey walked over to Cesar Chavez park 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 13 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 14 of 24 1 73. 2 demonstrator, to feeling protective of these former students from her school and she worried 3 about them facing police brutality. She later saw them across the street and crossed the street to 4 give them her phone number, telling them that she lived nearby in case anything happened to 5 them or they needed anything. 6 74. 7 Cesar Chavez park where her roommates stood, when she suddenly felt the painful impact of a 8 rubber bullet in the back side of her ribs. The wind was almost knocked out of her and she 9 hunched over and hobbled over to hide behind a redwood tree and catch her breath. She felt At that point Adira felt that her role at the protests changed from just being a Right after saying goodbye to the teens, Adira crossed the street and had re-entered 10 nauseas and stunned. The shot came out of nowhere because she had not realized she was in the 11 line of fire and she thought the park was a safe place to gather. Adira is informed and believes 12 that it was a direct shot at her and not a ricochet because the next closest person to her at the 13 time of the shooting was about 12 feet away and the injury she sustained was very painful and 14 the shape was a perfect circle like the projectile. 15 75. 16 much of the day watching the protests and the police response from her living room window 17 which overlooks E. Santa Clara Street. Around 11:45pm she was video recording police as they 18 stood across E. Santa Clara Street and shone their high-powered flashlights in her windows on 19 the third floor. They were upset because she had hollered out the window, insisting that they 20 stop mistreating protesters and letting them know that she was recording them. 21 76. 22 living room window broke in her face. She was struck in the chest with a rubber bullet and 23 would later find a total of thirteen projectiles in her one-bedroom apartment, her walls scarred 24 with gashes from the rubber bullets. The SJPD officers also shot out her bedroom window and 25 launched a tear gas canister into her apartment, causing her to cough and her eyes burn so much 26 that she had to temporarily vacate the apartment. 27 77. 28 The protests continued the following day, May 30, and Plaintiff Shante Thomas spent The next thing she knew, she heard the blast of a weapon and glass shattering as her Defendant Sergeant Jonathan Byers was present and participated in the use of force on Shante as retaliation for her filming the police and criticizing their abuse of protesters. Byers ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 14 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 15 of 24 1 personally deployed rubber bullets into her occupied residence. Byers lied and said that beer 2 bottles were being thrown from Shante’s unit, when this is demonstrably false. 3 78. 4 someone from Shante’s unit had been throwing beer bottles at police prior to the shooting. 5 This resulted in Shante’s landlord sending her a notice to cease and telling her to pay to replace 6 the windows since she had thrown beer bottles at police and therefore been the cause of the 7 damage. 8 79. 9 contacted the Mayor’s office for help. Paul Pereira from the Mayor’s office wrote to Shante’s SJPD officers then lied to the security guard and/or building management, saying that Shante, determined to not be evicted and not having the means to pay for the windows, 10 building management, advising that he had personally been at the scene at 7am the morning 11 after the windows were broken to help with cleanup efforts. He stated that he inspected the 12 front of the building for damage and personally swept up the broken glass in front of the 13 building, and that all of the glass was window glass, none of it was glass with beer labels of the 14 color of beer bottles. 15 80. 16 have video of the police aiming high and hitting the building on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the 17 building with rubber bullets. 18 81. 19 his employment with SJPD, including more than a dozen excessive force allegations. In a filing 20 with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Byers was accused of “a pattern 21 of behavior,” including that Byers “does use excessive force against persons of color and then 22 crafts a story to justify his actions.” Instead of disciplining or terminating Byers, SJPD ratified 23 his unconstitutional conduct by promoting him to the rank of sergeant in 2019. 24 82. 25 downtown San Jose. He and other protestors held signs and chanted “Black Lives Matter.” 26 Sometime after 8:30pm, approximately fifty police officers kettled JT and other peaceful 27 demonstrators and attempted to drive them out of City Hall plaza. JT had been peacefully 28 practicing civil disobedience by being out after curfew, when officers harassed him while Paul Pereira further stated that two people contacted the Mayor’s office saying that they Defendant Sergeant Jonathan Byers has a long history of excessive use of force during On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Joseph “JT” Stukes was peacefully protesting at City Hall in ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 15 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 16 of 24 1 letting non-protestors walk around after curfew without police attention. JT accused police of 2 discriminatory enforcement of the curfew by focusing their attention on protestors because of 3 their exercise of freedom of speech, and he shouted, “stifling speech is fascist!” 4 83. 5 rights under the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs’ liberty was curtailed by imposing unprecedented 6 curfew orders on virtually everyone living in San Jose. The City’s order eliminated all political 7 protest in the evening hours, during a time when thousands of law-abiding people seek to 8 express their opposition to racially discriminatory police violence. 9 84. City of San Jose’s 8:30pm curfew unlawfully suppressed Plaintiffs’ First Amendment JT continued his protest until he was rushed by dozens of SJPD officers, at which point 10 he complied with the armed officers and was dispersing in the only available direction due to 11 the kettling, when he was purposely tripped from behind by an officer. As a result of the trip, 12 JT fell and bloodied his hands and knees. 13 85. 14 weapons even though he posed no threat and was attempting to disperse as ordered. JT was 15 struck from the back on his left hip with a 40mm foam baton, as well as on the back of his right 16 leg, leaving a nine-inch bruise. Doe officers 1-100 deployed bean bag rounds, one of which 17 ripped a hole through his closed backpack and he later discovered the stun bag in his backpack. 18 He scrambled back to his feet and continued rushing to disperse to avoid use of force and 19 officers unnecessarily and for the purpose of causing harm, deployed their less-lethal weapons 20 in his direction approximately fifty times. While JT was still on the ground, Doe officers 1-100 shot at him with their less-lethal 21 DAMAGES 22 86. 23 the use of force. 24 87. 25 the foam batons Defendants shot at him. As of the date this filing, he still has a two to three 26 inch bruise on the back of his right leg where he was struck. 27 88. 28 All Plaintiffs suffered suppression of speech and physical and emotional injuries from JT suffered large contusions on his leg and hip from the blunt force trauma caused by Derrick’s urologist has informed him that he has a high chance of sterility due to the rupture and that they will not know for sure until he and Cayla attempt to get pregnant. Before ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 16 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 17 of 24 1 this incident, Cayla and Derrick had planned to wait two more years before starting a family 2 but have been forced by this incident to consult with fertility specialists and have been advised 3 to advance their plans to have children. Derrick has also been forced to research freezing his 4 sperm but he is not yet healed enough to be able to make a sperm bank deposit and Kaiser does 5 not do sperm banking so he would have to pay out-of-pocket at another facility. 6 89. 7 have sexual intercourse due to this injury. 8 90. 9 swell up, and her eye was bloody and swollen shut. She was dizzy and nauseas. The swelling Derrick is still not fully healed from his injury and he and Cayla have not been able to The blunt force trauma to Breanna’s temple caused the entire right side of her face to 10 lasted for more than a week and her eyeball was red from the burst blood vessels for over a 11 month. The laceration on her temple had a scab the size of a quarter for over a month and has 12 only recently fallen off, revealing a red mark and scar the size of a quarter. She had bruising 13 under her eye for approximately one month. 14 91. 15 had enjoyed miles-long hikes every other day. Now, even though the softball sized bruise has 16 faded, he continues to have pain in his lower leg and is under the care of a physician for his 17 persistent pain. 18 92. 19 shooting. She had difficulty sleeping due to the pain for a couple nights and was still sore for 20 two weeks after the incident. 21 93. 22 continues to follow up with her doctor since the impact was near her heart. She is unnerved 23 and anxious as a result of the invasion into the sanctity of her home and had to spend many 24 nights at a motel before the tear gas was cleaned up and the building finally fixed her windows. 25 She no longer feels safe in her apartment and is scared and distrustful of police. 26 94. 27 mental distress, fear of law enforcement, terror, nightmares, flashbacks, anxiety, depression, 28 Up until this excessive use of force by SJPD officers, Peter was an active senior who Adira suffered a baseball sized bruise to her torso and it hurt to inhale for a day after the Shante suffered pain to her chest where she was struck with the rubber bullet and As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of their sense of security, dignity, and pride. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 17 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 18 of 24 1 95. 2 oppressive. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to award of punitive damages against the 3 Defendants. The conduct of the individual Defendants was malicious, sadistic, wanton, and 4 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 5 6 First Cause of Action 7 (First Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 8 (By Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 97. By the actions and omissions described above, Police Chief Edgardo Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, Officer Jared Yuen, Sergeant Jonathan Byers and DOES 1-100, violated 42 U.S.C. §1983, depriving Plaintiffs of the clearly-established and well-settled right to be free from interference with, or retaliation for, their exercise of constitutionally protected rights, including but not limited to speech, assembly, association, and conscience, as secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 98. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to Defendants’ wrongful conduct, depriving Plaintiffs of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiffs and others would be violated by their acts and/or omissions. 99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and/or omissions as set forth above, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages as set forth at paragraphs 83-91, above. 100. The conduct of Defendants Police Chief Edgardo Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, Officer Jared Yuen, Sergeant Jonathan Byers and DOES 1-100 entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages and penalties allowable under 42 USC §1983 as set forth at paragraph 92, above. 26 101. Plaintiffs also claim reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as 27 otherwise allowed by law. 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 18 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 19 of 24 1 Second Cause of Action 2 (Fourth Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 3 (By Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 102. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 103. By the actions and omissions described above, Police Chief Edgardo Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, Officer Jared Yuen, Sergeant Jonathan Byers and DOES 1-100, violated 42 U.S.C. §1983, depriving Plaintiffs of the clearly-established and well-settled right to be free from excessive or unreasonable force as secured by the Fourth Amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by the Fourth Amendment. 104. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to Defendants’ wrongful conduct, depriving Plaintiffs of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiffs and others would be violated by their acts and/or omissions. 105. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and/or omissions as set forth above, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages as set forth at paragraphs 83-91, above. 106. The conduct of Defendants Police Chief Edgardo Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, Officer Jared Yuen, Sergeant Jonathan Byers and DOES 1-100 entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages and penalties allowable under 42 USC §1983 as set forth at paragraph 92, above. 20 107. Plaintiffs also claim reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as 21 otherwise allowed by law. 22 Third Cause of Action 23 (Monell Liability - First and Fourth Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 24 (By Plaintiffs Against City of San Jose) 25 26 27 28 108. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth here. 109. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants Police Chief Edgardo Garcia, Captain Jason Dwyer, Sergeant Christopher Sciba, Sergeant Jonathan Byers, Officer ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 19 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 20 of 24 1 Jared Yuen, and DOES 1-100 were pursuant to the following customs, policies, practices, 2 and/or procedures of DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN JOSE, stated in the alternative, which were 3 directed, encouraged, allowed, and/or ratified by policy making officers for the San Jose Police 4 Department: 5 a. 6 tolerating, and/or encouraging police officers to file false police reports, copy 7 other officers’ police reports and submit them as their own, make false statements, 8 falsely charge individuals with crimes or wrongs, obstruct and/or interfere with 9 investigations of unconstitutional, unlawful, or improper police conduct; by 10 withholding and/or concealing material information; and by ignoring and/or 11 failing to properly and adequately investigate and discipline unconstitutional, 12 13 unlawful, or wrongful police activity; b. 14 fabrication of evidence and cover-up of police misconduct; c. 17 from exercising their rights, including but not limited to their right to freedom of 19 speech, assembly, association, conscience, and press; d. 21 bags” consisting of lead birdshot shot wrapped in a bag and fired from a 12 gauge 23 shotgun – as well as solid batons and other uses of force, for crowd control in a 24 manner, and under circumstances, where such use of force would be objectively 25 27 to use “less lethal” munitions – including but not limited to concussion or “stinger” grenades, rubber bullets, foam batons, “flexible batons,” and/or “bean 22 26 to interfere with, obstruct, and/or violate the rights of individuals in their exercise of constitutionally protected rights, and to chill and/or deter those individuals 18 20 to allow, tolerate, and/or encourage the “Code of Silence” protecting police officers from responsibility for their misconduct, including the suppression and/or 15 16 to cover-up police misconduct and violations of constitutional rights by allowing, unreasonable; e. to use “less lethal” munitions – including but not limited to concussion or “stinger” grenades, rubber bullets, foam batons, “flexible batons,” and/or “bean 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 20 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 21 of 24 1 bags” consisting of lead birdshot shot wrapped in a bag and fired from a 12 gauge 2 shotgun – as well as solid batons and other uses of force, against individuals who 3 are peacefully and lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights, and against 4 such individuals because of their viewpoint and/or the perceived content of their 5 expression; 6 f. to select and/or allow Defendant Byers to participate in a role where Byers could 7 shoot demonstrators and others at the San Jose protest with rubber bullets and/or 8 other munitions, selecting his own targets, despite his known history in the 9 department, including his evaluations and prior complaint and misconduct history, 10 and without due concern for Defendant Byers’ adherence to generally accepted 11 law enforcement standards concerning bias, truthfulness, judgment, and use of 12 force. 13 g. to select and/or allow Defendant Yuen to participate in a role where Yuen could 14 shoot demonstrators and others at the San Jose protest with rubber bullets and/or 15 other munitions, selecting his own targets, despite his not having been trained on 16 less lethal weapons in at least the last five years. 17 h. to select and/or allow Defendant Sciba to participate in a role where Sciba could 18 train other officers regarding use of force, less-lethal munitions, and anti-bias, 19 despite his known history in the department, including his evaluations and prior 20 complaint and misconduct history, and without due concern for Defendant Sciba’s 21 adherence to generally accepted law enforcement standards concerning bias, 22 truthfulness, judgment, and use of force. 23 110. 24 CAPTAIN DWYER, SERGEANT SCIBA, SERGEANT BYERS AND DOES 1-100 failed to 25 properly train, instruct, monitor, supervise, and discipline Defendants and other Police 26 Department personnel, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, which 27 were thereby violated as described above. DEFENDANTS CITY OF SAN JOSE, POLICE CHIEF EDGARDO GARCIA, 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 21 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 22 of 24 1 111. 2 Department personnel, as described above, were known, and were ordered, approved, tolerated 3 and/or ratified by policy making officers for the San Jose Police Department and the City of 4 San Jose, including but not limited to POLICE CHIEF EDGARDO GARCIA, CAPTAIN 5 DWYER, SERGEANT SCIBA, SERGEANT BYERS AND DOES 1-100. 6 7 8 9 10 11 112. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants and other Police The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the failures to properly and adequately train, instruct, monitor, supervise and discipline of Defendants CITY OF SAN JOSE, POLICE CHIEF EDGARDO GARCIA, CAPTAIN DWYER, SERGEANT SCIBA, SERGEANT BYERS AND DOES 1-100 were a moving force and/or a proximate cause of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ clearly-established and well-settled constitutional rights in violation of 42 USC §1983, as more fully set forth above. 12 13 14 15 16 17 113. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions, omissions, customs, policies, practices and procedures of DEFENDANTS CITY OF SAN JOSE, POLICE CHIEF EDGARDO GARCIA, CAPTAIN DWYER, SERGEANT SCIBA, SERGEANT BYERS AND DOES 1-100, as described above, Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries and are entitled to damages, penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees as set forth in paragraphs 83-91, above. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 18 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: 20 1.) 21 at trial. 22 2.) 23 them, for their extreme and outrageous conduct in complete disregard for the rights of the 24 Plaintiff. 25 3.) Award Plaintiff statutory damages and/or attorney’s fees against all Defendants as allowed 26 by 42 U.S.C. §1988. 27 4.) Injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following: Award Plaintiff general, special and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven Award Plaintiff punitive damages against individually named Defendants, and each of 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 22 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 23 of 24 1 i. an order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from 2 unlawfully interfering with the rights of Plaintiffs and others in 3 connection with public demonstrations, to freedom of speech, 4 association, assembly, beliefs and conscience; 5 ii. an order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from 6 discriminating or retaliating against Plaintiffs or others in connection 7 with public demonstrations based upon their assertion of rights 8 protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 9 Constitution, and/or based on their viewpoint or the perceived content 10 of their expression; 11 iii. an order requiring Defendants to rescind all of their policies, 12 practices, procedures, and/or customs allowing police officers to 13 deploy tear gas for crowd control; 14 iv. an order requiring Defendants to rescind all of their policies, 15 practices, procedures, and/or customs allowing police officers to 16 employ so-called “less lethal” weapons as crowd control mechanisms, 17 and further prohibiting Defendants from permitting their police 18 officers to deploy such weapons without legal justification or against 19 nonviolent crowds or demonstrators; 20 v. an order requiring that in the event Defendants and their police 21 officers employ so-called less lethal force, such force only be used in 22 a lawful manner; 23 vi. an order requiring Defendants to train all San Jose Police Officers 24 concerning the law and this Court’s orders concerning the issues 25 raised in injunctive relief requests i-v, above; 26 27 // 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 23 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 24 of 24 1 5.) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 2 3 4 5 Dated: July 18, 2020 SARAH E. MARINHO Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this matter, pursuant to FRCP 38(a). 9 10 11 12 Dated: July 18, 2020 SARAH E. MARINHO Attorney for Plaintiffs 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights - Jury Trial Demanded Sanderlin, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. Case No. 20-cv-04824 24 Case 5:20-cv-04824-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 07/18/20 Page 1 of 2 -6 &$1' 5HY &,9,/ &29(5 6+((7 7KH -6 &$1' FLYLO FRYHU VKHHW DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG KHUHLQ QHLWKHU UHSODFH QRU VXSSOHPHQW WKH ILOLQJ DQG VHUYLFH RI SOHDGLQJV RU RWKHU SDSHUV DV UHTXLUHG E\ ODZ H[FHSW DV SURYLGHG E\ ORFDO UXOHV RI FRXUW 7KLV IRUP DSSURYHG LQ LWV RULJLQDO IRUP E\ WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQ 6HSWHPEHU LV UHTXLUHG IRU WKH &OHUN RI &RXUW WR LQLWLDWH WKH FLYLO GRFNHW VKHHW (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) , D 3/$,17,))6 '()(1'$176 DERRICK SANDERLIN, CAYLA SANDERLIN, BREANNA CONTRERAS, PIETRO DI CITY OF SAN JOSE, EDGARDO GARCIA, JASON DWYER, CHRISTOPHER SCIBA, JONATHAN DONATO, SHANTE THOMAS, ADIRA SHARKEY, and JOSEPH STUKES, individually, BYERS, JARED YUEN, and DOES 1-100, in their individual and official capacities, Jointly and Severally, E &RXQW\ RI 5HVLGHQFH RI )LUVW /LVWHG 3ODLQWLII (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) &RXQW\ RI 5HVLGHQFH RI )LUVW /LVWHG 'HIHQGDQW Santa Clara (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) 127( ,1 /$1' &21'(01$7,21 &$6(6 86( 7+( /2&$7,21 2) 7+( 75$&7 2) /$1' ,192/9(' F $WWRUQH\V (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) STADLIN MARINHO LLP, 111 N. Market St., Ste 300 San Jose, CA 95113, (408) 645-7801 ,, %$6,6 2) -85,6',&7,21 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 8 6 *RYHUQPHQW 3ODLQWLII )HGHUDO 4XHVWLRQ (U.S. Government Not a Party) 8 6 *RYHUQPHQW 'HIHQGDQW 'LYHUVLW\ (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) $WWRUQH\V (If Known) ,,, &,7,=(16+,3 2) 35,1&,3$/ 3$57,(6 (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 37) '() 37) '() ,QFRUSRUDWHG or 3ULQFLSDO 3ODFH &LWL]HQ RI 7KLV 6WDWH RI %XVLQHVV ,Q 7KLV 6WDWH &LWL]HQ RI $QRWKHU 6WDWH ,QFRUSRUDWHG and 3ULQFLSDO 3ODFH RI %XVLQHVV ,Q $QRWKHU 6WDWH )RUHLJQ 1DWLRQ &LWL]HQ RU 6XEMHFW RI D )RUHLJQ &RXQWU\ ,9 1$785( 2) 68,7 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) &2175$&7 ,QVXUDQFH 0DULQH 0LOOHU $FW 1HJRWLDEOH ,QVWUXPHQW 5HFRYHU\ RI 2YHUSD\PHQW 2I 9HWHUDQ¶V %HQHILWV 0HGLFDUH $FW 5HFRYHU\ RI 'HIDXOWHG 6WXGHQW /RDQV ([FOXGHV 9HWHUDQV 5HFRYHU\ RI 2YHUSD\PHQW RI 9HWHUDQ¶V %HQHILWV 6WRFNKROGHUV¶ 6XLWV 2WKHU &RQWUDFW &RQWUDFW 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ )UDQFKLVH 5($/ 3523(57< /DQG &RQGHPQDWLRQ )RUHFORVXUH 5HQW /HDVH (MHFWPHQW 7RUWV WR /DQG 7RUW 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $OO 2WKHU 5HDO 3URSHUW\ 9 72576 3(5621$/ ,1-85< $LUSODQH $LUSODQH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $VVDXOW /LEHO 6ODQGHU )HGHUDO (PSOR\HUV¶ /LDELOLW\ 0DULQH 0DULQH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 0RWRU 9HKLFOH 0RWRU 9HKLFOH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 2WKHU 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 0HGLFDO 0DOSUDFWLFH 5HPRYHG IURP 6WDWH &RXUW 3(5621$/ 3523(57< 2WKHU )UDXG 7UXWK LQ /HQGLQJ 2WKHU 3HUVRQDO 3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH 3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 35,621(5 3(7,7,216 &,9,/ 5,*+76 2WKHU &LYLO 5LJKWV 9RWLQJ (PSOR\PHQW +RXVLQJ $FFRPPRGDWLRQV $PHU Z 'LVDELOLWLHV± (PSOR\PHQW $PHU Z 'LVDELOLWLHV±2WKHU (GXFDWLRQ 25,*,1 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 2ULJLQDO 3URFHHGLQJ 3(5621$/ ,1-85< 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ ± 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ +HDOWK &DUH 3KDUPDFHXWLFDO 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $VEHVWRV 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ +$%($6 &25386 $OLHQ 'HWDLQHH 0RWLRQV WR 9DFDWH 6HQWHQFH *HQHUDO 'HDWK 3HQDOW\ )25)(,785( 3(1$/7< 'UXJ 5HODWHG 6HL]XUH RI 3URSHUW\ 86& † 2WKHU /$%25 %$1.5837&< $SSHDO 86& † :LWKGUDZDO 86& † 3523(57< 5,*+76 )DLU /DERU 6WDQGDUGV $FW /DERU 0DQDJHPHQW 5HODWLRQV 5DLOZD\ /DERU $FW )DPLO\ DQG 0HGLFDO /HDYH $FW 2WKHU /DERU /LWLJDWLRQ (PSOR\HH 5HWLUHPHQW ,QFRPH 6HFXULW\ $FW ,00,*5$7,21 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ $SSOLFDWLRQ 2WKHU ,PPLJUDWLRQ $FWLRQV &RS\ULJKWV 3DWHQW 3DWHQWņ$EEUHYLDWHG 1HZ 'UXJ $SSOLFDWLRQ 7UDGHPDUN 62&,$/ 6(&85,7< +,$ II %ODFN /XQJ ',:& ',:: J 66,' 7LWOH ;9, 56, J )('(5$/ 7$; 68,76 7D[HV 8 6 3ODLQWLII RU 'HIHQGDQW ,56±7KLUG 3DUW\ 86& † 27+(5 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU &LYLO 5LJKWV 3ULVRQ &RQGLWLRQ &LYLO 'HWDLQHH± &RQGLWLRQV RI &RQILQHPHQW 5HPDQGHG IURP $SSHOODWH &RXUW 5HLQVWDWHG RU 5HRSHQHG 7UDQVIHUUHG IURP $QRWKHU 'LVWULFW (specify) 27+(5 67$787(6 )DOVH &ODLPV $FW 4XL 7DP 86& † D 6WDWH 5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW $QWLWUXVW %DQNV DQG %DQNLQJ &RPPHUFH 'HSRUWDWLRQ 5DFNHWHHU ,QIOXHQFHG &RUUXSW 2UJDQL]DWLRQV &RQVXPHU &UHGLW 7HOHSKRQH &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW &DEOH 6DW 79 6HFXULWLHV &RPPRGLWLHV ([FKDQJH 2WKHU 6WDWXWRU\ $FWLRQV $JULFXOWXUDO $FWV (QYLURQPHQWDO 0DWWHUV )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ $FW $UELWUDWLRQ $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 3URFHGXUH $FW 5HYLHZ RU $SSHDO RI $JHQF\ 'HFLVLRQ &RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\ RI 6WDWH 6WDWXWHV 0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ±7UDQVIHU 0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ±'LUHFW )LOH 9, &$86( 2) $&7,21 &LWH WKH 8 6 &LYLO 6WDWXWH XQGHU ZKLFK \RX DUH ILOLQJ (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) 42 USC 1983 %ULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI FDXVH Excessive Force used by SJPD officers in violation of 4th Am, and suppression of peaceful protest in violation of 9,, 5(48(67(' ,1 &203/$,17 &+(&. ,) 7+,6 ,6 $ &/$66 $&7,21 81'(5 58/( )HG 5 &LY 3 9,,, 5(/$7(' &$6( 6 ,) $1< (See instructions): '(0$1' -8'*( &+(&. <(6 RQO\ LI GHPDQGHG LQ FRPSODLQW -85< '(0$1'