Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.1 Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Troy P. Owens, Jr. (SBN 298619) THE LAW OFFICE OF TROY P. OWENS, JR., A.P.C. 2400 FENTON STREET, SUITE 216 CHULA VISTA, CA 91914 TELEPHONE: (619) 765-5000 FACSIMILE: (619) 599-8181 TROYOWENS@TROYOWENSLAW.COM Attorneys for Plaintiff AMAURIE JOHNSON 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 14 AMAURIE JOHNSON, an individual, Plaintiff, v. 15 CITY OF LA MESA, a municipal 16 entity, MATT DAGES, an individual, 17 and DOES 1-6, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 13 Case No.: '20CV1461 JM RBB COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Arrest Without Probable Cause – 42 U.S.C. section 1983 2. Negligence 3. Excessive Force – 42 U.S.C. section 1983 19 4. Violence Because of Race – The 20 Ralph Act Civil Code §51.7 21 5. Excessive Force – The Bane Act 22 Civil Code §52.1 23 6. Monell Liability 24 25 26 27 28 1 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 14 1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff AMAURIE JOHNSON, by and through his 2 attorney of record, THE LAW OFFICE OF TROY P. OWENS, JR., A.P.C., by 3 Troy P. Owens, Jr., Esq., and alleges as follows: 4 I. 5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. California, has original jurisdiction over the civil rights cause of action pled herein under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), and by the federal questions raised therein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue of this controversy is proper in the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the Southern District of California. II. 14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15 16 17 18 The United States District Court, in and for the Southern District of 2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, plaintiff AMAURIE JOHNSON, was an individual residing in San Diego County, California. 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant CITY OF LA 19 MESA was a municipal corporation, incorporated in 1912, under the general laws 20 of the state of California, which derives its municipal authority from the general 21 laws of the state of California in respects not governed by city ordinance. 22 4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant MATT DAGES was 23 employed by the CITY OF LA MESA as a La Mesa Police Officer and was an 24 individual and a resident of San Diego County, California. 25 26 27 28 5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, identities, and capacities of DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Therefore, plaintiff sues these defendants under the fictitious designations of DOES 1 through 10. Plaintiff will amend this complaint once their identities have been ascertained as well as the facts giving rise to their 2 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 14 1 liability. 2 III. 3 FACTS 4 6. On Wednesday, May 27, 2020, Plaintiff AMAURIE JOHNSON 5 (hereafter “Mr. JOHNSON”) was a 23-year-old black male who was standing in 6 front of the parking lot to “The District.” “The District” is a luxury apartment 7 complex in the City of La Mesa. Mr. JOHNSON had just arrived at the premises to 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 visit friends who are residents of “The District.” Mr. JOHNSON’s friends were returning from a local store. 7. Defendant MATT DAGES (hereafter “Officer DAGES”), along with a team of other La Mesa Police Officers, were performing enforcement at a nearby trolley station. 8. Officer DAGES walked away from the trolley station, crossed a street, and approached Mr. JOHNSON who was standing in front of the apartment complex waiting for his friends. 9. Officer DAGES asked Mr. JOHNSON why he was standing in front 18 of the complex. Mr. JOHNSON explained to Officer DAGES that he was waiting 19 for his friends to arrive. Officer DAGES asked Mr. JOHNSON if he was smoking 20 weed and Mr. JOHNSON said he was not. Officer DAGES told Mr. Johnson that 21 he didn’t believe him and ordered him to get his friends on the phone. Mr. 22 JOHNSON complied and called his friends. As Mr. JOHNSON’s call was in 23 progress, his friends pulled up to the scene and stopped their vehicle. 24 10. Mr. JOHNSON tried to walk away from Officer DAGES and end 25 their interaction. Officer DAGES refused to allow Mr. JOHNSON to leave. Officer 26 DAGES pushed Mr. JOHNSON to prevent him from going to his friends. Officer 27 28 DAGES then grabbed Mr. JOHNSON by the jersey that Mr. JOHNSON was wearing and held him in place. Mr. JOHNSON explained that Officer DAGES had 3 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 14 1 no right to keep him detained and that he is leaving. Officer DAGES violently 2 grabbed Mr. JOHNSON’s arm, forcefully jerked Mr. JOHNSON’s body, and 3 aggressively pushed Mr. JOHNSON into a seated position. Officer DAGES kept 4 control of Mr. JOHNSON by placing him in an arm-bar. 5 11. Mr. JOHNSON again tried to get up and go to his friends, asserting 6 his right to leave as Officer DAGES had no authority to detain him. Officer 7 DAGES repeatedly pushed Mr. JOHNSON down onto a concrete bench. This time, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 several other officers that were at the nearby trolley station had come to serve as backup for Officer DAGES. A backup officer [DOES 1] assisted Officer DAGES in handcuffing Mr. JOHNSON. 12. Officer DAGES then claims that Mr. JOHNSON “smacked” him. Mr. JOHNSON immediately denies doing this and reminds Officer DAGES that the entire interaction is on film. Several bystanders were recording the video on their cellular phones. 13. Officer DAGES arrested Mr. JOHNSON and drove him from the 17 scene to the La Mesa Police Department. Officer DAGES issued Mr. JOHNSON a 18 citation for Assault on a Peace Officer in violation of California Penal Code 19 §243(b), and resisting/obstructing/delaying a Peace Officer in violation of 20 California Penal Code §148(a). Officer DAGES then told Mr. JOHNSON to leave 21 the police station. 22 14. On June 3, 2020, the City of La Mesa held a press conference about 23 the incident. The Chief of the La Mesa Police Department stated that Mr. 24 JOHNSON was contacted for a smoking in public at the platform area. 25 26 27 28 15. On the date of the incident, Mr. JOHNSON was never on the trolley platform. Mr. JOHNSON was not smoking. Mr. JOHNSON had no smoking paraphernalia on his person at the time of his arrest. There was no smoke on, or around, Mr. JOHNSON. 4 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 14 1 2 16. On June 5, 2020, the La Mesa Police Department announced that it will not seek prosecution of Mr. JOHNSON. 3 IV. 4 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 5 17. Mr. JOHNSON filed his governmental claim with the CITY OF LA 6 MESA on June 9, 2020. The statutory period has expired for the CITY OF LA 7 MESA to respond and Mr. JOHNSON has exhausted his administrative remedies 8 by operation of law. 9 V. 10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 11 Arrest Without Probable Cause – 42 U.S.C. §1983 12 [Against Officer DAGES] 13 14 15 16 Mr. JOHNSON incorporates by reference all prior allegations pled in this complaint. 18. Mr. JOHNSON had a firmly established right under the Fourth 17 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from arrest without 18 probable cause. Defendant Officer DAGES arrested Mr. JOHNSON without a 19 warrant and without probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed 20 despite the fact that Mr. JOHNSON had committed no crime. 21 19. At the time Officer DAGES arrested Mr. JOHNSON without a 22 warrant and without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, he was 23 acting under color of state law as a uniformed police officer within the course and 24 scope of his employment for the CITY OF LA MESA. 25 26 27 28 20. Officer DAGES, in arresting Mr. JOHNSON without probable cause, deprived Mr. JOHNSON of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 21. Officer DAGES’ arrest of Mr. JOHNSON without probable cause was 5 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 14 1 the moving force that caused general or non-economic damage to Mr. JOHNSON 2 including physical pain, suffering, and emotional distress. 3 22. The conduct of Officer DAGES constituting false arrest, justifies the 4 imposition of punitive damages against him in order to punish him for his conduct, 5 and to deter him from engaging in similar conduct in the future, because the 6 conduct was malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless disregard of Mr. 7 JOHNSON’s rights. The conduct was malicious because it was accompanied by ill 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 will, spite and/or for the purpose of injuring Mr. JOHNSON. The conduct was oppressive because it injured and/or damaged Mr. JOHNSON and/or violated Mr. JOHNSON’s rights with unnecessary harshness and/or severity, and it was a misuse or abuse of the authority or power by the defendant. The conduct was with a conscious disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s rights because, under the circumstances, it reflected a complete indifference to Mr. JOHNSON’s safety or rights. VI. 15 16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 17 Negligence 18 [Against the CITY OF LA MESA, Officer DAGES and DOES 1] 19 20 21 Mr. JOHNSON incorporates by reference all prior allegations pled in this complaint. 23. Officer DAGES and DOES 1 had a duty to Mr. JOHNSON under 22 California law to exercise ordinary care and prudence in their conduct and actions 23 so as not to cause harm or injury to others, including Mr. JOHNSON. 24 24. Officer DAGES and DOES 1 breached the duty they owed to Mr. 25 JOHNSON to exercise ordinary care by arresting Mr. JOHNSON for doing 26 nothing more than standing by an apartment complex. Officer DAGES and DOES 27 28 1 had special training to identify whether someone was in violation of California law and knew, or should have known, that Mr. JOHNSON was not. 6 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 14 1 25. Officer DAGES’ and DOES 1’s breach of the duty they owed to Mr. 2 JOHNSON was the direct, proximate, legal, and foreseeable cause of harm to Mr. 3 JOHNSON which includes emotional distress, mental suffering, and 4 inconvenience. 5 26. The CITY OF LA MESA is vicariously liable for the damages on Mr. 6 JOHNSON’s state law claims under the doctrine of respondeat superior and 7 California Government Code §815.2(a) because the officers were acting within the 8 course and scope of their employment with the CITY OF LA MESA. 9 VII. 10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 11 Excessive Force – The Bane Act – Civil Code §52.1 12 [Against Officer DAGES, and DOES 1-6] 13 14 15 16 Mr. JOHNSON incorporates by reference all prior allegations pled in this complaint. 27. Defendants Officer DAGES, and DOES 1-6, whether or not acting 17 under color of state law, interfered by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or 18 attempted to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with Mr. JOHNSON’s 19 exercise and/or enjoyment of his rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the 20 Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and 21 seizures caused by the use of objectively unreasonable and excessive force against 22 Mr. JOHNSON. The excessive force is evidenced by repeatedly pushing Mr. 23 Johnson, placing him in an arm bar, pushing his body onto concrete, and being 24 strong-armed by two officers in order to be handcuffed. The force was used 25 without cause, when Mr. JOHNSON was not a threat to the safety of officers or 26 others. The force used against Mr. JOHNSON far outweighed any governmental 27 28 interest in the use of force. 28. Officer DAGES’ and DOES 1-6’s use of unreasonable and excessive 7 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 14 1 force against Mr. JOHNSON was the moving force that caused general or non- 2 economic damages to Mr. JOHNSON, including past physical pain, past and future 3 suffering, and emotional distress. Officer DAGES’ and DOES 1-6’s use of 4 unreasonable and excessive force against Mr. JOHNSON was the moving force 5 that caused special or economic damages to Mr. JOHNSON, including future 6 medical expenses. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 29. The conduct of Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6, constituting the use of excessive force, justifies the imposition of punitive damages against Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6 to punish them for their conduct, and to deter them from engaging in similar conduct in the future, because the conduct was malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s rights. The conduct was malicious because it was accompanied by ill will, spite and/or for the purpose of injuring Mr. JOHNSON. The conduct was oppressive because it injured and/or damaged Mr. JOHNSON and/or violated Mr. JOHNSON’s rights with unnecessary 16 harshness and/or severity, and it was a misuse or abuse of the authority or power 17 by the defendant. The conduct was with a conscious disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s 18 rights because, under the circumstances, it reflected a complete indifference to Mr. 19 JOHNSON’s safety or rights. 20 VIII. 21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 Violence Because of Race – The Ralph Act – Civil Code §51.7 23 [Against Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6] 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. JOHNSON incorporates by reference all prior allegations pled in this complaint. 30. Officer DAGES and DOES 1, whether or not acting under color of state law, interfered with Mr. JOHNSON’s right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against him because of political 8 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 14 1 affiliation or on account of his race. 31. 2 Mr. JOHNSON is a black male that was wearing athletic gear and 3 standing in front of a luxury apartment complex. Officer DAGES contacted Mr. 4 JOHNSON for those reasons alone, despite the deceptive reasons claimed later. 5 32. Officer DAGES refused to believe that the black man in athletic gear 6 would have friends that live in a luxury apartment complex. Officer DAGES 7 challenged Mr. JOHNSON to call his friends to prove his reason for being there. 8 This conduct was done on reasons rooted in the fact that Mr. JOHNSON is black. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 33. Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6 intentionally interfered with Mr. JOHNSON’s right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against him because of political affiliation, or on account of his race, by Officer DAGES’ repeated pushing Mr. Johnson, placing him in an arm bar, pushing his body onto concrete, and being strong-armed by two officers in order to be handcuffed. The force was used without cause, when Mr. JOHNSON 16 was not an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. The force used 17 against Mr. JOHNSON far outweighed any governmental interest in the use of 18 force. 19 34. The violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, was committed 20 against Mr. JOHNSON because of his race. This is demonstrated by the way 21 Officer DAGES treated other white citizens present differently. Officer DAGES 22 did not approach any of the white citizens and demand that they justify their 23 presence. Officer DAGES did not think that Mr. JOHNSON belonged solely 24 because of his race. That was the basis for initiating the entire encounter, and the 25 reason that force was used to continue the unlawful encounter. 26 27 28 35. Officer DAGES’ and DOES 1-6’s use of violence or threat of violence against Mr. JOHNSON by using unreasonable and excessive force against Mr. JOHNSON was the moving force that caused general or non-economic 9 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 14 1 damages to Mr. JOHNSON including past physical pain, past and future suffering, 2 and emotional distress and special or economic damages to Mr. JOHNSON 3 including future medical expenses. 4 36. Due to Officer DAGES’ and DOES 1-6’s use of violence or 5 intimidation by threat of violence against Mr. JOHNSON because of his race, Mr. 6 JOHNSON is entitled to a statutory civil penalty of $25,000 for each violation of 7 California Civil Code §51.7 pursuant to California Civil Code §52. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 37. The conduct of Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6, constituting the use of excessive force, justifies the imposition of punitive damages against Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6 to punish them for their conduct, and to deter them from engaging in similar conduct in the future, because the conduct was malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s rights. The conduct was malicious because it was accompanied by ill will, spite and/or for the purpose of injuring Mr. JOHNSON. The conduct was oppressive because it injured and/or 16 damaged Mr. JOHNSON and/or violated Mr. JOHNSON’s rights with unnecessary 17 harshness and/or severity, and it was a misuse or abuse of the authority or power 18 by the defendant. The conduct was with a conscious disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s 19 rights because, under the circumstances, it reflected a complete indifference to Mr. 20 JOHNSON’s safety or rights. 21 IX. 22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 Excessive Force – The Bane Act – Civil Code §52.1 24 [Against Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6] 25 26 27 28 Mr. JOHNSON incorporates by reference all prior allegations pled in this complaint. 38. Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6, whether or not acting under color of state law, interfered by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempted to interfere 10 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 14 1 by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with Mr. JOHNSON’s exercise and/or 2 enjoyment of his rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of 3 the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures caused by the 4 use of objectively unreasonable and excessive force against Mr. JOHNSON. The 5 force is evidenced by Officer DAGES’ repeated pushing Mr. Johnson, placing him 6 in an arm bar, pushing his body onto concrete, and being strong-armed by two 7 officers in order to be handcuffed. The force was used without cause, when Mr. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 JOHNSON was not an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. The force used against Mr. JOHNSON far outweighed any governmental interest in the use of force. 39. Officer DAGES’ and DOES 1-6’s use of violence or threat of violence against Mr. JOHNSON by using unreasonable and excessive force against Mr. JOHNSON was the moving force that caused general or non-economic damages to Mr. JOHNSON including past physical pain, past and future suffering, 16 and emotional distress and special or economic damages to Mr. JOHNSON 17 including future medical expenses. 18 40. The conduct of Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6, constituting the use of 19 excessive force justifies in the imposition of punitive damages against Officer 20 DAGES and DOES 1-6 to punish them for their conduct, and to deter them from 21 engaging in similar conduct in the future, because the conduct was malicious, 22 oppressive and/or in reckless disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s rights. The conduct 23 was malicious because it was accompanied by ill will, spite and/or for the purpose 24 of injuring Mr. JOHNSON. The conduct was oppressive because it injured and/or 25 damaged Mr. JOHNSON and/or violated Mr. JOHNSON’s rights with unnecessary 26 harshness and/or severity, and it was a misuse or abuse of authority or power by 27 28 the defendants. The conduct was with a conscious disregard of Mr. JOHNSON’s rights because, under the circumstances, it reflected a complete indifference to Mr. 11 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 14 1 JOHNSON’s safety or rights. 2 X. 3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Monell Liability 5 [CITY OF LA MESA] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mr. JOHNSON incorporates by reference all prior allegations pled in this complaint. 41. Defendant CITY OF LA MESA has created a de facto policy and atmosphere of lawlessness and discrimination, encouraging excessive force by its officers by failing to supervise, review, and discipline its officers’ use of force against citizens. Based on information and belief, the CITY OF LA MESA had knowledge of excessive force used by its officers for which the CITY OF LA MESA routinely ignored and failed to meaningfully investigate and discipline its officers, and failed to take any meaningful action on complaints made on 16 governmental claim forms such as the one submitted by Mr. JOHNSON. This 17 failure to supervise, investigate, and discipline officers that had government tort 18 claims act complaints filed against them has created an attitude of lawlessness 19 regarding the use of force within the police force and its longstanding practice has 20 made the conduct of Officer DAGES and DOES 1-6 standard operating procedure 21 and custom within the La Mesa Police Department. 22 42. Defendant CITY OF LA MESA’s de facto policy and atmosphere of 23 lawlessness and discrimination, encouraging excessive force by its officers, by 24 failing to supervise, review, and discipline its officers’ use of force against citizens, 25 and failure to investigate citizen complaints of excessive force, thereby creating an 26 atmosphere condoning use of force because officers knew there would be no 27 28 repercussion or discipline, was the moving force behind the damage done to Mr. JOHNSON. 12 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 14 1 43. Defendant CITY OF LA MESA’s de facto policy and atmosphere of 2 lawlessness has resulted in over 142 use of force incidents from 2016 to 2020. 3 Only 23 of these use of force incidents resulted in discussions with the officers. 4 Only two of these use of force incidents prompted further investigation. This 5 includes a 2018 incident in which La Mesa Police Officer Scott Wulfing repeatedly 6 slammed a handcuffed teenage girl. Officer Wulfing is reportedly still employed 7 and without discipline as a result of that incident. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 44. Defendant CITY OF LA MESA’s de facto policy and atmosphere of lawlessness is well-known to its citizenry. There have been days of protesting by those who demand that change take place and that officers be held accountable. Defendant CITY OF LA MESA is well aware of the atmosphere and has pledged transparency and appropriate action. Previous pledges of this nature have gone unfulfilled. 45. As a result of the CITY OF LA MESA’s custom and policy regarding 16 the use of force, Mr. JOHNSON has sustained damages. He has sustained general 17 or non-economic damages, including past physical pain, past and future suffering, 18 and emotional distress and special or economic damages to Mr. JOHNSON 19 including future medical expenses. 20 21 22 WHEREFORE, plaintiff AMAURIE JOHNSON, prays for relief as follows: 23 1. General damages according to proof at the time of trial; 24 2. Special damages according to proof at the time of trial; 25 3. Attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 26 4. Attorney fees pursuant to California Civil Code §52.a(h), 5. Punitive damages against MATT DAGES and DOES 1-6, 6. Costs of suit incurred herein and interest; and 27 28 13 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-01461-JM-RBB Document 1 Filed 07/29/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 14 1 2 7. Any further equitable or legal relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. 3 4 DATED: July 29, 2020 THE LAW OFFICE OF TROY P. OWENS, JR. 5 6 7 8 /s/ TROY P. OWENS, JR., ESQ. Troy P. Owens, Jr., Esq., attorney for plaintiff AMAURIE JOHNSON troyowens@troyowenslaw.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 COMPLAINT