Professional Documents
Culture Documents
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF LONG BEACH, DAVID
)
DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, )
DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, )
CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON,
)
EDUARDO SALDANA and DOES 1
)
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
CASE NO:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
1.Unreasonable Search and
Seizure-Detention and Arrest (42
U.S.C. 1983)
2.Unreasonable Search and
Seizure-Excessive Force and Denial
of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983)
3. Municipal Liability for
Unconstitutional Custom, Practice,
or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983)
23
PENDENT STATE-LAW
CLAIMS
24
25
26
27
COMPLAINT
2
3
follows:
I.
1.
This action is brought pursuant 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourth and
on 29 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(1), (2), (3) and (4), and the aforementioned statutory
10
2.
11
the CITY OF LONG BEACH, California. Plaintiff filed a timely claim against the
12
Defendants for the State Causes of action, which was rejected by the Defendants.
13
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Government
14
Code.
II.
15
16
PARTIES
17
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS is and was
18
19
3.
20
(hereinafter referred to as CITY) was a public entity duly organized and existing
21
22
4.
23
24
25
residents of the CITY, and were police officers, captains, lieutenants, commanders
26
and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the CITY Police Department
27
and employees, agents and representatives of the CITY. At all times relevant hereto,
-2-
said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as
is sued in his or her official capacity and in his or her personal capacity.
5.
true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOE defendants 1 through
PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of
10
the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
11
herein alleged, and that PLAINTIFFs injuries as herein alleged were proximately
12
13
6.
14
15
16
each of them, were acting under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes,
17
18
19
7.
20
At all times relevant herein, defendants DOES 6 through 10, inclusive, were
21
III.
22
23
8.
24
ANGEL LLAMAS was lawfully on the premises of a neighbors home located at 5333
25
Long Beach Boulevard, Space 42, Long Beach, California. Plaintiff is a 67 year old
26
male, insulin dependent diabetic, and he requires dialysis treatments to live. In fact,
27
at the time of the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit Plaintiff had tubing for
PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES
-3-
9.
heroin. Two of these aforementioned defendants, approached Plaintiff with their hand
guns drawn on Plaintiff, as they gave Plaintiff commands to move to the side. One of
the aforementioned defendants then grabbed Plaintiff by the arms and proceeded to
10
yank and pull on Plaintiff by the arms in an extremely forceful and violent manner.
11
The unreasonable and unnecessary yanking and pulling of Plaintiffs arms caused
12
13
pain and visible bleeding. One of the other defendants then slammed plaintiff up
14
15
10.
16
defendants to be careful with him and asked them why they were treating him in such
17
a violent manner. One of the other defendants then kicked Plaintiffs leg and grabbed
18
19
11.
20
Plaintiff was then placed in a Long Beach Patrol car for approximately 15 minutes.
21
Thereafter, Plaintiff was released. Plaintiff was never charged with any crime
22
whatsoever by any of the defendant officers. Despite the fact Plaintiff was visibly
23
24
provide Plaintiff with medical care. Also, none of the defendants called for a rescue
25
ambulance or any other medical personnel for assistance. Defendant officers then left
26
the location of the incident and failed to apologize or explain their actions.
27
///
-4-
12. Said use of brutal violent force by Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID
Plaintiff was extreme and unnecessary excessive force, which caused Plaintiff to
sustain the injuries described above. Said detention, and physical assault on Plaintiff
was intentional, without any legitimate law enforcement purpose and done in
IV.
10
11
12
13
14
15
13.
16
through 12 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
17
herein.
18
14.
19
20
21
violation of his rights to be secure in her person against unreasonable searches and
22
seizures as guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United
23
24
15.
25
26
27
his rights to be free from state actions that shock the conscience under the Fourteenth
-5-
16.
malicious and done with an evil motive and intent and with a reckless disregard for
the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary
17.
10
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 are liable to Plaintiff for
11
12
V.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
18.
20
through 17 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
21
herein.
22
19.
23
24
25
26
person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the
27
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by
-6-
20.
Plaintiff of his rights to be free from state actions that shock the conscience under the
21.
that were caused by defendants deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his
person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the
10
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by
11
12
22.
13
14
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, they are each
15
liable for Plaintiff's injuries, because all of the aforementioned defendants were
16
integral participants, as they all they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
17
In addition, the defendants listed above are further liable for failing to intervene while
18
plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights were being violated. Said defendants are liable
19
under this cause of action because; (1) these defendant officers, had a realistic
20
opportunity to intervene and prevent the harm, (2) a reasonable person in the
21
defendant officers' position would have known that the plaintiff's constitutional rights
22
were being violated, and (3) the defendant officers did not take reasonable steps to
23
intervene.
24
23.
25
26
27
malicious and done with an evil motive and intent and a reckless disregard for the
The defendants failure to provide Plaintiff with medical care for his injuries
-7-
rights and safety of PLAINTIFF, and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary
24.
VI.
10
11
12
13
14
15
25.
16
through 22 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
17
herein.
18
26.
19
date) Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, deprived Plaintiff of the rights and liberties
20
secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
21
Constitution, in that said defendants and their supervising and managerial employees,
22
agents, and representatives, acting with gross negligence and with reckless and
23
24
25
26
27
On and for some time prior to March 11, 2015 (and continuing to the present
(a)
-8-
CITY and DOES 6-10 at all times material herein knew or reasonably should
have known had dangerous propensities for abusing their authority and for
policies;
(b)
10
11
12
13
DOES 6-10 each knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known
14
15
(c)
16
17
18
19
20
21
(d)
22
23
24
27.
These customs and practices by CITY and DOES 6-10 were done with a
25
26
aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, Plaintiff
27
suffered severe pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and emotional
PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES
-9-
distress.
28.
deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite
having knowledge as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through
actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with
with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff, and other individuals similarly
situated.
Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, together with various other officials,
10
29.
11
and other wrongful acts, Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 acted with an intentional,
12
reckless, and callous disregard for the well-being of Plaintiffand his constitutional
13
as well as human rights. Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 and each of their actions
14
were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and
15
16
30.
17
and still tolerated by Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 were affirmatively linked to
18
19
31.
20
Accordingly, Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 each are liable to Plaintiff or
21
VII.
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 10 -
32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through
31 as though fully set forth herein. As to the following causes of action Plaintiff
herein invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine these
claims.
33.
OFFICERS 1 Through 5, without just and legal cause, physically attacked the
10
emotional distress and placed him in immediate fear for his life.
11
34. Said harmful and offensive contact, was intentionally committed by said
12
defendants and was willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive thereby justifying the
13
14
defendants.
15
35.
16
was the proximate cause of the injuries complained of herein. Defendant CITY is
17
liable under the California Government Code because the actions of Defendants
18
19
HUBBARD,
20
DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 was within the course and scope of their employment
21
with CITY.
Said assault and battery was not consented to by the present Plaintiff and
22
23
VIII.
24
25
NEGLIGENCE
26
27
- 11 -
36.
Plaintiff hereby repeats, realleges and incorporates, as though fully set forth
37.
without due care, and without cause or provocation assault, batter and injure
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on March 11,
10
Plaintiff.
11
38.
12
13
14
39.
15
and battery.
16
40. Defendants CITY, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, are directly liable
17
18
19
20
21
adequately supervise, discipline or in any other way control said defendants exercise
22
23
41.
24
responsible for the acts of said Defendants because defendant CITY and supervising
25
OFFICERS repeatedly and knowingly and negligently failed to enforce the laws of
26
the State of California and the regulations of said defendant CITY and its Police
27
The assault, and battery occurred as a result of the absence off due care for the
Plaintiff was free of any negligence in the events leading up to the assault
Defendants CITY, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, are directly liable and
- 12 -
lawlessness in which OFFICERS would employ excessive and illegal force and
violence, in the belief that such acts will be condoned and justified by their
supervisors, and said defendant CITY and supervising defendants therefore were or
should have been aware of such unlawful acts and practices prior to and at the time
42.
of them, and of the physical injury caused PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff has suffered
extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and has been injured in mind and body
As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of all said defendants and each
10
43.
Defendants CITY, and DOES 6-10, inclusive, were also negligent in failing
11
12
13
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, inclusive, the proper and special
14
training necessary for the duties they could foreseeably be expected to perform in the
15
16
17
18
received inadequate training in the proper use of force and police tactics.
19
44.
20
21
22
23
and battery of Plaintiff occurred, thereby causing Plaintiff the losses and injuries
24
25
45.
26
defendants CITY, and DOES 6-10, inclusive, and their Police Department to
27
As a direct and proximate result of this failure to provide adequate use of force
Further, the assault and battery of Plaintiff was a result of failure of the
- 13 -
46.
Defendants CITY, and DOES 6-10, inclusive, also negligently hired and
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, when it was known or should have
been known by Defendants CITY, DOES 6-10, inclusive, that Defendants DAVID
1 Through 5 had on prior occasions used excessive force and/or had participated in
10
47.
11
12
13
14
15
48.
16
17
18
and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 actions were within the course and scope of their
19
20
IX.
21
PRAYER
22
23
relief, jointly and severally, against all the defendants with respect to the First,
24
25
a)
with proof;
26
27
b)
- 14 -
c)
4
5
e)
f.
g)
8
9
10
11
12
By: _____/S/_________________
HUMBERTO GUIZAR
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES
- 15 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
By: _____/S/_________________
HUMBERTO GUIZAR
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES
- 16 -