Untitled

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
KEITH H. RUTMAN (CSB #144175)

501 West Broadway Ste 1650
San Diego, California 92101-3541
Telephone: (619) 237-9072
Facsimile: (760) 454-4372
email: krutman@krutmanlaw.com
GERALD B. SINGLETON (CSB #208783)
BRODY AUSTIN MCBRIDE (CSB #270852)
Singleton Law Firm
115 West Plaza Street
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (760) 697-1330
Facsimile: (760) 697-1329
Email: gerald@geraldsingleton.com
Email: brody@geraldsingleton.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEMETRICE SIGHTLER
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DEMETRICE SIGHTLER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO,
)
SDPD OFFICER DAVE NISLEIT,
)
SDPD OFFICER BENJAMIN MCCURRY, )
and DOES 1-30,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW Plaintiff DEMETRICE SIGHTLER, by and through his
22
23
Case No. '15CV2235 LAB DHB
attorneys of record, and hereby alleges:
24
This lawsuit for money damages is brought pursuant to the provisions of 42
25
U.S.C. 1983 due to violations by Defendants of Mr. SIGHTLERs constitutional
26
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
27
///
28
///
JURISDICTION
1
2
Federal jurisdiction is founded upon the existence of a federal question, the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and lies under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

VENUE
4
5
Venue in the Southern District of California is proper because the injuries to Mr.
SIGHTLER occurred herein and further because the Defendants are believed to reside
in said district.
PARTIES
8
9
Plaintiff DEMETRICE SIGHTLER (hereinafter SIGHTLER) was at all
10
material times mentioned herein was a resident of the City of San Diego, in the State of
11
California.
12
13
herein a political sub-division of the State of California and is the employer of
14
Defendants SDPD OFFICERS DAVE NISLEIT, BENJAMIN MCCURRY and DOES
15
1-30, who performed all of the herein alleged acts for, and in the name of, the CITY.
16
17
NISLEIT, BENJAMIN MCCURRY and DOES 1-30 (collectively referred to as the
18
Officer Defendants) were duly constituted law enforcement officers employed by the
19
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT and are charged with administering and
20
maintaining laws in the jurisdiction of the CITY OF SAN DIEGO and STATE OF
21
CALIFORNIA. Thus, they were the agents, servants, and/or employees of the CITY
22
OF SAN DIEGO and in doing the acts herein alleged, were acting within the course
23
and scope of their agency and/or employment, and with the permission, consent and
24
authority of the CITY OF SAN DIEGO. The acts of the Defendants were also done
25
under the color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and
26
usages of the State of California.
27
28
complained of in their individual and official capacities, in the course and scope of
The CITY OF SAN DIEGO ("the CITY"), is and was at all times mentioned
At all material times mentioned herein, Defendants SDPD OFFICERS DAVE
Plaintiff alleges that all the individual Defendants carried out the acts
their employment, and under color of law. All individuals Defendants are sued both in
their individual and in their official capacities.
governmental defendants (including all DOE defendants) violated rights held by
Plaintiff which were clearly established and which they had a mandatory duty to
uphold. No reasonable official similarly situated to any of the Defendants could have
believed that his/her conduct was lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion.
All individual Defendants, including all individual DOE defendants, thus lack
immunity from suit or liability. This extends both to statutorily created immunity and
Regarding all actions and causes of action herein alleged and stated, all
10
to the judicially created doctrine of "qualified immunity".
11
12
constitutional rights brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based upon Plaintiff's Monell
13
cause(s) of action. The bases for the CITY's liability in this context include, but are not
14
limited to, the SDPD's supervisors' ratification of the illegal and unconstitutional
15
conduct of their subordinate SDPD officers, and the fact that the violation of Plaintiff's
16
rights was the result of an actual or de facto policy that tolerated the violations of
17
citizens' rights by SDPD officers. This liability is both direct and is based on the
18
causes of action brought against any policy-making DOE Defendants who may be
19
named later, (to wit, the current SDPD Chief, Assistant Chief, or any other DOE
20
policy-making defendants) in said Defendants' official capacities.
21
22
followed as a prerequisite to bringing suit as to these claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
23
1983. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982); Heath v. Cleary, 708 F.2d
24
1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 1983).
Defendant CITY is also liable for the violations of Plaintiff's federal
Any administrative claims process set forth in California state law need not be
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25
26
10
Outfitting sheriff's deputies in hooded combat fatigues, arming them with
27
laser-sighted weapons and ordering them to conduct, or prepare to conduct, the
28
dynamic entry of a private home does not exempt their conduct from Fourth
3
Amendment standards of reasonableness. Nor does a SWAT designation grant
license to law enforcement officers to abuse citizens, suspects or innocent bystanders,
or to vent in an unprofessional manner any of their own pent-up aggression, personal
frustration or animosity toward others. Trailing a frightened person with a
laser-sighted firearm is, on its face, needlessly dangerous.
11
SIGHTLER resided at 3659 Lemona Avenue, San Diego California 92105. 3659
Lemona Avenue is a multi-unit apartment building containing at least 5 apartments.
On and prior to September 9, 2014, Mr. SIGHTLER, who is African-American, is
At all times material to this Complaint, including September 9, 2014, Mr.
10
heavy set, has long hair typically worn in a ponytail and has a beard, resided in
11
Apartment #3 with his girlfriend, Kristina Baca. Apartment # 3 is located in the front
12
of the building. Apartment # 5, whose occupants include an lanky, African-American
13
man with short hair and a goatee, is at the back of the building.
14
12
15
Lemona Avenue no less than five (5) times prior to September 9, 2015 and responded
16
to the scene each time, leading to an officer involved contact.
17
12.1 These calls included 3 noise complaints (California Penal Code 415) regarding
18
Mr. SIGHTLERs apartment #3 on 8/3/14 @ 17:15; 8/7/14 @ 14:45, and again on
19
8/7/14 @ 19:11. He was never arrested or cited during these contacts, which all
20
centered around the paying of loud miusic and nothing more.
21
12.2 On 8/4/14 @ 20:21, the SDPD received a call from Apartment #2 regarding a
22
child molestation allegation.
23
12.3 On 8/21/14 @ 18:44, the SDPD received a call from Apartment #5 regarding a
24
domestic violence incident.
25
12.4 Finally, on 9/9/14 @ 15:40, the SDPD received another call regarding
26
Apartment #5 regarding a domestic violence incident. Kristina Baca, Mr.
27
SIGHTLERs girlfriend, had in fact placed this 911 call, leading to a police response to
28
Apartment #5. As such, the names of the occupants of Apartment #5 and Ms.
According to official records, the SDPD has received calls for service to 3659
SIGHTLERs girlfriend were known to the SDPD by this time.
12.5 Plaintiff is informed and beleives and therefore alleges all these calls were
digitally recorded by the SDPD as a matter of policy and practice.
13
the SDPD was told by an as yet unidentified third party that a man was holding a gun
to a womans head. Lt. Kevin Mayer, an SDPD spokesperson, later told a reporter that
the SDPD was indeed responding to a such a call. He would not discuss the source of
the information.
14
On information and belief, Mr. SIGHTLER alleges that on September 9, 2014,
The SDPD responded with a full scale SWAT response, dispatching an unknown
10
number of officers responded to the scene. According to the SDPD official website, its
11
Armory - SWAT unit:
12
14.1 Performs hostage rescues and responds to special weapons and tactics
13
emergencies.
14
14.2 Serves high-risk warrants and does dignitary protection.
15
14.3 Provides fire control support.
16
14.4 Removes barricaded individuals.
17
14.5 Provides the counter-sniper capability.
18
14.6 Provides chemical agent support and special events
19
15
20
NISLEIT, an SDPD Captain who is beleived to be the Watch Commander of the Mid
21
City substation, was in command, and Defendant BENJAMIN MCCURRY, an SDPD
22
Sergeant, was also in command, albeit subordinate to NISLEIT. A video of the
23
incident, taken by a neighbor, shows several police cars parked and/or pulling up to the
24
building, officers equipped with tactical gear, holding semi-automatic weapons, and a
25
canine unit. A police helicopter can also be observed circling overhead.
26
16
27
military rifle. In 2008, the San Diego Police Department acquired 75 M16s from the
28
U.S. Department of Defense under the DODs Excess Property Program, also known as
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant DAVE
In the video, two officers run up the street, brandishing what look like M16s, a
the 1033 program, which has received scrutiny after reports that vehicles and weapons
police used to respond to protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, were purchased through the
program.
17
with groceries, he witnessed the foregoing. He was ordered by a loud voice to step
onto his balconywhich faces the street and overlooks the apartments parking
lotand put his hands in the air. He complied.
18
guns pointed at him. He also observed dancing red dots on his chest, which he
When Mr. SIGHTLER poked his head outside to see if his girlfriend needed help
From the balcony Mr. SIGHTLER counted at least four police officers with
10
recognized from movies as coming from laser rifle scopes, suggesting to him that there
11
were more officers that he couldnt see. He quickly came to the conclusion that he
12
could be killed in an instant.
13
19
14
holds his hands in the air as he tries to explain to officers that they have the wrong
15
man. An officer tells him that they are responding to a report of domestic violence. He
16
responded My girlfriend called, Who is my girlfriend? The officer tells him a
17
name. Mr. SIGHTLER yells You have the wrong house! You are looking for
18
Apartment 5. Thats the unit in the back.
19
20
20
finally acknowledged that Mr. SIGHTLER was not the person they are looking for. At
21
that point, Mr. SIGHTLER becomes irate, swearing at officers who still had not
22
lowered their weapons. When he looked down at the officer positioned closest to him,
23
whose rifles red dot was still on his chest, he saw him laughing. Mr. SIGHTLER
24
was eventually free to go back inside his apartment. Mr. SIGHTLER thought he was
25
going to die, and never see his kids again. He thought I was going to get killed on my
26
balcony.
27
21
28
may be weapons and a victim in danger, their response was to employ heavy-duty
As noted, a neighbor recorded the incident on video. In it, Mr. SIGHTLER
After more than 10 minutes of being held at gunpoint, afraid to move, the police
While it may be true that the police responded to a scene where they think there
weaponry suitable for a war zone and engage an innocent person based on very little
information.
22
commanding officer on the scene, Defendant NISLEIT. Mr. SIGHTLER tried to get
more information and state his intention to lodge a Complaint. Defendant NISLEIT
instead asked whether he had a criminal history and the details thereof, but otherwise
ignored him. Mr. SIGHTLER felt intimidated by the questioning, and did not provide
that information. Defendant NISLEIT stated to him that I hope my officers dont
come into further contact with you.
Mr. SIGHTLER went outside and almost immediately was contacted by the
10
23
The alleged abuser in #5 was never arrested nor even questioned that day as far
11
as Mr. SIGHTLER knows. He might not have even been home. Mr. SIGHTLER
12
knows for sure the girlfriend/victim was not in the apartment, because she (Patricia
13
LNU) drove up shortly after Mr. SIGHTLER had left his balcony and was talking to
14
officers on the scene.
15
24
16
Police Station to file a complaint. They were told that Mr. SIGHTLER first needed to
17
speak to a sergeant; that sergeant happened to be Defendant MCCURRY, one of the
18
responders on Sept. 9 and a supervising officer on the scene. Defendant MCCURRY
19
Mr. SIGHTLER and Ms. Baca that the call they received that day was like a game of
20
telephone, where information had been passed along to the point of being vague. In
21
other words They got a call from someone who got a call from someone. Mr.
22
SIGHTLER did not feel comfortable lodging a complaint with one of the officers he
23
was complaining about. Defendant NISLEIT, the stations Captain, tried to convince
24
him that he did not have a valid complaint, either. Mr. SIGHTLER left the station
25
without filing a complaint.
26
25
27
obstruct or delay an officer in the performance of their official duties, disturb the
28
peace, or refuse to cooperate in a manner which was not lawfully within his
Shortly after the incident, Mr. SIGHTLER and Ms. Baca went to the Mid-City
At no point in time did Mr. SIGHTLER act suspicious, give elusive answers,
constitutional rights. He did not strike, attempt to strike, resist, or take flight or
commit any illegal acts or otherwise engage in conduct which in any way justified the
actions of the Defendants.
26
suspicion to do so. By virtue of the extreme manner in which he was held, he was in
fact and law arrested without any probable cause to believe he was subject to arrest.
No reasonable officer in the possession of the information known to Defendants would
have believed that Mr. SIGHTLER was subject to either arrest or a prolonged
detention.
Mr. SIGHTLERs detention was unreasonably prolonged without any reasonable
10
27
Mr. SIGHTLER was subjected to excessive and unreasonable force, as there
11
was no reason to use any force at all.
12
28
13
would have believed that they were entitled to train firearms on Mr. SIGHTLER for
14
any, let alone such an extended, period of time.
No reasonable officer in the possession of the information known to Defendants
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (DETENTION/ARREST)
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
15
16
17
18
29
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 as
19
though fully set forth herein.
20
30
21
warrant to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment: A seizure
22
occurs even when an unintended person or thing is the object of the detention or taking,
23
... but the detention or taking itself must be willful. A plaintiff is seized if there is
24
a governmental termination of [plaintiff's] freedom of movement through means
25
intentionally applied, regardless of whether he or she was the subject of an arrest
26
warrant or was ultimately placed under arrest. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S.
27
593, 596-597 (1989).
28
31
One need not be the target of a search or be the person named in an arrest
Both the decision to deploy a SWAT team as well as the manner in which the
8
SWAT team carries out its duties may each violate the Fourth Amendment. Holland ex
rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1192-1193 (2001)
32
inescapably involves the immediate threat of deadly force. Such a show of force should
be predicated on at least a perceived risk of injury or danger to the officers or others,
based upon what the officers know at that time. Where a person has submitted to the
officers' show of force without resistance, and where an officer has no reasonable cause
to believe that person poses a danger to the officer or to others, it is excessive and
unreasonable to continue to aim a loaded firearm directly at that person, in contrast to
The display of weapons, and the pointing of firearms directly at persons
10
simply holding the weapon in a fashion ready for immediate use. Holland ex rel.
11
Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1192-1193 (2001)
12
33
13
cause, reasonable suspicion, consent, exigent circumstances or other defense, Mr.
14
SIGHTLER clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to
15
the United States Constitution to be secure in his person from unreasonable
16
government intrusion, including false arrest/unreasonable detention. These rights were
17
clearly established at the time.
18
34
19
subject to arrest or a prolonged detention. For these reasons, Mr. SIGHTLER is
20
entitled to seek damages pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq.
21
35
22
the scene, they are liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts of their subordinates
23
because Mr. SIGHTLER will be able to prove an affirmative link through facts
24
showing that they actively participated or acquiesced in the constitutional violation.
25
See Winters v. Board of County Comm'rs, 4 F.3d 848, 855 (10th Cir.1993) (citing
26
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)). Such facts exist in this case.
27
36
28
distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to his damages in an
In committing the acts alleged herein, the Defendants violated, without probable
A reasonably prudent officer would have known that Mr. SIGHTLER was not
As to named Defendants NISLEIT and MCCURRY, each supervisors present at
By reason of the acts alleged above, Mr. SIGHTLER did sustain great emotional
amount to be proven at trial.
37
SIGHTLER is entitled to general and special damages from the Defendants in an
38
reckless and callous disregard for the rights and feelings of Mr. SIGHTLER and by
reason thereof Mr. SIGHTLER demands exemplary and punitive damages in an
As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, Mr.
In doing the acts alleged herein the Defendants acted maliciously and with
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (EXCESSIVE FORCE)
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
9
10
11
12
39
13
14
40
15
unreasonable." Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1199
16
(9th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001). A reasonably prudent
17
officer would have known that Mr. SIGHTLER was not subject to any, let alone
18
excessive, force.
19
41
20
of that civilian's face may not cause physical injury, but he has certainly laid the
21
building blocks for a section 1983 claim against him. Robinson v. Solano County,
22
278 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002)
23
42
24
defense, Mr. SIGHTLER clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth
25
Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person from the use of
26
unreasonable and excessive force, in that the force applied to arrest/detain Mr.
27
SIGHTLER was in contravention of constitutional and statutory duty, was in excess of
28
any force required to address the circumstances, was grossly out of proportion to any
"[W]here there is no need for force, any force used is constitutionally
A police officer who terrorizes a civilian by brandishing a cocked gun in front
In committing the acts alleged herein, the Defendants violated, without any
10
need for force, was not employed in good faith, and was intended and substantially
certain to cause serious bodily injury. These rights were clearly established at the
time. For these reasons, Mr. SIGHTLER is entitled to recover damages pursuant to
Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq.
43
distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to Mr. SIGHTLER
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
44
10
11
45
12
reckless and callous disregard for the rights and feelings of Mr. SIGHTLER and by
13
reason thereof Mr. SIGHTLER demands exemplary and punitive damages in an
14
In doing the acts alleged herein the Defendants acted maliciously and with
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983
MONELL CLAIM
AGAINST CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND ALL DOE POLICY-MAKERS
15
16
17
18
46
19
20
47
21
constitutional rights. These included violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth
22
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The actions of Defendants were
23
part of a wider pattern and practice that was approved and encouraged by the SAN
24
DIEGO Police Department.
25
48
26
custom and practice endorsed, promulgated, and/or tolerated by the supervisory DOE
27
defendants with final policy-making authority. This custom and practice, and the
28
ratification by the supervisory Defendants with final policy-making authority,
As set forth herein above, Defendants violated a number of Plaintiff's
The violation of rights as experienced by SIGHTLER was consistent with the
11
performed by rank-and-file SDPD Officers pursuant to this policy, was the moving
force behind the violation of Plaintiff's rights that occurred on September 9, 2014.
49
rights by the Defendants under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of
New York (1978) 436 U.S. 658, and its progeny, which hold that a municipal entity
may be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights committed by its law
enforcement officers if the violation was based on either (1) a widespread practice that,
although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is "so permanent
and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage" with the force of law, (2) the
Accordingly, the CITY is liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional
10
decision of a person with "final policymaking authority", or (3) that the illegal and
11
unconstitutional conduct was ratified by an individual with final policy-making
12
authority.
13
50
Here all bases for municipal liability are present.
14
51
First, the police department had a departmental policy, custom, or practice
15
(which was promulgated, encouraged, and/or tolerated by the Defendants named
16
herein, to wit, SDPD supervisors and those with policy-making authority) of
17
responding to reports of hostage situations with overwhelming force without
18
conducting any rudimentary investigation to determined the scope of the appropriate
19
response, in violation of an individual's civil rights.
20
52
21
of the illegal behavior encouraged by supervisory DOE defendants with final
22
policy-making authority.
23
53
24
NISLEIT, MCCURRY and/or other supervisory DOE Defendants with final
25
policymaking authority, not only failed to take corrective action, but ratified the illegal
26
conduct of the officers and other DOE Defendants.
27
54
28
policymaking authority within it (including, but not limited to, the DOE Defendants
The violation of SIGHTLERs rights on September 9, 2014 was part and parcel
When confronted with the Plaintiffs violation of his civil rights, Defendants
Overall, the pattern and practice of the SDPD and of the individuals with final
12
with final policy-making authority) was such that there was a permanent and settled
culture, policy, and/or practice, which encouraged the use of excessive force against,
citizens like Plaintiff.
55
56
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983
FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN
10
11
12
13
57
14
15
58
16
practice and policy, failed to maintain adequate and proper training as to the
17
Constitutional rights of citizens and arrestees, to prevent the consistent and systematic
18
arrests without probable cause, the use of excessive force, or the appropriate manner of
19
investigating and responding to citizen complaints regarding constitutional violations
20
committed by law enforcement officers.
21
59
22
adequate training to their officers on the requirement that citizens not be confronted
23
with deadly force when not constitutionally permissible to do so.
24
60
25
adequate training to their officers on the appropriate, reasonable, and/or legally
26
permissible amount of force that may be used when effectuating a detention or an
27
arrest.
28
61
Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, as a matter of custom,
Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants failed to provide
13
adequate training to their officers on the subject of police reports: to wit, they failed to
properly train their offices in the SDPD that officers must file truthful and complete
reports that did not contain false statements and/or omissions of material facts.
62
adequate training to their officers on the need to avoid any conflicts of interest
(including, but not limited to, taking complaints about actions in which the officer had
actually participated or trying to dissuade a citizen from making a complaint).
63
deliberate indifference, disregarded a duty to protect the public from official
Therefore, Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, with
10
misconduct.
11
64
12
promulgate or maintain constitutionally adequate training was done with deliberate
13
indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and others in his position.
14
65
15
caused Plaintiff to suffer the damages alleged herein.
16
66
17
18
19
67
20
21
The failure by Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants to
The constitutionally infirm lack of adequate training as to Defendant Officers

22
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983
FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE
23
24
25
26
68
27
28
69
Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, as a matter of custom,
14
practice and policy, failed to supervise their officers to prevent, deter and punish the
unconstitutional and excessive use of force.
70
officers on the scene who pointed loaded, high powered rifles, at SIGHTLER.
71
known of the Constitutional violations committed by any officers on the scene but
failed to correct their officers' abuse of authority, or discourage their unlawful use of
authority.
72
No supervising officer from the SDPD took appropriate steps to supervise any
Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, knew or should have
Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making
10
Defendants, witnessed or learned of the violations committed against Plaintiff but
11
failed to supervise or discipline any officers on the scene for their misconduct with
12
respect to Plaintiff.
13
73
14
condoned and acquiesced in the abusive behavior of their officers by refusing to retrain
15
them, discipline them, or correct their abusive behavior. Upon information and belief,
16
none of the officers on the scene were ever disciplined for their unconstitutional
17
treatment of Plaintiff on September 9, 2014.
18
74
19
been, aware that the policy regarding supervision and discipline of officers who
20
violated the civil rights of the citizens and commit assault and battery was so
21
inadequate that it was obvious that a failure to correct it would result in further
22
incidents of dangerous and conduct perpetrated by their officers.
23
75
24
deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.
25
76
26
Policy Making Defendants, caused Plaintiff's damages.
27
77
28
To the contrary, Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants,
Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, were, or should have
The constitutionally deficient investigation and lack of discipline was done with
The lack of adequate supervision and discipline Defendant CITY and the DOE
15
78
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.
8
9
10
11
12
13
For general and compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount
to be proven at trial;
2.
For exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount
to be proven at trial;
3.
For costs of suit herein, including reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1988; and

4.
For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14
15
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all claims for relief.

Respectfully Submitted,
16
17
Dated: October 7, 2015
s/ Keith H. Rutman
KEITH H. RUTMAN
Attorney for Plaintiff
Email: krutman@krutmanlaw.com
s/ Gerald B. Singleton
GERALD B. SINGLETON
Email: gerald@geraldsingleton.com
s/ Brody A. McBride
BRODY AUSTIN MCBRIDE
Email: brody@geraldsingleton.com
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 16

KEITH H. RUTMAN (CSB #144175)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;

COMES NOW Plaintiff DEMETRICE SIGHTLER, by and through his

Case No. '15CV2235 LAB DHB

attorneys of record, and hereby alleges:

This lawsuit for money damages is brought pursuant to the provisions of 42

U.S.C. 1983 due to violations by Defendants of Mr. SIGHTLERs constitutional

rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 16

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and lies under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Plaintiff DEMETRICE SIGHTLER (hereinafter SIGHTLER) was at all

herein a political sub-division of the State of California and is the employer of

Defendants SDPD OFFICERS DAVE NISLEIT, BENJAMIN MCCURRY and DOES

NISLEIT, BENJAMIN MCCURRY and DOES 1-30 (collectively referred to as the

usages of the State of California.

At all material times mentioned herein, Defendants SDPD OFFICERS DAVE

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 16

their individual and in their official capacities.

governmental defendants (including all DOE defendants) violated rights held by

to the judicially created doctrine of "qualified immunity".

policy-making defendants) in said Defendants' official capacities.

followed as a prerequisite to bringing suit as to these claims brought under 42 U.S.C.

1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 1983).

Defendant CITY is also liable for the violations of Plaintiff's federal

Outfitting sheriff's deputies in hooded combat fatigues, arming them with

laser-sighted weapons and ordering them to conduct, or prepare to conduct, the

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 16

Amendment standards of reasonableness. Nor does a SWAT designation grant

license to law enforcement officers to abuse citizens, suspects or innocent bystanders,

or to vent in an unprofessional manner any of their own pent-up aggression, personal

frustration or animosity toward others. Trailing a frightened person with a

laser-sighted firearm is, on its face, needlessly dangerous.

Lemona Avenue is a multi-unit apartment building containing at least 5 apartments.

On and prior to September 9, 2014, Mr. SIGHTLER, who is African-American, is

At all times material to this Complaint, including September 9, 2014, Mr.

of the building. Apartment # 5, whose occupants include an lanky, African-American

to the scene each time, leading to an officer involved contact.

Mr. SIGHTLERs apartment #3 on 8/3/14 @ 17:15; 8/7/14 @ 14:45, and again on

centered around the paying of loud miusic and nothing more.

child molestation allegation.

domestic violence incident.

Apartment #5 regarding a domestic violence incident. Kristina Baca, Mr.

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 5 of 16

SIGHTLERs girlfriend were known to the SDPD by this time.

digitally recorded by the SDPD as a matter of policy and practice.

On information and belief, Mr. SIGHTLER alleges that on September 9, 2014,

Armory - SWAT unit:

14.2 Serves high-risk warrants and does dignitary protection.

14.3 Provides fire control support.

14.4 Removes barricaded individuals.

14.5 Provides the counter-sniper capability.

14.6 Provides chemical agent support and special events

City substation, was in command, and Defendant BENJAMIN MCCURRY, an SDPD

Sergeant, was also in command, albeit subordinate to NISLEIT. A video of the

canine unit. A police helicopter can also be observed circling overhead.

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 6 of 16

lotand put his hands in the air. He complied.

could be killed in an instant.

responded My girlfriend called, Who is my girlfriend? The officer tells him a

Apartment 5. Thats the unit in the back.

As noted, a neighbor recorded the incident on video. In it, Mr. SIGHTLER