Alderman Federal Complaint Against Bakersfield

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
GERAGOS & GERAGOS

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017-3411
Telephone (213) 625-3900
Facsimile (213) 232-3255
Geragos@Geragos.com
MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325

BEN J. MEISELAS
SBN 277412
Attorneys for Plaintiffs THE ESTATE OF JASON ALDERMAN, JUDY EDENS,
A.K. by and through his Guardian ad litem NENA CHAVEZ, and S.A., by and
through his Guardian ad litem STEPHANIE ELLIOT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
THE ESTATE OF JASON

ALDERMAN; JUDY EDENS, an
individual; A.K., by and through his
guardian ad litem NENA CHAVEZ; and
S.A., by and through his guardian ad
litem STEPHANIE ELLIOTT,
Plaintiffs,
17
18
vs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD;
BAKERSFIELD POLICE
DEPARTMENT; OFFICER CHAD
GARRETT, an individual; OFFICER
RICK WIMBISH, an individual; and
DOES 1-50,
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983
RIGHTS MONELL CLAIM
RIGHTS-FAMILIAL
RELATIONSHIP
RIGHTS FAMILIAL
RELATIONSHIP (MONELL)
5. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE
52.1
6. WRONGFUL DEATH NEGLIGENCE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
-1-
Plaintiffs hereby allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION
2
3
1.
On August 22, 2015, 29-year-old Jason Alderman was gunned down
execution style by Bakersfield Police Department (BDP) Officers Chad Garrett
and Rick Wimbish at a Subway restaurant while conducting an entirely separate
investigation and without engaging in any de-escalation protocol. Now, his two infant
sons and mother bring this suit against the City of Bakersfield, the Bakersfield Police
Department, and the officers named above, as a result of Mr. Aldermans wrongful
and untimely death.

THE PARTIES

10
11
2.
Plaintiff Judy Edens is the mother and heir to Decedent Jason Alderman.
12
3.
Plaintiff A.K. is the son and heir to Decedent Jason Alderman. His claim
13
14
15
16
17
18
is being brought by and through his Guardian ad litem Nena Chavez.

4.
Plaintiff S.A. is the son and heir to Decedent Jason Alderman. His claim
is being brought by and through his Guardian ad litem Stephanie Elliot.

5.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendant City of Bakersfield was a
governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
6.
At all times herein mentioned, the Bakersfield Police Department
19
(BPD) was a governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State
20
of California.
21
7.
22
23
24
25
Defendant Rick Wimbish, at all relevant times, was a police officer
employed by the City of Bakersfield acting under color of authority.

8.
Defendant Chad Garrett, at all relevant times, was a police officer
employed by the City of Bakersfield acting under color of authority.

9.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants
26
named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by
27
such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to
28
allege true names and capacities of said Defendants when the same are ascertained.
-2-
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the aforesaid
factiously names Defendants are responsible in some manner for the happenings and
occurrences hereinafter alleged, and the Plaintiffs damages and injuries as herein
alleged were caused by the conduct of said Defendants.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE
14.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
and 1343 because it is a civil rights action arising under the Constitution and laws of
the United States.
common law and state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Venue is proper in this
10
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise
11
to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the Eastern District of California.
12
California Government Code section 910, Plaintiffs and each of them submitted a
13
Government Tort Claim to the appropriate City of Bakersfield officials on January 8,
14
2016.
15
Bakersfields January 13, 2016 rejection of Plaintiffs Government Tort Claim.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
The instant action is timely brought within 6 months from the City of
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
16
17
Pursuant to
15.
On August 22, 2015 at approximately 11:22 p.m., Jason Alderman was
18
shot in the side and back by BPD officers Rick Wimbish and Chad Garrett as he was
19
attempting to exit a Subway restaurant. Mr. Alderman was in a crouching position
20
with his back turned to the officers when he was struck by their gunfire.
21
16.
The Subway restaurant is located at 1215 Olive Drive, Bakersfield,
22
California. The entire duration of the incidentfrom when Mr. Alderman entered the
23
Subway to the time he was executed inside the restaurantwas approximately 2
24
minutes and 33 seconds.
25
17.
At the time of the shooting, BPD officers Garrett and Wimbish were not
26
responding to a call at the Subway. Rather, the officers were conducting an entirely
27
separate investigation when they suddenly arrived at the Subway and, within a 2-
28
minute time period, shot and killed Mr. Alderman.

-3-
and executioner in their interaction with Bakersfield citizens, treating the use of lethal
force as their first option during a civilian encounter and disregarding de-escalation
protocol, establishing perimeters, calling for backup, and using non-lethal force.
Non-lethal force and de-escalation are not even in BPDs vocabulary.

19.
Garrett and Wimbish have been involved in multiple other officer-
involved-shootings of unarmed men, including BPDs own confidential informant
Jorge Ramirez and 22-year-old James DeLarosa, whose corpse was subsequently
manipulated by another BPD officer who stated that he loved tickling the corpses of
10
BPD officers Garrett and Wimbish have divined themselves judge, jury,
18.
11
the people BPD killed.

20.
Video surveillance and the November 2015 autopsy investigation report
12
contradict BPD statements made to the public that Mr. Alderman exited the subway
13
and pointed a BMW carjack at the officers, which they mistook for a gun.
14
21.
The autopsy investigation report, which purports to be dated November
15
2, 2015, found back-to-front entry wounds, confirming that Mr. Alderman was shot in
16
the side and back.
17
22.
Initially, BPD denied the existence of video footage capturing the killing.
18
Upon the discovery of functioning video surveillance capabilities at the time of the
19
incident by the Alderman family attorneys, BPD acknowledged video existed but
20
stated it would not be released for the dignity of the Alderman family.
21
Alderman family thereafter demanded to see the video and sent an investigator to
22
BPD headquarters to retrieve it. BPD again stated that it would not turn over the
23
video, and reiterated that its refusal was meant to help the Alderman family.
24
23.
The
Nearly 6 months after Mr. Aldermans murder, and after multiple formal
25
requests by Alderman family attorneys, BPD released the video of the shooting to the
26
media before providing it to the Alderman family. The BPD eventually gave the
27
Alderman family a non-functioning DVD. The video played by the media contradicts
28
BPD reports that Alderman exited the Subway and presented an imminent threat to the
-4-
lives of BPD officers. The video shows Alderman crouching with his back turned to
BPD officers when he was shot in the back and side and killed.

BPDs Critical Incident Review Board cleared BPD Officers Garrett and
Wimbish of misconduct on September 29, 2015.
confirming the news. However, at the time BPD cleared itself, the investigation into
the murder of Jason Alderman was far from complete. In the rush to clear itself at all
costs, BPD violated all independent investigation protocols in reaching self-serving
findings of fact before the Coroners investigation report was complete. In fact, the
Coroners investigation is dated November 2, 2015, more than a month after BPD
10
24.
11
BPD issued a press release
rendered its findings.

25.
The completed coroners investigation report, dated November 2, 2015,
12
which had not been prepared when BPD cleared itself of wrongdoing on September
13
29, 2015, clearly demonstrates the efforts by BPD to cover up the facts surrounding
14
their execution of Jason Alderman. According to the autopsy investigation, BPD
15
initially reported after the incident that Alderman exited the Subway, wearing a
16
black mask, and raised a black colored object at the officers outside of the Subway.
17
According to the initial reports from BPD officers, Alderman ran back into the
18
Subway after he was shot.
19
26.
The autopsy report itself is backdated to November 2, 2015, as it
20
references a communication with BPD Detective Ken Sporer which took place nearly
21
a week later on November 7, 2015, further calling into question the veracity and
22
authenticity of any document relating to the Alderman investigation. In any event, the
23
November 2, 2015 autopsy investigation report states that on November 6, 2015, BPD
24
Detective Sporer stated that he completed his investigation and for the first time
25
provided the coroner with further information, that Alderman never exited the
26
business. According to the Coroners report, this new information came from the
27
video surveillance.
28
27.
Far from posing any threat to officers, the autopsy investigation report,
-5-
which was completely ignored by BPDs Critical Incident Review Board, reveals what
can be seen on the video surveillance Jason Alderman was shot in the back in a non-
threatening position as he crouched to the ground.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. 1983)
Plaintiffs against Defendants Wimbish, Garrett, and Does 1 through 25
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
28.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

29.
Defendants were, at all relevant times, law enforcement officers with the
City of Bakersfield Police Department who were acting under color of state law.
30.
Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief in their capacities as the successors-
in- interest and personal representatives of the decedent Jason Alderman.

31.
The foregoing claim for relief arose in decedents favor, and decedent
would have been the plaintiff with respect to this claim for relief had he lived.
32.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the decedent of
16
rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
17
States, including those enumerated in and secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
18
Amendments to the Constitution, by subjecting the decedent to excessive force when
19
they shot and killed him.
20
21
22
33.
The wrongful acts alleged herein above of Defendant police officers were
the cause of decedents death.

34.
As a proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of Defendants, and
23
each of them, the Decedent sustained general damages, including pain and suffering,
24
and a loss of the enjoyment of life and other hedonic damages, in an amount in
25
accordance with proof.
26
35.
In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants, and each of them,
27
acted in reckless and callous disregard for the constitutional rights of Decedent. The
28
wrongful acts, and each of them, were wilful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious,
-6-
thus warranting the award of punitive damages against each individual Defendant in
an amount adequate to punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct.
required to incur attorneys' fees and will continue to incur attorneys' fees, and
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 are entitled to recovery of said fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Rights- Monell Claim)
Plaintiffs against the City of Bakersfield and Does 26 through 50
10
Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been
36.
11
12
13
37.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained
in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
38.
Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief in their capacities as the successors-
in- interest and personal representatives of the Decedent Jason Alderman.

39.
Defendants, City of Bakersfield and Does 25 through 50, knowingly,
14
with gross negligence, and in deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of
15
citizens, maintain and permit an official policy and custom of permitting the
16
occurrence of the types of wrongs set forth hereinabove and hereafter.
17
40.
These policies and customs include, but are not limited to, the
18
deliberately indifferent training of its law enforcement officers in the use of excessive
19
force, the express and/or tacit encouragement of excessive force, the ratification of
20
police misconduct, and the failure to conduct adequate unbiased investigations of
21
police misconduct such that future violations do not occur.
22
41.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the customs
23
and policies were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs and Decedents
24
rights. Based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social
25
Services, the City of Bakersfield and Does 25 through 50 are liable for all of the
26
injuries sustained by Decedent and Plaintiffs as set forth above.
27
28
42.
As a proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of Defendants, and
each of them, the Decedent sustained general damages, including pain and suffering,
-7-
and a loss of the enjoyment of life and other hedonic damages, in an amount in
accordance with proof.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of the Rights of
Plaintiffs to a Familial Relationship with the Decedent)
Plaintiffs against Defendants Wimbish, Garrett, and Does 1 through 25)
10
43.
11
12
44.
in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
45.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of their
13
right to a familial relationship without due process of law by Defendants use of
14
unjustified force, causing injuries which resulted in the Decedents death, all without
15
provocation, all in violation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First
16
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
17
46.
As a result of the foregoing wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of
18
them, Plaintiffs sustained general damages, including grief, emotional distress and
19
pain and suffering and loss of comfort and society, and special damages, including
20
loss of support, in an amount in accordance with proof.
21
47.
In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants, and each of them,
22
acted in reckless and callous disregard for the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs when
23
they killed the Decedent.
24
oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious, thus warranting the award of punitive damages
25
against each individual defendant in an amount adequate to punish the wrongdoers
26
and deter future misconduct.
27
28
48.
The wrongful acts, and each of them, were willful,
-8-
1
2
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Rights for 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of the Rights of
Plaintiff to Familial Relationship with the DecedentMonell)
Plaintiffs against the City of Bakersfield and DOES 25 through 50)
6
7

49.
in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
50.
Defendants, City of Bakersfield, and DOES 25 through 50, knowingly
and with gross negligence, maintain and permit official policies and customs which
10
allow the occurrence of the types of wrongs set forth hereinabove and below, all in
11
deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of citizens.
12
51.
These policies and customs include, but are not limited to, the
13
deliberately indifferent training of its law enforcement officers in the use of excessive
14
force, the express and/or tacit encouragement of excessive force. Further, the Citys
15
ratification of police misconduct, along with the failure to conduct adequate
16
investigations of misconduct leads to the violations of the Plaintiffs and the
17
decedents Constitutional rights.
18
52.
In spite of Plaintiffs filing of a claim, the City of Bakersfield failed to
19
make an unbiased investigation, or take any action in preserving Plaintiffs or
20
Decedents rights, or verify misconduct and discipline officers for the misconduct.
21
Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the customs and policies
22
were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs and decedents rights.
23
Based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social
24
Services, the City of Bakersfield is liable for all of the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs
25
as set forth above.
26
53.
In acting as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, caused Jason
27
Aldermans demise and the resulting loss to Plaintiffs, thereby causing Plaintiffs to be
28
damaged in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.

-9-
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Code 52.1)
Plaintiffs against all Defendants
8
9
10
54.
11
55.
56.
Defendants Wimbish, Garrett, and Does 1-50, acting within the scope of
their duties as City of Bakersfield employees, caused the death of Jason Alderman.
57.
Defendants City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Police Department
12
are liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees, including Defendants
13
herein, whose negligent conduct was a cause in the death of the Decedent, pursuant to
14
California Government Code 815.2.
15
58.
Plaintiffs filed a timely claim pursuant to California Government Code
16
910 et seq. As those claims having been rejected within the past six months, this
17
action is timely.
18
59.
Plaintiffs are the proper parties with standing as successors-in-interest
19
and on behalf of the decedent pursue the claims of the decedent based on a violation
20
of his rights.
21
60.
The conduct of Defendants constituted interference by threats,
22
intimidation, or coercion, or attempted interference, with the exercise of enjoyment by
23
decedent Jason Alderman of rights secured by the Constitution of laws of the United
24
States, or secured by the Constitution or laws of the State of California, including
25
interference with Decedent's rights to be secure in his person and free from the use of
26
excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and Cal. Const. Art. 1 sec. 13 as well as
27
Cal. Civ.Code 43, and the right of protection from bodily restraint and harm.
28
61.
As a direct cause of Defendants conduct, the Decedents rights pursuant

- 10 -
to California Civil Code 52.1 were violated, causing injuries and damages in an
amount to be proved at the time of trial.
pursuant to California Civil Code 52.1 are entitled to recovery of said fees.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence-Wrongful Death)
Plaintiffs against all Defendants
10
62.
11
12
13
63.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
64.
Defendants Wimbish, Garrett, and Does 1-25, acting within the scope of
their duties as City of Bakersfield employees, caused the death of Jason Alderman.
65.
Defendants City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Police Department
14
are hereby liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of their employees, including
15
Defendants herein, whose negligent conduct was a cause in the death of the Decedent,
16
pursuant to California Government Code 815.2.
17
66.
Plaintiffs filed a timely claim pursuant to California Government Code
18
910 et seq. Those claims having been rejected within the past six months, this action
19
is timely.
20
67.
Plaintiffs are the proper party with standing pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc.
21
Code 377.60 and hereby pursue their remedies for wrongful death against
22
Defendants, and each of them, including pecuniary loss and other compensable
23
injuries resulting from the loss of the society, comfort, attention, services, and support
24
of the decedent.
25
68.
The negligence of Defendants was also responsible in part for the death
26
of Jason Alderman by acts or omissions contributing to his demise including, but not
27
limited to, the deliberately indifferent training of its law enforcement officers in the
28
use of excessive force, the express and/or tacit encouragement of excessive force, the
- 11 -
ratification of police misconduct, and the failure to conduct adequate unbiased
investigations of police misconduct such that future violations do not occur.
69.
Decedent was a loving father and his loss has and will continue to cause
great and severe damages to his children, the Plaintiffs in this action, all in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial.
70.
As a further direct result of the acts, omissions, negligence conduct
and/or reckless disregard for the safety of decedent, Defendants, and each of them,
Plaintiffs have incurred funeral and burial expenses in an amount according to proof at
the time of trial.

10
11
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment as follows:
12
1.
For general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
13
2.
For special damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
14
3.
For punitive and exemplary damages against the individual defendants

for the First and Third Causes of Action;
15
16
4.
For costs of suit;
17
5.
For reasonable attorneys fees as provided by statute; and
18
6.
For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19
20
DATED: July 11, 2016
21
22
By:
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -
/s/ Mark J. Geragos

MARK J. GERAGOS
BEN J. MEISELAS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
Plaintiffs THE ESTATE OF JASON ALDERMAN, JUDY EDENS, A.K. by
and through his Guardian ad litem NENA CHAVEZ, and S.A., by and through his
Guardian ad litem STEPHANIE ELLIOT hereby demand a jury trial.
5
6
DATED: July 11, 2016
7
8
9
By:
/s/ Mark J. Geragos

MARK J. GERAGOS
BEN J. MEISELAS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -

Alderman Federal Complaint Against Bakersfield

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

Alderman Federal Complaint Against Bakersfield

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 13

GERAGOS & GERAGOS

MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

THE ESTATE OF JASON

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 13

Plaintiffs hereby allege as follows:

On August 22, 2015, 29-year-old Jason Alderman was gunned down

execution style by Bakersfield Police Department (BDP) Officers Chad Garrett

and Rick Wimbish at a Subway restaurant while conducting an entirely separate

and untimely death.

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

is being brought by and through his Guardian ad litem Nena Chavez.

is being brought by and through his Guardian ad litem Stephanie Elliot.

At all times herein mentioned, Defendant City of Bakersfield was a

At all times herein mentioned, the Bakersfield Police Department

Defendant Rick Wimbish, at all relevant times, was a police officer

employed by the City of Bakersfield acting under color of authority.

Defendant Chad Garrett, at all relevant times, was a police officer

employed by the City of Bakersfield acting under color of authority.

Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 3 of 13

alleged were caused by the conduct of said Defendants.

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

the United States.

to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the Eastern District of California.

Government Tort Claim to the appropriate City of Bakersfield officials on January 8,

Bakersfields January 13, 2016 rejection of Plaintiffs Government Tort Claim.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining

On August 22, 2015 at approximately 11:22 p.m., Jason Alderman was

attempting to exit a Subway restaurant. Mr. Alderman was in a crouching position

The Subway restaurant is located at 1215 Olive Drive, Bakersfield,

Subway to the time he was executed inside the restaurantwas approximately 2

minutes and 33 seconds.

minute time period, shot and killed Mr. Alderman.

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 4 of 13

Non-lethal force and de-escalation are not even in BPDs vocabulary.

Garrett and Wimbish have been involved in multiple other officer-

involved-shootings of unarmed men, including BPDs own confidential informant

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

the people BPD killed.

Video surveillance and the November 2015 autopsy investigation report

The autopsy investigation report, which purports to be dated November

the side and back.

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 5 of 13

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

Wimbish of misconduct on September 29, 2015.

costs, BPD violated all independent investigation protocols in reaching self-serving

BPD issued a press release

rendered its findings.

The completed coroners investigation report, dated November 2, 2015,

their execution of Jason Alderman. According to the autopsy investigation, BPD

Subway after he was shot.

The autopsy report itself is backdated to November 2, 2015, as it

Case 1:16-at-00533 Document 1 Filed 07/11/16 Page 6 of 13

threatening position as he crouched to the ground.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. 1983)

Plaintiffs against Defendants Wimbish, Garrett, and Does 1 through 25