Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
DAVID ACEVES,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
vs.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO;
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
This lawsuit arises from law enforcements use of force against an unarmed
person. Plaintiff alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25
26
27
1.
and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for the violations of
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3
4
5
2.
Plaintiff also asserts a state law claim of negligence. The Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
3.
incident giving rise to the claims in this lawsuit took place in the County of San
Diego.
8
9
4.
10
11
5.
12
Texas. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was in the County of San Diego for a
13
professional convention.
14
6.
15
employees of Defendant City of San Diego and performed the relevant acts within
16
the course and scope of their employment as police officers. Defendants DOES 1-
17
10 performed these acts under the color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances,
18
regulations, customs and usages of the State of California. Defendants DOES 1-10
19
are sued in their individual capacities (as to the claims under section 1983) and as
20
employees of the City of San Diego (as to the state law claim).
21
7.
Defendant City of San Diego is a public entity existing under the laws
22
of the State of California and was the employer of Defendants DOES 1-10 at all
23
24
8.
25
26
Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to identify the
27
true names when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
that all Defendants sued as DOES are in some manner responsible for the acts and
3
4
5
6
7
9.
11.
12.
10
11
13.
The police dog bit Plaintiff on the right leg, inflicting serious injuries.
12
14.
13
15.
14
multiple lacerations to his right leg. This included gross contamination of the
15
wounds, which required multiple procedures and treatments over the course of
16
more than two weeks in the hospital. Based on the serious nature of the wounds,
17
the recovery process is ongoing. Plaintiff has incurred substantial medical bills,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16.
above.
17.
26
27
DOES 1-10 used this excessive force under color of law, which constituted an
28
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
18.
6
7
8
9
19.
maliciously and were guilty of a wanton and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs
10
11
proven at trial.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21.
above.
22.
19
San Diego was negligent in breaching the reasonable duty of care owed to
20
Plaintiff. Defendants DOES 1-10 were acting within the scope of their
21
22
23.
23
24
to be proven at trial.
25
24.
26
unnecessary, cruel, and despicable conduct and in wanton disregard for the civil
27
28
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
be proven at trial.
4
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
10
5.
11
6.
12
Respectfully submitted,
13
14
/s/Thomas E. Robertson
15
16
17
18
19
20
Respectfully submitted,
21
22
/s/Thomas E. Robertson
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES