Tort Complaint - Santa Clara County Sheriff - DA - CP Case - False Child Abuse Claims

CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF SANTA ijl]){JUlAR23PM12:10
Please submit the completed form to the Clerk

of the Board of Supervisors, 70 W. Hedding St.,
East Wing, 101h Floor, San Jose, CA 95110
Please attach additional pages as needed.

FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY
Thomas Sandoval (and minor child K.S.) D Minor
e
1. Claimant's full name:
te vic
2. Claimant's telephone number: 0 - 5 5 - 02 0 1
________________
3. Claimant's mailing address: 25 e i

n t a J e a . 5 1
itu r
st Se
4. Mailing address to which notices are to be sent, if different from 3:·· _ -----------
In ws
5. Date of the Incident or loss: . __ o v_e_m
J u_n_e_N-___ r _
__b_e__ 20
_71 _____________
_
G._._i _ ,
_rl _o
y ·_ _ca
ic Ne
6. Location of the incident or loss: _ ___________
_
__
_
_
_
__
7. Describe how the incident or loss happened and the reason why you believe the County of Santa
Ju ch __S e__ t_
e A_ a c__h e _d_______________
t_
e
Clara is liable for your damages: _
ic an
st
m Br
8. Describe the injury, damage, or loss: __

S e__ a__
e _A t t _ c h_e_d______________
no ial
_
co ic
�. If a public employee Is involved in the Injury, damage, or loss, provide name if known:
___
_ _
oe ud
Bryan. Ple tt, Depy

tu Cil ffo r d
·_S__ a_
e _A tt_
e _ _e _.________ __________
c_h_d
ci a J
1 o. Name of witness, if any: _
11. If the claim is for less than $10,000, state the total amount of the claim:
So rni
------
List the items totaling the amount of the claim:

ifo
Item Amount Item Amount

al
$ $ _____
$ $
C
��
12. If the claim is for more than $10,000, is the amount over $25,000? Yes � No
Sign �re sentative

3/23/18
Date
Any person who, with the intent to· defraud, presents any false or fraudulent claim may be punished either by
imprisonment or fine, or both. See section 72 of the Penal Code.
COB01102/11
ROBERT R. POWELL, SBN 159747
SARAH E. MARINHO, SBN 293690
2 POWELL & ASSOCIATES
925 West Hedding Street
3
San Jose, California 95126
4
(408) 553-0201 Telephone
(408) 553-0203 Facsimile
E: admin@rrpassociates.com
e
5
te vic
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
itu r
7
st Se
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In ws
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ic Ne
IO
(San Jose Division)

11
Ju ch
e
12
THOMAS SANDOVAL, individually and as Case No.
ic an
13 Guardian ad Litem, and minor K.S.,
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
st
m Br
14 Plaintiffs, CNIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

V.
no ial
15 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, BRYAN
co ic
16 PLETT, DEPUTY CLIFFORD, AMBER

SALDANA, and DOES 1 -10 inclusive,
oe ud
17
Defendants.
ci a J
18
19
So rni
20
ifo
21
al
22
C
23
24
25
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Sandoval, et al. v. County of Santa Clara
U.S. District Court - Northem District of California
Case No.
1
I.
2
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. JURISDICTION. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 to
e
5 redress the deprivation by defendants, at all times acting under color of state law, of rights
te vic
6 secured to Plaintiffs under the United States Constitution, including the First, Fourth, and
itu r
7 Fourteenth Amendments.
st Se
8
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § § 1343(3) and 1343(4), which
In ws
9
provides for original jurisdiction in this Court of all suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
ic Ne
10
1983. Jurisdiction is also conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 133 l(a) because claims for relief derive
11
Ju ch
from the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.
e
12
ic an
3. Venue properly lies in the Northern District of California, in that the events and
13
st
m Br
circumstances herein alleged occurred in the County of Santa Clara, and Defendants live in
14
the County of Santa Clara.

no ial
15
II.
co ic
16
oe ud
17 PARTIES
ci a J
18 PLAINTIFFS
19 4. Plaintiff THOMAS SANDOVAL ("Thomas") was at all times relevant herein, a

So rni
20
resident of Santa Clara County, and the father of K.S., age six (6) at the time of the events and
ifo
21
circumstances complained of herein. Minor Plaintiff K.S. is represented by Thomas as
al
22
Guardian ad Litem, and/or Thomas will apply to this court for appointment as Guardian ad
C
23
Litem at or near the filing of this Complaint. K.S., as a minor, will be identified by these
24
25
2
U.S. District Court- Northern District of California
Case No.
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE CJBNS.ORG

1 initials in this and all pleadings of any kind, until such time as the Court may direct or order
2 otherwise.
3
5. At all times relevant herein, prior to the forced separation of Thomas from K.S.,
4
Thomas raised, nurtured, provided guidance, and cared for K.S.
e
5
6. At all times prior to the wrongful and constitutionally violative conduct of
te vic
6
Defendants as described herein, Thomas and K.S. enjoyed the company, companionship, and
itu r
7
st Se
society of each other, and all other benefits and joyful burdens of their rights of intimate
8
In ws
familial association.
9
ic Ne
DEFENDANTS
10
11 7. Defendant AMBER SALDANA ("Saldana") was at all times relevant herein, a
12
Ju ch
resident of Santa Clara County, and the mother of K.S., age six (6) at the time of the events
e
ic an
13 and circumstances complained of herein.
st
m Br
14 8. Defendant BRYAN PLETT ("PLETT") was at all times relevant herein, a resident of
no ial
15
Santa Clara County, and a law enforcement officer with the County of Santa Clara' s Sheriffs
co ic
16
Office.
oe ud
17
9. Defendant DEPUTY CLIFFORD ("CLIFFORD") was at all times relevant herein, a
ci a J
18
resident of Santa Clara County, and a law enforcement officer with the County of Santa
19
So rni
Clara' s Sheriffs Office. Deputy Clifford' s first name is unknown.

20
ifo
10. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ("Deputy DA" - a psuedonym) not an

21
al
individually named Defendant herein, due solely to the prosecutorial immunities afforded
22
C
23
criminal prosecutors pursuant to state and federal law, yet identified as to conduct described
24 hereinbelow for purposes of Monell liability as specified hereinbelow, was at all times
25
3
Case No.
1 relevant herein, a resident of Santa Clara County or actively employed in Santa Clara County
2 as a Deputy District Attorney with the Santa Clara County District Attorney' s Office.
3
11. Deputy DA was the prosecutor for the Santa Clara County District Attorney' s Office
4
in the case of People v. Thomas Sandoval, Case #Fl 765509, wherein Thomas was charged
e
5
te vic
with child endangerment and willful neglect of his child.
6
12. Upon learning of an inappropriate relationship between the charging/investigating
itu r
7
st Se
Deputy (PLETT) and SALDANA on October 30, 2017, as further described hereinbelow,
8
In ws
Deputy DA took no steps to notify anyone of the involvement or conduct of PLETT, and took
9
no steps to charge, much less investigate, the circumstances of the relationship between
ic Ne
10
11 PLETT or SALDANA, or the filing of a criminal complaint for a false police report and/or
Ju ch
violation of Thomas and K.S.'s constitutional rights. PLAINTIFFS allege this conduct was in
e
12
ic an
13 furtherance of the policy and practice of allowing inappropriate and/or unlawful law
st
m Br
14 enforcement conduct to continue unabated and without remediation.

no ial
15
13. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ("COUNTY"), is a municipality, organized and operating
co ic
16
under the laws of California.
oe ud
17
14. COUNTY has within its hierarchy of organizational entities the Santa Clara County
ci a J
18
Sheriffs Office, which employed Defendants Bryan PLETT and CLIFFORD as law
So rni
19
enforcement officers at the time of the events and circumstances complained of herein.
20
ifo
15. As the employer of Deputies such as PLETT, and CLIFFORD, COUNTY had primary
21
al
responsibility for the training, education, and supervision of such employees, and
22
C
23
PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that it was COUNTY which
24 promulgated, encouraged, administered, and/or permitted, the policies, practices, customs,
25 and procedures which constituted the moving force behind the actions of the individual
4
Case No.
1 defendant employees of COUNTY with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office as
2 complained of herein.
3
16. PLAINTIFFS allege in the alternative that there exists no training, or inadequate training,
4
on the appropriate and lawful conduct of Sheriff's deputies generally, and with specificity, as
e
5
te vic
to the requirements of avoiding conflicts of interest and inappropriate relationships with
6
complaining witnesses, and/or conspiring with others to violate the civil rights of persons
itu r
7
st Se
such as Thomas and K.S., and filing false criminal charges and/or complaints.
8
In ws
17. COUNTY also has within its hierarchy of organizational entities the Santa Clara County
9
District Attorney' s Office, which employed Deputy DA as a Deputy District Attorney at the
ic Ne
10
11 time of the events and circumstances complained of herein.

Ju ch
18. As the employer of Deputy District Attorney' s such as Deputy DA, COUNTY had
e
12
ic an
13 primary responsibility for the training, education, and supervision of such employees, and
st
m Br
14 PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that it was COUNTY which
no ial
15
promulgated, encouraged, administered, and/or permitted, the policies, practices, customs,
co ic
16
and procedures which constituted the moving force behind the actions of the individual
oe ud
17
defendant employees of COUNTY with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office as
ci a J
18
complained of herein.
So rni
19
19. PLAINTIFFS allege in the alternative that there exists no training, or inadequate training,
20
ifo
on the appropriate and lawful conduct of Deputy District Attorneys generally, and with
21
al
specificity, the appropriate and lawful conduct of Deputy District Attorneys when learning of
22
C
23
unlawful or inappropriate conduct by law enforcement officers such as PLETT, and
24 CLIFFORD. These failures add to the likelihood that inappropriate and unlawful conduct by
25 law enforcement officers will continue unabated and without remediation.
5
U.S. District Court - Northern District of California
Case No.
20. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office and Santa Clara County District Attorneys
2 office, together with COUNTY, promulgated, encouraged, and/or permitted, the policies,
3
patterns, and practices under which the individual Defendants, and Does 1 - 10, committed
4
the acts or omissions complained of herein, and of which policies, practices, customs, and/or
e
5
procedures, and/or failure to train, whether or not promulgated in written form, encouraged, or
te vic
6
allowed to persist by the agencies/entities and defendant COUNTY, condoned, ratified, and
itu r
7
st Se
ignored without remediation the conduct of the individually named Defendant employees
8
In ws
identified herein pursuant to said policies, practices, customs, and procedures, as complained
9
of herein below.
ic Ne
10
11 21 . PLAINTIFFS hereby sue all agencies and departmental units of COUNTY specified
Ju ch
hereinabove under the designation of COUNTY herein, and/or interchangeably.
e
12
ic an
13 22. Deputies with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, when referred to collectively or
st
m Br
14 generally in reference to their status as Santa Clara County Sheriff's deputies, will be referred
no ial
15
to as "deputies" herein.
co ic
16
23. Deputy District Attorneys with the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, when
oe ud
17
referred to collectively in reference to their status as Deputy District Attorneys, will be
ci a J
18
referred to as "DA" herein, or some appropriately punctuated extension thereof (DA's I
So rni
19
DAs').
20
ifo
CONSPIRACY I AGENCY I PARTICIPATION - GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

21
al
24. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and, based upon such information and belief,
22
C
23
allege that at all times herein mentioned, SALDANA, PLETT, CLIFFORD, DA, and
24 COUNTY, were the agents and/or employees of the other Defendant(s) and each of them was
25 acting within the scope, purpose and authority of and/or employment and with the knowledge,
6
Case No.
1 permission and consent of said co-defendants, and each of them, and/or within the scope and
2 purpose of a conspiracy to violate PLAINTIFFS' rights.

3
25. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and identities of those Defendants sued
4
fictitiously herein as Does 1-10, inclusive.
e
5
26. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that the individual Defendants named herein,
te vic
6
including the Doe Defendants participated in some manner in the events set forth in this
itu r
7
st Se
Complaint, or failed to participate in some manner, which acts or failures to act were in some
8
In ws
manner a proximate cause of the injuries complained of by PLAINTIFFS herein, and for
9
which, whether by conspiracy to violate the PLAINTIFFS' rights, or by agreement,
ic Ne
10
11 inadequate supervision, inadequate training, consent, ratification, or active participation, such

Ju ch
Doe Defendants are responsible and/or liable for the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages.
e
12
ic an
13 MONELL LIABILITY SPECIFICS
st
m Br
14 SHERIFF'S DEPUTY - MONELL

no ial
15
27. There exists in the COUNTY a policy, pattern, or practice of Deputies ignoring known
co ic
16
inappropriate relationships between fellow/co-worker Sheriff Deputies and complaining
oe ud
17
witnesses and/or citizens such as SALDANA, including the activities of Deputies such as
ci a J
18
PLETT, who was known to CLIFFORD and others within the Santa Clara County Sheriffs
19
So rni
Department of actively seeking to obtain phone numbers of female citizens involved in

20
ifo
dispatch calls to which Deputies respond to pursue dating/sexual relationships rather than for
21
al
law enforcement purposes. Such conduct compromises objectivity, professionalism, and

22
C
23
witness credibility in law enforcement officers called upon to testify truthfully in criminal
24 matters on a regular basis.
25
7
Case No.
28. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that PLETT was known to the Sheriffs
2 Department to have engaged in similar conduct previously, involving inappropriate sexual

3
relations with a person whose capacity as a victim, a criminal suspect, or simply a citizen
4
PLETT came across performing work as a Deputy, is not known to PLAINTIFFS, yet PLETT
e
5
received no discipline or reprimand and was free to continue engaging in said conduct.
te vic
6
29. In addition and related thereto, was the policy, pattern, or practice of other Deputies
itu r
7
st Se
refusing to acknowledge unlawful conduct of fellow/co-worker Deputies as well as failing or
8
In ws
refusing to make appropriate investigations or referrals to other agencies or individuals with
9
authority to investigate inappropriate or unlawful conduct of fellow Deputies, as well as
ic Ne
10
11 failing to prepare and file Incident Reports, or criminal charges where criminal charges are
Ju ch
appropriate - as in this case where PLETT was known to CLIFFORD and others as both
e
12
ic an
13 engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship with SALDANA, and actively pursuing criminal
st
m Br
14 charges against Thomas, which policy, pattern, or practice was the moving force behind the
no ial
15
failure of CLIFFORD and another unknown Deputy stationed at the South County Substation
co ic
16
- at least one - to in fact ever make appropriate investigations or referrals to other agencies or
oe ud
17
individuals with authority to investigate inappropriate or unlawful conduct of PLETT, as such
ci a J
18
conduct is described hereinbelow.
19
So rni
30. In addition and related thereto, was the policy, pattern, or practice of Deputies such as
20
ifo
PLETT and CLIFFORD, to activate and deactivate their bodycams in such a manner as to
21
al
intentionally and purposefully avoid a video/audio recording of their interactions with alleged
22
C
23
victims or suspects as needed to suit their own needs or desires, typically in an effort to
24 obfuscate Deputy conduct or wrongdoing in conduct of law enforcement activities.
25
8
Case No.

3 1 . These policies, patterns, or practices evidences deliberate difference to the rights of
2 citizens such as Thomas and K.S., in that it empowers law enforcement personnel to engage
3
in ever increasing acts of disregard for the constitutional rights of others, confident that they
4
will not so much as be investigated, much less prosecuted for unlawful acts of conspiracy and
e
5
falsifying incident reports and criminal complaints, and covering up wrongdoing.
te vic
6
32. Even when evidence of such conduct has come to the attention of supervisory personnel
itu r
7
st Se
and/or decision makers within the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office, no reprimand,
8
In ws
discipline, or consequences will result, fostering the continued occurrence of such conduct,
9
and exhibiting deliberate indifference to the violation of citizen's constitutional rights.
ic Ne
10
11 33. In the COUNTY, there exists no discipline, reprimand, sanction, or other employment
Ju ch
related consequences for Deputies harboring knowledge of inappropriate relationships born of
e
12
ic an
13 interactions with citizens during performance of job related obligations, or failing to refer
st
m Br
14 such inappropriate relationships and conflicts of interest to any authority for further
no ial
15
investigation.
co ic
16
34. In the COUNTY, there exists no discipline, reprimand, sanction, or other employment
oe ud
17
related consequences for Deputies utilizing their bodycams in a fraudulent and deceptive
ci a J
18
manner as described hereinbelow with regard to the interactions between PLETT,
So rni
19
CLIFFORD, in their interviews/investigation conducted June 1 4, 201 8 with Joseph Sandoval
20
ifo
and Thomas Sandoval.

21
al
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS - MONELL

22
C
23
35. There exists in the COUNTY a policy, pattern, or practice of District Attorneys refusing
24 to acknowledge unlawful conduct of law enforcement officers, and failing or refusing to make
25 appropriate investigations or referrals to other agencies or individuals with authority to
9
Case No.
1 investigate inappropriate or unlawful conduct of law enforcement officers, as well as failing
2 to file criminal charges where criminal charges are appropriate - as in this case where Deputy
3
DA was made aware of not only the possible filing of a false police report by PLETT while
4
involved in a personal and amorous relationship with SALDANA - which policy, pattern, or
e
5
practice was the moving force behind the failure of Deputy DA to take any of the
te vic
6
aforementioned steps when learning of the grave conflict of interest and potential criminal
itu r
7
st Se
conduct of PLETT as related by SALDANA in her conversations with Deputy DA after her
8
In ws
October 30, 2017 e-mail described hereinbelow.
9
36. This policy, pattern, or practice evidences deliberate difference to the rights of citizens
ic Ne
10
11 such as Thomas and K.S., in that it empowers law enforcement personnel to engage in ever
Ju ch
increasing acts of disregard for the constitutional rights of others, confident that they will not
e
12
ic an
13 so much as be investigated, much less prosecuted for unlawful acts of conspiracy and
st
m Br
14 falsifying incident reports and criminal complaints, and no reprimand, discipline, or

no ial
15
consequences will inure.
co ic
16
II
oe ud
17
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
ci a J
18
37. Thomas and SALDANA were at the time of the events complained of herein, an
19
So rni
unmarried couple, whom together have a child K.S. At the time of the events coll).plained of
20
ifo
herein, they were living together at a home on Watsonville Road, Gilroy, owned by Thomas'
21
al
father Joseph Sandoval ("Joe").

22
C
23
38. Though they were living together with their daughter K.S. at the time of the
24 commencement of the events complained of herein, Thomas had a visitation order from the
25 Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara originating from prior family court proceedings,
10
Case No.
which specified that Thomas would have eighty percent (80%) of the physical custody time
2 with K.S. and SALDANA would have twenty percent (20%).

3
PLETT'S FIRST INTERACTION WITH SALDANA
4
39. On May 31, 2017, there was an incident where Thomas' father, Joe, claimed
e
5
SALDANA had attempted to ram him while driving a car on the property. This led to a
te vic
6
yelling match and Joe and/or his girlfriend Rebecca who also lived on the property, contacted
itu r
7
st Se
law enforcement. PLETT responded to the home. Thomas had not seen the incident unfold
8
In ws
but came out of the home when the deputies arrived (other names unknown).
9
40. After speaking with both Joe and SALDANA, PLETT asked SALDANA to leave the
ic Ne
10
11 property for the evening but did not cite SALDANA in any way despite Joe's allegations that
Ju ch
she had literally tried to hit him with her vehicle.
e
12
ic an
13 41. PLETT did not offer Joe the opportunity to make a citizen's arrest for conduct that
st
m Br
14 could readily be described as assault with a deadly weapon, assault, or even attempted murder
no ial
15
under California law.
co ic
16
42. PLETT also observed Thomas with K.S. during his time at the house and noticed
oe ud
17
that K.S. appeared healthy and clean and well bonded with Thomas, and he would in fact later
ci a J
18
comment on these observations to Thomas while serving him with an Emergency Protective
19
So rni
Order ("EPO") and citation for child endangerment and neglect on June 14, 2018, as
20
ifo
described hereinbelow.
21
al
PLETT'S SECOND INTERACTION WITH SALDANA - OBTAINS PHONE NUMBER

22
C
23
43. Only a few days later, in the first week of June, Thomas and SALDANA were
24 separating and SALDANA was moving out of Thomas' home. SALDANA was parked just
25
11
Complaint fo r Violation o f Civil Rights
Case No.
1 outside the fence to the property driveway, and Thomas was bringing her things from inside
2 the home that were hers, and she was loading the belongings into her vehicle.
3
44. PLETT drove onto the property and exited his patrol car, indicating very quickly that
4
he was not there on an official "call," and expressed generally that he just wanted to see if
e
5
everything was okay. PLETT asked what the couple was doing.
te vic
6
45. Thomas and SALDANA explained that they were separating, and that they in fact at
itu r
7
st Se
that moment were loading the car with some of SALDANA's personal effects because she
8
In ws
was moving out.
9
46. After this short discussion, at least short in terms of the duration of time Thomas was
ic Ne
10
11 present, Thomas continued traveling into the home and getting items to bring out to the car.
47.
Ju ch
During one of Thomas' trips inside the home, PLETT asked SALDANA for her
e
12
ic an
13 phone number.
st
m Br
14 48. SALDANA gave him her phone number and he wrote it on his hand.
no ial
15
49. PLETT called SALDANA the very next day and they made plans to meet at a coffee
co ic
16
shop while PLETT was on duty.
oe ud
17
50. PLETT immediately pursued a romantic relationship with SALDANA.
ci a J
18
51 . PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe the first coffee date was held on or about
So rni
19
June 7, 2017, while PLETT was on duty.
20
ifo
52. PLETT told SALDANA that he was married with three children, but legally
21
al
separated from his wife.

22
C
23
53. SALDANA shared with him how she met Thomas, how she had lived off and on for
24 years prior in the home PLETT had responded to, and they also discussed her recent
25 separation from Thomas.
12
Case No.
54. At the meeting, the issue of SALDANA's concerns about losing some custody of
2 their daughter K.S. was discussed with PLETT.

3
55. SALDANA told PLETT how there had previously been child custody/visitation
4
proceedings in the family court, and SALDANA told PLETT that at that time, though having
e
5
been living with Thomas until just days earlier for a significant period of several years, the
te vic
6
prior and then-existing family court orders gave Thomas 80% of the custodial time with K.S.
itu r
7
st Se
56. SALDANA told PLETT that with their separation, she was afraid that Thomas was
8
In ws
going to begin asserting the requirements of the prior order with the 80/20 custodial time split
9
in Thomas' favor.
ic Ne
10
11 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes that from this meeting a plan began to form that
Ju ch
was then more fully developed over another meeting or two. The plan was to have
e
12
ic an
13 SALDANA make a "report" of alleged abuse of K.S. by Thomas.
st
m Br
14 58. PLETT knew to some extent that the allegations by SALDANA were fake or
no ial
15
exaggerated, but he chose to ignore his own experience seeing the child at the home appearing
co ic
16
clean, happy and healthy, given the prospect of sexual relations with SALDANA; which
oe ud
17
prospects were fulfilled.
ci a J
18
59. Plaintiff is informed and believe that the final meeting where the full breadth of the
So rni
19
plan to lodge false claims of abuse and neglect of K.S. by Thomas was finalized, occurred on
20
ifo
June 13, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. - a date and time noted in the Incident Report #17-164-04500
21
al
written by PLETT.
22
C
23
60. At that time, SALDANA and PLETT came to a meeting of the minds on how the
24 plan would be carried out, and it was carried out as now will be described.
25
13
Case No.
61. This 5:00 p.m. meeting was prior to 8:45 p.m., the time when PLETT claimed in his
2 Incident Report SALDANA simply approached him in the back parking lot of the South
3
County Sheriff's Substation, as addressed more fully below.
4
62. PLETT made no mention of anything discussed in this 5:00 p.m. meeting in his
e
5
Incident Report.
te vic
6
63. However, PLETT was a mandated reporter under California law, Penal Code Section
itu r
7
st Se
11167.5, and had an obligation under that law to immediately report any reasonable suspicion
8
In ws
of the abuse of a child, which he did not do after the first meeting at the coffee shop or at any
9
time thereafter.
ic Ne
10
11 64. If PLETT was told of any facts that would constitute a reasonable suspicion of child
Ju ch
abuse in any of his meetings I conversations I numerous text exchanges with SALDANA or
e
12
ic an
13 any other person, he was required to make a child abuse investigation and report, also known
st
m Br
14 as a "Suspected Child Abuse Report."

no ial
15
65. In addition, there exists an Interagency Agreement between the Santa Clara County
co ic
16
Sheriff's Office and the COUNTY' s Department of Family & Childrens' Services ("DFCS,"
oe ud
17
the COUNTY' s "child protective services/CPS" agency), that requires "cross-reporting" of
ci a J
18
investigations of child abuse that involve claims of physical abuse and felony child
So rni
19
endangerment charges.
20
ifo
66. The allegations made against Thomas involved physical abuse, abuse leaving a
21
al
"bruise" no less, yet PLETT nor CLIFFORD, PLETT's supervisor, Sergeant John Spagnola,
22
C
23
nor any other member of the Sheriff's department made a cross-report to DFCS at any time.
24 67. SALDANA was well aware of the fact that Thomas was an extremely good father to
25 K.S., and in fact admitted as much in an e-mail to the Deputy DA a week before the dismissal
14
Case No.
1 of the criminal action November 6 , 2016, that would be born of this conspiracy between
2 SALDANA and PLETT, as described more fully at a later point in this Complaint.
3
68. As stated previously, PLETT met with SALDANA on June 13, 2017 at
4
approximately 5:00 p.m., agreed upon what the "claims" of endangerment I abuse against
e
5
Thomas would be, and then SALDANA went and picked up K.S., who was at the home
te vic
6
SALDANA had previously shared with Thomas.
itu r
7
st Se
69. K.S. was in the care of Joe at the time, and she went directly to the South County
8
In ws
Substation to execute the plan with PLETT.
9
70. With regard to what happened at the South County Substation, there are two stories
ic Ne
10
11 known to PLAINTIFFS. One, is the story given by PLETT in the Incident Report, which will
Ju ch
be addressed second, after the first story according to SALDANA of what happened at the
e
12
ic an
13 South County Substation on the night of June 13th, 2017.
st
m Br
14 AT SUBSTATION PER SALDANA

no ial
15
71. SALDANA went to the South County Substation after picking up K.S. from Joe's
co ic
16
house. When she arrived, there was a Deputy George Hessling (a.k.a. George "4" amongst
oe ud
17
the deputies).
ci a J
18
72. According to SALDANA, Deputy Hessling was the person who she was told would
19
So rni
be interviewing her and K.S. and preparing to take any Incident Report from whatever was
20
ifo
learned from the interview of K.S. and SALDANA.

21
al
73. However, PLETT stepped in and said that he was going to take over the interviewing
22
C
23
of SALDANA and K.S.; indeed Hessling taking the report would ruin the plan to cause the
24 primary custody of K.S. to end up with SALDANA.
25
15
Case No.
74. PLETT further stated that if Deputy Hessling took the report, he would "Fuck it all
2 up and get stuff wrong."

3
75. PLETT also told SALDANA that Deputy Hessling was an "asshole."
4
76. PLAINTIFF'S are informed and believe that the animosity displayed by PLETT with
e
5
te vic
regard to Deputy Hessling, had to do with a previous event where PLETT had stopped a
6
female relative of Hessling while on duty, and taken her to his home for sexual relations.
itu r
7
st Se
Further, if the female was not a relative of Deputy Hessling, this Deputy may be one of the
8
In ws
Deputies who was simply also aware of PLETT's proclivity for using his on-duty time to
9
ic Ne
ferret out sexual relations with no "criminal" investigative purpose.
10
11 AT SUBSTATION PER PLETT
77.
Ju ch
The following is the version of events per PLETT in his Incident Report.
e
12
ic an
13 78. At 8:45 p.m. on June 13, 2017, PLETT claimed he was parking his patrol vehicle in
st
m Br
14 the rear parking lot of the South County Substation when he was approached by SALDANA
no ial
15
who had arrived with K.S.
co ic
16
79. When SALDANA came to the South County Substation on June 13, 2017, she
oe ud
17
brought K.S. with her. PLAINTIFFS are unable to allege what exactly went on in terms of an
ci a J
18
"interview" of K.S. that PLETT wrote about in his Incident Report, or even whether such
So rni
19
"interview" actually occurred, however, PLETT's Incident Report included a reference to an
20
ifo
interview and represented that it was audio recorded, and along with photographs was
21
al
attached to the Incident Report.

22
C
23
80. PLAINTIFFS allege that the audio recording, stored on a disk, along with
24 photographs taken by PLETT and SALDANA of K.S., were noted as being booked into
25 evidence by PLETT according to his Incident Report's "Property" attachment.
16
Case No.
81. The end result, the "synopsis" of the alleged interview and claims, as PLETT wrote
2 in his Incident Report was that,

3
"[Thomas] is the father of [K.S.]. [K.S.] is 6 years old. [Thomas] spanked [K.S.] times in the
4
buttocks very hard and left a small bruise. He did this because he did not like that [K.S.] told
e
5
te vic
her mother about [Thomas]'s new girlfriend. [Thomas] smokes marijuana in the house and
6
car, exposing [K.S.] to the marijuana smoke. [Thomas] had not brushed [K.S.]'s teeth in
itu r
7
st Se
approximately two to three weeks. [Thomas] had not combed [K.S.]'s hair which was
8
In ws
beginning to form knots. [Thomas] had not regularly changed [K.S.] clothing or under
9
garments. [Thomas] failed to maintain proper hygiene for [K.S.]."
ic Ne
10
11 82. The claims attributed by PLETT in the Incident Report itself, if made and if to be
Ju ch
believed as being actually stated by the six year old K.S., were the result of coaching by
e
12
ic an
13 SALDANA, or PLETT, or both.
st
m Br
14 83. PLETT had no training on the forensic interviewing of children, and possessed no
no ial
15
special training or certification regard to the abuse, emotional, physical, or otherwise, of
co ic
16
childen the age of K.S.
oe ud
17
84. The mention of the bruise is particularly devious because bruising of a child, aside
ci a J
18
from being the result of a spanking (had there actually been one), is within the definition of
So rni
19
child abuse and severe bodily injury under California law. The inclusion of this fact would
20
ifo
tend to stir anger among any who read or hear of it - including a judge asked to issue
21
al
emergency protective orders and presiding over criminal cases such as the one PLETT and
22
C
23
SALDANA's actions placed Thomas squarely in as a defendant.
24 85. According to SALDANA, when SALDANA told PLETT about the mark on K.S.'s
25 buttock, SALDANA told PLETT expressly that, "it might be a birthmark," but PLETT did not
17
Case No.
put this material fact in his incident report or his application for an emergency protective
2 order (EPO).
3
86. The fact of the matter was that it was a birthmark, the child had it her entire life, and
4
SALDANA was well aware of that fact.
e
5
te vic
87. PLETT's response to being told it was possibly a birthmark according to
6
SALDANA, however, was words to the effect of, "Well, if it is a birthmark, it will still be
itu r
7
st Se
there for a while and they [the D.A.] will drop the charges."
8
In ws
88. When PLETT concluded the interview he told SALDANA that the EPO he was
9
going to get - they are virtually never denied - was now something she could use to, "make
ic Ne
10
11 changes to your custody orders [regarding K.S.]"
89.
Ju ch
At no time, in any discussions with the judge who would later issue the EPO, or the
e
12
ic an
13 Sergeant at the South County Substation (as that discussion is described hereinbelow based on
st
m Br
14 PLETT' s representations to SALDANA), or anyone else other than possibly CLIFFORD, did
no ial
15
PLETT indicate that the mother of the child had told him that the mark on the child's buttocks
co ic
16
was possibly a birthmark.
oe ud
17
90. At no time did PLETT inform the court that he had been to the child's home, met the
ci a J
18
father, or reveal that PLETT had a personal relationship with SALDANA.
So rni
19
91. The incident report, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, was either provided to the
20
ifo
Superior Court judge (Hon. JoAnne McCracken) by some electronic means, or the content of
21
al
the Incident Report was read to her by PLETT over the phone when the judge was contacted
22
C
23
by PLETT seeking an EPO.
24 92. The EPO sought by PLETT specified no contact between Thomas and his daughter
25 for six days, and Thomas abided by it when served on June 14, 2017.
18
Case No.
93. The incident report written by PLETT which would be forwarded to the District
2 Attorney' s office also contained the following claims about Thomas as an abusive, drug-
3
addled, neglectful father of K.S., in summary stating all of the following,
4
Thomas does not give K.S. food when she is hungry, and in fact pushes her
e
5
te vic
away telling her she will get food later,
6
K.S. tried to take a shower but a dog jumped in and fleas from the dog jumped
itu r
7
st Se
on her and she could not get them off her,
8
In ws
K.S. had no breakfast or dinner that day, and since her mother left the home she
9
only eats once a day,
ic Ne
10
11 Thomas only changes her clothes if they are going to leave the house and
Ju ch
PLETT observed at the time of the interview her clothing was "very dirty,"
e
12
ic an
13 A "long time ago" the grandfather's girlfriend who lives at the home was trying
st
m Br
14 to choke her,
no ial
15
She could not remember the last time he combed her hair, and PLETT claimed
co ic
16
he could "see knots that formed in her hair,'
oe ud
17
Her teeth had not been brushed since SALDANA had left the home shared with
ci a J
18
Thomas two to three weeks prior,
So rni
19
About four days earlier Thomas spanked her ten times on the butt, it hurt really
20
ifo
bad and made her cry, and did so because K.S. told SALDANA about his new "friend
21
al
that was a girl,"

22
C
23
K.S. said that, "her dad tries to get all of the girl' s phone numbers . . .
24 She is afraid of Thomas when he gets angry and does not feel safe alone with the
25 grandfather's girlfriend (the "choker" in the prior item),
19
Case No.
1 The grandfather and his girlfriend do "drugs in the house," that "look like
2 plants," and it smells like "skunk poop," and they do it in the car too when K.S. is
3
present,
4
Thomas takes the "green yucky stuff' and puts it in a clear bag and takes it to
e
5
his friend "Sophie" in the middle of the night.
te vic
6
94. As to SALDANA, the first three assertions below are attributed in PLETT's report
itu r
7
st Se
to statements directly from K.S., the remainder are SALDANA' s claims to PLETT on June
8
In ws
13, 2018, about statements made by K.S. to her previously,
9
SALDANA takes care of K.S.
ic Ne
10
11 SALDANA does not hit her,

Ju ch
SALDANA yells but in a softer voice,
e
12
ic an
13 K. S. prefers SALDANA because, "she feels that she is a better parent,"
st
m Br
14 K.S. does not want to stay at Thomas' because no one understands her or
no ial
15
pays attention to her,
co ic
16
Thomas leaves her with other people and she does not like that,
oe ud
17
K.S. asked SALDANA why she could not take her away,
ci a J
18
K.S. said when she talks about SALDANA she gets spanked,
So rni
19
K.S. said there were a "lot more" marijuana plants - beyond what
20
ifo
SALDANA claimed caused her to ask K.S. about plants, the "several marijuana
21
al
plants on the front deck - inside the house and out back,
22
C
23
Thomas, his father, and the father's girlfriend smoke "white sticks" and the
24 skunk poop [is] all day long in the house,
25
20
Case No.
•
Thomas often leaves in the middle of the night with clear bags of something
2 green.
3
95. The incident report ended with the attribution to SALDANA - who had lived at the
4
home for several years - "[SALDANA] suspects Thomas sells drugs and that it is not safe
e
5
environment for K.S."
te vic
6
96. PLETT had been to the large rural ranch property where K.S. lived on two occasions
itu r
7
st Se
by this time. He knew that K.S. had been picked up from the ranch property by SALDANA
8
In ws
prior to her coming to the station, as that is what had been agreed during their meeting at
9
approximately 5:00 p.m. earlier that day.
ic Ne
10
11 97. PLETT knew that SALDANA lived at the house through both SALDANA telling
Ju ch
him she had been when they first met for coffee, and PLETT had been at the house previously
e
12
ic an
13 on May 31st, 2017, when PLETT was responding to the domestic disturbance between
st
m Br
14 SALDANA and Thomas' father Joe; PLETT knew SALDANA lived at the house and/or on
no ial
15
that property, thus all the claims of exposure to marijuana and drug dealing would apply as
co ic
16
equally to her as to Thomas, if true.
oe ud
17
98. Upon that prior end of May I early June response to the dispatch call at the home I
ci a J
18
property occupied by Thomas, Rebecca, K.S., Joe, and SALDANA, PLETT asked
19
So rni
SALDANA to leave the home for the night.

20
ifo
99. It is unknown if PLETT made any police report at all about that event, despite the
21
al
fact that based on the allegations of Joe Sandoval, SALDANA's felonious conduct constituted
22
C
23
a threat with a deadly weapon, assault, and possibly attempted murder.
24 100. PLETT had been right in front of the house where the alleged marijuana plants were
25 located on the front porch according to SALDANA's interview on June 13, 2017.
21
Case No.
1 101. PLETT had asked no questions of any person during his response to the domestic
2 disturbance call, about any alleged marijuana plants on the front porch.
3
"RELATIONSHIP" BETWEEN PLETT & SALDANA, CLIFFORD'S KNOWLEDGE
4
102. CLIFFORD knew of the relationship between SALDANA and PLETT, because
e
5
PLETT told him about it, as did at least one other yet unknown Deputy of the Santa Clara
te vic
6
County Sheriff's Office in which PLETT confided.
itu r
7
st Se
103. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe PLETT told other deputies as well.
8
In ws
104. CLIFFORD himself had conversations with SALDANA in which he acknowledged
9
his understanding that she and PLETT were involved in a romantic relationship.
ic Ne
10
11 105. At one point during the criminal proceedings against Thomas, while PLETT and
Ju ch
SALDANA continued their relationship, CLIFFORD, in a joking way, "warned" SALDANA
e
12
ic an
13 about PLETT, saying he had obtained female citizens phone numbers previously on law
st
m Br
14 enforcement related dispatch calls.

no ial
15
106. That statement by CLIFFORD was in fact true.
co ic
16
107. Before the events complained of herein, PLETT had bragged about other dalliances
oe ud
17
to other Deputy's he worked with, bragging about how he had responded in the past to a
ci a J
18
dispatch calls and obtained phone numbers from female citizens that he would then pursue in
So rni
19
furtherance of sexual relations.
20
ifo
108. By the time of November of 2017, PLETT had met with SALDANA and engaged in
21
al
sexual relations on at least three occasions, once at the Hilton Hotel in Gilroy, and once at a
22
C
23
luxury hotel somewhere on the coast.
24
25
22
Case No.
1 109. In mid to late July of 2017, PLETT was out looking at homes he had told
2 SALDANA he would rent and they could possibly all live together in (he, SALDANA, and
3
K.S.).
4
110. In addition, SALDANA has since told Thomas that she had sex with PLETT in his
e
5
patrol vehicle while on duty; she later recanted that claim.
te vic
6
111. PLETT and SALDANA would literally meet alongside major roads such as
itu r
7
st Se
Monterey Highway in Gilroy, get in PLETT's patrol car and engage in make-out sessions
8
In ws
several times during the five (5) months these corrupt efforts to charge Thomas with child
9
endangerment and neglect charges were pending.
ic Ne
10
11 112. At one point, PLETT gave SALDANA three hundred ($300) dollars to assist her in
Ju ch
making a car payment.
e
12
ic an
13 113. During the entire tryst between PLETT and SALDANA of approximately five (5)
st
m Br
14 months, the two exchanged romantic and sexually "colorful" text messages.
no ial
15
114. PLETT was also exchanging text messages with SALDANA during times at work as
co ic
16
a Deputy Sheriff; the following allegations in this regard are based on PLETT's own text
oe ud
17
messages.
ci a J
18
115. PLETT exchanged text messages with SALDANA while working was when he was
19
So rni
stationed at the County jail, and he spoke of "sneaking out" if given the opportunity to meet
20
ifo
with SALDANA.
21
al
116. PLETT exchanged text messages with SALDANA while working including during
22
C
23
his involvement in the Sheriffs Office search of a home.
24 117. PLETT exchanged text messages with SALDANA while working transporting a
25 suspect in his patrol car.
23
Case No.
1 1 1 8. PLETT on more than occasion texted to SALDANA that he was trying to hurry up to
2 complete an Incident Report, which he was preparing at the time of the text exchange, so he
3
could get to a meeting with SALDANA.
4
1 1 9. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that no Deputy, upon receiving this
e
5
information or knowing first hand about the activities of PLETT in the past, or currently with
te vic
6
regard to SALDANA, had ever informed any supervising officer, any Internal Affairs officer,
itu r
7
st Se
or any County executive, or in the alternative, one or more Deputies did so inform said
8
In ws
person(s) or departments, and regardless of receiving this information, no sanction, discipline,
9
reprimand or consequences occurred with regard to PLETT.
ic Ne
10
11 PLETT SPEAKS WITH SERGEANT SPAGNOLA AND OTHER DEPUTIES

Ju ch
PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that at some point prior to seeking a
e
12 1 20.
ic an
13 protective order from Judge McCracken, PLETT spoke with his Sergeant, John Spagnola,
st
m Br
14 with other Deputies present, and told Sgt. Spagnola of the "report" he had taken about the
no ial
15
abuse, endangerment, and neglect of K.S. by Thomas.
co ic
16
121. Spagnola also did not cross-report the allegations to DCFS, nor did any Deputy
oe ud
17
present.
ci a J
18
1 22. PLAINTIFFS have no information at this time indicating that Sgt. Spagnola was
19
So rni
aware as of the time of the aforementioned discussion with PLETT, that PLETT was in an
20
ifo
amorous relationship with SALDANA, or was in the process of engaging in the submission of
21
al
a false police report and request for an Emergency Protective Order separating Thomas from
22
C
23
his daughter.
24 1 23. According to PLETT's subsequent description to SALDANA, Sgt. Spagnola and
25 other deputies present when PLETT related the claims about K.S. to Sgt. Spagnola, and/or
24
Case No.

1 deputies to whom he related the story later that evening, wanted to go take K.S. into
2 protective custody right then and there.

3
124. PLETT reported to SALDANA at a later date, however, that he had dissuaded Sgt.
4
Spagnola and the other deputies from doing so.
e
5
125. PLETT did this knowing that taking K.S. from SALDANA as well, would indeed
te vic
6
undermine the very object of the conspiracy between SALDANA and PLETT, which was to
itu r
7
st Se
keep K.S. in SALDANA' s care, strengthen her custody case for primary custody of K.S., and
8
In ws
get PLETT favor with SALDANA.
9
126. PLETT also knew, that if he were to remove K.S. she would have to be taken to
ic Ne
10
11 DCFS for at least temporary placement out of both parents care, and then, K.S. would be
Ju ch
interviewed again, which might lead to conflicting statements by the child at the very least, if
e
12
ic an
13 not complete refutations of claims PLETT had made in his incident report.
st
m Br
14 1 27. Incident reports such as the one prepared by PLETT, are the single most important
no ial
15
documents initially provided to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office in
co ic
16
furtherance of an investigation into bringing criminal charges.
oe ud
17
1 28. From the incident report, the level of response in terms of prosecution, the nature
ci a J
18
and severity of the charges and the addition of other potential charges are contemplated for
19
So rni
filing by the DA and filed, or not filed.

20
ifo
1 29. Reports of physical abuse of a child where there has been "bruising" will always
21
al
result in a criminal complaint filing, possibly charged as a misdemeanor versus a felony.

22
C
23
1 30. PLETT knew all of this as he engaged in the conduct complained of in this
24 Complaint.
25 II
25
Case No.
PLETT APPLIES FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER
2 131. PLETT's next step, was to contact Judge JoAnne McCracken of the Superior Court
3
of the County of Santa Clara, and per his description in the incident report, "provide[] her the
4
details of the incident."
e
5
132. Judge McCracken granted the EPO that PLETT was seeking.
te vic
6
133. The EPO prohibited any contact between Thomas and K.S. for six (6) days.
itu r
7
st Se
PLETT PLAYS WITH BODYCAM, SERVES EPO AND CITATION ON THOMAS
8
In ws
134. The Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department instituted the use of body worn
9
cameras ("BWC") in April of 20 1 7. With the launch of this program came policies for their
ic Ne
10
11 use, which included, among other things, the following;

Ju ch
Deputies shall make every reasonable effort to activate the BWC prior to
e
12
ic an
13 making contact in any of the following incidents:
st
m Br
14 (1) Any investigative encounter to confirm, or dispel a suspicion that the

no ial
15
person may be involved in criminal activity. This includes detentions, vehicle
co ic
16
stops, jail altercations, pedestrian stops and consensual encounters.
oe ud
17
[...]
ci a J
18
(4) All suspect statements
19
So rni
In addition to the required conditions of operation, deputies should activate

20
ifo
the system any time they feel its use would be appropriate and/or valuable to
21
al
document an incident. Recording such contacts shall be the rule and not the
22
C
23
exception. If circumstances prevent a deputy from recording such a contact, then this
24 must be noted along with the explanation in any subsequent report.
25
26
Case No.
Deputies shall activate their BWC prior to making contact in any of the
2 following circumstances:
3
a. Enforcement encounters where there is a reasonable suspicion that the person
4
is involved in criminal activity or a violation of law. This includes, but is not
e
5
limited to, dispatched calls where criminal activity is reported and/or suspected,
te vic
6
self-initiated activities including consensual contacts, traffic stops, pedestrian
itu r
7
st Se
checks, or any other investigative or enforcement encounters.
8
In ws
Once activated, the recording should not be intentionally terminated until the
9
deputy's direct participation in the incident is complete.
ic Ne
10
11 If a deputy fails to activate the BWC, fails to record the entire contact, or
Ju ch
interrupts the recording, the deputy shall document why a recording was not made,
e
12
ic an
13 was interrupted, or was terminated.
st
m Br
14 1 3 5. PLETT violated every single one of the aforementioned policies during his encounter
no ial
15
with Thomas and Joe Sandoval on June 1 4, 201 7, as they apply to use of the bodycam.
co ic
16
1 3 6. PLETT violated every single one of the aforementioned policies during his
oe ud
17
encounter with Thomas and Joe Sandoval on June 1 4, 201 7, as they apply to what was to be
ci a J
18
included in his Incident Report or otherwise documented.
19
So rni
1 3 7. For reasons not exactly known to Plaintiffs, although PLETT obtained the EPO on
20
ifo
the evening of June 1 3 , 20 1 7, he waited until the next day, June 1 4, 201 7, at 7:30 p.m., to
21
al
travel to Thomas' home and serve him with the EPO and a citation.
22
C
23
1 3 8. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that the reason for the delay was that PLETT
24 knew full well that the child was not at any risk of harm from Thomas.
25
27
Case No.
1 1 39. Any Deputy could have served Thomas with the EPO, but PLETT wanted to do it
2 personally, so he could engage in the advisements to Thomas and Joe discussed hereinbelow
3
about not making a statement.
4
1 40. PLETT told further lies and made material omissions in his incident report regarding
e
5
his interactions with Thomas and Joe at the Sandoval home on June 1 4, 20 1 7.
te vic
6
141. PLETT stated in his incident report that he met with Thomas at the front door of his
itu r
7
st Se
residence and he could "smell an odor of marijuana coming from the residence."
8
In ws
1 42. PLETT actually met Thomas before he came to the door, because Thomas was made
9
aware someone was approaching by the barking of the family dogs. He met him in front of
ic Ne
10
11 the house that Joe lived in - not Thomas. PLETT never asked if Thomas lived in the home.
Ju ch
Despite claiming to have smelled marijuana, PLETT asked no questions nor made
e
12 1 43.
ic an
13 any investigation into the source of the alleged marijuana smell.
st
m Br
14 1 44. The location where PLETT met Thomas was no more than eight to ten feet from the
no ial
15
porch that SALDANA had told PLETT had marijuana plants; PLETT could see there were no
co ic
16
plants at that location from where he stood talking to Thomas.
oe ud
17
1 45. PLETT' s first words to Thomas beyond a general salutation, were, "I' ve just heard
ci a J
18
some disturbing news from Amber and [K.S.]."
So rni
19
1 46. PLETT went on to say that SALDANA and/or K.S. had told him in a more cursory
20
ifo
and far less detailed fashion, the allegations laid out above in paragraphs 93 through 95.
21
al
1 47. During this very brief exchange, PLETT did not mention the claim of a bruise from
22
C
23
spanking, he merely asked Thomas if he ever spanked K.S. and Thomas replied he had never
24 spanked his daughter.
25
28
Case No.
1 48. Thomas was visibly shaken, confused, and upset, hearing these claims of abuse and
2 neglect by him, particularly given that they were all false and against his six (6) year old
3
daughter, and only child.
4
1 49. Thomas told PLETT that all of the claims were lies, and that he never did any of
e
5
these things he was being accused of and his daughter was well taken care of.
te vic
6
1 50. At that time, Thomas did not know or have reason to know that the very law
itu r
7
st Se
enforcement officer advising him of these allegations, was in fact a co-conspirator in making
8
In ws
the allegations up and was having or seeking to have sexual relations with SALDANA.
9
During this exchange, Thomas noticed PLETT reaching up and touching his BWC
ic Ne
151.
10
11 attached to his vest/shirt and apparently activating and/or deactivating his BWC; Thomas is
Ju ch
informed and believes PLETT touched the camera's switch at least twice during the time
e
12
ic an
13 PLETT was in his immediate presence.
st
m Br
14 1 52. After having engaged in this cursory explanation and hearing Thomas' prompt
no ial
15
denials, PLETT then told Thomas, while expressing a demeanor and speaking in a tone
co ic
16
clearly intended to convey that he was doing Thomas some kind of "favor," "Look, it's in
oe ud
17
your best interest not to give a statement about this, because you're likely just going to
ci a J
18
incriminate yourself."
19
So rni
1 53. PLETT then said to Thomas, "But don't tell anyone I told you that, and don't tell my
20
ifo
partner when he shows up."

21
al
1 54. Thomas is informed and believes, that if and when the recording of the exchange
22
C
23
with PLETT is made available to PLAINTIFFS, it will have none of the conversation related
24 to this point.
25
29
U.S. District Court- Northem District of California
Case No.
1 55. Indeed, as PLETT was finishing these comments, and may have clicked on the
2 bodycam long enough to get Thomas saying words to the effect of declining to make a
3
statement, CLIFFORD was showing up on scene.
4
1 56. Based on PLETT's making it appear he was for some reason giving him "friendly"
e
5
advice, Thomas indeed declined to give a statement.
te vic
6
1 57. As CLIFFORD arrived near Thomas and PLETT, PLETT turned to him and said,
itu r
7
st Se
"He's declining to give a statement."
8
In ws
1 5 8. PLETT then asked to speak to Joe, but before Thomas turned to go advise Joe of
9
PLETT's request, PLETT said to him, "They will likely drop it," clearly referring to the
ic Ne
10
11 District Attorney' s office dropping the criminal charges PLETT had manufactured with
SALDANA.
Ju ch
e
12
ic an
13 1 59. This statement by PLETT made Thomas feel even more comfortable with his
st
m Br
14 following of PLETT' s advice, particularly given that the claims simply were not true.
no ial
15
1 60. But before PLETT and Thomas separated so Thomas could go get his father, PLETT
co ic
16
also told Thomas that his sergeant - believed to be John Spagnola - wanted to charge Thomas
oe ud
17
with "felony" child endangerment.
ci a J
18
161. PLETT said to Thomas that he told the Sergeant that he did not think this was a
So rni
19
situation that required filing as a felony, he told the Sergeant he had seen Thomas with his
20
ifo
daughter and he seemed like a good father, and K.S. did not appear to be suffering any serious
21
al
injuries or harm or show any fear of Thomas.

22
C
23
1 62. In saying these things, PLETT was again attempting to make Thomas think that he
24 was his "buddy" and was doing him some kind of favor.
25
30
Case No.
1 63. Joe came out of the home to talk to PLETT, and did so at the end of the property' s
2 driveway where PLETT and CLIFFORD were located, and the following conversation took
3
place in the immediate presence of CLIFFORD.
4
1 64. PLETT again, after salutations to Joe as he arrived at PLETT and CLIFFORD's
e
5
location, promptly told Joe that he too should not give a statement because he might,
te vic
6
"incriminate yourself or your son."
itu r
7
st Se
1 65. Though CLIFFORD was right there, present with both men, he said nothing to
8
In ws
contradict the suggestion by PLETT.
9
PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that PLETT nor CLIFFORD ever activated
ic Ne
1 66.
10
11 their bodycams when initially speaking to JOE as required by the aforementioned policies.
Ju ch
Joe told PLETT that he knew there was no criminal act going on with son or at that
e
12 1 67.
ic an
13 house and he was adamant that indeed he give a statement.
st
m Br
14 1 68. Only after PLETT had again cautioned a person involved in an investigation he was
no ial
15
performing against giving a statement, did it appear to Joe PLETT reached up to tum on his
co ic
16
bodycam.
oe ud
17
1 69. Joe then proceeded to make a statement in which he generally denied everything
ci a J
18
PLETT was inquiring about that related to any claims of harm of any kind to K.S.
So rni
19
1 70. Some of the things that Joe told PLETT in the presence of CLIFFORD that were not
20
ifo
in the Incident Report or any amended I supplemental Incident Report,

21
al
- SALDANA was simply an angry, scorned woman, and none of the allegations were
22
C
23
true,
24
25
31
Case No.
- Joe asked, based on comments by PLETT that K.S. had been reported to be covered
2 in flea bites, something to the effect of, "well you saw the child, did you see any flea
3
bites on her(?),
4
- In response to the claims of the child being in dirty clothing, unbathed, and unfed,
e
5
Joe asked in word to the effect of, "Well she goes to school, don't you think if that
te vic
6
was true you'd have received some report from the school(?), and Joe pointed out the
itu r
7
st Se
obvious, that the child was living on a large ranch property.
8
In ws
171. After PLETT and CLIFFORD completed the interview of Joe and left, Thomas and
9
Joe spoke, and Thomas told his father of the recommendation by PLETT that he not give a
ic Ne
10
11 statement and that he had not given a statement based on what PLETT had told him.
172.
Ju ch
Joe told him Thomas that he had done the same to him, and that PLETT's suggestion
e
12
ic an
13 was "bullshit," and his son needed to make a statement on the record. He encouraged Thomas
st
m Br
14 to go down to the Sheriffs substation right then and both complain and make a statement.
no ial
15
Thomas agreed and left for the South County Substation.
co ic
16
THOMAS GOES TO THE SOUTH COUNTY SUBSTATION TO COMPLAIN
oe ud
17
173. When Thomas got to the South County Substation he went in the lobby and spoke
ci a J
18
with the clerk sitting at the desk. Thomas explained that PLETT had been out to his house
So rni
19
raising allegations of abuse of his daughter, and that he had told him not to make a statement,
20
ifo
and Thomas wanted to speak to the "Captain" or whoever was in charge to lodge a complaint
21
al
about what PLETT had done.

22
C
23
174. The clerk listened to the complaints, then disappeared from the area, and minutes
24 later PLETT came out into the lobby to speak with Thomas.
25
32
Case No.
1 1 75 . Again, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, PLETT either did not activate his
2 bodycam that night at the Substation, or, if he did so, it was not preserved and/or the
3
recording of his interactions with the "suspect" has since been destroyed.
4
1 76. When PLETT first approached Thomas, he had an arrogant, surly and abrupt manner
e
5
about his tone, body language, and demeanor.
te vic
6
1 77. Thomas' response to seeing him approaching was, "I don't want to talk to you, I
itu r
7
st Se
want to talk to the Captain, or Sergeant or whomever is in charge."
8
In ws
1 78. PLETT's first comments were directed at apparently attempting to explain why he
9
had come out rather than a Captain or a "person in charge" to receive Thomas' complaint as
ic Ne
10
11 Thomas had requested.

Ju ch
PLETT said that, "They just wanted me to come out here and talk to you and see if
e
12 1 79.
ic an
13 we could work it out." He did not say who, "they" was.
st
m Br
14 1 80. Based on PLETT' s comment, and therefore on information and belief, PLAINTIFF
no ial
15
alleges an unknown Doe Defendant, possibly the clerk and/or unknown others, had conspired
co ic
16
to avoid allowing Thomas to making a complaint to a person in charge of receiving such
oe ud
17
complaints about PLETT' s conduct, which conduct would have been readily recognizable to
ci a J
18
any reasonable person as highly inappropriate at the least, and highly suspicious at most.
So rni
19
181. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that this act by the unknown Doe clerk and
20
ifo
unknown other Doe defendant(s) was part and parcel of the policy, pattern, and practice of
21
al
attempting to cover up Sheriff deputy improprieties by avoiding the lodging of formal

22
C
23
complaints of inappropriate conduct.
24
25
33
Case No.
1 182. Thomas promptly complained to PLETT about having told him not to give a
2 statement when at the house, calling it "legal advice" and saying PLETT was wrong to do
3
that, and again denying that he had ever harmed his child in any way.
4
183. PLETT's initial response to this complaint by Thomas, delivered in a derisive and
e
5
sneering tone was, "I wish I would have let you incriminate yourself! "
te vic
6
184. PLETT's next response was that he tells "everybody" not to give a statement to law
itu r
7
st Se
enforcement I police officers, even his own daughters, saying he told these "everybody' s" and
8
In ws
his daughters that police officers can make stuff up, and take their words and twist them and
9
get them wrong and it can cause people to get wrongfully arrested.
ic Ne
10
11 185. PLETT went so far as to give examples of times where this has occurred, and made it
Ju ch
clear that he, as a matter of course, would tell "everybody" not to make a statement to law
e
12
ic an
13 enforcement.
st
m Br
14 186. At some point during the discussion, the total time of which was only about five
no ial
15
minutes, PLETT related more details about the alleged "bruise" on K.S. and Thomas asked
co ic
16
where this alleged "bruise" was located.
oe ud
17
187. When PLETT told Thomas where the "bruise" was located - on or near the child's
ci a J
18
buttock - and described it, Thomas immediately responded that it was a birthmark, and the
So rni
19
child had the birthmark her entire life.
20
ifo
188. At this point, PLETT became visibly nervous, with his speech somewhat halting, and
21
al
his jaw literally shaking when he would try to talk.

22
C
23
189. PLETT asked Thomas, "What do you want me to do?"
24 190. Thomas told him, "You need to make this right, I don't spank my kid, you've been to
25 my house, you know she is well taken care of !"
34
U.S. District Court - N orthem District of California
Case No.
1 191. In response PLETT offered to in some way, "amend" or "correct" his report.
2 1 9 2. Thomas affirmed that he should do that.

3
1 93. Still upset, but seeing no reason to continue, Thomas was going to leave, when
4
PLETT said to him, "Well this is going to make you even more mad," to which Thomas
e
5
te vic
responded, "What is going to make me even more mad?"
6
1 94. PLETT told him, "She is the one who took the picture [of the birthmark]."
itu r
7
st Se
1 95. Thomas was indeed more upset by learning that fact, and believing he had now
8
In ws
rectified the story PLETT was telling and/or had been told in his report(s), and believing that
9
PLETT would "amend" his reports as he had said, Thomas concluded the meeting and left the
ic Ne
10
11 building.
Ju ch
PLETT not once during the encounter offered or gave Thomas the option to in fact
e
12 1 96.
ic an
13 make a recorded statement, despite the fact they were in the very same building where PLETT
st
m Br
14 had allegedly audio-recorded the statements of K.S. and SALDANA.

no ial
15
1 97. Again PLETT did not activate his bodycam when speaking to a "suspect."
co ic
16
1 98. PLETT never modified his incident report in any fashion, never changing anything at
oe ud
17
all about the "bruise," nor informing anyone related to the criminal prosecution of Thomas to
ci a J
18
follow from SALDANA and PLETT's despicable acts, or the fact the so-called bruise was a
So rni
19
lifelong birthmark on K.S.
20
ifo
1 99. PLETT never told Thomas about his personal connection to SALDANA.
21
al
200. PLETT never reported to his supervisor(s) that he had a potential conflict of interest
22
C
23
involving SALDANA and the investigation regarding K.S. and Thomas.
24 II
25 II
35
Case No.

THOMAS AND JOE ATTEMPT TO COMPLAIN THE NEXT DAY
2 20 1 . Thomas told his father about the circumstances of the encounter with PLETT late on
3
June 1 4, 201 7, and Joe particularly noted that, 1 ) other than what Thomas told PLETT in the
4
lobby - which Thomas had no idea if it was recorded or would be included in any report
e
5
PLETT may be writing - there was no apparent taking of Thomas' "statement," and, 2)
te vic
6
Thomas had not actually filled out any form of any kind about the complaint they both had
itu r
7
st Se
with PLETT trying to get them both to not make statements, and being successful as to
8
In ws
Thomas in that regard.
9
Joe insisted that they go down together to the South County Substation and attempt
ic Ne
202.
10
11 to make a complaint yet again about the conduct of PLETT.

Ju ch
When Joe and Thomas arrived at the station this time, before they ever made it up
e
12 203.
ic an
13 and into the front public entrance, two deputies exited the door in what appeared to be nothing
st
m Br
14 more than coincidence, and Thomas and Joe asked about making a complaint to a Captain or
no ial
15
whoever was in charge.
co ic
16
204. Though Thomas and/or Joe began attempting to tell the deputies why they were there
oe ud
17
and what they wanted to complain about, very shortly out came CLIFFORD.
ci a J
18
205. When CLIFFORD came out he made some comment about, "knowing these guys,"
19
So rni
and proceeded to take over the situation.

20
ifo
206. Thomas and Joe repeated that they were there to make a formal complaint about
21
al
PLETT telling them both not to make a statement - with Joe pointing out to CLIFFORD that
22
C
23
he was there when PLETT told that to him - and Joe repeated yet again that they wanted to
24 speak to someone in charge such as a Captain or a Sergeant, not CLIFFORD.
25
36
Case No.
207. CLIFFORD responded that there was no one there to make a complaint to, and this
2 upset Joe who began raising his voice and questioning the veracity of that claim.
3
208. CLIFFORD then told Thomas and Joe that if he wanted to make a complaint he
4
would have to go downtown (to San Jose).
e
5
te vic
209. But CLIFFORD added, "I can tell you right now it isn't going to do you a damn bit
6
of good," and he proceeded to laugh.
itu r
7
st Se
210. Given the policies, patterns, and practices of the COUNTY's Sheriffs Department,
8
In ws
CLIFFORD' s statement was truthful.
9
211. This enraged Joe, who became loud and more agitated, and in response CLIFFORD
ic Ne
10
11 threatened to arrest Joe if he did not leave.
212.
Ju ch
Joe turned and walked away complaining loudly about CLIFFORD's clear effort to
e
12
ic an
13 stop him and his son from making their complaint known to the deputy in charge.
st
m Br
14 THOMAS' CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS COMMENCE

no ial
15
213. The citation given to Thomas by PLETT specified a first Court hearing on August
co ic
16
15, 2017. A document came to Thomas in the mail at one point, on or about July 4, 2017,
oe ud
17
which came from the "Superior Court of California - Santa Clara County Judicial District,"
ci a J
18
which was titled, "Notice of Citation Correction or Amendment."
So rni
19
214. Unfamiliar with the form entirely, and not yet appointed an attorney by the Court,
20
ifo
Thomas naively believed this form - by its title - had something to do with PLETT following
21
al
through on his promise to "make it right" and "amend' his report.

22
C
23
215. Ironically, the only "amendment" to the criminal complaint or claims of criminal
24 conduct against Thomas that were an "amendment," was that someone - the form indicated it
25 had been prepared by Deputy Liza Aguirre, Badge #1752 had let stand the more serious of
-
37
Case No.
the crimes pled, that of "child endangerment," but withdrawn the lesser charge of child
2 "neglect."
3
2 1 6. This was not evident from the form and was only learned later when Thomas
4
actually went to Court, because the form still indicated that Thomas was charged with the
e
5
te vic
child endangerment AND the neglect charge.
6
2 1 7. Between service of the citation and EPO on Thomas and the court date, Thomas felt
itu r
7
st Se
it was far too risky to even attempt to make contact with his daughter. He had just
8
In ws
experienced a complete fabrication of lies about him abusing his child that had - as it
9
appeared to him - been assumed entirely to be true by the authorities because PLETT had not
ic Ne
10
11 so much as bothered to speak to him before charging him with the crimes of child
Ju ch
endangerment and neglect, or before obtaining an order that restrained him from having any
e
12
ic an
13 contact at all with his daughter (the EPO).
st
m Br
14 2 1 8. As a result, Thomas would not see his child K.S., nor would she see him, for a period
no ial
15
of approximately one month. SALDANA allowed a visit between Thomas and K.S. on or
co ic
16
about July 1 9, 20 1 7. But when SALDANA returned to pick up K.S. and Thomas stated he
oe ud
17
was going to follow the custody orders from the family court and keep K.S. - the EPO had
ci a J
18
expired and the family court orders were in fact the orders in force - SALDANA threatened
So rni
19
to call 9 1 1 .
20
ifo
2 1 9. Having the experience Thomas was having thus far with the local COUNTY
21
al
Sheriffs, he felt compelled to not enforce the custody orders given SALDANA's threat and
22
C
23
gave K.S. to SALDANA.
24
25
38
Case No.
1 220. At the first criminal court hearing on August 1 5, 201 7, the Court ordered that
2 Thomas could merely have "visitation" with his daughter, and then, only if a "responsible
3
adult supervisor" could be provided.
4
22 1 . The proposed supervisor would have to go through some sort of background check,
e
5
and be approved by some unknown of the Court, before the visits could start.
te vic
arm
6
222. On August 1 5, 20 1 7 Thomas appeared in a public courtroom to answer to charges of
itu r
7
st Se
child endangerment and was made to stand up and listen to the charges along with everyone
8
In ws
else in the courtroom located in the very community where Thomas performed a significant
9
amount of his work; Thomas wondered with humiliation and shame, who in the courtroom
ic Ne
10
11 might know him or his family.

Ju ch
The Judge, again Judge JoAnne McCracken, took a very hard line stance on
e
12 223 .
ic an
13 Thomas, evidenced not only by her tone and demeanor, but by her rulings and decisions. It
st
m Br
14 was not surprising, Thomas was being described as a man who beat his young daughter until
no ial
15
she bruised, did not feed her, did not bathe her, allowed her to be filthy and covered in fleas.
co ic
16
224. Judge McCracken placed a Domestic Violence Prevention Order on Thomas pending
oe ud
17
trial, which prohibited him from seeing his child except under the supervision of another
ci a J
18
adult. Eventually that ended up being Joe, after he was "approved" by some court-affiliated
So rni
19
entity.
20
ifo
225. Thomas was ordered to subject himself to a "drug assessment," as performed by

21
al
one of the County subcontractors who provide such service upon orders of the Court. Thomas
22
C
23
in fact later took that assessment and was in fact not determined to have a drug problem
24 requiring any therapy or treatment.
25
39
U.S. District Court- Northem District of California
Case No.
•
226. The Judge also ordered Thomas to start random drug testing, which required calling
2
in to a phone number and seeing if he had to test, and if he did, he was required to report at
3
the drug testing facility and produce - meaning actually produce from his bladder on the spot
4
- a urine sample for testing.
e
5
te vic
227. During the course of the proceedings Thomas missed one of the tests and at the very
6
next court appearance, the Court remanded him into custody and he spent the night in jail.
itu r
7
st Se
SALDANA AND PLETT START TO HAVE RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS
8
In ws
228. While Thomas went months very rarely seeing his daughter whom he had lived her
9
entire life with until that time, he was forced to perform a drug assessment, went to numerous
ic Ne
10
11 random drug tests and urinate into a container so his urine could be tested, and of course spent
Ju ch
the night in jail, the relationship between SALDANA and PLETT continued.
e
12
ic an
13 229. The couple continued to exchange text messages, express their desires to see each
st
m Br
14 other again, and attempt to arrange opportunities to have meetings, including those to have
no ial
15
romantic or sexual interactions.
co ic
16
230. However, there were signs it was beginning to unravel, as SALDANA became
oe ud
17
impatient with PLETT's increasing inability to make time for her and how they weren't
ci a J
18
having enough sex by late July and into August.
So rni
19
23 1 . When she did this, PLETT would apologize, almost exclusively blame this on his
20
ifo
hectic/heavy work schedule, but PLETT assured her when she would proclaim she was
21
al
"done," or probably just needed to stop seeing PLETT, that whatever became of their
22
C
23
relationship he would "always" care about her and "be there for [her]."
24 232. However, not long before the events to be related below at the very end of October
25 201 7, PLETT told SALDANA on a specific date unknown but during a face to face meeting,
40
Case No.
1 that they probably needed to cool things down and not be around each other too much, saying
2 something to the effect of, "things might get complicated here soon."
3
23 3 . PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe this was as the trial date for Thomas'
4
criminal case grew close.
e
5
te vic
TRIAL IS NEAR I DEPUTY DA LEARNS OF PLETT & SALDANA RELATIONSHIP
6
234. Indeed, Thomas was not agreeing to any kind of plea bargains that were being
itu r
7
st Se
bandied about between his court appointed public defender and Deputy DA, so that meant the
8
In ws
November 6, 20 1 7 trial date was likely to go forward, and PLETT would then be called to
9
testify at trial, in which issues such as the missing bodycam footage of PLETT' s admonition
ic Ne
10
11 to Thomas and Joe about not giving a statement might well come up, among other things that
Ju ch
might have forced PLETT to choose between perjury and the truth while under the watchful
e
12
ic an
13 eye of the judge and a jury.
st
m Br
14 23 5 . SALDANA had been served with a subpoena from Deputy DA that required her to
no ial
15
appear in Court for the trial, and PLAINTIFFS believe SALDANA also received another
co ic
16
subpoena from Deputy DA to appear at a trial readiness conference on November 1 , 201 7, as
oe ud
17
well.
ci a J
18
236. SALDANA, experiencing something resembling a conscience, wrote Deputy DA an
So rni
19
e-mail on October 3 1 , 20 1 7, at 8 : 3 3 p.m., telling Deputy DA the following;
20
ifo
"Everything that I had said was completely exaggerated I was upset at the time
21 because I have (sic) found out that my daughter's dad was seeing someone else, so
al
in spite I lashed out in a (sic) immature your way. I had asked my daughter if her
22
dad ever hit her and she said no. She said that she was upset with her dad because
C
23
there was another girl at his house. And in regards of her not having clean clothes
or being showered she was under the care of Thomas's father. And I lied about
24 him smoking around her. I said that because I was upset at the time. He's a good
father and I don't think he deserves to get in trouble for my lies an exaggeration.
25 (sic)"
41
Case No.
,.
1 237. PLAINTIFFS do not know if Deputy DA thereafter called SALDANA, or
2 SALDANA called Deputy DA, but the following is what occurred during the phone call.
3
238. Deputy DA basically asked what was going on with SALDANA, and why she was
4
recanting the claims against Thomas.
e
5
te vic
239. At first, SALDANA did not bring up the relationship with PLETT, but rather simply
6
reiterated the general claims in her e-mail.
itu r
7
st Se
240. Deputy DA made clear that he could legally, and would, simply go forward with
8
In ws
putting her on the stand, and that there were ways to get her statements to PLETT into
9
ic Ne
evidence even if she refused to testify.
10
11 241 . Deputy DA bringing up PLETT caused SALDANA to then begin telling him about
Ju ch
her relationship with PLETT, and how he had participated in the plan to bring the charges
e
12
ic an
13 against Thomas, telling him of the things PLETT had told her about what to say and how to
st
m Br
14 say it to assist her in retaining custody of K.S.

no ial
15
242. Deputy DA's initial response to SALDANA relating these facts to him was to tell
co ic
16
her that, "That's all hearsay."
oe ud
17
243. SALDANA then told Deputy DA that she was not making this up and that she had
ci a J
18
proof of the relationship with PLETT in a series of text messages on her phone.
So rni
19
244. According to SALDANA, this brought a long pause from Deputy DA, who then
20
ifo
asked SALDANA, "So what do you want to see happen, do you want the case dismissed?"
21
al
245. SALDANA told Deputy DA "yes," that she wanted the case dismissed.
22
C
23
246. Indeed, dismiss the case is exactly what Deputy DA did. On the next court date,
24 November 1 , 201 7, DEPUTY DA asked that the Court dismiss the case.
25
42
Case No.
,,
..
24 7. At no time did Deputy DA ask her if she would produce the text messages to him so
2 that he might investigate the obvious crime of making a false police report, or of anything else
3
inappropriate about the relationship he had just been told of, which would also arguably be
4
Brady evidence DA would have to disclose to defense counsel in other cases where PLETT
e
5
te vic
was involved.
6
248 . PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that at no time did Deputy DA contact the
itu r
7
st Se
Sheriff of the County of Santa Clara, any supervising Deputy District Attorney, or the District
8
In ws
Attorney for the County of Santa Clara, or any else with an obligation or authority to
9
investigate the facts he had just learned from SALDANA about PLETT's conduct.
ic Ne
10
11 249. In the alternative, PLAINTIFFS allege that in fact Deputy DA did contact the Sheriff
Ju ch
of the County of Santa Clara, a supervising Deputy District Attorney, or the District Attorney
e
12
ic an
13 for the County o f Santa Clara, and as part of the pattern and practices of the COUNTY, they
st
m Br
14 did nothing investigate the facts related by Deputy DA.

no ial
15
250. Deputy DA and other prosecutors similarly situated in COUNTY had countless times
co ic
16
before, in countless criminal cases, pressed ahead with criminal proceedings against an
oe ud
17
accused defendant, when the person or persons making the allegations made an effort to
ci a J
18
recant the allegations and/or request that the charges against the accused be dropped.
So rni
19
25 1 . That would not be the case with regard to the recantation, and admission of having
20
ifo
lied by SALDANA, because of the policy, pattern, or practice of protecting law enforcement
21
al
officers from not only facing serious discipline, reprimand, or even loss of their employment,
22
C
23
but from undermining the prosecution of any other criminal cases that prosecutors had been
24 involved in where PLETT or other Deputies had been witnesses, so significant were the
25 claims here of impropriety, corruption, and fraud.
43
Case No.
,
,.
1 IV
2 DAMAGES
3
252. As a result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFFS suffered severe
4
emotional distress, anxiety and general damage to their psyche, to such an extent as to cause
e
5
te vic
physical manifestations of pain and symptoms of nausea and severe depression, including but
6
not limited to sleeplessness, headaches, fatigue, malaise, irritability, inability to focus, a
itu r
7
st Se
generalized fear of authority figures and law enforcement, a loss of appetite and a loss of
8
In ws
weight.
9
253. PLAINTIFF Thomas also suffered through the stress of the falsely commenced and
ic Ne
10
11 malicious court proceedings and the indignations of the random drug testing, as well as the
Ju ch
humiliation and embarrassment and loss of reputation in the community.
e
12
ic an
13 254. A specific and enduring damage to Thomas was the fact that because of these false
st
m Br
14 claims, criminal proceedings, and the fear the entire episode of corruption had instilled in him,
no ial
15
he missed his young daughter's first day in attendance at school for the first grade.
co ic
16
255. DEFENDANTS' acts and failures to act has caused PLAINTIFFS the incursion of
oe ud
17
attorney fees and costs, medical fees, therapy fees, and expenses related thereto, and is likely
ci a J
18
to cause the incursion of further medical, therapy, and/or counseling fees in the future as well
So rni
19
as expenses related thereto.
20
ifo
256. PLAINTIFFS seek an award of exemplary (punitive) damages under federal law and
21
al
pursuant to California Civil Code §3294 to make an example of and punish DEFENDANTS,
22
C
23
and in the hope of deterring future conduct of a similar nature.
24 II
25 II
44
Case No.
v.
2 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
3
- Violation of 14th Amendment Procedural & Substantive Due Process Rights to
4
Familial Association
- Violation of 4th Amendment Rights Against Unlawful Seizure
e
5 - Judicial Deception
te vic
- Violation of 1st Amendment Rights
6 - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
- False Claims of Child Abuse
itu r
7 - Defamation I Slander Per Se
st Se
- Monell Liability (specifically negligent hiring and selective enforcement)
8
In ws
9
Date: March 23, 2018 /S/ Robert R. Powell
ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ.
ic Ne
10
Attorney for Plaintiffs
11
Ju ch
e
12
ic an
13
st
m Br
14
no ial
15
co ic
16
oe ud
17
ci a J
18
19
So rni
20
ifo
21
al
22
C
23
24
25
45
Case No.

Tort Complaint - Santa Clara County Sheriff - DA - CP Case - False Child Abuse Claims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Tort Complaint - Santa Clara County Sheriff - DA - CP Case - False Child Abuse Claims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF SANTA ijl]){JUlAR23PM12:10

Please submit the completed form to the Clerk

Please attach additional pages as needed.

3. Claimant's mailing address: 25 e i

8. Describe the injury, damage, or loss: __

Bryan. Ple tt, Depy

1 o. Name of witness, if any: _

List the items totaling the amount of the claim:

Item Amount Item Amount

Sign �re sentative

(San Jose Division)

14 Plaintiffs, CNIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

15 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

16 PLETT, DEPUTY CLIFFORD, AMBER

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

4 1. JURISDICTION. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 to

the County of Santa Clara.

19 4. Plaintiff THOMAS SANDOVAL ("Thomas") was at all times relevant herein, a

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE CJBNS.ORG

11 7. Defendant AMBER SALDANA ("Saldana") was at all times relevant herein, a

Clara' s Sheriffs Office. Deputy Clifford' s first name is unknown.

10. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ("Deputy DA" - a psuedonym) not an

14 enforcement conduct to continue unabated and without remediation.

24 promulgated, encouraged, administered, and/or permitted, the policies, practices, customs,

11 time of the events and circumstances complained of herein.

25 law enforcement officers will continue unabated and without remediation.

CONSPIRACY I AGENCY I PARTICIPATION - GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2 purpose of a conspiracy to violate PLAINTIFFS' rights.

which, whether by conspiracy to violate the PLAINTIFFS' rights, or by agreement,

11 inadequate supervision, inadequate training, consent, ratification, or active participation, such

14 SHERIFF'S DEPUTY - MONELL

Department of actively seeking to obtain phone numbers of female citizens involved in

law enforcement purposes. Such conduct compromises objectivity, professionalism, and

24 matters on a regular basis.

2 Department to have engaged in similar conduct previously, involving inappropriate sexual

authority to investigate inappropriate or unlawful conduct of fellow Deputies, as well as

24 obfuscate Deputy conduct or wrongdoing in conduct of law enforcement activities.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE CJBNS.ORG

and exhibiting deliberate indifference to the violation of citizen's constitutional rights.

and Thomas Sandoval.

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS - MONELL

25 appropriate investigations or referrals to other agencies or individuals with authority to

14 falsifying incident reports and criminal complaints, and no reprimand, discipline, or

father Joseph Sandoval ("Joe").

2 with K.S. and SALDANA would have twenty percent (20%).

PLETT'S SECOND INTERACTION WITH SALDANA - OBTAINS PHONE NUMBER

separated from his wife.

25 separation from Thomas.

2 their daughter K.S. was discussed with PLETT.

14 as a "Suspected Child Abuse Report."

14 AT SUBSTATION PER SALDANA

learned from the interview of K.S. and SALDANA.

24 primary custody of K.S. to end up with SALDANA.

2 up and get stuff wrong."

11 AT SUBSTATION PER PLETT

attached to the Incident Report.

25 evidence by PLETT according to his Incident Report's "Property" attachment.

2 in his Incident Report was that,

garments. [Thomas] failed to maintain proper hygiene for [K.S.]."

11 changes to your custody orders [regarding K.S.]"

only eats once a day,

that was a girl,"

25 grandfather's girlfriend (the "choker" in the prior item),