Buckhalter Amended Complaint

Case 2:17-cv-02072-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 16
DARRYL D. YORKEY (SBN 280351)

1 P.O. Box 9636
Berkeley, California 94709
2 Telephone: (510) 221-6874
Fax: (888) 491-5926
3 Email: dyorkey@gmail.com
4 ALAN A. BECK (SBN 276646)
2962 Harcourt Drive
5 San Diego, California 92123
Telephone: (619) 905-9105
6 Email: alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com
7 CATHERINE A. BEEKMAN (SBN 245605)
915 Trancas Street, Suite B
8 Napa, California 94558
Telephone: (707) 346-3060
9 Fax: (707) 561-6646
Email: cate@beekmancortes.com
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nick C. Buckhalter
11
12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 NICK C. BUCKHALTER, ) Case No. 2:17-cv-02072
)
15 Plaintiff, )
) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
16 v. ) DAMAGES
17 )
DANIEL TORRES, in his personal and )
18 official capacities as a peace officer of ) 1. § 1983 Excessive Force –
the Vacaville Police Department; ) Fourth Amendment
19 ROGER CANADY, in his personal and ) 2. § 1983 Failure to Protect
official capacities as a peace officer of ) 3. Battery
20
the Vacaville Police Department; JULIE ) 4. Assault
21 BAILEY, in her personal and official ) 5. Intentional Infliction of
capacities as a peace officer of the ) Emotional Distress
22 Vacaville Police Department; ) 6. Negligence Infliction of
“OFFICER LOPEZ,” in his/her ) Emotional Distress
23 personal and official capacities as a peace ) 7. Violation of Cal. Civil Code §
24 officer of the Vacaville Police ) 52.1
Department; “OFFICER CARDONA,” )
25 in his personal and official capacities as a )
peace officer of the Vacaville Police ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
26 Department; and DOES 1-50, )
)
27
Defendants. )
28 )
-1-
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. 2:17-cv-02072
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Nick C. Buckhalter (“Plaintiff”), by and through his
2
undersigned counsel, and complains of the Defendants as follows:
3
PARTIES
4
1. Plaintiff Nick C. Buckhalter is a natural person and a citizen of the United States. He
5
was a resident of the State of California, residing in the City of Vacaville, County of Solano at the
6
time of the incident giving rise to this action. He is the victim of the conduct complained about
7
below.
8
2. Plaintiff was sixty (60) years old at the time of the incident described herein, and is
9
currently sixty-two (62) years old.
10
3. In or about 2013, Plaintiff underwent a reversed total shoulder arthroplasty surgery on
11
his left shoulder. This surgery replaced his left shoulder joint with an artificial implant as a treatment
12
for a damaged rotator cuff and to reduce arthritic joint pain. On information and belief, reversed total
13
shoulder arthroplasty is a type of total shoulder replacement that is used for patients with more
14
significant rotator cuff injuries that cannot be repaired or where a previous shoulder replacement was
15
unsuccessful. In this type of extremely invasive surgery, the mechanics of the shoulder (the ball on
16
the upper arm bone and the socket in the shoulder) are reversed and replaced with artificial implants.
17
This type of surgery is generally reserved for patients with higher levels of damage to their shoulder.
18
4. On information and belief, the Vacaville Police Department (“VPD”) is a public
19
entity in the State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California, to provide,
20
among other things, law enforcement throughout the City of Vacaville.
21
5. On information and belief, Defendant Daniel Torres is a natural person and a citizen
22
of the United States and the State of California. Defendant Torres, sued both in his personal and
23
official capacities, is a peace officer employed by the Vacaville Police Department/City of
24
Vacaville. His badge number is 639.
25
6. On information and belief, Defendant Roger Canady is a natural person and a citizen
26
of the United States and the State of California. On information and belief, Defendant Roger
27
28
-2-
1 Canady, sued both in his personal and official capacities, is a peace officer employed by Defendant
2 VPD.
3 7. On information and belief, Defendant David McDonald is a natural person and a
4 citizen of the United States and the State of California. On information and belief, Defendant David
5 McDonald, sued both in his personal and official capacities, is a peace officer employed by
6 Defendant VPD.
7 8. On information and belief, Defendant Julie Bailey is a natural person and a citizen of
8 the United States and the State of California. On information and belief, Defendant Julie Bailey,
9 sued both in her personal and official capacities, is a peace officer employed by Defendant VPD.
10 9. On information and belief, “Officer Lopez” is a natural person and a citizen of the
11 United States and the State of California. On information and belief, Defendant “Officer Lopez,”
12 sued both in his/her personal and official capacities, is a peace officer employed by Defendant VPD.
13 10. On information and belief, Unknown “Officer Cardona” is a natural person and a
14 citizen of the United States and the State of California. On information and belief, Defendant
15 “Officer Cardona,” sued both in his/her personal and official capacities, is a peace officer employed
16 by Defendant VPD. His
17 11. Defendants Does 1-50 are sued in both their personal and official capacities. On
18 information and belief, they are personnel employed by the City and VPD. Does 1-50 are
19 responsible for executing, maintaining and administering the customs complained about below and
20 may be participants in the unconstitutional acts and practices discussed within this complaint.
21 12. Defendants Does 1-50, because of their improper actions are liable to Plaintiff for
22 damages and other relief as set forth in this Complaint.
23 13. Plaintiff has reviewed all documents available and has made a diligent and good faith
24 effort to ascertain said persons' full names and identities.
25 14. At all times mentioned, each Defendant was the agent and employee of each and
26 every other Defendant and in doing the things alleged was acting within the course and scope of
27 such agency and employment and with each and every other Defendant’s actual and implied
28
-3-
1 permission, consent, authorization, and approval. Employees and members of the City and VPD
2 enforced the policies complained about below.
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
5 1331, 1343, 1367, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988.
6 16. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
8 17. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on each and every one of his claims as pleaded
9 herein.
10 STATEMENT OF FACTS
11 18. Plaintiff was a resident of the City Vacaville at the time of the complained about
12 incident where he lived with his wife and where he was a homeowner.
13 19. Plaintiff’s wife is an active duty non-commissioned officer of the United States Air
14 Force.
15 20. Shortly before the complained about incident, Plaintiff’s wife received orders to
16 change duty stations, and, as a result, both Plaintiff and his wife began preparing to move from the
17 Vacaville area.
18 21. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on September 9, 2016, an auto transport truck arrived at
19 Plaintiff’s (former) residence in the City of Vacaville to load three (3) of his vehicles for transport to
20 his new home.
21 22. The driver of the truck asked Plaintiff to prepare his car for transport.
22 23. Plaintiff started the engine in his vehicle. Because the car had been stored and had not
23 been driven for a substantial period of time, the engine revved unexpectedly and the tires spun
24 creating a squealing noise for no more than three seconds. Plaintiff then moved his vehicle a short
25 distance and parked it in front of his other vehicle, a Lexus.
26 24. As Plaintiff was walking back to his home after parking his vehicle, Defendant
27 Canady approached Plaintiff and identified himself as an off-duty police officer. Defendant Canady
28 told Plaintiff he should not be “burning rubber” because there were children in the area. Plaintiff
-4-
1 apologized, replied that squealing his tires was unintentional, and that he was moving from the area
2 within two and a half hours.
3 25. Plaintiff then approached the vehicle transport operator, who proceeded to prepare
4 Plaintiff’s vehicles to load onto the truck. As Plaintiff was returning to his home, he saw a VPD
5 vehicle pull up behind his Lexus.
6 26. Defendant Daniel Torres exited the VPD vehicle, approached Defendant Canady, and
7 spoke to him for a few minutes.
8 27. After speaking with Defendant Canady, Defendant Daniel Torres walked towards
9 Plaintiff’s home.
10 28. Plaintiff came out of his home to talk to Defendant Daniel Torres. Defendant Torres
11 told Plaintiff that he was being cited for “burning rubber.”
12 29. Defendant Daniel Torres then ordered Plaintiff to sit on the ground. Plaintiff
13 explained to Defendant Torres that he was 60 years old, and asked Defendant Torres if he could sit
14 on the hood of his car instead while Defendant Torres issued the citation. Defendant Torres insisted
15 that Plaintiff sit on the ground, and Plaintiff complied.
16 30. Once Plaintiff sat on the curb, Defendant Torres approached Plaintiff from behind
17 and said he was going to handcuff Plaintiff. Plaintiff told Defendant Torres about his medical
18 condition, his previous shoulder surgery, that he was physically incapable of putting his hands
19 behind his back or raising his hands over his head, and that being handcuffed behind his back could
20 and would likely cause severe injury.
21 31. Plaintiff’s wife, who was approximately 50 feet away, repeatedly notified Defendant
22 Torres of Plaintiff’s medical condition, his shoulder surgery, and that he might cause severe injury to
23 Plaintiff by handcuffing him behind his back.
24 32. Defendant Torres then grabbed Plaintiff by the hands and forced his arms behind his
25 back. Exhibit 1.
26 33. Due to Plaintiff’s limited shoulder motion and his artificial implants, Plaintiff’s left
27 arm jerked forward when Defendant Torres forced Plaintiff’s arms behind his back. Exhibit 1.
28 34. Plaintiffs shoulder was significantly injured.
-5-
1 35. Defendant Canady then ran up to Plaintiff, who was on the ground and not resisting,
2 and, using the entire weight of his body and his momentum from running, kneed Plaintiff in the torso.
3 Exhibit 1.
4 36. Defendants Daniel Torres and Roger Canady then forced Plaintiff onto his stomach,
5 causing further damage to Plaintiff’s left shoulder. Exhibit 1.
6 37. Plaintiff was forced into a patrol vehicle where he spent over an hour in handcuffs,
7 despite repeatedly complaining about the severe pain he was experiencing from his shoulder.
8 38. Plaintiff was eventually taken to a hospital. At the hospital, medical staff asked
9 Defendant Daniel Torres to remove Plaintiff’s handcuffs for treatment. Defendant Torres refused to
10 remove the handcuffs from Plaintiff and only allowed the attending physician to treat him for his
11 shoulder injury while Plaintiff was handcuffed. As a result, the attending physician was unable to
12 properly treat Plaintiff’s damaged shoulder. Plaintiff remained in handcuffs at the hospital while he
13 was under observation for dangerously high blood pressure.
14 39. While awaiting being seen by the ER physician at North Bay Medical Center,
15 Plaintiff was seated handcuffed with Defendant Daniel Torres standing by him in the custody section
16 of the Emergency Department. Defendant Torres’s supervising captain, Captain Ian Schmutzler,
17 arrived at the hospital and spoke to other persons at the department counter.
18 40. On information and belief, Ian Schmutzler is a Captain in the Vacaville Police
19 Department who oversees the Field Operations Bureau for the department. Schmutzler is the second
20 highest ranking officer in the department and has been delegated final authority by the City of
21 Vacaville to establish customs, policies and practices regarding arrest, treatment of pretrial detainees
22 and all other policies relevant to Mr. Buckhalter’s treatment.
23 41. While at the hospital, Schmutzler had a discussion with Defendant Daniel Torres
24 regarding his arrest, handcuffing, and subsequent treatment of Plaintiff Nick Buckhalter. Schmutzler
25 patted Defendant Torres twice on the back, telling him, “Good job. Good job. You’re going to go far
26 in this department.” Plaintiff Buckhalter, who was in close proximity, overheard the conversation
27 between Schmutzler and Defendant Torres.
28
-6-
1 42. In the presence of Schmutzler, medical staff asked Defendant Daniel Torres to
2 remove Plaintiff’s handcuffs so they could place his arm in a sling. Defendant Torres refused, and
3 said Plaintiff could take the sling with him to the jail. Plaintiff was released to the custody of
4 Defendant Torres once his blood pressure had lowered, although it remained higher than normal.
5 43. After Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital, Defendant Torres did not take
6 Plaintiff to the jail. Instead, Defendant Torres detained Plaintiff in the back of his VPD cruiser, still
7 handcuffed with his arms behind him, for over two hours unnecessarily while Defendant Torres
8 responded to other incidents, transported other arrestees, talked to other peace officers, and made
9 numerous personal phone calls. During this time Plaintiff told Defendant Torres his shoulder was in
10 pain, and asked Defendant Torres to loosen his handcuffs. Defendant Torres replied, simply, “no.”
11 Plaintiff was handcuffed in the back of Defendant Torres’ cruiser for over two hours before he was
12 finally released to the Solano County Jail.
13 44. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and detainment, he has suffered
14 permanent damage in his arm and shoulder.
15 45. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and detainment, Plaintiff has suffered
16 nerve damage in his hands and has diminished use of a number of his fingers and near total loss of
17 use of more than one finger.
18 46. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and detainment, Plaintiff suffers from
19 constant pain in his shoulder.
20 47. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and detainment, Plaintiff suffered
21 bruising and scraping to his arms and legs. Exhibit 2.
22 48. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and detainment, Plaintiff suffers from
23 excessive stress, anxiety, and depression.
24 49. Plaintiff has complied with Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900-935.9 by filing a claim against
25 the City of Vacaville, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and receiving a denial of that claim, attached
26 hereto as Exhibit 4.
27 ///
28 ///
-7-
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment
3 (Against Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50)
4 50. Plaintiff repeats and re-pleads Paragraphs 1 through 49, inclusive, and incorporates
5 the same herein by reference.
6 51. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
7 Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia
8 subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
9 rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,
10 or other appropriate proceeding for redress . . .
11
52. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and all of the individual peace officer
12
Defendants to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
13
53. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under
14
the color of state law in their capacity as peace officers employed by the City and VPD and their acts
15
or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
16
54. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had a clearly established
17
constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in his person from unreasonable
18
seizure through excessive force.
19
55. Any reasonable peace officer knew or should have known of this right at the time of
20
the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
21
56. Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50’s actions and use of force, as
22
described herein, were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting
23
him and violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.
24
57. Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50 unlawfully seized Plaintiff by
25
means of objectively unreasonable, excessive, and conscious shocking physical force, thereby
26
unreasonably restraining Plaintiff of his freedom.
27
///
28
-8-
1 58. None of the Defendant peace officers present during Plaintiff’s arrest took reasonable
2 steps to protect him from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking excessive force of
3 Defendant peace officers or from the excessive force of other unknown officers despite being in a
4 position to do so. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the
5 objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each other officer.
6 59. All individual Defendants to this claim engaged in the conduct described by this
7 Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally
8 protected constitutional rights.
9 60. All individual Defendants to this claim did so with shocking and willful indifference
10 to Plaintiff’s rights and the conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical and
11 emotional injuries.
12 61. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants to this claim were moving forces
13 behind Plaintiff’s injuries.
14 62. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants to this claim as described herein
15 intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
16 63. Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50 are not entitled to qualified
17 immunity for the complained of conduct.
18 64. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
19 physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him to
20 compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of the
21 Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically related
22 expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related expenses, in
23 amounts to be established at trial.
24 65. On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings and impaired
25 earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained shoulder and nerve injury, in amounts to be
26 ascertained in trial.
27 66. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,
28 pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law.
-9-
1 67. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff

2 is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §
3 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken maliciously,
4 willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Protect Plaintiff from Harm in Violation of the
7 Fourteenth Amendment
8 (Against Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50)
11 69. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
12 Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District
13 of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
14 deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action
15 at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress…
16 70. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and Defendants to this claim
17 are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18 71. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting under the color
19 of state law.
20 72. At the time of the complained of conduct, Plaintiff, a detainee in police custody, had
21 the clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be protected from
22 harm. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
23 73. Plaintiff put Defendants, and each of them, on notice that he had a preexisting
24 shoulder injury prior to Defendants handcuffing him or while he was handcuffed.
25 74. Defendants to this claim showed a deliberate indifference to his shoulder injury and
26 continued to force his arm behind his back.
27 75. This act put Plaintiff at a substantial risk of harm and did cause injury to his
28 shoulder.
-10-
1 76. This could have easily been mitigated by Defendants, and each of them, by
2 handcuffing Plaintiff from the front.
3 77. Defendants to this claim further failed to protect Plaintiff from harm when they kept
4 him detained in the police cruiser for over an hour before finally taking him to the hospital and then,
5 once at the hospital, refusing to remove Plaintiff’s handcuffs so the doctor could properly treat his
6 injuries, and refusing to allow Plaintiffs arm to be placed in a sling. Once Plaintiff’s blood pressure
7 lowered enough to permit his release from the hospital, Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff from
8 further harm by continuing to drive him around town for hours, unnecessarily, with his arms
9 handcuffed behind his back the entire time, despite Plaintiff’s complaints of pain and his high blood
10 pressure.
11 78. All of these acts put Plaintiff in substantial risk of harm by aggravating the damage
12 already done to his shoulder when Defendants Torres and Canady forced his arms behind his back
13 and forcefully took him to the ground.
14 79. Defendants to this claim could have easily mitigated the damage by taking Plaintiff to
15 the hospital when they were put on notice of the injury they caused, by removing his handcuffs once
16 at the hospital, and by transporting him promptly to the jail instead of driving him around for hours
17 unnecessarily.
18 80. Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50 knew
19 or should have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly
20 established at that time.
21 81. The acts or omissions of these Defendants, as described herein, deprived Plaintiff of
22 his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.
23 82. The acts or omissions of Defendants to this claim as described herein intentionally
24 deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.
25 83. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct.
26 84. Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50
27 were, at all times relevant, police officers employed by the City of Vacaville and the Vacaville
28 Police Department.
-11-
1 85. As a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
2 physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him to
3 compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of the
4 Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically related
5 expenses and may continue to incur further medically or other special damages related expenses, in
6 amounts to be established at trial.
7 86. On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings and impaired
8 earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained shoulder and nerve injury, in amounts to be
9 ascertained in trial.
10 87. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,
11 pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for
12 lien interests.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
14 Battery
15 (Against Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50)
18 89. On September 9, 2016, Defendants willfully, intentionally, and unlawfully engaged in
19 harmful and/or offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person as alleged more fully above.
20 90. By engaging in the conduct herein above alleged, Defendants Torres, Canady,
21 McDonald, and Does 1-50 intended to cause physical harm or offensive touching to Plaintiff.
22 91. As a direct and proximate result of the battery described above, Plaintiff was
23 physically harmed and/or experienced offensive contact with his person.
24 92. At no time did Plaintiff consent to any of the acts of Defendants herein above alleged.
25 93. As a direct and proximate result of the battery described above, Plaintiff suffered
26 injuries to his shoulder, arms, hands, fingers, as well as the nerves associated with these appendages,
27 resulting in damages for medical expenses in an amount subject to proof.
28
-12-
1 94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
2 physical injury, humiliation, embarrassment, and both mental and emotional distress and anxiety that
3 are substantial and enduring, all in an amount according to proof at trial.
4 95. The foregoing conduct of Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50 was
5 in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s civil rights, intentional, in reckless disregard of the probability
6 of causing injury and emotional distress, willful, and malicious. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to
7 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Assault
10 (Against Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50)
13 97. By engaging in the conduct herein above alleged, Defendants Torres, Canady,
14 McDonald, and Does 1-50 willfully, intentionally, and unlawfully engaged in conduct to create a
15 reasonable apprehension in Plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact.
16 98. At no time did Plaintiff consent to any of the acts of Defendants herein above alleged.
17 99. Defendant's intentional acts were the direct causation of general damages related to
18 the shock and emotional distress of being forced to the ground, handcuffed while Defendants had
19 been notified of Plaintiff’s medical condition, being piled on, and while being held down, kneed in
20 the upper torso and shoulder.
21 100. As a direct and proximate result of the assault described above, Plaintiff suffered
22 injuries to his shoulder, arms, hands, fingers, as well as the nerves associated with these appendages,
23 resulting in damages for medical expenses in amount subject to proof.
24 101. The foregoing conduct of Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50 was
25 in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s civil rights, intentional, in reckless disregard of the probability
26 of causing injury and emotional distress, willful, and malicious. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to
27 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
28
-13-
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2
(Against Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50)
3
102. Plaintiff repeats and re-pleads Paragraphs 1 through 101, inclusive, and incorporates
4
the same herein by reference.
5
103. By engaging in the conduct herein above alleged, Defendants Torres, Canady,
6
McDonald, and Does 1-50 engaged in, instigated, and directed a course of extreme and outrageous
7
conduct with the intention of causing, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing,
8
emotional distress to Plaintiff.
9
104. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct herein above alleged, Plaintiff
10
suffered severe or extreme emotional distress, entitling him to damages in an amount to be proven at
11
trial.
12
105. The foregoing conduct of Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, and Does 1-50 was
13
in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s civil rights, intentional, in reckless disregard of the probability
14
of causing injury and emotional distress, willful, and malicious. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to
15
exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
16
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
18
(Against Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50)
19
106. Plaintiff repeats and re-pleads Paragraphs 1 through 105, inclusive, and incorporates
20
the same herein by reference.
21
107. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez,
22
Cardona, and Does 1-50 were peace officers in the City of Vacaville. As such, they had a special
23
duty to Plaintiff as arresting officers, and the public more generally, to enforce the laws of the State
24
of California in an unprejudiced manner and to prevent undue and unnecessary injuries to a person in
25
their custody, and based on that special relationship, they had a duty of care to Plaintiff Nick
26
Buckhalter.
27
28 ///
-14-
1 108. Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50
2 breached their duties to Plaintiff not only in arresting Plaintiff, but also by their conscious disregard
3 of Plaintiff’s medical conditions as well as aggravating existing and causing new injuries to Plaintiff.
4 Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50 further breached
5 their duties to Plaintiff in delaying access to medical intervention, by interfering with aid rendered
6 by medical practitioners, and by engaging in unnecessary conduct that exacerbated Plaintiff’s pain
7 and injury after medical care was provided.
8 109. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and conduct of the
9 Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe and extreme emotional distress,
10 including but not limited to anguish, indignity, embarrassment, humiliation, fright, depression,
11 anxiety, being held up to scorn and ridicule, injury in character and reputation, prevented from
12 attending to his usual business and avocation, and Plaintiff was otherwise injured now and in the
13 future.
14 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1
16 (Against Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and Does 1-50)
19 111. The conduct of Defendants Torres, Canady, McDonald, Bailey, Lopez, Cardona, and
20 Does 1-50, as described herein, acting in the course and scope of their employment for Defendants
21 VPD and the City, violated California Civil Code Section 52.1, in that they interfered with Plaintiff’s
22 exercise and enjoyment of his civil rights, through use of wrongful and excessive force, and failure
23 to make any proper or reasonable arrest of said Plaintiff.
24 112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Civil Code Section 52.1,
25 Plaintiff suffered violation of his constitutional rights, and suffered damages as set forth herein.
26 113. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and an award of his reasonable attorney’s fees
27 pursuant to Civil Code Section 52.1(h).
28
-15-
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendants as
3 follows:
4 1. For general and special damages, according to proof at trial;
5 2. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b);
6 3. For violation of California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1, statutory damages, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees;
7
4. For violation of California Civil Code § 52(b), punitive damages against Defendant peace
8 officers, $25,000.00 for each offense, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
9 5. For costs of suit incurred herein;
10 6. Punitive damages; and
11 7. Such other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
12
Dated: May 14, 2018
13
14 Respectfully submitted,
15
/S/ Darryl D. Yorkey
By: _____________________________________
16 Darryl D. Yorkey, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff Nick Buckhalter
17
/S/ Alan A. Beck
By: _____________________________________
18
Alan A. Beck, Esq.
19 Attorney for Plaintiff Nick Buckhalter
20 /S/ Catherine A. Beekman

By: _____________________________________
Catherine A. Beekman, Esq.
21 Attorney for Plaintiff Nick Buckhalter
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-16-

Buckhalter Amended Complaint

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

Buckhalter Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-02072-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 16

DARRYL D. YORKEY (SBN 280351)

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1 67. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20 /S/ Catherine A. Beekman

You might also like