I

2
3

4
5

lA^W_OrFrcES oF CAREE FTARPER 168 N, C_4mden Drive Snit--Ob -- -"" B_everly Hills, CA902i0 L3 I 0)-281 -0063 Tel. Bmarl : inyourdefens e@ao l. c om

pqry_e Hamer SBN 219048

:
I
!
I

-*!'!

Attorney for Plaintiffs

il;il
-r
I
I I

n
=

6 7
8

TN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AND FOR THE CBNTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

l0
l1
12
13

14 15

KENNETH McDADE, ANYA SLAUGHTER, And TFIE ESTATE OF KENDREC McDADE

Plaintiffs,

t yl2: {}eg g Zvuu(

Case No.:

CV_

a,

l6 l7
18

1. WRONGFUL DEATH/

ViolStign of Civil Rishls (42 IJ.S.C. g 1983) d----

2. UNrAIryr,.UL CUSTOM.
CITY OF PASADENA, PASADENA
POLICE CHIEF PHILLP SANCHEZ. OFFICER MATTI{EW GRIFFIN #3I35, OFFICER JEFFREY NEWLEN #6113, & DET. KEITH GOMEZ #3196, individually and in their official capacity and DOES 1-10 inclusive.
Defendants.

rBACTr_CES c POl,rCTns (42 U.S.C. g le83)

t9
20

3. WRONGFUL DEATH/
Negligence

2l
22
23

4. RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (CA. Civil Code g 51.7)

*JURY TRIAL DEMAND*

24 25 26

27
28

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES.

l:l lr,l {l

tl ll
tl

I
2 J
a

4
5

6
7 8

l0
11

I II

ll l-r

| I tl

Jurisdiction is vested in this Court under 28 U.S.C. S1343 (3)(a) for lthe violation of the l97l Civil Rights Enforcement Act, as amended, includins^42 |,4| Sections 1983, l33l and 1367 IU.S.C Venue is proper in Central District of California and the Counry ll-os Angeles under 28 U.S.C. Sl39l

ll |

lflaintiffs rl I

allege:

I.

JURISDICTION AND

VBNUB

1.

(a).

Z.

(b). \",,'

of

I I
I

rr. alr,ncarroNs covrvroN ro ar-r causns

or,acrrox
u.s.c.

This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42

lSections, 1983 and 1988 andthe United States Constitution, the laws of the StatJ lrrl t2 lof California and common law principles to redress a deprivation under color od
13

rl

14 15

lstate law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiffs by said statutesj -" 'I | bf the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. land

rrr.

plnrms

t6

l.

At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs KENNETH McDADE

and
the

I7
18

ANYA SLAUGHTER were and are residents of the United

States, residing in

t9
20

County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiff ANYA SLAUGHTER is the natural mother of decedent KENDREC McDADE. plaintiff KENNETH

2I
22
23

McDADE is the decedent's natural father. Plaintiffs McDade and Slaugther the only heirs of the decedent. All plaintiffs are African American

are

is responsible for the actions of its employees, officials, and officers. The

2. Defendant GITY oF PASADENA (hereinafter "cITy")

I
I

24
25

PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter "PPD") is a subdivision of thel CITY OF PASADENA. The CITY is sued in its own right and on the basis of the
acts of its officials, agents, employees, and officers at all times were sworn

26 27 28

police
I

officers in City of

ilt

Pasadena.

I
l I I

CIVIL RIGHTS C.MPLAINT FoR DAMAGES

I
I I

I
2
J
a

3. Defendant CHIEF PHILLIP SANCHEZ,

was and is ar all relevant times

the Chief of the Pasadena Police Department and a sworn police officer with supervising and policy-making authority at the Pasadena Police Department.

4
5

4. Defendant, OFFICER JEFFREY NEWLAN,

a caucasian male, is and

at all relevant times was a sworn police officer at the Pasadena Police Department. 5. Defendant, OFFICER MATTFTEW GRIFFTN, a caucasian male. is
and at all relevant times was a sworn police officer at the Pasadena police

.|
8

Department.

6. Defendant, OFFICER KEITH Gor\rEZ, a caucasian male, is and at

all relevant times was a swom police officer at the Pasadena Police Department. 7. At all times herein mentioned, DOES I through l0 were and now are, duly appointed and acting PASADENA POLICE OFFICERS in the employ of the PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT. In doing the acts he,reafter described,
defendants, each of them, were acting in their capacity as officers of the defendant CITY and in doing the acts hereinafter described, acted within the course and
scope of their employment.

l0
1l

t2
13

l4
15

t6 t7
18

8.

Plaintiffs are ignorant

as to the true names of the

DOE defendants.

Once plaintiffs learn the names of the DOE defendants, they

will

seek leave to

t9
20
21

amend this complaint to identifo the DoE defendants. Each of the defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.

DoE

9-

Each of the acts complained of herein was taken, and each violation

of

22
23

plaintiffs' rights occurred, pursuant to the policies, practices and/ or customs of the PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, each act complained of was approved,
condoned and/ or ratified by persons of authority with the defendant Defendant Chief S anchez.

24
25

CITy

and

26 27 28

In doing each of the violations of law complained of herein defendants, their agents and employees, were acting under color of law. The acts complained of were willful, wanton, malicious and displayed a conscious disregard

10.

CryIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3

of, and in deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

2
3

IV.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4
5

BACKGROUND RELATIVE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION.

6
4

11. on February 19,2009, Leroy Barnes Jr. was shot and killed bv
Pasadena Police officers. Barnes was shot 11 times and most of the bullets entered

9
10
11

his back. Barnes died at the scene without any emergency CPR being administered by police. Police initially told the media that Barnes had fired at them first, but this false version of events was revised a few days later by police spokesmen. At that time the former Chief held press conferences and said that Barnes fired at least
one shot at the offtcers, who then returned fire, however, that was not true either, as police were later forced to admit. There, the OIR Group report, dated October 2009, was entitled Report to the City of Pasadenu Concerning the OfJicer-

t2

l3 t4
15

t6 t7
18

Involved shooting of Leroy Barnes, Jr., was prepared by Michael Gennaco & Robert Miller. That committee recommended better training of officers and better
communication with the community. In 2010, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office concluded that the shooting by the officers was lawful selfdefense. These are the same entities DEFENDANT CHIEF SANCHEZ proposes to use in this case. Ln2006, a number of Pasadena Police officers beat a young Black male named Damian Esteem in front of his two young children who were watchin
and screaming "please stop hurting my daddy". This excessive use of force occurred after police executed a search warrant at the wrong acidress. Mr.

t9
20

2l
22
23

12.

24
25

26 27
28

Esteem's questioning of the officers early morning presence rvas met with his face being slammed into the pavement while he was handcuffed. police even pointed
handguns at his small children during the incident. Esteem was not convicted of the red-herring "battery on an officer" charge and was later successful in a federal

CTVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4

I
2
J

civil rights action against the officers for that incident.

13.

In 2005, several Black male teens dubbed

as the

"El Sereno 3" were

4
5 6 7 8 9 10

merely standing on a sidewalk in broad daylight when Pasadena Police detained them for.... standing on the sidewalk. one teen, Michael Miller, was body
slammed into the pavement for questioning the purpose of their detention as oppose to "assuming the position" without question. His brother was severely beaten at the scene and his mother was pushed to the ground after trying to keep the police from

killing her child. Multiple residents called 911

and requested

watch commanders return the call because they witnessed the police beat the teens. The watch commander never returned the call. One of the "El Sereno 3" was
charged with the red-herring "attempt murder on an officer" in order to scare him into a plea deal. The teens required major medical attention and the allegedly

ll
t2

l3

l4
15 16

almost murdered officers who only had scratches to their fists from beating the teens. Al1 criminal charges were ultimately dismissed against Mr. Miller after a

trial- Mr. Miller

addressed this injustice with a federal

civil rights lawsuit that

l7
18

resulted in the parties settling after five years and subsequent unrelenting harassment from officers of the pasadena police Department.

t9
20

At least two of the above-referenced matters involved DEFENDANT DET. KEITH GOMEZ as the "victim" in the police report. Here, DEFENDANT
OFFICERS GRIFFIN and NEWLEN are listed as "victims',.

14.

2l
22
ZJ ^a

GOMEZ has been directly responsible for multiple controversial killings of young Black men in pasadena yet GoMEZwasthe DEFENDANT

15.

24
25

CHIEF'S choice to investigate this controversial officer involved shooting. This was not a "split second decision" this was an intentional selection of DET. GOMEZ to investigate and this reeks of a cover-up.

26
27 28

on March 24,2012, an alleged robbery and car burglary occurred near a taco stand on Orange Grove Blvd. in Pasadena. This call was reported to a
911 dispatcher by Oscar Canillo.

16.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5

I
2 J

On March 26th at 1 I :00 A.M, DEFENDANT DET. GOIWZtook the statement of the 911 caller, Oscar Carrillo. Carrillo told GOVIEZ.thathe told dispatchers the suspects were armed with guns because he was mad at the suspects and nervous. Also, he believed the false statements regarding the firearms would generate a quicker response from police personnel. DEFENDANT GOMEZ retrieved and retained information from Canillo that he had a grudge against the minor with Kendrec, but did not know Kendrec. DEFENDANT GOMEZ did not arrest Carrillo for the felony committed in his presence nor did he request the District Attorney press charges. DEFENDANT CHIEF SANCHEZ condoned,

17. 18.

This taco stand is a popular gathering place for teens.

4
5

6
1 8

l0
1l
12 13 14 15 16 17 18

ratified and aided in this cover up for two days until2 hours after plaintiffs, counsel held a press conference and revealed the lie the 911 caller told dispatchers

Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice take ove the case. with each press conference DEFENDANT SANCHEZ vilifies KENDREC McDADE all the while knowing Mr. McDade did not engage in a
felony that evenittg.

and called for the

In accordance with ppD's pattern and practice of covering up excessive force, DEFENDANT sANCHEZ,who is a policy-maker, has put the
dead victim on trial and spun multiple accounts of what occurred on March 24. 2012, exacerbating the emotional distress of the plaintiffs.

19.

t9
20

2I
22
23

PASADENA POLICE ACCOUNTING OF INCIDENT

20.
the radio

Pasadena Police

Officer Solorzano responded to the area afterhearing

call. As Solorzano responded he heard Offrcer Newlen broadcast he was

24
25

in foot pursuit with a suspect. Solorzano drove southbound on Fair Oaks Ave. toward Orange Grove Blvd. and saw a black male walking west on the north cross
walk of Orange Grove Blvd. and Fair Oaks Ave. The minor was wearing a black T-shirt, dark jeans and a cap. Solorzano made contact with the minor and
they

26 27
28

conversed. Solorzano then heard four shots in the area and the minor immediately

CryIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 6

dove to the ground for cover. Solorzano could not tell where the shots were

2
J
a

coming from and asked the minor

if

he could

tell.

Solorzano then heard

DEFENDANT NEWLEN broadcast "shots fired" at Sunset Ave. north of Orange

Grove

4
5

Blvd.

Solorzano responded to Defendants NEWLEN and GRIFFIN's

6
.,
8

location and saw a black male lying in the middle of Sunset Ave. with multiple gunshots to his upper torso. Officer Reinbold was also on scene. Solorzano began to secure the scene and saw "the minor" standing on the northwest corner of Orange Grove Blvd. and Sunset Ave. The minor looked at him and asked ,.Did they shoot him?" Solorzano believed the minor looked overly concerned, and because he was wearing dark clothing Solorzano handcuffed the minor and placed

l0
l1 t2
13

him in his patrol unit. A field show up was conducted, but Carillo could NOT identif' "the minor" as having been involved in the incident. According to a witness at the taco stand, they did not see a crime occur, nor did they suffer a loss.
The taco stand is NOT listed as a victim in the police report. The onlv .,victimso'

14

t5 t6
17 18 19

Iisted in the report are Carrillo, who was later charged with involu4tarv manslaughter for lving about an armed robberv" and the officers who shot and killed Kendrec McDade. To date, the minor remains in custody based on charges stemming from Carrillo's alleged loss allegedly in excess of $950.00. minor was initially charged with murder for the death of his friend. 21- According to Officer Solorzano, Carrillo's first description of the alleged suspects was that the first man was wearing a black hooded sweat shirt

20

2l
22

with a zipper ("the Minor"), and the second (Kendrec McDade) was wearing a black beanie and black hooded sweat shirt and black jeans. Canillo ignored police
instruction not to pursue two armed men who allegedly just robbed him at gunpoint.

24
25

26 27
28

ilt ilt

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 7

I
2
J
a

THE SHOOTING
The 911 call by Carrillo was internally inconsistent, suspicious and ultimately felonious. However, Officers GRIFFIN and NEWLEN responded and independently made their own decision to shoot Kendrec. Ncither officers nor witnesses saw anything in Kendrec McDade's hands, no bulges in his closely fitted
sweater, no bulges to his waistband and no shiny objects- or objects at

22-

4
5

6
n 8

all. Neither

officers yelled any commands to identifu themselves that evening; and they did not have lights and sirens on to alert Kendrec that the Defendant officers were the police and that they were attempting to make a lawful detention.

9
10

ll
12 13 14
15

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: F FED CIVIL HTS. SPIRA UE AM

42 U.S.C. S 1983)

23.

n,ur

o,rr*

t6

paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth in full to this point.

t7
18

This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of Califomia and

24.

t9
20

2l
22
ZJ ^a

common law principles to redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiff by said statutes, and by the United
States Constitution.

25.

Commencing at or about the aforementioned date and place,

24
25 26 27
28

defendants GRIFFIN and NEWLEN, without lawful cause or justification, and acting under color of law, intentionally and maliciously seizecl plaintiffs' decedent

KENDREC McDADE, causing his death. Plaintiffs believe and assert that DEFENDANT GRIFFIN shot multiple rounds from inside his vehicle, and DEFENDANT ITIEWLEN shot multiple rounds from a nearby standing position. Witness accounts reflect that
CryIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 8

26.

I
2 J

Kendrec did not die immediately. After being shot multiple times in the chest, witnesses said Kendrec tried to talk with officers. Offrcers handcuffed Kendrec
and he began to

"twitch". Officers left Kendrec in the street for a protracted period

4
5

of time without administering first aid and he died at the hospital. One witness heard an officer yell "motherfucker" after the shooting. All individual defendants
conspired to suppress these facts. Each of the individual defendants acted in conceft, acted without authorization of law, and each of the individual defendants, separately and in

6 7
8

27.

t0

concert, acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to the known consequences of their acts and omissions and

ll
t2
13

purposefully with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of their federally protected rights and privileges and did, in fact, violate those rights and privileges, entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

l4
15 16 17

28-

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts,

omissions, customs and practices of the defendanis, plaintiffs have suffered great mental and physical pain, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousnbss, anxiety, grief,
shock, humiliation, indignity, and embarrassment.

l8
t9
20

As a proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs sustained sever emotional injuries and requires
emotional treatment, and has incurred and

29.

will

continue to incur medical expenses

2l
22
ZJ

for said therapy in an amount according to proof attial.

The aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants were committed by each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent harm, injure, vex, harass and oppress plaintiffs with conscious disregard of

30.

24
25

26 27 "28

plaintiffs'constitutional rights and by reason thereo{ plaintiffs seek punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be proven
at trial.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 9

I z
J
A +

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiffs, have damaged as recited above and demands and is entitled to the damages, including,
3

1.

but not limited to, general and punitive damages and attorney's fees.

(Aeuiort D"f.rdunt COUNTy & CHIEF SANCHEZ)

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs above.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: MONEZZ ALLEGATIONS

3233.

9
10

Prior to March 24,2012, rhe DEFENDANT

cITy developed

and

maintained policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Black males which caused the violation of the plaintiffs,

ll
12
13

rights. Specifically, the DEFENDANT CHIEF continues to viliff Kendrec

as a

14 15 16 17 18

felon engaged in a felony that evening to distract from the undeniable fact that his officers killed and unarmed man. His officers police report are internally inconsistent and unbelievable. CHIEF SANCIEZ look Plaintiff SLAUGHTER the truth, yet he perpetrates the remarkably unbelievale story that Kendrec ran toward the police car and GRIFFIN could not get out quick enough while KENDREC approached holding his waistband GRIFFIN shot through the drivers side window while seated in his patrol car while fearing for his safety. It's a practice of the City and its policymakers not to address relevant question like: Wh weren't the patrol units video-recorders activated to capture the video and audio of
the incident

t9
20

2l
22
ZJ

34-

Witness accounts said there were no commands such as: "stop",

24
25

"halt", "police", "let me see your hands". And the police reports do not say these
orders were ever given to Kendrec McDade before he was gunned down. Instead of doing any real investigations the policy and practice at PPD is to quash the

26 27
28

community uproar with uninformative political style town hall meetings; divide and conquer concerned community groups by calling said meetings at or near the

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 10

same time as

NAACP events.

2
3

The defendant CITY and CHIEF was and is aware of the propensity t use racial profiling as probable cause for detention and subsequent racial profiling.

35. 36.

4
5

It was the policy and/or custom of the CITY to inadequately and

6
7 8 9 10
11

improperly investi gate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and acts of misconduct were instead tolerated by the CITY.

37.

It was the policy and/ or custom of the cITy to inadequately

supervise and train its officers, including the defendant officers, thereby

failing to discourage further constitutional violations on the part of their officers. The CITY did not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of deputies
who were known to have engaged in police misconduct. As a result of the above described policies and customs officers, including the defendant officers, believed that their actions would be ignored,
approved and ratified properly monitored by supervisors and that misconduct and excessive force would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.

12
13

38-

t4

l5
15

39-

The above-mentioned policies and customs demonstrated a deliberate

t7
18 19

indifference on the part of policymakers of the CITY to the constitutional right

of

persons within the CITY, specifically African American males, and were the cause

of the violations of the plaintiffs' rights alleged herein.

20

2l
22

z) ^a
24
25 26

27
28

CryIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL DEATH cCP
S

2
J
a

377.10(b) against

Crry,

GRTFFTN,

NEWLAN

and DOES 1-10 individuallv

4
5

6
7 8

Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained i the paragraphs above, and by this reference incorporates the same herein an
makes each a part hereof.

40.

41. 42-

On or about April 2, 2012, plaintiffs timely filed their claim

9
10
11

damages with the Pasadena City Clerk. pursuant to Govt Code Section 910.

Plaintiffs bring this action for wrongful death pursuant to provisions of Code of Civil Procedure S 377 (b) in that, at the time of Decedent
death, Plaintiffs were Decedent's heirs according to the provision of part 1 o Division 6 of the Probate Code, and also pursuant to Code of Civil procedure
377 (b) as the intestate successors in interest to the estate of decedent.

12
13

14 15

t6
17 18 19

43. At or about the aforementioned time, date and place, Defendan

intentionally, negligently and recklessly assaulted, battered and shot KEND McDADE to death thereby depriving decedent of his life without due process o

law in violation of his Constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteen
Amendments.

20

2l
22
23

on and for some time before March 24,2012, Defendant CITY. DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, negligently and carelessly employed
retained, trained, supervised, assigned, controlled and negligently and carelessl failed to adequately discipline Defendants GRIFFIN and NEWLEN, and each o

44.

24 25

26
27
28

them, at all times material herein knew or reasonably should have known dangerous and dishonest propensities for abusing their authority and for usi
excessive and punitive force and violence and

for falsifuing their accounts

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 12

l'rl tl lt
tl
I
2
J
a

ll

4
5

lcompanionship, ll

t1 have been and will forever be deprived of the love, affection, society,l lPlaintiffs tt support and pecuniary benefits of Decedent,
all to
Plaintiffd

lDefendants. II 45. By reason of the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendantsj |

proof.

lreRor"ts

of their actions, especially where

unreasonable force was used

by

saidl
I

6
7
8

t-l | |

ldamages in the sum of according to

46.

The aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants were done knowinqlvj and for the purpose of depriving Decedent of his

9 10

lintentionally lin reckless and callous disregard of the same, and by reason thereof, plaintiffJ l-'L-l exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof. lclaim

life and civil right{

""1

l1

t2
13

tt I
tl
I

rouRTH cAUSB oF ACTToN: VIOLATION OF THE RIZPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

14

^-----l (Aeainst GRIFFIN and NEWLEN)

above.

l5
t6 I7
18

47. 48.

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully

On or about the above stated dates, and sometime prior

set

forth herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs

I I

thereto, Defendants and each of them violated Plaintiffs civil rights, guaranteed by the -l
United States Constitution, federal law, the Califomia Constitution and the laws of the State of California thereby violating California Civil Code Sections 51.7.

l9
20

2l
22
23

49.

As

proximate result of the aforementioned acts of

Defendants, -l

and each of them,

Plaintiff suffered damage in a sum according to proof, and is

24
25

ilt
ilt
ilt

entitled to the damages, statutory damages, treble damages, attorney's fees costs provided for by the Civil Code.

and

I
I

l
I

26 27 28

t//l
CIVIL RIGHTS C'MPLAINT FoR DAMAGES -

l
I I

13

I
I

I
2
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
l - For special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial

4
5

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

2.

For compensatory and punitive damages except as to the

cITy,

as permitted by law and according to

proof at trial;

3. For costs of suit; 4. For attorneys fees; 5. For such other relief
Dated: 4l2ll2

as this

court deems just and proper"

l0
11

t2
13

Respectfully submitter LAW OFFICESOF C

l4
15

Attorney for Pl

t6
17 18 19

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by ju.y as to all issues and claims for relief.

20
21

Dated: 4t2t12

22
23

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES

24 25 26 27 28

By

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 14