Jeremy D. Jass, SBN 279466 - Courthouse News ServiceJeremy D. Jass, SBN 279466 [email protected] Jass Law 4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jeremy D. Jass, SBN 279466 [email protected] Jass Law 4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 340-6299 Attorney for Plaintiff MANUEL VASQUEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; STANLEY SNIFF, individually and as Sheriff for the Riverside Sheriff’s Department, INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CALLAHAN, individually and as Investigator for the Riverside Sheriff’s Department, ID 2782; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants.

Case No.: 5:17-cv-1365 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Supervisor Liability (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Monell Claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Assault and Battery Negligence Violation of State Civil Rights (Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Amount demanded exceeds $25,000)

Case 5:17-cv-01365-JGB-KK Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action for damages under

the laws of the State of California, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution and 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 First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2. Venue is proper in the Court because the parties reside in, and all incidents, events and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in, the County of Riverside, California.

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, MANUEL VASQUEZ, (“VASQUEZ” or “Plaintiff”), at all times herein mentioned, was a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California.

4. Defendant, County of Riverside (“the County”), is an incorporated municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and wholly located within the State of California. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant COUNTY possessed the power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations and practices affecting the operation of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department, and particularly said Department’s Patrol, Internal Investigations, Training and Personnel Divisions and other operations and subdivisions presently unidentified to Plaintiff, and their tactics, methods, practices, customs, and usages related to their dealings with the use and deployment of dangerous weapons, the use of force, the powers of arrest by its rank and file, internal investigations, personnel supervision and meaningful records review and maintenance.

5. The Riverside Sheriff’s Department (“the Department”) is an operating department of the County.



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. Defendant STANLEY SNIFF (“SNIFF”) is the Sheriff ice for the Riverside Sheriff’s Department. He maintained this position at all times relevant to these claims. In doing the things alleged herein, SNIFF acted under color of state law, and within the course and scope of his employment, and as an official policy maker for the County. As Sheriff, SNIFF is vested with policy-making authority over actions such as the one at issue in this claim.

7. Defendant JOHN DOE #1 (“DOE #1”) is a Supervisor with the Riverside Sheriff’s Department. He maintained this position at all times relevant to these claims. In doing the things alleged herein, DOE #1 acted under color of state law, and within the course and scope of his employment.

8. Defendant INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CALLAHAN, ID 2782 (“CALLAHAN”) is an Investigator with the Riverside Sheriff’s Department. He maintained this position at all times relevant to these claims. In doing the things alleged herein, CALLAHAN acted under color of state law, and within the course and scope of his employment.

9. Defendant DOES 1 through 50 are not known or identified at this time. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that each Doe is in some manner responsible for the wrongs alleged herein, and that each such Defendant advised, encouraged, participated in, ratified, directed, or conspired to do, the wrongful acts alleged herein. When the true names and capacities of said Defendants become known, Plaintiff will seek relief to amend this complaint to show their true identities in place of their fictitious names as DOES 1 through 50. Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees and servants of every other Defendant. Defendants acted in the course and scope of said agency, service and employment at all relevant times.

10. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants SNIFF, CALLAHAN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, were employees of the County of Riverside and the Riverside Sheriff’s Department.



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. At all times relevant, each individual Defendant was acting within the course and scope of their employment as law enforcement officers of the County, and under the color of state law, and as the employee, agent and representative of each and every other Defendant.

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE is intentionally and negligently responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages as herein alleged. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are not now known to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

13. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts and omissions hereinafter alleged in bad faith and with knowledge that their conduct violated well established and settled law.

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 14. On the morning of June 12, 2016, Vasquez drove to his girlfriend’s

mother’s house, located on Canyonstone in the City of Moreno Valley, to visit with his girlfriend. Plaintiff arrived at the home and parked his vehicle, then got out and went to the front door where he spoke with his girlfriend through the window near the front door, which was not unusual for them.

15. Plaintiff was driving his sister’s vehicle which she had previously reported as stolen.

16. The City of Moreno Valley contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for its police services.

17. A the same time as Plaintiff was driving to his girlfriend’s mother’s house, Callahan was working a patrol shift and noted that he observed a vehicle



5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

traveling south on Canyonstone and the driver was a male Hispanic with a shaved head.

18. Callahan watched the vehicle park on the north curbline, so he performed a U-turn and parked his vehicle. Callahan watched Mr. Vasquez walk up to the home on Canyonstone.

19. Callahan decided to follow Mr. Vasquez with his pistol out and crept up the driveway towards Plaintiff.

20. While Plaintiff was speaking to his girlfriend on the front porch of the home, Callahan ordered Plaintiff to “put his hands in the air.”

21. Plaintiff was not sure who was talking to him or what was said to him, and turned around to ask “What?”

22. Then Plaintiff began to put his hands up to comply with Callahan, and at that time Callahan carelessly, unnecessarily, and unreasonably shot at Plaintiff an excessive 13 times, striking him in the left hand, the head, and twice in the back, all despite Plaintiff’s ultimate cooperation.

23. Plaintiff was then arrested and transported to Riverside University Health System Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries.

24. Callahan then lied in his report and interview after the shooting to say he saw Plaintiff with a gun, and that Plaintiff took a shooting stance at him. These statements were made in an effort to conceal his abusive tactics and excessive force. These statements directly contradict the evidence that Plaintiff was shot in the back of the hand, the head, and the back.

25. After his arrest, Plaintiff subsequently pled guilty to California Penal Code § 666.5(a), vehicle theft in relation to driving his sister’s vehicle; and California Penal Code § 148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer in the performance of his duties in relation to turning to ask Callahan “What?”



6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. Plaintiff’s conviction for California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) related to his actions prior to the shooting, wherein Plaintiff turned to ask Callahan , “What?” when Callahan ordered Plaintiff to “put his hands in the air.” A significant amount of time had passed from the time of Plaintiff’s actions related to his California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) conviction and the time he was shot by Callahan. Furthermore, the use of force, including deadly force, was not a reasonable and necessary response to any passive resistance that Plaintiff presented. See Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885, 898 (claim that use of deadly force was not a reasonable response to criminal acts of resistance is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477).

27. Due to Defendants atrocious actions, Plaintiff has suffered extensive physical injuries. Plaintiff’s injuries continue and he requires ongoing medical treatment.

28. During the entire incident, Plaintiff was unarmed, defenseless, and made no furtive movements or gestures whatsoever.

29. The Defendants' brutal treatment of Plaintiff caused him to fear for his life and caused Plaintiff serious physical injury.

30. Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of state law as law enforcement officers of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department.

31. The Defendants' actions were reckless and callously indifferent to the Plaintiff’s federal and state protected rights.

32. The use of force against the Plaintiff was the result of the policy, practice and custom of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to inadequately supervise and discipline law enforcement officers who use excessive force, including deadly force.

33. The inadequate supervision and discipline of Sheriff’s deputies by the County of Riverside has led to the unnecessary and illegal use of excessive force, including deadly force.



7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34. The policy, practice and custom of the County of Riverside is that when deputies use excessive force, other officers do not intervene to prevent the use of the illegal force, do not arrest the officer engaging in the illegal activity, and do not report the illegal activity.

35. The policy, practice and custom of the County of Riverside with respect to allegations of excessive force reported by citizens, is to conduct a minimal investigation designed to exonerate the officer involved rather than discover the true facts of the incident.

36. As a result of this code of silence adhered to by Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputies and the inadequate investigation of allegations of the use of excessive force, deputies reasonably conclude that their use of excessive force will not result in discipline, termination, or criminal prosecution against them.

37. The above policies and practices have resulted in a culture of violence in which the use of excessive force is an accepted and customary part of police work in the County of Riverside.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE 38. Plaintiff refers to and re-pleads each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 37, inclusive, of this Complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same into each cause of action herein.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –

Unreasonable Seizure, Excessive and Deadly Force) Against Defendant CALLAHAN, and DOES 1-25, inclusive.

46. Commencing at or about the aforementioned date and place, without cause or justification, and acting under color of law, Defendants CALLAHAN and DOES 1 through 25 and each of them, intentionally and maliciously deprived Plaintiff of his rights secured to him by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that Defendants and each of



8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

them, subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive force during his arrest even though no strong government interest compelled the need for the officers to use force, especially the use of deadly force, including but not limited to doing the following:

a. Defendants used deadly force even though Plaintiff had not committed a serious crime, and even though he did not pose a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or to others;

b. Defendant Callahan fired his service weapon at Plaintiff thirteen times, striking him in the hand, head, and back; all while Plaintiff was unarmed and showing Defendant his hands as ordered, while attempting to comply with the confusing and conflicting orders of Callahan.

c. The force used was deadly because using a firearm against another is reasonably likely to cause serious injury and death.

e. Plaintiff did not and could not have posed a threat to Defendant at the time he was shot because he was complying with Callahan’s orders by showing him his empty hands. Further, when Plaintiff was struck he was in a position of submission, and had no weapon in his possession or on his person justifying the use of force against him. 47. At all times during the events described herein, Defendants Callahan,

and DOES 1 through 25 and each of them assisted each other in performing the various action described and lent their physical presence and support and authority of their office to each other during the event and engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the excessive use of force, by among other things, claiming that Plaintiff was resisting them.

48. The unreasonable use of deadly force by Defendants Callahan, and DOES 1 through 25 and each of them, deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff



9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.

49. As a legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as described, Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and suffering. Plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries and incurred medical bills for health care services necessary to treat those injuries. Plaintiff continues to experience pain and suffering from the injuries he sustained at the hands of Defendants.

50. The aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants were committed by each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, harass, and oppress Plaintiff, with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and conscious and deliberate indifference to the risk of death to Plaintiff, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, and each of them, (except Defendant County) in an amount as proved.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Substantive Due Process)

Against Defendants CALLAHAN, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive. 51. Plaintiff has a cognizable interest under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state actions that deprive him of life, liberty or property in such a manner as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference with his person. 52. As a result of the excessive force and failure to intervene by Defendants CALLAHAN, and DOES 1 through 25 and each of them, Plaintiff suffered horrible injuries. Defendants interfered with and permanently deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights to be free from such injuries.



10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

53. As a legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as described, Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and suffering. Plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries and incurred medical bills for health care services necessary to treat those injuries. Plaintiff continues to experience pain and suffering from the injuries he sustained at the hands of Defendants. 54. Defendants’ actions, along with other undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, and they acted with conscious and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and with the purpose of depriving him of such rights, unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective. 55. Defendants, and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts and omissions knowingly, willfully and maliciously, and with the intent to harm, injure, vex, harass and oppress Plaintiff with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s known rights and by reasons thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants individually, (except County) in an amount according to proof.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (SUPERVISOR LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Against Defendant DOE #1. 56. While acting under color of state law as a Supervisor in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Defendant DOE #1, knew or reasonably should have known that his subordinates, including Defendant Callahan and DOES 2 through 25, were engaging in the unlawful acts alleged herein and that his subordinates’ conduct was depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. 57. In doing the acts as alleged herein, Defendant DOE#1 inadequately trained, supervised and controlled his subordinate officers Defendants Callahan, and DOES 2 through 25; he acquiesced in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his subordinate officers’ use of excessive, unreasonable



11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and deadly force; and he acted in a manner that showed a reckless and callous indifference to the rights of others, specifically Plaintiff. 58. As a legal result of Defendant DOE #1’s actions and omissions as described, DOE #1 deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 59. As a legal result of Defendant DOE #1’s acts and omissions as described, Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and suffering. Plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries and incurred medical bills for health care services necessary to treat those injuries. Plaintiff continues to experience pain and suffering from the injuries he sustained at the hands of Defendants. 60. Defendant DOE #1 committed the aforementioned acts and omissions knowingly, willfully and maliciously, and with the intent to harm, injure, vex, harass and oppress Plaintiff with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s known rights and by reasons thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendant DOE #1 individually, in an amount according to proof.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (UNLAWFUL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Against Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, inclusive. 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that on October 17, 2016, and for some time prior thereto, Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, inclusive, with deliberate indifference towards the civil rights of persons residing in or passing through the County of Riverside, knowingly and willfully did maintain, enforce, and apply a custom, practice, policy and usage tending to encourage, promote, sanction, tolerate and ratify the abuse of authority, and the use of unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive force by law



12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

enforcement personnel they employed in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. 62. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, and each of them, were employees acting under Defendant COUNTY’s direction and control, who knowingly and intentionally promulgated, maintained, applied, enforced and suffered the continuation of policies, customs, practices and usages in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which customs, policies, practices and usages at all times herein mentioned required and encouraged the employment, deployment and retention of persons as peace officers who have demonstrated their brutality, dishonesty, and numerous other serious abuses of their powers as peace officers in the employment of the COUNTY. 63. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, inclusive, have demonstrated their deliberate indifference to widespread law enforcement abuses by failing and refusing to impartially investigate personnel complaints, failing to discipline or prosecute peace officers who commit acts of felonious dishonesty and crimes of violence. 64. The unconstitutional policies, practices or customs promulgated, sanctioned or tolerated by Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 include, but are not limited to:

a. Hiring and retaining law enforcement personnel, including Defendants SNIFF, CALLAHAN, and DOES 1 through 25, who lack sufficient mental, emotional and intellectual character, temperament, capacity or disposition to exercise sound judgment when exercising their authority as peace officers;

b. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 had knowledge, prior to and since this incident, of repeated allegations against its officers of abuse and assaultive misconduct toward detainees and arrestees.



13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Specifically, COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 knew Defendants had in the past committed acts of law enforcement abuse, dishonesty and prevarication;

c. Despite the COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50’s knowledge of abuse and misconduct, it failed or refused to enforce established administrative procedures, to ensure the safety of detainees and arrestees;

d. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 failed to adequately train and educate officers in the use of reasonable and proper force and failed to enforce the DEPARTMENT’s written regulations with respect to uses of force;

e. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, encouraged, condoned, failed to enforce the DEPARTMENT’s written regulations with respect to the laws and procedures of arrest, and refused to re-train officers who arrested citizens without probable cause and who used arrests as punishments for perceived “contempt of cop” and for citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights;

f. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 failed to adequately monitor and supervise the actions of officer under their control and guidance;

g. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 refused to competently and impartially investigate allegations of abuse and misconduct alleged to have been committed by Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputies;

h. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 refused to adequately discipline individual officers and employees found to have committed similar acts of abuse and misconduct;



14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 rewarded officers who displayed aggressive and abusive behavior towards detainees and arrestees;

j. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 reprimanded, threatened, intimidated, demoted and fired officers who reported acts of abuse by other officers;

k. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 condoned and encouraged a conspiracy of silence among their employees for he purpose of concealing and furthering wrongful and illegal conduct by their employees;

l. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50 fostered and encouraged an atmosphere of lawlessness, abuse and unconstitutional misconduct, as to encourage their officers to believe that improper arrest of residents of the County of Riverside, or persons present therein, the excessive and improper use of force, the submission of false police reports, and the commission of perjury was permissible and would be tolerated, and to believe that the unlawful acts of falsification of evidence and perjury would be overlooked without discipline or other official ramifications.

65. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices called for the COUNTY and its Sheriff’s Department not to discipline, prosecute, or objectively and /or independently investigate or in any way deal with, or respond to, known incidents and complaints of excessive and improper use of force, false arrest, falsification of evidence, the preparation of false police reports to justify, cover up and conceal wrongful conduct by Officers of the Department. Defendants demonstrated their deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional conduct by their failure to adequately train and more closely supervise or re-train officers and/or discipline or recommend prosecution of those officers who in fact improperly used



15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

such force, falsified evidence, submitted false and misleading police reports, and/or committed perjury. 66. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices also called for and led to the refusal by Defendants, and each of them, to investigate complaints of previous incidents of excessive and improper use of force, the filing of false police reports to conceal such misconduct, the falsification of evidence and perjury; and instead, officially claim that such incidents were justified and proper. 67. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices of Defendants, and each of them, evidenced a deliberate indifference to the violations of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. This indifference was manifested by the failure to change, correct, revoke or rescind said policies, procedures, customs and practices in light of prior knowledge by Defendants, and each of them, and their subordinate policymakers, of indistinguishably similar incidents of excessive and improper use of force, falsification of evidence, submission of false police reports and perjury. 68. Defendants, and each of them, demonstrated their deliberate indifference to the civil rights of minority groups and other victims of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s unlawful arrest, falsified evidence, false and misleading police reports and false and perjurious testimony by ignoring the history and pattern of prior civil lawsuits alleging civil rights violations arising from such misconduct and the related payment of damages to such individual. 69. Defendants, and each of them, demonstrated their deliberate indifference by an absence of or by maintenance of an inadequate system of use of force tracking, and maintenance of an inadequate system of officer discipline and independent and objective investigation by the COUNTY and its Sheriff’s Department which failed to identify and investigate instances of false and unlawful arrests, falsification of evidence, submission of false police reports and perjury.



16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

70. Other system deficiencies which indicated and continue to indicate, a deliberate indifference to civil rights violations by Deputies of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department include:

a. Preparation of investigative reports designed to vindicate and/or justify excessive and improper use of force;

b. Preparation of investigative reports which uncritically rely solely on the word of Riverside Sheriff’s Deputies involved in unlawful arrests or improper use of force which systematically fail to credit testimony by non-officer witnesses;

c. Preparation of investigative reports which omit factual information any physical evidence which contradicts the accounts of the officers involved;

d. Failure to maintain centralized department-wide systems for the tracking and monitoring of tort claims and lawsuits alleging false arrests, excessive and improper use of force, planting of evidence, perjury, abuse of authority, and other similar misconduct by individual officers so as to identify those officers who engage in a pattern of abuse of law enforcement authority and law enforcement misconduct.

71. Defendants, and each of them, also maintained a system of grossly inadequate training pertaining to lawful arrests, reasonable use of force, law enforcement ethics, the law pertaining to searches and seizures, testifying in trial and perjury, the collection of evidence, and the preparation of police reports. 72. Defendants, and each of them, demonstrated their deliberate indifference to the victims of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s unlawful arrests, excessive and improper uses of force, and perjury by failing to implement an officer discipline system which would conduct meaningful and independent investigations of citizen complaints of excessive force, falsified



17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

evidence, evidence tampering, authoring and filing of false and misleading police reports, and the presentation of false testimony at trial. 73. The foregoing acts, omissions, and systematic deficiencies are policies and customs of Defendants, and each of them, which caused, permitted and/or allowed under official sanction Defendants CALLAHAN, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, to believe that excessive and improper uses of force, evidence falsification, false arrests and the filing of false and misleading police reports, and the commission of perjury would not be objectively, thoroughly and/or properly investigated, all with the foreseeable result that defendants’ officers would improperly use force on arrestees, falsify evidence, abuse and improperly punish post-arrest detainees, submit false and misleading police reports, and commit perjury, and thereby violate the civil rights of the citizens of this State with whom said officers would come into contact. 74. By reason of the aforesaid policies, customs, practices and usages, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 75. As a legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as described, Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and suffering. Plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries and incurred medical bills for health care services necessary to treat those injuries. Plaintiff continues to experience pain and suffering from the injuries he sustained at the hands of Defendants. 76. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe mental anguish, emotional distress, and financial losses, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum according to proof. // // // //



18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (ASSAULT AND BATTERY)

Against All Defendants. 77. At or about the dates, time and places alleged herein, Defendants,

without provocation, warrant, necessity, or legal justification, assaulted and battered Plaintiff by unreasonably, unnecessarily, and unjustifiably shooting Plaintiff in the hand, head, and back, and did subject Plaintiff to verbal threats and unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force and violence, thereby causing Plaintiff’s injuries as herein described.

78. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that defendants, COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, and each of them, are responsible for implementing, maintaining, sanctioning, ratifying and/or condoning a policy, custom, or practice under which the individual Defendants committed the aforementioned illegal and wrongful acts.

79. Defendants COUNTY, SNIFF, and DOES 26 through 50, and each of them, are vicariously liable for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff because they knew or should have known of the customs, practices, policies and acts of the individual Defendant police officers who caused Plaintiff’s injuries, and authorized and acquiesced in such customs, practices and policies and the commission of such acts.

80. As a legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as heretofore described, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and incurred medical bills for health care services necessary to treat those injuries.

81. Defendants, and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts and omissions knowingly, willfully and maliciously, and with the intent to harm, injure, vex, harass and oppress Plaintiff with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s known rights and deliberate indifference to the risk of injury to Plaintiff. By reason



19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants individually, (except the COUNTY) in an amount according to proof.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE)

Against All Defendants 82. On or about the dates, time and places alleged herein, Defendants

were charged with the duty to protect and serve the citizens of Riverside County, including ensuring their safety. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants had received training as law enforcment officers to use good judgment and use sound and reasonable police practices toward that end. Defendants also owed the public, including Plaintiff, the duty to not cause harm.

83. Defendants, and each of them, breached these duties by injuring Plaintiff, and in doing so they negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to employ reason and restraint, effective communication techniques, proper control holds, and other similar methods inherent in their employment and training that were available to them, to ensure Plaintiff’s safety. To wit, Defendant CALLAHAN used improper tactics against Plaintiff and escalated the need to use force, and increased the use of force under situations likely to exacerbate the situation instead of controlling it and protecting Plaintiff’s safety. CALLAHAN was careless in firing his weapon at Plaintiff thirteen times, striking Plaintiff in the hand, head, and back.

84. As a legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as heretofore described, Plaintiff was injured.


86. Defendants, and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts and omissions knowingly, willfully and maliciously, and with the intent to harm,



20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injure, vex, harass and oppress Plaintiff with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s known rights and deliberate indifference to the risk of injury to Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants individually, (except the COUNTY) in an amount according to proof.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF TOM BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT [California Civil Code

§51, 51.7, 52, 52.1]) Against All Defendants

87. On or about the dates, time and places alleged herein, Defendant Police Officers, while acting in the course and scope of their employment as Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputies, and under color of state law, did deprive Plaintiff of his liberty and rights secured to him by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, by Article 1, §13 of the California Constitution and Civil Code § 51.7, to be free from violence and intimidation, in that on or about said date, time and places said Defendants knowingly and willfully, and without warrant or legal justification and for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, humiliating and inflicting injury, pain and suffering upon Plaintiff, said defendants did assault, batter, and harm Plaintiff on his head, hand and back, subjecting Plaintiff to threats of violence and unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force, as said Defendants at all material times knew or reasonably should have known, were all without provocation, warrant, necessity or legal justification, thereby causing serious injuries to Plaintiff.


89. The aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants were committed by each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent to



21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

harm, injure, vex, harass and oppress Plaintiff with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and by reason thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, (except Defendant COUNTY) in an amount as proved.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants and each of them, as follows: AS TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION AS APPLICABLE

1. For General damages according to proof; 2. For Special damages according to proof; 3. For Exemplary damages as provided by law, in an amount to be

proved against each individual Defendant; 4. For Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code § 52; 5. For Attorney’s Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Civil Code §§

52 and 52.1; 6. For Costs of suit; 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Dated: July 6, 2017 Jass Law /s/ Jeremy Jass _____________________ Jeremy Jass Attorneys for Plaintiff, MANUEL VASQUEZ



22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff MANUEL VASQUEZ hereby demands a trial by jury. Dated: July 6, 2017 Jass Law /s/ Jeremy Jass _____________________ Jeremy Jass Attorneys for Plaintiff, MANUEL VASQUEZ


Documents

Jeremy D. Jass, SBN 279466 - Courthouse News ServiceJeremy D. Jass, SBN 279466 [email protected] Jass Law 4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: