I/I I/I 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Transcription

1 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of Shawn A. McMillan, Esq. (State Bar No ) attyshawn@netscape.net Stephen D. Daner,Esq. (State Bar No ) steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com Samuel H. Park, Esq.-(State Bar No ) samuel@muanpark.com THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, A.P.C Via Lapiz San Diego, California Phone: (858) Fax: (206) Attorneys for Plaintiff, ARTEA DUNN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARTEA DUNN, an individual; A.B., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, VS. Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; LORENA ORTIZ, in her individual capacity; SARAH KNEELAND, in her individual capacity; SARAH STURM, in her individual! capacity; ALLISON LUCKEY, in her individual capacity; URSULA MCGOWA,in N her individual capacity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: Claim 1: Violation of Federal Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) Claim 2: Monell-Related Claims Claim 3: Violation of State Civil Rights Claim 4: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim 5: Assault Claim 6: Battery '13CV0209 JAH KSC Claim 7: False Imprisonment Claim 8: Abuse of Process Claim 9: Invasion of Privacy Claim 10: Declaratory Relief Claim 11: Negligence [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] I/I I/I 1

2 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of I Plaintiffs, ARTEA DUNN ("Artea Dunn" or "Dunn") and A.B., by and through his guardian ad litem, respectfully represent and allege as follows: JURISDICTION 1. Artea Dunn and A.B. bring this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to redress the deprivation by Defendants, at all times herein acting under color of state law, of rights secured to Plaintiffs under the United States Constitution, including the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and under federal and state law. 2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. sections 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4), which provide for original jurisdiction in this Court of all suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section Jurisdiction is also conferred by 28 U.S.C. section 1331 because claims for relief derive from the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims of Plaintiffs based on state laws, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section PARTIES 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs were residents of the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, California. Plaintiff ARTEA DUNN is the mother of minor Plaintiff, A.B. (a fictitious name is used herein to protect the minor's privacy). At the time the incidents giving rise to the causes of action in this Complaint occurred, A.B. was eight (8) years old. 4. At all times applicable herein, the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO was and is a public entity ("County" or "County of San Diego"). 5. At all times applicable herein, the SAN DIEGO HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY ("HHSA") was and is a subdivision, entity, or administrative arm of the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. 6. At all times applicable herein, social worker LORENA ORTIZ ("Lorena Ortiz" or "Ortiz") was an individual residing, on information and belief, 2

3 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 3 of 40 1 in the County of San Diego, and an officer, agent, and/or employee of County and 2 HHSA. Defendant Ortiz is sued herein in her individual capacity as an employee 3 of the County of San Diego At all times applicable herein, social worker SARAH KNEELANID 5 ("Sarah Kneeland" or "Kneeland") was an individual residing, on information and 6 belief, in the County of San Diego, and an officer, agent, and/or employee of 7 County and HHSA. Defendant Kneeland is sued herein in her individual capacity 8 as an employee of the County of San Diego At all times applicable herein, social worker SARAH STURM 10 ("Sarah Sturm" or "Sturm") was an individual residing, on information and belief, 11 in the County of San Diego, and an officer, agent, and/or employee of County and 12 HHSA. Defendant Sturm is sued herein in her individual capacity an employee of 13 the County of San Diego At all times applicable herein, social worker ALLISON LUCKEY 15 ("Allison Luckey" or "Luckey") was an individual residing, on information and 16 belief, in the County of San Diego, and an officer, agent, and/or employee of 17 County and HHSA. Defendant Luckey is sued herein in her individual capacity as 18 an employee of the County of San Diego At all times applicable herein, social worker URSULA MCGOWAN 20 ("Ursula McGowan" or "McGowan") was an individual residing, on information 21 and belief, in the County of San Diego, and an officer, agent, and/or employee of 22 County and HHSA. Defendant McGowan is sued herein in her individual 23 capacity as an employee of the County of San Diego Hereinafter, when referred to collectively, the Defendants in 25 paragraphs 6 through 10, inclusive, will be referred to as Social Worker 26 Defendants Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are sued as fictitious names, their 28 true names and capacities being unknown to Plaintiff. When ascertained, Plaintiff 3

4 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 4 of 40 1 will amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities. Plaintiff is 2 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named 3 Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and 4 those Defendants proximately caused, are responsible for and/or legally liable for 5 Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged. Each reference in this complaint to 6 "Defendant," "Defendants," or a specifically named Defendant refers to and 7 includes all Defendants sued under fictitious names. On information and belief, 8 Plaintiff makes all allegations contained in this Complaint against all Defendants, 9 including DOES 1 through Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act of 11 Defendants, such allegations shall be deemed to mean all named Defendants and 12 DOES 1 through 50, or their officers, agents, managers, representatives, 13 employees, heirs, assignees, customers, tenants, did or authorized such acts while 14 actively engaged in the operation, management, direction or control of the affairs 15 of Defendants and while acting within the course and scope of their duties, except 16 as specifically alleged to the contrary At all times herein mentioned and with respect to the specific matters 18 alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff is informed and believes that each Defendant 19 (including DOES 1 through 50), was a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, alter ego, 20 partner, agent, franchisee, licensee, employee, employer, controlling franchiser, 21 controlling licensor, principal, and/or joint venturer of each of the remaining 22 Defendants, and was at all times acting within the course and scope of such 23 agency, service, employment, control and/or joint venture, and each defendant has 24 ratified, approved, conspired in, profited from and/or authorized the acts of each of 25 the remaining Defendants and/or failed to prevent such acts when having the 26 power and/or duty to do so, with full knowledge of said acts

5 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 5 of 40 I COMMON ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on April 3 18, 2012, a County of San Diego Health & Human Services Agency (HHSA) 4 employee, as a matter of course, generated a "companion referral" concerning 5 Artea Dunn and her son, A.B., following the opening of an different referral 6 alleging that A.B.'s father, Kettrell Berry, sexually abused a 15 year old minor 7 female at the school where he was employed. At the time said referrals were EI opened, Plaintiff informally shared custody of A.B. with Kettrell Berry, 9 approximately 50150, but lived in separate households On further information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that on April 20, , social worker Allison Luckey made an unannounced visit to the home of 12 Kettrell Berry. She spoke with A.B. and noted no outward signs of abuse to the 13 boy, and did not immediately remove the child from the father's care On May 4, 2012, Kettrell Berry was booked and charged with sexual 15 abuse of the 15 year old minor female, mentioned above Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, several 17 days later, on May 7, 2012, social worker Sarah Sturm arrived at A.B.'s elementary school. Sturm did not provide advance notice to Plaintiff, nor did she 19 obtain her consent, or a warrant to do any of the following. Plaintiff is informed 20 and believes and thereon alleges that Sturm contacted the principal of the school, 21 had A.B. summoned to an office, and began to conduct a lengthy "interview" of 22 A.B., asking numerous questions invasive of Plaintiffs' familial privacy. Plaintiff 23 is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that Sturm "assessed" A.B. for a 24 number of different types of abuse, including sexual abuse. Defendant Sturm did 25 not have parental authorization, a warrant or court order authorizing her to commit 26 such actions outside the presence of A.B.' s mother, Artea Dunn. In addition, there 27 were no exigent circumstances justifying said warrantless search, seizure, and/or 28 interrogation of A.B. 5

6 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 6 of Plaintiff is further informed and believes thereon alleges that social 2 worker Sturm demanded and obtained A.B.'s school records, again, without a 3 warrant, parental consent, or exigent circumstances. Based on the information 4 obtained in A.B.'s school records, Sturm was able to, and did, contact Plaintiff 5 Dunn by phone. Sturm sounded concerned and said that she wanted to discuss 6 ways for HHSA to "help" Plaintiff with A.B. and to cope with the situation at 7 hand. Sturm requested that Plaintiff stop by HHSA offices after she picked up 8 A.B. from school. Sturm led Plaintiff to believe that HHSA would help explain 9 A.B.'s father's situation to him and would offer any necessary assistance in 10 counseling A.B. During this conversation, Sturm did not express, state, or 11 mention that, if Plaintiff brought her son to the HHSA office, there was a risk that 12 social workers would seize A.B Late in the afternoon, the same day, Artea arrived with A.B. at HHSA 14 offices to see social worker Sturm. Sturm led Plaintiff to a conference room and 15 told her to wait while she placed A.B. in a play area. Plaintiff is informed and 16 believes and thereon alleges that Sturm left A.B. with social worker Sarah 17 Kneeland. When Sturm returned, she began to question Plaintiff Dunn at length, regarding the circumstances of Kettrell Berry's arrest. Plaintiff informed Sturm of 19 what she knew, including that Kettrell Berry's wife, Kateena Bugg, had 20 unsuccessfully attempted to bail out Kettrell Sturm eventually asked Plaintiff to sign a "Safety Plan." Plaintiff 22 declined to do so, stating that she did not want to sign anything at that time. Sturm 23 moved Plaintiff to defendant Lorena Ortiz's office, where the questioning took a 24 decidedly harsh and adversarial nature. Sturm and Ortiz demanded to know if 25 Plaintiff believed the allegations against A.B.'s father that led to his arrest, and 26 whether she believed the father might have sexually abused A.B. as well. When 27 Plaintiff stated that she did not believe Mr. Berry had ever molested his son, and 28 observed that at this point the case against Mr. Berry was fresh and consisted of 6

7 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 7 of 40 1 unproven allegations, the social workers became upset. Defendants Sturm and 2 Ortiz asked whether she had any "plans" on going to Court and filing for full 3 custody of A.B., and whether Artea had considered the propriety of unsupervised 4 visitation between Mr. Berry and his son, if he made bail. Although, ostensibly 5 couched as an inquiry, the menacing tone taken by social workers Sturm and Ortiz 6 advised Plaintiff that these were not even suggestions; they were orders. Social 7 workers Sturm and Ortiz demanded that Artea sign a "Safety Plan," agreeing to 8 keep A.B. away from his father, file for full custody from the family court, and 9 seek supervised visitation, only, as between A.B. and his father, Kettrell Artea was confused and bewildered, as the father, Kettrell, was still in 11 jail, and the allegations against him did not suggest that Kettrell was bisexual, or 12 abused family members, or even very young children. Artea told the social 13 workers that she did not wish to sign any "Safety Plans," because she did not 14 know the full consequences of signing off on such a plan. In addition, though she 15 repeatedly pressed the social workers for reasons why any Safety Plan needed to 16 be signed at all, they would not provide a reasonable explanation. None of the 17 social workers articulated any basis for believing that Kettrell Berry represented a 18 threat of harm to A.B., much less an immediate threat. After all, he was 19 incarcerated at this time As the interrogation and coercion continued, Artea grew increasingly 21 fatigued, stressed out, and thirsty. Artea told social workers Sturm and Ortiz that 22 she felt that the small room did not have enough air, and that she felt like she was 23 being interrogated. Artea told social workers Sturm and Ortiz that, had she known 24 she would have been treated in this manner, she would not have come down to 25 HHSA offices voluntarily. Social workers Sturm and Ortiz completely ignored 26 Artea's complaints. When Artea asked whether she could call her mother, Ranza 27 Dunn, to seek her advice, social worker supervisor, Lorena Ortiz, got on the phone 28 7

8 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 8 of 40 1 and called in yet another social worker, Ursula McGowan. However, Artea was 2 allowed to phone her mother, Ranza Dunn Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that after 4 placing the phone call to McGowan, social worker Ortiz left the office and fetched 5 two security guards. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege 6 that social worker Ortiz, accompanied by two security guards, met Ursula 7 McGowan outside of the room, and explained to her that they were having trouble 8 getting Plaintiff Dunn to sign a Safety Plan. Ortiz instructed Ursula McGowan, 9 who had just arrived, to speak to Artea' s mother, Ranza Dunn, to see if she could 10 enlist her support in convincing Artea to sign a Safety Plan. McGowan 11 interrupted the telephone conversation between Artea and her mother, and began a 12 conversation with Ranza Dunn Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, maternal 14 grandmother, Ranza Dunn, rather than supporting HHSA's request, asked social 15 worker McGowan whether Artea and A.B. were under arrest, and, if not, whether 16 they were going to arrest her if she tried to leave the building. Social worker 17 McGowan responded that they were not law enforcement and therefore could not 18 prevent Artea from leaving. Ranza asked whether Artea could leave with her 19 child. Social worker McGowan backpedaled, saying that she did not know the 20 particulars of the case, so she could not say whether that was possible or not. 21 McGowan disclosed that they wanted Artea to sign a Safety Plan. However, when 22 McGowan could see that she would gain no traction with Ranza, she handed the 23 phone back to Artea Ranza admonished Artea for even going down to the HHSA offices, 25 without an attorney, and instructed her to immediately get up and leave with her 26 son. Ranza told Artea she did not need to sign any paperwork, and should not sign 27 anything, without fully understanding the implications of doing so. Artea was 28 advised to get up and go. 8

9 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 9 of McGowan introduced herself to Artea and told her she needed to sign 2 a safety plan. Artea stated that she could not do so at that time. Artea explained 3 that she could not make any such decision, on the spot, and needed more time. 4 Artea reasonably suggested that she be provided at least two additional days to 5 think the matter over, and to obtain legal advice concerning the implications of 6 signing Defendants' Safety Plan. McGowan, who, on information and belief, 7 knew nothing about the particulars of Artea's case, forcefully reiterated that Artea 8 did not understand, Artea needed to sign the Safety Plan! McGowan indicated 9 that the only comprise she could offer, was for Artea to draft the Safety Plan, 10 herself, and sign it. Artea said she would not sign any Safety Plan that day Meanwhile, in a separate play room, social worker Sarah Kneeland 12 oversaw A.B. as he watched movies and played with toys. Kneeland began to 13 engage the child in a highly inappropriate conversation involving intimate and 14 private matters, including the charges leveled against his father and the 15 circumstances surrounding his arrest and incarceration. When the child expressed 16 worry about his father's safety, and the possibility his father could die in jail while 17 awaiting trial, social worker Kneeland hauntingly said, "some people stay in jail 18 their whole lives, and just being in jail does not mean people will die." A.B.'s 19 stomach turned and A.B. became afraid when he heard Kneeland' s cruel and 20 insensitive words At some point, social worker Lorena Ortiz appeared in the playroom, 22 and instructed defendant Kneeland to seize A.B. and take him to Polinsky 23 Children's Center, a facility under the ownership, management, stewardship 24 and/or control of the County of San Diego. Social worker Ortiz did so 25 surreptitiously, without notice to Plaintiff, and without seeking her consent. Nor, 26 did Lorena Ortiz, Sarah Kneeland, or any other social worker seek and/or obtain 27 judicial authorization to remove A.B. from the care and custody of his mother, 28 Plaintiff Artea Dunn. Further, each and every one of the social workers, herein 9

10 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 10 of 40 mentioned, knew that exigent circumstances did not support removal of the child, 2 A.B., since they had waited no less than nineteen (19) days from the day the El "referral" had been generated to the time they forcibly removed A.B. from his mother's care. None of the of the Social Worker Defendants possessed any 5 evidence to suggest that A.B. was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or 6 death at the hands of his mother. Further, HHSA social workers previously visited 7 A.B. at his father, Kettrell Berry's, house, but at that time the social workers did 8 not remove A.B. from Kettrell Berry's care or custody Based on information, including Sturm's instruction to Plaintiff to 10 bring her son to HHSA offices, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 11 alleges that defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan jointly 12 collaborated with each other in executing a bad faith plan to coerce Plaintiff into 13 signing a Safety Plan, and to seize her son if she refused to comply. Said 14 agreement(s) were made by and between each of Defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, 15 Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan, inasmuch as each Social Worker Defendant 16 expressly entered into such agreement or plan; impliedly agreed; conformed to 17 policies, practices, and/or customs of HHSA and County of San Diego that 18 dictated removal of a child when a parent refuses to sign a "Safety Plan;" ratified, 19 approved, and/or authorized the seizure; and/or aided and abetted the other 20 defendants in doing the things herein alleged When Plaintiff Artea Dunn learned that her son had been snatched 22 while she was engaged in discussion with social workers, her entire world seemed 23 to shrink and nearly shutdown. Artea involuntarily let out a piercing scream. 24 When she regained some of her senses. She questioned the Defendants, "I thought 25 you said, I was going to get my son back!" The two security guards that earlier 26 accompanied social worker Ortiz closed in on Artea. One of them placed a hand 27 on Artea's shoulder and told her to leave the building - without her son. Artea, 28 who was already oriented towards the door, jerked around and warned, "Don't you 10

11 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 11 of 40 1 put your hands on me." The security guard, again, placed his hand on Artea' s 2 shoulder and pushed her towards the door. Artea, turned around and said, in 3 substance, "I said, don't touch me!" When the officer placed his hand, again, on 4 Artêa' s shoulder, Artea, distraught over the theft of her son, and the deplorable 5 treatment she was receiving, lashed out and attempted to hit the security officer, 6 whereupon she was wrestled to the ground. Artea, in an abject state of utter 7 powerlessness, terror, and distress, cried, sobbed, and rocked back and forth on the 8 ground, holding herself After the altercation with the security guard, McGowan instructed 10 Artea to sit in the play area. McGowan told Artea, "you don't want to go out like 11 this; keep your head up." McGowan handed Artea a wet napkin and told her that 12 Artea would get her son back in a couple of days. Artea angrily replied, "You 13 have no right to take my son for not signing a safety plan. Why do I have to 14 wait?" McGowan did not provide any reasons, but stated that, if Artea believed in 15 a higher being, she should pray to Him Eventually, social worker McGowan escorted Plaintiff to the lobby of 17 the HHSA building, where two San Diego Police Department officers awaited. 18 One of the police officers told Plaintiff that "when you enter a place of business 19 you need to know how to act." Ironically, had Plaintiff known of the way that 20 these Social Worker Defendants would act, she would never have entered that 21 establishment. McGowan said that she would walk Plaintiff to the door, further 22 humiliating Plaintiff Despite the fact that A.B. was unlawfully and unceremoniously 24 abducted and held hostage at Polinsky Children's Center, without Plaintiff's 25 consent, and though Plaintiff had done nothing wrong, Plaintiff Dunn could not 26 allow A.B. to remain in such a horrible and hazardous situation. That evening, 27 Dunn, called Polinsky Children's Center to see if she could speak with her son. 28 Social worker Sarah Kneeland fielded Artea's phone call. Artea immediately and 11

12 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 12 of 40 1 profusely apologized to Kneeland, stating that she had no idea that the social 2 workers would seize her child for not signing the Safety Plan, and explained that 3 she would sign and/or do anything the Defendants asked in order to get her child 4 back. Social Worker Kneeland instructed Plaintiff to not go to Polinsky to see her 5 son, as that would "only make matters worse." The following day, on May 8, 2012, Artea called social worker 7 supervisor Lorena Ortiz. She, again, apologized profusely for her behavior and 8 indicated that she would sign anything in order to get her son back That same day, social workers, Allison Luckey and Sarah Sturm, 10 attended Kettrell Berry's arraignment hearing. At said hearing, the presiding 11 judge ordered Kettrell Berry to not have any contact with the alleged victim or any 12 other children, other than his own children. Plaintiff is informed and believes and 13 thereon alleges that, had the Court deemed Kettrell Berry a danger to his own 14 children - his family members - the Court would have banned Mr. Berry from 15 having contact with any children at all. Yet, at that very moment, the County held 16 A.B. hostage at Polinsky Children's Center from Artea. Had Plaintiff signed the 17 County's "Safety Plan," the evening prior, Plaintiff is informed and believes and 18 thereon alleges that, social workers Sturm and Luckey were prepared to report to 19 the Court that the visitation between father and son should be supervised, only Thus, by May 8, 2012, the Social Worker Defendants and HHSA 21 knew or should have known that Artea posed no risk to her son; that they had 22 committed a grievous constitutional wrong; and that they should immediately 23 return A.B. to Artea's care. Instead, the Social Worker Defendants began to plot 24 and scheme of a way to return A.B. to Artea, so that it would at least appear that 25 Artea agreed, in hindsight, that a basis existed for removal of A.B. The Social 26 Worker Defendants never filed a Juvenile Dependency Petition or a Detention 27 Report, where they would need to explain to the juvenile court the reason for 28 seizing A.B. without judicial authorization or parental consent. Plaintiff is 12

13 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 13 of 40 1 informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Social Worker Defendants did 2 not bring the seizure of A.B. to the attention of the Court because they knew that 3 their actions were unjustified, inexcusable, unlawful and completely devoid of any 4 good reason The following day, on May 9, 2012, despite having personally heard 6 the Court's order, permitting Kettrell Berry to contact his own children, social 7 worker Allison Luckey moved forward with the plan to coerce Artea Dunn into 8 signing a Safety Plan, meeting with Plaintiff at her home. Artea showed defendant 9 Luckey the paperwork she obtained from the Family Court, regarding her request 10 to obtain full custody and supervised contact between A.B. and his father, Kettrell. 11 Social worker Luckey produced a Safety Plan that she drafted with Lorena Ortiz, 12 and provided it to Plaintiff for her signature. Before signing the Safety Plan, 13 Plaintiff inquired whether signing the Safety Plan was voluntarily or not. 14 Defendant Luckey stated, in substance, that "noone from the Agency is making 15 you sign this Safety Plan, but it is an understanding that you and the Agency agree 16 that your son is better protected with a Safety Plan in place." Artea exclaimed, 17 "why, then, did you take my son into custody in the first place?" Luckey feigned 18 ignorance, and tried to excuse herself by stating that she was not present for the 19 interviews that day. Luckey indicated, however, that her supervisor informed her 20 that Artea's son was taken because Artea was "unable at that time to develop or 21 follow a safety plan." Obviously, this is not a legal basis to seize the child and 22 any/every reasonable social worker in these Defendants' position and 23 circumstances knows it It is a classic Catch-22: You can choose not to sign the "voluntary" 25 Safety Plan, but we'll snatch your child; or, sign the "voluntary" Safety Plan, and 26 now you've given up important rights, and are part of our system - but at least we 27 won't unlawfully snatch your precious baby

14 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 14 of Artea, nevertheless, had no choice but to sign the Social Worker 2 Defendants' Safety Plan, because, as she disclosed to Luckey, the County was 3 holding her son hostage, and Plaintiff felt she had to do whatever it took to get her 4 son out of Polin sky Children's Center. This was the only reason why Plaintiff 5 signed anything at all; she certainly did not share any understanding with HHSA 6 that A.B. was better protected with a Safety Plan. Although each of the Social 7 Worker Defendants had variously indicated to Plaintiff that entering into the 8 Safety Plan was "voluntary," Artea's child was taken because of her refusal to sign 9 a Safety Plan. Thus, Artea knew that continued refusal would not help her cause, 10 i.e., continued refusal to sign would not get her son released to her care. In 11 addition, A.B. was quickly decompensating while in the County's care, as he was 12 overcome with worry about his father's incarceration, his own confinement, and 13 his mother's well being. A.B. began to have trouble sleeping and lost his appetite. 14 As a consequence, any "consent" obtained by defendant Luckey from Artea in 15 entering into a Safety Plan was vitiated by fraud and duress Social worker Luckey also demanded, and obtained, an agreement 17 from Artea to attend "therapeutic services" for herself and her son, and to provide 18 proof of such to HHSA. Said additional requirement was also highly invasive of 19 Plaintiffs' privacy, demeaning, and humiliating Later that day, after Plaintiff signed the Safety Plan, HHSA released 21 A.B. back into Plaintiff's care. A.B.'s Nintendo DS, however, was not 22 immediately released. When Artea inquired about the portable electronic device, 23 social worker Luckey offered to bring it by Artea' s home. Artea opted to pick up 24 the Nintendo DS from HHSA Offices, replying,"! don't want you at my house ever 25 again!" 26 I/I 27 III 28 I/I 14

15 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 15 of 40 1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. 1983) C] COUNT 1 4 (Familial Association, Privacy, Warrantless Seizure and Examination of 5 Child at School; By All Plaintiffs Against Social Worker Defendants; and 6 DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive) Plaintiffs reallege, and incorporate herein as if set forth in full, all of 8 the preceding paragraphs Plaintiffs, Artea Dunn and A.B., are individuals and citizens of the 10 United States, protected by 42 U.S.C Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the right to 12 familial association guaranteed under, without limitation, the First, Fourth, and 13 Fourteenth Amendments is "clearly established" such that a reasonable social 14 services agent in Defendants' situation would know it is unlawful to question, 15 threaten, examine, or search a child in the absence of exigent circumstances, and 16 outside of the presence of his or her parents, without first obtaining judicial 17 authorization or parental consent Defendants, and each of them, had, at all times relevant herein, an 19 affirmative duty and obligation to recognize and conduct themselves in a manner,zii that confirms, provides for, and does not violate the protections guaranteed 21 Plaintiffs under the United States Constitution, including those under the 22 Fourteenth Amendment, to include without limitation, the protection of parental 23 rights, the right to privacy, family integrity and the right to familial relations On or about May 7, 2012, Defendant Sarah Sturm was acting under 25 color of state law when she acted to violate Plaintiffs' civil rights by, but not 26 limited to, questioning and searching A.B. at his elementary school, without notice 27 to Plaintiff Artea Dunn, without her consent, and outside of her immediate 28 presence, thereby violating Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth 15

16 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 16 of 40 1 Amendment, and as to A.B., rights additionally found under the Fourth and 2 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. They did so without a 3 court order or warrant, parental consent, and in the absence of exigent 4 circumstances. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the 5 Social Worker Defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan, and rel each of them, knew, agreed with, and supported the May 7th conduct of Defendant 7 Sarah Sturm, and thereby collaborated, acted, and conspired to violate Plaintiffs' 8 civil rights Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant 10 Sarah Sturm and the remaining Social Worker Defendants, and each of them, 11 purposefully failed to seek a warrant, and/or judicial authorization. Plaintiffs are 12 informed and believe and thereon allege that the Social Worker Defendants failed 13 to seek/obtain a warrant and/or judicial authorization because insufficient grounds 14 or evidence existed to support such application, and/or, as detailed in Plaintiffs' 15 Second Claim for Relief, below, as a result of an unconstitutional policy, custom, 16 or practice of not obtaining warrants prior to examining and searching children, 17 when they have not notified the parents or obtained their consent. Reasonable and 18 less intrusive alternative means existed to secure both Plaintiffs' civil rights and 19 A.B.'s security, without seizing A.B.'s person and questioning him, outside of the 20 presence of his mother, without parental consent or court order, yet Defendant 21 Sarah Sturm and the remaining Social Worker Defendants, and each of them, 22 intentionally failed to pursue or even investigate such less intrusive alternative 23 means Said conduct constitutes a substantive violation of Plaintiffs' rights 25 guaranteed by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 26 Constitution. By unlawfully seizing and removing A.B. from Plaintiff Artea' s 27 care, or conspiring to do the same, without first providing adequate notice or an 28 16

17 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 17 of 40 1 opportunity to be heard, these Social Worker Defendants, and each of them, also violated Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights. 50. Defendants committed these unconstitutional acts without proper justification or authority, and without probable cause, exigency, or court order. (See, Mabe v. County of San Bernadino (2001) 237 F.3d 1101.) 51. Defendants, and each of them, maliciously violated, recklessly violated, and/or conspired to violate the civil rights of Plaintiffs, including violation of Plaintiffs' rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United 9 States Constitution, by, but not limited to, removing, detaining, and continuing to 10 detain the minor, A.B., from the care, custody, and control of his mother, without 11 proper or just cause and/or authority, and by use of coercion, duress, or fraud to 12 obtain evidence. Said acts were taken deliberately, with callous or reckless 13 indifference to the substantial rights of Plaintiffs, or fueled by an evil motive or 14 intent As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants' misconduct, 16 Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, general and special damages 17 according to proof at trial, including but not limited to, physical and/or mental 18 anxiety and anguish, among other things. Plaintiffs have also incurred, and will 19 continue to incur, attorneys fees, costs and expenses, including those authorized 20 by 42 U.S.C. section 1988, to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial These Social Worker Defendants, including Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, 22 Luckey, and McGowan, acted with malice and with the intent to cause injury to 23 Plaintiff, or acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff 24 in a despicable, vile, and contemptible manner. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to 25 recover punitive damages from the individual Social Worker Defendants Ortiz, 26 Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan, and each of them, as permitted by law 27 and as according to proof at trial, due to the wrongful conduct of defendants, as 28 herein alleged, and to deter them and others from such conduct in the future. 17

18 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 18 of 40 I COUNT 2 2 (Familial Association, Privacy, Warrantless Seizure and Removal of 3 Child/Unlawful Detention; By All Plaintiffs Against Social Worker 4 Defendants; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive) Plaintiffs reallege, and incorporate herein as if set forth in full, all of 6 the preceding paragraphs Again, on information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the right to FIc familial association guaranteed under, without limitation, the First, Fourth, and 9 Fourteenth Amendments is "clearly established" such that a reasonable social 10 services agent in Defendants' situation would know it is unlawful to remove a 11 child from the care, custody, and control of its parents or to question, threaten, 12 examine, or search a child in the absence of exigent circumstances without first 13 obtaining a warrant to do so Defendants, and each of them, had, at all times relevant herein, an 15 affirmative duty and obligation to recognize and conduct themselves in a manner 16 that confirms, provides for, and does not violate the protections guaranteed 17 Plaintiffs under the United States Constitution, including those under the Fourteenth Amendment, to include without limitation, the protection of parental 19 rights, the right to privacy, family integrity and the right to familial relations On or about May 7, 2012, Defendants Lorena Ortiz, Sarah Kneeland, 21 and Ursula McGowan, and each of them, were acting under color of state law 22 when they acted to violate Plaintiffs' civil rights by, but not limited to, removing, 23 detaining, and continuing to detain, A.B. from the care, custody, and control of his 24 mother, Artea Dunn, without judicial authorization, parental consent, and without 25 any evidence to suggest that A.B. was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury 26 or death at the hands of his mother. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that 27 the Social Worker Defendants' attempt to coerce, intimidate, and/or force Artea 28 into signing the Safety Plan, was part of the removal effort. The Social Worker 18

19 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 19 of 40 Defendants thereby violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth 2 Amendment, and as to A.B., rights additionally found under the Fourth and 3 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Moreover, they did so 4 by surreptitiously seizing A.B. at HHSA offices and absconding with him to 5 Polinsky Children's Center, without notice to the boy's mother, Artea Dunn, and 6 without her consent. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 7 the Social Worker Defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan, 8 and each of them, knew, agreed with, and supported the May 7' conduct of 9 Defendant Lorena Ortiz, Sarah Kneeland, and Ursula McGowan, and thereby 10 collaborated, acted, and conspired to violate Plaintiffs' civil rights None of the Defendants obtained nor sought a protective custody 12 warrant prior to seizing A.B., nor, did any of the Defendants seek or obtain 13 Plaintiff Artea Dunn's consent to remove A.B. Further, none of the Defendants 14 possessed specific, articulable evidence to suggest that A.B. was in danger of 15 sustaining serious bodily injury or death within the time it would have taken to 16 obtain a protective custody warrant. Indeed, Plaintiffs are informed and believe 17 and thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, purposefully failed to 18 seek/obtain a warrant and/or judicial authorization, knowing that insufficient 19 grounds or evidence existed to support such application, and/or, as detailed in 20 Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief, below, as a result of an unconstitutional 21 policy, custom, or practice of never obtaining warrants prior to seizing children As to Plaintiff, A.B., Defendants also violated his civil rights by 23 failing to adhere to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the United 24 States Constitution when they seized, detained, questioned, threatened, examined, 25 and/or searched A.B., without consent, and without obtaining a prior court order 26 or authorizing warrant. At the time of seizure, the Social Worker Defendants 27 Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan possessed no specific, articulable 28 19

20 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 20 of 40 I NA evidence to suggest that A.B. was in imminent danger of sustaining serious bodily injury or death, within the time it would take to obtain a court order or warrant Said conduct therefore also constitutes a substantive violation of 4 Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments to the 5 United States Constitution. Also, by unlawfully seizing and removing A.B. from 6 Plaintiff Artea's care, or conspiring to do the same, without first providing 7 adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard, Defendants, and each of them, 8 violated Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights. 61. Defendants committed these unconstitutional acts without proper 10 justification or authority, and without probable cause, exigency, or court order. 11 (See, Mabe v. County of San Bernadino (2001) 237 F.3d 1101.) Defendants, and each of them, maliciously violated, recklessly 13 violated, and/or conspired to violate the civil rights of Plaintiffs, including 14 violation of Plaintiffs' rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United 15 States Constitution, by, but not limited to, removing, detaining, and continuing to 16 detain the minor, A.B., from the care, custody, and control of his mother, without 17 proper or just cause and/or authority, and by use of coercion, duress, or fraud to 18 obtain evidence. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the seizure of A.B. was 19 perpetrated by the Social Worker Defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and 20 McGowan as a way to coerce, intimidate, and/or force Artea into signing the 21 Safety Plan. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that the Social Worker 22 Defendants seized A.B. in an attempt to punish Artea for refusing to bend to their 23 will and sign the Safety Plan. Said acts were taken deliberately, or with callous or 24 reckless indifference to the substantial rights of Plaintiffs, or fueled by an evil 25 motive or intent As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants' misconduct, 27 Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, general and special damages according to proof at trial, including but not limited to, physical and/or mental 20

21 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 21 of 40 I anxiety and anguish, among other things. Plaintiffs have also incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys fees, costs and expenses, including those authorized 3 by 42 U.S.C. section 1988, to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial The Social Worker Defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and 5 McGowan acted with malice and with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff, or 6 acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff in a 7 despicable, vile, and contemptible manner. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to 8 recover punitive damages from the individual Social Worker Defendants, 9 including Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan, and each of them, as 10 permitted by law and as according to proof at trial, due to the wrongful conduct of 11 defendants as herein alleged and to deter them and others from such conduct in the 12 future. 13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 14 FOR MONELL-RELATED CLAIMS 15 By All Plaintiffs 16 Against County of San Diego; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Plaintiffs reallege, and to the extent applicable, incorporate herein as 18 if set forth in full, each of the foregoing paragraphs Defendant County of San Diego, including through its HHSA entity, 20 is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C and subject to Monell 21 liability. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S Defendant County of San Diego, including through its entity HHSA, 23 had a duty to Plaintiffs Artea Dunn and A.B. at all times to establish, implement 24 and follow policies, procedures, customs and/or practices (hereinafter referred to 25 as "policy" or "policies") which confirm and provide the protections guaranteed 26 Plaintiffs under the United States Constitution, including those under the First and 27 Fourteenth Amendments, to include without limitation, the protection of the right 28 to familial relations; the right to privacy; the right not to be defamed or 21

22 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 22 of 40 1 stigmatized; and the right to procedural due process. Said defendants also had a 2 duty to use reasonable care to select, assign, supervise, train, control and review 3 the activities of all their agents, officers, employees and those acting under them, 4 including within HHSA, so as to protect these constitutional rights; and to refrain 5 from acting with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs in 6 order to avoid causing the injuries and damages alleged herein. Based on the 7 duties charged to County of San Diego, including the nature of its work relating to 8 juvenile dependency proceedings, County of San Diego knew or should have 9 known of the obvious need to establish customs, policies, and practices required to 10 protect the aforementioned civil rights of parents and their children Defendant County of San Diego, including through its entity HHSA, 12 established and/or followed policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices which 13 policies were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional 14 rights, including those under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, by, but not 15 limited to: IE' a. the policy of detaining and/or removing children from their family 17 and homes without exigent circumstances (imminent danger of 18 serious bodily injury), court order and/or consent; 19 b. the policy of removing children from their family and their homes 20 without first obtaining a warrant when no exigency exists; 21 C. the policy of examining children without exigency, need, or proper 22 court order, and without the presence and/or consent of their parent or 23 guardian; 24 d. the policy of removing and detaining children, and continuing to 25 detain them for an unreasonable period after any alleged basis for 26 detention is negated;

23 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 23 of 40 1 e. the policy of opening "companion referrals" against all parents of a 2 given child, whenever a parent is accused of a crime involving a 3 minor, even if the allegations do not concern their own child; 4 f. the policy of coercing parents to sign off on a Safety Plan, whenever a 5 co-parent is alleged to have committed a crime against a minor, even 6 if the allegations do not concern their own child, and to seize the 7 children as means of coercing said "agreements," thereby causing an 8 interference with parental rights, including those as to familial 9 relations; 10 g. by acting with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of 11 inadequate training and/or supervision, and/or by failing to train 12 and/or supervise its officers, agents, employees and state actors, in 13 providing the constitutional protections guaranteed to individuals, 14 including those under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, when 15 performing actions related to child abuse and dependency type 16 proceedings; and 17 h. the policy, practice, or custom of trumping up reasons for seizing 18 children, as a means of intimidating parents, by coercion, into 19 entering into unnecessary Safety Plans, thereby enabling the county to 20 keep the family in the juvenile dependency system and record the 21 case as a positive outcome for purposes of statistical analysis related 22 to funding by the State and Federal governments. 23 (This list is not exhaustive due to the pending nature of discovery and the 24 privileged and protected records of investigative and juvenile dependency type 25 proceedings. Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend this pleading as more 26 information becomes available.) County of San Diego, including by and through its entity HHSA, 28 breached its duties and obligations to Plaintiffs by, but not limited to, failing to 23

24 Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 01/25/13 Page 24 of 40 1 establish, implement and follow the correct and proper Constitutional policies, 2 procedures, customs and practices; by failing to properly select, supervise, train, 3 control, and review its agents and employees as to their compliance with 4 Constitutional safeguards; and by deliberately permitting defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, to ri engage in the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct as herein alleged with at total 7 indifference to the rights of affected parents, including Plaintiffs herein County of San Diego knew, or should have known, that by breaching 9 the above-mentioned duties and obligations that it was reasonably foreseeable that 10 its agency policies, practices, customs, and usages would, and did, cause Plaintiffs 11 to be injured and damaged by County of San Diego's wrongful policies, or 12 deliberate lack thereof or deliberate indifference to the need for such policies 13 and/or training, and other acts as alleged herein, and that such breaches occurred 14 in contravention of public policy and their legal duties and obligations to 15 Plaintiffs; and that such policies were the moving force behind the violation of 16 Plaintiffs' constitutional rights as alleged herein above. Namely, Plaintiffs' civil 17 rights were violated, as mentioned above, when defendants Ortiz, Kneeland, 18 Sturm, Luckey, and McGowan and DOES 1 through 50, while acting under color 19 of state law and in conformance with official County of San Diego policies, 20 conspired and/or acted to seize Plaintiffs's child without a warrant; and then lied 21 about Plaintiffs in various court reports submitted to the Juvenile Court These actions, and/or inactions, of County of San Diego are the 23 moving force behind, and direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, as 24 alleged herein; and as a result, Plaintiffs have sustained general and special 25 damages, to an extent and in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition, Plaintiffs 26 have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys fees, costs and expenses, 27 including those as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988, to an extent and in an amount 28 subject to proof at trial. 24