Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 BRYAN W. PEASE, State Bar No. PARISA IJADI-MAGHSOODI, State Bar No. LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE 0 Fourth Ave., Suite 0 San Diego, CA Tel: ( -0 Email: bryanpease@bryanpease.com ijadipm@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs APRIL DAVIS, VICTOR OROZCO, ALEJANDRO OROZCO, JAIRO CERVANTES RAMIREZ, JOSE CORTES, MARCO AMARAL, BRENDA VICENCIO, MADISON GOODMAN, BRANDON STEINBERG, and NANCY SANCHEZ, v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES -00, Defendants. Case No. -CV-0-BAS-NLS Hon. Cynthia Bashant Mag. Nita L. Stormes JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 INTRODUCTION. This civil rights case seeks damages and injunctive relief for the deliberate, orchestrated and pre-planned suspension of the First Amendment in downtown San Diego and Barrio Logan by the San Diego Police Department and San Diego Sherriff s Department when then presidential candidate Donald Trump held a political rally at the Convention Center on May, 0.. The San Diego Police Department ( SDPD shut down all protests in the vicinity of the Convention Center, and approximately 00 SDPD officers marched in riot gear down both lanes of Harbor Drive, sealing off side streets, and forcing anyone in their path to flee across the bridge to Barrio Logan or be arrested. The officers, firing chemical weapons at peaceful demonstrators and marching in military formation, suppressed the freedom of speech of Plaintiffs and other members of the public who had committed no crime. A San Diego Sheriff s Department helicopter also flew overhead ordering the demonstrators to disperse.. Defendants arrested Plaintiffs VICTOR OROZCO, ALEJANDRO OROZCO, JAIRO CERVANTES RAMIREZ, JOSE CORTES, MARCO AMARAL, BRENDA VICENCIO, MADISON GOODMAN, BRANDON STEINBERG and NANCY SANCHEZ half a mile from the scene of the assembly, when only 0-0 individuals were peacefully demonstrating, and no demonstrator was breaking any law. Defendants also forced Plaintiff APRIL DAVIS to leave the area despite her desire to keep peacefully demonstrating. At no point did any of the Plaintiffs engage in any violent or unlawful acts.. The San Diego Sheriff s Department was fully aware of the circumstances of the arrests and was complicit in ordering everyone to disperse and cease engaging in First Amendment protected activity. Further, before the event, the San Diego Sheriff s Department set up confinement centers to unlawfully imprison Plaintiffs after their false arrests at the hands of SDPD. The San Diego Sheriff s Department unlawfully imprisoned Plaintiffs at the pre-planned
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 confinement centers for hours.. Defendants wrongly believe that whenever they wish, they can arbitrarily declare any assembly unlawful pursuant to California Penal Code sections 0-0 (the Unlawful Assembly Statutes, and that anyone remaining in the area is then subject to arrest, even when the area is a traditional public forum.. After Defendants used this same tactic to shut down dissent during the 0 Occupy protests, legal settlements resulted in Defendants agreeing to only invoke the Unlawful Assembly Statutes in cases of ongoing, uncontrollable violence in which it was not practical to simply arrest the individuals actually engaging in unlawful, violent acts. Defendants violated this agreement by their actions in the present case.. Defendants wrongly believe that even once the specific individuals engaging in unlawful acts leave or are arrested, and an assembly previously declared unlawful thereby returns to being peaceful, Defendants can continue to consider the assembly to be unlawful and arrest any persons who remain yet have committed no unlawful acts. However, the purpose of the Unlawful Assembly Statutes is to stop unlawful acts from occurring at assemblies, not to completely shut down free speech for an arbitrary, indefinite or infinite period of time whenever two or more persons have engaged in some unlawful act.. In the present case, Defendants arrested Plaintiffs half a mile from the scene of the assembly the Defendants declared unlawful. No one was engaging in unlawful acts at that time, and Plaintiffs had not engaged in any unlawful acts at any time that day. The police vastly outnumbered demonstrators, wore riot gear and used chemical weapons to force a small crowd of peaceful demonstrators to disperse toward Barrio Logan or be arrested.. Plaintiffs counsel Bryan Pease arrived at the time Defendants were forcing demonstrators over the bridge from downtown into Barrio Logan and arresting anyone who did not move quickly enough. Counsel used a megaphone to
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 warn the advancing line of riot police that they were violated the First Amendment. However, Defendants continued to advance, and a group of police rushed out from behind the phalanx of officers and tackled Plaintiffs counsel, arresting him as well. Sheriff s deputies then held Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs counsel for hours at the confinement center they had set up for this purpose before transferring them to the county jail, where they held everyone for approximately ten more hours.. Defendants conduct described herein has created uncertainty among Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals with respect to Plaintiffs ability to exercise their legally guaranteed rights. Defendants actions have deterred Plaintiffs from engaging in peaceful demonstrations and have had a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of assembly. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This action arises under Title United States Code ( U.S.C.. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C.. The Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory and/or injunctive relief pursuant to U.S.C. 0 and 0 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.. This Court also has pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.. Venue in this judicial district is proper as Defendants are all located in this district, and all acts and omissions occurred here. PARTIES. Plaintiff APRIL DAVIS is an individual residing in San Diego, California.. Plaintiff VICTOR OROZCO is an individual residing in Daly City, California.. Plaintiff ALEJANDRO OROZCO is an individual residing in Los Angeles, California.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0. Plaintiff JAIRO CERVANTES RAMIREZ is an individual residing in San Diego, California.. Plaintiff JOSE CORTES is an individual residing in San Diego, California.. Plaintiff MARCO AMARAL is an individual residing in Imperial Beach, California. 0. Plaintiff BRENDA VICENCIO is an individual residing in Spring Valley, California.. Plaintiff MADISON GOODMAN is an individual residing in Huntington Beach, California.. Plaintiff BRANDON STEINBERG is an individual residing in Laguna Hills, California.. Plaintiff NANCY SANCHEZ is an individual residing in San Diego, California.. Defendant SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN is an individual residing in San Diego County, California and is named in her official capacity.. Defendant SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE is an individual residing in San Diego County, California and is named in his official capacity.. The fictitiously named DOE Defendants are San Diego Police officers and San Diego County Sheriff s Deputies responsible in some manner for the harm alleged herein. The true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants will be added when they are ascertained.. DOES - are San Diego Police officers who falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs.. DOES 0- are supervisory San Diego Police officers who approved, directed and/or ratified the conduct of DOES -.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0. DOES 0- are San Diego Police officers who were present when DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs and failed to act to protect Plaintiffs constitutional rights. 0. DOES 00- are San Diego Sherriff s Deputies who actively detained Plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights.. DOES 0- are San Diego Sheriff s Deputies who were present and failed to act to protect Plaintiffs constitutional rights when DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs and/or when DOES 00- actively detained Plaintiffs.. DOES 0-00 are San Diego Sheriff s Deputies who approved, directed and/or ratified the conduct of DOES 00-. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT. On May, 0, then presidential candidate Donald Trump held an incendiary political rally at the San Diego Convention Center, spurring large, daylong peaceful protests.. Towards the end of the day, minor scuffles between anti-trump and pro-trump demonstrators took place, a few plastic water bottles were thrown back and forth, and people yelled at each other.. At some point, SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN decided to declare the entire assembly unlawful pursuant to California Penal Code section 0, rather than simply to arrest the individuals who were violating the law.. Hundreds of police in riot gear then began marching in military formation all the way from the Convention Center across the bridge into Barrio Logan, arresting anyone in their path who did not move quickly enough. It did not matter that the crowd had largely dispersed and there were only a handful of peaceful demonstrators left. The police continued marching and arresting anyone who happened to be in their way, including Plaintiffs.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID.0 Page of 0. SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE was complicit in this unconstitutional action to shut down all protests, as the Sheriff s Department cooperated in making the arrests, and set up an outdoor processing department and booking station complete with large buses for holding anyone arrested, which was pre-planned and set up for this purpose.. Plaintiffs have complied with all California Tort Claims Act claim filing requirements to assert their state law claims. These claims were all denied, and Plaintiffs timely brought suit. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Monell Claim U.S.C. (All Plaintiffs against SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full. 0. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York ( U.S., holds that a municipal entity may be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights committed by its law enforcement officers if the violation was based on either ( a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law, or ( the decision of a person with final policymaking authority.. By ordering San Diego Police to take over both lanes of a major street and an entire bridge, march in military formation from downtown San Diego to Barrio Logan, and arrest anyone in their path, Defendant SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN acted on behalf of the City of San Diego as a person with final policymaking authority to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0. At all times relevant, Defendant SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE was aware of all facts and circumstances concerning the actions of the San Diego Police Department and ordered his Sherriff s Deputies to cooperate with San Diego Police in improperly and illegally abrogating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of protesters. This deliberate, pre-planned and orchestrated action on the part of the San Diego Sherriff s Department in conjunction with the San Diego Police Department was done with final policymaking authority of SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE designed to violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of First Amendment - U.S.C. (All Plaintiffs against SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, SAN DIEGO SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, and DOES -00. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.. All Defendants conspired to and did violate the First Amendment rights of all Plaintiffs by actively preventing Plaintiffs from peacefully assembling anywhere in the vicinity of the San Diego Convention Center, or even half a mile away in the areas South of downtown to Barrio Logan, and arresting anyone who did not leave the area entirely.. Defendants DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs.. Defendants DOES 0- approved, directed and/or ratified the conduct of DOES -.. Defendants DOES 0- were present when DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs and failed to act to protect Plaintiffs constitutional rights. DOES 0- are thereby liable to the same extent as DOES - for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0. Defendants DOES 00- actively detained Plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights.. Defendants DOES 0- were present when DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs and/or when DOES 00- actively detained Plaintiffs, and DOES 0- failed to act to protect Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Defendants DOES 0- are thereby liable to the same extent as DOES - and DOES 00- for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. 0. Defendants DOES 0-00 approved, directed, and/or ratified the conduct of DOES 00-.. Defendants acted under color of state law in violating Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and thereby violated U.S.C.. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Fourth Amendment - U.S.C. (All Plaintiffs against SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, SAN DIEGO SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, and DOES -00. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.. Defendants DOES - falsely arrested Plaintiffs VICTOR OROZCO, ALEJANDRO OROZCO, JAIRO CERVANTES RAMIREZ, JOSE CORTES, MARCO AMARAL, BRENDA VICENCIO, MADISON GOODMAN, BRANDON STEINBERG, and NANCY SANCHEZ, violating their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.. Defendants DOES - also violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiff APRIL DAVIS by forcing her to leave an area where she was peacefully demonstrating. Plaintiff DAVIS was seized by lines of riot police coming at her with batons, chemical and deadly weapons and forcing her to leave the area.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0. Defendants DOES 0- approved, directed and/or ratified the conduct of DOES -.. Defendants DOES 0- were present when DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs and failed to act to protect Plaintiffs constitutional rights. DOES 0- are thereby liable to the same extent as DOES - for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.. Defendants DOES 00- actively detained Plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights.. Defendants DOES 0- were present when DOES - falsely arrested and/or dispersed Plaintiffs and/or when DOES 00- actively detained Plaintiffs, and DOES 0- failed to act to protect Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Defendants DOES 0- are thereby liable to the same extent as DOES - and DOES 00- for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.. Defendants DOES 0-00 approved, directed, and/or ratified the conduct of DOES 00-. 0. Defendants acted under color of state law in violating Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights and thereby violated U.S.C.. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs California Civil Rights Civil Code. (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.. The California Civil Rights statutes, commonly known as the Bane Act (California Civil Code -, et seq., provide protection against interference with an individual s statutory or constitutional rights by force, violence, threats, intimidation, or coercion.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0. These protected rights include, inter alia, association, assembly, due process, equal protection, free expression, free speech, use of public facilities, and the right to vote.. Here, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for violating the California Civil Rights laws in that they used force and violence against Plaintiffs (to wit, the false arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiffs and threats to arrest Plaintiffs if they did not cease lawfully assembly in a public forum for the express purpose of preventing Plaintiffs from exercising their right to engage in peaceful First Amendment activity.. Defendants violated rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs by, inter alia, the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution; Article I, sections,, and of the California Constitution; California Civil Code 0; and California common law.. The coercion, false arrests and imprisonment of Plaintiffs were intended to, and did, send a threatening message to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who sought to peacefully and legally exercise their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights. Defendants intended to chill Plaintiffs free speech rights.. This conduct by Defendants violated, inter alia, California Civil Code.,., and... The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, proximately and foreseeably caused Plaintiffs to suffer the damages, injuries, and losses alleged herein. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Imprisonment California State Law Tort Claim (All Plaintiffs except APRIL DAVIS against All Defendants. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0. Defendants physically restrained all Plaintiffs except APRIL DAVIS (thereby effectuating false arrests despite the fact that a reasonable officer in the position of Defendants would have known that Plaintiffs had violated no laws, that probable cause to arrest and/or detain Plaintiffs did not exist, and that arresting and/or detaining Plaintiffs violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights under clearly established law.. Under California Government Code 0(a, public employees like Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for injury caused by their acts and omissions to the same extent as private persons would be for the same conduct.. Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant CITY and COUNTY when they falsely imprisoned Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Defendants CITY and COUNTY are liable for any injuries proximately caused by Defendants under California Government Code.(a. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Assault and Battery California State Law Tort Claim (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.. Defendants touched, or caused Plaintiffs to be touched, with the intent of harming or offending them, or caused Defendants to reasonably believe that Plaintiffs would touch them with the intent of harming or offending them.. At no time did Plaintiffs consent to Defendants touching.. Plaintiffs were harmed and offended by the conduct of Defendants, and a reasonable person in Plaintiffs situation would have been offended by Defendants touching of Plaintiffs.. Under California Government Code 0(a, public employees like Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for injury caused by their acts and omissions to the same extent as private persons would be for the same conduct.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.. California Civil Code (a states, Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person... 0. California tort law defines negligence as follows: Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. (CACI No. 0 (Basic Standard of Care.. In committing the acts and omissions described herein above, Defendants, and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that their acts and omissions likely would result in Plaintiffs suffering harm.. As peace officers of the CITY and COUNTY, Defendants had a duty to avoid battering, harassing, falsely arresting and imprisoning Plaintiffs. These Defendants further had a duty to obey all state, local and federal laws and to avoid exceeding the scope of their authority in their dealings with Plaintiffs.. In performing the acts and omissions set forth herein, Defendants breached this duty of care they owed to Plaintiffs, and their negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. / / / / / /
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief Code of Civil Procedure 0 (All Plaintiffs against All Defendants. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.. Defendant CITY s and COUNTY s policies, practices and customs that have caused the violations complained of herein have resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to further violations of his statutory and constitutional rights.. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.. Defendants conduct described herein has created uncertainty among Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals with respect to Plaintiffs ability to exercise these legally guaranteed rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, if arrested, they will again be denied the liberty interest codified in California Penal Code. and will be detained until their arraignment unless and until they post a monetary bond. Defendants actions have deterred Plaintiffs and the general public from engaging in peaceful demonstrations.. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from this Court, to ensure that Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of their rights from Defendants illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and practices as described herein. Defendants actions have had a chilling effect on free speech.. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring that the CITY and COUNTY do the following: ( seal and destroy any records derived from Plaintiffs arrests, including fingerprints, photographs, cell phone data, and other identification and descriptive information, and all information, and biological samples and information obtained Plaintiffs; ( identify to Plaintiffs all entities and agencies to which such information has been disseminated; and (
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 collect and destroy any and all such records that have been disseminated to any other entity, agency, or individual. 0. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices and conduct of Defendants alleged herein are unlawful, unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants contend that said policies, practices and conduct are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seeks a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: ( For general and special compensatory damages (including direct, indirect, and emotional damages, presumed damages, and nominal damages, in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact, against all Defendants. ( For punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants ZIMMERMAN, GORE, CITY OF SAN DIEGO and COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact. ( For past and future medical expenses, if any, in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact, against all Defendants. ( For three times the actual damages awarded, and for a civil penalty of $,000 for each violation which occurred, pursuant to Cal. Civil Code. and (a and (b, against all Defendants. ( For a permanent injunction to prevent Defendants from continuing to enforce California Penal Code 0-0 in a manner in which Defendants arrest individuals merely for being present at an assembly, despite having committed no violent or unlawful act themselves, when the assembly has already been brought under control.
Case :-cv-00-bas-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 ( For reasonable attorney s fees and costs and expenses of litigation, pursuant to CCP., Civil Code (b(, Civil Code -, United States Code -, and any other relevant statutory or case law, against all Defendants. ( For any and all other relief, including interest, to which Plaintiff may be entitled under the law. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to each and every cause of action against each and every defendant. LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE Dated: August, 0 By: /s/ Bryan W. Pease BRYAN W. PEASE PARISA IJADI-MAGHSOODI Attorneys for Plaintiffs